Demagogue, Conqueror, Dictator: Receptions of Julius Caesar in the Cold War Years 1945-65

Tyla Cascaes Bachelor of Arts (Hons I) Bachelor of Arts

0000-0002-3253-0837

A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy (Classics) at The University of Queensland in 2020 Historical and Philosophical Inquiry xiv Abstract

This thesis will investigate how images of Julius Caesar have been used to influence and facilitate discussions of power in the present, particularly in the years 1945-65, from the end of the Second

World War to the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam. This period marks the beginning of the Cold War and witnesses a number of notable cultural and political developments, including the prominence of democratic and Republican politics in the West, a general opposition to large-scale global warfare, and an increasing concern for cultural and gender equality. This unique context influences the use of Caesar in this period.

Each chapter of this thesis will focus on a common trope of Caesar which appears frequently in film, literature, and popular culture. Namely, Caesar as a demagogue, or popular Republican politician, a conqueror, and a dictator. Wherever possible the case studies included in these chapters will draw on

Caesars from a range of genres and locations in order to provide a well-rounded view on the overall use of Caesar in this period. The texts analysed in this thesis include epic films such as Spartacus

(1960) and Cleopatra (1963), peplum films including Caesar against the Pirates (1962) and Caesar the Conqueror (1962), and works of literature and popular culture such as Rex Warner’s Young

Caesar (1958), Jules Archer’s Twentieth Century Caesar: Benito Mussolini (1963), and early editions of The Adventures of Asterix. By highlighting the broad international – though predominantly western

- use of these tropes, this thesis will argue that different images of Caesar were employed to promote a range of national, political, and cultural causes during this period. These images of Caesar are used to comment on ideal leadership and to criticise recent or contemporary leaders. Caesar, therefore, becomes an element for understanding and questioning the Cold War. He is upheld as a pillar of

Western culture and is often intrinsically linked with issues of national identity. Further, this thesis will demonstrate how different images of Caesar were used to express national, political, or cultural power in these spheres. xv Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

xvi Publications included in this thesis

No publications included.

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

No manuscripts submitted for publication.

Other publications during candidature

No other publications.

Contributions by others to the thesis

No contribution by others.

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree

No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.

Research involving human or animal subjects

No animal or human subjects were involved in this research.

xvii Acknowledgments

There are a number of people who have been indispensable in the completion of this thesis.

First, I would like to express my sincere and earnest gratitude to my principal advisor, Associate Professor Tom Stevenson. I am inexplicably grateful for your professional advice and insight. But even more so, for you unfaltering patience, support, and reassurance which are of particular importance to an occasionally (regrettably) insecure student. Above all else, your dedication to your students, at all levels, is deeply appreciated by every one of us.

Thanks is due to my secondary advisor, Professor Alastair Blanshard for his valuable insight and feedback. I would say that my advisors have been essential in the completion of this thesis. However, it would be far more accurate to say that this thesis would not exist in any form were it not for their undergraduate courses which sparked my interest in this field.

Thanks is also due to Dr Janette McWilliam for her kind support and encouragement. Thank you also to Dr Angie Kahler for helping me navigate unchartered administrative waters from confirmation to submission.

To my friends and colleagues, old and new, thank you for all the time you have spent proof-reading, editing, and brainstorming. Throughout this process you have been my sounding-boards, my shoulders to cry on (sometimes literally), and my number one support system. Above and beyond this, thank you for listening to me, encouraging me, and celebrating with me. It has become practically impossible to distinguish colleague from friend. For this I am especially grateful.

Finally, to my family, especially my mother and grandmother. Thank you for your endless love and support, and for providing me with the best examples of compassion, strength, and resilience.

I am indebted to you all.

xviii Financial support

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.

Keywords

Julius Caesar, Caesar-figure, Cold War, Film, Reception, Popular Culture.

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 210306, Classical Roman History, 100%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 2103, Historical Studies, 100%

1

Table of Contents

List of Figures: ...... 3

List of Abbreviations: ...... 4

Chapter One: An Introduction to Modern Receptions of Caesar ...... 5

Methodology ...... 7

The Reception of Caesar before 1945 ...... 10

Cultural Receptions of Caesar...... 19

A Review of Relevant Scholarship ...... 23

Historical Setting...... 28

Contribution to Scholarship ...... 32

Chapter Two: Pirates and Popular Politics: Receptions of a Demagogic Caesar ...... 34

Spartacus (1960) ...... 36

Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962) ...... 45

Young Caesar (1958) ...... 53

Chapter Three: He came, He saw, He conquered: Receptions of Caesar as the Conqueror or Civiliser of Gaul ...... 62

The Adventures of Asterix ...... 62

Caesar as a Conqueror in Film ...... 77

The Slave (1962) ...... 78

Caesar the Conqueror (1962) ...... 80

The Giants of Rome (1964) ...... 85

Chapter Four: Dictator Perpetuo: Enduring Receptions of Caesar the Dictator ...... 89

Caesar and Cleopatra (1945) ...... 91

Julius Caesar (1953) ...... 97 2 Cleopatra (1963) ...... 105

Carry on Cleo (1964) ...... 114

A Queen for Caesar (1962) ...... 116

Twentieth Century Caesar: Benito Mussolini (1963) ...... 120

Julius Caesar (1960) – Hendrik F. Verwoerd...... 124

Conclusion: ...... 128

Bibliography: ...... 137

3 List of Figures

Figure 1: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix chez les Bretons 1966: 5 ...... 64

Figure 2: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix Gladiateur 1964: 43...... 67

Figure 3: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix et Cléopatre 1965: 44...... 67

Figure 4: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix Gladiateur 1964: 45...... 70

Figure 5: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix et Cléopatre 1965: 44...... 70

4 List of Abbreviations

Abbreviations follow those in the Oxford Classical Dictionary (third editions) with the following additions.

RRC Roman Republican Coinage, ed. M. Crawford, 2 vols. London, 1974.

5 Chapter One: An Introduction to Modern Receptions of Caesar

Julius Caesar is a universally recognised and highly contested figure from the ancient world. Because of his complexity and versatility, Caesar has been the focus of countless examples of reception.

During times of conflict, he can be used by all sides and for all purposes because certain aspects of his character can be emphasised, minimised, or omitted entirely. This ability cemented Caesar’s place in modern reception and has proved to be of particular importance during times of political unrest, whether national, regional, or global. Caesar can be cast as a tyrant, a champion of the people, the end of the Republic, or the start of a monarchy. He can seem strong and capable or aged and vulnerable. He might be an oppressive tyrant or a legitimate and capable leader. These qualities have made Caesar an ideal ancient figure for political leaders to emulate or demonise, for nations to rally against or behind, and for playwrights and directors to use as a call to action or a sombre warning.

The ability to emphasise or downplay particular traits ensured that Caesar remained relevant and, as such, his ongoing influence and presence warrant discussion. Taking into consideration Caesar’s universal appeal, particularly at times of political and social conflict, it can be argued that Caesar was applicable either as a model, or a model enemy, to almost all players in the Cold War. This thesis will investigate how Caesar was used from 1945-65, by whom, and for what purposes. It will argue that

Caesar was used consistently to voice concerns about contemporary and future leaders, to debate their impact, and to address the recent past, largely through political and cultural avenues. The chapters of this thesis examine portrayals of three tropes of Caesar, as a demagogue, a conqueror, and a dictator, respectively. In doing so, this study aims to achieve a rounded view of the reception of Caesar during the Cold War, from the end of the Second World War (1945) to the escalation of US involvement in the Vietnam War (1965).1 In regards to cultural productions, this time period incorporates films, and

1 This thesis investigates receptions produced up to and during 1965. From this point, there is a perceivable shift in political focus, particularly in the US which impacts the overall use of Caesar. These later receptions, particularly those relating to the association of American Presidents with Caesar, are generally covered in greater detail than the period 6 in particular epic films, which are set in the ancient world. After Cleopatra (1963) and The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964) there were practically no films set in the ancient world, and consequently, few examples of Caesar on screen until the resurgence of the genre with Gladiator in 2000. Before delving into portrayals of Caesar from 1945-65, a few preliminary areas must be explored. This chapter addresses the complexity of Caesar’s character by asking first whether we are dealing with receptions of one basic Caesar or with receptions of multiple Caesars. After establishing the methodology that will be employed throughout the thesis, this chapter will explore receptions of

Caesar before 1945, including examples from popular culture, in order to provide some background to the Cold War Caesars. The aim is to situate this thesis within the scholarship surrounding the reception of Caesar and classical reception as a process more broadly, before establishing the political and cultural background to the Cold War, especially the years 1945-65.

This thesis explores modern receptions of Julius Caesar. There is, however, not merely one Caesar who has been the subject of modern reception. Not all modern receptions stem from one complete image of Julius Caesar. Our evidence for the historical Caesar is both partial and biased. Therefore, while there was an historical Caesar, a prominent Roman named Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), there was not one simple, complete Caesar who has been portrayed in different ways, but many

Caesars, emphasised at different times, in accordance with the intentions of the author of the ancient or modern reception. The historical Caesar is the essence of every Caesar reception. This is the Julius

Caesar who provides certain basics: the youth kidnapped by pirates, the holder of priestly offices, the formidable politician and general, the conqueror of Gaul, and victor in a mighty civil war which began when he crossed the Rubicon River against the forces of Pompey. Although this historical Caesar is derived from repeated receptions, a number of these basics can be understood as objective truths.

There are enough common references to these ‘facts’ to suggest that they can be treated as somewhat

covered in this thesis, which I believe deserves more attention. For more on these see Wyke 2012 Caesar in the USA and Hamilton 2010 American Caesars: Lives of the presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush. 7 factual, or at least as integral parts of the traditional narrative of Caesar. It is important to note that these basics, or facts should be kept free of controversy or dramatic interpretation in order to present them in this way. That is to say that Caesar’s status as the conqueror of Gaul can be considered factual, or as close to factual as possible, while Caesar’s role as the benevolent and merciful conqueror of

Gaul is problematic and should be questioned. Yet it is difficult to separate the historical Caesar from these embellishments. This Caesar is not a simple or basic Caesar, a figure without drama, controversy, or hyperbole, who lacks, for example, tyrannical tendencies or divine aspirations. From the start, Caesar has been a complex figure who embodied great potential for contradictory images and different interpretations. The ancient sources show that many Caesars could be conjured from the historical figure. At different times, he has been portrayed as the saviour of the Roman people, Parens

Patriae, a tyrant, an enemy of the Republic, a conqueror, the lover of Cleopatra, and the list goes on.

This is an important point because the nature of reception studies requires a close look at the text or figure being received as well as the context in which that text or figure is received.2 The complexity of the ancient evidence must be appreciated in order to understand Caesar’s often-contradictory modern portrayals. As such, this thesis aims to investigate modern receptions of the complex image of the historical Caesar, rather than modern manipulations of a basic or simple Julius Caesar. In effect, we are constantly dealing with receptions of receptions, some being more famous or pervasive than others, with each instance involving reciprocal modification of both the raw material and the product.

Caesar, then, is a constantly evolving figure. Early Cold War receptions, for instance, are both subject to earlier influences and might well influence later ones.

Methodology

As this is a reception thesis, the modern receptions of Julius Caesar will be approached using the techniques and methods commonly employed in reception studies, in combination with those of other

2 Hardwick 2003: 10. For the purpose of this thesis ‘text’ will be used to refer to any reception whether film, comic, or work of literature. 8 genres encountered in these texts. Due to the reciprocal nature of reception, each modern Caesar is a comment on both the received Caesar and the modern context in which the reception is located.3 As

Martindale suggests, ancient texts, or in this case ancient figures, are not fixed and do not remain in an untouched state until we receive them.4 Instead, they are pliable and impressionable and reach us in a state which is presumably very different from their original condition.5 Similarly, in what has been identified as a chain of reception, or perhaps more accurately as a web of receptions, each modern Caesar is informed by the historical Caesar, the modern context, and any receptions of Caesar which occur in-between. For example, Rex Harrison’s Caesar in Cleopatra (1963) combines the historical Caesar with the renditions of Caesar by William Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw.6

It is also likely that contemporary productions of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar on stage and screen influenced Harrison’s portrayal of Caesar. This evident web of receptions is applicable to all modern

Caesars. As Paul claims, ‘the audience ought to be reminded of the inescapable power of chains of reception to shape our view of the past, and the impossibility of getting back to the “real” [ancient figure].’7 Pomeroy supports this view and suggests that each example of reception ‘is also marked as the culmination of a series of past interpretations.’8 As well as being influenced by past and contemporary productions, authors are responsible for the modern portrayals of these ancient figures and the stories and positions they are exposed to often have great influence on the final product. It is therefore necessary to analyse the authorial intent wherever possible when approaching any modern reception. There are a number of inherent difficulties in identifying and assessing authorial intent in these texts. The first hurdle is that the authors’ intentions are rarely straightforward and may not be

3 Hardwick 2003: 4; Paul 2008: 307.

4 Martindale 2006: 4.

5 Martindale 2006: 4; Pomeroy 2008: 11.

6 Solomon 2001: 53. In addition to other authorial influences (e.g. C.M. Franzero’s 1957 novel, Cleopatra) and elements of the production which will be explored in detail in Chapter Four.

7 Hardwick 2003: 8; Martindale 2006: 4; Paul 2008: 313; Pomeroy 2017: 5.

8 Pomeroy 2008: 12. 9 recoverable at all. When they do appear clear and straightforward it may not be possible to take them at face value. Where possible this thesis will explore the significance of any available and attainable examples of authorial intent in conjunction with contextual influences and measurable audience responses. Pomeroy stresses the necessity of financial success through audience satisfaction and, because of this, suggests that often in the film industry ‘entertainment, not didacticism, is the prime mover.’9 This is not to deny that entertainment can coexist with an underlying didactic message. Films that are exceptionally entertaining often convey poignant messages, just as the most obviously didactic films can be entertaining. The two motivating factors are often closely linked and need not always be separated. It is, however, important to bear them in mind when assessing modern receptions. Directors and producers are often driven by a desire to convey a cultural or political comment – something that makes their film ‘deep’ or at least not ‘shallow’. It is necessary to look for these authorial aims or agendas and assess them wherever possible. Audience reception is of equal importance to authorial intent and is considered by the authors throughout the production process.

The audience reaction is only predictable to a certain extent, since there are numerous variables which alter each audience member’s experience, including their cultural background, personal beliefs, and political positions.10 As this inquiry consults evidence from various genres, including literature, film, and popular culture, it will adopt the techniques of literary criticism and film studies where appropriate to explore adequately the different types of evidence. For example, Batstone illustrates the importance and versatility of language in literary or textual evidence.11 Pomeroy stresses the importance of analysing the costuming, sound effects, make-up, and CGI used in films, among other aspects.12 In order to assess properly the purpose of each reception, the reception itself must be identified and analysed. We must then consider how it was transmitted and received, and in what

9 Pomeroy 2017: 3, 12.

10 Batstone 2006: 14.

11 Batstone 2006: 15.

12 Pomeroy 2017: 3, 11. 10 context. By combining the techniques appropriate to various genres alongside reception methodology, this thesis aims to explore deeply the intended meaning and desired effect of several modern receptions of Caesar during the early Cold War in politics and popular culture.

The Reception of Caesar before 1945

In order to achieve an informed understanding of how Caesar was received during the Cold War, between the years 1945 and 1965, it is important to consider how Caesar was used and portrayed up to that point, starting with his immediate or contemporary reception. Caesar has remained a prominent figure in reception studies since his death, and while there is no clear break in his political or cultural presence, the uses of Caesar varied in line with the requirements of each situation. The first uses of

Caesar’s name and image to negotiate power occurred in the fight for order and control that followed his assassination. As in life, in death Caesar sparked controversy. He left Rome in a state of civil and political disarray with no clear successor to lead Rome into a monarchy or to restore the Republic.

Both Octavian, as the heir to Caesar’s name, and Mark Antony stressed their connections to Caesar in an attempt to establish their control in Rome.13 From an early stage Octavian evoked Caesar in order to gain the support of Caesar’s legions, clients, and followers and to establish himself within

Roman politics. He adopted Caesar’s name, becoming Gaius Julius Caesar, and, by doing so,

Octavian also inherited Caesar’s divine ancestry. While he was alive Caesar stressed his affiliation to

Venus Genetrix as the ancestress of the Julii as well as the Roman People. Similarly, Octavian’s coinage, art and architecture consistently flaunt his connection to Venus Genetrix. Shown on a silver denarius, Octavian features on the obverse, with Venus on the reverse.14 Octavian’s use of the imagery of Venus Genetrix is also echoed on the Prima Porta statue with the inclusion of the Cupid and

13 RRC 480/5a (Sear 1998: 106); RRC 535/2 (Sear 1998: 309), RRC 489/1 (Sear 1998: 119); RRC 488/2 (Sear 1998:

123); This thesis will use Octavian rather than Young Caesar for consistency as most of the receptions refer to Octavian rather than Young Caesar.

14 RIC 250. 11 Dolphin, both used commonly to denote Venus. In death Caesar’s divine status was furthered through his deification as Divus Iulius, setting a precedent for his successors. As Caesar’s heir, Octavian soon became Divi Filius, as well as a descendant of Venus. This too is illustrated on his coinage. Another coin shows DIVI F on the obverse denoting a bearded Octavian, still mourning Caesar’s death, as well as the sidus Iulium.15 The reverse reinforces Caesar’s divine status through the legend DIVOS

IULIUS around a laurel wreath. Although Octavian’s rising popularity afforded him some autonomy from his adoptive father, Caesar remained a constant feature of the Augustan age, occurring frequently in art and in architecture.

Similarly, Antony stresses his connection to Caesar most strongly through his coinage. In one example he emphasised his role as augur, an office which brought him closer to Caesar’s affairs.16

He also evokes his own augurate through the inclusion of a lituus, and recalls Caesar as Dictator and

Pontifex Maximus through the capis. Octavian ultimately won the superior claim to Caesar’s legacy and reinforced his connection to Caesar constantly, though to varying degrees, throughout his political career. While Octavian and Antony were adversaries in the years of civil war, they both made use of

Caesar’s name and their association with him and the Caesarian cause in a largely positive spirit.

Equally, the conspirators or liberators, who were responsible for Caesar’s death, made use of Caesar, though in a vastly different spirit. The conspirators’ use of Caesar provides the first examples of a negative image of Caesar being used to justify violent and aggressive political action. After murdering

Caesar, the conspirators justified their actions by depicting him as a tyrant and a threat to Rome, consequently portraying themselves as the self-appointed liberators of the Republic.17 It was crucial that the Roman People should perceive Caesar as an ambitious leader who might have become a

15 RRC 535/2.

16 RRC 488/2 (Sear 1998: 123).

17 RRC 501/1 (Sear 1998: 199), RRC 508/3 (Sear 1998: 216). 12 tyrant, in order that they might perceive the actions of his assassins as just and righteous, and therefore see men such as Brutus and Cassius as saviours of the Republic. Again, these messages were echoed on their coinage with Brutus advertising the events of the Ides of March as an act of liberty through the personification of Libertas and the use of the pileus between two daggers. The conspirators therefore used a negative image of Caesar as a tyrant to justify their own actions and to present themselves as liberators of the Republic.

In many ways, modern depictions of Caesar fall loosely within the two categories defined by these initial uses of Caesar. In the first instance, one could emphasise a connection to or similarity to Caesar in order to garner support and power, as Octavian and Antony had done successfully. Alternatively, one could depict their enemy or opponent as a Caesar-figure and highlight his opposition to the traditional or established system of government. In this case, one would also stress the illegitimacy of their opponent’s cause and reinforce the righteousness or legitimacy of their own. In light of these usages, modern receptions of Caesar, whether they occur before, during or after the period covered in this thesis, can often be sorted generally into either positive or negative images of the Dictator, using the ancient receptions as a framework for assessment.

The polarity of ancient writers shows the influence of positive and negative assessments of Caesar.

There was no unanimous view on Caesar, who was instead hailed as a remarkably talented military and political leader by some, while others depicted him as a man with an unrivalled ambition to be king. The ancient views of Caesar varied depending on the political stance of the author, the context of the text, and the aims and intentions of the work. As is to be expected, Caesar’s own work conveyed a decidedly positive view of his campaigns and civil wars. Cicero, as Caesar’s contemporary and political competitor, though he sided with Pompey, generally viewed Caesar’s achievements with a certain level of respect.18 Plutarch and Suetonius included Caesar in their collection of Lives and

18 Stevenson 2014: 6. 13 placed emphasis on Caesar’s character, appearance, and morals or moral failings. Plutarch’s Caesar was featured in his Parallel Lives alongside the life of Alexander the Great, while Augustus marked the beginning of Plutarch’s Lives of the Caesars. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives had a moral focus and saw

Caesar as exceedingly ambitious with constant monarchic tendencies.19 For Suetonius, Caesar was the first Roman emperor who established patterns for his successors to follow or avoid.20 Cassius

Dio’s position as a supporter of the Empire resulted in a negative view of Caesar’s assassination.21 It is necessary to identify the varying perspectives on Caesar formed by these ancient authors because they ultimately inform modern receptions of Caesar.

The Roman Emperors who succeeded Augustus all used Caesar positively. Although their connections to Caesar were not hereditary, they took his name and position, and their claims proved far less problematic than the claims of Augustus had been.22 ‘Caesar’ soon became a title which was employed consistently though in different capacities throughout the Roman Empire, and is etymologically linked to both the Russian Tsar and German Kaiser. Nevertheless, this ensured that

Caesar was present in name (at the very least) throughout the Roman Empire. However, Caesar’s posthumous influence reached far beyond Rome. Part of Caesar’s appeal and continuous presence can be attributed to his universal relevance. He was in many ways an ideal leader and role model who has been emulated constantly by rising European monarchs and religious leaders. To the heirs of

Rome and the Holy Roman Empire, Caesar’s importance as the founder of imperial Rome was unavoidable. He was adapted and repurposed as a pillar of chivalry and virtue, as well as an exceptionally talented military mind, in order to appeal to knights and princes of the Middle Ages.23

19 Plut. Caes. 3.2-4; Pelling 2009: 253.

20 Pelling 2009: 254.

21 Cass. Dio 44.19-22; Stevenson 2014: 9.

22 Not all emperors adopted ‘Caesar’ seamlessly. See Tac. Hist. 1. 62, 2. 62, 3.58 for his account of Vitellius’ use of Caesar. 23 Wyke 2008: 11, 50, 51. 14 In the conquered nations of Britain and France, Caesar was required to be a formidable enemy – one who would not damage their leaders’ reputations beyond repair. Yet he was often portrayed as far more than a formidable enemy, becoming in the process a justified conqueror or a benevolent civiliser. Even as a conqueror, Caesar has been viewed with praise and critique. He played a crucial role in French nationalism. As Vercingetorix’s adversary, Caesar was the sworn enemy of the French, a man who held enough talent and military acumen to defeat Vercingetorix fairly.24 Yet this French perception of Caesar changed significantly over time in response to developments in the political situation, the background of prominent individuals, and internal and external conflicts. For example, while Caesar’s reception in France began as a conqueror, he became synonymous with Napoleon

Bonaparte and, to a greater extent, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte III. The reigns of the Bonapartes significantly altered the image of Caesar in French history. Napoleon Bonaparte gained power in

France in 1799 by staging a coup d’état and was hailed as Emperor in 1804. Like Caesar, he gained sole political control and sought to expand the Empire. Napoleon was a popular military leader who could, and indeed did, overthrow the French government. There were, therefore, coincidental similarities between Caesar and Napoleon. Unlike Caesar, however, Napoleon abdicated and was exiled twice, first in 1814 and again in 1815. Whilst in exile on St. Helena, Napoleon wrote the Précis des guerres de César.25 Through this work he invited a direct comparison between himself and

Caesar, largely to demonstrate his superiority to the Dictator. Napoleon III followed his uncle’s example quite closely. He too came to power through a coup d’état in 1851, and as Emperor published the Histoire de Jules César, detailing Caesar’s life and career. 26 He was responsible for the archaeological excavation and monumentalizing of Alesia. While Caesar was clearly prominent in the careers of both Bonapartes, over time, Augustus proved to be more popular as a political model

24 Wyke 2008: 3, 49, 51.

25 Cuff 1957: 31; Nicolet 2009: 410-11; Wintjes 2009: 277-8.

26 Wyke 2008: 81, 161; Nicolet 2009: 414. 15 than Caesar, at least with Napoleon Bonaparte, Louis XIV, and to some extent Benito Mussolini.27

A slightly different trajectory can be observed in Russia’s perception of Caesar. Ivan the Great became the first Tsar of Russia, reigning from 1469-1505 and was the first to centralise power after reclaiming control from the Mongols. Ivan the Great was a formidable Tsar and therefore was portrayed as a positive Caesar-figure. In contrast, Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584) marked the end of the line by ruling through terror and violence and relying on civilian massacres to cement his control over Russia. He became an example of a tyrannical Caesar. In addition to this negative reception of

Caesar, it is thought that Napoleon carried negative connotations of Caesar into Russia with his invasion in 1812. As such, it can be argued that Caesar’s reputation in Russia, as in the rest of Europe, was complex and ever-changing. This complicated association with Russia’s Tsarist history has a lasting impact on the promotion of Caesar-figures in the Soviet Union. There is a notable absence of

Caesar receptions in the Soviet Union from 1945-65. This can be partially attributed to Caesar’s

Tsarist connotations – a period in Russian history which the contemporary leaders sought to distance themselves from – and because of the aims and ideals of a totalitarian state. In theory, the leader of such a state would be seen as the ‘lead-worker’ rather than a Caesar-figure head. There are a number of notable exceptions which work to prove this rule including the personality cult of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. Even within Italy, internal conflict meant that Caesar had a mixed reception depending on the location. Among autocrats, including the Medici, Caesar was a positive role model.

He was more problematic in a Republican setting because of his autocratic ambitions and controversial dictatorship. Following the rise and fall of Italian Fascism the image of Caesar in Italy was almost inseparable from that of Mussolini.28 In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Caesar’s political receptions were more pointed and potent, as modern politics saw a rise in Caesar-figures.

27 Tatum 2017.

28 Wyke 2012: 96.

16

The career of Napoleon III, and his ties to Julius Caesar, were partially responsible for the rise of

Caesarism. In the 1850s, Caesarism was introduced into political discourse in an attempt to explain the complex relationship between autocracy, military power, and popular support which allowed individuals to overthrow a government.29 There is a substantial amount of scholarship on Caesarism, particularly in the nineteenth century, and the concept was used to express concerns about the threat powerful individuals posed to vulnerable governments. If Napoleon and his nephew, Napoleon III, became practically synonymous with Caesar, and were intentionally and positively compared to

Caesar, the same can be said about the Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in the twentieth century.

Mussolini too displays circumstantial similarities to Caesar. His position as an Italian leader already held Roman connotations, since Italy understandably saw itself as the heir to the great Roman Empire.

As such, its leader would inherit the position and prestige of the leading men of Rome. Mussolini reinforced the ties between Fascist Italy and Ancient Rome, most explicitly through his triumphal march into the Roman Forum in 1923 which was said to evoke Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon as well as the actions of Octavian in 43 BC. During this spectacle, he placed a laurel wreath on an altar near the ruins of Caesar’s temple.30 The Fascist Regime’s respect for Caesar was reinforced annually when Caesar’s statue was adorned with flowers on the Ides of March.31 Few people encouraged the comparison of Mussolini and Caesar more than the ‘Sawdust Caesar’ himself.32 Mussolini, as

Napoleon I and III had done, encouraged and promoted discussion of his actions in comparison to those of Caesar. In the case of these leaders, criticism from contemporaries which was based on their similarity to Caesar could potentially be turned from insult to compliment, though of course the fact of Caesar’s assassination always loomed large. While Caesar’s reception in Europe has been flexible

29 Yavetz 1983: 15; Garland 2003: 102; Wyke 2008: 159.

30 Wyke 2008: 83, 173.

31 Wyke 2008: 87.

32 Wyke 2008: 172. 17 and often contradictory, his role in American politics has remained largely unchanged throughout history.

Caesar played an undeniable role in American politics from the nation’s struggle for independence from Britain to the foundation of the American Republic and well into the twenty-first century.

Caesar’s role in American politics has often been one of oppression and autocracy. In the War of

Independence Caesar tended to represent Britain to the USA’s Brutus.33 In the foundation of the

American Republic Caesar served as a potent warning about the potential power an individual might wield – power which could, given the right circumstances, lead to a drastic change in government.

To the Founding Fathers of the United States, Caesar was an example to be avoided and prevented at all costs. A man with military acumen or a prominent military position, popular support, and autocratic tendencies could spell disaster for the American Republic, as Caesar had done for the

Roman Republic.34 As such, Caesar, and those who might follow in his footsteps, were major concerns for the American Republic. This concern has not faded. American presidents were and still are labelled as Caesar-figures, particularly those who appear to challenge the sovereignty of

Congress.35 Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln are among those who were criticized for having attributes that were similar to those of Caesar.36 As Wyke explains, Andrew

Jackson was labelled a Caesar-figure on account of his ‘territorial expansion and augmenting the power of the president.’37 When Abraham Lincoln was alive and in power his actions were occasionally compared to those of Caesar because he had ‘increasingly centralized government, accrued despotic powers, violated civil liberties and the Constitution, provoked civil war and the

33 Wyke 2012: 15.

34 Wyke 2008: 222.

35 Baehr 1998: 263; Wyke 2008: 222; Cole 2009: 419.

36 Wyke 2008: 223; Cole 2009: 423-4.

37 Wyke 2012: 156. 18 secession of southern states, and destroyed the Republic.’38 Perhaps the most pointed example of

Lincoln as Caesar can be found in his assassination. On the 14th of April 1865 Lincoln was shot by

John Wilkes Booth at the Washington Theatre.39 Booth, who styled himself as the Brutus of the South to the President’s Caesar of the North, after killing Lincoln, following the example set by

Shakespeare’s Brutus, waved his weapon in the air and proclaimed ‘Sic semper tyrannis, the South is avenged.’40 The origins of sic semper tyrannis, thus always to tyrants, are debated. It is suggested, though without serious conviction, that Brutus first uttered this phrase after Caesar’s assassination. It grew into a popular phrase associated with the eradication of tyrants and despots and was employed as the Virginia state motto in 1776. This image of Lincoln as the tragic Caesar is reinforced by an image which appeared in the London Fun on the 6th of May 1865, in which Lincoln appears in the guise of Julius Caesar, draped in the American flag, reaching for the urn of victory while being stabbed in the back.41 For Lincoln, who was aiming for sustainable leadership of the American

Republic, rather than an outright dictatorship, a comparison to Caesar was far from positive and strongly implied autocratic intent, thus damaging his reputation. Generally, Caesar in the US was seen either as an oppressive force, or a potentially dangerous, charismatic leader. Many examples of reception which recur throughout the Cold War originate out of American political concerns. Caesar’s controversial image within American politics is rivalled only by his cultural presence.

Caesar’s presence was felt in the US outside of the political sphere. Jagendorf records tales of Johnny

Caesar Cicero Darling, an American folk-hero. Johnny Darling, the smallest of the Darling siblings embarks on a number of adventures which demonstrate his cunning and courage. Two incidents are of particular interest in this inquiry. In an extraordinary display of cunning Johnny Darling caught a

38 Wyke 2012: 15

39 Derrick 1998: 109-11; Wyke 2008: 222; Wyke 2012: 15.

40 Wyke 2012: 15-16.

41 Wilson 1945: 326-27; Wyke 2012: 16. 19 menacing panther which was threatening his village. His father, Thomas Darling congratulated his son saying ‘you’re a great general the way you figured out to get that panther. You’re as smart as

Caesar of the Romans ‘bout whom we read in my twenty-nine pound o’books. And speaking of the

Romans, I’ll do just like the Romans, who always gave a man a new name for a great deed. From now on your name’ll be Johnny Caesar Darling.’42 Johnny was very proud of his new name and in similar way he earnt the name Cicero by demonstrating his ability to talk his way out of a sticky situation. Johnny convinced his neighbour, Sarah Litts, that she was under attack by ghosts.43 To commemorate this Thomas Darling gave Johnny the name ‘Cicero’ and stressed that ‘great talkers are [as] good as great generals.’44 These tales originated long before the 20th Century, but they were compiled and published in 1949. In the foreword to this collection Harold Thompson offers the explanation that ‘in time[s] of danger, our folk-heroes return to teach us the American way of courage and laughter.’ 45 In this case, the early Cold War prompted a return to American folk-heroes to provide necessary comfort and support, and Caesar happened to be instrinctly connected to Johnny Darling in name if not in nature.

Cultural Receptions of Caesar

Receptions of Caesar in literature, film, and popular culture join his political presence to form the main evidence of this inquiry. Alongside political examples, cultural portrayals of ancient figures are important, and revealing. The study of film and popular culture more broadly has in the past been criticised because this medium is known for its broad, sometimes non-academic appeal to people from all walks of life. It can be argued, however, that ignoring or omitting examples from popular culture, as well as the audience reaction to them, is far more detrimental than including these

42 Jagendorf 1949: 24-5.

43 Jagendorf 1949: 28-32.

44 Jagendorf 1949: 32.

45 Thompson in Jagendorf 1949: ix. 20 receptions in a comprehensive inquiry. Particularly in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many people gain their first impressions of the ancient world through interactions with popular culture, most consistently through films, but also from literature, comic books, or video games.46 Modern works of popular culture that showcase the ancient world reach a wider audience than history books or political texts and, as such, they arguably have a greater impact on a wider audience. Films about ancient Greece and Rome or, in this case, films that feature Julius Caesar, are not limited to any social or economic class.47 Rather, they are consumed by all classes of society, thus making their impact all the more potent and far-reaching. Consequently, in order to gain a more accurate and representative insight, the portrayals of Caesar in popular culture (1945-65) will be included regularly in this thesis.

Caesar’s presence in political discussions was matched only by his presence in popular culture. In order to understand how and why Caesar was portrayed, and the implications of these portrayals during the Cold War, it is necessary to understand the cultural presence of Caesar before 1945.

Caesar has enjoyed an enduring and popular reception in art. He has been shown as the personification of chivalry as one of the Nine Worthies in a number of renditions and has been depicted in triumph in Mantegna’s Triumph of Caesar (1484-1492). Caesar’s death and victory over Vercingetorix have proved particularly popular subjects for artistic recreation. Gérôme’s La Mort de César (1859-1867) and Royer’s Vercingétorix jette ses armes aux pieds de César (1899) are among the most popular and readily recognised renditions of these events. While there may not be many notable examples of

Caesar in art produced in 1945-65, these earlier artworks are often echoed in the texts covered in this thesis. Most notably in Goscinny and Uderzo’s Asterix the Gaul (1961) which parodies Royer’s depiction of the surrender of Vercingetorix and assertion of French nationalism, showing the Gallic hero throwing his weapons defiantly onto Caesar’s feet causing Caesar to cry out in pain.48

46 Joshel, Malamud and McGuire 2001: 1; Cyrino 2005: 2.

47 Pomeroy 2008: 10.

48 Goscinny and Uderzo 1961: 3; Kessler 1995: 16; Bracher 1998 237; Wyke 2008: 64. 21

Arguably the most influential and important cultural portrayal of Caesar was William Shakespeare’s

Julius Caesar (1599). Not only was this an example of reception in 1599 but this play has influenced innumerable subsequent portrayals of Caesar on stage, in literature and in film. In many ways,

Shakespeare’s Caesar is similar to Plutarch’s Caesar since the playwright drew on Sir Thomas North’s translation of Plutarch.49 As such, Shakespeare’s Caesar is comparable to an important ancient portrayal of Caesar. Yet it is important to identify the ways in which Shakespeare deviates from our historical understanding of Caesar, even though this task in itself is complex and often contradictory.

Shakespeare’s account is centred on the final couple of months of Caesar’s life, his assassination, and the aftermath, thereby omitting many important aspects of Caesar’s career and character. Of course, the primary focus of drama is to entertain an audience, though other more didactic or deeper imperatives are often present. It can and has been suggested that Shakespeare’s play highlighted similarities between Julius Caesar and Queen Elizabeth I, who was also ageing and without an heir.50

The play could also be interpreted as a warning to the audience of the potentially catastrophic outcome of an ill-thought-out act of tyrannicide, as is often the case. 51 Derrick explains that in many instances of political assassination, the assassin often ‘yearns for a simpler government and imagines that if only the symbol of oppression were eliminated, the people would return to their natural prominence and all the ideals of a sentimentalized past would flourish.’52 While in reality ‘such fantasies usually underestimate the power of presidents like Lincoln and emperors like Caesar to represent stability.

When the victim has treated his own people decently, and only threatened absolute control in theory or against approved enemies, then in practice the assassin is usually crushed by popular

49 Derrick 1998: 43-4; Griffin 2009: 383; Öğütcü 2017: 110.

50 Derrick 1998: 107-9; Griffin 2009: 385.

51 Derrick 1998: 47; Wyke 2004: 60.

52 Derrick 1998: 107. 22 disapproval.’53 Because Caesar’s murder resulted in years of civil war and no real solution is devised before the play ends, it is likely that the play warns against a hasty attempt to overthrow the Queen and against ill-planned tyrannicide in general.54 Concerns regarding Caesar in this play, relating to his age, his vulnerability, his lack of an heir, and his inability to govern sufficiently, in many ways echo the concerns in Shakespeare’s time that surrounded Queen Elizabeth I.55 As well as commenting on his own time, Shakespeare’s reception of Julius Caesar informs later, modern receptions of Caesar arguably more often than historical accounts, and will therefore appear frequently throughout this thesis.

While Shakespeare’s play is an excellent example of Elizabethan reception, it also informs many of our modern, theatrical Caesars. Orson Welles’ 1937 production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,

Julius Caesar: Death of a Dictator was decidedly political and remarkably anti-fascist. The play was staged at The Mercury Theatre in New York, which accommodated coloured and working-class audiences.56 This production was shortened and simplified and, consequently, Welles’ message was accessible to a wider audience.57 When Mark Antony delivered his speech, the stage was set with scenes from the Nuremberg Rallies that took place only a year earlier in 1936.58 Caesar was unequivocally intended to resemble Mussolini, or the ‘embodiment of totalitarianism’ as Garland suggests.59 Derrick explains that ‘Welles cut Shakespeare’s text to stress Caesar’s bloody ambitions, and ultimately to justify his assassination on moral grounds; [as] many Americans were praying for

53 Derrick 1998: 107.

54 Derrick 1998: 107; Wyke 2008: 216; Öğütcü 2017: 109.

55 Garland 2003: 106; Wyke 2008: 212.

56 Wyke 2008: 227; Wyke 2012: 105.

57 Garland 2003: 107.

58 Garland 2003: 107; Wyke 2004: 61; Wyke 2012: 106.

59 Garland 2003: 107; Wyke 2004: 59; Wyke 2012: 104-5. 23 the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini.’60 The scene depicting the murder of Cinna the Poet is occasionally emphasised and often omitted from productions of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. When included, this scene can serve to highlight the power of the mob and their inclination to be persuaded by demagogic individuals. If omitted, the focus of the production remains firmly on Brutus and Mark Antony as the key players. This production emphasised the death of Cinna the Poet, mistaken for Cinna the

Conspirator, in order to draw attention to the public’s role in politics.61 In doing so, Derrick suggests that Welles ‘emphasized this reminder of the uncontrollable passions of revolutionaries.’62 As

Garland summarises, ‘Welles’ production laid the blame for the rise of fascism squarely at the feet of the masses so as to underscore the destructive power that dictators exert over their subjects.’63

Welles’ image of Caesar is completely overwhelmed by the actions of Mussolini, yet this production is a perfect example of how Caesar could be used to voice strong opinions about contemporary politics.

A Review of Relevant Scholarship

Caesar, who appears so frequently on stage and screen, also features in a number of scholarly works concerned with classical reception. Several studies are comprehensive. The collection edited by

Joshel, Malamud and McGuire, for instance, sets out to analyse ‘how the legacy of Rome has been appropriated by diverse groups at different historical moments for varied ends.’64 Other studies deal with aspects or themes of Caesar’s reception, such as Caesarism and Shakespeare. Even studies of this latter type tend to be broad in chronological scope rather than limited to particular periods. Wyke

60 Derrick 1998: 198.

61 Garland 2003: 107; Wyke 2008: 231.

62 Derrick 1998: 199.

63 Garland 2003: 107.

64 Joshel, Malamud and McGuire 2001: 2. 24 is undeniably the most prominent and prolific scholar on modern receptions of Julius Caesar.65 Her work covers Caesar in culture and politics and focuses on the depiction and reproduction of the major events of Caesar’s life, as well as his ongoing political influence. Some examples of Wyke’s work which are particularly pertinent to this inquiry include Projecting the Past: Ancient Rome, Cinema and History (1997), Caesar: A Life in Western Culture (2008), and Caesar in the USA (2012). The first book deals with receptions of Rome in film, including The Last Days of Pompeii (1935), Quo

Vadis (1951), and Cleopatra (1963). The second explores how different aspects of Caesar’s life have been depicted through the ages, and the third investigates Caesar’s reception in the Unites States of

America. Aside from Wyke, scholarship for the most part tends to focus on more general areas. For example, there are several relevant works on the reception of ancient figures or, rather broadly, of

Greece and Rome in theatre and film. Richards provides a very detailed and comprehensive account of the ancient world in modern cinema. Earlier scholarship pays great attention to the notion of

Caesarism. The French critic Amaury de Riencourt explored the influence of Caesarism in The United

States of America. Riencourt identifies Caesarism as:

the logical outcome of a double current very much in evidence today: the growth of a

world empire that cannot be ruled by republican institutions, and the gradual extension of

mass democracy, which ends in the destruction of freedom and in the concentration of

supreme power in the hands of one man.66

Riencourt also claims that future Caesars will be found in Washington, not in Rome. Such work normally arises from discussions of Bonapartism and is generally more concerned with contemporary politics than the lasting political and cultural influence of Caesar. There are numerous studies comparing Caesar and Mussolini, and Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte. For the most part, scholarship

65 Paul 2008: 307; Pomeroy 2017: 4.

66 Riencourt 1957: 6; Wyke 2008: 184-6; Wyke 2012: 154-5. 25 tends to focus on political receptions of Caesar as opposed to his cultural presence. Where studies do explore Caesar’s cultural influence they are usually centred on the reception of Shakespeare’s Julius

Caesar, or are limited nationally or culturally – for example, Wyke’s focus on American politics and culture. The scholarship surrounding Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is understandably extensive and includes criticism of the original play as well as subsequent productions. Due to the nature of the play and Caesar’s relatively minor, or minimised, role in it, scholarship surrounding the play discusses topics which are far broader than how and why Caesar was portrayed as he is. Generally, scholarship tends to approach the reception of Caesar either as the depiction of a political phenomenon, a matter of national identity or as highlighting a cultural figure. As is to be expected, due to Caesar’s ambiguity, cultural portrayals of Caesar are often open to interpretation. As such, scholarship focusing on on-screen Caesars is often contradictory and complex. For example, in one article alone,

Louis Calhern’s Caesar (from Julius Caesar 1953) has been identified as reminiscent of Joseph Stalin,

General Douglas MacArthur, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower.67 This article, among others, demonstrates the difficulty of assessing a modern reception of an ancient figure, particularly when the ancient figure is as complex as Caesar. In recent years, more attention has been paid to classical receptions through film. Early studies tended to focus on cataloguing the receptions and contemporary contexts in question, such as Solomon’s The Ancient World in the Cinema (2001).68 Solomon’s work includes Hollywood productions, international cinema, and comedic films such as Carry on Cleo

(1964). He explores the modern and ancient context of the films, and gives details about the often- difficult production process. For example, he recounts the numerous setbacks encountered in filming

Cleopatra (1963), from Elizabeth Taylor’s pneumonia to Richard Burton’s drunken escapades.69

Studies of Classics on screen cover the historical accuracy of the production, as well as why and how

67 Miller 2000: 96-7.

68 Paul 2008: 306; Pomeroy 2017: 4.

69 Solomon 2001: 67-74. 26 the ancient world is being adopted for modern purposes.70 In Cyrino’s work, Big Screen Rome, each chapter focuses on one film, from Quo Vadis (1951) to Gladiator (2000), and includes a plot outline, the ancient and modern background of each film, details of the production, themes and interpretations, and the critical success of the film. The issue of historical accuracy, although often over-emphasised, warrants discussion as modern portrayals undoubtedly influence the public’s perception and image of the ancient figures who appear in popular culture.71 A Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome on

Screen (2017), edited by Pomeroy, deals with these issues and many more. As Pomeroy writes, this collection of studies ‘is structured to offer an outline of the development of the presentation of the

Greek and Roman world from the beginning of cinema to the present day.’72 One work which is comparable to the aims of this thesis in style if not in subject or scope is Pomeroy’s assessment of

Alexander the Great in Then it was Destroyed by the Volcano: The Ancient World in Film and on

Television. The last chapter of this book uses Alexander the Great to analyse variations in national cinema because of the broad reach of his conquests.73 Similarly, this thesis uses Caesar, a universally influential figure, to analyse international politics and political and cultural relations that occurred during the Cold War. This thesis will generally follow the pattern established by Pomeroy, while using a wider variety of evidence, and with a broader international scope. Scholars such as Winkler,

Paul, and Pomeroy provide accounts that are useful to this inquiry both in content and in establishing a methodology. Caesar features in discussions on all major conflicts and as we have seen he was relevant throughout all major historical periods. He is present in discussions of the politics and culture of the Second World War, as well as the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, largely due to the work of Wyke. Blackwell’s Companion to Julius Caesar, edited by Griffin, provides a useful collection of essays on Caesar’s reception from his lifetime until the twenty-first century. Wyke’s expansive work

70 Cyrino 2005: 2.

71 Hardwick 2003: 10.

72 Pomeroy 2017: 5.

73 Pomeroy 2008: 4. 27 on Caesar and his reception in Western culture is the most influential to this thesis both on account of its content and methodological approach.

In relative terms scholarship on Caesar during the Cold War is comparatively lacking. There are no comprehensive studies of this period which aim to encompass receptions of Caesar in politics, literature, film, and popular culture from a variety of countries. If there is one consistent conclusion throughout the scholarship mentioned above, it is that Caesar was a complex individual who, when moulded and adapted, could fit many political or cultural situations, and was immensely effective in conveying political concerns. Yet there appears to be a notable gap in scholarship on international uses of Caesar during the Cold War or interwar years, especially from the end of the Second World

War to the time of rising US commitment in Vietnam. The extensive work of Wyke (in particular

Wyke 2006 and 2007) dominates the field. In her work Caesar: A Life in Western Culture, Wyke structures her chapters chronologically, each focusing on an integral period of Caesar’s life. This thesis will adopt a similar structure by framing the tropes in terms of key events and organising these chapters chronologically. This thesis aims to complement Wyke’s work in a number of ways. First, her work covers a broad historical period. This thesis will be centred on a more defined period of time, 1945-1965, which will allow me to cover this period more comprehensively, and to consult a greater variety of evidence pertaining to it in more detail. Second, this thesis will focus closely on manipulations of power relationships through different uses of Caesar. While there has been some discussion of representations of Rome during the Cold War, it has hardly exhausted the significance of receptions of Caesar. It has also tended to concentrate on film. This thesis will generally seek to build on these points and, through combining a variety of evidence, offer a more complete synthesis.

The thesis will not deviate drastically from any of the established approaches. Rather it aims to build on the work of such scholars, in an attempt to investigate the complex receptions of Caesar as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible by consulting a variety of genres.

28 Historical Setting

This thesis focuses on the Cold War or interwar years, beginning with the end of the Second World

War in 1945, and ending with the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam in 1965. This is an immensely important period both politically and culturally. The Second World War brought down

Fascism and Nazism and culminated in the spread of Soviet Communism. The end of this war coincided with the rise of a new conflict largely dominated by the struggle between American

Capitalism and the Communism of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was well and truly an international crisis. Almost every nation was involved in the conflict to some degree. This was certainly not a war fought solely by the American and Soviet forces. The global and international nature of this conflict means that an equally universal figure was necessary to cover the cross-cultural relations. The Cold War, especially the period covered in this thesis, was rife with political, social, and military activity. 1945-65 saw several changes of leadership, including five US presidents, two

Soviet leaders, and five British prime ministers. In this environment many modern, political Caesar- figures emerged, or were identified, among whom were General Douglas MacArthur, President

Eisenhower, and Stalin. The Korean War was fought from 1950-53 between North and South Korea and their allies.74 The Berlin Wall was built in 1961 and was a clear example of the ongoing conflict in and over Berlin between East and West. The war spread to the Middle East and to Cuba through the efforts of Fidel Castro.75 The tension between the US and the USSR was heightened by the Space

Race, which took place in the 1950s and 60s, and the accumulation and testing of nuclear weapons.

Not only did this conflict have a global effect, spreading through Europe, the US, and Asia, it also permeated all cultural spheres. In addition to this, the period from 1945-65 was in many ways one of global transition. This period saw the end of the Mussolini’s Fascist regime, an increase in spread and fear of Communism, a general desire for peace but preparation for war, and changing requirements for ideal world leaders. In terms of Caesar reception, this period seems to offer the ideal climate for

74 Casper 2007: 4.

75 Casper 2007: 4-5. 29 a new and challenging or even subversive image of Caesar. Traditionally, Caesar is praised as a hero of the Western tradition, as a force of imperialism, a conqueror, and a civiliser. In previous periods when militaristic, imperialistic, and colonial ideals were readily promoted, Caesar was received with little hesitation as an ideal leader. In contrast, particularly towards the end of the period covered in this thesis, there was increasing resistance to war and promotion of peace. There was less focus on imperial and colonial expansion, and a perceivable shift away from monarchies and dictatorships and towards democratic and republican politics among the major powers. In light of these developments, the general trend of Caesar reception could be predicted to be more progressive and adopt this traditional image more critically. While this context certainly influences the receptions included in this thesis, the resulting images of Caesar are far less revolutionary and are not drastically different from this somewhat conservative or traditional view of Caesar.

Most notable, controversial and directly relevant to this inquiry was the attempt to purge Communists and their supporters in Hollywood. Through the efforts of Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-

American Activities Committee (HUAC), the American film industry was subjected to constant and largely unnecessary scrutiny. As has already been established, it is important to consider popular culture as a valid and valuable source of insight into public opinion and the ways in which the greater powers, whether political or cultural, sought to influence audiences, convey the shared ideas and values of their societies, and present their positions on conflicts. For better or worse, McCarthy and his supporters saw the potential influence the film industry had on society and wanted to prevent any remotely Communist or even liberal perspectives from permeating the American audience. In an attempt to remove Communism from all aspects of American life, McCarthy and the HUAC began to interrogate any members of the film industry who were suspected of harbouring Communist sympathies. The drastic actions of McCarthy’s purge of the film industry played into the general air of xenophobia and paranoia regarding the spread of Communism. As Casper elaborates, ‘highly problematic was any deviation from Cold War orthodoxy, which came down to the fear, hatred, and 30 eradication not only of the card-carrying, the fallen-away or, as in most cases, the suspected commie, but the foreigner, the intellectual, the radical and, warming the hearts of most anti-New Dealer politicos, the liberal as well.’76 However, these drastic actions incriminated not only those who might have been Communists, but Americans who were sympathetic to liberal ideas. Anyone who refused to provide information against Communist supporters in Hollywood was blacklisted and often imprisoned. Spartacus (1960), which will feature in greater detail in the following chapter of this thesis, both demonstrated the effects of McCarthy’s Blacklist and commented on this period in

Hollywood. Directed by Stanley Kubrick and starring and produced by Kirk Douglas, Spartacus tells the story of a Thracian slave/gladiator who led a revolt which seriously threatened the Roman

Republic. The involvement of Howard Fast and Dalton Trumbo in this film immediately illustrates its significance in McCarthyist Hollywood. Fast, a best-selling author, had been imprisoned for failing to provide information on a particular Spanish Leftist Organisation.77 Fast’s best-selling work,

Freedom Road (1944), was similarly focused on personal and cultural oppression, as it told the story of an American ex-slave, Gideon Jackson.78 Trumbo wrote the script for Spartacus after he too had fallen victim to the witch hunts of the 1950s and was blacklisted for refusing to provide information when interrogated by McCarthy and the HUAC. Famously a member of the Hollywood Ten, Trumbo was also critically acclaimed and received awards under aliases. As Ian McLellan Hunter, Trumbo received the Oscar for Best Writing in a Motion Picture Story for Roman Holiday (1953), and as

Robert Rich he won the same Oscar for The Brave One (1956).79 In 1960 Spartacus was the first film to credit blacklisted contributors publicly since the interrogations began.80 Because the film credited both Fast and Trumbo, Hedda Hopper, a columnist and member of the Legion of Decency, urged

76 Casper 2007: 5.

77 Urbainczyk 2004: 112-13; Cyrino 2005: 102.

78 Urbainczyk 2004: 113.

79 Cyrino 2005: 103.

80 Urbainczyk 2004: 119. 31 good, honourable Americans not to see Spartacus because ‘it has acres of dead people, [and] more blood and gore than you ever saw in your whole life. In the final scene, Spartacus’ mistress, carrying her illegitimate baby, passes along the Appian Way with six thousand crucified men on crosses…’ and finally, and perhaps most importantly because, ‘that story was sold to Universal from a book written by a Commie and the screen script was written by a Commie, so don’t go to see it.’81 The presence and agenda of the Legion of Decency reinforces the notion of a public paranoia regarding the spread of Communism through American popular culture. Scenes from the film itself also comment on Hollywood during the McCarthy era. The famous ‘I am Spartacus!’ scene was written by Trumbo, and according to Urbainczyk the refusal to betray Spartacus can be read ‘as a reference to the silence of the Hollywood Ten before the House Committee of Un-American Activities.’82 The film also comments on the Civil Rights struggles of the 50s and 60s, primarily through the character of Draba, an African gladiator played by Woody Strode. Draba’s death was ‘the catalyst for the slave uprising’ and, according to Cyrino, was important for the civil rights struggle.83 Not only did Strode play a pivotal role in Spartacus as the Nubian slave whose fight for freedom became ‘the visual icon of every man’s struggle to be free,’ but outside his acting career Strode had broken barriers as one of the first two black men to play in the NFL.84 This film alone demonstrates the potential political pertinence of cultural production, especially during a time of unrest. Spartacus deals with issues of civil rights, societal oppression, and the effects McCarthy and the HUAC had on Hollywood. It is in this environment (HUAC, civil rights, etc.), so clearly reflected in Spartacus, that we locate the

Caesars for this thesis. Bearing this in mind, alongside the international character of the Cold War, it becomes clear that ancient figures were used by different cultures for vastly different purposes.

Investigating the receptions of a universal figure like Caesar is therefore an effective way to navigate

81 Urbainczyk 2004: 118.

82 Urbainczyk 2004: 128.

83 Cyrino 2005: 119.

84 Cyrino 2005: 118-9. 32 the cross-cultural relations produced by the Cold War.

Contribution to scholarship

The significance of this thesis is linked closely to the ongoing importance and presence of Julius

Caesar. Caesar occupies a prominent position in history as well as in politics and popular culture and can be viewed as a liminal figure, open to movement in either direction. Caesar acts either as a model or an anti-model for republics and monarchies alike, and is uniquely significant to many nations, particularly in Europe and the US. As a formidable military, political and literary figure, Caesar has permeated Western society and is an easily identifiable figure, who resonates, to some degree, with most individuals. His cross-cultural influence helps to explain how different nations viewed and interacted with each other. This applies particularly during times of national and international conflict.

As such, receptions of Caesar during the Cold War can inform studies of international politics and cross-cultural concepts as well as of cultural change and continuity.85 Uniquely, this thesis aims to explore the uses of Caesar in politics and popular culture in a period that has not been plumbed in depth, and by consulting material from a variety of genres and countries. Because of the global impact of the Cold War, this thesis will not be limited to examples found in the US and Europe. Instead, wherever possible, cultural receptions of Caesar will be taken from all continents, in the hope of explaining the different roles Caesar played on both sides of the conflict.

Since his assassination, Caesar’s name and memory have been recalled consistently in both political and cultural spheres. Because of the versatility of his character and the controversy of his career,

Caesar could be used by monarchs and dictators or by staunch Republicans to stress their legitimacy and right to govern. As a political leader, to be compared to Caesar could be a form of praise or slander, and Caesar was used to denote both extremes. Individuals like Napoleon Bonaparte and

Benito Mussolini embraced and emphasised their similarities to Caesar, though they were ultimately

85 Hardwick 2003: 6. 33 criticised for it. Caesar has played a constant and crucial role in American politics since the founding of the Republic, as the top priority of the US was to avoid another Caesar. Playwrights, authors, and directors alike used Caesar to comment on their own times and consequently secured for Caesar a permanent place in Western culture. There is a substantial amount of scholarship on receptions of

Caesar, though there have not been any attempts thus far to cover political and cultural portrayals of

Caesar during the Cold War in a comprehensive way. 34

Chapter Two

Pirates and Popular Politics: Receptions of a Demagogic Caesar

The trope of Caesar as a demagogue or popular Republican politician has been used selectively to promote or diminish power in contemporary times. Compared to the tropes of Caesar as a conqueror and dictator, the depiction of Caesar as a demagogue is less common. In this chapter, the use of demagogue or popular politician serves to denote Caesar as a figure who claimed to be a leader of the people. Particularly in popular culture, Caesar appears far more often as a daring commander or an ageing tyrant than as a young politician. This could be because episodes of Caesar’s campaigns in

Gaul or his assassination lend themselves more easily to dramatic interpretation. Caesar as a demagogue is more common in political discourse, especially in discussions of Caesarism, than in films or works of literature. The popular appeal and charisma of Caesar, or of a Caesar-figure, is essential to their perceived threat to society. Consequently, in discussions involving Caesarism or

Bonapartism, the demagogic qualities of an individual are emphasised. So too are those of Caesar.

While depictions of this type of Caesar are uncommon, there are some notable portrayals of Caesar as a demagogue in film and in literature. The following receptions demonstrate how one trope of

Caesar can be manipulated in order to undermine or enhance the power of an individual in the context of Cold War culture and politics. Spartacus (1960) places Caesar in the midst of the Servile Wars, depicting him as a catalyst at the end of Spartacus’ rebellion, and as a symbol of Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire. In Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962), Caesar is cast rather unusually as the saviour of the Republic during Sulla’s dictatorship. Rex Warner’s treatment of Caesar’s early career in Young Caesar (1958) is perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of this period. Caesar adopts the role of a pragmatic and politically brilliant young patrician, and becomes the vehicle through which Warner comments on issues of monarchy and Caesarism. Each of these texts is influenced by Cold War politics and culture. Despite limiting this chapter to portrayals of Caesar as a demagogue, there is still room for further distinctions within this trope. The overall image of Caesar 35 depends on the aims of the author and the context of the reception. Each of the three receptions in this chapter focuses on the same period of Caesar’s life, his early career, until the end of 59 BC.

However, the final portrayal of Caesar in each text varies significantly from the others depending on the aims or purpose, genre and location of the production. All three receptions depict a young, handsome Caesar who is making a name for himself in Roman politics. Beyond this common theme, each portrayal varies substantially.

In general, this thesis aims to consult overlooked or underestimated receptions of Caesar, including texts from a variety of genres and locations. In keeping with these aims, this chapter consults these three texts from various genres and locations which present three very different impressions of

Caesar. Spartacus (1960) is a Hollywood epic in which Caesar is a relatively minor character.

Spartacus’ Caesar (John Gavin) has been the focus of few scholarly discussions, if any, despite the extensive amount of scholarship published on the film itself. Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962) is an Italian peplum or sword-and-sandal film, which is barely noted in discussions of Caesar reception or peplum films. Warner’s Young Caesar, (1958), a work of historical fiction, receives less attention than the rest of his work. These texts are discussed infrequently in scholarship on Caesar receptions, or in their respective genres, with the exception of Spartacus, perhaps because they deal with less captivating and controversial episodes of Caesar’s life. They feature in this thesis because they produce various Caesars and demonstrate how drastically one Caesar, even an early-career

Caesar, can differ from the next. The texts are discussed in order of the size of Caesar’s role, smallest to largest, as well as the popularity of the text, from most to least popular. In short, Caesar emerges as a future dictator, a Republican hero, and a necessary monarch, respectively demonstrating his fluidity even with a limited scope. Each use of Caesar, whether minor or major, forms part of a discourse of power in which ancient figures, like Caesar, are used to negotiate the power of individuals, political groups, or opinions in the present.

36

Spartacus (1960)

Spartacus was produced by Kirk Douglas and Bryna Productions in 1960. As well as being an important reception of a young Julius Caesar, the Hollywood epic is an integral link in the chain of

Spartacus receptions. Spartacus has a rich history of reception, even though ancient accounts tend to reduce the Servile Wars to a feature of Crassus’ life.86 However, Spartacus has remained a figure of resistance against oppression and a hero, especially in Communist countries.87 Spartacus’ character and story have been interpreted in several novels, plays, and ballets. Spartakusbund, a Communist

Party led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, provided Howard Fast with the inspiration he needed to write his best-selling novel, Spartacus (1951).88 In 1950 Fast, a member of the Communist

Party, was imprisoned after failing to provide the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) with information about members of the Joint Antifascist Refugee Committee (JARC).89 Whilst in prison, Fast took inspiration from the efforts of Luxemburg, Liebknecht, and the Spartakusbund and began working on Spartacus. Fast’s previous work adopted similar themes of freedom and oppression, including his best seller Freedom Road (1944) about the struggle of African-American slaves.90 Due to the efforts of J. Edgar Hoover, Fast was forced to self-publish Spartacus.91 In spite of substantial anti-Communist backlash, the book was a best-seller.

Many scholars and critics have suggested that Spartacus (1960) can be viewed as having two story lines, the story of the Roman elite, and that of the slave revolt. In the first stages of writing, Dalton

86 Plut. Crass. 8.1-12.

87 Urbainczyk 2004: 118; Radford 2017: 129.

88 Radford 2017: 129.

89 Urbainczyk 2004: 112; Cyrino 2005: 102; Ceplair and Trumbo 2015: 369; Radford 2017: 129.

90 Murphy 2004: 11; Urbainczyk 2004: 113.

91 Urbainczyk 2004: 113; Malamud 2009: 215; Radford 2017: 219. 37 Trumbo was required to write the Roman storyline in considerable bulk and detail in order to secure

Hollywood heavyweights Laurence Olivier, Charles Laughton, and Peter Ustinov for Douglas’ film as a bidding war ensued between Spartacus and The Gladiators, a rival production starring Yul

Brynner.92 Brynner’s film was based on the novel The Gladiators (1939) by Arthur Koestler, which mentions Caesar twice, though merely in order to establish context. This film also would have had a strong link to the blacklist, since it was directed by Martin Ritt, with a script written by Abraham

Polonsky, two of the many individuals to suffer at the hands of the blacklist.93 Both Spartacus and

The Gladiators were trying to secure Olivier, Laughton, and Ustinov as their leading men. Ultimately,

Douglas and Spartacus proved successful. The story of Spartacus and the slaves might seem slightly detached from the Roman political scene, but both storylines are necessarily linked and develop concurrently. In brief, Spartacus tells the story of a brave and bold Thracian slave who led a revolt which threatened all Rome. Spartacus’ success sparked discussion among the leading men of Rome

– Crassus (Olivier), a proud patrician and general, Gracchus (Laughton), a self-made man of the people, and the young, up-and-coming Julius Caesar (John Gavin), a patrician with a view of harnessing the power and affection of the mob. The film shows two simultaneous struggles, the first between Spartacus and Rome, or Crassus, the second between two schools of Roman politics exemplified by Crassus and Gracchus. Julius Caesar, the leading man of this study, although hardly the leading man of this film, is caught in the second struggle. The film achieved substantial success and inspired many scholarly works. The character of Julius Caesar is largely absent from these works.

Nevertheless, the cultural and contextual issues raised by the film warrant far more discussion, and the production of the film itself is equally worth intellectual consideration. Caesar emerges as a character used to convey Spartacus’ story and the greater themes it encompasses.

It is difficult to determine which individual was responsible for each of the decisions made in the

92 Murphy 2004: 12; Ceplair and Trumbo 2015: 369.

93 Ceplair and Trumbo 2015: 369. 38 production of Spartacus, since the film was subject to the influence of so many people. Howard Fast wrote the novel, which forms the basis of the film. He also wrote the original screenplay.94 Dalton

Trumbo took over from Fast and rewrote the screenplay, which was subject to numerous cuts, edits, and re-writes, though Kirk Douglas was careful to consult Fast on later versions of the script.95 As the leading man and executive producer, Douglas’ influence was felt consistently throughout the film.

It was his decision to make the film in the first place, and he had a say in casting and characterisation.

In particular Douglas wanted to emphasise the love story between Spartacus and Varinia.96 When production began on Spartacus, Anthony Mann was the director, though he was soon replaced by a young Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick had a different take on Spartacus’ struggle and wished to emphasise the violent reality of revolution in the film.97 Early in the production process Ustinov and Olivier visited Trumbo to discuss their roles.98 Both men influenced the film overall, beyond their own interpretations of their characters, as is customary for actors.99 Ustinov made substantial changes to the scenes starring himself and Laughton – some with Trumbo’s knowledge, some without.100

Consequently, it is difficult to keep track of the authorial influences on the film. As such, distinguishing the meaning behind the presentation of Caesar proves challenging, if not impossible.

The absence of Caesar from Fast’s novel helps to rule out Fast as the author responsible for writing

Caesar into the film. The actors were largely concerned with their own characters, and although they

94 Douglas 2012: 43. The scriptwriting for Spartacus was a long and tiresome process. Fast was initially approached to write the screenplay, a reasonable choice since the film was based on his novel. However, Fast’s work was not considered suitable by Douglas and his associates, who eventually turned to Trumbo. When Trumbo began working on the project,

Fast was still consulted for occasional advice but was eventually kept out of the process altogether.

95 Urbainczyk 2004: 126; Cyrino 2005: 89; Douglas 2012: 43.

96 Cyrino 2005: 104; Cooper 2007b: 18; Malamud 2009: 220.

97 Murphy 2004: 12; Cooper 2007a: 57; Malamud 2009: 220.

98 Douglas 2012: 92.

99 Radford 2017: 128-31.

100 Urbainczyk 2004: 124; Ceplair 2012: 12; Douglas 2012: 99; Ceplair and Trumbo 2015: 380. 39 made substantial changes, it is unlikely that they would have created characters altogether. Therefore, by a process of elimination, it can reasonably be deduced that Trumbo was probably most responsible for the inclusion of Caesar.

When assessing the film’s Caesar, it is important to identify the differences between the intended image of Caesar and the Caesar present in the final cut. Due to authorial influences, time constraints, and censorship, several scenes were cut, reduced, or entirely omitted in the final cut. Many of these scenes featured Gavin and Laughton.101 The missing scenes, in particular a balcony scene where

Laughton and Gavin watch as Roman soldiers march towards Spartacus, significantly alter the character’s motivations for supporting Crassus over Gracchus and, consequently, provide a different depiction of Caesar from the originally intended image.102 As Cooper explains, in the allusive balcony scene, Gracchus ‘permanently alienates Caesar,’ suggesting that Spartacus might defeat Crassus and take over Rome, ‘a prospect [Gracchus] prefers to the death of the Republic at the hands of

Crassus.’103 Spartacus’ Caesar meets almost all the requirements of a demagogue. He is young, handsome, and popular among his colleagues and the Roman people. Caesar’s popular appeal is immediately clear in the response to his appointment as the commander of the Garrison of Rome.104

From the beginning of the film Caesar is shown to be under Gracchus’ political wing.105 Both in and out of the senate Gracchus emphasises the importance of the people and the power they wield, and how it should be used in a positive, reciprocal way, not for personal achievement.106 Caesar, although of patrician status, seems susceptible to Gracchus’ teachings and shows potential to become a

101 Cooper 2007b: 16.

102 Cooper 2007b: 12, 37; 2012: 304-5, 354.

103 Cooper 2007b: 32.

104 Kubrick 1960: Spartacus 53:49.

105 Kubrick 1960: Spartacus 1:53:58.

106 Kubrick 1960: Spartacus 54:05-55:20. 40 demagogue. The film also showcases Caesar’s ability to form and utilise alliances. He achieves his initial position of power through the support and influence of Gracchus. Once he has learned all he can from Gracchus, Caesar changes allegiance to Crassus. This is indicative of Caesar’s ongoing alliance with Crassus and the formation of the first triumvirate, though that period and alliance is not covered in this film. In many ways Crassus is the archetypal Caesar-figure in this film. Up to this point, Caesar’s role as a popular Republican politician has been reasonably straightforward. He is shown as having popular appeal, as being politically capable if not brilliant, and with the potential to become a demagogue. However, there are more sides to Caesar in Spartacus. This film demonstrates that it is often incredibly difficult to isolate the tropes of Caesar completely. Towards the end of the film, there are clear hints of Caesar’s future role as a ruthless dictator. This is where the discrepancies between the final edit and the originally intended Caesar are of greatest importance. When viewing

Caesar in the final cut in isolation, his monarchical ambitions are minimal. He sides with Crassus only after Gracchus admits to assisting Spartacus’ escape by involving the pirates. He was motivated consistently by Rome’s best interests, not by desire for personal power, unlike Crassus. This is the

Small Caesar. The Large Caesar, the intended product of the authors, challenged the wholesome

Republican image of young Caesar by being driven primarily by personal power and ambition.107

There are traces of this even in the final cut, though the motivation of Large Caesar was all but cut from the final film.

In many ways Spartacus is a product of its time. The involvement of Fast and Trumbo meant that the film was inevitably and unavoidably linked to the Hollywood blacklist, subconsciously if not overtly.

Douglas’ public acknowledgement of Trumbo in the film’s credits has often been hailed as the final

107 Most scholarship on Spartacus (1960) refers to a Large and Small Spartacus. The Large Spartacus is the intended image of the character of Spartacus, through which the authors could convey complex emotional and ideological comments. The Small Spartacus is the final product of the editing and censoring process. This approach is here applied to the intended portrayal of Caesar in the film, and the final product, the Large and Small Caesars respectively. 41 nail in the coffin of the blacklist.108 At the end of the Second World War, the threats of Nazism and

Fascism had been sufficiently supressed, and the US found a new enemy in Communism. The HUAC, formed in 1938, turned its attention to Hollywood and resumed the interrogation of individuals who had suspected connections to Communism.109 Famously, Dalton Trumbo was a member of the

Hollywood Ten, otherwise known as the Unfriendly Ten, a group of writers and directors who were charged with being in contempt of court for refusing to answer the HUAC’s questions. 110 These men, along with many others, were blacklisted and were no longer able to work freely in the motion picture industry. In a letter addressed to President Eisenhower in 1957, Trumbo describes the process of blacklisting which he, and so many of his colleagues, endured:

The motion picture blacklist begins when the artist is summoned to appear before the

House Committee on Un-American Activities. There, contrary to the First Amendment’s

clear intention, he is commanded to reveal his political thoughts, affiliations and

associates. If he refuses to answer, he is cited for Contempt of Congress, indicted, arrested,

tried in a Federal district court, convicted, fined and sent to a Federal prison.111

In a meeting at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York, studio executives agreed to suspend any employees who had been blacklisted, until they cooperated with the HUAC and were free from suspicion.112 Trumbo was imprisoned and, on his return to Hollywood, worked around the blacklist by writing under aliases or using friends’ names. Writers in this position were paid at a heavily

108 Ceplair 2012: 11-3; Ceplair and Trumbo 2015: 367. There is some debate over what or who pushed Douglas to credit

Trumbo in this film. It has been suggested that Douglas felt pressured by Otto Preminger or Trumbo himself. Douglas understandably argues that it was his own initiative.

109 Urbainczyk 2004: 120; Casper 2007: 5.

110 Urbaincyzk 2004: 120; Malamud 2009: 225; Ceplair 2012: 12; Blanshard and Shahabudin 2013: 84.

111 Trumbo in Manfull 1970: 383.

112 Urbainczyk 2004: 121; Radford 2017: 121. 42 reduced rate for their work and received no public recognition or credit. The extent to which the blacklist influenced this film is debated. As Radford asserts, Fast and Trumbo’s involvement in

Spartacus ‘have lent legitimacy to interpretations of this film in connection to the HUAC hearings.’113

However, Radford also warns against placing too much emphasis on this, reminding her readers that

Trumbo and Douglas ultimately wanted to make an entertaining film.114 Of course, a powerful message and entertainment are not mutually exclusive, and the atmosphere of oppression would have subconsciously influenced the film, even if this was not intentional on the part of one or more of the authors. Other scholars suggest that the influence of the blacklist is overwhelmingly clear. Malamud, for example, describes the famous ‘I am Spartacus!’ scene as a ‘public repudiation of the blacklist and HUAC and an acknowledgement of those Americans, including Howard Fast and Dalton

Trumbo, who heroically refused to name names.’115 The audience’s reading of Spartacus depends on their personal, cultural and political positions. A right-wing audience might interpret the film as a fight for freedom against the threat of Communism.116 A more liberal audience might view the struggle against oppression as a fight for freedom of speech against the HUAC. This in part contributes to the film’s lasting success and broad appeal. Regardless of these differences, Spartacus, in its simplest meaning, depicts the struggle for freedom against oppression. Spartacus and his comrades are defeated by Rome, yet they gain a moral victory in defeat over Crassus.

Caesar’s presence in the film is made more notable by his absence in the novel and in almost all renditions of Spartacus’ story. This means that the authors of Spartacus made a conscious and deliberate decision to write Caesar into the film. Scholarship on Spartacus, which is quite broad and comprehensive, does not discuss Caesar’s inclusion in much detail. This is perfectly reasonable in

113 Radford 2017: 128.

114 Radford 2017: 137.

115 Malamud 2009: 225.

116 Malamud 2009: 224. 43 what is plainly not a Caesar film. It is a film about Spartacus, Crassus, and the impact the slave revolt had on the Roman Republic. However, Caesar’s role is far from inconsequential. Including Caesar in this film was deliberate and intentional. This begs the questions – why Caesar, and why this trope of

Caesar in particular?

Historically speaking, Caesar was not necessary or essential to either Spartacus’ or Crassus’ story at this time. Spartacus’ revolt is dated to 73-71 BC. While Caesar would have been present in Roman politics at this time, he was not yet a senator.117 In 74 BC Caesar served as a legate to Marcus Antonius

Creticus, became a pontifex in 73 BC, and in 72 BC was elected as a military tribune.118 Ward offers a plausible suggestion to include Caesar in the Servile Wars as an officer in Crassus’ army. He explains that this ‘would have given Trumbo a fine historical opportunity to hint at a future dictatorship with its attendant foreshadowing of modern Fascism instead of un-historically making

Crassus the vehicle of that message.’119 Instead, this Caesar enters the scene allied with Gracchus.

Although Spartacus, like most historical films, is, by its nature, subject to artistic liberties and consequently not bogged down in issues of historical accuracy, it is helpful in this instance to rule out historical accuracy as a reason for Caesar’s inclusion.

The decision to cast John Gavin as Caesar is interesting in itself. Gavin was one of only two Romans to be cast with an American accent and he had not developed a reputation rivalling those of his co- stars.120 It was a stipulation of Douglas that, in keeping with Hollywood tradition, all Roman

117 Ahl 2007: 79; Ward 2007: 100.

118 Plut. Caes. 5.1; Suet. Iul. 5.1; Ward 2007: 100.

119 Ward 2007: 100.

120 Murphy 2004: 15; Cyrino 2005: 115; Tatum 2007: 134. John Dall playing Glabrus also had a rather pronounced

American accent. 44 characters should have English accents, and all slaves should have American accents.121 There are three exceptions to this rule: Jean Simmons as Varinia, John Dall as Glabrus, and John Gavin as

Caesar.122 In I am Spartacus!: Making a Film, Breaking the Blacklist, Douglas explains the decision to cast Simmons as Varinia, a character whom he initially wanted to be ‘distinctly different from the patrician Romans.’123 After hiring and firing Sabine Bethmann as Varinia, Simmons was given the role, and her accent has since been described as exotic in relation to Spartacus and the rest of the slaves due to Varinia’s upbringing.124 In the same book, Douglas also explains asking Trumbo to create a character for Tony Curtis, but does not comment on the creation of Caesar’s role or on casting

Gavin.125 Gavin, born Juan Vincent Apablasa, is of Mexican, Spanish, and Chilean descent. He was a somewhat reluctant actor.126 Hedda Hopper described him simply as a ‘handsome young

Californian’ who was ‘drafted by the producers.’127 Gavin’s performance in Spartacus was understandably dwarfed by those of Douglas, Olivier, Ustinov, and Laughton. It is partly for this reason that scenes between Gavin and Laughton were on the chopping-block. The casting of Gavin as Caesar has given rise to speculation. At a time when Hollywood epics and peplum films were designed, at least partially, to showcase the male body, Olivier, Laughton, and Ustinov fell somewhat short of this physical ideal. The need to add a young, attractive, sexual element to the film could explain both why Caesar was included while Fast’s Cicero was omitted, and why Gavin was cast in

121 Wyke 1997: 71; Murphy 2004: 15; Radford 2012: 106.

122 Douglas 2012: 76.

123 Douglas 2012: 76.

124 Murphy 2004: 15.

125 Murphy 2004: 15; Douglas 2012: 90-1. Douglas does not explain the character of Glabrus either. However, his presence in the film can perhaps be explained more easily than that of Caesar. Glabrus was loosely based on an ancient figure,

Glaber, involved in Rome’s response to the slave revolts. As such, the inclusion of Glabrus is perhaps less remarkable than writing Caesar into the story.

126 Douglas 2012: 168-9.

127 Hopper 1958: 1 in Urbainczyk 2004: 118; Douglas 2012: 169. 45 this role.128 Cyrino places emphasis on Gavin’s physique, suggesting that ‘Gavin’s muscular youth and vigor combine with a watchful, wary presence to denote a strong sense of history on the move; he becomes the physical symbol of the inevitable shift to autocratic government.’129 The inclusion of

Caesar might also be explained simply through his popularity. Of all the historical films made about

Rome, very few discuss the events and people of this stage in the Republic. The inclusion of Julius

Caesar, a man who was familiar to most of the American public, would have been an effective addition.130 Cyrino further suggests that the ‘transition between the end of the Roman Republic and its violent lurching into empire… [is] embodied in the film by the character of the young Julius

Caesar.’131 This is supported by Ustinov, who in an interview recalls Olivier explaining a scene to

Laughton. According to Ustinov, Olivier said, ‘I thought I would represent the future, John Gavin the present, and you, Charles, the past.’132 Although this is an insightful comment on the role of Crassus,

Caesar, and Gracchus in the film, this was probably intended as a comment on the careers of the actors in question, rather than their characters. Caesar in this film operates both as the embodiment of the shift from Republic to Empire, and the assurance that Rome would succumb to the rule of dictators, even if Crassus failed. This image of Caesar has undoubtedly been shaped by the conditions of the Cold War which allowed the HUAC to enforce the Hollywood blacklist, playing into US fears of Soviet influence.

Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962)

Julius Caesar against the Pirates, originally titled Giulio Cesare contro i pirati (1962), is an Italian

128 Ward 2007: 100.

129 Cyrino 2005: 115, 120; Ward 2007: 100.

130 Aside from Caesar’s reputation as a Roman commander, for centuries, school boys had been introduced to Caesar both through Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, and as a Latin author and conqueror of Gaul. Wyke 2004: 67; Wyke 2012:

97, 123.

131 Cyrino 2005: 115.

132 Ustinov 1992: Video Interview for Spartacus DVD. 46 sword-and-sandal or peplum film directed by Sergio Grieco. The film shows a young, handsome

Caesar (Gustavo Rojo), who is on the run from Silla’s (Erno Crisa) army when he is rescued by King

Nicomedes’ men, shortly before being captured by pirates.133 Each of these events forms a notable and exciting element of Caesar’s early career, but the order and nature of events has been altered to fit the desired narrative. Grieco directed a variety of films through the 60s and 70s, including many sword-and-sandal films set in ancient Greece and Rome.134 Sergio Grieco’s father, Ruggero Grieco, a devout antifascist, was one of the founding members of the Italian Communist Party (Partito

Comunista Italiano, PCI) and was its ‘leading agricultural expert.’135 There is minimal evidence to suggest that Sergio Grieco either shared or reacted against his father’s political views. However, in light of the extent of Ruggero’s involvement with the PCI, it would be reasonable to assume that

Sergio was well aware of the political tensions of a post-Mussolini Italy.

The conventions of the peplum or sword-and-sandal genre, as well as the audience demographic, affect the film’s representation of Caesar. Peplum films were generally screened at low cost theatres and were largely aimed at a working-class audience.136 The films were shown in Italy and internationally, and therefore needed to appeal to a wide audience.137 Films of this genre would frequently adopt storylines commonly associated with high art – from Greek myth and Roman history

– and present these tales in an accessible way.138 Included in the peplum audience were Italian migrants, often labourers, who appreciated the value of strength and brute force as a means of

133 The film’s dictator is referred to as Silla, rather than Sulla. This thesis will use ‘Silla’ to refer to Erno Crisa’s character in the film, and ‘Sulla’ to refer to the historical Sulla.

134 Some of Grieco’s most popular films include The Pirate of the Black Hawk (1958), Sergeant Klems (1971), and Beast with a Gun (1977).

135 Sprigge 1949: 3; Obituary in The New York Times 1955: 65.

136 Rushing 2016: 15.

137 Gunsberg 2005: 97; Pomeroy 2008: 2-3, 37; Hughes 2011: ix.

138 Pomeroy 2008: 29-30; Hughes 2011: 49. 47 power.139 The prevailing success of the leading strong man, achieved through feats of physical strength, appealed to this audience.140 A physically strong and capable leading man was a consistent emblem of the peplum genre, though to define the genre by the presense of a strong man protagonist is not entirely adequate.141 The subject matter in such films is also notable. Stories from the ancient world, particularly stories of Greek and Roman heroes, were consistently showcased.142

Understandably, tales from Roman history were particularly frequent in Italian peplums, with Julius

Caesar as a reasonably popular subject. Rushing identifies five stages of peplum films. The first, the

Maciste cycle (1914-1926), the second, mid-century peplums (1958-1965), followed by the 1980s barbarian peplum, the 1990s television peplums, and the fifth cycle, contemporary films such as

Gladiator (2000).143 The films featured in this thesis fall largely into the second cycle, mid-century peplums. The genre’s apparent interest in tales of swashbuckling pirates perhaps further explains why this particular episode of Caesar’s life was chosen for Grieco’s film.144

Cold War politics also had a profound influence on the portrayal of Caesar in this film. Unusually,

Caesar is here a saviour of the Republic. This is significant because Caesar, though often portrayed as the hero or saviour of Rome, is not easily cast as the saviour of the Republic. It requires a lot of care and attention to remove and reduce Caesar’s monarchic aspects and replace them with decidedly

Republican ambitions. In terms of contemporary politics and culture, this can be attributed to recent events, such as the defeat of Mussolini, US involvement in Italy after the Second World War, the newly formed Italian Republic, and Italian identity. Caesar had been a constant figure in Italian

139 Pomeroy 2008: 36-7; Pomeroy 2017: 155-6.

140 Lagny 1992: 171; Rushing 2016: 16.

141 Pomeroy 2017: 149, 152.

142 Pomeroy 2008; 10; Rushing 2016: 18; Pomeroy 2017: 148, 152.

143 Rushing: 2016: 8.

144 Hughes 2011: 29, 38; The work of Emilio Salgari is also influential in popularisation of modern pirate adventures. 48 national identity for centuries, and was employed by various influential Italians, not the least of whom was Benito Mussolini. 145 Mussolini utilised an image of Caesar as a powerful and charismatic Roman

Dictator to bolster his power in Fascist Italy. Consequently, following Mussolini’s defeat and the defeat of Italian Fascism, Caesar had to be used with caution, for he might carry negative connotations, particularly in an Italian setting and for foreign audiences wary of Mussolini’s legacy.

The preexisting association between Mussolini and Caesar would be hard to ignore. This connection was promoted and propagated both by Il Duce intentionally and positively, and negatively by those who criticised him. In Wyke’s analysis of Thornton Wilder’s Ides of March (1948) she suggests that the novel ‘sought to break the intimate bond Fascism had manufactured between the Roman dictator and the Duce, but also, experimentally, to reconfigure Caesar anew for the US and the postwar world’ and in doing so it attempts ‘to rescue Caesar from his Fascist self.’146 I suggest that Grieco is attempting a similar feat by redeeming Caesar’s reputation in Italy from the name and image of

Mussolini. The easiest way to avoid evoking Mussolini while depicting Caesar was to remove all indications of his dictatorship or, even better, to entrust Caesar with the task of saving the Republic from another brutal dictator. In 1948 the Christian Democrats were voted in, and from the end of the war American influence in Italy was strong, both culturally and politically.147 While many Italians saw the US as a land of opportunity, they were also determined to retain their national identity.148 A strong Italian figure, like Caesar, if any threat to the Republic was removed, would fill a necessary role.

The three main historical events covered in this film are Caesar’s escape from Sulla, his meeting with

Nicomedes, and his capture by pirates. The film adjusts the order of these events in order to achieve

145 Wyke 2012: 97.

146 Wyke 2012: 121.

147 Mistry 2014: 1-4.

148 Mistry 2014: 1-16. 49 a congenial narrative. It shows Caesar’s escape from Rome in an attempt to evade Silla’s oppressive dictatorship and save his own life.149 From ancient accounts it is generally believed that Caesar left

Rome after he refused to divorce Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna, upon Sulla’s request.150 Rojo’s

Caesar evades Silla’s army almost unscathed. He is injured, not because of the superiority of Silla’s men, but because he was slowed down by his companions.151 Yet he still manages to escape, along with Publio (Marriso Carocci) and Frontone (Ignazio Leone). Publio, Frontone, and the now deteriorating Caesar reach the shore and sail out on a raft to get further away from Silla and Rome.152

Moments later, they are caught in a storm and are found by a ship belonging to Nicomedes, the King of Bithynia.153 The court of Nicomedes, in the film, certainly displays the level of extravagance the audience would have expected from a decadent, foreign kingdom. There are dancers, monkeys, and the women far outnumber the men.154 However, there is no indication of a scandalous sexual relationship, or indeed of any relationship at all between Caesar and the King.155 Caesar leaves

Bithynia as soon as possible, but his departure is interrupted by Hamar (Gordon Mitchell) and his pirates.156 Unbeknown to Caesar, Nicomedes had given him Plauzia (Abbe Lane), Hamar’s ‘pirate queen’, in order to provoke an ambush on the ship carrying Caesar and a number of notable individuals. By the time the pirates have boarded Caesar’s ship, Caesar has honourably granted

Plauzia her freedom, and in return she asks Hamar not to kill him.157 Hamar holds Caesar, his friends, and Quintilia, the daughter of the governor of Miletus, for ransom, which Caesar advises should be

149 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 9:20.

150 Plut. Caes. 1.1-4; Suet. Iul. 1.1-3; Ridley 2000: 211, 233.

151 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 12:00.

152 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 18:00-20:37.

153 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 25:40.

154 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 33:00-37:00.

155 Plut. Caes. 1.7-8; Suet. Iul. 2, 49.

156 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 41:00.

157 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 42:40. 50 at least 50 talents.158 Publio is sent to Rome to retrieve Caesar’s ransom and soon learns that Silla has been killed. Of course, the historical sources indicate that Sulla abdicated his dictatorship and died in

78 BC, well before Caesar encountered the pirates in 74 BC.159 This film acknowledges neither

Sulla’s decision to lay down the office of dictator, nor his natural death, although Silla’s murderer remains anonymous. Caesar, with the help of his friends and the governor of Miletus, eventually overpowers Hamar and razes the pirate camp to the ground.

Caesar is undoubtedly the hero of this film. He plays the title role, is gallant and strong, and defeats the pirates. However, as a peplum hero Caesar is slightly problematic. First, Gustavo Rojo, although he is physically impressive, falls slightly short of the standard set by Steve Reeves. Gordon Mitchell as Hamar, the leader of the pirates, bears a more striking resemblance to the body-builders who were cast in the leading roles. He also typically wears less clothing, and consequently draws more attention to his physique.160 Rojo’s Caesar is certainly skilled in combat, but he does not perform a single super-human feat of strength.161 When faced with imminent death in the form of a wall of spikes, the film’s hero might have been expected to spring into action, saving himself and those in danger. In this film, however, Caesar, along with Publio, Frontone, and Quintilia remain in chains until Plauzia interrupts the mechanism.162 This could be explained by the historical nature of Caesar as a character, in contrast to the mythic elements included in Maciste or Hercules’ narrative.163 Rushing describes the hero, or strongman, as ‘a big, exuberant fellow whose essential attitude is ebullient and happy. He

158 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 44:44.

159 Plut. Sull. 34.3, 37.1-38.

160 Mitchell was more commonly cast in strongman roles having played Maciste in Monster from the Unknown World

(1961) only a year earlier, and many similar roles.

161 Rushing 2016: 15.

162 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 1:17:27-1:19:30.

163 Although a strongman hero who acts selflessly is a stock figure in peplum films, there are of course variations of peplum heroes who are less selfless and more focused on adventure.

51 likes smashing the bad guys and saving the girls. These are simple pleasures for a simple man. Italians called these figures giganti buoni or “good giants,” and that is precisely what they were.’164 Caesar was far from being one of these giganti buoni. Apart from a few early scenes between Caesar and

Cornelia, or Publio and Frontone, Caesar is rarely cheerful as he spends most of the film evading or fighting his enemies. He is also too politically and militarily adept to fulfil this role. Caesar is an intellectual as well as a strong hero. In addition, as is customary for the hero, Caesar mostly saves the day. Throughout the course of the film, Caesar encounters two enemies, Silla and Hamar. Although

Nicomedes and his right-hand man act in a way that presents them as Caesar’s enemies rather than friends, this storyline is not resolved in the film. Silla is killed in Caesar’s absence by an unknown power. Typically, an audience might expect the hero to perform this action himself. This might have been an attempt to protect Caesar from the complications of killing another Roman, or from inciting another civil war, which often follows political assassination. Besides, it would have been altering the established narrative considerably, if Caesar had murdered Sulla. Caesar does defeat Hamar and the rest of the pirates but is only able to do so with the help of the governor of Miletus, and because

Plauzia saved his life. He manages to save most of his friends, yet is unable to save Plauzia in time.

Rushing suggests that in most peplum films the hero seeks to depose an oppressor and restore a legitimate ruler, explaining that ‘the strongman is almost always a disinterested outsider with minimal or no ties to the throne in question; any suggestion that he could be a political threat or represent the forces of instability and anarchy is completely absent.’165 Caesar, of course, does not comply with this standard. In the film, Caesar displays no desire to control Rome in Silla’s place, only to depose him. However, it would be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to view Caesar without the knowledge of his future role as an instigator of political change, and ultimately monarchy. This film offers an interesting combination of archetypal peplum tropes and imagery and a challenging ancient figure.

While Caesar is the hero of this film, he is far from being a typical peplum hero.

164 Rushing 2016: 15.

165 Rushing 2016: 13-4. 52

Julius Caesar against the Pirates not only employs the trope of Caesar as a popular Republican politician, but it emphasises Caesar’s Republican values to such a degree that Caesar almost becomes a Brutus-figure. In other instances, he might easily be interpreted as a hero of the Roman Republic, especially through his conquests in Spain and Gaul, but he is never explicitly charged with the task of saving the Republic from a dictator. More often than not Caesar is cast as the ruthless dictator who requires the intervention of a Brutus. In the opening scenes of this film, Caesar defends his actions to

Cornelia, suggesting that he has a plan to ‘overthrow the dictator’, and that it would be a greater risk to him, and to Rome, if he were to remain passive.166 Caesar leaves Rome when Silla’s men enter his house, presumably in an attempt to assassinate him, as they had done to an unnamed senator in the opening scene of the film.167 Scenes such as this highlight the brutality of Silla’s dictatorship.168 His men barge into the house of an old senator in the middle of the night, and viciously murder everyone inside in the name of Silla.169 While Caesar is on the run, Silla is shown torturing a man to gain information regarding Caesar’s whereabouts.170 A short time later, the same man is dead as a result of Silla’s brutality.171 Later still, Silla refuses to assist the governor of Miletus, whose daughter had been captured by the pirates along with Caesar.172 Consequently, this film emphasises existing differences between Caesar and Silla to new extremes. Caesar is elevated to the position of liberator and saviour of the Republic, though he does not quite follow this through, and is stripped of all his usual monarchic ambitions. Silla, on the other hand, who was known for his brutal dictatorship, was denied the two redeeming factors of his dictatorship – his abdication and natural death. In keeping

166 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 6:15-30.

167 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 7:40-9:20.

168 Lagny 1992: 172.

169 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 2:15-3:00.

170 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 13:30.

171 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 15:10.

172 Grieco 1962: Julius Caesar against the Pirates 56:04-58:18. 53 with the Cold War climate, Caesar, the hero, has no ambition to become dictator. This image was the result of exaggerating Caesar’s Republican motivations and of highlighting Silla’s brutality. In post- war Italy, Caesar evoked the all-too-recent memory of Mussolini and Italian Fascism. International audiences would have been equally aware of these connotations, and consequently post-war Caesars, particularly Italian Caesars, would have been viewed with some degree of scepticism. This reception of Caesar was a product of post-war fears of Italian Fascism, and American influence in the new democratic Italy. By stripping any potential tyrannical or totalitarian ambition from this Caesar, the authors of this reception constructed a Caesar, outside Mussolini’s influence, which would exemplify

Italy’s new political identity.

Young Caesar (1958)

Young Caesar is a work of historical fiction written in 1958 by Rex Warner. It portrays Julius Caesar as a young, charismatic, and politically brilliant individual. The Caesar in this text is positive both initially and in retrospect. Through this Caesar Warner explores the ideal qualities in a leader, both ancient and modern, which are largely informed by Warner’s contemporary politics. Warner was raised in a reasonably conservative British family. As a young man he was influenced by Marxist thought and was later criticised for promoting modern, right wing dictatorships through his apparent admiration of Caesar.173 Ultimately, Warner benefited from and for the most part supported constitutional monarchy. Consequently, this Caesar emerges as a predominantly admirable figure as he reflects the attributes of Warner’s ideal leader. Warner achieves this by presenting Caesar as a gifted orator and a commendable demagogue among other attributes. Aspects of Caesar’s personality and early career which are considered to be more controversial still feature in this text, though they are framed in a largely sympathetic manner. Any lofty ambitions which might threaten the Republic, the struggle for liberty and order, and ultimately his assassination, are generally excused or at least presented as palatable. In this way, having the elder Caesar narrate these events allows the author to

173 Churchill 1967: 30. 54 express a level of understanding and apology where necessary and to retell these events through the mellowed prism of hindsight. According to Tabachnik, Warner wrote Young Caesar ‘to show

Caesar’s faults as well as his strength[s].’ 174 While this might be so, and as a narrator Caesar certainly does not deny any questionable events which are often used critically by other authors, he still emerges favourably overall. As an author and a classicist, Warner’s view of Caesar is informed by both the ancient individual and his contemporary context. The final product serves as a vehicle through which to discuss the ideals of modern leadership.

Although the novel ends well before Caesar’s imperial ambitions come to fruition, Caesar conveys sentiments on one-man rule and modern issues of Caesarism which suggest that ‘monarchy’ is inevitable and often necessary, providing that the monarch in question is capable and just. Warner was an English professor and classicist whose body of work spans far beyond Caesar, including critically acclaimed works of fiction such as The Wild Goose Chase (1937) and The Aerodrome

(1941). As a classicist, Warner translated works such as Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian

War, Xenophon’s The Persian Expedition, and the War Commentaries of Caesar. His earlier novels received more critical discussion and praise than Young Caesar, which was described by one reviewer as ‘a chronicle of extremely tedious fact, for it is often forgotten that Caesar’s early activities, largely unmilitary, consisted of a more or less sedate progress from one to another of those boring public offices.’175 Warner’s knowledge of Caesar’s life and career is evident throughout this novel, and his account of Caesar’s early career is thorough. Assessing the role of Caesar in this novel is again problematic. In this case, Caesar is narrating the course of the republican politics of his youth from his current point of view. As such, the audience receives two Caesars – Caesar the early-career,

Republican politician, and Caesar the dictator, writing days before his assassination, both through the

174 Tabachnik 2002: 305.

175 Raven 1958: 782. 55 words of Warner. All the action of the novel takes place before the end of 59 BC and although Caesar comments on issues pertaining to monarchy, Caesar the character, as opposed to Caesar the narrator, fits into the first (early-career) trope. In fact, this novel is perhaps the most comprehensive use of the trope of Caesar as an early-career, Republican politician. It covers Caesar’s early career, his alliances, and his climb through the ranks of the cursus honorum in more detail than any film is able to do.

Young Caesar is written as Caesar’s personal account of his early years in politics. After dining at

Lepidus’ house on 14 March 44 BC, Caesar retired from the group and began to write.176 What follows is an account of Roman politics from the age of Sulla and Marius to the end of Caesar’s first consulship. The novel covers events including Sulla’s dictatorship and Caesar’s interactions with

Sulla, Caesar’s time in Bithynia, his capture by pirates, and his progression through the offices of

Roman politics with the help of his alliances and immense popularity among the people. Caesar in the ‘present’ – on the eve of the Ides of March – has experienced all the events recalled in the novel and many more. He has lived each ‘trope’ of Caesar, and is now writing about Caesar, the up-and- coming Republican politician, from the perspective of Caesar the Dictator.

In this novel, Caesar consistently emerges as a demagogue or a man of the people. From an early stage Caesar enjoys the people’s favour and recognises the potential power the Roman people wield over politics. Although not the first example of his reputation among the people, in the chapter

Funeral Speeches Caesar delivers the funeral oration for his aunt Julia and includes images of Marius in the ancestral procession. He realises more clearly than before the full extent of the public’s support for him and his ancestors. The crowd cheers, and Caesar is assured, as he would be many times later, that the people of Rome will support him against his opponents under almost any circumstances. As

Caesar the narrator recounts:

Suddenly and with one accord the whole crowd began to cheer and to go wild with a

176 Warner 1958: 9-12. 56 strange joy which [he] noted especially, since it seemed to indicate not merely excitement

at a bold gesture, nor even a sentimental reverence for a great man unjustly used, but

something deeper still – a gratitude, a relief, a pleasure at finding that honour was being

done again to one whom, however in some ways mistakenly, they believed to have been

their benefactor and their friend.’177

Later, Caesar sets up images of Marius and Victory on the Capitol and identifies this action as ‘what gained [him] the greatest popularity of all.’178

During his dictatorship, Sulla passed a number of reforms which abolished the power of the tribunes and popular assembly and increased the power of the senate.179 Throughout this text Caesar fundamentally and consistently disagreed with this, describing it as an ‘unconstitutional action.’180

He was not alone in this opinion. While others were crucial in reversing Sulla’s reforms, Caesar championed this cause whenever possible.181 Caesar also made concerted efforts to demonstrate the power of the people, and therefore his own power as their champion. Another appealing element of

Warner’s Caesar is his rhetorical skill. At several intervals throughout the novel, Caesar stresses his natural skill as an orator, proclaiming that his first speech ‘before the praetor was regarded as a model of what such speeches ought to be.’182 For these reasons, Warner’s Caesar can be interpreted as an efficient and effective politician who, given his political brilliance and genuine concern for his people, could very well prove to be a satisfactory monarch.

177 Warner 1958: 171.

178 Warner 1958: 209.

179 Warner 1958: 116-8.

180 Warner 1958: 126.

181 Warner 1958: 136.

182 Warner 1958: 132. 57

Through Caesar, the text conveys certain opinions about modern political phenomena. These are issues which come to fruition over the course of Caesar’s life, and underline the lasting effects of his career on the Roman Empire and modern politics. Caesar, reflecting on his early career, consistently expresses three main concerns throughout the novel. These are the inevitability of a Caesar-figure, the idea that monarchy is often the best form of government, and the view that political assassination interrupts the natural order of politics. Caesar the narrator does not discuss Caesar-figures as such and, therefore, does not directly identify Caesar-figures as inevitable. However, he does stress the constant concern of Sulla and the Senate that Pompey would gain complete control and refuse to relinquish his command.183 While Sulla was in power:

… a number of measures had been taken to subordinate commanders in the field to the

central authority of the senate. Sulla knew well enough how he himself had gained power

and he evidently wished to make it impossible for any general in the future to act as he

had done.184

Caesar implies and demonstrates that an attempt to prevent the rise of a new charismatic and capable figure would be in vain. Both Sulla and the senate were wary of Pompey becoming too powerful, yet neither succeeded in preventing Caesar from gaining complete control. As history, and Young Caesar, attests, Pompey might not have been appointed dictator for life, but Caesar surely was. Similarly, if

Caesar did not establish a monarchy, Augustus picked up where Caesar left off.

The concept of political assassination is discussed frequently in this text. To an audience who is aware of Caesar’s untimely end, his frequent references to conspiracies and assassinations are blatant

183 Warner 1958: 192-4, 210.

184 Warner 1958: 116. 58 examples of foreshadowing. The first instance of this is found in Caesar’s comments on the death of

Sertorius, who lived and died as Caesar did, as a popular military leader who was assassinated by his comrades.185 Through this, and many similar discussions, Caesar stresses his perception of a political assassination as an unnatural interruption.186 He explains that the:

… horror of such an assassination is [found]… in the fact that it is against the whole course

and trend of nature. It is a debasement of nature to envy the great, and the whole of human

nature is seen to be debased when a combination of inferiors succeeds in destroying by

treachery one whom they would be ashamed to challenge as individuals and would not

dare all together to confront in war.187

The concern for this natural order stems from the narrator’s perception of one-man rule as something which is often necessary and usually beneficial, provided that the monarch in question is reasonable and depending on the needs of the society. When discussing Nicomedes’ rule in Bithynia, Caesar explains that ‘there are certain conditions, it seems, in which people demand kings as a symbol of that unity and order without which all civilised life is impossible.’188 He also suggests that the need for a monarchy depends on ‘individual and communal interests, ambitions, thoughts, needs, hopes and deprivations which constitute the life we live and form the conditions within which, from time to time, an exceptional person can in political life exercise a degree of freedom.’189 Caesar discusses issues of monarchy and Caesarism from the perspective of a Dictator, rather than an early-career,

Republican politician. Yet his opinions are not exactly extreme despite identifying assassination as

185 Warner 1958: 153-4.

186 Warner 1958: 124, 153-6, 202.

187 Warner 1958: 154.

188 Warner 1958: 105.

189 Warner 1958: 188. 59 treason and conspirators as ‘a combination of inferiors.’190 Caesar is employed in this novel to address the necessity of a stable rule, or monarchy, and to discuss the inevitability of charismatic, popular leaders. These were issues which were at the forefront of Warner’s mind, and were collective concerns of his audience in light of contemporary politics.

Warner’s version of Caesar allows for discussion on ideal leadership and is a product of his personal politics and experiences. After Warner began to question his Marxist views, he was subject to criticism for his use of Caesar. Tabachnik explains that ‘Liberal critics who (mistakenly) feel that Rex deserted their cause and “sold out” to wealth sometimes also grotesquely accuse him of a taste for dictatorship because he liked Caesar. Nothing could be further from the truth.’191 He goes on to say that Warner’s ‘tolerance of Caesar’s one-man rule under those special conditions [where democracy and “good order” were mutually exclusive] cannot be construed as support for the principle of dictatorship.’192 Warner justifies his use of Caesar and denies any connections to modern dictators, claiming that:

Caesar had a very much more attractive character than those possessed by Hitler or

Mussolini. It may be more relevant to reflect that it was in the end Caesarism which

triumphed, that his assassination merely plunged Rome back into the disorder and

bloodshed from which for a short period he had preserved her, and that what finally gave

peace and security to the empire was not political liberty but efficient administration. 193

In this, Warner suggests that through efficient administration Caesar liberated Rome, and that his

190 Warner 1958: 154.

191 Tabachnik 2002: 308.

192 Tabachnik 2002: 308.

193 Warner 1953 76-7. 60 assassination resulted in anarchy rather than liberty. Robinson suggests that Warner and his contemporaries had a preoccupation with the qualities that constituted a good leader. He claims that this was understandable given the ‘feeble performance of the western democracies in that period both economically and politically, the growing threat of fascism, and the apparent success of communism in the Soviet Union…’194 Given this apparent preoccupation, it is understandable that Warner voices these ideals through the character of Caesar. The complexity of Caesar might not render him an overtly positive leader, yet his exceptional qualities spark interesting discussions and thought- provoking dilemmas. Warner’s ideal leader would not be a man of excessive or unnecessary violence

– understandably, given the incredibly violent acts Warner had witnessed in both world wars.195 This is not to say that Warner’s ideal hero would be hesitant to take action. Warner valued positive action and physical prowess as well as intellect in a leader who is both loyal to and inspires loyalty among his men.196 This unique combination of action and mercy is understandably found in Caesar. In light of Warner’s sympathetic view of Caesar, particularly in discussions of ideal leadership, Caesar’s death is depicted as an unnatural tragedy enacted by lesser men. For Warner, this tragedy stems from the inability of Caesar’s contemporaries to maintain liberty and order simultaneously. He explains that ‘The story is tragedy. There is no reason in the nature of things why liberty and efficiency should be incompatible. Yet in the generation of Cicero and Caesar, as in others, they proved to be so.’197

This concern for liberty could be in response to the collective attitude of contemporary leaders.

According to Wyke Mussolini exemplified this attitude claiming that “there is no such thing as liberty.” 198 Through Caesar, Warner conveys his ideal form of leadership as one focused on freedom and order, most likely as a form of one-man rule, but a form that departs from the recent violent,

194 Robinson 1994: 35.

195 Tabachnik 2002: 293.

196 Robinson 1994: 42; Tabachnik 2002: 311.

197 Warner 1953: 77.

198 Wyke 2012: 99. 61 militaristic rulership and has a greater focus on diplomacy and positive action. This ideal is undoubtedly a product of Warner’s personal and professional experience with the recent world wars and expresses his values and desires for future leadership.

In these receptions, the image of Caesar as a Republican politician has been used to promote and diminish the power of individuals and political groups. Each reception has focused on different aspects of Caesar’s life and character and has emphasised these in relation to the greater aims of their work. Cold War politics and culture have influenced each text, whether deliberately or subconsciously. Caesar in Spartacus (1960) is the embodiment of Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire. Because of this, he neither wholly represents the Republic nor the Empire, nor their modern counterparts, western democracy and eastern totalitarianism. This film is centred on resisting oppression. However, the oppressive force is largely open to interpretation. Crassus, and the Rome he represents, could be perceived as a comment on Soviet expansion or American imperialism depending on the political preference of the audience. As such, the significance of Caesar is equally versatile. In Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962) Caesar is depicted as the saviour of the Republic.

This unusual characterization is a direct result of the defeat of Italian Fascism and an attempt to redeem Caesar’s reputation from the influence of Mussolini. Caesar’s opposition to Silla’s totalitarian dictatorship suggests that he upheld and defended the values of the Republic or, by extension, the newly established democracy, ushered into Italy through American influence. Finally, in Young

Caesar (1958) Caesar is used as a vehicle through which to discuss the benefits of a stable monarchy, fears of Caesarism, and the ideal qualities of a modern leader. Warner, as an elite British author, has perhaps reaped the benefits of a constitutional monarchy. He chose to communicate the necessity of this form of government through Caesar, a leader who might have become a just and honourable ruler of Rome. It is, therefore, clear that ancient figures like Caesar are moulded and manipulated to influence power in present circumstances. 62 Chapter Three

He came, He saw, He conquered: Receptions of Caesar as the Conqueror or Civiliser of Gaul

This chapter explores the reception of Caesar as a conqueror in film and popular culture from 1945-

65. Using a number of case studies, the aim is to determine how and why this image of Caesar, which occurs frequently in film, literature, and popular culture, was employed. It is difficult to separate

Caesar the conqueror from other tropes of Caesar because they often overlap. However, in some instances, as in these case studies, Caesar is depicted primarily as a conqueror, showcasing his military prowess and his inclination towards clementia or mercy. This image depends heavily on events of 58-50 BC, a period encompassing Caesar’s conquests in Gaul and ending before his crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC, the act which signified the beginning of civil war. This chapter will consider the use of Caesar as a conqueror in a number of early editions of The Adventures of Asterix by

Goscinny and Uderzo. It will then assess the use of Caesar in three peplum films, The Slave (1962),

Caesar the Conqueror (1962), and The Giants of Rome (1964). In doing so, this chapter will outline the plot and production of each reception before analysing the character of Caesar and reasons for this characterisation. It will argue that these receptions consistently employ a positive image of Caesar as a conqueror even when depicting his brutal conquest of Gaul.

The Adventures of Asterix

The following section will discuss the characterization of Caesar in early editions of The Adventures of Asterix. The first Asterix comic was published in Pilote in 1959, with the first album published by

Dargaud in 1961.199 Pilote was a magazine aimed primarily at young adolescent readers.200 However,

Asterix appealed to a wider audience, particularly to adults because of its use of sophisticated

199 Nye 1980: 181; Pucci 2006:196; Vines 2008: 1226-7; Kovacks and Marshall 2011: 12.

200 McQuillan 2001: 12; Vines 2008: 1226-7. 63 linguistic humour.201 The comics were written by René Goscinny with illustrations by Albert

Uderzo.202

Each comic begins with the same familiar scene:

The year is 50 BC. Gaul is entirely occupied by the Romans. Well, not entirely… One

small village of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders. And life is not easy

for the Roman legionaries who garrison the fortified camps of Totorum, Aquarium,

Laudanum and Compendium…203

Nous sommes en 50 avant Jésus-Christ. Toute la Gaule est occupée par le Romains…

Toute? Non! Un village peuplé d‘irréductibles Gaulois résiste encore et toujours à

l’envahisseur. Et la vie n’est pas facile pour les garrisons de legionnaires romains des

camps retranchés de Babaorum, Aquarium, Laudanum et Petitbonum…204

The reader is introduced to ‘a few of the Gauls’, the hero Asterix, his friend and ‘menhir delivery- man’ Obelix, the druid Getafix, Cacofonix the bard, and the chief Vitalstatistix.205 Caesar is omitted

201 Nye 1980: 181.

202 There were a few notable precursors to Asterix, including Oumpa-Pah, Le Petit Nicolas, Beric the Bold, and Little

Fred and Big Ed. A noteworthy contemporary comic was The Adventures of Alix. Three editions, Alix l’intrépide, Alix 2:

Le sphinx d’or, Alix 6: Les legions perdues, were published before 1965 and feature Caesar as a character. Nye 180: 183-

4.

203 Goscinny and Uderzo 1974: 3; Nye 1980: 185.

204 Goscinny and Uderzo 1964: 3.

205 Goscinny and Uderzo 1964: 4; Goscinny and Uderzo 1974: 4; There are several differences in the names of these characters. In the original French editions, the characters are Astérix, Obélix, Panoramix (the druid), Assurancetourix (the 64 from these introductory pages, and does not feature heavily in the early stories. He features far more frequently in later editions, but his character remains largely unchanged. Of the comics published before or during 1965, only four include Caesar directly, Asterix the Gaul (1961), Asterix the

Gladiator (1964), Asterix and Cleopatra (1965), and Asterix in Britain (1966).206 This chapter will focus on three, Asterix the Gaul, Asterix the Gladiator, and Asterix and Cleopatra. Asterix in Britain features only one image of Caesar – at the helm of his fleet invading Britain.207 In this panel Caesar looks imposing and authoritative, but this single scene does not encourage a deep analysis of his character.

Figure 1: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix chez les Bretons 1966: 5.

The first comic published in this series was Asterix the Gaul.208 It was first published in Pilote in

1959, and later in an album in 1961.209 This comic establishes our main characters, as outlined above, and reveals the secret of the Gauls’ strength – a magic potion brewed by Getafix, the village druid. In

bard), Abraracourcix (the chief). For the sake of consistency, this thesis will use the English names and identify any further differences as they arise.

206 Astérix le Gaulois (1961), Astérix le Gladiateur (1964), Astérix et Cléopatre (1965), Astérix chez les Bretons (1966);

Astérix chez les Bretons was written and published in Pilote in 1965 and was first published in an album in 1966.

207 See Figure 1.

208 Original title Astérix le Gaulois (1961).

209 I was unable to access these early editions of Pilote, so for the purposes of this thesis the original album version (and later English translations) have been used. 65 this album, Crismus Bonus, centurion of the Roman camp at Compendium sends Caligula Minus to spy on the indomitable Gauls in order to learn the secret of their impossible strength. Caligula Minus, masquerading as Caliguliminix infiltrates the village and learns of the magic potion. He escapes back to Compendium and informs Crismus Bonus, who plans to use the potion to gain power and become the new Caesar. In an attempt to recreate the potion, the Romans capture Getafix. Asterix infiltrates the Roman camp to rescue the Druid. However, when the Gauls realise that they are in no serious danger, they decide to have some fun with their captors. After substantial torture involving feathers and intense negotiation, the Druid agrees to brew a secret potion for the Romans. However, the magic potion he concocts has a different effect: it makes the hair of all the Romans grow rapidly. Julius

Caesar pays an impromptu visit to the enraged Crismus Bonus at an inopportune moment. Asterix, who was privy to Bonus’ plot to replace Caesar, reveals his plan to Caesar, who spares both Asterix and Getafix, after sending Bonus to the garrison in Mongolia.

Asterix the Gladiator was published in Pilote in 1962 and as an album in 1964.210 In this edition,

Cacofonix the bard is taken to Rome as a gift for Caesar. Asterix and Obelix travel to Rome on a

Phoenician galley to find Cacofonix and bring him back to Gaul. In Rome, Caesar is not entirely delighted with his gift and sends Cacofonix to be fed to the lions in the arena. Asterix and Obelix voluntarily enrol in Caius Fatuous’ gladiatorial training school in order to infiltrate the arena and rescue Cacofonix. In the arena Asterix and Obelix participate in a chariot race and lead a gladiatorial revolution, as Cacofonix’s singing scares the lions into submission. Caesar grows increasingly furious as the games progress, yet in a timely display of mercy sparked by the crowd, he grants the Gauls their freedom and allows them to return home.

In Asterix and Cleopatra (1965), Caesar refuses to acknowledge Egypt as a great nation, reducing it

210 Original title Astérix Gladiateur (1964). 66 to a decadent nation only fit to live in semi-slavery under Rome.211 This upsets Cleopatra who decides to build a palace in three months to prove to Caesar that Egypt is more than a province of Rome. She entrusts this task to Edifis the architect who enlists the help of three Gauls; Getafix, Asterix, and

Obelix. The Gauls help Edifis to foil the plans of Artifis, a rival architect, and re-energise the worn out Egyptian slaves. Caesar and Cleopatra argue because ‘Julius’ is ‘not playing fair’. Caesar soon gives in to Cleopatra’s pleas and the palace is finished.

The character of Caesar in Asterix is ambiguous. Physically, Caesar is ageing but by no means frail or weary. The hair behind his laurel wreath is white, and he is relatively thin and tall, particularly in comparison to other notable Romans, who are generally short and stout. He is usually dressed in a red and white toga, with a green laurel wreath and white sandals, although this combination varies occasionally. Goscinny and Uderzo’s Caesar is notorious for his temperament. He is frequently depicted as irritable and hot-tempered, due to the continuing success of the Gauls in outsmarting him, and the incompetence of his own men.212 This is less apparent in Asterix the Gaul, in which Caesar sends Crismus Bonus to the garrison at Mongolia with little aggression, in a tone which is more dismissive than aggressive. In Asterix the Gladiator, Caesar is consistently short-tempered with Caius

Fatuous the lanista and, eventually, after Asterix and Obelix ruin the gladiatorial games, Caesar flies into a fit of rage so great that his face turns purple and his wreath flies off his head as he jumps up and down on his chair.213 Similarly, in Asterix and Cleopatra, Caesar first displays irritable behaviour when he learns that the Gauls, in particular Asterix, Obelix, and Getafix, are assisting Cleopatra. His irritation is indicated through bold text, lines around his head in exclamation, and constant pacing up and down. Later, after ordering the siege of Cleopatra’s camp, Caesar again demonstrates his rage while instructing Operachorus to repair the damage done to Cleopatra’s camp. He is shown with his

211 Original title Astérix et Cléopatre (1965).

212 Pucci 2006: 196; Wyke 2008: 64.

213 Goscinny and Uderzo 1964: 43; Goscinny and Uderzo 1974: 43; See Figure 2. 67 feet off the floor, his wreath off his head, and his face a shade of red.214 Caesar’s temperament changes entirely when he is around Cleopatra. This can be attributed to the comedic effect achieved when patriarchal norms are threatened by a strong, appealing woman.

Figure 2: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix Gladiateur 1964: 43.

Figure 3: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix et Cléopatre 1965: 44.

A key aspect of the image of Caesar as a conqueror is the depiction of his military capabilities. In these comics Caesar is not shown in physical combat.215 His military prowess and capability is therefore observed more from a strategic perspective. As the comics are set in 50 BC, Caesar has already conquered almost all Gaul. This is a testament to the military might of Rome and of Caesar.

When our Gaulish heroes, armed with their magic potion, encounter the Romans, they are easily

214 See Figure 3.

215 In most receptions Caesar is shown directing the action, for example Harrison’s Caesar deploying the ‘turtle’ in

Cleopatra (1963). There are some exceptions. Rojo’s Caesar in Pirates fights Hamar and Sulla’s men in hand-to-hand combat, and Mitchell’s Caesar in Caesar the Conqueror (1962) fights alongside his men. 68 victorious. 216 For Asterix and Obelix, it is a sport to beat the legionaries. Obelix collects the helmets of the Romans whom he defeats in order to compete with Asterix. Asterix and Obelix beat countless legionaries in this and other comics. However, these legionaries never die or sustain any serious injuries. In keeping with the genre and the intended audience of the comic, the violence in Asterix is always light-hearted and never malicious or brutal.217 The legionaries are gullible, hapless, incompetent and easily outsmarted. Their commanding officers pose a slightly greater threat to our heroes but are generally driven to distraction by their own ambition for political gain. This implies that Caesar was chiefly responsible for the conquest of Gaul, for his subordinates are either too focused on their own careers or are generally incompetent. A familiar and essential scene to the premise of these comics is the surrender of Vercingetorix. The subject of innumerable works of art, this scene is treated rather differently by Goscinny and Uderzo. The opening scenes of Asterix the

Gaul depict a flashback to Caesar’s defeat of Vercingetorix. In this panel Vercingetorix, standing tall and proud, throws his weapons defiantly onto Caesar’s feet. Caesar sits before the chief and lets out a loud ‘Ouch!’218 In later editions, Caesar’s personal recollection of this event is expressed differently.219 This initial ‘correct’ recollection of Vercingetorix’s surrender somewhat undermines

Caesar’s authority and supremacy as a conqueror, but not entirely. Caesar’s online portfolio on the official Asterix website explains that the authors ‘have always ridiculed his troops and henchmen, but never the person of the Emperor himself, who continues to be an enemy you can be proud of.’220 This portfolio goes on to say that Caesar is ‘not depicted as [a] merciless dictator, but as someone who is capable of acknowledging the Gauls when they occasionally help him out of a bind.’221 This leads to

216 I have used Gaulish instead of Gallic to refer to Asterix as other authors tend to do this.

217 Nye 1980: 193.

218 Goscinny and Uderzo 1961: 3.

219 Kessler 1995: 16; Bracher 1998 237; Wyke 2008: 64.

220 Surugue 2019: Asterix website – Portfolio of Caesar.

221 Surugue 2019: Asterix website – Portfolio of Caesar. 69 the last, but not the least significant aspect of Caesar as a conqueror, his display of clementia or mercy.

Asterix’s Caesar is not necessarily predisposed to mercy, since a recurring threat across the comics is to send those who disobey or disappoint him to the lions. He readily punishes legionaries, centurions, lanistas, and Gauls alike. However, on a few notable occasions, in displays of mercy, Caesar spares various Gaulish heroes. In Asterix the Gaul Caesar spares Asterix and Getafix momentarily in exchange for revealing the treacherous plan of Crismus Bonus, while in Asterix the Gladiator, Caesar observes the crowd shouting ‘Ave! Long live the Gauls!’ and grants Asterix, Obelix, Cacofonix, and the rest of the gladiators their freedom.222 This act of generosity resonates with the crowd, who then begin to praise Caesar and the Gauls, ‘Long live Caesar!’223 Caesar’s position as the enemy of Asterix is therefore complex. He is the most formidable Roman in the series and yet is still no real threat to

Asterix’s village. He is hot-tempered and irritable, but not entirely unreasonable. This complexity and contradiction invite a variety of readings of this animated Caesar.

Asterix and Cleopatra (1965) marks Cleopatra’s first appearance in an Asterix comic. As a character she is described most frequently as having ‘a foul temper, but such a pretty nose!’224 Cleopatra certainly does have a petit sharp nose, with blue-black hair and elegant dresses. In some ways she is presented as Egypt’s answer to Caesar. She has a temper and expresses this in a similar way to Caesar, through pacing, shouting orders and turning red. As Caesar frequently threatens his subordinates with being thrown to the lions, so does Cleopatra threaten to throw her unsuccessful architect to the crocodiles. She is the undisputed Queen of Egypt, as Caesar is the Emperor of Rome, and she has unquestioned control over her subjects. As Getafix observes, Cleopatra seems to influence Caesar.

Around his legionaries, Caesar acts in the same way as in previous albums. He is short, sharp and occasionally irritable. However, around Cleopatra, Caesar’s mood is subject to change. Initially

222 Goscinny and Uderzo 1964: 45; Goscinny and Uderzo 1974: 45; See Figure 4.

223 Goscinny and Uderzo 1964: 45; Goscinny and Uderzo 1974: 45.

224 Pascal 1958: 151-2; Nye 1980: 187. 70 Caesar is amused by Cleopatra and dismisses her claims of Egypt’s superiority. Eventually he grows angry at the prospect of losing face if Cleopatra succeeds. The most significant shift in Caesar’s demeanour is found when Cleopatra confronts him for not playing fair. She arrives on a golden sphinx and shouts at him for interfering with the construction of her palace. Caesar cowers before Cleopatra, intimidated and sweating.225 He agrees to play by her rules. As Cleopatra leaves, Caesar composes himself and immediately shouts orders to his legionaries in a characteristic fit of rage. All is resolved at the end of the comic and the heroes return to Gaul.

Figure 4: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix Gladiateur 1964: 45.

Figure 5: Goscinny and Uderzo, Astérix et Cléopatre 1965: 44.

225 See Figure 5. 71 As with the larger body of Goscinny and Uderzo’s work, the character of Cleopatra is not politically charged. However, the work is read and received politically, with respect to gender politics if not national or international politics. The relationship between Caesar and Cleopatra in this comic is a reflection of contemporary sexual politics and gender relations. A similar sentiment is reflected in most romantic comedies. Caesar, the most powerful man in Rome, submits only to Cleopatra.

Caesar and the Romans in Asterix have been subject to varying interpretations. Each are equally contested and disputed. Some scholars, such as Wodianka, have observed that to French readers in a post-Second World War context the Romans might be reminiscent of the German occupiers.226 They are highly disciplined and orderly, and regularly salute Caesar in a way which recalls the Nazis of the

Second World War.227 In contrast, Dinter says that Asterix’s Romans ‘[seem] to be free from Nazi connotations,’228 but Asterix’s villagers regularly encounter contemporary Germans. In Asterix the

Gaul, the authors set the context of the series by explaining that ‘peace reigns, disturbed only by occasional attacks by the Germans, [which are] speedily repulsed…’ showing two German invaders departing, while saying, ‘Gut! Ve Go! So! But ve komm back!’229 These Germans leave and threaten to return, which is more in keeping with the modern Germans, who returned repeatedly to France in

1870, 1918, and 1940.230 Even if the Roman legionaries bear a close resemblance to the militarized forces of Nazi Germany, Asterix’s Germans invite a closer comparison to contemporary German occupiers than do Caesar and the Romans.

Another common comparison is that between Rome and the US. This interpretation positions modern

226 Kovacs 2011: 13; Wodianka 2017: 163.

227 Wodianka 2017: 163.

228 Dinter 2011: 186.

229 Goscinny and Uderzo 1961: 5.

230 Bracher 1998: 237. 72 France against the overbearing empire of the United States of America by viewing Asterix’s independent village and Rome as their animated equivalents. Asterix’s resistance to the Romans can be loosely interpreted as French resistance or opposition to the cultural, political, and economic influence of the US.231 Wyke offers one interpretation of the Roman legionaries as substitutes for

‘contemporary bureaucracy, regimentation and conformism.’232 Wyke elaborates on the perception of Rome as the ancient equivalent to the United States:

The Roman enemy is suggestive of the United States of America and the great growth of

its economic, cultural and military power in the latter half of the twentieth century. The

endless struggles of Asterix against Caesar then constitute a protest projected back into

the past against the ‘new Romans’, whose heartless efficiency, mass production and

cultural homogeneity appear to threaten Europeans with the loss of their individuality and

distinctiveness.233

These interpretations are certainly reasonable. McQuillan, in her doctoral thesis on bandes dessinées, stresses the general concern about American market saturation which soon spread to the comic industry.234 This widespread concern about American cultural and economic domination even produced a law limiting ‘market saturation by American products’, in an attempt to preserve the integrity of the French comic industry.235 This law suggests that concerns about US cultural imperialism ran deep in Cold War France and that Goscinny and Uderzo, two men who were fully immersed in the production and publication of French comics or bandes dessinées, must have been

231 Nye 1980: 191-2; Gross 2005: 950; Wyke 2008: 64; Dinter 2011: 186; McElduff 2015: 155.

232 Wyke 2008: 64.

233 Wyke 2008: 64.

234 Barnett 2015: 131-2.

235 McQuillan 2001: 31,118. 73 aware of them. Nye suggests that this Anti-American sentiment could easily be ‘anti-Russian, anti-

Chinese, anti-Japanese, or anti-German; more accurately, it is anti-“progress,” anti-technology, anti- twentieth century.’236 The Adventures of Asterix could also pertain to national politics. Asterix has been readily compared to figures of French history and culture, such as Vercingetorix and Charles de

Gaulle.237 As McQuillan suggests, ‘contemporary with post-war France’s Gaullist policies of cultural isolation from American cultural imperialism, poetical speculation was perhaps inevitable.’238 Yet in an interview in 1973, Goscinny deflects such speculation and suggests that only the author of a text or comic can truly know the spirit in which the text was written and he was devoted to humour.239 In an interview in 1970 Goscinny denies Asterix’s deeper meaning, saying that “I am not a moralist. I don’t give lessons, I am not to be taken seriously, and I like to make people laugh.”240 Later, Goscinny explains that:

People have accused me…of all sorts of intentions, all sorts of sins, especially of being

political, but I haven’t done that and I don’t do it. It is essential to me that I make people

laugh. …My only purpose is to make something that helps people have fun. Not another

thing! All the exegeses that have been written (of Asterix) have no relation to reality –

there’s nothing to make of it.”241

In his Complete Guide to Asterix, Kessler claims that ‘along with adult interest came the adult tendency to take things too seriously. Many people wanted to read deeper, symbolic meanings into

236 Nye 1980: 192.

237 McQuillan 2001: 96; Wyke 2008: 64.

238 McQuillan 2001: 96.

239 Nye 1980: 188; McQuillan 2001: 96; cf. Kessler 1995: 31.

240 Goscinny 1970 in Nye 1980: 188.

241 Goscinny 1976 in Nye 1980: 190. 74 Asterix. … To all these theories the authors would give the same answer: “We have only one aim: to make ourselves and other people laugh”.’242

While such statements tend to dismiss readings of Caesar and the Romans as contemporary Germans or Americans, they do not reduce the political dimension of Asterix entirely. As Barnett suggests

‘Goscinny and Uderzo are interacting with the contemporary ideological significance of stories about the past and with the political work that the past is made to do.’243 An approach focused on author intent may be impractical in this case, but an approach centred on reader response or audience reception could prove beneficial. The following sections will adopt this approach in assessing the characterisation of Caesar in Asterix.

The wide and continuous reception of Asterix comics means that various ideas about Caesar will be evoked, regardless of authorial intention. This remains the case, even though there are many scholarly works on Asterix, and fewer devoted to Goscinny and Uderzo’s Caesar. It is accepted almost universally that authors cannot separate themselves entirely from their contexts. Consequently, their work is intrinsically a product of their times. Asterix, which so frequently draws attention to parallels between the ancient world and contemporary conditions, seamlessly blends the two to deliver its humour. In this way, these comics are directly influenced by cultural and political thought of the

1960s. Because of the nature of the comedy in these volumes, which largely relies on political and social relevance, these comics were received politically by many, if not by all. They engaged in a political discussion by default, if not by design.

The Adventures of Asterix might not be intended to convey serious political comment, but the comedic appeal of these volumes is certainly supplemented by the use of modern stereotypes for ancient

242 Kessler 1995: 18-19.

243 Barnett 2015: 133. 75 figures.244 This activates a contemporary political discourse.245 Putting the intentions of Asterix’s creators aside for a moment, it is evident that these albums were read and received as political and social commentary. Bracher suggests that the French were particularly aware of their past, often valuing historical criteria above political criteria when assigning new political leaders.246

Understandably, a contemporary French audience would have identified with the indomitable Gauls.

This was presumably fostered by the ongoing presence of French resistance. The notion of French resistance against German invaders was propagated during this time and would have been fresh in the minds of the audience.247 There would have been a natural tendency for the people of Charles De

Gaulle’s France to identify with these Gaulish heroes, who were ‘feisty, outnumbered underdogs bracing both Roman legions and Germanic hordes with characteristically Gallic panache.’248 Nye identifies an inherent connection between contemporary French audiences and their Gaulish ancestors, illustrating that ‘to the French, The Gaul is the equivalent of the American frontiersmen, whose personal qualities form the basis of the French character and whose deeds provide him with a national folklore.’249 No matter where in France he was born, ‘the average Frenchman feels kinship with the Gauls, who absorbed their conquerors and created their own unique individualistic culture.’250 Irrespective of the intentions of Goscinny and Uderzo, Asterix was received politically by its early audiences, particularly in France. The now largely adult readers were far from passive consumers of the comics.251

244 Nye 1980: 191.

245 Wylie 1979: 797; Kovacs 2011: 13.

246 Bracher 1998: 235, 238.

247 Bracher 1998: 237; Wodianka 2017: 162.

248 Bracher 1998: 237.

249 Nye 1980: 184.

250 Nye 1980: 184.

251 McQuillan 2001: 97. 76 Yet while Asterix and his villagers might have been received politically, this does not necessarily carry over to the characterization of Caesar and the Romans. Caesar can certainly be interpreted in light of contemporary politics, as is evident from the discussion above. There are, however, various flaws in these readings, which suggest that Caesar might not promote a clear political comment. The character of Caesar in these comics is not and does not need to be politically charged to serve a political purpose. In these albums Caesar plays a vital role in establishing the premise of the series.

As the introduction to each album suggests, Caesar had conquered almost all Gaul by 50 BC. His conquests are essential to providing Asterix with an enemy against whom to react. The authors wanted to create a comic strip based on French culture and history, so a tale of their Gallic ancestors and their most famous conqueror would surely prove very successful.252 Caesar’s notoriety would have added to the initial interest in the comic and would increase the reputation of Asterix and his village – not only were they able to resist and challenge the Roman legionaries, but Julius Caesar himself. Asterix’s

Caesar was a formidable enemy. He is consistently shown as more capable and intelligent than the other Romans and as such is a worthy adversary to Asterix and Obelix. This depiction of Caesar does not drastically depart from the established account of his physical description or disposition. Certain exaggerations and omissions are of course almost entirely for the purpose of comedy.

The use of Caesar as a conqueror, therefore, is not undermined by Goscinny and Uderzo’s denial of political intention. Caesar, particularly in these early editions, served a specific purpose. The comics, while not intended as political commentary per se, were certainly received politically, most commonly as an example of French nationalism. The character of Caesar does not depart drastically from the conventional image of Caesar. In many ways he is an exaggerated version of the collective ancient accounts of the conqueror. This depiction is not overtly political, but it serves a political purpose. Caesar is necessary to the premise of the comics and is therefore essential in accommodating

252 Kessler 1995: 15; Vines 2008: 1227. 77 the display of Gallic strength and subsequent French nationalism.253 In this capacity Caesar is presented as the formidable and somewhat admirable conqueror of Gaul and dictator of Rome. He might have a raging temper, and foolish legionaries, but he is a capable conqueror and a formidable enemy. After all, he did conquer nearly all Gaul. It is necessary for Caesar to be depicted as a capable enemy because anything less would tarnish the reputation of the Gallic tribes who had been conquered and would undermine the surrender of Vercingetorix. The representation of Caesar as a conqueror is reasonable and largely in conformity with traditional accounts. In keeping with the genre of Asterix, where violence is mild and torture is ticklish, the atrocities of Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul are omitted from the text. In the interests of humour and of keeping its diverse audience happy, this decision is not surprising. It can be concluded that this Caesar is not overtly political in character, and he does not need to be. He serves a basic political purpose by providing a premise and enemy for the emblematic Gauls.

Caesar as a Conqueror in Film

Caesar is depicted as a conqueror in a number of peplum films during the period 1945-65. Three in particular are The Slave (1962), Caesar the Conqueror (1962), and The Giants of Rome (1964).254

Collectively, these films cover Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, his interaction with Vercingetorix, and the complicated nature of politics in Rome on the brink of civil war. These on-screen Caesars are similar in their age, appearance, and military prowess. However, due to the versatile nature of their subject matter and the varying aims of their authors, these films vary in narrative and their Caesars vary in character. In this political and social context, the audience might expect to find Caesar in the guise of a merciless conqueror of Gaul, imposing Roman values and practices on innocent Gallic tribes through military might. Particularly given the perceivable shift away from modern dictatorship and

253 Barnett 2015: 137-8.

254 Alternative titles for these films include Il figlio di Spartacus (1962), Giulio Cesare, il conquistatore delle Gallie

(1962), and I giganti di Roma (1964). 78 absolute monarchy. On the contrary, even when the motives and actions of these on-screen Caesars are called into question, they emerge as merciful, with some even going so far as to act as the civilisers of barbaric Gauls. The remainder of this chapter will assess each on-screen Caesar, his character, and significance.

The Slave (1962)

The Slave (1962) is an Italian production, directed by Sergio Corbucci. The film tells the story of

Randus (Steve Reeves), a Roman centurion sent by Caesar (Ivo Garrani) as an ambassador to Crassus

(Claudio Gora) in Zeugma. He is to be Caesar’s eyes and ears to ensure Crassus is not allying himself with the King of Parthia in opposition to Caesar.255 On route to Zeugma, Randus, who is identifiable by an amulet he wears around his neck, is captured as a slave. He meets Gulbar (Enzo Fiermonte), a slave who recognizes the significance of Randus’ amulet, meaning that he is the son of Spartacus.

Randus leads the first of many revolts among the slaves but remains loyal to Caesar’s cause. The identity of the allusive son of Spartacus is discovered, Randus is trapped, but escapes and is tried by

Caesar. The rebellious slaves pour molten gold over Crassus, who is depicted as a cruel, greedy man.

Caesar has to make an example of Randus, as a warning to those who might contemplate rebellion against Rome and reluctantly prepares the crucifixion. However, in a final display of mercy and diplomacy Caesar rethinks his decision as hordes of slaves appear to interrupt Randus’ crucifixion.

Gulbar leads the cry, ‘We are Spartacus!’256 to which Caesar responds, ‘there isn’t enough wood to build that many crosses.’257 Although Caesar’s hand was effectively forced, he was originally reluctant to condemn his trusted centurion and showed some agency in establishing a more just and

255 Lucanio identifies this character as Grassus rather than Crassus. This might be a mistake, although he mentions it more than once. The general consensus is that this character is Crassus.

256 Corbucci 1962: The Slave 1:39:00.

257 Corbucci 1962: The Slave 1:39:12. A clear reference to Kubrick’s Spartacus (1960). 79 regulated system of government in Zeugma. Caesar’s parting advice to Randus is that ‘often an act of clemency is of more use to Rome than the use of force.’258 Perhaps this was Caesar speaking from experience, or perhaps this was intended as a word of warning to contemporary powers.

Set in 48 BC, The Slave makes a few substantial digressions from the established narrative, mostly concerning Crassus. For instance, the film suggests that in 48 BC Zeugma is occupied by Crassus, that Caesar has crossed the Rubicon, but that Rome is not in a state of civil war. In the opening scenes

Caesar mentions that Pompey is no threat. Later, however, when trying to win Randus’ allegiance,

Crassus discusses Caesar taking Pompey’s head in a basket.259 While this is a common image in film

(particularly later in Cleopatra (1963)), it certainly does not occur in Crassus’ lifetime. According to most historical accounts, Crassus merely crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma. He did not occupy

Zeugma.260 In addition, Crassus suffered defeat and death in Parthia in 53 BC, well before the events of this film are said to have taken place. Dio recounts a version of Crassus’ death in which Parthians

‘poured molten gold into his mouth in mockery.’261 This scene is reflected in The Slave when the rebelling slaves pour gold over Crassus.262 However, both Plutarch and Dio suggest that Crassus was killed in battle with the Parthians.263 In this film Crassus is denied the honour of dying in battle.

Another anomaly is Caesar’s relation to Spartacus. There is no ancient account which suggests that

Caesar was in any way involved in Crassus’ fight against Spartacus. Yet Garrani’s Caesar had come face to face with Spartacus in battle and narrowly escaped with his life as Spartacus killed Caesar’s

258 Corbucci 1962: The Slave 1:40:33.

259 Corbucci 1962: The Slave 1:08:14.

260 Plut. Crass. 19.3; Cass. Dio 40.17.3.

261 Cass. Dio 40.27.3.

262 Corbucci 1962: The Slave 1:29:19, 1:31:24.

263 Plut. Crass. 31.5-6; Cass. Dio 40.27.2. Plutarch suggests that Crassus could have been killed by Pomaxathres or another. He also offers the detail that after Crassus was killed, his head and right hand were cut off. 80 horse with a slash that was meant for Caesar.264 This anecdote allowed Caesar to express his admiration for Spartacus, thereby endearing him to the audience. It is fairly common for peplum films to omit or alter established historical narratives for the sake of simplicity in plot and characterization.

However, these changes are rather more significant. Of course, historical accuracy was not the primary concern of these films, which were known to make substantial adjustments to established narratives in order to fit a particular plot and conform to a generic heroic image. This film is no different. In The Slave, most of Randus’ story is fictional. There is no mention of any son of Spartacus in the ancient accounts.

Caesar in this film emerges as a diplomatic and reasonable conqueror and in many ways the rightful leader of Rome. Randus, the hero of the film, expresses his opinion that ‘one head is better than two as the head of Rome,’ and it can be inferred that the audience is generally disposed to identify with the political point of view of the hero. 265 Lucanio describes this Caesar as ‘a diplomat as well as a warrior,’ though he is not harmless.266 In the opening scenes of this film the audience is told that the crucified slaves are there on Caesar’s orders. Although he is never depicted as outwardly cruel, as

Crassus is, Caesar very nearly sentences Randus to death, an act which might be seen as reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances.

Caesar the Conqueror (1962)

Caesar the Conqueror begins in 54 BC, as Caesar (Cameron Mitchell), having conquered Gaul, prepares to conquer Britain. Caesar and Caius Oppio (Cesare Fantoni) watch as a Gaul and German fight in the impromptu games put on at Caesar’s camp. In a fateful display of mercy Caesar grants the victor, the Gaul, his liberty. Vercingetorix (Rick Battaglia), the Gaul who was freed by Caesar,

264 Corbucci 1962: The Slave 10:30.

265 Corbucci 1962: The Slave 9:13.

266 Lucanio 1994: 292. 81 becomes the leader of all Gaul and encourages rebellion among the Gallic tribes.267 Caesar’s expedition is delayed, and he is forced to return to Italy in order to reorganize his legions. Members of the senate discuss Caesar’s request for more legions and question his motives for invading Gaul.

Although Caesar is in Italy, he does not attend this meeting of the senate, which greatly upsets Cicero

(Nerio Bernardi). Pompey addresses the senate and in doing so, addresses Caesar’s need for more legions, before suggesting that Caesar’s interest in Gaul stems from personal wealth and ambition rather than from motives relating to the benefit of Rome. A recurring theme in this film is the relationship between Caesar’s ambition and that of Rome. Caius Oppio, an ally and friend of Caesar, comes to his defence, reminding Cicero, Pompey, and the senators that Caesar is ‘incapable of acting out of self-interest’ and that he filled Rome’s treasuries at the first opportunity.268 In an attempt to forge an alliance between Caesar and Cicero, Publia (Raffaella Carrà), Caesar’s ward, is to be married to Quintus Cicero, much to the dismay of Caesar’s messenger Claudius Valerius (Ivo Payer). Caesar enters Gaul with Claudius Valerius and ten men to quash Vercingetorix’s rebellion. Eventually, the opposing forces of Caesar and Vercingetorix meet on the battlefield at Gergovia and Caesar’s men are momentarily defeated. Here the narrative is interrupted by a battle montage rather than a series of easily identifiable battles, a common method of reducing the cost of filming. As such, the sequence begins with Caesar’s momentary defeat but ends with Vercingetorix’s surrender at Alesia and the union of Claudius Valerius and Publia.

Caesar’s ambitions are called into question a number of times in this film. It is clear that he equates his ambition with that of Rome, while his enemies in the senate believe that he is motivated by personal wealth and glory. Caesar’s aims for Rome are fanciful and idealistic. In an early scene, before the rebellion of Vercingetorix has reached its peak, Caesar and Pompey discuss politics in

Italy. In justification of his request for more legions, Caesar explains that this is ‘all part of a greater

267 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 9:26.

268 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 13:25. 82 plan for a greater democracy.’269 Caesar explains that it is his dream to ‘see a new state with radical reforms…for example a new economy functioning without the aid of warfare and slavery.’270

According to Pompey, it is this very ambition which threatens the senate,271 an ambition which Caesar assures Pompey is in line with their shared aim ‘to further Rome’s destiny.’272 The senate, under the influence of an ageing Cicero, observes that Caesar poses a substantial threat to the Republic. Cicero recalls Sulla’s warning that the ambitions of Marius are in Caesar and proposes that Caesar should be brought back to Rome to account for his actions.273 While Caesar stresses the purity of his aims in answer to those who criticise his ambition within the senate, these concerns are not addressed again in any detail. Once Vercingetorix surrenders to Caesar, the film ends with the union of the young lovers and no further mention is made of Pompey, Cicero, or Caesar’s threat to the Republic.274

Caesar is definitely the hero of this film. Although perhaps momentarily the audience is slightly sympathetic towards the fighting Gaul, once Vercingetorix establishes himself as the leader of the

Gallic tribes there is a clear contrast between the characters of Caesar and Vercingetorix as the hero and villain of the film. Overall, Caesar’s heroic qualities can be observed in his treatment of others, his military prowess, and his ambition. Mitchell’s Caesar does have an air of arrogance throughout the film, which perhaps is not unreasonable and indeed fits with the established accounts of Caesar.

269 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 10:39.

270 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 10:39-56. This is problematic for a number of reasons. Democracy was never truly an aim of the Roman Republic, although a democracy – in the sense that the people held power – could benefit

Caesar, as a favourite among the people. Caesar is generally criticized for establishing a dictatorship or tyranny rather than a democracy. A desire to see a state functioning without warfare or slavery is never included among the aims and intentions of Caesar.

271 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 10:58.

272 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 10:56.

273 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 14:34-15:03.

274 Lucanio 1994: 29. Lucanio explains that the standard plot of a peplum film ends in marriage. 83 He dictates two letters simultaneously, one to his beloved Calpurnia, another to Caius Oppio, and at the same time he dictates the Bellum Gallicum, beginning with ‘All Gaul is divided into three parts…’275 Mitchell’s Caesar frequently refers to himself in the third person, and assures both

Claudius Valerius and Mark Antony that they should not fear because ‘Caesar is with [them].’276 Here

Caesar is depicted as a modern hero because of his lofty aims of the abolition of slavery which are certainly in line with twentieth-century ideals and are entirely unrealistic for the first century BC.

Caesar consistently treats his soldiers of all ranks with respect. He fights with them on the battlefield, and refers to them with terms of endearment as ‘my son’ or ‘my friend.’277 When Caesar enters Gaul with Valerius and his ten men, he finds shelter for the wounded and spends the night out in the open with a local Gaul and his sheep.278 Actions such as these inspire loyalty in his men. Caesar’s interaction with women is limited in this film, but he dictates an affectionate letter to Calpurnia and by the end of the film cancels the marriage between Publia and Quintus Cicero, out of care and affection for Claudius Valerius and Publia.279

Caesar’s reputation as a military commander is acknowledged by Pompey in the opening line of his address to the senate. He assures the senate that Caesar is ‘undoubtedly a great military man.’280 In addition to this, in this film Caesar’s actions support his reputation as being proficient both in military tactics and strategy and in physical combat. Caesar fights valiantly with his men against Vercingetorix and makes insightful decisions on when and how to face his enemy. Caesar’s dialogue in the midst

275 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 22:49.

276 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 27:10, 1:05:05.

277 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 27:10, 1:26:35.

278 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 30:00-33:43.

279 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 51:51.

280 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 12:58. 84 of battle with Vercingetorix is particularly revealing of the overall image of Caesar in this film. When faced with probable defeat, Caesar is concerned that Vercingetorix will not know how to use his victory and proclaims that ‘only Rome can teach respect…for the law…[and] point the way…to tomorrow.’281 This, in conjunction with Caesar’s lofty aims of sustaining Rome without warfare and slavery, presents an image of Caesar as the civiliser of Gaul. Vercingetorix is incapable of successfully leading the Gauls, so that only Rome, with Caesar at the helm, could bring civilization, peace and prosperity to these tribes. In this final battle the audience is positioned to side with Caesar and rejoice in the surrender of the Gallic chief. Here Vercingetorix is the oppressive ruler, who is overthrown by Caesar, who in turn restores order to Gaul.282

It is therefore necessary for Vercingetorix to be depicted as an inhumane villain who is incapable of leading Gaul, in contrast to the valiant Roman conqueror. After he is freed and made leader of Gaul,

Vercingetorix is consistently portrayed as villainous. He treats his allies terribly, becoming irate when tribes arrive to join his cause without any cavalry.283 He frequently employs torture, Claudius is whipped, another man is blinded, and another is threatened with having his hand removed.284

Vercingetorix’s treatment of women, particularly Queen Astrid (Dominique Wilms) and Publia, his hostage, is also typical of a peplum villain.285 In his commentaries on the Gallic Wars, Caesar provides some insight into the character of Vercingetorix who:

…paid especial attention to the cavalry. To the utmost care he added the utmost strictness

281 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 1:29:30-1:30:00.

282 Lucanio 1994: 6.

283 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 36:55.

284 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 35:40, 48:44, 55:30, 57:07. This use of torture and brutality aligns with the conventional characterization of a peplum villain.

285 Boccia 1962: Caesar the Conqueror 39:00, 1:15:10. 85 of command, compelling waverers by severity of punishment. Indeed for the commission

of a greater offence he put [men] to death with fire and all manner of tortures; for a lesser

case he sent a man home with his ears cut off or one eye gouged out, to point the moral

to the rest and terrify others by the severity of the penalty.286

In this passage Caesar describes his enemy. He emphasizes Vercingetorix’s use of severe punishment in contrast to his own mercy. In the opening titles Caesar the Conqueror claims to be an adaptation of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, and therefore adopts and exaggerates this image of Vercingetorix. Rather than the hero and unifier of the Gallic tribes, Vercingetorix is depicted as a vicious, rebellious leader, who opposes Caesar’s attempts to bring peace and civilization to Gaul. This portrayal of

Vercingetorix complements the image of Caesar employed in the film and simultaneously justifies

Caesar’s conquest of Gaul and reinforces the purity of his motivations. This is an Italian rather than

French peplum film which could partially explain this portrayal of Caesar as a gracious civiliser rather than a ruthless conqueror.

Overall, Mitchell’s Caesar emerges as a justifiably confident commander who fights alongside his men and treats all men and women with due respect, who aims to save Gaul from itself, or from

Vercingetorix an incapable leader, and who ultimately wants to bring peace to Rome and an end to slavery. This image is far removed from that of the merciless genocidal invader of Gaul.

Consequently, this film adds to the increasingly favourable image of Caesar even in instances where a more complicated portrayal might be expected.

The Giants of Rome (1964)

Set in 52 BC, The Giants of Rome (1964), directed by Antonio Margheriti, opens with news that

Caesar (Alessandro Sperli) has been struggling to conquer Gaul for six long years. He asks the Senate

286 Caes. BGall. 7.4. 86 for additional legions, a request which is promptly rejected. In Rome, Pompey (Piero Lulli) and

Cicero (Gianni Solaro) discuss Caesar’s increasing power. Again, as with Caesar the Conqueror

(1963), this initial insight into the politics of the late Republic is soon abandoned as another storyline emerges. Pompey and Cicero do not make another appearance in this film. This is perhaps due to the nature of the peplum genre. The political tensions of Pompey, Caesar, and Cicero are certainly complicated. For a contemporary audience which was more concerned with the fate of the Giants and the young lovers, this political background might have proved too distracting, or perhaps even irrelevant. Caesar is not the hero of this film, though he does facilitate the main story line. In an attempt to gain an advantage over the Gauls, Caesar sends five elite soldiers to infiltrate the Gauls’ camp and destroy their Druid’s secret weapon.287 These men, or giants, led by Claudius Marcellus

(Richard Harrison), embark on their perilous journey losing all but two men before finding the weapon, a catapult. Along the way, the giants are captured by the Gauls and meet another Roman soldier, Drusus (Philippe Hersent), and Livilla (Wandisa Guida). Claudius and Livilla develop a romantic interest in one another and Livilla eventually softens Claudius’ hardened heart. The remaining men infiltrate the Gallic camp and destroy the weapon. Only Claudius and Livilla escape and reach Caesar just in time. Caesar sends the lovers with a message to the senate and instructs them to marry in the temple of Venus.

In general, Caesar plays a relatively minor role in this film. Most of the action and screen time is focused on the Giants. Caesar is shrewd and well-versed in military tactics. He is older, balding, and relatively short-statured. In comparison to Pompey, Sperli’s Caesar is less physically commanding.

Pompey wears a breastplate while Caesar wears a black toga. Sperli’s Caesar inspires great and

287 The idea that the Gauls had a secret weapon is not unusual, especially in popular culture – as in Asterix. The focus on a secret weapon, both in this film and in general, could be a reflection of contemporary concerns surrounding the atomic bomb and nuclear weapons more broadly. This theme is also derived from films such as Guns of Navarone (1961) in which a select group of men seek out and destroy secret weapons. 87 undying loyalty among his men. This causes concern in Rome, where Pompey and Cicero fear that

Caesar’s soldiers show greater loyalty to him than to Rome.288 This is made abundantly clear from the outset and throughout. However, there is one exception. Caesar’s actions in Gaul are criticised more heavily in this film than in others. Claudius is avidly dedicated to Caesar’s cause and their mission. He only displays signs of wavering faith after the death of Valerius, the young boy who accompanied the men on their mission. When Claudius finds the boy still alive after being tortured by the Gauls, he praises him with the words, ‘Caesar is only Caesar. You are a hero.’289 Shortly afterwards, the Giants arrive at a set of Gallic ruins. Both Claudius and Livilla express their regret that the Gallic people have been massacred in such a way.290 This leads to a momentary lapse in

Claudius’ faith and loyalty to Caesar. It is the only time Claudius shows any sign of questioning

Caesar and his conquest of Gaul. The fact that Giants is an Italian-French co-production could perhaps partially explain this more critical approach, acknowledging Caesar’s massacre of the Gallic ancestors.291 However, this criticism and dissent are dissolved by the end of the film and become a secondary concern of the characters, who remain loyal to their quest to destroy the Gauls’ weapon and aid in Caesar’s conquest. In contrast to Caesar the Conqueror, Sperli’s Caesar is distant, he is not directly involved in the fighting, and his actions in Gaul are temporarily criticised. Although the

Gauls are consistently vilified in this film, Caesar himself is not elevated to the status of a hero as his

Giants are. In this film Caesar orchestrates the action. He is a distant and dictatorial commander, not a soldier fighting with his men. In the end, Caesar is still not overtly villainous. He allows Claudius and Publia to marry and all is forgiven. There is no further serious comment on the negative consequences of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul.

288 Margheriti 1964: Giants of Rome 2:16.

289 Margheriti 1964: Giants of Rome 44:48.

290 Margheriti 1964: Giants of Rome 47:35. 291 This tendency to question the behaviour of the victors becomes common in Italian westerns which reflect the nuanced political views of the mid-60s. 88 This chapter has demonstrated how Caesar can be cast as either a somewhat brutal conqueror or a merciful civilising force. The image of Caesar as a conqueror is used frequently and for varying purposes in film, literature, and popular culture. Texts or films which employ this image tend to focus on Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, rather than on the later civil wars. While rising tensions in Rome surrounding Caesar’s ambition and success are often present, these issues are rarely resolved or discussed in great detail. Caesar’s military capability, merciful tendencies, and temperament are often highlighted in connection with this trope. In these examples Caesar rarely emerges as cruel or unjust.

Whether it is due to the conventions of genre, as in Asterix, or in line with audience appeal, these

Caesars are still remarkably kind and compassionate, they are admirable even in this arena where

Caesar’s historic actions were far from universally admired.

89 Chapter Four

Dictator Perpetuo: Enduring Receptions of Caesar the Dictator

This chapter will investigate the use of Caesar as a dictator from 1945-65. Arguably, this image of

Caesar is the most frequently adopted trope because it relates to the most politically charged period of his career. While the receptions encountered so far in this thesis have been markedly positive, this image of Caesar invites much criticism. Yet while the texts in this chapter are more critical of Caesar, they are not remarkably negative and are generally more cautionary. At a time when monarchies and dictatorships were waning in the wake of the Second World War, one might expect to find depictions of Caesar that are overtly negative and tyrannical. This would be a reasonable criticism of modern dictatorship and tyranny through an ancient dictator. The Caesars of this chapter, however, are for the most part moderate, positive, or cautionary portrayals of the dictator rather than negative. In most cases, depictions of Caesar as a dictator are centred on the events of his assassination and are heavily influenced by Shakespeare’s version of events. The cautionary image as against critical or evil can be attributed partially to the inescapable influence of Shakespeare. While these Caesars, particularly those influenced by Shakespeare, do encourage their audiences to exercise caution and promote liberty over tyranny, they are far from representing the epitome of tyranny and totalitarian dictatorship. The period highlighted in this chapter covers Caesar’s civil war with Pompey, his consecutive triumphs, his relationship with Cleopatra, the birth of Caesarion, his war in Spain, and his assassination. However, in promoting a positive image of Caesar, the authors of the texts under discussion make a number of omissions. It is understandably necessary to make some cuts when depicting Caesar’s final years, particularly on screen. Authors commonly devote extra screen time to his affair with Cleopatra, his death, and its aftermath because they attract the most interest and are arguably more entertaining for audiences. As a result, Caesar’s consecutive triumphs and the events of the civil war, particularly the Battle of Munda against Pompey’s sons, are all but universally forgotten. 90

The following events are generally absent from Caesar’s twentieth-century narrative:

- details of the civil war (battles, etc.)

- Caesar’s naval battle(s)

- the mutiny of legions

- Cato’s suicide

- his four triumphs (Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, Africa)

- Caesar in Spain (against Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey)

- most political manoeuvres during this time

- the birth of Caesarion is included occasionally

Shakespeare and Shaw omit all these events. It could be argued that the receptions in this chapter are so heavily influenced by these playwrights that they set the agenda. It might alternatively be that these events were not central to the narrative, were not of great entertainment value, or were not crucial to the audience following the story line. It seems perfectly logical to exclude most of the battles and details of the civil war since they are not always gripping and are often difficult for a modern audience to follow. An example of Caesar’s battles on screen in Caesar the Conqueror (1962) shows just how murky and challenging it is to portray these events convincingly. In any case, the absence of most of these events contributes to the generally mild nature of the receptions of Caesar because they are the events which would be most detrimental to a positive depiction, especially the civil wars, the mutiny of the legions, Cato’s suicide, and Caesar’s consecutive triumphs. Caesar’s involvement in the civil wars and his celebration of a victory over fellow Romans could be difficult to excuse. And yet, on the score of audience appeal, a cinematic depiction of Caesar’s elaborate quadruple triumph would surely be captivating to a modern audience. So too would a fast-paced, politically charged battle between Rome’s finest commanders. Including these sumptuous triumphs and large-scale battles could have been too elaborate and therefore too costly to depict on screen. Yet the omission of these 91 events undoubtedly contributed significantly to the positive image of Caesar which prevailed during this period.

Through the use of a number of case studies, this chapter will investigate how and why the image of

Caesar the dictator was employed in film, literature, and popular culture. First, the focus will be on

Caesar as a dictator on screen through Pascal’s Caesar and Cleopatra (1945), Mankiewicz’ Julius

Caesar (1953) and Cleopatra (1963), and Tourjanksy and Pierotti’s A Queen for Caesar (1962). The aim is to compare and contrast their approaches to Caesar, along with their influences, audience reception and subsequent productions. Attention will then be given to the use of Caesar in relation to two individuals, Benito Mussolini and Hendrik Verwoerd, primarily through an analysis of Archer’s

Twentieth Century Caesar: Benito Mussolini, and Robert Mohr’s production of Shakespeare’s Julius

Caesar (1960). Caesar the dictator has proven to be a popular choice for cinema. The three films mentioned above were well-received in their own right and are among the most popular cinematic renditions of Julius Caesar. They each provide considerably different takes on the final episode of

Caesar’s life with many discernible similarities. These films have also been responsible for subsequent parodies, including MAD Magazine’s guide to creating a lampoon comic (1955) and

Carry on Cleo (1964). Despite the differences in these productions they all offer a markedly moderate rendition of a particularly controversial image of Caesar.

Caesar and Cleopatra (1945)

In 1945 Gabriel Pascal directed a film adaptation of George Bernard Shaw’s 1895 play Caesar and

Cleopatra in which Claude Rains played Julius Caesar to Vivien Leigh’s Cleopatra. Work began on the film in 1938 and Shaw took an active role in the production from the outset and throughout. His involvement reached as far as paying special attention to casting, soundtrack, set designs, and costuming.292 Aside from a few additional scenes, the plot and characterisation remain largely the

292 Shaw in Dukore 1996: 33, 39, 172, 178. 92 same between the play and the film. Caesar first meets Cleopatra at the foot of a sphinx. Cleopatra, who is afraid that the Romans will eat her, is unaware of Caesar’s true identity and escorts the Roman back to her palace in order to learn how to impress ‘Julius Caesar’. Her first step towards impressing

Caesar and becoming Queen is to demonstrate her dominance over her slaves and nurse, Ftatateeta

(Flora Robson). The Queen-in-training takes to this quite quickly and upon the arrival of the Roman legions she discovers that her ‘old gentleman’ is Caesar himself. She smiles and embraces him warmly. Caesar is diplomatic in his dealings with Ptolemy (Anthony Harvey) and his advisors, though he soon finds himself at war with Achillas (Anthony Eustrel). Caesar is victorious, but his plans are disrupted by news of the death of Pothinus, a favourite of the people of Egypt, who had been slain by order of Cleopatra. This action caused a wave of civil unrest in Egypt which was soon suppressed by

Caesar and his men. Rufio (Basil Sydney), Caesar’s right-hand man, retaliates by murdering

Ftatateeta, who was chiefly responsible for Pothinus’ death. The film ends with Caesar leaving for

Rome, promising to send Mark Antony back for Cleopatra. At the time of its release, Caesar and

Cleopatra (1945) was the most expensive production in Britain, costing 3 million USD.293 This

British production was designed to challenge the Hollywood epics. Elley describes the film as ‘a wildly extravagant setting of Shaw’s satire on power and statesmanship, the consciously anti-epic bias all the more pointed for the majestic sets and costumes…and luxuriant Technicolor photography…’294 Pascal worked with Shaw on a number of stage-to-screen productions and

Solomon suggests that ‘Pascal…captured the superficially silly yet intellectually challenging contexts that characterize most of Shaw’s work.’295 Because this film is a reasonably faithful adaptation of

Shaw’s play, the Caesar depicted in this film is as much Shaw’s Caesar as it is Pascal’s.

It is clear through the correspondence of Shaw and Pascal that special care was taken in casting

293 Solomon 2001: 64.

294 Elley 2014: 92.

295 Solomon 2001: 64; Elley 2014: 92. 93 Caesar. Robert Donat was put forward as a potential candidate while Claude Rains appealed to both

Shaw and Pascal’s vision of Caesar.296 Rains projected a Caesar who was ageing and diplomatic, far from the militarily forthright Caesars we have encountered so far. Rains’ depiction of Caesar is unique. He is an older gentleman and is not in any way physically domineering or intimidating. For most of the film he is dressed in a white toga with a purple border (the toga praetexta of a Roman senator) and sports a green or gold laurel wreath. He occasionally appears in his military uniform. In terms of personality this Caesar is charming, merciful, and diplomatic, though his judgement and tendency towards mercy are questioned frequently and his foresight is often underestimated by other characters.297 The significance of this portrayal is best understood when assessing Caesar in relation to Cleopatra and in terms of his political philosophy. Cleopatra is particularly vocal in criticising

Caesar for allowing slaves to insult him.298 In a climactic scene towards the end of the film Cleopatra takes matters into her own hands and orders Ftatateeta to kill Pothinus.299 This decision is supported by the rest of the cast as an act of vengeance.

Caesar’s relationship with Cleopatra adds an important dimension to his character. Leigh’s Cleopatra is young and naïve. When she meets Caesar at the Sphinx she believes that the Romans are barbarians who will eat the Egyptians, and that Caesar is the son of a tiger and a burning mountain with a nose like an elephant’s trunk.300 Throughout the course of the film Caesar teaches Cleopatra how to act like the Queen of Egypt.301 This relationship is not romantic in any sense. Caesar surpasses Cleopatra in physical and mental maturity. The age difference between the two is emphasised consistently with

296 Shaw in Dukore 1996: 33,79.

297 Pascal 1945: Caesar and Cleopatra 38:37-42:00.

298 Pascal 1945: Caesar and Cleopatra 1:43:45.

299 Pascal 1945: Caesar and Cleopatra 1:43:45.

300 Pascal 1945: Caesar and Cleopatra 11:00. In Cleopatra (1963), Cleopatra (Taylor) expresses similar sentiments to

Antony (Burton) in an intimate scene, though these thoughts are considered to be the dreams or nightmares of young girls.

301 Solomon 2001: 64. 94 Cleopatra regularly referring to Caesar as an ‘old gentleman’ and drawing attention to his balding head as his reason for wearing a wreath.302 To reinforce her lack of attraction for Caesar, Cleopatra repeatedly professes her admiration and fear of young men with round strong arms. 303 In a letter to

Pascal in February of 1945, Shaw responded to Pascal’s request for a new scene featuring Cleopatra in a negligee:

The new scene, if I can write it, will not be exactly like that, because you have changed

the child Cleopatra into the wily woman of forty with all her flacons and fripperies; and

this does not even begin to occur in the play until after the lighthouse scene, which is the

first breach in unity of time. As to her caring about the war news, or dragging in

resemblance to the present war, of which everyone is now heartily sick, it is out of the

question. The Cleopatra of the new scene must still be a child…304

Shaw opposed this adjustment to the portrayal of Cleopatra who was to remain an unromanticised child. Again, Shaw made this abundantly clear in a letter dated to March 1944, explaining that ‘it is extremely important that Cleopatra’s charm shall be that of a beautiful child, not of sex. The whole play would be disgusting if Caesar were an old man seducing a child. Ftata must be the sexual attraction.’305 Flora Robinson’s portrayal of Ftatateeta was by no means the focus of sexual attraction in the film. Shaw’s reluctance in sexualising Cleopatra was in line with his original intention in Three

Plays for Puritans, released in 1901 featuring The Devil’s Disciple (1897), Caesar and Cleopatra

(1898), and Captain Brassbound’s Conversion (1900). In this collection Shaw expressed a general opposition to sex being the primary form of universal appeal which disgusted him not because he was

302 Pascal 1945: Caesar and Cleopatra 54:34 – 55:20; Shaw in Dukore 1996: 172

303 Pascal 1945: Caesar and Cleopatra 10:20; Wyke 2008: 111.

304 Shaw in Dukore 1996: 166; Wyke 2008: 112.

305 Shaw in Dukore 1996: 166. Shaw often abbreviates Ftatateeta as Ftata in correspondence with Pascal. 95 ‘intolerantly refined, but because [he] was bored; and boredom is a condition which makes men as susceptible to disgust and irritation as headache them to noise and glare.’306 Wyke explains the aims of Three Plays for Puritans as being ‘to rescue British theatre from its current obsession with the vulgar theme of clandestine adultery, to free it from the ‘deification of Love’, and to produce edifying plays only intellectual puritans would appreciate.’307 Throughout the film no mention is made of

Caesarion and while the final portrayal of Vivien Leigh’s Cleopatra is more sexualised than Shaw intended, it is far tamer than later cinematic depictions of the Egyptian Queen. In the passage above,

Shaw expressed his reluctance to mention or at least draw any additional attention to ‘the present war’, particularly through Cleopatra. This was because it would be contradictory for Shaw’s child- like Cleopatra to concern herself with matters of war, and because Shaw’s audience would be bored by the topic of war. This suggests that any perceived connection between Rain’s Caesar and British policy during the Second World War is unintentional.

The overall image of Caesar in this film is one of a peaceful diplomat rather than a militaristic conqueror or dictator. This positive rendition of Caesar is directly related to Shaw’s original idealised view of Caesar. Although this character does not embody a stereotypical modern hero, this Caesar is a Shavian hero. Wyke suggests that Shaw ‘purifies the Roman statesman, returns him to the pristine condition of the self-authored Caesar of the Latin commentaries, and even elevates him into the

Shavian conception of political greatness – a genius who exercises power objectively, without vengeance.’308 Shaw’s Caesar is a great but imperfect man, who, far from being a typical hero, is clearly flawed. He is old, balding, he forgives too easily and is hesitant in enacting ‘necessary vengeance.’309 Shaw explained and defended his narrative choices in response to criticism of the play:

306 Shaw 1906: xii-xiii.

307 Wyke 2008: 112.

308 Wyke: 2008: 112.

309 Vesonder 1979: 74; Bertolini 1981: 338. 96

The chronicle ties you to the exposition of Caesar’s position at Alexandria; and there is

no drama in it because Caesar was so completely superior to his adversaries that there was

virtually no conflict, only a few adventures, chiefly the hairbreadth escape when he

jumped into the harbour. I was desperate about the business until, like Columbus with the

egg, I solved the problem by making Cleopatra commit a murder. Of course the main feat

to be performed was to do what Wully Shakspere didn’t (his object being to heroify

Brutus): that is, present Caesar as a great man with a genuine differentiation of character

& view in the greater direction…. It is true that I have done this by making rather small

beer of the protagonists; but I think he dwarfs them fairly and that his eminence is

something more than an illusion produced by the flatness of the surrounding country. That

achieved, I give up the rest as hopeless.310

This is clearly a very supportive and sympathetic view of Caesar. It is possible and even likely that

Shaw’s favourable view of Caesar was informed by Mommsen’s Caesar. In her work designed to accompany Caesar and Cleopatra (1945), Meeting at the Sphinx, Marjorie Deans included an excerpt from Mommsen’s History of Rome as ‘Historical Background’ to the film.311 Although Shaw did not endorse this text wholeheartedly, his Caesar fits within the tradition of Caesar reception promoted by

Mommsen.312 In summary, Shaw viewed Caesar as a man with no equal, at least in Caesar and

Cleopatra. Shaw explained that:

…we want credible heroes. The old demand for the incredible, the impossible, the

superhuman, which was supplied by bombast, inflation, and the piling of crimes on

310 Shaw in the Play Pictorial 11:307 in Vesonder 1979: 75.

311 Deans 1946: 15.

312 Shaw in Dukore 1996: 185. 97 catastrophes and factitious raptures on artificial agonies, has fallen off; and the demand

now is for heroes in whom we can recognize our own humanity, and who, instead of

walking, talking, eating, drinking, sleeping, making love and fighting single combats in a

monotonous ecstasy of continuous heroism, are heroic in the true human fashion: that is,

touching the summits only at rare moments, and finding the proper level of all occasions,

condescending with humour and good sense to the prosaic ones as well as rising to the

noble ones, instead of ridiculously persisting in rising to them all on the principle that a

hero must always soar, in season and out of season.313

Shaw’s ideal Caesar, a credible hero but nevertheless a flawed man, is the dominant image of this cinematic Caesar. Shaw’s involvement in the casting, characterisation, and action of the play is evident in his correspondence with Pascal. It can be said that the primary reason for this positive rendition of Caesar is Shaw’s idealised view of the dictator.

Julius Caesar (1953)

Mankiewicz’s 1953 adaptation of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar features a comparatively minor but still highly nuanced depiction of Caesar. While Caesar (Louis Calhern) graces the screen very briefly, his life and death act as a catalyst to the actions and debates for the duration of the film. This image of Caesar could be classified as negative in so far as Shakespeare’s play depicts the assassination of

Caesar the tyrant. However, I would argue that Calhern’s Caesar is not nearly menacing enough to be considered a truly negative use of Caesar. This Caesar evokes an indifferent response from the audience. He is not brutal and merciless, nor is he charming and kind. The audience learns of Caesars faults from Brutus (James Mason) and Cassius (John Gielgud) and of his admirable qualities and actions from Mark Antony (Marlon Brando). This level of indifference is required to position the audience to witness the debates between Brutus and Mark Antony in a desired way. The majority of

313 Shaw in the Play Pictorial 11:307 in Vesonder 1979: 75. 98 the action of the play is driven by Brutus and Antony and their respective political agendas. In the film, however, their ensuing debate and the manner in which they interact with and persuade the

Roman people is the focus. The film was created at the height of the Hollywood Blacklist and the accompanying fear-mongering has influenced the overall theme and message of this film. The muted negativity of Caesar in Julius Caesar (1953) is necessary to convey this message effectively.

Mankiewicz’s Caesar does not depart drastically from Shakespeare’s original. The narrative, dialogue, and action of the play remain largely unchanged. Caesar is of course killed by the conspirators in an act of tyrannicide. Therefore, by necessity, Caesar must be a tyrant and a negative figure. Certainly, Calhern’s rendition of Caesar is not positive to the extent we have seen in earlier chapters. He is ageing, ill, and deaf in one ear.314 In addition, he is particularly susceptible to flattery and persuasion, first by Calpurnia to avoid the Senate, then by Decimus Brutus to attend. 315 None of these aspects endear Caesar to the audience. They do not, however, create the image of an unstoppable dictator. The unforgivable elements of Caesar’s character are provided by the conspirators. It is through Cassius and Casca that the audience learns of Caesar’s physical shortcomings, while Brutus voices a concern for Caesar’s unwavering tyrannical ambition.316 The character himself does not express any desire to be king of Rome, nor does he display any overtly cruel or violent behaviour.

Even Caesar’s actions have an air of indifference. His repeated refusal of the crown when it is offered by Antony at the Lupercalia could be interpreted either as an earnest refusal of monarchy or as an act of public manipulation.317 Similarly, his entrance onto the stage and into Rome is excessive but it is not necessarily damning. In the scenes following Caesar’s assassination, the conspirators stress the

314 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 2 Line 1; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 15:30-5.

315 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 2 Scene 2 Lines 1-56, 60-107; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 42:00-50, 44:45-

45:00.

316 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 100-3; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 10:17-11:35.

317 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 221-251; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 16:00-17:25. 99 gravity of the threat Caesar posed to the Republic, while Antony praises the dictator’s generosity and benevolence. These diametrically opposed interpretations of Caesar’s character are subsequently justified by these men. Caesar himself fits neither extreme. Although hardly admirable, this Caesar is not irredeemably negative. The impression is surely by design because the rest of the film explores the moral dilemma of murder or tyrannicide. The Roman people are first convinced by Brutus that the act was justified, an attempt to free Rome from Caesar’s tyranny.318 Moments later Antony delivers Caesar’s eulogy and persuades the mob to view the assassination as murder.319 The believability of this exchange, and the notion that the people could so easily believe both Brutus and

Antony, is dependent on the film’s Caesar. If Caesar was clearly a tyrant who sought to bring tyranny and oppression to Rome, the mob would not readily believe Antony’s claims. In this case, the rest of the film and the gravity of the debates would be lost. The impression created by Caesar in this film is necessarily mild because it facilitates the ongoing discussion and action between his supporters and murderers which is the true focus of the film.

After Antony finds Caesar’s bloody body, he and Brutus truly take command of the stage. As an honourable man Brutus delivers the news to the raging mob and momentarily justifies his actions, appearing solemn and earnest in his address. However, it is evident that Brutus underestimated both

Antony and the collective fear and power of the Roman people. Antony takes to the rostrum and delivers one of the most powerful and memorable cinematic renditions of this eulogy. When Antony begins speaking, the people believe that Caesar’s death was justifiable as an act of tyrannicide, shouting ‘This Caesar was a tyrant’ in response.320 Through a series of cunning quips and conniving comments, Antony draws on their communal fear and suggests that this act was, on the contrary,

318 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 3 Scene 2 Lines 13-42; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 1:04:50-1:06:20.

319 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 3 Scene 2 Lines 75-199; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 1:09:10-1:13:05 .

320 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 3 Scene 2 Line 68; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 1:08:50-3. 100 ‘bloody treason.’321

In relation to the Cold War context and the McCarthy-era Blacklisting, an individual’s ability to manipulate public opinion by playing on public fear was a very real threat. Antony fulfils this role within the film. While delivering Caesar’s eulogy, Antony pauses, turning his face away from the crowd because his ‘heart is in the coffin there with Caesar…’322 The image Antony presents to the crowd is one overwhelmed by emotion. Yet when he turns to face the camera Antony’s expression changes. He does not cry but listens intently to the crowd in order to gauge his impact. Realising his ability to persuade the people, he then smirks and delivers his final calculated blows to his audience.323

Hartley explains that this film reflects the contemporary American political identity driven by a ‘fear of mob rule, fear of communists, but also a fear of informants…’324 If this version of Antony is designed to reflect the power of a charismatic and dangerous figure in the US, the casting of Brando adds to this effect.325 Whether intentional or incidental, the casting of Brando as Antony Americanised the role, particularly in contrast to the very British portrayals of the conspirators. This is immediately evident in the different acting styles employed by the British cast members in contrast to Brando’s method acting. The HUAC were by name and by nature opposed to any un-American sentiments, mentalities and activities. Brando’s Antony emphasises the interests of the Roman people, and

Caesar’s position as an exemplary Roman leader. In the same way as a contemporary American might stress the importance of American mentality and unity in the face of the spread of Communism.

Hartley illustrates the potential significance of an altercation which occurred between Mankiewicz and Cecil B DeMille a few years earlier. DeMille and Mankiewicz clashed both professionally and

321 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 3 Scene 2 Line 194; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 1:15:47-9.

322 Shakespeare Julius Caesar Act 3 Scene 2 Line 108-10; Mankiewicz 1953: Julius Caesar 1:11:14-52..

323 Wyke 2012: 135-6.

324 Miller 2000: 98; Hartley 2015: 57.

325 Hartley 2015: 57, 62. 101 politically, exemplifying two extremes – Mankiewicz as the humble liberal and DeMille as the champion of nationalism against Communism.326 In 1950 Mankiewicz was the president of the Screen

Directors Guild (SDG). After proposing that all members should sign an obligatory loyalty oath

DeMille tried and failed to demote Mankiewicz, suggesting that he had unAmerican, Communist sympathies and that he promoted this political view in his films.327 According to Navasky, DeMille went so far as to leak ‘items to the trade papers hinting that Mankiewicz was a “pinko,” and a “fellow traveller,” an unreliable intellectual.’328 To make matters worse, DeMille showed ‘what the director

Robert Parrish has called a “secret Joseph Mankiewicz film festival,” whose purpose was to identify the subversion and agitprop in such films as The Philadelphia Story (1940), If I Had a Million (1932), and Million Dollar Legs (1932).’329 Both Houseman and Mankiewicz were suspected of having

Communist connections or at the very least of being Left-leaning, and were criticised as a result. In a full membership meeting DeMille made a speech to the SDG which was reminiscent of Antony’s eulogy in Julius Caesar, beginning by professing DeMille’s intents “neither to praise Caesar, nor to bury him” and stressing that Mankiewicz and his supporters were “honourable, good Americans”.330

This is not to say that Mankiewicz’s Antony was a direct product of this interaction with DeMille.

However, this type of man, a persuasive, respected, all-American nationalist is reflected in Antony and in the setting of fear and paranoia expressed in Julius Caesar. This connection might seem quite specific, yet it is likely that this sort of scenario was a concern for Mankiewicz – that prominent,

326 Hartley 2015: 70.

327 Navasky 1980: 179: Hartley 2015: 69-70.

328 Navasky 1980: 180; Hartley 2015: 70.

329 Navasky 1980: 180.

330 Hartley (2015: 71) makes this connection. However, this is slightly problematic as Navasky suggests that DeMille attacked Mankiewiz’s supporters as ‘unserious, subversive, and “foreign born.”’(1980: 181) In either version, it is clear that DeMille’s sentiments would have been the same. What is unclear is whether he expressed these ideas bluntly or through a veil of sarcasm, and to what extent he directly engaged with Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Navasky 1980: 181;

Hartley 2015: 71. 102 charismatic, and conniving individuals might play on the ill-founded fear of the American people for their own political purposes. Miller supports this by suggesting that Antony’s audience are ‘passively gazing people [who] embody a cold-war quiescence. Like the film’s Romans, the citizens of 1950s liberal democracy express opinions and vote for candidates, but they only react to the choices offered them; they do not initiate political action.’ 331 Bearing this in mind, Caesar’s characterization might not be a direct product of the political circumstances of this film. Yet the depiction of Caesar as a muted dictator made the ensuing debate and message possible.332

In addition to this, the somewhat apolitical and evasive nature of Calhern’s Caesar allows for a varied mix of contemporary applications. Recent readings of this film have produced conflicting interpretations of Caesar and the political significance of the film. Miller identifies a number of contemporary connotations which include both foreign and familiar political threats. The recurring statues of Caesar which adorn the streets of Mankiewicz’ Rome are reminiscent of Russia’s

‘omnipresent images of Stalin.’333 Wyke echoes this sentiment and suggests that this film could be seen to comment on the Soviet Union under Stalin as well as Nazi Germany under Hitler as these regimes ‘were frequently conflated as totalitarian regimes in academic and political discourse in order to place them polemically in opposition to the liberal, constitutional governments of the West.’334

This use of Caesar can be read as a criticism of modern dictatorship more broadly, engaging with the politics of the Second World War as well as the Cold War. Following Wyke, Julius Caesar (1953) seems to argue ‘that dictators are destined (and deserve) to die.’ 335 These interpretations are supported

331 Miller 2000: 99; Hartley 2015: 57.

332 The main spin-off from this production was a comic appearing in MAD Magazine in 1955. This feature uses Julius

Caesar (1953) as an instructional section on how to write a lampoon article. The section features clear illustrations of

Calhern, Brando, and Mason, as well as machine guns and Marilyn Monroe.

333 Miller 2000: 96.

334 Wyke 2012: 134.

335 Wyke 2012: 119, 132. 103 to a certain degree by the synopsis of Julius Caesar (1953) released to the press by MGM. This film:

deals with realities of which present generations throughout the world are well, and sadly,

aware – the jealous lust for power which breeds dictatorship and erupts in political

violence; the twin tyrannies of autocratic government and mob rule, and the intense human

conflict of those caught between such opposing forces. Letting present-day connotations

of this great drama speak for themselves, in terms of recent and contemporary world

events, M-G-M brings Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” to the screen in its traditional and

classic form.336

Houseman’s explanation of the film’s “contemporary consciousness” further supports these political readings of Calhern’s Caesar:

While never deliberately exploiting the historic parallels, there were certain emotional

patterns arising from political events of the immediate past that we were prepared to evoke

– Hitler, Mussolini and Ciano at the Brenner pass; the assemblage at Munich; Stalin and

Ribbentrop signing the Pact and similar smiling conference-table friendships that soon

ripened into violence and death. Also Hitler at Nuremberg and Compiegne, and later in

the Berlin rubble; Mussolini on his balcony with that same docile mob massed below

which later watched him hanging by his feet, dead.’337

These interpretations of Caesar as reminiscent of the dictators of the recent past and contemporary politics were derived from a number of cinematic techniques. The sets were designed to resemble

336 MGM Press Release in Wyke 2004: 59; Wyke 2012: 118.

337 Houseman 1953: 26; Derrick 1998: 202-7; Wyke 2012: 131. 104 Ancient Rome complete with eagles and standards.338 However, in 1953, this imagery was also reminiscent of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany on account of their adoption of Roman motifs.

Famously, MGM released Julius Caesar (1953) in black and white although Technicolor was readily available at the time. This provided an impression of a news-reel or examples of the propaganda which plagued Second World War audiences.339 Houseman invites the comparison between Caesar and the somewhat hollow Caesars of recent history, claiming that ‘Louis Calhern is, we think, a more human and disturbing Caesar than many of the pompous and hollow dictators of past productions.’340

Casting Calhern as Caesar provides an additional layer of meaning as he was known for playing ‘gang leaders or paternalistic mobsters.’341 While this does not necessarily cement the interpretation of this film as a comment on the dictators of the Second World War, as the association of Caesar with the

Italian-American mob scene is prevalent, it does reinforce the impression of Caesar as a formidable and somewhat dangerous leader. Miller further complicates this reading of Caesar by suggest that

Calhern ‘plays Caesar with a brusque confidence that shows the political appeal of the

MacArthuresque general, while sliding into the overbearing hubris that made MacArthur also mistrusted.’342

In addition, there are a number of interpretations of this Caesar which focus on internal politics.

Within the USA the struggle between Brutus and Caesar has been read as a comment on the political campaigns of Adlai Stevenson and Dwight D. Eisenhower. The struggle between Liberal candidate or ‘Republican senator’ and general-president or ‘skilled demagogue’ could very easily be reflected

338 Wyke 2004: 61.

339 Wyke 2004: 60, 70.

340 Houseman 1953: 27.

341 Wyke 2004: 67; Wyke 2012: 138-9.

342 Miller 2000: 96. 105 in the opposing factions of Brutus and Caesar although both pairs met very different ends.343 More in line with earlier readings of Mark Antony as a comment on the McCarthyist era, Calhern’s Caesar has been interpreted as a reflection of Joseph McCarthy.344 Miller’s claims that Calhern’s Caesar was intended as a comment on both internal and international politics, with specific connections to

American and international leaders, are reasonable, though they seem rather contradictory and convoluted. Nonetheless, it can be said with some certainty that the ambiguity of this Caesar allows for a variety of interpretations and facilitates these contrasting perceptions.

The creators of Julius Caesar (1953) certainly had a level of “contemporary consciousness” when devising and producing this film. However, this connection to the oppressive regimes of the Second

World War and the Cold War do not cement its meaning. The intended meaning of a film can and often does differ substantially from audience interpretation. The politics woven throughout this film are sufficiently vague to allow for a variety of interpretations. As Wyke aptly explains ‘The rich intertextuality and the complex construction of MGM’s Julius Caesar open up the possibility of additional, even contradictory, readings of this film’s Caesar.’345 In addition to this, Calhern’s Caesar is sufficiently politically ambigious and necessarily mild so as to accommodate and facilitate the political debate which dominates the rest of the film. Here Caesar could be a comment on the Fascist and Nazi dicators of the past, or on the rising Caesar-figures the US. This is only possible because the image of Caesar present in this film is of a muted dictator who evokes a somewhat indifferent response in his audience.

Cleopatra (1963)

In 1963 Rex Harrison played a debonair Julius Caesar to Elizabeth Taylor’s iconic Cleopatra in

343 Wyke 2004: 67; Wyke 2012: 140.

344 Wyke 2012: 140-7.

345 Wyke 2012: 138. 106 Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra. Harrison, known for his charming aristocratic roles, had an ambivalent appeal which suited the role of Caesar. Mankiewicz’s second attempt at recounting the events of the late Republic featured a positive image of Caesar the dictator. The first half of the film begins with

Caesar addressing Pompey’s officers after his victory at Pharsalus. Caesar meets Ptolemy and his advisors, who present him with Pompey’s head. Soon afterwards Cleopatra presents herself to Caesar in a rug and is reinstated as Queen of Egypt. Ptolemy and his advisors are removed from the palace as Caesar and Cleopatra grow closer. As promised, Cleopatra gives birth to a son, Caesarion, whom

Caesar accepts as his own in front of his men. Caesar returns to Rome and Cleopatra follows making a grand entrance. Before long, Caesar is assassinated in a meeting of the Senate and Cleopatra leaves for Alexandria with Caesarion. The second half of the film shows Antony and Cleopatra’s tumultuous love story. Antony reluctantly joins Cleopatra for a banquet on her barge and eventually joins her in

Egypt. The conflict between Antony and Octavian comes to a head at the battle of Actium and shortly afterwards Antony and Cleopatra end their lives.

There are a number of influential factors to consider when assessing this film. In the opening credits, the film claims to be based on the histories of ‘Plutarch, Suetonius, Appian, and other ancient sources,’ as well as on The Life and Times of Cleopatra (1957) by C.M. Franzero.346 While they are not identified in the credits as informing this film, the impact of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, and

Antony and Cleopatra, as well as Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra can be felt consistently throughout the film. Cleopatra is by no means an adaptation of a play, or a series of plays. The script was written by Mankiewicz and is not a reproduction of Shakespeare or Shaw. Shaw’s influence is felt briefly in

Caesar’s meeting with Ptolemy and his advisors, and to some degree in his appearance in Alexandria, although certainly not in the romantic relationship of Caesar and Cleopatra. For the most part, the characters of Caesar and Cleopatra as described by Franzero are consistent with the film. Caesar is significantly older than Cleopatra and they have mutual respect, eventual admiration and even love

346 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 2:10; Wyke 2007: 303. 107 for each other. 347 This film, and therefore this depiction of Caesar, is an amalgamation of all these influences as well as other contributing factors. This combination sometimes works brilliantly, as in the early scenes between Caesar and Cleopatra, and at other times can seem a bit disjointed in trying to accommodate too many conflicting narratives.

Casting plays a particularly important role in this film. Rex Harrison is crucial in conveying a debonair Caesar, and the affair of Taylor and Burton had an enormous impact on the film and its reception. Estimates vary, but the general consensus is that the film cost over 30 million USD to produce.348 Solomon summarises the problematic production of Cleopatra, saying that it ‘suffered from poor planning and ill fortune.’349 Some of the problems which plagued the production of this film include pneumonia, food poisoning, strep throat, and of course the infamous affair of Taylor and

Burton.350 The affair in particular had a profound and lasting effect on the film and the characterisation of Cleopatra. Because of the intrigue caused by Taylor as Cleopatra, most of the attention of viewers and scholars alike tends to centre on Cleopatra rather than Caesar. Caesar’s absence in the second half of the film tends to undermine his significance to the film as a whole.

Caesar, played so brilliantly by Rex Harrison, is older and wiser and speaks in an elegant British accent, which contributes to his debonair persona. The complexity surrounding Harrison’s Caesar can be partially explained by the sheer breadth of this depiction. Few receptions attempt to depict Caesar as the victor in the civil wars, the conqueror of Alexandria, the lover of Cleopatra and father of

Caesarion, as well as the ambitious dictator. This scope, irrespective of the second half of the film, is decidedly ambitious. Texts which attempt to depict an entire or complete image of such complicated historical figures are almost certainly destined to fall short of their target. Nevertheless, Caesar begins

347 Franzero 1957: 47-52.

348 Solomon 2001: 67; Cyrino 2005: 139.

349 Solomon 2001: 67.

350 Solomon 2001: 67-9; Cyrino 2005 139; Winkler 2009: 277-9. 108 as the dictator of Rome and the victor in the civil wars against Pompey. The audience’s first encounter with Caesar moulds an image of Caesar as a merciful conqueror. After his victory as Pharsalus, Caesar pardons Pompey’s troops, allowing them to join his legions and return to Rome as Romans, rather than as soldiers of Pompey.351 Notably, Caesar practises mercy with caution, perhaps in contrast to

Shaw’s Caesar. He assures Pompey’s men that they will be marked and will be killed, if they show any signs of treachery or cowardice.352 Although he does not visibly shed any tears, Caesar is clearly upset at seeing Pompey’s severed head at Ptolemy’s court.353 His military knowledge, though questioned momentarily, is demonstrated in the fighting at Alexandria and his employment of ‘the turtle’.354 Solomon describes Harrison’s Caesar as displaying ‘a smiling, Caesarian confidence in his worldly knowledge, practical wisdom, and aristocratic air, yet he allows himself to have a human love for his son and for the young Cleopatra.’355 On his return to Rome Caesar’s ambition continued to grow and he began to act and dress more like an emperor than a conqueror or a politician. Caesar meets with members of the senate and explains that he wants to be appointed ‘Emperor of Rome.’356

This ambition drives the conspirators to assassinate him. Cleopatra’s dream of an age of peace and unity dies with Caesar since his dominance in Rome was integral to her political aims and aspirations.357 Despite her position as a powerful leading lady, Cleopatra relied on an alliance with

Rome to cement her power and depended on Caesar to perpetuate her dream.

351 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 3:17-40.

352 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 3:39-45.

353 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 12:45-15:00.

354 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 39:45-42:40.

355 Solomon 2001:71; Elley 2014: 94.

356 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 1:27:47.

357 Bronfen 2013: 231; Cleopatra’s assertion that Caesar should continue to build on Alexander’s dream is in line with

Tarn’s depiction of Alexander as a leader who fostered the unity of all races. This view of Alexander is likely influenced by both Tarn and Rossen’s depiction of Alexander in Alexander the Great (1956).

109

This image of Caesar is definitely positive despite the film’s depiction of his involvement in the civil war with Pompey, adultery, the birth of Caesarion, and his assassination. Such events might not readily be included in a film, if a director intended to promote a positive Caesar. However, in the context of this film, these events are necessary to Cleopatra’s narrative and as such they cannot be omitted from the plot. Instead, Cleopatra presents these events in a favourable way, which fits the image of Caesar promoted by Mankiewicz. Caesar’s first appearance is on the battlefield at Pharsalus moments after his victory over Pompey. Rather than avoid all mention of civil war, Mankiewicz takes this opportunity to demonstrate Caesar’s clemency and character. He appears not as a victorious general after a glorious battle, but as a solemn and disaffected Roman as he surveys the dead. By granting freedom to Pompey’s officers at Pharsalus, Cleopatra not only acknowledges Caesar’s role in the civil war and his superiority in battle, but it also showcases his mercy and his wisdom. A short while later, Caesar’s indirect involvement in the murder of Ptolemy and Pothinus is excused because they are seen as despicable characters who are preventing Cleopatra’s success. In a similar way,

Caesar’s adultery is addressed and confirmed as he acknowledges Caesarion as his son.358 Caesarion features a number of times in the film, most notably as part of Cleopatra’s procession into Rome.

Caesarion’s prominent role may be due to his importance as Caesar’s heir, which would reduce

Octavian’s claim as Caesar’s successor and further vilify this cinematic Octavian. This too is excused to some degree, for even his adultery is supposedly enacted with the purest of motivations – his love for Cleopatra and his desire to have sons.359 Caesar’s fatherly treatment of Caesarion at his birth and later in Rome adds to this positive representation of Caesar the adulterer.

Caesar’s assassination, which is traditionally depicted as tyrannicide, is presented as a great tragedy in this film. To add to the tragic nature of the assassination, Caesar’s death marks the end of

358 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 1:05:40-1:06:50.

359 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 57:30, 1:00:3, 1:24:18-50. 110 Cleopatra’s dream to unite Rome and Egypt in peace and love. As such, it is viewed as a travesty by a sympathetic audience. In the lead-up to Caesar’s assassination the ageing dictator can be described as delusional and deranged. Caesar’s final scenes illustrate his ambition, though in these moments it is arguably less than the shared ambition of Cleopatra and Antony.360 Although the conspirators are motivated to commit this act after Caesar declared his desire to be hailed as ‘Emperor of Rome’ his death is still seen as a great tragedy. Caesar’s heightened ambition is portrayed as a result of a sudden fit of madness and delusion, not as a deliberate, tyrannical endeavour.361 By Shakespearian design, when the assassination of Caesar is depicted it is usually accompanied by an intense debate among the conspirators over Caesar’s fateful ambition. To detract from the validity of the assassination as tyrannicide and to emphasise the tragic nature of his death, the conspirators in Cleopatra are reduced to a group of conniving, self-serving senators rather than agents of liberty. Their philosophical debates are significantly shortened and Brutus’ (Kenneth Haigh) many monologues are practically non- existent. Brutus does not address the Roman mob, and in discussions with Cassius he appears weak and susceptible to peer pressure. Brutus proclaims that Caesar who is beloved by Rome ‘must die so that Rome may live.’ 362 Cassius asks Brutus if the act should be committed on the following day in the curia of the Senate, and whether they should be armed. 363 Brutus responds to this by nodding his head and leaving the scene. The murder of Caesar in this film should not be interpreted as a noble act of liberty. The conspirators receive no support from the Roman people and are dealt with swiftly by Antony, Octavian (Roddy McDowall) and Agrippa (Andrew Keir). The audience is positioned to side with Cleopatra as she watches the tragic events unfold in flames and realises that her dreams are now even further out of reach.

360 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 1:31:00 – 1:33-43.

361 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 1:25:00-28:00.

362 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 1:35:30-50.

363 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 1:35:48 – 52. 111 As the title suggests, this film and the surrounding scholarship are dominated by Elizabeth Taylor’s iconic portrayal of Cleopatra. It is therefore fitting that this depiction should be explored in this chapter because it has a direct impact on the portrayal of Caesar in the film. As in the case of Spartacus

(1960) and several other films, Mankiewicz’s initial conception of Cleopatra was substantially different from the final version. The original intention was to produce two films, the first focusing on

Caesar and Cleopatra, and the second on Antony and Cleopatra. These films were reduced to two halves of one epic film marked by an intermission. The character of Cleopatra originally intended was more in line with contemporary Cold War politics. The same approach of a Small and Large

Spartacus or Caesar can be applied to Cleopatra in this instance. The Large Cleopatra being the intended image, a politically driven Queen of Egypt, and the Small Cleopatra being the emerging lover of Caesar and Antony. Spoto suggests that Mankiewicz ‘saw [Cleopatra] as the first woman to rule in a man’s world and in a man’s way.’364 Glimpses of this message can be observed in a few instances in the final cut, particularly in a scene, often omitted, which shows Caesar and Cleopatra discussing Alexander the Great’s political vision in front of his sarcophagus.365 Cleopatra tries to persuade Caesar to continue Alexander’s vision and to usher in a golden age of justice and love, with their son, Caesarion, as the son of Rome, Egypt, and Isis.366 She says:

Make his dream yours Caesar. His grand design. Pick it up where he left off. Out of the

patchwork of conquest, one world. And out of one world one nation, one people on earth

living in peace. Soon there will be someone to carry both the cloak of Alexander and the

sword of Caesar, and the name of Caesar. And in that name he will rule Egypt, and

whatever part or all of the world that we give him. Our child will be a son for you, Caesar.

364 Spoto 1995:177 in Winkler 2009: 274.

365 Bronfen 2013: 230-1.

366 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 57:39-1:03:33. 112 By Isis I swear it.367

Caesarion would symbolise a union of East (Cleopatra) and West (Caesar). In the final cut, there are two distinctly different aspects of Taylor’s Cleopatra. The first, epitomised in the scene at Alexander’s sarcophagus, is that of a political visionary. This Cleopatra aims at peace and unity. In light of contemporary politics, this Cleopatra has been compared to an early John F. Kennedy, Eleanor

Roosevelt, and even Golda Meir.368 Her vision and her vocabulary are in line with those of the UN.369

At the time of the film’s release, the issues of production of nuclear weapons and reduction of arms were prevalent in the Cold War environment, particularly in light of the recent Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. A strong, independent, female world leader, bargaining for an age of peace and unity would speak volumes in this climate. This image of Cleopatra as a unifier and political visionary is challenged and ultimately overwhelmed by her portrayal as a femme fatale.

There are a number of contributing factors to Cleopatra’s position as a femme fatale or doomed sex symbol. The first is centred on Elizabeth Taylor herself. In the years leading up to the release of

Cleopatra, Taylor gained a largely negative reputation as a home wrecker, or a modern-day femme fatale. Taylor’s recent affair with Eddie Fisher led to his divorce from Debbie Reynolds, the ideal

American wife, and cemented her reputation.370 Taylor’s reputation, her beauty and sultry appeal influenced her depiction, or at least the reception of her depiction of Cleopatra.371 Both were beautiful, sexual women who could manipulate men with great ease. Life really began to imitate art, or history, when Taylor and Burton’s steamy on-screen romance developed off screen. At this point, Taylor

367 Mankiewicz 1963: Cleopatra 58:00-1:01:00.

368 Wyke 2007: 304-6; Bronfen 2013: 230.

369 Wyke 2007: 304-7.

370 Wyke 2007: 309.

371 Winkler 2009: 277-9. 113 became almost inseparable from Cleopatra through her off-screen affair with Burton, who was married to Sybil Williams at the time. As Cleopatra and Antony soon forgot about Octavia on-screen, so did Taylor and Burton push aside Fisher and Williams. The press caught wind of this affair and, while filming progressed, news of the Taylor-Burton affair was rampant. The audience, familiar with the tragic love story of Antony and Cleopatra, were drawn to the film in order to see this love affair played out on the screen.372 In many scenes it is difficult to determine where Antony and Cleopatra end and Taylor and Burton begin. In his personal account of the production of Cleopatra, Walter

Wanger explains this situation saying that:

There comes a time during the making of a movie when the actors become the characters

they play. This merger of real personality into the personality of the role has to take place

if a performance is to be truly effective. That happened today.373

Pressured by studio executives and increasing budget concerns, Mankiewicz made the decision to capitalise on the contemporary events and emphasise the sexual allure of Cleopatra. In this way,

Elizabeth Taylor’s reputation as a femme fatale, the scandalous affair, and the audience expectation shaped the portrayal of Cleopatra in this film into one of a femme fatale.

In contrast, a glimpse of the intended image of Cleopatra, or the Large Cleopatra, is seen in the

Alexander sarcophagus scene where Cleopatra persuades Caesar to support and join her in pursuing her ambition. This ambition centred on unity and peace reflects the contemporary concerns of the US at this stage of the Cold War. Cleopatra’s audience is positioned to believe in and support this peaceful union as public sentiment was geared towards peace and an end to the conflict. A wise, kind,

372 Wyke 2007: 313.

373 Wanger and Hyams 1963: 145; Wyke 2007: 312. Wyke suggests that Wanger’s accounts are ‘full of petty deceptions designed to help publicize the much-criticised film and its much-maligned star.’ Wyke 2007: 312-3 114 and capable Caesar would support this union and could feasibly carry out this ambition, whereas a merciless, tyrannical Caesar would not work towards a world in which Egypt and Rome were united and equal in peace and love. In order for the audience to be immersed in the narrative and observe

Caesar’s death as a tragic delay of Cleopatra’s dream, they had to believe that this Caesar could and would usher in an age of peace and prosperity. As such, this Caesar could not be a tyrant and must instead have a decidedly positive appeal. This Caesar is still a positive figure. He is governed by an ambition which does not suit the Republic and he is brought down by lesser men. He is an adulterer, a dictator, and a conqueror, but he remains a positive if not cautionary figure.

Carry On Cleo (1964)

Carry On Cleo (1964) has been directly and unashamedly influenced by Cleopatra (1963). Kenneth

Williams leads the Carry On cast as Caesar with Amanda Barrie as Cleopatra and Sidney James as

Mark Antony. The audience is first introduced to Caesar on campaign in Britain as he nurses a cold in his tent. Caesar’s troops led by Mark Antony invade Britain, a land where cavemen live and dinosaurs roam. The village they invade is home to Hengist Pod (Kenneth Connor) and Horsa (Jim

Dale), inventors of the window frame, who are captured and taken to Rome to be sold as slaves by

Marcus and Spencius. Caesar returns from his campaign to a displeased mob and an unhappy wife

(Joan Sims). He narrowly avoids several attempts on his life and is saved by Horsa and Pod, who replaces Bilius as the prefect of the praetorian guard. Trouble is brewing in Alexandria between

Ptolemy and Cleopatra and Caesar is faced with the difficult decision of whom to support. He sends

Antony to remove Cleopatra and reinstate Ptolemy as King of Egypt. Antony arrives in Alexandria to find Cleopatra, whom he refers to affectionately as ‘that bird who rules Egypt’, in a bath and promptly disregards Caesar’s request.374 Cleopatra is not entirely satisfied with her new-found power and instead asks Antony to arrange for Caesar to be killed. Antony’s elaborate plans are foiled twice, inadvertently, by Caesar, Seneca and Pod. In the end the cast return home, Pod and Horsa return to

374 Thomas 1964: Carry On Cleo 14:25. 115 their caves, and Caesar returns to Rome where Brutus and some senators enact the final and fatal attempt on his life.

Williams’ Caesar is particularly entertaining and quite unlike other contemporary depictions of Julius

Caesar. He is older and is shown first on campaign, but rather than triumphantly leading his army, he sits in his tent soaking his feet and complaining about the bad weather while Antony or ‘Tony’ is seen to be in charge of this campaign.375 On his return home Caesar is met with occasional cheers, though predominantly boos and hisses.376 He addresses the largely hostile mob beginning with ‘Friends,

Romans…’ – he is never able to complete the famous line and is always helpfully, though unnecessarily, interrupted by shouts of ‘countrymen!’377 His rhetorical skills fail to impress the now increasingly agitated mob and Caesar escapes to the sanctity of his villa. He first encounters Seneca

(Charles Hawtrey) before finding Calpurnia in a bath.378 This bath scene, an obvious connection to

Cleopatra (1963), and further back to DeMille’s The Sign of the Cross (1932), recurs a number of times in the film. First (and several times later) with Cleopatra, then Calpurnia, and finally with

Seneca. This Caesar may be ineffective as an orator, have a camp and comical way of talking, be clueless, insufferable, and oblivious, but he is not dangerous or threatening. As such this is not a negative evocation of Caesar. The portrayal of Caesar and Cleopatra is largely a parody of Cleopatra

(1963). Cleopatra is more politically manipulative in this film, offering herself to Mark Antony in exchange for Caesar’s head, yet her political presence and intentions are not positive. Her political manoeuvres are not aimed at bringing power to Egypt and are instead seen as frivolous desires for personal control and power. 379 In relation to Caesar, most of what is presumed common knowledge

375 Thomas 1964: Carry On Cleo 10:00-11:20.

376 Thomas 1964: Carry On Cleo 15:05.

377 Thomas 1964: Carry On Cleo 15:40-16:00, 23:45.

378 Thomas 1964: Carry On Cleo 17:48, 33:33, 44:03.

379 Thomas 1964: Carry On Cleo 44:03-47:00. 116 and has been propagated by contemporary receptions– his natural ability as an orator, his popularity with the people, his military skill and bravery –has been reversed. Instead of one assassination attempt, this Caesar narrowly escapes death on numerous occasions – usually accidentally or coincidentally.

A chief concern in any attempt to analyse this film is that Carry on Cleo is primarily and shamelessly a parody of Cleopatra (1963). Any elements of plot, casting, or characterisation could be explained as seeking to achieve a comedic effect. In saying this, Carry on Cleo adds an interesting element to this inquiry by providing one of few truly comedic Caesars. This is a substantial departure from the more serious and formidable Caesars featured in this thesis and consequently warrants some attention.

William’s Caesar is far from the charming, debonair image created by Rex Harrison. Yet he is equally far from being cruel and irredeemable. This comical Caesar is utterly hopeless as an orator, politician, general, and even as a ladies’ man. Yet, his failures are endearing. As a dictator, this Caesar does not invite any connection to comparable Caesar-figures from the past or present.

A Queen for Caesar (1962)

Una regina per Cesare (1962), directed by Viktor Tourjansky and Piero Pierotti, provides a different take on a familiar story. Ptolemy (Corrado Pani) and Cleopatra (Pascale Petit) are fighting for control in Alexandria. Ptolemy is still a childish ruler who is heavily influenced by his advisors but he is older and less childish than he appears in other depictions, and is closer in age and position to Cleopatra.380

Cleopatra turns to Rome for help but as Rome is in a state of civil war between Pompey (Akim

Tamiroff) and Caesar (Gordon Scott), she needs to consider carefully who is better suited to be her ally and ensure her victory over Ptolemy. She first fends off Theodotus (Ennio Balbo), Ptolemy’s chief advisor in this film, who is initially willing to help her in exchange for sexual favours.381

380 Corrado Pani, born in 1936 would have been around 26 and Pascale Petit, born in 1938 would have been 24.

381 Tourjanksy and Pierotti 1962: A Queen for Caesar 12:24. 117 Cleopatra plays along for a while before exposing and arresting Theodotus. Cleopatra has a similar experience with Pompey. After flipping a coin she decides that aligning herself with Pompey is her best chance of survival. She approaches Pompey after sneaking into his camp and asks for his help in regaining control in Egypt. Soon afterwards she realises that Pompey is seeking the same reward as

Theodotus. Pompey eventually agrees to travel to Alexandria and upon arrival is met by Lucio

Settimio (Rik Battaglia) and his sword. After Pompey’s death Cleopatra has to rethink her strategy.

With Apollodorus’ (Franco Volpi) help she is delivered to a young Caesar and the film ends with

Caesar’s warm gaze and outstretched arms.

Caesar appears very briefly in this film. The film ends where the story of Caesar and Cleopatra usually begins, with their first meeting as Cleopatra rolls out of a rug.382 The audience is introduced to Caesar slightly earlier as Pompey makes his way to Alexandria. It is made clear to the audience that Caesar and Pompey are in the midst of civil war and that the two Roman commanders have opposing approaches to this conflict. Pompey, who is identified by his men as a symbol of liberty, continuously delays an attack on Caesar as he is too preoccupied with lust for the young Queen. In contrast, Caesar takes a more active and even proactive approach. Pompey is consistently depicted as being past his prime, for he is older, reluctant to engage in battle, and often appears drunk and controlled by lust.

Tamiroff, born in 1899, would have been 63 when the film was released. In contrast, Caesar is young, handsome and energetic. He is played by Gordon Scott, an American actor famous for playing

Maciste and Tarzan among other heroes, starring in films such as Tarzan the Magnificent (1960),

Maciste contro il vampiro (1961), and Romolo e Remo (1961). Scott, born 1926, would have been 36 years old in this film, making him 27 years Tamiroff’s junior. When Caesar learns of Pompey’s death, he covers his face with his fists and expresses his regret and disappointment that Pompey died at the hands of a traitor rather than dying an honourable death.383 Caesar laments Pompey’s death, saying

382 Tourjanksy and Pierotti 1962: A Queen for Caesar 1:28:35.

383 Tourjanksy and Pierotti 1962: A Queen for Caesar 1:12:25-1:12:50. 118 that ‘he was a noble and valorous man. If he could at least have died with a sword in his hand on the battlefield. But no, fate destined him for an inglorious death at the hand of a traitor.’384 In terms of his role as a military commander, Caesar is depicted as the younger, less experienced but by no means less qualified leader, with a greater drive for victory and power. In relation to Cleopatra’s potential suitors and allies in this film, Caesar is presented as the most viable and attractive option. Although

Caesar was younger than Pompey, he is generally depicted as substantially older than Cleopatra. In this film they are incredibly close in age. A slight embellishment of the historical record achieves and promotes a gleaming image of Caesar as Cleopatra’s most ideal political and romantic partner.

Cleopatra first tries her luck with Theodotus and Pompey, two men who were substantially older than her, and who entertained the notion of assisting the Queen only in exchange for sexual favours in advance. Both of these alliances proved unfavourable and unsuccessful for Cleopatra, and Caesar emerged as the most powerful Roman and the most appropriate ally. By modern standards, Caesar can be considered the lesser of these evils yet he is far from being the perfect 21st Century gentleman.

Caesar decides to take Alexandria when he discovers that the Queen of Egypt is an attractive young woman. Apollodorus describes Caesar as being ‘merciless in war…rather vulnerable,’ and ‘a man of great refinement, he possesses a ready wit, [and] he likes surprise endings.’385 Cleopatra manages to capture Caesar’s attention not only by appearing in a rug, but by appearing naked in that rug.386 For a film of the 60s the questionable aspects of Caesar’s character are mild. This Caesar is handsome and closer in age to Cleopatra which makes him an appropriate partner and ally. He appears less devious and more earnest than her other prospective allies. He is not predatory, though he is still a potentially dangerous enemy. To add to his positive appeal, the film makes no mention of any of

Caesar’s wives. As such any implications of future relations with Cleopatra would not necessarily be

384 Tourjanksy and Pierotti 1962: A Queen for Caesar 1:12:50- 1:13:05.

385 Tourjansky and Pierotti 1962: A Queen for Caesar 1:26:10-1:27:27.

386 Tourjanksy and Pierotti 1962: A Queen for Caesar 1:27:27- 1:28:58. 119 emphasised as adulterous. Cleopatra needs to align herself with a powerful man in order to secure her power in Egypt.387 This was a very common notion in contemporary social and cinematic politics.

This situation is far less problematic than a politically powerful woman successfully fighting for herself. It is also in keeping with the traditional cinematic narrative of Cleopatra and her relationship with Rome’s most powerful men. She tries first with Theodotus, then with Pompey, and finally with

Caesar. The first two men are older and their sexual advances are clearly not welcomed by the young

Queen. Scott’s Caesar, as an attractive younger gentleman, is instantly more appealing to Cleopatra.

Apollodorus seems to trust him, and as the film ends with their first meeting, Caesar is given no opportunity to make unwanted advances on the young Queen. Unlike other more progressive portrayals of Cleopatra, Petit’s Cleopatra does not threaten to disrupt politics in the Roman Republic in any major way. Her need and quest for a Roman ally reinforces societal norms of the patriarchal political sphere.

Up to this point, the images of Caesar included in this chapter, or in this thesis more broadly have been largely fictional takes on Caesar. The following texts are included in this inquiry because they represent a different, more political use of Caesar which is not uncommon but does not rival his presence in popular culture during this period. The following receptions were designed for a different purpose, and are more explicitly political in their use of Caesar. In Archer’s Twentieth Century Caesar and Mohr’s Julius Caesar, Caesar has been used to comment on prominent politicians. These uses symbolise a trend in Caesar reception which is arguably more common in the periods preceding and succeeding 1945-65. This trend associates the image of Caesar as a dictator with a leading politician in order to criticise their actions. This is particularly common in later comparisons with US presidents.

In this arena, the focus is largely on Caesar’s abuse of traditional power. Whilst these texts are more in line with later political uses of Caesar than with his presence in popular culture as investigated in this thesis, they are not entirely indicative of the use of Caesar to criticise and critique later politicians.

387 Bronfen 2013: 231. 120 Archer’s Twentieth Century Caesar builds on an existing association between Mussolini and Caesar to provide a critical biography of the ‘Twentieth Century Caesar’. As he omits most of the truly devious and controversial aspects of the dictators’ careers, neither his comments on Caesar nor

Mussolini are particularly scathing. Through the vehicle of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Mohr brings

Caesar into the South African political sphere. As a result of circumstantial similarities, in this context

Caesar is associated with Verwoerd. The inclusion of these texts illustrates the global familiarity and relevance of Caesar, as well as the political connotations of the final episodes of Caesar’s life and the aftermath of his assassination.

Twentieth Century Caesar: Benito Mussolini (1963)

In 1963 Jules Archer published his biography of Benito Mussolini entitled Twentieth Century Caesar:

Benito Mussolini. In doing so he employed a negative image of Caesar the dictator in order to recount and comment on the dictatorship of Mussolini. The similarities between the two, as highlighted by

Archer, are not among the worst aspects of Mussolini’s or Caesar’s repertoire. In other words, this negative image could have been employed in a far more extreme way. Before assessing this use of

Caesar, it is necessary to note a number of limitations imposed on the work by its genre and author.

Archer is an American author known for his best-selling works of popular history including

Battlefield President: Dwight D. Eisenhower (1967) and Man of Steel: Joseph Stalin (1965). His work on Mussolini is similar in approach and as a result there is little to no evidence supporting Archer’s assertions. He frequently includes rather intimate references, the validity of which must be questioned. One clear example is found in Mussolini’s private response to his wife Rachele’s pleas for him not to cause any more riots. According to Archer, Mussolini replied that revolution ‘…isn’t a matter of choice for me anymore. It’s my destiny!’388 If this thesis were assessing the accuracy of his book as insight into the intricacies of Mussolini’s life and career this may be a greater issue.

However, in light of the focus on receptions of Caesar this is not entirely detrimental. Substantial

388 Archer 1963: 39. 121 references to Caesar are infrequent throughout this book and it is clear that the use of Caesar is based largely on an existing and popular comparison.

This use of Caesar operates within a wider collection of comparisons between Benito Mussolini and

Julius Caesar. Archer builds on the existing comparison between the dictators which had been promoted by Mussolini himself. Wyke suggests that ‘the two dictators were effectively fused in school textbooks, propagandist pamphlets, and classical scholarship produced by Fascist historians.’389 In line with the language of the Italian Fascists, both Caesar and Mussolini were traditionally presented as ‘impulsive and virile generals, strong of mind, superior in intellect, exceptionally energetic hawkeyed, and good-looking. They each initiate forceful political revolutions, march on Rome, violently uproot a rotten republic, establish a new order, found an empire, and rescue

Italy and its people from the corruption of the privileged classes.’ 390 These similarities which are commonly emphasised during Mussolini’s period of control are not echoed in Archer’s work.

Mussolini has been praised and damned as a Caesar-figure and because this book does not view

Mussolini favourably it adopts a negative view of Caesar the dictator. Although negative, this use is not entirely effective as it is not detrimental to the reader’s opinion of Mussolini. Caesar in this instance is negative by association with the fascist dictator but the similarities highlighted between the two are not necessarily detrimental. The most controversial or negative aspects of Caesar’s career are left out of the discussion and the worst aspects of Mussolini’s affairs are rarely described in relation to Caesar.

References to Caesar in Twentieth Century Caesar can be divided into evocations or comparisons made by Mussolini, and similarities emphasised by the author. Archer’s Mussolini evokes Caesar on a number of occasions. Most of these occasions are substantially embellished by the author. For

389 Wyke 2012: 97.

390 Wyke 2012: 97. 122 example, Archer claims that in his youth Mussolini dreamt that ‘someday, perhaps, a new Caesar would restore Italy to its ancient glories.’391 While this is plausible, it is not necessarily factual. On

October 2nd 1935 Mussolini delivered a speech on the balcony of the Palazzo Venezia declaring war on Ethiopia. Archer’s Mussolini proclaims that:

Julius Caesar once dominated the world. Every stone around us here should remind us of

that fact. We must believe that what was our destiny yesterday will again be our destiny

tomorrow!392

Archer claims that the words of Mussolini ‘rang throughout the nation from radio loudspeakers’ yet the available transcripts of Mussolini’s speech on October 2nd 1935 make no mention of Caesar.393

Again, Archer’s claim here is plausible as Mussolini was known to refer to Caesar in speeches and interviews.394 For example, in an interview with Lady Drummond Hay for the New York Times in

1925 Mussolini offered his opinion on Caesar, claiming that Caesar was ‘the greatest man that ever was.’395 However, no available transcript of this speech makes any discernible mention of Caesar.

Moreover, Archer highlights a number of similarities between Caesar and Mussolini. They were both initially supported by the common people, had a questionable reputation with women, suffered from recurring illnesses, and were assassinated after dismissing their wives’ warnings.

There are a number of notable differences between this portrayal of Mussolini’s and the established

391 Archer 1963: 14-5.

392 Archer 1963: 119.

393 Archer 1963: 119.

394 Wyke 2012: 98-9.

395 In this interview Lady Drummond Hay noticed a bust of Caesar in Mussolini’s office. She asked him why he worked with Caesar peering over his shoulder. Mussolini responded ‘Julius Caesar is my ideal, my master – the greatest man that ever was.’ Drummond Hay 1925: xxi; Wyke 2012: 98-9. 123 narrative regarding Caesar’s military reputation and popular appeal. The first and most difficult to overlook is the difference in the dictators’ military ability. While Caesar was a renowned conqueror and general, Mussolini’s generals ‘knowing that he was a hopeless military amateur, they dreaded the worst’ and were less than eager to invade Ethiopia under his command.396 Although in his early years

Mussolini was relatively devoted to the struggle of the people and benefited from their support, the public sentiment had changed drastically by the end of his life. After his death, Mussolini’s body was mauled and shown disrespect by the public.397 This is in stark contrast to the Roman people’s continued adoration of Caesar and their treatment of his body after his death.

The reason for this use of Caesar partially stems from Mussolini’s personal use of Caesar and the tradition that existed prior to the 1960s. There is no particular emphasis placed on the most controversial or damning aspects of Caesar’s life, the civil war or perpetual dictatorship. The impact of this use of Caesar is more reminiscent of Second World War sentiments. Yet it is an example of the lasting effect of Mussolini on the reception of Caesar after 1945. This comparison in particular would not have tarnished Caesar’s reputation any further. Two contemporary biographies also evoke

Caesar in their titles. Germán E. Ornes’ Trujillo: Little Caesar of the Caribbean (1958) and Balkan

Caesar: Tito versus Stalin (1951) by Leigh White about Raphael Trujillo and Josip Broz Tito respectively. However, aside from their titles, both texts rarely mention Caesar. Trujillo: Little Caesar of the Caribbean compares Trujillo to Little Caesar, the gangster made popular by Edward G.

Robinson in Little Caesar (1931), rather than to Julius Caesar directly. In doing so, this text relates

Trujillo to Rico’s ultimately ineffective gangster mentality and does not present him as a Caesar- figure directly.398 Archer’s Twentieth Century Caesar does not mirror the use of Caesar, or Little

Caesar, employed in these biographies, nor does it provide a scathing comment on the abuse of power

396 Archer 1963: 117.

397 Archer 1963: 184.

398 Wyke 2012: 109. 124 and dictatorship through this image of Caesar. In this work, Archer tailors his use of Caesar to his audience who would be better suited to observe Caesar as a diluted dictator. The primary reason for this evocation of Caesar’s name and reputation was to capitalise on an already existing and popular association of Caesar with Il Duce.

Julius Caesar (1960) - Hendrik F. Verwoerd

Rohan Quince describes a production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar directed by Robert Mohr at

Cape Town City Hall in 1960. According to Quince this production was cast with predominantly coloured actors and was of particular significance in light of the recent assassination attempt on South

African Prime Minister Hendrik F. Verwoerd. While there is little extant information on this production, it is said to have been the first political use of Shakespeare in South Africa and is a particularly poignant and somewhat unexpected use of Caesar in this period.399 It was aimed at a multi-racial audience and the cast wore modern clothing which ‘suggested contemporary South

African connections, while the direction foregrounded the poverty and violent anger of the mob.’400

This warning was particularly poignant in this period as the African National Congress (ANC) prepared to change its methods of resistance.

Verwoerd, the Architect of apartheid, was shot at the Rand show in Johannesburg in April 1960. The would-be assassin, David Pratt, was a white farmer and business-owner who blamed Verwoerd for holding South Africa back during apartheid. After Verwoerd made a full recovery, his political control intensified. It was around this time that resistance to apartheid turned violent.401 Until this time protests were predominantly peaceful and essentially ineffective. In his first TV interview with Brian

399 Quince 2009: 91. This production and the events surrounding and inspiring it are not strictly considered Cold War events yet they are contemporary to the Cold War and are ultimately influenced by the political tension of this period.

400 Quince 2009: 91.

401 Feit, E. 1971: 103-5. 125 Widlake, a young Nelson Mandela explained that the ANC would retaliate with violence if necessary.

When Widlake asked if there was ‘any likelihood of violence?’ Mandela’s response was:

There are many people who feel that the reaction of the government to our stay-at-home,

ordering [a] general mobilisation, arming the white community, arresting tens of

thousands of Africans, [the] show of force throughout the country, notwithstanding our

clear declaration that this campaign is being run on peaceful and non-violent lines, close

the chapter as far as our methods of political struggle are concerned. There are many

people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-

violence against a government whose reply is only savage attacks on an unarmed and

defenseless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our

experiences in this stay-at-home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are

adequate.402

In this environment, soon after the unexpected and unsuccessful attempt on Verwoerd’s life and with the palpable threat of a violent response, Mohr staged Julius Caesar. The aim of the play, which is not too far removed from Shakespeare’s original intention, was to caution against hasty acts of violent revolution. 403 The crowd was intended to be a main character of the play, numbering around 80 actors. While there is not enough evidence to determine exactly how this image of Caesar was received, it could be assumed that this image was employed critically – both because Shakespeare’s

Caesar is traditionally a tyrant, at least in the eyes of Brutus, and because Verwoerd’s reputation was far from perfect in the coloured and global community. In 1966 Verwoerd died after being stabbed in the throat by Dimitri Tsafendas, a parliamentary messenger in the House of Assembly. According to

Quince, ‘subsequent South African productions of Julius Caesar became charged with an increased

402 Mandela in an interview with Brian Widlake 1961: 2:40-3:46.

403 Quince 2009: 91-2. 126 energy, [and] became, in a sense, symbolic re-enactments of the assassination of Verwoerd, who himself had come to signify the ideals of Grand Apartheid.’404 This production draws on the coincidental similarities between Verwoerd and Caesar as the victims of political assassination to provide a comment and a warning against ill-planned tyrannicide or assassination in keeping with the

Shakespearean design. The continued use of Julius Caesar in relation to Verwoerd and apartheid more broadly reflects Caesar’s wide and lasting global appeal. These final uses of Caesar are less favourable and positive than earlier examples in this thesis. In saying this, they are still relatively mild and are not subversive in relation to receptions of Caesar found in earlier periods. Archer and Mohr’s

Caesars still follow and adapt preexisting conventional uses of Caesar in a political and cultural sphere, either following those established by or in response to an individual, or those promoted by

Shakespeare. It is necessary to include these images of Caesar because they offer an additional element to the overall reception of Caesar in this period and reinforce the apparent trend in promoting traditional uses of Caesar rather than producing controversial or subversive images of Caesar. Even though these uses of Caesar are not positive, they still reproduce largely conservative and cautionary images of Caesar.

It can be observed that the prevailing image of Caesar across these receptions is far less critical than one might expect from the reception of a dictator. However, when Caesar is used in a more pointed political context, to comment on or criticise an individual, the image of Caesar is often less flattering and moderate, and more damning. In most cases, Caesar’s truly tyrannical and irredeemable qualities are either omitted or presented in a positive way. Even when Caesar is depicted as a tyrant the impression this character makes on his audience is somewhat neutral. A number of these Caesars fulfil a supporting role, facilitating the messages conveyed by other characters. Each Caesar in this chapter has been created for a particular purpose, in line with the authors’ or directors’ aims, and each is influenced by their contemporary contexts. In contrast to earlier and later receptions of Caesar,

404 Quince 2000: 60. 127 these Cold War dictators are mild in temperament.

128 Conclusion

The texts covered in this thesis demonstrate that the versatility of Julius Caesar’s character allows for varied interpretations of the dictator for a variety of purposes. These Caesars have been used to address the recent past and to debate the impact of present and future leaders. In addition, these figures convey contemporary concerns and perceptions of ideal leaders or forms of leadership and to reinforce nationalistic, political or social agendas. By dividing these texts according to three common images of Caesar – demagogue, conqueror, and dictator – this thesis analysed how each trope was used and received in the context of the early Cold War. Aside from denoting the early years of the

Cold War, 1945-65 was a period of transition and transformation. This period saw an end to Italian

Fascism, the spread of Soviet Communism, and a variety of internal and external conflicts. There was a decided shift away from monarchic and fascistic governments towards democratic and republican politics. The age of the dictator was in decline and the imperialistic and militaristic ambitions which were felt on a global scale in the early twentieth century were less prevalent. After two truly global and all-encompassing wars, most nations were less inclined to enter into military conflict on a large scale. Rather than flexing their imperial muscles through frequent colonisation, most nations were focused on consolidating their power and establishing peace and stability after many years of war.

Diplomacy and peace began to replace violent military action as the default response. It could be expected that this setting would produce more diverse Caesars, who would depart rather drastically from earlier, traditional renditions of Caesar and would be far more critical of Caesar as the conqueror of Gaul, or the victor in a bloody civil war.

Of course, the Caesars included in this thesis are influenced by the events and beliefs of this period and in some ways, they are more democratic than earlier receptions. For the most part greater emphasis is placed on Caesar’s mercy, as can be seen in the Caesars portrayed by Claude Rains and

Rex Harrison. Their tendency to employ violence is significantly reduced and Caesar’s military 129 success is addressed implicitly rather than explicitly. Caesar’s role in the civil war is downplayed, as is his reputation as a womanizer, his questionable actions in Gaul, and any compromising encounters with Nicomedes. When these events are included, because they are necessary to the greater narrative of the text, they are portrayed favourably or at least mildly. For the most part, these Caesars express a concern for peace and order, for consolidation and stability over conquest and expansion. They work to solve and eradicate problems with external or internal enemies rather than being the cause of these problems. Omissions and emphasis can be attributed to a number of factors. Some aspects would be neglected for entertainment value or audience appeal, others because they complicate the overall image of Caesar. For many, the political manoeuvres of the late Republic are far too intricate and complex to convey effectively on screen and present an even greater challenge for an audience to comprehend fully. For this reason, the intricacies of Caesar’s early career rarely feature on-screen.

The same can be said of Caesar’s experiences in Gaul, the formation of the Triumvirate, and the details of his conflict with Pompey. In addition, these aspects act to complicate an already multi- faceted image of Caesar, particularly if an author is aiming to promote a positive view.

Each chapter of this thesis investigated the use of one trope of Caesar through a series of case studies.

The first of these tropes is that of Caesar as a demagogue or popular Republican politician as seen in

Spartacus (1960), Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962), and Young Caesar (1958). This image of

Caesar is that of a young, charismatic politician, on the eve of greatness. During this period Caesar gains popularity and boasts of having the unwavering support of the people. He has political dealings with Sulla and Nicomedes, is captured pirates, and works towards making a name for himself in

Roman politics. In these texts, Caesar is not yet a controversial figure, though in Spartacus and Young

Caesar there are frequent suggestions of his divisive future. Caesar’s role in Spartacus is often overlooked as a reception of Caesar. However, his presence in the film, in contrast to his general absence from the Spartacus narrative, and his crucial role in the plot suggest that Gavin’s Caesar deserves more critical attention. The film, and consequently the characterisation of Caesar is largely 130 influenced by the contemporary social struggles associated with the Hollywood blacklist. When

Caesar faces Sulla and Hamar, the leader of the pirates in Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962), he is stripped of all monarchic inclinations and is presented, instead, as the saviour of the Roman

Republic. To present Caesar in this manner was no easy feat but it ensured that this Italian Caesar was entirely detached from Mussolini’s recent and overwhelming association with Caesar. Warner’s

Young Caesar (1958) provides a more comprehensive account of his early career and presents an image of Caesar as a demagogic, young politician. Here, Caesar is used as a vehicle through which to comment on and criticise cotemporary politics, and to illustrate an image of an ideal modern leader.

Uses of this trope of Caesar are far less common than those of Caesar as a conqueror or a dictator and are generally far less controversial. However, they are by no means of less value to a study of this kind, as they still provide insight into the popular use and reception of Caesar during this period.

The second trope, Caesar as a conqueror, is explored through the early editions of The Adventures of

Asterix, by Goscinny and Uderzo, and three peplum films The Slave (1962), Caesar the Conqueror

(1962), and The Giants of Rome (1964). This image of Caesar focuses on his conquest of Gaul and in theory, though not in these texts, on his role in the civil war. Asterix’s satirical Caesar is best described as the irritable, though mostly merciful, conqueror of Gaul. As the enemy of the Gauls, this Caesar is formidable enough to prevent insult, but not threatening enough to be taken too seriously. In The

Slave, Caesar facilitates Randus’ discovery of his true identity as the son of Spartacus. He also defeats the villainous Crassus and eventually demonstrates his mercy by lifting Randus’ death sentence. In these texts, Caesar’s military success is assumed because he has already conquered Gaul, and his strength is demonstrated more in military strategy than in physical combat. His role is that of a somewhat distant commander rather than a fellow soldier. Caesar the Conqueror is the exception to this rule as Caesar is shown on the battlefield against Vercingetorix. In this film, Mitchell’s Caesar is the unequivocal civiliser of Gaul, and promises to bring peace and stability to Rome by eliminating its reliance on war and slavery. The overall image of Caesar in this chapter is rarely one of a cruel or 131 brutal conqueror. The Giants of Rome momentarily questions Caesar’s cruelty in his conquest of Gaul but this is short-lived and Caesar remains the distant facilitator of the action. Generally, the prevailing image of Caesar in these texts is one of formidable, sometimes menacing, but rarely cruel conqueror of Gaul. He is the enemy of Vercingetorix and occasionally he is the source of trouble in the Republic although this is to little detriment.

The third and final trope of Caesar is that of a dictator. This is the most controversial and most frequently employed image of Caesar. It covers Caesar’s victory over Pompey, his encounters with

Cleopatra, both political and romantic, his unwavering ambition, and his assassination. The texts in this chapter are often heavily influenced by Shakespeare, Shaw, or a combination of the two, in conjunction with ancient accounts. Caesar and Cleopatra (1945) and Cleopatra (1963) highlight

Caesar’s measured and merciful approach to ruling and where necessary they minimise or excuse his truly tyrannical qualities. Mankiewicz’ Julius Caesar (1953) provides arguably the most critical approach to a cinematic Caesar, inviting an array of political readings of the Dictator and his assassination. Carry on Cleo (1964) and A Queen for Caesar (1962) offer less substantial but nevertheless intriguing takes on this period of Caesar’s life and contribute to the prevailing palatable image of Caesar as a dictator. When this image of Caesar is used to comment on an individual the use is often more pointed and damning. However, Archer’s Twentieth Century Caesar (1963) is unique in this, because his use of Caesar does not add much weight to his criticism of Mussolini. Mohr’s production of Shakespeare’s Caesar in 1960 is for the most part traditional in its use of Caesar to caution against ill-planned tyrannicide. However, by implying a connection between Caesar and

Verwoerd as the victims of political assassination this production becomes the first political use of

Shakespeare, and therefore of Julius Caesar, in South Africa.

In the selection of Caesars covered in this thesis, the prevailing image of Caesar is moderate and palatable at all times, even as an enemy. None of the excessively violent, cruel or immoral aspects of 132 Caesar’s character or career are emphasised in these texts. Caesar does not emerge as an adulterer, an irredeemable tyrant, or a ruthless conqueror. These Caesars are not unequivocally evil, even when they are depicted in compromising circumstances. Caesar suffers no irreparable damage and has no irretrievable faults or failures. He is measured in his victories and his actions are continually justified.

This invites the question: If this period appears to be progressive, why aren’t these images of Caesar more critical of, and drastically different from, the traditional view of Caesar as a hero of Western culture?

This apparent assortment of mild and moderate Caesars can be attributed to a number of contextual aspects. For instance, the authors and directors of these texts, despite their many differences, share a number of important common elements. All the authors are men of substantial social standing who subscribed to a number of shared conservative ideas regardless of their political opinions. Political thought was, and still is, predominantly marked by prominent conservative ideas, including the inherent imbalance of genders, an aversion to racial and ethnic diversity, no unadulterated opposition to war, a readiness to justify conquest, and wide acceptance of the need for a strong male leader. The cultural products analysed in this thesis are governed by the same conservative norms. The traditional, palatable image of Caesar in any trope appeals to these norms. To challenge or drastically alter this image of Caesar would prove incredibly problematic and contradictory for most European countries.

For instance, a French director or author could not criticise Caesar’s conquest of Gaul too harshly because this would undermine and question the cultural traditions and achievements which characterised France in Caesar’s wake. To present a markedly different and highly critical image of

Caesar would drastically depart from the established Western tradition of Caesar and would be incredibly bold and controversial. In addition to this, it is likely that these Caesar were conservative as they were aimed at a largely conservative audience who, after years of war, sought light-hearted entertainment from these texts and would not look favourably upon a vicious tyrannical Caesar. The texts covered in this thesis are largely products of and for mainstream society and are therefore less 133 likely to challenge these conservative norms, due to the motives of the authors and a desire to appeal to a wide audience.

The propagation of this conservative Caesar could in some ways be a reaction to recent political and social developments and a way to resist change or to promote stability and maintain normality. In a post-World War era there was an overwhelming need for peace and stability. In light of the changes in leadership, the beginning of a shift towards gender equality, and the changing approach to colonialism, the use of a prominent, familiar character like Caesar could provide welcome comfort to many audiences. Even more so, a Caesar who was tailored for this political and cultural environment could offer guidance without openly questioning the established norms of Cold War Europe and the

US.

All these Caesars act as a link in the chain of Caesar reception. In addition to their contextual and authorial influences, these productions are subject to the long-standing tradition of Caesar receptions which proceed them. For example, most, if not all the texts covered in this thesis are influenced overtly if not subconsciously by Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (1599). Because the traditional or conservative image of Caesar is so often repeated and broadcast it is understandably far simpler to propagate and promote this traditional view than it is to create a decidedly critical or subversive image of Caesar. To a certain degree, the nature of Caesar reception is somewhat cyclical. Once an individual is so heavily associated with Caesar that their name becomes synonymous with his, they influence not only contemporary receptions of Caesar, but also those directly following their period of dominance. This is particularly evident in the careers of Napoleon Bonaparte and Benito Mussolini.

Both men became almost inseparable from Caesar at the height of their power, establishing traditions which were promoted by themselves and others. The rise of each man was naturally followed by his fall. In these cases, the connection to Caesar then became a tool of degradation and criticism or even ridicule. Uses of Caesar which immediately followed Napoleon’s rise and fall carried Napoleonic 134 connotations whether intentionally, as a criticism of Napoleon, or unintentionally, inviting the audience to recall the words and deeds of Napoleon. In order to use Caesar in this period without evoking the memory of Napoleon one would need to take drastic measures to create a positive image of Caesar which was decidedly different from that of Napoleon’s Caesar.

One prominent example can be found in Mommsen’s Caesar who was the ‘entire and perfect man.’405

Mommsen’s Caesar was so far removed from Napoleon that he was praised as a passionate, intuitive statesman as much, if not more, than he was praised for his military success and popular appeal. In these situations when an effort is being made to redeem Caesar from negative, overbearing contemporary uses, the new image of Caesar becomes so positive that it could not possibly be an accurate or objective reflection of the ancient accounts. If Napoleon’s use of Caesar presented this problem, then Mussolini’s association with Caesar was even more inescapable.

Mussolini equated modern Italy with ancient Rome and in doing so associated himself with Caesar.

As a direct result of Mussolini’s personal portrayal, frequent references to Caesar in interviews, and

Fascist propaganda, there was a global familiarity with this association. For better or for worse, Il

Duce was Rome’s new Caesar. The association of Mussolini with Caesar began as a positive evocation promoted by Mussolini and his supporters, though it soon developed into a means through which to criticise Mussolini, culminating in his reputation as the Sawdust Caesar. From the time of

Mussolini’s rise to power all mentions of Caesar carried unavoidable connotations of Mussolini, particularly those evoking an image of Caesar as a dictator and especially those in an Italian context.

Whether as a form of praise or ridicule, this was emphasised to some degree in certain productions.

However, a similar attempt to redeem or reconstruct Caesar as a positive figure of Western culture can be observed here. After Mussolini’s defeat and death authors would have to go to great lengths to present a positive image of Caesar acting separately from the memory of Mussolini. In order to

405 Mommsen 1901: 313. 135 achieve this image, these Caesars became exceptionally positive figures and emphasised Caesarean qualities which could not be seen in Mussolini. For example, Rojo’s Caesar in Julius Caesar against the Pirates (1962) is a Republican hero who vows to save Rome from Silla’s oppressive dictatorship.

In Caesar the Conqueror (1962) Mitchell’s Caesar aims to abolish slavery and to demonstrate that the Republic could function without the spoils of war. Warner’s Young Caesar (1958) values liberty and order above all ambition, while the Caesars of Rains and Harrison demonstrate the importance and value of mercy in leadership. These traits are far removed from the reality of an historic Caesar but are exceptionally positive in a modern context. They collectively and individually work to remove

Caesar from an association with Mussolini, to redeem Caesar’s reputation to a certain degree, and to reclaim him as a hero of Western culture. As a rule, these Caesars do not wear clothes which could even remotely resemble a modern military uniform, nor are they loud, proud, or pompous. They do not march on Rome, nor indeed march at all. They do not shout at captive audiences, nor symbolise modern dictatorship in any discernible way. In order to reclaim Caesar and to employ him for contemporary purposes all connotations which could dilute and distract from the intended message must first be reduced or preferably removed. Mussolini’s influence over Caesar reception is strongest in Italy during the Second World War. As such, the more removed a text is from this period, both nationally and chronologically, the less prevalent Mussolini’s use of Caesar becomes. This is true of these texts as Caesar is more positive in Italy than he is in other parts of the world. The prominence of Mussolini and his inherent connection to Caesar could partially explain the use of a generally positive or palatable image of Caesar in this period, or at least in the receptions analysed in this thesis.

At all stages of his life and career, Caesar has been employed to comment on contemporary power and political ideals. The potential uses of Caesar’s name and image are endless and this period sees a number of receptions which vary in length, intent, and popularity. As a popular historical figure

Caesar transcends language and culture and is employed in all contexts and locations. Although these receptions focus on different episodes of Caesar’s life and emphasise certain elements of his character 136 over others, they all promote a relatively moderate and conservative image of Caesar. None of these received Caesars are unequivocally evil or malicious and none of their questionable actions are beyond redemption. Even in the context of 1945-65 these images of Caesar are not particularly divisive. This collective image highlights the persistence and dominance of the traditional view of

Caesar as a pillar of Western culture and the apparent reluctance to overtly challenge this view. Those who form their opinions and knowledge of the ancient world through its popular reception would undoubtedly receive a stilted and stifled impression of Caesar from these texts. In this instance the necessity of combining the study of the ancient world with an analysis of its popular reception is immediately apparent.

137 Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Caesar (trans. H.J. Edwards). 1917. The Gallic War, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Caesar (trans. C. Damon). 2016. Civil War, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Cassius Dio (trans. J.W. Rich). 1990. Roman History, Warminster: Aris & Philips.

Plutarch (trans. B. Perrin). 1920. Life of Antony, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Plutarch (trans. B. Perrin). 1918. Life of Brutus, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Plutarch (trans. B. Perrin). 1919. Life of Caesar, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Plutarch (trans. B. Perrin). 1916. Life of Crassus, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Plutarch (trans. B. Perrin). 1916. Life of Sulla, Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Suetonius (trans. C. Edwards). 2008. The Deified Julius Caesar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Modern Authors

Adcock, F.E. 1956. Caesar: As Man of Letters, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ahl, F. 2007. ‘Spartacus, Exodus, and Dalton Trumbo: Managing Ideologies of War,’ in M. Winkler

ed. Spartacus: Film and History, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 65-86.

Anderegg, M. 2005. ‘Orson Welles and After: Julius Caesar and Twentieth Century Totalitarianism,’

in H. Zander ed. Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays, New York and London: Routledge, 295-

305.

Anonymous, 1955. ‘Obituary for Ruggero Grieco,’ New York Times, 24 July 1955, 65.

Apostol, R. 2018. ‘Whither the Roman Empire? Fear of the future in Toga Films,’ in L.H. Pratt, and

C.M. Sampson, eds. Engaging Classical Texts in the Contemporary World, Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press, 229-247.

Apra, A. 2017. ‘Cross-Fertilization between France and Italy from Neorealism through the 1960s,’ in

F. Burke ed. A Companion to Italian Cinema, Chichester :Wiley Blackwell, 216-225. 138 Archer, J. 1964. Twentieth Century Caesar: Benito Mussolini, New York: Julian Messner, Inc.

Baehr, P. 1998. Caesar and the Fading of the Roman World: A Study in Republicanism and

Caesarism, New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Transaction Publishers.

Barnett, S. 2015. Astérix and the Dream of Autochthony, in G. Kovacs and C.W. Marshall eds. Sons

of Classics and Comics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 131-42.

Batstone, W.W. 2006. ‘Provocation: The Point of Reception Theory,’ in C. Martindale and R.F.

Thomas eds. Classics and the Uses of Reception, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 14-20.

Batstone, W. 2018. ‘Caesar Constructing Caesar,’ in L. Grillo and C.B. Krebs eds. The Cambridge

Companion to the Writings of Julius Caesar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43-57.

Bertolini, J.A. 1981. ‘Shaw’s Ironic View of Caesar,’ Twentieth Century Literature, 27.4: 331-42.

Blanshard, A.J.L. and Shahabudin, K. 2014. Classics on Screen: Ancient Greece and Rome on Film,

London and New York: Bloomsbury.

Boccia, T. 1962. Giulio Cesare, il conquistatore delle Gallie, DVD, Originally released as a Motion

Picture by Imperialcine, 1962.

Bondanella, P. and Pacchioni, F. 2017. A History of Italian Cinema Second Edition, New York,

London: Bloomsbury Academic. Reprint 2018.

Bracher, N. 1998. ‘Timely Predications: The Use and Abuse of History in Contemporary France,’

Soundings: n Interdisciplinary Journal, 81.1/2: 235-256.

Braden, G. 2004. ‘Plutarch, Shakespeare, and the Alpha Males,’ in C. Martindale and A.B. Taylor

eds. Shakespeare and the Classics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 188-205.

Bronfen, E. 2013. ‘Monumental Cleopatra: Hollywood’s Epic Film as Historical Re-imagination,’

Anglia 131 (2-3): 218-35.

Brown, S.A. 2004. ‘‘There is no end but addition’: the Latter Reception of Shakespeare’s Classicism,’

in C. Martindale and A.B. Taylor eds. Shakespeare and the Classics, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 277- 293.

Brunetta, G.P. 1994. ‘The Long March of American Cinema in Italy from Fascism to the Cold War,’ 139 D.W. Elwood and R. Kroes eds. Hollywood in Europe: Experiences of a Cultural Hegemony,

Amsterdam: VU University Press,139- 154.

Burke, F. ed. 2017. A Companion to Italian Cinema, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

Canfora, L. 2009. ‘Caesar for Communists and Fascists,’ in M. Griffin ed. A Companion to Julius

Caesar, Oxford and Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 431-40.

Casper, D. 2007. Postwar Hollywood: 1946-1962, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ceplair, L. 2012. ‘Kirk Douglas, Spartacus, and the Blacklist,’ Cineaste, 11: 11-59.

Ceplair, L. and Trumbo, C. 2015. Dalton Trumbo: Blacklisted Hollywood Radical, Lexington: The

University Press of Kentucky.

Churchill, T. 1967. ‘Rex Warner: Homage to Necessity’ Periodicals Archive Online 10:30-44.

Cole, N. 2009. ‘Republicanism, Caesarism, and Political Change,’ in M. Griffin ed. A Companion to

Julius Caesar, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 418-430.

Cooper, D. 2007a. ‘Dalton Trumbo vs Stanley Kubrick: The Historical meaning of Spartacus,’ in M.

Winkler ed. Spartacus: Film and History, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 56-64.

Cooper, D. 2007b. ‘Who Killed the Legend of Spartacus? Production, Censorship, and

Reconstruction of Stanley Kubrick’s Epic Film,’ in M. Winkler ed. Spartacus: Film and

History, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 14-55.

Corbucci, S. 1962. Il figlio di Spartacus, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Titanus

1962 Italy, then by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer 1963 United Kingdom.

Cornelius, M.G. ed. 2011. Of Muscles and Men: Essays on the Sword and Sandal Film, Jefferson,

North Carolina and London: McFarland & Company.

Cuff, P.J. 1957. ‘Caesar the Soldier,’ Greece and Rome 4(1): 29-35.

Cyrino, M. S. 2005. Big Screen Rome, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

De Mille, C.B. 1934. Cleopatra, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Paramount Pictures

1934. 140 De Riencourt, A. 1957. The Coming Caesars, New York: Coward-McCann.

Derrick, T. 1998. Understanding Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: A Student Casebook to Issues,

Sources, and Historical Documents, London and Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Dinter, M.T. 2011. ‘Francophone Romes: Antiquity is Les Bandes Dessinées,’ in G. Kovacks and

C.W. Marshall eds. 2011. Classics and Comics, Oxford and New York: Oxford University

Press, 183-94.

Douglas, K. 2012. I am Spartacus!: Making a Film, Breaking the Blacklist, New York: Open Road

Media.

Drakakis, J. 2004. ‘‘Fashion it thus’: Julius Caesar and the Politics of Theatrical Representation,’ in

C.M.S. Alexander ed. Shakespeare and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 206-

18.

Duff, T. E. 1999. Plutarch’s Lives: Exploring Virtue and Vice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duggan, C. 1995. ‘Italy in the Cold War Years and the Legacy of Fascism,’ in C. Duggan and C.

Wagstaff eds. Italy in the Cold War: Politics, Culture and Society 1948-58, Oxford and

Washington D.C.: Berg, 1-24.

Duggan, C. and Wagstaff, C. eds. 1995. Italy in the Cold War: Politics, Culture and Society 1948-

58, Oxford and Washington D.C.: Berg.

Dukore, B.F. ed. 1996. Selected Correspondence of Bernard Shaw: Bernard Shaw and Gabriel

Pascal, Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press.

Dyer, R. and Vincendeau, G. eds. 1992 Popular European Cinema, London and New York:

Routledge.

Eldridge, D. 2006. Hollywood’s History Films, London and New York: I.B. Tauris.

Elley, D. 2014. The Epic Film: Myth and History, New York: Routledge.

Elwood, D.W. and Kroes, R. eds. 1994. Hollywood in Europe: Experiences of a Cultural Hegemony,

Amsterdam: VU University Press.

Elwood, D. 1994. ‘Introduction Historical Methods and Approaches,’ in D.W. Elwood and R. Kroes 141 eds. Hollywood in Europe: Experiences of a Cultural Hegemony, Amsterdam: VU University

Press, 2-18.

Fast, H. 1951. Spartacus, New York: Ibooks. Reprinted 2000.

Feit, E. 1974. Urban Revolt in South Africa 1960-1964: A Case Study, Illinois: Northwestern

University Press.

Franzero, C.M. 1957. The Life and Times of Cleopatra, London: Redman.

Fuller, J.F.C. 1969. Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier, and Tyrant, London: Minerva Press.

Futrell, A. 2007. ‘Seeing Red: Spartacus as Domestic Economist,’ in S.R. Joshel, M. Malamud, and

D.T. McGuire, Jr. eds. Imperial Projections: Ancient Rome in Modern Popular Culture,

Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 77-118.

Garland, R. 2003. Julius Caesar, Bristol: Bristol Phoenix Press.

Garncarz, J. 1994. ‘Hollywood in Germany: The role of American Films in Germany, 1925-1990*,’

in D.W. Elwood and R. Kroes eds. Hollywood in Europe: Experiences of a Cultural Hegemony,

Amsterdam: VU University Press, 94-135.

Gelzer, M. 1968. Caesar: Politician and Statesman, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (trans. Peter Needham)

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 1961. Astérix le Gaulois. Neuilly-sur-Seine: Dargaud.

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 1964. Astérix Gladiateur. Neuilly-sur-Seine: Dargaud.

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 1965. Astérix et Cléopatre. Neuilly-sur-Seine: Dargaud.

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 1966. Astérix chez les Bretons. Paris and New York: Dargaud.

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 1974. Asterix the Gladiator, trans. A. Bell and D. Hockridge, London

and Sydney: Hodder Dargaud.

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 1978. Asterix the Gaul, trans. A. Bell and D. Hockridge, London and

Sydney: Dargaud.

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 2016. Asterix and Cleopatra, trans. A. Bell and D. Hockridge, London:

Hodder and Stoughton.

Goscinny, R. and Uderzo, A. 2016. Asterix in Britain, trans. A. Bell and D. Hockridge, London: 142 Hodder and Stoughton.

Greenwald, M.L. 2005. ‘Multicultural and Regendered Romans: Caesar in North America, 1969-

2000,’ in H. Zander ed. Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays, New York and London: Routledge,

319-332.

Grieco, S. 1962. Giulio Cesare contro i pirati, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Globe

Films International 1962.

Griffin, M. ed. 2009. A Companion to Julius Caesar, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Grillo, L. and Krebs, C.B. eds. 2018. The Cambridge Companion to the Writings of Julius Caesar,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gross, J. 2005. ‘Revisitng “nos ancestres les Gaulois:” Scripting and postscripting Francophone

Identity,’ The French Review 78.5: 948-959.

Gruen, E.S. 2009. ‘Caesar as a Politician,’ in M. Griffin ed. A Companion to Julius Caesar, Oxford

and Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 23-36.

Günsberg, M. 2005. Italian Cinema: Gender and Genre, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hacker, A. 1957. ‘De Riencourt, Amaury. The Coming Caesars (Book Review),’ Political Science

Quarterly, 72: 627-628.

Hardwick, L. 2003. Reception Studies. Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics, Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Hartley, A.J. 2015. Shakespeare in Performance: Julius Caesar, Manchester: Manchester University

Press.

Houseman, J. 1953. ‘Filming “Julius Caesar”,’ Monthly Film Bulletin, 23.1: 24-27.

Houseman, J. 1953. ‘ “Julius Caesar”: Mr Mankiewicz’ Shooting Script,’ The Quarterly of Film

Radio and Television, 8.2: 109-124.

Hughes, H. 2011. Cinema Italiano: The Complete Guide from Classic to Cult, London & New York:

I.B. Tauris.

Jagendorf, M. A. 1949 The Marvelous Adventures of Johnny Caesar Cicero Darling, New Work: 143 Vanguard Press.

Joshel, S.R., Malamud, M. and McGuire, D.T.(Jr.) eds. 2001. Imperial Projections: Ancient Rome in

Modern Popular Culture, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Joughin, J.J. 2004. ‘Shakespeare and Politics: an Introduction,’ in C.M.S. Alexander ed. Shakespeare

and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-21.

Kelly, M. 2008. ‘War and Culture: The lessons of post-war France,’ Synergies Royanne -Uni et

Irlande, 1: 91-100.

Kessler, P. 1995. The Complete Guide to Asterix, London: Hodder Children’s Books.

Kinnard, R. and Crnkovick, T. 2017. Italian Sword and Sandal Films 1908-1990, McFarland &

Company, Inc., Publishers, North Carolina: Jefferson.

Kovacks, G. and Marshall, C.W. eds. 2011. Classics and Comics, Oxford and New York: Oxford

University Press.

Kovacks, G. and Marshall, C.W. eds. 2015. Sons of Classics and Comics, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Kubrick, S. 1960. Spartacus, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Universal Sony

Pictures 1960.

Lagny, M. 1992. ‘Popular Taste: The Peplum,’ in R. Dyer and G. Vincendeau eds. Popular European

Cinema, London and New York: Routledge, 163-80.

Landy, M. ed. 2001. The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media, New Brunswick, New

Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Landy, M. 2000. Italian Film, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laurence, R. 1999. ‘Tourism, Town Planning and Romanitas: Rimini’s Roman Heritage,’ in M. Wyke

and M. Biddiss eds. The Uses and Abuses of Antiquity, Bern, Berlin and New York: Peter Lang,

187-205.

Lenihan, J.H. 1992. ‘English Classics for Cold War America: MGM’s “Kim” (1950), “Ivanhoe”

(1952), and “Julius Caesar” (1953),’ Journal of Popular Film and Television, 20.3: 42-51. 144 Lovano, M. 2015. All Things Julius Caesar: An Encyclopaedia of Caesar’s World and Legacy, 2

vols., Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Lovatt, H. 2009. ‘Asterisks and Obelisks: Classical Reception in Children’s Literature,’ International

Journal of the Classical Tradition, 16.3/4: 508-522.

Lucanio, P. 1994. With Fire and Sword: Italian Spectacles on American Screens 1958-1968,

Metuchen, New Jersey and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc..

Maes-Jelinek, H. 1970. Criticism of Society in the English Novel Between the Wars, Paris: Societe

d’editions “Les Belles lettres”.

Malamud, M. 2009. Ancient Rome and Modern America, Chichester West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

Manchester, W.R. 1979. American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, London: Hutchinson.

Mandela, N. 1961. Interviewed by Brian Widlake, 31 May 1961, accessed 10 August 2019,

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDdatnas2AA>.

Manfull, H. ed. 1970. Additional Dialogue: Letters of Dalton Trumbo, 1942-1962, New York: M.

Evans and Company, Inc.

Mankiewicz, J.L. 1953. Julius Caesar, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Metro-

Goldwyn-Mayer 1953.

Mankiewicz, J.L. 1963. Cleopatra, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by 20th Century

Fox 1963.

Margheriti, A. 1964. I giganti di Roma, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Devon Film

1964.

Martindale, C. 2006. ‘Introduction: Thinking Through Reception,’ in C. Martindale and R.F. Thomas

eds. Classics and the Uses of Reception, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1-13.

Matheson, T. 2005. ‘Royal Caesar,’ in H. Zander ed. Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays, New York

and London: Routledge, 307- 318.

Mazrui, A.A. 1967. The Anglo-African Commonwealth: Political Friction and Cultural Fusion,

Oxford, London, Edinburgh and New York: Pergamon Press. 145 McElduff, S. 2015. ‘We’re not in Gaul Anymore: The Global Translation of Asterix,’ in G. Kovacs

and C.W. Marshall eds. Sons of Classics and Comics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 143-

57.

McQuillan, E.C. 2001. ‘The Reception and Creation of Post-1960 Franco Belgian BD.’ Unpublished

PhD Thesis, Glasgow: University of Glasgow.

Miller, A. 2000. ‘“Julius Caesar” in the Cold War: The Houseman-Mankiewicz Film,’

Literature/Film Quarterly 28.2: 95-100.

Mistry, K. 2014. The United States, Italy and the Origins of Cold War: Waging Political Warfare,

1945-1950, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mohr, R. 1960. Julius Caesar, Cape Town City Hall: Cape Town.

Mommsen, T. 1884. The History of Rome, trans. W.P. Dickson, London: Macmillan. New Edition

1910.

Morgan, J.W. 1960. ‘The Squalor that was Rome,’ New Statesman, 60: 924.

Murphy, G. 2004. ‘Ugly Americans in Togas: Imperial Anxiety in the Cold War Hollywood Epic,’

Journal of Film and Video, 56.3: 3-19.

Navasky, V.S. 1980. Naming Names, New York: The Viking Press.

Nicolet, C. 2009. ‘Caesar and the Two Napoleons,’ in M. Griffin ed. A Companion to Julius Caesar,

Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 410-17.

Nye, R.B. 1980. ‘Death of a Gaulois: René Goscinny and Astérix,’ Journal of Popular Culture 14.2:

181-95.

Öğütcü, M. 2017. ‘Julius Caesar: Tyrannicide Made Unpopular,’ Parergon 34.1: 109-28.

Orkin, M. 1987. Shakespeare Against Apartheid, Craighall: AD Donker.

Ornes, G.E. 1958. Trujillo: Little Caesar of the Caribbean, New York and Toronto: Thomas Nelson

& Sons.

Parenti, M. 2003. The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome, New

York and London: The New Press. 146 Parrinder, P. 1999. ‘Ancients and Moderns: Literature and the ‘Western Canon’,’ in M. Wyke and M.

Biddiss eds. The Uses and Abuses of Antiquity, Bern, Berlin and New York: Peter Lang, 263-

78.

Pascal, G. 1945. Caesar and Cleopatra, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Eagle-Lion

Distributors Limited 1945.

Pasinetti, P.M. 1953. ‘ “Julius Caesar”: The Role of the Technical Adviser,’ The Quarterly of Film

Radio and Television, 8.2: 131-8.

Paul, J. 2008. ‘Working with Film: Theories and Methodologies,’ in L. Hardwick and C. Stray eds.

A Companion to Classical Reception, Oxford: Blackwell, 303-314.

Pelling, C. 2009. ‘The First Biographers: Plutarch and Suetonius,’ in M. Griffin ed. A Companion to

Julius Caesar, Oxford and Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, 252-66.

Pelling. C. 2011. Plutarch Caesar, Introduction, Translation and Commentary by C. Pelling, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Pierotti, P. and Tourjansky, V. 1962. Una regina per Cesare, DVD, Originally released as a Motion

Picture by C.F.P.C. and Filmes Cinematografica 1962.

Pomeroy, A. 2008. Then it was Destroyed by the Volcano: The Ancient World in Film and on

Television, London: Duckworth.

Pomeroy, A. 2017. ‘The Peplum Era,’ in A. Pomeroy ed. A Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome

on Screen, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 145-60.

Pucci, G. 2006. ‘Caesar the Foe: Roman Conquest and National Resistance in French Popular

Culture,’ in M. Wyke ed. Julius Caesar in Western Culture, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,

190-201.

Quince, R. 2000. Shakespeare in South Africa: Stage Productions during the Apartheid Era, New

York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.

Quince, R. 2009. ‘Shakespeare on the Apartheid Stage: The Subversive Strain,’ in G. Bradshaw, T.

Bishop and L. Wright eds. The Shakespearean International Yearbook 9: Special Section, South 147 African Shakespeare in the Twentieth Century, Fanham, England: Ashgate, 87-104.

Radford, F. 2012. ‘The Many Legends of Spartacus: The Production History of a Film,’ Unpublished

PhD Thesis, Sydney: Macquarie University.

Radford, F. 2017. ‘Hollywood Ascendant: Ben-Hur and Spartacus,’ in A. Pomeroy ed. A Companion

to Ancient Greece and Rome on Screen, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 119-44.

Raven, S. 1958. ‘Sprouting Colossus,’ The Spectator, 200: 782.

Richard, C. 1994. The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Richards, J. 2008. Hollywood’s Ancient Worlds, London and New York: Continuum.

Ridley, R.T. 2000. ‘The Dictator’s Mistake: Caesar’s Escape from Sulla,’ in Historia: Zeitschrift für

Alte Geschichte, 29: 211-29.

Rigney, J. 2005. ‘Stage World of Julius Caesar: Theatrical Features and Their History,’ in H. Zander

ed. Julius Caesar: New Critical Essays, New York and London: Routledge, 287-293.

Ripley, J. 1980. Julius Caesar on Stage in England and America, 1599-1973, Cambridge, New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Robinson, T. 1994. ‘A Question of Leadership: The Novels of Rex Warner,’ The London Magazine,

34.6:34-45.

Roe, J. 2004. ‘‘Character’ in Plutarch and Shakespeare: Brutus, Julius Caesar, and Mark Antony,’ in

C. Martindale and A.B. Taylor eds. Shakespeare and the Classics, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 173-187.

Ross, S.J. 2011. Hollywood Left and Right: How movie stars shaped American politics, New York:

Oxford University Press.

Rushing, R.A. 2016. Descended from Hercules: Biopolitics and the Muscled Male Body on Screen,

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Seager, R. 2003. ‘Caesar and Gaul: Some Perspectives on the Bellum Gallicum,’ in F. Cairns and E.

Fantham eds. Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 11: Caesar Against Liberty? Perspectives 148 on his Autocracy, Cambridge: Francis Cairns, 19-34.

Sear, D.R. 1998. The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators 49-27 BC, London: Spink.

Scott, T. 1956. ‘The Coming Caesars, By Amaury de Riencourt (Book Review),’ Texas Law Review

35: 755-756.

Shakespeare, W. and Humphreys, A. 1984. The Oxford Shakespeare: Julius Caesar, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Shalev, E. 2009. Rome Reborn on Western Shores: Historical Imagination and the Creation of the

American Republic. Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Press.

Sheldon, R.M. 2015. ‘Swords, Sandals, and Insurgencies: Ancient History goes to the Movies,’ in

Small Wars & Insurgencies, 578-96.

Shaw, G.B. 1906. Three Plays for Puritans, New York: Brentano’s Publishers.

Solomon, J. 2001. The Ancient World in the Cinema, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Sprigge, C. 1949. ‘Fault-Finding in Italy,’ The Observer, 18 December 1949, 3.

Stevenson, T. 2014. Julius Caesar and the Transformation of the Roman Republic, New York:

Routledge.

Surugue, C. 2019. Portfolio of Julius Caesar, online entry, accessed 25 May 2019,

.

Tabachnick. S.E. 2002. Fiercer than Tigers: The Life and Works of Rex Warner, East Lansing:

Michigan State University Press.

Tatum, W.J. 2007. ‘The Character of Marcus Licinius Crassus,’ in M. Winkler ed. Spartacus: Film

and History, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 128-43.

Taylor, L. R. 1949. Party Politics in the age of Caesar, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:

University of California Press.

Tempera, M. 2005. ‘Political Caesar: Julius Caesar on the Italian Stage’ in H. Zander ed. Julius

Caesar: New Critical Essays, New York and London: Routledge, 333-343

Theodorakopoulos, E. 2010. Ancient Rome at the Cinema: Story and Spectacle in Hollywood and 149 Rome, Exeter: Bristol Phoenix Press.

Thody, P. 1989. French Caesarism from Napoleon I to Charles de Gaulle, New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Thomas, G. 1964. Carry on Cleo, DVD, Originally released as a Motion Picture by Anglo

Amalgamated Film Distributions 1964.

Urbainczyk, T. 2004. Ancients in Action: Spartacus, London: Bristol Classical Press.

Vesonder, T.G. 1979. ‘Shaw’s Caesar and the Mythic Hero,’ The Shaw Review, 21.2:72-9.

Vials, C. 2014. Haunted by Hitler: Liberals, the Left, and the Fight against Fascism in the United

States, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Vines, L.D. 2008. ‘Teaching Belgian Cultural Connections with “Asterix”,’ The French Review, La

Belgique et la Suisse, 81.6: 1224-1238.

Walter, G. (trans. Emma Craufurd) 1953. Caesar, 2 vols. London: Cassel & Co. Ltd.

Wanger, W. and Hyams, J. 1963 (reprinted 2013). My Life with Cleopatra: The Making of a

Hollywood Classic, Vintage Books A Division of Random House Inc.: New York. .

Ward, A.M. 2007. ‘Spartacus: History and Histrionics,’ in M. Winkler ed. Spartacus: Film and

History, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 87-111.

Warner, R. 1953. ‘Book Review of Cowell and Grant,’ London Magazine, 3.7:76-8.

Warner, R. 1958. Young Caesar, St James’ Place, London: Collins.

Warner, R. 1960. Imperial Caesar, Boston: Little Brown.

Wilder, T. 1948. The Ides of March, London: Longmans, Green.

Wilson, R.R. 1945. Lincoln in Caricature: 165 Poster Cartoons and Drawings for the Press, Elmira,

New York: The Primavera Press, Inc.

Winkler, M. 1991. Classics and Cinema, Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.

Winkler, M. 2001. ‘The Roman Empire in American Cinema after 1945,’ in S.R. Joshel, M. Malamud,

and D.T. McGuire, Jr. eds. Imperial Projections: Ancient Rome in Modern Popular Culture,

Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 50-76. 150 Winkler, M. ed. 2007. Spartacus: Film and History, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Winkler, M. 2007. ‘ “Culturally Significant and Not Just Simple Entertainment”: History and the

Marketing of Spartacus,’ in M. Winkler ed. Spartacus: Film and History, Malden and Oxford:

Blackwell Publishing, 198-232.

Winkler, M. 2007. ‘The Holy Cause of Freedom: American Ideals in Spartacus,’ in M. Winkler ed.

Spartacus: Film and History, Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 154-88.

Winkler, M. 2009. Cinema and Classical Texts: Apollo’s New Light, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wintjes, J. 2009. ‘From “Capitano” to “Great Commander”: The Military Reception of Caesar from

the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries,’ in M. Griffin ed. A Companion to Julius Caesar,

Oxford and Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 269-84.

Wiseman, T.P. 2009. ‘The Publication of De Bello Gallico,’ in K. Welch and A. Powell eds. Julius

Caesar as Artful Reporter: The War Commentaries as Political Instruments, Swansea: The

Classical Press of Wales, 1-10.

Wodianka, S. 2017. ‘Connecting Origin and Innocence Myths of Resistance in European Memory

Cultures after 1945,’ in M. Butler, P. Mecheril, and L. Brenningmeyer eds. Resistance:

Subjects, Representations, Contexts, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 153-172.

Woodman, A.J. 2014. ‘Amateur Dramatics at the Court of Nero: Annals 15.48-74,’ in T.J. Luce and

A.J. Woodman eds. Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press,

104-128.

Woolf, G. 2007. Et tu, Brute? The Murder of Caesar and Political Assassination, Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wyke, M. 1997. Projecting the Past: Ancient Rome, Cinema and History, New York: Routledge.

Wyke, M. and Biddiss, M. eds. 1999. The Uses and Abuses of Antiquity, Bern, Berlin and New York:

Peter Lang.

Wyke, M. and Biddiss, M. 1999. ‘Introduction: Using and Abusing Antiquity,’ in M. Wyke and M. 151 Biddiss eds. The Uses and Abuses of Antiquity, Bern, Berlin and New York: Peter Lang, 13-17.

Wyke, M. 1999. ‘Sawdust Caesar: Mussolini, Julius Caesar, and the Drama of Dictatorship,’ in M.

Wyke and M. Biddiss eds. The Uses and Abuses of Antiquity, Bern, Berlin and New York: Peter

Lang, 167-86.

Wyke, M. 2004. ‘Film Style and Fascism: Julius Caesar,’ Film Studies 4: 58-vi.

Wyke, M. ed. 2006. Julius Caesar in Western Culture, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Wyke, M. 2007. The Roman Mistress: Ancient and Modern Representations, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Wyke, M. 2008. Caesar: A Life in Western Culture, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago

Press.

Wyke, M. 2012. Caesar in the USA, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Wylie, J. 1979. ‘Asterix Ethnologue: Anthropology Beyond the Community in Europe,’ Current

Anthropology, 20.4: 797-8.

Yavetz, Z. 1983. Julius Caesar and his Public Image, London: Thames and Hudson.

Zander, H. 2005. ‘Introduction: Julius Caesar and the Critical Legacy,’ in H. Zander ed. Julius

Caesar: New Critical Essays, New York and London: Routledge, 3-55.