Is Gladiator Stoic?
From revenge to a Republic
Is Gladiator a Stoic movie?
The obvious case against it being a Stoic film is that its protagonist isn’t Stoic.
It’s a revenge film.
Charged with restoring the republic, Maximus’s family is murdered and he’s left for dead, by the shunned Son of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus. Maximus’s life refocuses on killing Commodus, with dreams of reuniting with his family in the afterlife. The saga plays out in bloody gladiatorial arenas.
Stoics aren’t obsessed with vengeance. Obsession is grounded in anger and anger is irrational. Just because Maximus’s reaction is natural doesn’t mean it is right. This is the case made by John Sellars in Stoics on the Big Screen?:
Despite his obvious courage and fearlessness, Maximus remains decidedly passionate, and it is his passionate attachment to particulars and his desire for revenge when they are taken from him that makes Maximus decidedly un-Stoic.
There’s something to this, but I think it’s mistaken.
Indeed one can argue that Maximus should have been pursuing revenge. Commodus killed his family. Stoics are wary of pursuing punishment for its own sake. Just punishment reforms the punished or serves a greater social good. Commodus is incurable. To grant him clemency would be mistaken. As Seneca writes:
Yet it is not right to pardon indiscriminately; for when no distinction is made between good and bad men, disorder follows, and all vices break forth; we must therefore take care to distinguish those characters which admit of reform from those which are hopelessly depraved.
De Clementia
Commodus fits the classical mode of a tyrant. Nothing is ruling out a Stoic model from killing tyrants – indeed, if anything, tyrant killers were role models for the Roman Stoics. The act of Maximus’s vengeance restores the republic, saves other Romans from indiscriminate violence, and potentially improves the character of the empire itself.
What makes Maximus’s approach non-Stoic is that he’s blinded by his rage. Sellars is right to note that his desire for revenge is passionate. He loses his mind and becomes nothing but a gladiator in pursuit of payback.
But here, we should see Maximus’s story as an arc. In Gladiator, he’s charged with an imposing duty by the emperor only to lose it all. As a response, he aims to get retribution at any cost. Yet, he changes. He has the chance to kill Commodus but doesn’t take it – because it would endanger the son of a friend. Moreover, he orchestrates the return of the Republic. His final words set the restoration of the republic in order. The (actual) Marcus Aurelius once wrote:
The best form of defense is not to become like one’s enemy.
Meditations 6.6
Commodus’s retribution of Maximus brings Maximus closer to him. Maximus was never like Commodus, but his response to the killing of his family, naturally, causes him to be consumed by passion in the same way Commodus is. It’s only when he remembers his duty and relaxes his grip on vengeance that he stands apart from the tyrant.
Maximus does not die angry. He dies fulfilling his charge.
The most compelling argument against Gladiator as a Stoic film may be the film's emphasis on an afterlife. Stoicism is compatible with an afterlife, but whether there is one is not important. It’s essential in the world of Gladiator.
Earlier in the film, Maximus's gladiator friend, Juba, assures him that he will be with his family again. Juba does not know whether his own family lives or not. Nonetheless, he expresses nothing but confidence that he will see them again too.
But what if they never did? This possibility is rejected in Gladiator’s universe. And yet it is a realistic one in ours.
Everything that exists will very soon change, and will either be vaporized, if substance is single, or dispersed.
Meditations 6.4
Michael Tremblay and I discussed Gladiator here. I make my argument for my reading here and Michael connects Gladiator to ideas in MMA and argues that Maximus is an Aristotelian hero.
The idea that Marcus Aurelius would seek to restore the republic through a deputy is fanciful. But he did respect many Republicans, like Cato the Younger and Brutus – which is suggestive, especially for an emperor of Rome. Donald Robertson has a (paywalled, sorry) discussion of this here.
Seems it falls under "more stoic than the average Hollywood movie" but also definitely not something that would earn top marks from the real Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, given the protagonist being led by his emotions.