Howard Fast's novelization of the slave revolt in Italy between 73-71 BC is both a work of left wing advocacy and a tremendously well done novel. I read it first when I was 14. Now, a long time later, once a year or so I re-read the copy I still have - for the enjoyment, for the character development, for the history, and for the political agenda. You could read it for any one or any combination of those features, and still get something out of this book.

For those who don't know, Howard Fast was a member of the Communist Party of the United States from the 1930s on up to the early 1950s, a committed, though thinking member. And one who was willing to go to jail ~1951 rather than testify about others in the CPUSA. (For more about this aspect of his life, buy his biography, Being Red.) So, Spartacus is a novel with an agenda. For "Rome," read western capitalism run wild. For "slaves" read the lower class, peasants, serfs or workers. And for Spartacus himself, read anyone you want to as a modern day revolutionary who is forced by history, and his own humanity, to attempt changing the world. Is this a problem? Absolutely not! When I read this book at 14, I knew that when I read something along the lines of "Rome is the whole world," that that could be taken as the Classical Mediterranean world, or as the whole capitalist world of the 20th century. If, like me, you don't worry too much about the evils of modern capitalism, you can read the book as pure historical fiction. And, like me, if you want to, you can catch Fast's criticism of capitalism without diminishing your enjoyment of the novel.

How good is Spartacus as historical fiction? I am not a classical historian, but I read a lot, including those Roman detective novels, and all five of McCullough’s Roman series starting with The First Man in Rome. I would guess that Fast is doing as good a job as McCullough. Does Fast account for every last Roman legion, including the date it was raised, where it was stationed, and the historically correct name of its legate in a certain year, etc? No, but given the relatively small amount of information available about Spartacus, Fast manages to make a historically valid interpretation.

What Fast really does well is characters: Spartacus himself, introduced as a slave, and then as a gladiator, working his way towards open revolt, a human being who others might follow in a desperate bid for freedom. Crassus, the rich Roman general - rich enough to pay for his own army - who ultimately defeats Spartacus, but is himself has doubts about how his own Roman morality compares with what he can understand of the goals and ethics of the Spartacus and his slave army. And Gracchus, the Roman senator who does appear to fully understand the morality superiority of Spartacus, but at the same time is so much a Roman that he must help destroy Spartacus. Throw in Cicero, and a number of other characters who may or may not be historical, including Spartacus' slave wife, and you have a wonderful cast.

Probably everyone knows that the revolt of Spartacus is finally put down, so that there are almost no survivors among the good guys in Spartacus. And yet, through one lone survivor, and through the actions of two Romans who have been changed by the events described in the novel, there is a positive twist at the end, which gives the reader hope for a better world, not just in 70 BC, but also in 2000AD.

Did I mention that Howard Fast writes well? As an example, here is one memorable exchange between Spartacus and the other escaped gladiators and some slaves who have joined them. A passage that still makes me feel good each time I think about it. Spartacus is encouraging the gladiators and the slaves to stay together and resist as an army and as a people, rather than scattering into the countryside, where they will be hunted down one-by-one:

P.S. The movie is terrible. Although, I gather that it took a lot of courage on the part of Stanley Kubrick, Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis to make it in 1960, which wasn't very long after Fast had been sent to jail for failing to testify.