Professors Testify in 'Caligula' Case

It isn't often that college professors descend from their ivory towers to come to the defense of what some consider pornography. But testimony from academics, including two from Harvard, played a major role in Saturday's Boston Municipal Court ruling that the film "Caligula" is not legally obscene.

"I feel very strongly about First Amendment rights, but I don't think you'd find me testifying for one of those pictures at North or South Station," Glen W. Bowersock '57, former associate dean of the Faculty for undergraduate education and former professor of Greek and Latin, said yesterday.

Bowersock, an expert on classical history, said he told the court during his three hours on the witness stand that the film was historically accurate. "I'm not arguing that it's a great movie, but as far as its historical side is concerned, it is exact," he said.

Produced by Penthouse magazine, "Caligula" depicts the reign of a Roman emperor who ruled for a brief period and who was infamous for his exploitative and deviant sexual practices, which the film shows in explicit detail.

After hearing nearly two weeks of testimony from professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), universities in New York and Maryland and the two Harvard professors--Bowersock and Stanley Cavell, Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value--Judge Harry Elam ruled that "Caligula" has no literary, artistic or scientific value.

But he added that the prosecution "failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 'Caligula' lacks serious political value."

To prove material legally obscene, prosecutors must show that it is patently offensive, that it appeals to prurient interests, and that it lacks artistic, literary scientific and political value.

Frightening

Elam based his decision mainly on testimony from Andrew Hacker, professor of political science at Queens College in New York, saying that Hacker showed that the film demonstrated "the frightening effect of power in the hands of a single person, how power was used to emasculate, debase and exploit sexually."

"The judge hung his hat in ruling that the film is not obscene on the political leg. I would have hoped he'd have hung his hat on the other legs," A. Alan Friedberg, president of Sack Theaters, which leased the theater for the film's screening, said yesterday.

Although Elam based his finding on Hacker's argument, Friedberg said, "I really believe that if the others had not testified, we wouldn't have won the case."

Irving Singer, professor of philosophy at MIT, said yesterday his two-hour testimony in favor of the film was "like giving a lecture." Cavell was unavailable for comment yesterday.

William P. Homans, lawyer for Penthouse International, which produced the film, yesterday agreed that testimony from the academics--"particularly Bowersock, who was very, very helpful in giving an aura of historical accuracy to the film"--helped win the case.

"I heard Bowersock was a real outstanding witness," Homans, who was not in court during Bowersock's testimony, added.

Bowersock said yesterday that ancient historians often ignore the period of Roman history which "Caligula" portrays in sexually explicit detail "because it's so unpleasant." He added, "If there's one lesson to be learned from this film, it's that it is not good to ignore a historical period because it is unpleasant. Sometimes one needs to be reminded of these things."

Bowersock admitted that he did not know if Bob Guccione, publisher of Penthouse magazine and producer of the film, had such intentions in mind when he made the movie. But he added, "I do think that for a thinking person, there is that to be taken from the film.