Fatal Charades: Roman executions staged as mythological enactments

Journal of Roman Studies

Volumn 80, Issue NA, 1990, Pages 44-73

  Coleman, K M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84971947027     PISSN: 00754358     EISSN: 1753528X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/300280     Document Type: Article

References (283)

1. Dunbabin: K. M. D. Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa (1978)
2. Gamsey (1968 a): P. Gamsey, ‘ Legal privilege in the Roman empire’, Past&Present 41 (1968), 3–24
3. Gamsey (1968 b): P. Gamsey, ‘Why penalties become harsher: the Roman case, late Republic to fourth century Empire’, Natural Law Forum 13 (1968), 141–162
4. Gamsey, SSLP: P. Gamsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (1970)
5. C. Harding and R. W. Ireland, Punishment: Rhetoric, Rule, and Practice (1989) Harding–Ireland
6. Hopkins: K. Hopkins, ‘Murderous games’, in Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History Vol. 2 (1983), 1–30
7. Ignatieff: M. Ignatieff ‘State, civil society, and total institutions: a critique of recent social histories of punishment. in M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds) Crime and justice. An Annual Review of Research 3 (1981), 153–192
8. MacMullen: R. MacMullen, ‘Judicial savagery in the Roman empire’, Chiron 16 (1986), 147–166
9. Millar (1984): F. Millar, ‘Condemnation to hard labour in the Roman empire, from the Julio–Claudians to Constantine’, PBSR 52 (1984), 124–147
10. Musurillo: H. Musurillo (Ed.), The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (1972)
11. Ville, GO: La Gladiature en Occident des origines a la mort de Domitien (1981)
12. Weinreich: O. Weinreich, Studien zu Martial (1928)
13. Tert., Apol. 15. 4 (quoted in full in Part in below); a doublet of this passage occurs at Nat. 1. 10. 47.
14. ‘Welch perverses Spiel mit der Würde des Todes und mit dem Sinn der Todesstrafe!’ (Th. Birt, cit. O. Kiefer, Kulturgeschichte Roms (1933), 98).
15. Eigentlich theatralische, besonders pantomimische Vorstellungen’ (L. Friedlander, Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms (1920), 91);
16. ‘skits [staging] famous scenes from mythology’
17. (S. Newmyer, ‘The triumph of art over nature: Martial and Statius on Flavian aesthetics’, Helios 11 (1984), 1–7, at 4).
18. Sometimes, as a variation, elaborate sets and quasi–theatrical performances were prepared, in which as a climax a criminal was devoured limb by limb’ (Hop–kins, 11);
19. ‘dressing–up of criminals who were to be executed, and the setting of them into some drama so as to present their death as part of an entertainment’ (MacMullen, 150).
20. Contrasted by Millar (1984), 145, with the intense debate about penal reform in eighteenth–century France.
21. Summarized by Ignatieff, 154.
22. See G. Rusche and O. Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social Structure (1939);
23. D. Melossi and M. Pavar–ini, The Prison and the Factory: Origins of the Penitentiary System (1981).
24. Most influentially M. Foucault (trans. A. Sheri–dan), Discipline and Punish (1977) = Surveiller et Punir (1975).
25. Ignatieff, 166–168, 173–4.
26. Harding–Ireland, 198.
27. The alternative approach to settling dispute is that of awarding compensation, which may co–exist with afflictive punishment: see Harding–Ireland, 128–34.
28. For traces of this combination in the Roman poena dupli see J. M. Kelly, Roman Litigation (1966), 154–5.
29. Sen., Clem. i. 20. 1.
30. RE ivA. 2069–77 S.V. Talio (Herdlitczka);
31. By a sophisticated application of this principle, places of exile may sometimes fit the crime: see R. G. M. Nisbet, JRS 72 (1982), 51 n. 22.
32. Dig. 48. 19. 28. 12 (Callistr.).
33. Suet., Galba 9. 1.
34. For other examples where the criminal is punished at the site of his crime see MacMullen, 151 n. 12.
35. See L. Holford–Strevens, Aulus Gellius (1988), 70–71.
36. Millar (1984), 147.
37. Perhaps prompted (moral considerations apart) by generally higher standards of health and physical comfort, and by increasingly institutionalized care for the injured and dying, which protects the average person from acquaintance with suffering and death: Harding–Ireland, 149, 191–3.
38. Garnsey (1968 a), 9, quoting
39. Dig. 22. 5. 3
40. Praef., describes dignitas, existimatio, and auctoritas as the three ‘upper–class’ virtues.
41. See D–S iii. 482–5 S.V. Infamia (G. Humbert/Ch. Lecrivain); RE ix. 1537–40 s.v. Infamia (Pfaff).
42. See C. P. Jones, ‘Stigma: tattooing and branding in Graeco–Roman antiquity’, JRS 77 (1987), 139–155;
43. Harding–Ireland 193.
44. Harding–Ireland distinguish between the general sanction of stigma (104) and the application of specifically degrading penalties (198–200).
45. Ignatieff, 156.
46. στέφо έ ξ àkavθ.ώv:Matt. 27. 29
47. John 19. 2; dKctvOivov crr&pavov:
48. Mark 15. 17.
49. x^apuSa kokk(vtv:Matt. 27. 28; Tropxpvpav: Mark 15. 17; Ipomov 7rop9Upo0v: John 19. 2.
50. KdXapov: Matt. 27. 29.
51. The soldiery would consist largely of locally–recruited gentiles, who would be familiar with the messianic aspects of Judaism: R. Delbrueck, ‘Anti–quarisches zu der Verspottungen Jesu’, ZNW 41 (1942), 124–45 (at 126–7).
52. Sentence before mockery: Matt. 27. 26
53. Mark 15.
54. sentence after mockery: John 19. 16.
55. First at Clem. Alex., Paedag. 2. 73–5.
56. See H. St. J. Hart, ‘The crown of thorns
57. in John 19, 2–5‘, JTS n.s. 3 (1952), 66–75 (suggesting, for the ‘thorns’, the modified leaflets that grow on the base of the axis of date–palm fronds);
58. C. Bonner, ‘The crown of thorns’, HTR 46 (1953), 47–48.
59. e.g. Gorg. 525b, although at Leg. 862e he allows that capital punishment can serve the purpose of removing incurably wicked people from society.
60. Ignatieff, 160.
61. Sen., Clem. j. 22. 1
62. ‘transeamus ad alienas iniurias, in quibus vindicandis haec tria lex secuta est, quae princeps quoque sequi debet: aut ut eum, quern punit, emendet, aut ut poena eius ceteros meliores reddat, aut ut sublatis malis securiores ceteri vivant.’ Under the last category Seneca is presumably thinking of capital punishment; on the absence of custodial penalties see n. 42.
63. The jurists commonly limit the culpability of persons who have caused damage fortuito: cf. Callistr., Dig. 47. 21. 2 (removing boundary–stones)
64. Marcian., Dig– 47– 9– >11(starting a fire), 48. 4. 5. 1 (throwing a stone that hits the statue of an emperor).
65. cf. Sen., Clem. 1. 22. 1 (cit. n. 38).
66. Harding–Ireland, 198.
67. Millar (1984), 130–2, 143–4.
68. The further deterrence of a proven wrong–doer is closely related to the notion of correction: see Harding–Ireland, 119.
69. Euseb., HE 8. io (= Musurillo 26B. 5).
70. cf. Sen., Clem. 1. 22. 1 (cit. n. 38).
71. Hopkins, 6.
72. As recognized by Tertullian, making a rhetorical point out of attributing the origins of munera to funeral games (Spect. 12): ‘licet transient hoc genus editionis ab honoribus mortuorum ad honores viventium, qua–esturas dico et magistratus et flaminia et sacerdotia’.
73. Cic., Fam. 2. 11. 2; 8. 6. 5; 8. 8. 10; 8. 9. 3; cf. Att. 6. 1. 21.
74. Plin., Epist. 6. 34.
75. a 506. 34. 1: ‘uxorem. habuisti, cuius memoriae aut opus aliquod aut spectaculum atque hoc potissimum, quod maxime funeri, debebatur’ see Ville, GO, 354.
76. Sherwin–White ad loc. suggests that Pliny's friend may be the tight–fisted Maximus of Epist. 8. 4; but this phrase is a standard compliment, expressed by Pliny about Trajan also (Pan. 33. 2): ‘quam deinde in edendo liberalitatem exhibuit’.
77. a 6. 34. 3: ‘tu tamen meruisti ut acceptum tibi fieret, quod quo minus exhiberes, non per te stetit’. Sherwin–White ad loc. suggests that the audience may have thought that Maximus was economizing.
78. cf. CIL viii. 5276 (Hippo Regius): ‘ ob magnifi–centiam gladiatorii muneris quod civibus suis tri duo edidit quo omnes priorum memorias supergres–sus est.’
79. For the expansion crudel{es) see Ville, GO, 419 n. 141; the unjustifiably sadistic crudel{iter) is asserted without textual comment by Hopkins, 26.
80. See A. Beschaouch, ‘La mosaqïue de chasse à l’amphithéâtre découverte a Smirat en Tunisie’, CRAI (1966), 134–157
81. Dunbabin, 67–69
82. ‘per curionem dictum “domini mei ut Tele–geni(i) | pro leopardo meritum habeant vestri favoris donate eis denarios quingentos.’
83. Dunbabin, 79 and n. 59.
84. By Dunbabin, 68.
85. On this type of self–advertisement see Ville, GO, 468.
86. Augustan legislation made it impossible for anyone to rival the emperor in sponsoring munera beyond the official quota beholden upon the regular magistrates: see Ville, GO, 121–3.
87. G. Carettoni, ‘Le gallerie ipogee del Foro Romano e i ludi gladiatori forensi’, Bull. Comm. 76 (1956—1958), 23–44.65
88. R. Etienne, ‘La naissance de l’amphithéâtre: le mot et la chose’, REL 43 (1965), 213–220.
89. There were two basic designs: either the amphitheatre had a hypogeum underneath, from which the animals could be let into the arena (via galleries, lifts, and trapdoors, in the case of the Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum): see G. Cozzo, II Colosseo (1971), 60–71)
90. or else cages were constructed at ground level adjacent to the amphitheatre, with vertically sliding doors for controlling the animals’ entry into the arena (as, for example, at the military amphitheatre at Carnuntum on the Danube downstream from Vienna: see W. Jobst, Provinzhauptstadt Carnuntum (1983), 103 and pl. 100).
91. For the date see Tac., Ann. 13. 31. 1. I accept Calpurnius Siculus’ Neronian dating upheld by G. Townend, JRS 70 (1980), 166–174;
92. R. Mayer, JRS 70 (1980), 175–176;
93. T. P. Wiseman, JRS 72 (1982), 57—67;
94. a late date, perhaps under Alexander Severus, is advocated by E. Champlin, JRS 68 (1978), 95–110
95. Philol 130 (1986), 104–112
96. with D. Armstrong, Philol. 130 (1986), 113–36 (and a joint summing–up at p. 137).
97. Apul., Met. 10. 30. 1–34. 1. For this story as a pantomime theme cf. Augustine, Ciu. 18. 10. 16–21.
98. The occasion is described as ‘dies muneri destina–tus’ (Apul., Met. 10. 29. 3). The programme began with a pyrricha (see above) and pantomime. The death of a woman condemned to the beasts was scheduled, and a venatio. Apuleius seems to imagine a hybrid venue: the aulaeus and siparius argue for a theatre, the munus, venatio, and hypogeum for an amphitheatre.
99. Apul., Met. 10. 34. 2, ‘iamque tota suave fraglante cavea montem ilium ligneum terrae vorago recepit.’
100. See M. Kokolakis, Gladiatorial Games and Ani–mal–baiting in Lucian (1959), 16.
101. By J. H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing (1986), 186.
102. Text and translation come from the Groningen commentary. See further
103. ‘Apuleiana Groningana III’, Mnem. 4 27 (1974), 406–12 (at 409–12).
104. Generally recognized, though played down by E. Pais, Straboniana. Contributo allo studio delle fonti della storia e dell amministrazione romana (1886, repr. 1977), 122.
105. a 82 568: see RE ivA. 82. 13–16 (E. Honig–mann).
106. See M. Hengel, Crucifixion (1977), 51–63.
107. Tac., Ann. 1. 76. 3: ‘edendis gladiatoribus, quos Germanici fratris ac suo nomine obtulerat, Drusus praesedit, quamquam vili sanguine nimis gaudens’.
108. cf. Cic., Tusc. 2. 41: ‘gladiatores, aut perditi homines aut barbari, quas plagas perferunt!’.
109. By M. Clavel–Lévêque, ‘L’espace des jeux dans le monde romain: hégémonie, symbolique et pratique sociale’, ANRW 11 16. 3 (1986), 2405–563 (at 2470).
110. An identification with the Garamantes, defeated by the Romans in a campaign in a.d. 70, has been adduced as evidence for a Flavian date for this mosaic by S. Aurigemma, I mosaici di Zliten (1926), 269–78.
111. But Dunbabin, 235, objects that we cannot know of all the occasions on which barbarians were taken captive. G. Ville advocates a late–first– or early–second–century date on the basis of the style of the gladiators’ equipment: ‘Essai de la datation de la mosaïque de Zliten’, in La Mosaïque gréco–romaine. Colloques internationaux du centre national de la recherche scientifique (1965), 147–55. Dunbabin (237) accepts this date, adducing further stylistic grounds, and ascribes the mosaic to immigrant craftsmen from the E. Mediterranean working in the hellenistic tradition.
112. Dunbabin, 66.
113. Various locutions are employed by the jurists, e.g. Dig. 48. 8. 1. 5 ‘humiliore loco positum. in aliqua dignitate positum’ 48. 8. 3. 5 ‘humiliores. altiores’ the honestioreshumiliores formula is confined to the Sententiae Pauli: see Garnsey (1968a), 4. For the general phenomenon of differentiated penalties see J. A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967), 272–275
114. Garnsey's summary of the issue at SSLP, 103–4.
115. See Harding–Ireland, 166, 182 (Inca civilization).
116. See Barrington Moore, Jr., Injustice. The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt (1978), 29.
117. Garnsey (1968 b), 147.
118. Garnsey (1968 b), 148;
119. P. A. Brunt, ‘Evidence given under torture in the Principate’, Zeitschrift der Savigny–Stiftungfür Rechtsgeschichte 97 (1980), 256–65 (at 262).
120. Garnsey (1968 b), 145; SSLP, 111.
121. Th. Mommsen, Römisches Strafrecht (1889), 927 n. 2; Garnsey, SSLP, 104, 124 n. 2.
122. Garnsey (1968 a), 20 n. 72, observes that decapitation was both the least unpleasant and the least degrading form of the death penalty. Millar (1984), 134, makes a further distinction, contrasting crematio and damnatio ad bestias with the less spectacular means of execution (i.e. crucifixion and decapitation).
123. See P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, Gladiatorum Paria. Annunci di spettacoli gladiatorii a Pompei (1980), 145;
124. Ville, GO, 236 n. 21, 379.
125. The scenes on the Zliten mosaic have been explained as a cycle occupying two mornings and two afternoons: see Ville, GO, 393 n. 105; further, since it also shows damnati being exposed to ferocious animals, the narrative for each day may proceed from morning (venationes), through midday (damnationes), to afternoon (munera).
126. Garnsey, SSLP, 104.
127. Pyrricha (iruppiXTl) was originally an armed dance: see W. E. Downes, ‘The offensive weapon in the pyrrhic’, CR 18 (1904), 101–6, and RE ivA. 2240–1 s.v. Tanzkunst (Warnecke). By our period it seems to have acquired a wide range of meanings.
128. Here perhaps gladiatorial combat (in pairs or gregatim) or service as bestiarii is meant: see P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, ‘Pyrri–charii’, PP 25 (1970), 328–38 (at 336).
129. See the monumental study by R. Graefe, Vela Erunt. Die Zeltdächer der römischen Theater und ähnli–cher Anlagen 2 vols. (1979);
130. also N. Goldman, ‘Recon–structing the Roman Colosseum awning’, Archaeology 35. 2 (1982), 57–65 (with bibliography).
131. H. Solin, Gnomon 45 (1973), 265 n. 1.
132. M. Lyons (= Musurillo 5) 1. 41.
133. M. Pion. (= Musurillo 10) 21.
134. Garnsey, SSLP, 127.
135. Garnsey, SSLP, 280.
136. ‘Properly and normally employed against slaves and perhaps humble aliens’ (Garnsey, SSLP, 127).
137. Garnsey (1968 b), 157.
138. See F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (1977), 194–5, and (1984), 134.
139. This occurrence of artificium is classified under the rubric studium vel officium at TLL ii. 704. 62–63
140. along with Dig. 10. 4. 11. 1 (Ulpian): ‘si forte ipse servus ex operis vel artificio suo solebat se exhibere’.
141. Dig. 48. 19. 29 (Gaius).
142. Euseb. Mart. Pal. 3. 3–4.
143. M. Polyc. (= Musurillo 1) 12.
144. Nor was ownership of these objects confined to the elite, some (e.g. terracotta lamps) being among the most popular consumer items: see M. Clavel–Lévêque, L’Empire en jeux (1984), 71—72.
145. Ville, GO, 92, shows how later authors capitalized upon this incident: in the elder Pliny it is embroidered with a description of Pompey's elephants kneeling before the audience in supplication (NH 8. 21); Dio dwells on the duplicity of the Roman nation, alleging that the elephants’ original captors swore that they would come to no harm (39. 38. 2–5)
146. e.g. Passio Perpet. et Felic. 20. 2;
147. M. Fruct. (=Musurillo 12) 3. 1.
148. Hopkins, 20–27; he conjectures (26) that spectators gambled on the results of fights and chariot races.
149. See D–S i. 1574 fig. 2083; J. Colin, Les Villes libres de l’Orient gréco–romain et l’envoi au supplice par acclamations populaires Collection Latomus lxxii (1965), pl. V.
150. cf. CIL v. 4500 =1LS ILS 2725 (from a nymphaeum at Brescia) ‘bene laua! salvu(m) lotu(m)!’
151. Passio Perpet. et Felic. 21. 6: ‘solito loco’
152. For the independent volition ascribed to the faculty of sight cf. Plato, Rep. 44oa (cit. above).
153. The occasion(s) to which Tertullian refers cannot be dated, but Ad Nationes and the Apologeticum were probably early works, c. a.d. 197: see T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (1971; corr. repr. 1985), 55.
154. Barnes (1–2) judges Tertullian's dates to have been c. 155–230/240. As a young man he spent time in Rome; but since both our passages were written on his return to Carthage, in cavea would most naturally refer to an auditorium (presumably an amphitheatre) in Carthage itself.
155. The rhetorical sequence vidimus. risimus. vidimus is surely meant to emphasize autopsy. Hence this passage cannot be reduced to the status of a literary echo of Anth. Pal. II. 184 (discussed below), as suggested by L. Robert, ‘Dans Tamphitheatre et dans les jardins de Néron. Une épigramme de Lucillius’, CRAI 1968, 280–8 (at 283).
156. See RE Suppl. xiv. 137–96 S.V. Herakles (Fried–rich Prinz) (at 192–3).
157. A poetic euphemism perhaps borrowed from popular speech: Mart. 4. 86. 8; 10. 25. 5; Juv. 8. 235.
158. cf. Plato, Gorg. 473c to ĚσX>aTOVdcvacrrccupcoeti a KaraTri–rr–rwet; Sen., Epist. 14. 5 ‘illam tunicam alimen–tis ignium et inlitam et textam
159. Tert., Mart. 5. I ‘iam et ad ignes quidam se auctoraverunt, ut certum spatium in tunica ardente conficerent’
160. L. R. Famell, ‘Evidence of Greek religion on the text and interpretation of Attic tragedy’, CQ 4 (1910), 178–190 (at 185, on Aesch., Choepk. 267–8)
161. see further V. Capocci, ‘Christiana I. Per il testo di Tacito, Annales 15, 44. 4 (sulle pene inflitte ai christiani nel 64 d. Cr.)’
162. Studia et Docutnenta Historiae et luris 28 (1962), 65–99 (at 72–4 n. 14).
163. For the common methods of burning people alive see RE iv. 2. 1700–2 S.V. Crematio (Hitzig); ixA>1. 497—8 s.v. Vivicomburium (T. Mayer–Maly).
164. TLL vii. 1. 1262. 47–1263. 32.
165. cf. Cic., Tusc. 5. 73 (Epicurus)
166. ‘induit personam philosophy; Tert., Resurr. 6. 5
167. ‘limus ille iam tunc imaginem induens Christi futuri in carne’ TLL vii. 1. 1263. 38–71.
168. For the brachylogy whereby induo with a personal object stands for the assumption of the role or appearance of that object cf. Tac., Ann. 16. 28. 2 ‘nisi. proditorem palam et hostem Thrasea induisset’ TLL vii. 1. 1263. 71–83.
169. Weinreich, 44, has suggested the Horti Sallustiani.
170. Crimen laesae maiestatis is Weinreich's interpretation (44). On capital punishment for all statuses of defendant found guilty of maiestas
171. see Garnsey, SSLP, I 5.
172. A rival explanation of this epigram, which does not affect its interpretation as a ‘staged’ execution, identifies the crime as a theft of statuary and the site of the crematio as a circus or theatre: see Margherita Guarducci, ‘1 pomi delle Esperidi in un epigramma di Lucillio’, Rend. Accad. Naz. Line. 24 (1969), 3–8.
173. Garnsey SSLP, 141–7.
174. See RAC i. 889–99 S.V. Attis (H. Strathmann) (at 893–4).
175. Harding–Ireland, 156.
176. Sen., Dial. 6. 20. 3: ‘per obscena stipitem egerunt.
177. cf. Mart. 8. 30. 1 ‘Caesareae lusus. harenae’, 10. 25. 1 ‘in matutina. harena.
178. See U. Carratello (Ed.), M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Liber (1981), 11 –20.
179. See conveniently M. D. Reeve in L. D. Reynolds (Ed.), Texts and Transmissions (1983), 239–44.
180. Advocates of the ‘Herrscherkritik’ theory hero–worship the likes of Martial and Statius as courageous exponents of the subversive double entendre: see F. M. Ahl, ‘The rider and the horse. Politics and power in Roman poetry from Horace to Statius’, ANRW II 32. I (1984), 40–110
181. (with an appendix by J. Garthwaite, ‘Statius Silvae 3. 4: on the fate of Earinus’, III—24);
182. M. Benker, Achill und Domitian. Herrscherkritik in der ‘Achilleis’ des Statius (diss. Erlangen–Nürnberg, 1987);
183. J. Garthwaite, Domitian and the court poets Martial and Statius (diss. Cornell, 1978).
184. Lib. Spect. 21B cannot provide substantial evidence for mythological enactments in the arena, what–ever its relationship to Lib. Spect. 2I: see Weinreich, 40–45;
185. ever its relationship to Lib. Spect. 2I: see Weinreich, 40–5; U. Carratello, ‘Orfeo e l’orsa. Note a Marziale spect. 2I —2Ib’, GIF 18 (1965), 131–44 (at 138).
186. ‘Two epigrams of Martial’, CR 15 (1901), 154–155
187. = Cl. Pap. ii. 536–7. Cf. Weinreich, 40–45.
188. K. Prinz, ‘Zu Martial Spect. xxi 8’, WS 32 (1910), 323–324
189. notes a similar contrast in Anth. Pal. II. 254 (Lucillius), describing a pantomime in which the story of Canace is enacted kaθ.’ licrTopir V (line I), except that the heroine fails to commit suicide (toüto Trap’ Icrropfrw line 6). Weinreich (42) points out that the non–fatal denouement distinguishes this Canace performance from the fatal charades in the arena.
190. To reject Housman's emendation on the grounds that a Greek expression is too colloquial for ‘court’ poetry to Titus (so F. della Corte (Ed.), ‘Gli spettacoli di Marziale (1986), ad loc.) is to deny Martial the licence to demonstrate his debt to his Greek predecessors.
191. These trapdoors are no longer extant in the Flavian Amphitheatre, but elsewhere square hatches with lids can still be seen, e.g. in the larger amphitheatre at Pozzuoli: see A. Hönle and A. Henze, Römische Amphitheater und Stadien (1981), 138 and pl. 118.
192. cf. Passio Perpet. et Felic. 20. 2
193. ‘itaque dispoliatae et reticulis indutae producebantur’, M. Lyons 1. 56 (Blandina) –roocrxa–rov (3Xr0e!<7a Taύp 7rapef&f*0Ti.
194. W. O. Moeller, ‘Juvenal 3 and Martial De Specta–culis 8 CJ 62 (1967), 369–70.
195. R. K. Ehrmann, ‘Martial, De Spectaculis 8: gladiator or criminal?’, Mnem. 440 (1987), 422–5.
196. For stage equipment see D–S iii. 1478 s.v. Machina (O. Navarre); RE xix. 1. 66–67 S.V. nfiypa (Fen–sterbusch).
197. See Weinreich, 33–34
198. A. Storr, Sexual Deviation (1964), 98.
199. Apul., Met. 10. 22 ‘operosa et pervigili nocte transacta’.
200. It has been suggested that the myth of Actaeon being torn apart by his hounds would have suited the type of damnatio ad bestias that Tacitus ascribes to the Christians: see Th. Klauser, Die römische Petrustradition im Lichte der neuen Ausgrabungen unter der Petruskirche (1956), 12.
201. The woman may even have been tied onto the bull. The key word is iunctam (1), common diction for sexual intercourse (TLL vii. 2. 658. 60–659. 54); in contexts where people are literally joined together (e.g. by chains) an ablative of instrument is normally specified (TLL vii. 2. 657. 15–67), but the double entendre would demand its omission here.
202. ‘The world of the Golden Ass’, JRS 71 (1981), 63–75.
203. See H. Reich, Der Mimus (1903), 88 and 564; RE XV. 1727–64 s.v. Mimos (E. Wüst) (at 1751. 46–62);
204. A. Nicoll, Masks Mimes and Miracles (1931), 110–11.
205. Jos., AJ 19. 94;
206. Suet., Gaius 56. 2;
207. the mime is ascribed to one Catullus (Juv. 8. 185–8; Tert., Adu. Val. 14. 4).
208. Although Catullus is usually assumed to have been a contemporary of Gaius (see, e.g., H. Bardon, La Littérature latine inconnue, Vol. II
209. L’Èpo–que impériale (1956), 128–129) he may, however, have been a Republican figure
210. he may, however, have been a Republican figure (see W. S. Watt, ‘Fabam mimum’, Hermes 83 (1955), 496–500, at 498)
211. (pace T. P. Wiseman, Catullus and his World. although probably not the famous poet A Reappraisal (1985), 192–3).
212. See Weinreich, 38–39.
213. In some forms of crucifixion the victim was seated on a small wooden peg: cf. Sen., Epist. 101.II (from a poem by Maecenas) ‘vita dum superest, benest; hanc mihi, vel acuta si sedeam cruce, sustine’
214. see H. Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung. Eine antiquarische Untersuchung (1878), 149–150;
215. For the conjectures printed here see: M. Haupt, ‘Analecta’, Hermes 3 (1869), 140–55 (at 145–146);
216. A. Dain, ‘Notes sur le texte grec de l’Epître de Saint Clement de Rome’, Recherches de Science religieuse 39 (1951–1952), 353–356.
217. See Roscher i. 309
218. See Roscher i. 949–952
219. S.V. Danaiden (Bernhard).
220. e.g. it has been suggested that, according to the version whereby the widowed Danaids (except Hyper–mestra and probably Amymone) were offered as prizes in a race (Pind., Pyth. 9. III–18; Paus. 3. 12. 2), the martyrdoms took place in the circus in the Vatican valley, the victims being submitted to unmentionable outrages (‘oltraggi inenarrabili’) and finally executed:
221. see Margherita Guarducci, ‘La data del martirio di San Pietro’, PP 23 (1968), 81–117 (at 92).
222. The statues in the porticus of the Augustan temple of Palatine Apollo depicted the Danaids being threatened by Danaus with a drawn sword: cf. Prop. 2. 31. 1–4; Ov., Am. 2. 2. 3–4, Ars 1. 73–4, Tr. 59–62; Schol. Pers. 2. 56 (the fifty sons of Aegyptos depicted as well).
223. The traditional date is a.d.203: see Musurillo, pp. XXVI—XXVII.
224. Tert., Test. Anim. 2. 7 ‘et vitta Cereris redimita, et pallio Saturni coccinata’ Pall. 4. 10
225. ‘cum ob cultum omnia candidatum et ob notam vittae et privilegium galeri Cereri initiantur. cum latioris purpurae ambi–tio et Galatici ruboris superiectio Saturnum commen–dat’.
226. See RE iiA. 218–23 S.V. Saturnus (Thulin), iii. >I970—9 s.v. Ceres (Wissowa).
227. Petr., Sat. 52. 2.
228. See H. Wrede, Consecratio in Formam Deorum. Vergöttlichte Privatpersonen in der römischen Kaiserzeit (1981).
229. cf. the practice in medieval Italy of displaying pictures of Hell to condemned prisoners en route to their places of execution, to concentrate their attention upon their fate (Harding–Ireland), 154).
230. Sen., Apoc. 9. 3
231. ‘qui contra hoc senatus consultum deus factus, dictus pictusve erit, eum dedi larvis et proximo munere inter novos auctoratos ferulis vapulare placet’
232. see R. Heinze, ‘Zu Senecas Apocolocyntosis’, Hermes 61 (1926), 49–78 (at 66).
233. Tert., Apol. 15. 5 (cf. Nat. 1. 10. 47, cit. above)(cf. Nat. 1. 10. 47, cit. above)
234. ‘risimus et inter ludicras meridianorum crudelitates Mercurium mortuos cauterio examinantem; vidimus et Iovis fratrem gladiatorum cadavera cum malleo dedu–centem’.
235. See Ville, GO, 378.
236. See W. B. Stanford, Greek Tragedy and the Emotions (1983), 76–78;
237. M. de Marco, ‘“Opsis” nella poetica di Aristotele e nel “Tractatus Cosilinianus’”
238. in L. de Finis (Ed.), Scena e Spettacolo nell Antichita. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio, Trento, 28–30
239. marzo 1988(1989), 129–48.
240. See Brink ad loc.
241. See M. Kokolakis, Pantomimus and the Treatise ITEPI OPXHΣ ΩΣ (1959), 28–29.
242. Pantomime artists were likewise rewarded: see L. Robert, ‘Pantomimen im griechis–chen Orient’, Hermes 65 (1930), 106–22 (at 119).
243. In connection with an animal, inire would naturally be taken to refer to the act of mating: see TLL vii. 1. 1296. 37–53 (specifically of cattle: 37–40, 49–50).
244. The (e)scapegoat is the sacrificial goat that is required to get away: see OED s.v. scape>1and scapegoat. ‘Scapegoating’ is acknowledged as a sub–category of vicarious punishment by Harding–Ireland (176).
245. ‘Scapegoat rituals in ancient Greece’, HSCPh 87 (1983), 299–320 (at 305).
246. Schol. Aristoph., Eq. 1136.
247. Petr. fr. 1, Lact. on Stat., Theb. 10. 793.
248. Text conveniently at Musurillo (no. 21); first interpreted as a scapegoat ritual by J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough (1922), 763–775.
249. S. Weinstock, `Saturnalien und Neujahrsfest in den Matyreracten’, in A. Stuiber and A. Hermann (Eds), Mullus. Festschrift Theodor Klauser, Jahrbuch fur Antike und Christentum Erganzungsband 1 (1964), 391–400.
250. Strabo 10. 2. 9; Ampelius 8.
251. Yet another version of pyrricha: see nn. 109 and 200 above.
252. See E. Rawson, ‘Discrimina ordinum: the Lex Julia Theatralis’, PBSR 55 (1987), 83–114 (at 87 n. 18).
253. See RE xvi. 1970–4 s.v. Naumachie (Bernert); OLD s.v. naumachia.
254. cf. Dio 43. 23. 4 oi teatxuaco–rot Kai oi θ.ávatovthcpXrix6–rEs; 60. 33. 3 0av&rcp. iorra8ä-1Kacruivol; and see H. J. Leon, ‘Morituri te salutamus TAPhA 70 (1939’ 46–50 (at 49).
255. App., BC 2. 102.
256. Suet., Jul 39; 4–>223
257. Accommodation ran out, and people were trampled to death (Suet., Jul. 39. 4).
258. RG 23.
259. Suet., Claud. 21. 6.
260. Tac., Ann. 12 56. 2.
261. Tac., Ann. 12. 56. 3
262. ‘pugnatum quamquam inter sontes fortium virorum animo, ac post multum vulnerum occidioni exempti sunt’.
263. Suet., Claud. 21. 6 ‘exciente bucina Tritone argenteo, qui e medio lacu per machinam emerserat’.
264. Tac., Ann. 12 56. 2.
265. Ville, GO. 407
266. After Domitian's reign the next naumachiae are not attested until the third century: SHA Heliog. 23. I;
267. Aur. Vict. Caes. 28.
268. Suet., Claud. 21. 6: ‘edidit et in Martio campo expugnationem direptionemque oppidi ad imaginem bellicam et deditionem Britanniae regum praeseditque paludatus’.
269. D–S v. 488–91 s.v. Triumphus (R. Cagnat); RE viiA. 493–511 (at 501 ff.) s.v. Triumphus (W. Ehlers); H. S. Versnel, Triumphus (1970), 95–6;
270. the scenic aspects are properly stressed by C. Nicolet (trans. P. S. Falla), The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (1980), 352–356.
271. Edidit reflects the traditional diction for sponsoring public entertainment: see TLL v. 2. 94. 19–95. 27.
272. It is significant that Claudius exploits this trend by reacting against it in keeping the annual celebration of his accession deliberately simple, ‘sine venatione apparatuque’ (Suet., Claud. 21. 4).
273. cf. P. Veyne, Le Pain et le cirque (1976), 704–705;
274. Hopkins, 15;
275. Mart., Lib. Spect. 4;
276. Plin., Pan. 34–5.
277. Garnsey (1968 b), 158.
278. As claimed by the Chronographer of a.d.354 (Chron. Min. p. 146 Mommsen).
279. The most plausible chronology for the contributions made by all three Flavians is still that of A. von Gerkan, MDAI(R) 40 (1925), II–50.
280. Boehringer (Ed.), Von antiker Architektur und Topographie. Ges–ammelte Aufsätze von Arnim von Gerkan (1959), 29–43.
281. Dedicated March/April 80 (CIL vi. 2059), i.e. after the eruption of Vesuvius (August 79) and result–ing plague; the fire occurred in 80, but admittedly perhaps not until summer when Rome was at its most combustible (i.e. during or after Titus’ games). The games are connected with compensation for disaster by B. W. Jones, The Emperor Titus (1984), 144. For the theory that those who suffer compensate for it by watching the suffering of others see
282. Dio 66. 25. 4.