Figure 35.1 Part of a mosaic from El-Djem, Tunisia showing damnatio ad bestias, c.180 CE. Source: Photograph by Erron Silverstein. Used with permission.
One of the most common images of ancient Rome in modern-day literature, television, and film is that of Christians being thrown to lions in the arena, and it is commonly assumed that Roman authorities subjected only Christians to such horrific forms of punishment. The following discussion, however, will make clear that a wide variety of people were publicly executed for a broad range of offenses. Furthermore, the modalities of public executions were not limited to damnatio ad bestias (“condemnation to the beasts”). As was the case in numerous other premodern societies (Kyle 1998: 133–40), public executions in Rome were a form of spectacle and evolved over time in conjunction with other types of spectacle. However shocking Roman spectacular executions (that is, executions as a form of spectacle) may be to the modern consciousness, it is important to remember that Romans did not stage such events for entertainment alone. As we will see, spectacular executions were believed to play an important role in maintaining a law-abiding citizenry and stable social order.
The evidence for spectacular executions in Rome is abundant. Roman historians, such as Livy, periodically record such events, but perhaps the most valuable literary sources are the works of Martial and Suetonius. These authors were active in the first and second centuries CE and preserve much information about events in their lifetimes, when Roman spectacular executions were at their most extravagant. Martial’s short book of poems entitled Spectacles (Liber Spectaculorum) details the elaborate spectacles, including executions, staged in the Colosseum under the emperors Titus (ruled 79–81 CE) and Domitian (ruled 81–96 CE). Suetonius, in his imperial biographies, describes several elaborate games put on by emperors – games that often included public executions. In addition, early Christian writers, including Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, record, often in gruesome detail, the various tortures and executions that Christian martyrs underwent in Roman arenas. One difficulty in using such martyrologies lies in separating authentic martyrdom accounts from those evidently concocted by overzealous Christian writers.
Other types of evidence also attest to the popularity of spectacular executions. Numerous surviving inscriptions commemorate spectacles, including spectacular executions, staged by munerarii or editores (individuals who organized games) in communities throughout the Roman Empire. The epigraphic evidence collected by Louis Robert clearly indicates that it was not just the Latin-speaking western half of the Empire that had a fondness for such events. Public executions as part of arena spectacles were clearly popular in the Greek East as well (Robert 1971: 320–1). Some editores commissioned artists to memorialize games they organized, and several depictions of the final agonizing moments of the condemned have survived to the present, particularly in mosaics.
Public executions were an established feature of the Roman judicial system as early as the fifth century BCE, when Rome’s first written law code, the Twelve Tables, was put into effect. Under the Twelve Tables, crimes such as arson, parricide, and bearing false witness were punishable by execution. Types of public execution at this time included being burnt at the stake (crematio), being flogged to death, and being hurled off the Tarpeian Rock.1 One important legal principle was that the severity of a given sentence should correspond to the severity of the offense committed (Wiedemann 1992: 70). As a particularly literal example, those who committed arson could expect to be burnt at the stake (Table 8, Law 6). In addition, the degradation of criminals subject to public execution was a common feature of Roman justice well into the Roman Empire. The humiliation of the condemned, moreover, did not end with their deaths; Roman authorities routinely mutilated their corpses and denied them proper burial (Kyle 1998: 131–3).
Apart from enforcing obedience to the laws of the state, such punishments – public and violent to the point of being overtly cruel – were believed to serve a number of different functions. The humiliation of the condemned confirmed and highlighted the authority of those passing sentence and was understood as reestablishing “social order by canceling the criminal’s exercise of rights which he did not have” (Wiedemann 1992: 71). There was also a strong religious dimension; those who had committed serious crimes were considered to have polluted society with their wrongdoing, and their execution served to purify the community. Finally, executing condemned criminals in public ensured that as many citizens as possible could witness punishments and thereby be reassured of the effectiveness of Roman justice and the restoration of social order in the aftermath of its interruption by criminal acts (Coleman 1990: 44–9; Kyle 1998: 40–1, 133–40; Potter 1993: 53–4, 65; Wiedemann 1992: 68–97).
In the Middle Republic (third to second century BCE), some of the most extreme forms of public execution were reserved for deserters from the Roman army and those who had otherwise failed in their military duty to the state, such as allied troops who revolted against Roman authority. The Roman military achieved more and more importance during this period, as Rome expanded her territory across the Mediterranean basin, so it is not surprising that any failure to perform one’s military duty was punished with the utmost severity. The Roman practice of decimation arose from this same general concern to enforce military discipline by any means necessary and to provide a clear object lesson of the dire fate awaiting those convicted of dereliction of duty (Hopkins 1983: 1–2).2
One of the most striking examples of spectacular execution imposed in a military setting occurred in 167 BCE, when the general Aemilius Paullus used elephants to trample to death noncitizen troops who had deserted from his army (Valerius Maximus 2.7.14). It is not a coincidence that the method of execution chosen by Paullus is quite reminiscent of the penalty of damnatio ad bestias later carried out in Roman arenas.
Not surprisingly, given Rome’s “warrior mentality,” punishments originally carried out in a military context eventually spread to the public sphere. In the specific instance of damnatio ad bestias, as Rome procured an ample supply of wild animals from her conquests in regions such as North Africa, animals were increasingly used for public entertainments, including executions in the arena (see Chapter 34 in this volume). Only 21 years after Paullus’s mass execution of deserters, his son Scipio Aemilianus, in celebrating the conquest of Carthage in North Africa, staged spectacles in Rome that included throwing deserters and fugitive slaves to wild beasts (Valerius Maximus 2.7.13; Livy Periochae Book 51; Kyle 1998: 48–9).
In the Late Republic and Early Empire, horrific public executions at Rome and throughout the Empire were generally reserved for those of low social standing such as slaves and prisoners of war. Roman citizens convicted of capital offenses could expect a more “dignified” method of punishment (Garnsey 1970: 221–76; MacMullen 1990: 204; Fagan 2011: 174–5; Wiedemann 1992: 68–9). Many of the specific methods of execution for noncitizens remained, in general terms, the same as they had been under the Early Republic, including crucifixion and crematio. By the beginning of the Empire, the Roman public had developed a keen appetite for violent spectator events such as gladiatorial combats and the beast hunts (venationes), so, unsurprisingly, execution as a form of public entertainment became a common feature of Roman spectacles.
Public executions under the Late Republic and Empire took a variety of forms, no doubt enhancing their entertainment value for spectators, who would not appreciate viewing the same type of punishment over and over again. Some criminals, rather than being condemned to prompt execution, would instead be sentenced to fight as either gladiators or beast fighters in the arena.3 Although there was a slight chance that they might ultimately earn their freedom if they fought well enough, the expectation on the part of Roman authorities was presumably that those condemned in this fashion would provide some entertainment before suffering a violent death in the arena. Such a sentence was also a useful way for the Roman government to ensure an inexpensive and renewable supply of combatants for the arena (Hopkins 1983: 10–24).
A particularly elaborate form of spectacular execution, one ideally suited to killing off hundreds or even thousands of prisoners of war in a single event, involved the staging of mock naval or land battles in Rome. Although these contests were presented, in a sense, as historical reenactments of famous battles from the past, the participants were expected to fight to the death (Wiedemann 1992: 89–90). Mock naval battles, naumachiae, were first staged under Julius Caesar and continued to be staged periodically by subsequent Roman leaders until the reign of Domitian. The largest naumachia, said to have involved nineteen thousand prisoners, was arranged by Claudius in 52 CE. The same emperor also organized a mock land battle at Rome that simulated recent victories in Britain and that featured prisoners captured during the campaign (Dio Cassius 61.33.3–4; Suetonius Claudius 21.6; Tacitus Annals 12.56; Coleman 1990: 70–3; Coleman 1993: 49, 56, 67).
Such events, like the military executions mentioned earlier, clearly symbolized the power of the Roman state and of the ruler staging them. Arguably they served as a reminder of Rome’s time-honored martial values for a populace that, under the Empire at least, no longer had as much direct experience of war (Hopkins 1983: 1–2). The entertainment value of these spectacles, in certain instances, was enhanced because the outcome did not always conform to that of the battles they ostensibly simulated; such unpredictable outcomes could only heighten spectator interest.
These violent military reenactments, no doubt because of the elaborate preparations necessary, were not produced on a regular basis. A far more common occurrence under the Empire was the execution of individuals or small groups of the condemned on the arena floor.4 Under the standard daily schedule of arena events, which emerged during the reign of Augustus, executions were staged during the midday pause, between beast hunts in the morning and gladiatorial combats in the afternoon (Dunkle 2008: 90).
Inscriptions advertising or commemorating various spectacles specifically mention the execution of noxii (criminals condemned to death) as one of the attractions of ŧhe midday pause. An inscription from Puteoli, for example, records that a local magistrate staged a four-day spectacle featuring four unnamed beasts, 16 bears, an unspecified number of herbivorous animals, and four noxii (ILS 5063a). The text does not specify exactly how the condemned were executed, but it is likely that some of the animals mentioned in the inscription were used to kill the noxii. Another inscription from Italy attests even more clearly to the popularity of arena executions in the Early Empire (CIL 9.3437 = ILS 5063). The text records another four-day spectacle staged by a local magistrate, this time featuring three days of gladiatorial combat, and a fourth devoted to the execution of condemned criminals. It is significant here that the editor devoted an entire day to the noxii rather than simply interspersing their executions between gladiatorial bouts in the arena.
Contemporary artwork in various media such as sculptures and mosaics, commissioned to commemorate the generosity of a given editor, frequently depicts such arena executions as part of a larger spectacle, once again testifying to their popularity as spectator events. (On spectacle in Roman art, see Chapter 28.) One good example is a late second-century CE mosaic from El-Djem in Tunisia that shows leopards attacking two noxii. In one corner of the mosaic a leopard is shown mid-leap while his terrified target looks on. In another corner (see Figure 35.1), the leopard has already latched on to the face and chest of his victim. In both cases, arena attendants attempt to hold the victim in place to make the animals’ task easier (Ben Abed 2006 (2002): 71–7; Blanchard-Lemée, Ennaïfer, Slim, et al. 1996 (1995): 215–17; Dunbabin 1978: 66, 259).5
Spectacular executions were, of course, subject to many of the same concerns as other Roman spectator events under the Empire, in particular gladiatorial combats and beast hunts. If, for example, any of these performances became too repetitive or predictable, spectators might become dissatisfied (Wiedemann 1992: 85–6). This was a particularly important consideration for the emperors in Rome since the games they organized in the capital were one of the few occasions during which they could meaningfully interact with their subjects (see Chapter 30). Dissatisfaction with the games given by a particular ruler might, in theory at least, contribute to a more dangerous discontent with his rule in general.
Figure 35.1 Part of a mosaic from El-Djem, Tunisia showing damnatio ad bestias, c.180 CE. Source: Photograph by Erron Silverstein. Used with permission.
Not surprisingly, then, spectacle organizers, especially emperors in Rome, often sought new ways to make public executions novel and exciting. One method was by extending the suffering of the condemned as long as possible rather than executing them quickly, something which spectators presumably did not find as entertaining. Two of the Christians executed in Lyons during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, for example, were exposed to the beasts in the arena on two separate days and then subsequently tortured by a variety of implements before finally being burnt to death in front of the assembled spectators (Musurillo 2000: 77–81).
An especially elaborate type of spectacular execution took the form of theatrical vignettes that drew inspiration from popular Greek and Roman myths (Coleman 1990; Wiedemann 1992: 83–9). The earliest of such executions recorded, what Kathleen Coleman calls “fatal charades,” occurred in the late 30s BCE, when a bandit leader by the name of Selurus was executed in the Forum Romanum at the behest of Augustus (at this point still known as Octavian). Selurus and his men had terrorized the region surrounding Mt Etna in Sicily for years prior to his capture, which perhaps explains the particularly elaborate nature of his execution. Such a threat to law and order had to be punished in a manner befitting his many offenses against the state. Rather than simply being crucified or thrown to the beasts in the normal manner, Selurus was placed atop a wooden framework meant to represent Mt Etna; at a certain point the structure collapsed causing the condemned man to fall into the wild animal cages positioned below and thereby meet his doom (Strabo 6.273; Coleman 1990: 53–4). This example clearly demonstrates the juxtaposition between Roman justice and theater; the same type of props used in contemporary stage sets could also be employed to add entertainment and drama to executions in arenas.
Although Selurus’s execution did not take any mythical story as its inspiration, it nonetheless shared a certain dramatic flair with later spectacular executions that were, in part, inspired by myth and legend. The reign of Nero (ruled 54–68 CE) seems to have marked a significant shift in this regard. The earliest known execution staged in direct imitation of a myth, a relatively modest example compared to what was to follow, occurred under Nero, when a certain Meniscus was dressed up as Hercules prior to being burnt alive in public (Palatine Anthology 11.184; Coleman 1990: 60–1). Nero infamously showed a similar cruel inventiveness in the execution of Christians after the great fire at Rome in 64 CE. Some were disposed of in a manner combining two typical Roman methods of execution: the Christians in question, after having been affixed to crosses during the day, were set on fire as night fell, ostensibly as a source of illumination. Other condemned Christians were dressed up in animal skins and mauled to death by wild dogs (Tacitus Annals 15.44). The latter type of execution appears to have been inspired by contemporary beast hunts, illustrating again the influence that other arena events could have upon contemporary public punishments.
Nero probably wished to make the executions he ordered as dramatic and spectacular as possible. As one modern scholar put it, “he exploited to the full the principle of excess and anomaly on which public shows as an institution in fact depended” (Plass: 1995: 74–5). More importantly, Nero may have sought to counter growing public dissatisfaction with his rule by staging spectacles, including public executions, designed to impress the assembled audience (Coleman 1990: 72–3).
Nero’s executions pale beside those staged under the emperors Titus and Domitian. These executions are recorded by Martial in his Liber Spectaculorum, but it is impossible to assign with certainty all of the spectacles recorded in this work to a particular emperor, namely Titus or Domitian. It is preferable, rather, to see Martial’s poems as commemorating a variety of different events staged by the two brothers in the Colosseum over a number of years (Coleman 2006: xlv–lxiv). The elaborate nature of the executions and other events recorded by Martial can no doubt be explained, at least in part, by the desire of these emperors to surpass the spectacles of their predecessors (in particular the hated Nero) and to take full advantage of the possibilities afforded by the magnificent new amphitheater commissioned by their father, the emperor Vespasian, in the heart of Rome. (On the Colosseum, see Chapter 37.)
One of the spectacular executions recorded by Martial involved a criminal, meant to represent a certain Laureolus, who was first suspended from a cross on the arena floor and then mauled to death by a bear (Martial Liber Spectaculorum 9). The Laureolus portrayed by the noxius6 was the subject of a popular mime7 in Rome in which the titular character, a bandit, was ultimately captured and crucified for his crimes. His execution in the Colosseum surpassed the mime by not only featuring a real, as opposed to a staged crucifixion, but also by adding a savage bear to the mix, illustrating the emperor’s power to improve upon contemporary theater (Coleman 2006: 82–96; Wiedemann 1992: 84). Another interesting aspect of this execution is that the spectators evidently did not know the specific offense for which the noxius who played the part of Laureolus was being executed. Perhaps the organizers did not always consider it necessary to advertise the specific crime of the condemned, only to assure the public that he or she had indeed contravened the laws of Rome (Fagan 2011: 180–1). Also, as the entertainment aspect of such executions became as – or even more – important than their judicial function, perhaps such legal niceties were considered to be superfluous.
The majority of spectacular executions commemorated by Martial in the Liber Spectaculorum involved forcing the condemned to play the roles of well-known characters from Greek and Roman myth as part of their punishments, such as the unfortunate “Daedalus” who was mauled to death by a bear (Liber Spectaculorum 10; Coleman 2006: 97–100). Two other poems in Martial’s collection (Liber Spectaculorum 24–5; Coleman 2006: 174–85) evidently record the execution of another noxius, this time in the guise of Orpheus, through a similar mauling: “Every kind of wild beast was present, mingling with the tame, and many a bird hovered above the bard [i.e., the noxius portraying Orpheus]. But Orpheus himself lay torn by an ungrateful bear. This thing alone was done contrary to legend” (Liber Spectaculorum 24, ll. 5–8, trans. D. Shackleton Bailey). As this passage suggests, the symbolic importance of such spectacles lay not merely in the emperor’s ability to recreate the world of myth for his subjects but in his ability to subvert it for his purposes as well. In this particular instance, “Orpheus” was not slain by women, as in the myth, but instead was killed by one of the animals brought to the Colosseum through the munificence of the emperor.
The emperor’s ability to recreate the world of myth to his liking as an expression of his power is also clearly expressed in another poem by Martial, one that recounts what may be the most disturbing of the “fatal charades” staged in the Colosseum: “Believe that Pasiphae was mated to the Dictaean bull; we have seen it, the old legend has won credence. And let not hoary antiquity plume itself, Caesar: whatever Fame sings of, the arena affords you” (Liber Spectaculorum 6; Coleman 2006: 62–8). In this instance, a bull was evidently compelled in some fashion to mount an unfortunate female prisoner, recalling the myth of Pasiphae and the bull of Minos, which of course would prove fatal to the woman in question.
Types of execution similar to the one recounted by Martial are suggested in other sources. The first-century CE Christian writer Clement of Rome records women being executed in the guise of the mythical figures Dirce or the daughters of Danaos (Letter to the Corinthians 1.5–6). If we assume a correlation between the execution and the way in which the mythical character died, the women executed as Dirce were killed by bulls, but the exact manner of their execution is unclear (Potter 1993: 67). In the later second century CE, the Christian martyr Blandina was also executed in some manner involving a bull, while her subsequent counterparts, Perpetua and Felicitas, as a mockery of their gender, were mauled by a wild cow in the arena as part of their punishment (Musurillo 2000: 79–81; Shaw 1993: 7–8).
Apart from bulls and cows, asses were also evidently used in a similar way to punish women. In the Metamorphoses (10.29.34), Apuleius describes a woman in Corinth being condemned to public intercourse with an ass for the crime of poisoning. The Metamorphoses, of course, is a work of fiction. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that Apuleius’s account of familiar events, such as contemporary arena spectacles, would have simply been invented by the author with no correspondence to reality (Coleman 1990: 64). This view appears to be corroborated by a series of clay lamps discovered in Athens, which depict a naked woman being mounted or mauled by an ass. The most common explanation for these lamps and their unusual subject matter is that they provide visual evidence of the type of executions recounted by Apuleius (Wiedemann 1992: 88–9; Hönle and Henze 1981: 58).
As we have seen, authorities punished any perceived threats to social order in a very harsh manner, one considered commensurate with the crime in question, but the accounts of such executions indicate that the Roman authorities took special pains to punish female wrongdoers guilty of capital offenses in a particularly cruel and degrading manner. Apparently such offenders were considered to be doubly dangerous; not only did their crimes in general pose a threat to law and order but the fact that women, traditionally subservient to their male counterparts, would dare to commit such offenses presented in and of itself another challenge to social order. Hence, especially humiliating punishments, such as forcing women to be mounted and killed by bulls, a powerful symbol of male virility, were designed to reassure spectators that not only law and order but also traditional gender roles within patriarchal Roman society had been reestablished (Shaw 1993: 8–9, 16–19).
The extant literary sources contain little in the way of criticisms of spectacular executions. Tacitus, for example, in recounting Nero’s execution of Christians following the great fire in Rome, has no apparent problem, in general, with the public execution of criminals. Rather, he takes issue with Nero’s ordering of such excessively cruel executions to distract attention from his own possible guilt, not in order to uphold law and order (Plass 1995: 54; Kyle 1998: 244–5; Fagan 2011: 179–80). (For further discussion of critiques of spectacle, see Chapter 41.)
Part of the popularity of public executions lay in their psychological effect upon Roman spectators. Such punishments have been described, for example, as a liminoid ritual in which the extreme level of violence used to execute the noxii, unacceptable in everyday society, allowed the assembled spectators to release their own pent-up tensions (Plass 1995: 32). In addition, as various accounts make abundantly clear, spectators at public trials and executions were often able to play an active role in the proceedings through their expressions of approval or disapproval directed at the presiding magistrate, a fact which no doubt enhanced the appeal of these occasions for people who did not hold such power over life and death in their everyday lives (Fagan 2011: 133–7; cf. Potter 1996: 149–51, 155–9).
On a more basic level, the violence of such executions exercised an undeniable fascination upon Roman spectators, the same fascination evident among spectators at public hangings and the like in more recent times (Thompson 2002: 30–1). Significantly, those Roman writers who criticized arena executions did not generally do so on the grounds of their unsuitability as a judicial punishment but rather because of what they saw as the dangerous passions and bloodlust they unleashed in spectators. As Seneca states: “Granted that, as a murderer, he deserved this punishment [execution in the arena], what crime have you committed, poor fellow, that you should deserve to sit and see this show?” (Letters from a Stoic 7.5, trans. R. Gummere; cf. Thompson 2002: 31–4).
“Fatal charades” of the type described by Martial appear to have continued sporadically in the Empire until at least the late second century CE. Tertullian, writing at that date, records criminals in the guise of Hercules being burnt alive in the arena as well as others, dressed up as the god Attis, evidently forced to castrate themselves (Apology 15.4–5; Coleman 1990: 60–1). Such violent charades are absent from the subsequent literary record, but this may simply be because of the relatively limited number of sources available for the period. What is certain is that arena executions in general achieved an even greater level of popularity in the later Roman Empire.
By the second century CE at the latest, noxii had become a relatively inexpensive commodity who could be sold by the imperial government as a substitute for more expensive gladiators. An imperial edict of 177 CE, for example, stipulated that the state would sell condemned criminals at the maximum sum of six aurei each for the sacrifices featured in the festival of the Three Gauls, an event which had previously featured much more expensive gladiators. As a point of comparison, and to illustrate how much of a saving this represented to festival organizers, the different categories of gladiators mentioned in the same text ranged in price from 30 to 150 aurei each (Carter 2003: 86–8; Oliver and Palmer 1955: 324–6, 340–3). As gladiatorial games became even more expensive to produce and began to disappear in the succeeding century, the public execution of noxii, conversely, became even more popular as a substitute violent entertainment for the assembled spectators. Third-century CE legislation, in fact, specifically instructed provincial governors, in effect, to reserve any of their condemned criminals with an unusually keen fighting spirit for the emperor’s spectacles in Rome (MacMullen 1990: 206–7; Hopkins 1983: 10).
The proliferation of capital punishments under the Roman legal system, particularly from the third century onwards, ensured that there was no shortage of “recruits” for such events. The number of crimes punishable by execution steadily rose after the late second century until, by the reign of Constantine, some 60 offenses were legally punishable by death (as opposed to some 17 during the Early Empire). In addition, the severity of punishment for such crimes increased; some offenses, for example, which had previously merited a relatively “banal” method of execution like simple decapitation were now subject to far more spectacular punishments, like crematio or damnatio ad bestias (MacMullen 1990: 207–11).
Several reasons have been suggested for this increase in judicial severity, many of which involve the changing status and role of the emperor in the Late Empire. One possible factor may have been the growing number of rulers who emerged from military backgrounds to take the throne. As noted, harsh disciplinary measures were an established aspect of Roman military justice, so it seems credible that emperors with extensive military backgrounds might implement such a standard of punishment for civilian offenders as well. Also, as the Empire moved toward a more autocratic system of government, and the emperor became a much more exalted figure in comparison to his subjects, dire punishments previously confined to the lower classes (humiliores) were now employed routinely against their social betters (honestiores) as well. The widening gulf between the emperor and his subjects made preexisting class distinctions within the latter group less important at least as far as the Roman legal system was concerned (MacMullen 1990: 212–17).8
Another important change in legal procedure, which may also have contributed to the increased severity of contemporary punishments, was the growing use of cognitiones (extraordinary inquiries) from the late second century CE onwards. Under this form of trial procedure, a single magistrate heard the facts of a given case and passed sentence, which was not subject to appeal (Garnsey 1968: 157). Accordingly, a given official entrusted with such wide-ranging judicial authority might be tempted to pronounce a particularly severe sentence as an illustration of his power, especially if he viewed the accused as a legitimate threat to such or when the public was clamoring for as harsh a punishment as possible (Thompson 2002: 36–7).
Vivid depictions of these cognitiones in action are to be found in Christian martyrdom accounts dating from the late second to the early third century CE, which confirm the arbitrary nature of such proceedings. In many such accounts, the specific charge brought against the accused is not at all clear. The Christian refusal to perform such activities as offering sacrifice on behalf of the emperors could certainly be viewed as treasonous obstinacy in some circles, and their contumacia (obstinacy) alone, then, might provide adequate grounds for capital charges to be levied against them, particularly in the harsher legal climate of the later Empire (Musurillo 2000: lvii–lxii; Barnes 1968: 44–50).
The magistrates presiding over such cognitiones had considerable discretionary power over the method of execution inflicted upon the condemned, in part because they were not limited by a specific punishment attached to a specific charge. The governor who tried and condemned Polycarp and other Christians in the late second century CE, for example, threatened them with both crematio and damnatio ad bestias before being informed that the animals necessary for the latter punishment were no longer available (Musurillo 2000: 11–13). Even more significantly, a presiding magistrate could be swayed by public opinion to break the law himself in condemning the accused; one of the Christians executed in the arena of Lyons, a man who as a Roman citizen should have only been beheaded, was instead condemned to the beasts along with his noncitizen compatriots (MacMullen 1990: 205–6; Musurillo 2000: 75–9).
Such public executions did not disappear with the subsequent emergence of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Even penalties such as damnatio ad bestias, commonly employed against Christians in the past, continued to be practiced even after the fall of the Western Empire. The eastern emperor Anastasius (ruled 491–518 CE) is credited with banning beast hunts, a ban which apparently included condemnation to the beasts. This measure, however, appears to have been motivated as much by concern over the unruly behavior of spectators at such events as by the emperor’s concern over the suffering of the condemned. Damnatio ad bestias reappears as a judicial punishment in the legislation of Justinian (ruled 527–65 CE) but seems largely to have fallen out of use until briefly revived by the emperor Phocas (602–10 CE). Among the crimes attributed to this despotic emperor was the condemnation of malcontents to the beasts (Epplett 2004).
In general, however, moral outrage does not appear to have been the primary factor in the gradual disappearance of spectacular executions from the former territories of the Roman Empire. As gladiatorial events and beast hunts disappeared in the fifth and sixth centuries, in large part because the state no longer possessed the funds to stage them, the associated spectacles of the arena also fell by the wayside. Perhaps part of the reason why damnatio ad bestias was considered an unacceptable form of punishment by the early seventh century is that the last recorded beast hunts in the Eastern Empire had been staged decades earlier under Justinian and the former ruler’s subjects were no longer acclimatized to such a form of execution. Nevertheless, grisly public executions outside of an arena setting continued to be a staple of justice systems in the former territories of the Roman Empire for centuries thereafter.
ABBREVIATIONS
CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
ILS = Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
NOTES
1 On the Twelve Tables, see Crawford 1996: no. 40.
2 Decimation was a punishment inflicted on military units that had displayed cowardice or had refused orders. It involved the execution of one-tenth of the members of a unit, with the victims chosen by lot and executed by the other members of their unit. See Pickford 2005 and Sage 2008: 225–9. On the general subject of discipline in the Roman army, see Phang 2008 and Southern 2006: 145–9.
3 On the origins and status of the various kinds of performers that appeared in Roman arenas, see Edwards 1997 and Potter 2010.
4 Hornum 1993 traces strong connections between the cult of Nemesis, judicial punishments in the arena, and the demonstration of imperial power.
5 Sometimes the condemned were tied to carts and wheeled out onto the arena floor, presumably to make the arena attendants’ task somewhat safer. See the late first-century CE gladiator mosaic from Zliten in Libya (Aurigemma 1926: 131–201, fig. 77, pl. D; Dunbabin 1978: 66, 278, figs. 46–9).
6 A noxius in the context of spectacles is a hated, condemned, and doomed person, such as a criminal, captive, or rebellious slave.
7 On mimes, see Chapter 25 in this volume.
8 Discussing Christian martyrdoms, Potter (1993: 69–71) notes the public unrest that could sometimes be provoked by the condemnation of high-status defendants to punishments such as damnatio ad bestias that traditionally were reserved for the lower classes.
REFERENCES
Aurigemma, S. 1926. I mosaici di Zliten, Africa italiana II, Collezione de monografie a cura del minister delle colonie. Rome.
Barnes, T. D. 1968. “Legislation against the Christians.” Journal of Roman Studies 58: 32–50.
Ben Abed, A. 2006 (2002). Tunisian Mosaics: Treasures from Roman Africa. Translated by S. Grevet. Los Angeles.
Blanchard-Lemée, M., M. Ennaïfer, H. Slim, et al. 1996 (1995). Mosaics of Roman Africa. Translated by K. Whitehead. New York.
Carter, M. 2003. “Gladiatorial Ranking and the SC de Pretiis Gladiatorum Minuendis (CIL II 6278=ILS 5163).” Phoenix 57: 83–114.
Coleman, K. 1990. “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments.” Journal of Roman Studies 80: 44–73.
Coleman, K. 1993. “Launching into History: Aquatic Displays in the Early Empire.” Journal of Roman Studies 83: 48–74.
Coleman, K., ed. 2006. M. Valerii Martialis Liber Spectaculorum. Oxford.
Crawford, M., ed. 1996. Roman Statutes. 2 vols. London.
Dunbabin, K. 1978. The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage. Oxford.
Dunkle, R. 2008. Gladiators: Violence and Spectacle in Ancient Rome. Harlow, UK.
Edwards, C. 1997. “Unspeakable Professions: Public Performance and Prostitution in Ancient Rome.” In J. Hallett and M. Skinner, eds., 66–95.
Epplett, C. 2004. “Anastasius and the Venationes.” Nikephoros 17: 221–30.
Fagan, G. 2011. The Lure of the Arena: Social Psychology and the Crowd at the Roman Games. Cambridge.
Garnsey, P. 1968. “Why Penalties Became Harsher: The Roman Case, Late Republic to Fourth-Century Empire.” Natural Law Forum 13: 141–62.
Garnsey, P. 1970. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire. Oxford.
Hallett, J. and M. Skinner, eds. 1997. Roman Sexualities. Princeton.
Hönle, A. and A. Henze. 1981. Römische Amphitheater und Stadien. Basel.
Hopkins, K. 1983. Death and Renewal. Cambridge.
Hornum, P. 1993. Nemesis, the Roman State, and the Games. Leiden.
Kyle, D. 1998. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London.
MacMullen, R. 1990. Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary. Princeton.
Musurillo, H. 2000. The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Reprint of 1972 edition. Oxford.
Oliver, J. and R. Palmer. 1955. “Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate.” Hesperia 24: 320–49.
Phang, S. 2008. Roman Military Service: Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate. Cambridge.
Pickford, K. 2005. “The Cruelty of Roman Military Punishments.” Ancient History: Resources for Teachers 35: 122–36.
Plass, P. 1995. The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide. Madison.
Potter, D. 1993. “Martyrdom as Spectacle.” In R. Scodel, ed., 53–88.
Potter, D. 1996. “Performance, Power, and Justice in the High Empire.” In W. Slater, ed., 129–60.
Potter, D. 2010. “Entertainers in the Roman Empire.” In D. Potter and D. Mattingly, eds., 280–349.
Potter, D. and D. Mattingly, eds. 2010. Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor.
Robert, L. 1971. Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec. Reprint of 1940 edition. Amsterdam.
Sage, M. 2008. The Republican Roman Army: A Sourcebook. New York.
Scodel, R., ed. 1993. Theater and Society in the Classical World. Ann Arbor.
Shaw, B. 1993. “The Passion of Perpetua.” Past and Present 139: 3–45.
Slater, W., ed. 1996. Roman Theater and Society. Ann Arbor.
Southern, P. 2006. The Roman Army: A Social and Institutional History. Santa Barbara, CA.
Thompson, L. 2002. “The Martyrdom of Polycarp: Death in the Roman Games.” Journal of Religion 82: 27–52.
Wiedemann, T. 1992. Emperors and Gladiators. London.
GUIDE TO FURTHER READING
Martial’s Liber Spectaculorum provides some of our most important evidence for spectacular executions in Rome. An indispensable commentary to this work can be found in Coleman 2006. Christian martyrdom accounts from the later Empire also provide important evidence for such events, although their testimony cannot always be taken at face value. Musurillo 2000 is still perhaps the most useful translation of and commentary upon the most important martyrdom accounts. More recent treatments of Christian martyrdom in the Roman Empire can be found in Shaw 1993; Potter 1993; and Thompson 2002. Numerous inscriptions recording the execution of noxii are to be found in such epigraphic collections as CIL and ILS. More specific discussion of such inscriptions in the Western Empire can be found in the volumes of Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’occidente Roman (1988–96), while Robert 1971 is still an important reference for inscriptions pertaining to arena spectacles in the Greek East.
Broader surveys of gladiatorial events in the Empire, such as those of Wiedemann 1992: 68–97 and Hopkins 1983: 2–3, 10–24, often contain useful discussion of spectacular executions as well. More specific works on the topic include Kyle 1998, whose work not only deals with public execution in Rome but also with the issue of how Rome disposed of the corpses of the condemned. On “fatal charades” in the arena, Coleman 1990 remains the seminal work (cf. Coleman 1993). Hornum 1993 associates the cult of Nemesis with punishment in the arena. Readers interested in the legal background to spectacular executions can consult MacMullen 1990. Finally, Potter 1996 provides a useful discussion of Roman judicial methods and the role of popular sentiment in trial proceedings under the Empire.