The details of these seem to have been clearly laid down in a series of laws and interior regulations. This, however, did not prevent certain sadistic vagaries on the part of the executioners.
1°. The preliminary scourging.— We are not dealing here with scourging ordered as a separate torture, nor even with a method of killing condemned men, but only with the scourging which was a legal preliminary to every execution. Everyone punished with death as a preliminary was always scourged, whether he was to die on the cross or otherwise; by beheading (Livy) or at the stake (Josephus). Only those were exempt, according to Mommsen, who were senators, soldiers or women who had the freedom of the city.
However, in the case of beheading, the scourging was done with the rods from the bundles of the lictor: “Nudatos virgis cædunt secutique percutiunt —They strip them and beat them with rods and strike them with an axe.” (Livy.)
As we have seen, scourging was an ancient custom in Rome. It was also inflicted under Alexander and Antiochus Epiphanes and at Carthage. One keeps on coming across the formulae “proaikistheis anestaurothe—verberatos crucibus adfixit— crucifying after scourging.”
This scourging, which as we have seen was formerly inflicted on the cross, now took place in the area of the tribunal. The condemned man was bound to a column (probably with his hands above his head). As Plautus wrote: “Abducite hunc intro atque astringite ad columnam fortiter—Take him inside and bind him firmly to the column ” (Bacchides ).
The scourging was preceded by the stripping of the condemned man, who began his journey to the place of execution naked and scourged, and carrying his patibulum (Valerius Maximus—Cicero).
With what sort of an instrument was the scourging carried out? We have seen that those who were to be beheaded were beaten with the lictor’s rod; for the other form of scourging a distinctively Roman instrument was used; the flagrum. It had a short handle, to which were attached several long, thick thongs, usually two of them. At a little distance from the end balls of lead or the small bones of sheep were inserted, “tali, ” such as were used for playing at knuckle-bones; these were the ankle-bones of the sheep.
The thongs would cut the skin and the balls and the little bones would dig deep contused wounds into it. There would be a good deal of hӕmorrhage and considerable lowering of vital resistance. We shall have all too many chances of verifying on the shroud of Jesus the wounds which this terrible instrument could inflict, and the blood-stained marks which it left on the skin.
In Hebrew law the number of strokes was strictly limited to 40. But the Pharisees, who were scrupulous people, wishing to make sure that this number was not exceeded, had reduced the quantity to 39. The Romans imposed no limitation, apart from the necessity of not killing the victim; he had to be able to carry his patibulum and to die on the cross, in the regulation way. Sometimes, as Horace tells us (Epode IV), he was “sectum flagellis-præconis ad fastidium— so torn by the whips as to disgust those in charge.”
2°. The carrying of the cross.— The condemned man, having first of all been scourged, went on foot and without clothes, but carrying his patibulum, from the tribunal to the place of execution, where the stipes awaited him, among a number of others like it.
We should state at once that the expression “crucem portare— in Greek stauron bastazein— to bear one’s cross,” is only to be found in the Greek or rabbinic texts (Plutarch, Artemidorus, Chariton, in the Jewish commentaries on Genesis and in the New Testament). In Latin it is only to be found in the Latin versions of the Bible: Crucem portare , ferré, bajulare. It is by syndoche, as we have seen, that the word cross means its horizontal part.
Among the Latins one never finds this phrase “crucem ferre ” though we have noticed the formula used in the sentence, “pone crucem servo. ” But we do find “patibulum ferre ”— to carry one’s patibulum. The details of how this was done are told by Denis of Halicarnassus in his Roman history. The patibulum was placed on the shoulders and on the two arms outstretched, after which it was bound with cords to the chest, the arms and the hands. The condemned man thus only carried the patibulum.
Once again we find, among all the texts to which we could refer, that Plautus sums it all up in a concise phrase:
“Patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde affigatur cruce— Let him bear his cross through the town, then let him be nailed to the cross” (Carbonaria ). The “patibulatus ” was the condemned man bearing his cross (Plautus, passim ).
The “stipes crucis ” on the other hand, was awaiting the condemned man at the place of execution, Cicero (pro Rabinio ) inveighs against Labienus that “in Campo Martio…crucem ad civium supplicium defigi et constitui jussit— In the Field of Mars he had the cross permanently set up for the punishment of citizens.” One finds references to this “setting up permanently” in the Verrines and in Josephus.
In Rome, the Montfaucon {7} was in the Esquiline Fields, which have been made famous by Horace, and where, according to Saglio (Dict., Daremberg), there was quite a forest of crosses, a great plantation of stipites. It was outside the Esquiline Gate. For those who know Rome, this was near the Piazza Vittorio Emanuele, a short distance beyond the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, as one goes out from the centre of the city.
There is a final argument that this was the established custom, which is that the patibulum already weighed about 110 pounds so that the complete cross would have weighed more than 220 pounds. It must have required great effort to carry the patibulum , for a man who had been subjected to a severe scourging, which would have caused considerable loss of blood and a decline in his strength. How could he have carried a complete cross weighing more than 220 pounds? For it was not just a question of dragging it. One finds in all the texts “portare, bajulare, bastazein, ” to carry, but never “trahere, surein”, to drag.
May we end by saying that the bearer of the cross was preceded by an inscription on wood, the “titulus ” giving his name and stating the crime for which he was condemned. The titulus was later fastened on to the cross.
3°. The method of crucifixion.— All that we have said so far in regard to the carrying of the patibulum only and of its being fixed on to the stipes crucis on the spot, points to the method of crucifixion set out in the formula of Firmicus Matemus (Mathem .): “Patibulo suffixus in crucem tollitur— (The condemned man) having been nailed to the patibulum is raised up on to the cross.”
If the crucifixion is done by binding with ropes, all that needs to be done is to affix the patibulum , to which the victim is already bound, and then to bind his feet to the stipes with a few turns of the rope. If he is to be nailed, the victim is unbound and then laid down on the ground, with his shoulders on the patibulum. His hands are held out and nailed to the two ends of the patibulum. The man is then raised up with the patibulum, which is fixed on to the top of the stipes. After this his feet are nailed down flat against the latter.
This raising up should be fairly easy to do, especially if the cross was not more than two metres high. Four men could easily hold up at arm’s length the patibulum and the condemned man, both of which together would not weigh more than 286 pounds. If need be the victim could be lifted backwards up a little ladder placed against the stipes . If the cross was higher they would either have to use two forks for lifting the patibulum, or two ladders leaning against the sides of the stipes. In neither case would there be any great difficulty to overcome.
This technique is also suggested by the expressions used when referring to crucifixion. They all speak of an act of elevation: in Greek it is “epibainein ton stauron, anabeinein eis ton stauron —to go up on to the cross”; in Latin we find “in crucem ascendere, ” which means the same— ”in crucem agi, tolli, elevari —to be lifted up on to the cross,” and even “in crucem salire ” as in an untranslatable pun of Plautus’, when he makes Chrysalus the player say: “Facietque me Crucisalum ex Chrysalo —From being Chrysalus I shall become one who rises up on to the cross.” It seems then that we must abandon any idea of crucifixion on the complete cross, whether lying on the ground or vertically against an upright cross.
May we not say that Jesus Himself described the true method, when He predicted to St. Peter: “Extendes manus tuas et alius te cinget et ducet quo non vis —Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not” (Jn . XXI, 18). The stretching forth of the hands went with the placing of the patibulum on the shoulders of the condemned whilst before the tribunal. They were then bound with a cord before they started out for execution.
We may add that the imagination of the executioners sometimes varied the regulation method of crucifixion. Occasionally, for example, they changed the standard position, and crucified them head downwards (katô kara proshèlôthentes ), as was done under Diocletian and in Palestine (Eusebius). Everyone knows, as Origen says, that St. Peter was crucified thus.
4°. The military guard .—Every execution was carried out legally, under a completely military staff, who took their orders from a centurion, as Seneca says: “Centurio agmen periturum trahens —the centurion dragging along the crowd of those doomed to die.” The army, which had already been in charge of the scourging, provided the escort from the tribunal to the place of execution, and the executioners of the crucifixion were recruited from its ranks; it would also be responsible for providing a guard to watch at the foot of the crosses. This was in order to prevent the friends of the executed men rescuing them; the guard had thus to be permanent until the condemned men were certainly dead. Its duties even continued after death, as Petronius adds: “Ne quis ad sepulturam corpus detraheret—Lest anyone should take the bodies away for burial.” What then happened to the corpses of the crucified?
5°. Burial and the lack of burial— The usual course was for corpses to remain on the cross and to be devoured by birds of prey and by wild beasts. Horace replies to an innocent slave: “Non pasces in cruce corvos— you will not feed the crows on the cross” (Ep . I, 16). And in Epode V he writes: “Post insepulta membra different lupi et Aexquilini alites— And then your unburied members will be dispersed by the wolves and birds of the Esquiline.” And other texts take up the same theme (Petronius, Seneca, Artemidorus).
However, the bodies could be asked for by families who wished to ensure for them a decent burial; it seems that the law authorised this final grace without hindrance or demand for payment. Even the ashes of those condemned to the stake were returned to their relations (Pandectes). That such clemency was the rule is proved by the fact that the cases when free authorisation was refused are pointed out as exceptions. Cicero, in the De Suppliciis, bitterly reproaches Verres that he extorted a heavy payment for giving up the bodies of those who had been executed to families who did not wish to see them become the prey of wild animals. Such a financial extortion, says the orator, is against the law.
On the other hand the judge, since it depended on him, could refuse the authorisation in certain cases, and for various reasons, in which hatred for the condemned man usually plays its part. Such a refusal came to an increase of punishment; the crime of high treason entailed it. Vespasian added to the condemnation of certain conspirators that their bodies should be cast into the common sewer without burial (Suetonius). Augustus, after the battle of Philippi, had already refused permission for the burial of a notable prisoner, replying, when the request was made, that it would soon be the business of the vultures (Suetonius). In the same way Flaccus, who was Prefect of Egypt in the year 38 A.D., did not authorise the burial of certain crucified Jews (Philo—In Flaccum ).
6°. The blow with the lance .—Later, we find the same provisions in the Digest: “The bodies of those condemned to death shall not be refused to their relations…. The bodies of those who have been executed are not buried, except when permission has been asked and been granted, and sometimes it is refused, especially in regard to the bodies of those who have been condemned for the crime of high treason” (Ulpian). The Digest belongs to the VIth century, but it is a compilation of all the ancient laws, which, when one takes into account the traditionalist spirit of Roman jurists, certainly gives a true picture of the customs and legislation of the period in which we are interested.
Elsewhere Quintilian, who belongs to the 1st century, writes: “Percussos sepeliri carnifex non vetat—the executioner does not forbid the burial of those who have been pierced.” This word “percussos ” unless I am mistaken, introduces a new idea which has a special bearing on our subject. What exactly does “percussos ” mean? It does not refer to the execution itself, nor to the scourging; as however it refers to those who have been condemned to death, we know quite well that they have been scourged and crucified. It refers then to a special blow, given after the execution and which reminds us irresistibly of what is known as the “coup de grâce ”; it seems to be similar to the revolver shot which is fired into the ear of a man who has been shot, even when he is clearly dead. One could then interpret Quintilian’s phrase as meaning the executioner allows those who have been executed to be buried, after they have received the coup de grâce.
Of what did this regulation coup de grâce consist, which alone authorised the executioner to give up the body to the family? Origen speaks, as Father Holzmeister reminds us, of the “percussio sub alas ” (Comm, in Matth. ), which is evidently a blow delivered to the heart. But, when one comes to examine the context, one finds that it refers to the blow which was sometimes given immediately after crucifixion, in order to kill the condemned man quickly. He says that Jesus had not received it, and that this explained Pilate’s astonishment that death had been so rapid.
But at this point we are confronted with a text of Sextus Empiricus, a philosopher and a learned medical man of the IIIrd century, who explains to us that “è tès kardias trôsis aition estin thanatou— the wound in the heart is the cause of death.” It seems then that it was to this coup de grâce that Quintilian was alluding.
Thus, when the family asked for the body, the executioner had first of all to strike a blow at the heart. As he usually was a soldier, this blow would be inflicted with the weapon which he was carrying in his hand, probably a lance or a short javelin. We shall see that this blow at the heart, which was struck from the right side of the chest, was certainly studied and well known, on account of its mortal quality, in the fencing schools of the Roman armies. It gave complete security that the condemned man was really dead…and if need he was the cause of this.