Violence and the Romans: The Arena Spectacles

Roman gladiatorial combats (munera) and other spectacles, including the animal shows (ventiones), are cruel and violent by modern standards. Yet to condemn them as such and Romans as bloodthirsty for putting them on is an imposition of modern values on a very different culture, presupposing that human life has always been regarded highly, and that humanitarian ideals have always been the norm. Roman gladiatorial shows were not put on for the purposes of indulging violence, bloodlust and cruelty, even if they may seem that way today. Instead, they were put on for several important purposesincluding social control and education. It is thus unfair to attribute to the Romans an extraordinary violent nature. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The importance of gladiatorial games should be obvious from the time and finances devoted to them. It is inadequate to attribute this solely to pleasing the crowd or for earning and the status of the sponsors, or to regard the games as ostentatious overtures to munificence and benefaction, even though they do play a role. Such explanations alone would not explain, for instance, the fact that the massive Colosseum, site of many such games, was initiated by Vespasian, the emperor who is reputed to have been the most economical of all [1]. Such games must have served much more important purposes. from http://janusquirinus.org/

One such purpose is the education of Roman values, notably strength/courage (fortitudo), training/discipline (disciplina), firmness (constantia), endurance (patientia), contempt of death (contemptus mortis), love of glory (amor laudis), and the desire to win (cupido victoriae). In other words, in the absence of common military pursuits, gladiatorial games became the means of teaching Romans virtus, since the gladiatorial fights effectively demonstrated soldierly values and illustrated military ideas by punishing cowardly gladiators and rewarding courageous ones [2]. Indeed, it is through what is regarded in modern times as sadistic, i.e. witnessing the spectacle of men fighting to their deaths, that such values are conveyed. from http://janusquirinus.org/

This is supported by a passage in Pliny's panegyric to Trajan (Panegyric xxxi.1) in which he praised the emperor who first satisfied the practical needs of the citizens and the allies, and then gave them a public entertainment, nothing lax or dissolute to weaken and destroy the manly spirit of his subjects, but one to inspire them to face honourable wounds and look scornfully upon death, by demonstrating a love of glory and a desire for victory even in the persons of criminals and slaves.In other words, Pliny viewed the gladiatorial show as an educational experience of morality and virtue. The fact that the performers were outcasts strengthened this educational element by the implicit idea that if even such people could provide examples of bravery, determination to win glory and victory despite impending death, and even more so, contempt for death itself, then so could real men (viri)[3] . from http://janusquirinus.org/

Pliny was not alone in his view. Even Cicero, who is widely supposed to oppose gladiatorial games, wrote, "A gladiatorial show is apt to seem cruel and brutal to some eyes, and I incline to think that it is, as now conducted, but in the days when it was criminals who crossed swords in the death struggled there could be no better schooling against pain and death" (Cicero Tusculans 2, xvii.41). Thus, Cicero was not opposed to the idea of gladiatorial games, but the use of free men as the gladiators[4]. As late as the fourth century A.D., the pagan orator Libanius, who was generally opposed to spectacular shows, praised the bravery of the gladiators who graced his uncles games as whom you might swear to have been the pupils of the three hundred at the Battle of Thermopylae(Libanius Oration 1.5)[5]. Indeed, the ambiguity felt towards gladiators was partly due to the virtus they demonstrated, virtus being so important in defining who was a Roman that its public display might lead to the gladiator, a man who might lack any positive quality except the skill to fight to death, being accepted back into the community of Romans [6]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Gladiatorial games were also given by the emperor and other aristocrats to distract the general population. By entertaining them, the shows kept the population in good humour and well-disposed to its rulers, as well as prevented their interest and consequent interference in politics. This was indeed very successful as reflected by Juvenals famous complaint: "The people which once bestowed imperium, fasces, legions, everything, now foregoes such activities and has but two passionate desires: bread and circus games." (X.78-81). from http://janusquirinus.org/

The public games also visually symbolised and publicly advertised the power of Rome by having men from different conquered territories fight to their deaths. Likewise, the display and slaughter of beasts imported from these areas. In the arena, prisoners who were regarded as enemies of the peace and the Roman civilisation were destroyed [7]. Indeed, the names of the different types of gladiators were that of various ethnic groups subjugated by Rome, such as Samnites, Gauls and Thracians. In these ways, the spectacles can also be thought of as replacing triumphs and triumphal processions as the display of military power, which had traditionally played a central role within the system of political competition and in the self-esteem of the Roman elite (and in Roman life generally), but which had been rendered unimportant by the Pax Romana [8]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

At the same time, the spectacles also symbolised the emperors power. For instance, the trained beasts which behaved contrary to their nature, such as the lions which allowed the hares to play in their mouths, could be interpreted as a clear sign that they had been overwhelmed by a force greater than Natures own -- the god-like power of the emperor (numen Caesaris). The fatal charades, i.e. the enactments of historical or mythological episodes, demonstrated the power of the emperor by enabling the public to see with their own eyes what had previously been fiction and could only be imagined [9]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The treatment and execution of criminals during spectacles also made it clear that law and order were upheld, and served as visual deterrence to crime. This pain was not inflicted because it was enjoyed for its own sake. Such sadism is incompatible with the Roman mentality, since it is a luxury and Romans not only realists, they were slaves to utility in the narrowest sense [10]. Instead, the pain inflicted was commensurate with the suffering the criminal had caused or might have caused. Moreover, a pre-industrial society had to depend on punishments to deter crime and reassure the public, since it could not rely on a police force or secure prisons to do so. This public punishment of crime also served to re-establish the social order by degrading the criminal through the infliction of pain. After all, a wrong-doer may be regarded as someone who arrogates to himself certain rights to which he is not entitled. His actions thus overturn the proper hierarchy of status, which is essential For the smooth functioning of a society, and even more so in a society such as that of Rome which was based on such status differentiation. The public humiliation of the criminal then re-established social order by cancelling the criminals exercise of a right which he did not have [11]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Moreover, the conquest of the entire Mediterranean created a new society composed of many different cultural and ethnic groups whose only shared experience was that of being part of the Roman military machine. The spectacles thus played an important role of defining a common identity by the creation of a common pastime [12]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Thus, it can be seen that the spectacles were given because they served important purposes in the Roman society and for their sponsor, and not for indulgence of violent tendencies. Nor did the spectacles have to be enjoyed by the Roman people because they pandered to their sadism. Instead, they might be enjoyed for other reasons, such as the powers they granted their spectators, including the power over lives of other men. After all, it was the assembled people who ultimately decided if a defeated gladiator had demonstrated enough courage to be granted his life, and whether or not a successful gladiator deserved to be restored to the privileges of citizenship. This power does not have to be sadistic; it could be enjoyed for itself, since in the Empire, this was generally the only situation where the common people were allowed to partake in public decision-making. It also allowed the public control over the professional gladiators, a group of people who in various times in history had risen in opposition to the Romans, the most famous instance, the rebellion of Spartacus [13]. This over the gladiators also confirmed the superiority of Roman citizens over foreigners, slaves and criminals. Furthermore, during the games, the people who were degraded were those hated by the Roman public, be they the Christians, foreign savages or criminals. Indeed, under emperors like Caligula, these included senators and equestrians. The enjoyment of this power may be furthered by the fact that it included power over the emperor under those circumstances. For instance, even though Marcus Aurelius refused the spectatorsdemands that a man who had trained a lion to eat human flesh should be manumitted, he could not refuse the populace's demand that the lion should be displayed [14]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, the spectacles served as a vent for the energy of the people by allowing aggression in a contained environment without the destruction of social fabric which might have occurred under any other circumstances. They also provided excitement. In these ways, they resembles modern sports. This is made even more important since the citizens of Rome, life was otherwise boring since everything was provided and the military pursuits and civil war which had kept them entertained were by then over [15]. Indeed, this notion that the spectacles might have been regarded as the replacement for warfare is supported by the fact that the first fight with sharp weapons during a game was announced by a war trumpet [16]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

The spectacles also appealed to the crowd by their implicit sexual nature. The Romans appeared to be aware of this aspect of the spectacles by the fact that gladiators were classified with prostitutes in Roman legislation, and that literary texts associated the Latin word for the gladiator's trainer (lanistes) with that for a pimp (leno) [17]. Indeed, the sexuality associated with gladiators is portrayed by Prudentius in his description of the Vestal virgin at the games:

What a spirit she has! She leaps up at each stroke, and every time that the victorious gladiator plunges his sword into his opponents neck, she calls him her sweetheart, and turning her thumb downwards this modest maiden orders the breast of the prone gladiator to be torn open so that no part of his soul should be hidden, while the secutor looms above him, panting as he presses in his weapon (ii.1095-1101) [18].

Even in this passage by a Christian writer vehemently against the gladiatorial shows, the emphasis is not on sadism or the bloodthirstiness of the spectator but the sexual element in the killing, even though early Christians, like many modern scholars, did express over what seemed to them sadism. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Thus, the enjoyment of the spectacles, like the presentation of spectacles, did not have to be due to the indulgence of the spectatorsviolent tendencies, even when there is such an aspect to the spectacles. The question then is whether or not there was a sadistic and bloodthirsty aspect to the enjoyment of the spectacles at all. Seneca's description of the spectators at the midday Show (Moral Epistles vii.3-5) indicate that this question should be answered in the affirmative. The reasons for this, however, do not have to be a unique violent and cruel mentality of the Romans. Theories, such as those advanced by Grant that Romans were so violent because, unlike others, they disastrously failed to outgrow the trauma of being brutalised as children and living in a society where violence might easily descend on them [19], are besides the point. Among other things, such theories presuppose a superiority of modern societies and values. from http://janusquirinus.org/

On the contrary, the violent aspect of the enjoyment of Roman spectacles is more likely due to the same element of violence which is also present in modern cultures. The most obvious of this is the mob instinct which overrides rationality at the peak of excitement. This explains the demands of the Roman spectators for men to be killed during the intermission as much as it does the shooting of the truck driver in the 1992 Los Angeles riot. Similarly, psychological theories of human violence, such as that of Stekel that In the human soul, cruelty lies, like a beast, chained, but eager to spring,[20] are to a modern society a much as that of the Romans. This is perhaps why the representation of gladiators and gladiatorial shows still holds the morbid fascination of modern audiences. Indeed, the tradition of violence in spectacles is maintained in modern societies as boxing, wrestling and amateur spectacles such as the American Gladiators. The only difference is that the Roman games expected the death of the performers, which may simply be explained by lesser regard for human life. After all, the mortality in pre-industrial society was high. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Furthermore, the criticism of both the Roman spectators and spectacles as violent beyond the normal excitement from witnessing a sport, is supposedly found mainly in ancient sourcesincluding the works of Cicero, Seneca and Christian writers. However, a closer analysis will show that violence and bloodthirstiness may not be the targets of these works. As discussed above, Cicero only felt that the games of his time were cruel because the gladiators were free men. Seneca, on the other hand, explicitly berates the spectators in the above mentioned letter. Yet a closer study of this letter illustrates various points: firstly, the demands of the spectators for the gladiators in the morning to be forced to fight more valiantly and to die more gamely is not inconsistent with the concept of military virtus; secondly, he does not criticise the killing of the men, but the fact that the spectator had to witness the killing of men for pleasure; and thirdly, there is an undeniable elitist element in Senecas attitude poignantly illustrated by his conclusion:from http://janusquirinus.org/

Nothing is damaging to good character than the habit of wasting time at the Games; for then it is that vice steals secretly upon you through the avenue of pleasure.. .I come home more greedy, more ambitious, more voluptuous, even more cruel and more inhumanly because I have been among human-beings [21].

Similarly, the opposition of the early Christian writers to spectacles was not so much a consequence of any humanitarian ideals, but was because they had other grounds for disliking them. The most obvious is that Roman spectacles had traditionally been the means by which Christians were persecuted. Moreover, the gladiatorial games had not become entirely secular and still possessed some pagan elements, can be seen, for instance, by the officials dressed as Charon and Hermes Psychopompus. Indeed, Wiedemann goes so far as to attribute the uneasiness of Christians not so much to the element of death or suffering, but the possibility of resurrection, or salvation, awarded by a secular human entity, i.e. the Roman people, and not God or His representatives [24]. from http://janusquirinus.org/

Thus, it can be seen that to an extent, many supposed humanitarian ideas in the ancient works regards to the spectacles are modern interpretations perhaps resulting from an attempt to find an echoing voice in antiquity supporting modern disapproval of the games. As a final note, modern works criticising Roman spectacles often involved cultural bias, as explicit in Grants work, for instance: from http://janusquirinus.org/

The attitude of many Romans, even men of the highest culture, towards the arena was flawed and inhumane--or, if disapproving, not disapproving enough ... [The views of Cicero] is typical of a certain equivocation in Cicero who, although steeped in Greek culture, often criticized its anti-Roman softness. A century and a half later, Pliny the younger is equally disappointing. Equally unattractive, at the very end of antiquity and in a time of growing Christian humanitarianism, is the attitude of the highly educated Symmachus [25].

Bibliography

Aričs P and D, ed. A history of private life. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987-1991.
Auguet R. Cruelty and civilization: the Roman games. London: Routledge, 1994.
Carcopino J. Daily life in ancient Rome: the people and the city at the height of the empire. ed. HT Rowell; tr. EO Lorimer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940.
Cary M and Scullard HH. A History of Rome. 3rd ed. New York: St. Martins Press, 1975.
Grant M. Gladiators. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967.
Lewis N and Reinhold M, ed. Roman civilization: The Republic and the Augustan Age. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.
Veyne P. Bread and circuses: historical sociology and political pluralism. Abr. O Murray ; tr. B Pearce. London: Penguin, 1992.
Wiedemann T. Emperors and gladiators. London: Routledge, 1992.
Wistrand M. Entertainment and violence in Ancient Rome : the attitudes of Roman writers of the first century A.D. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1992.

Ling Ouyang