No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 March 2019
Everybody in life wants to win. At its most basic, this must stem from the survival instinct: in a battle against predators, winning means survival; defeat means death. In a social context, however, obviously not everyone can win, and we have to learn to accommodate defeat, whether our own or that of others. Hence, in a competitive society, defeat presents a challenge. Usually, if an observer sympathizes with the defeated, there is an impulse to dress up the defeat in various guises; or, if the defeated party is scorned, the defeat is presented in the most humiliating terms possible. In a gladiatorial context, the attitudes of the observer, not to mention the gladiators themselves, are hard to recover. Recent work has focused on the ‘affective dispositions’ of the spectators, drawing analogies with modern combat sports. Yet, modern spectators do not have to decide whether the defeated party deserves to live or die, whereas, for a Roman spectator, defeat was to be calibrated on a scale of life and death. The ancient protagonists themselves will obviously share impulses with their modern equivalents, although, when the contest is potentially fatal, the drive to win must take on an urgency surpassing pure ambition. When a modern athlete dies on the sports field or in the boxing ring, it is an accident, however tragic, whereas a gladiator who lost a fight could suffer the penalty of losing his life as well. Defeat was in deadly earnest.
This paper was first delivered at the annual meeting of the Classical Association in Exeter in 2012, the year of the London Olympics. I am grateful to members of the audience on that occasion, and subsequently at the Winckelmann Institut, Berlin, the universities of Cologne, Genoa, and Pisa, Columbia University, Monmouth College, and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for stimulating reactions, and to Luisa Musso, Susanne Muth, and Martin Ferguson Smith, who generously supplied five of the photographs. The following abbreviations are used: CIG = Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, 4 vols. (Berlin, 1828–77); EAOR = Epigrafia anfiteatrale del'Occidente Romano, 9 vols. (Rome, 1988–2017); SGO = R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, 5 vols. (Stuttgart, 1998–2004). In the rendering of inscriptions, vertical lines separate the lines on the stone and forward slashes indicate the divisions between lines of verse. All translations are mine, unless otherwise noted.
1 Fagan, G. G., The Lure of the Arena. Social Psychology and the Crowd at the Roman Games (Cambridge, 2011)Google Scholar.
2 Matthews, V., ‘Olympic Losers: Why Athletes Who Did Not Win at Olympia Are Remembered’, in Schaus, G. P. (ed.), Onward to the Olympics. Historical Perspectives on the Olympic Games (Waterloo, Ontario, 2007), 81–93Google Scholar.
3 On the terminology, see TLL VIII 1140.78–1141.3 s.v. missio, 1174.6–9 s.v. mitto (Fleischer); Sassi, M. G. Mosci, Il linguaggio gladiatorio (Bologna, 1992), 139–40Google Scholar. On mercy in the arena, see also [Quint.] Decl. mai. 9.18: uictis etiam gladiatores parcunt (‘even gladiators spare the defeated’); Coleman, K. M., ‘Valuing Others in the Gladiatorial Barracks’, in Rosen, R. M. and Sluiter, I. (eds.), Valuing Others (Leiden, 2010), 433–4Google Scholar.
4 E. Löfstedt, ‘Stantes missi’, Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie 14 (1905–6), 40; Mosci Sassi (n. 3), 140.
5 P. Wuilleumier and A. Audin, Les médaillons d'applique gallo-romains de la vallée du Rhône (Paris, 1952), nos. 34, 111, 112 = EAOR V App. 1A, 4A, 11A.
6 K. M. Coleman, ‘Missio at Halicarnassus’, HSCPh 100 (2000), 487–500.
7 I discount the epitaph of the contraretiarius Pardus (CIL VI 33983 = ILS 5106 = EAOR I 64), who ‘left (the arena) standing’, st(ans) exit, since, pace the editor of EAOR I, I take this to mean that Pardus fought to a draw, although outright grants of missio may have been recorded as well, in what is now an enormous lacuna.
8 L. Robert, Les gladiateurs dans l'Orient grec (Paris, 1940), no. 155, ad 184–5.
9 Ibid., nos. 50–3.
10 Ibid., no. 50.
11 P(eriit): EAOR II 53, 57; VIII 33. Theta nigrum: EAOR I 101, 112, 113, 114; II 58; VIII 33. For the so-called theta nigrum on casualty reports from the Roman army in Moesia and Egypt in the second century ad, see G. R. Watson, ‘Theta nigrum’, JRS 42 (1952), 56–62.
12 Museo Nazionale Romano, Chiostro di Michelangelo, III, 27, inv. 126119. Late first century bc (?).
13 Musei Capitolini, Mag. Sculture B, I. CE 7328 (Inv. scul. 1812). Neg. Cap. A 4766. For discussion, see Robert (n. 8), 120–1, 289–90. Third century ad.
14 These representations have been interpreted as ‘the retiarius’ revenge for a lifetime of slights and abuse from disdainful secutores’, on the grounds that the poses of the defeated opponents are reminiscent of submissive poses in sexual acts, including fellatio: J. Coulston, ‘Victory and Defeat in the Roman Arena: The Evidence of Gladiatorial Iconography’, in T. Wilmott (ed.), Roman Amphitheatres and Spectacula. A 21st-century Perspective (Oxford, 2009), 205. While the monument does not require this interpretation, retiarii in general do seem to have been associated with a marked element of effeminacy: see M. Carter, ‘(Un)dressed to Kill: Viewing the Retiarius’, in J. Edmondson and A. Keith (eds.), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture (Toronto, 2008), 113–35.
15 CIL IV 1474, 8055, 8056, 10221, 10236, 10237, 10238.
16 Robert (n. 8), 120, 289–90.
17 The editor of the entry in EAOR, Patrizia Sabbatini Tumolesi, seems mistaken in concluding (81) that Fimbria was stans missus, which would require this engagement to have resulted in a draw, like Exochus’ previous engagement against Araxes.
18 Robert (n. 8), no. 65 = IC IV 375 = C. Mann, ‘Um keinen Kranz, um das Leben kämpfen wir!’ Gladiatoren im Osten des römischen Reiches und die Frage der Romanisierung (Berlin, 2011), no. 84. Third or fourth century ad.
19 The reading λαμ(πρῶς), adopted by Robert and followed by Mann, must be rejected, since a squeeze clearly shows λαμβα: see commentary at IC IV 375; G. W. M. Harrison, The Romans and Crete (Amsterdam, 1993), 131–2 (although note that λαμβα, printed correctly, is erroneously transliterated lambra). ‘To be taken’ is a euphemism in gladiatorial epitaphs for ‘to die’: see the epitaphs for Gaius from Gortyn (Robert [n. 8], no. 66 = IC IV 374 = Mann [n. 18], no. 82) and Polyneikes from Alabanda (Robert [n. 8], no. 169 = SGO 23/03 [= 02/04/02] = Mann [n. 18], no. 87), quoted below, with n. 39 and n. 48.
20 Why Polos ‘took a respite’ is uncertain. Perhaps the fight was cancelled or he lost (Harrison [n. 19], 132). In the latter case, σχολάζω might be a euphemism for a grant of missio, but in that case, just as in the record of his victories, we would expect his opponent to be named, unless that would demean Polos too much. For the alternative interpretation of σχολάζω as ‘serve as a trainer’, see L. Robert, ‘ΠΥΚΤΕΥΕΙΝ’, RA ser. 5, 30 (1929), 28, followed by Mann (n. 18), 167 n. 96.
21 For the arms and armour that defined the different gladiatorial styles (armaturae), see in detail M. Junkelmann, Gladiatoren. Das Spiel mit dem Tod (Mainz am Rhein, 2008), 96–128, and in tabular form K. M. Coleman, ‘Illuminating Tools: Gladiatorial Equipment on Roman Lamps’, in F. Gury (ed.), Actualité et décor. De l’événement éphémère à l'image pérenne (Paris, forthcoming).
22 Robert (n. 8), no. 17, pl. III = Mann (n. 18), no. 23. Early third century ad. Beroia Museum, inv. 216.
23 Robert (n. 8), no. 298 = IK Nikaia 277 Taf. 24 = IK Alexandreia Troas 123 (photo) = SGO 07/05/01 = Mann (n. 18), no. 146. From Kemallı, near Alexandria Troas. Louvre, inv. MA 2911.
24 E.g. Mann (n. 18), no. 33 (Tagachori, Church of the Prophet Elijah), Beroia Museum, inv. 665. Tyche features prominently in Greek funerary epigram in general: R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana, IL, 1962), 149–50.
25 Mann (n. 18), no. 69 = Junkelmann (n. 21), Abb. 148. Approximately ad 200. Devnja, Muzej na Mozajkite, inv. 40.
26 Robert (n. 8), no. 16 = Mann (n. 18), no. 24. Beroia Museum, inv. 323. The opposition between τέχνη (‘skill’) and βία (‘force’) is inherited from the funerary commemoration of athletes: see Mann (n. 18), 164.
27 See the examples cited by Lattimore (n. 24), 150–1, although he does not explicitly associate Moira with a death that is untimely. See also Mann (n. 18), 147–8.
28 B. C. Dietrich, Death, Fate and the Gods (London, 1965), 59–90, 194–231, esp. 223–9; W. Burkert, Greek Religion, trans. J. Raffan (Cambridge, MA, 1985), 129–30.
29 Robert (n. 8), no. 141 = SGO 04/24/04 (drawing) = Mann (n. 18), no. 139, from Philadelpheia, lost. Illness as an excuse for defeat: Mann (n. 18), 149–50.
30 Mann (n. 18), no. 169, lost.
31 Robert (n. 8), no. 69 = Mann (n. 18), no. 193.
32 Robert (n. 8), no. 37.
33 Robert (n. 8), no. 77.
34 From Tralles. Robert (n. 8), no. 148, pl. I = SGO 02/02/05 (photo) = Junkelmann (n. 21), Abb. 32 = Mann (n. 18), no. 101, Abb. 6. Third century ad. Istanbul Archaeological Museum, inv. 761. Attack pose with six wreaths in the background.
35 Mann (n. 18), no. 26. From Beroia. Beroia Museum, inv. 65.
36 IG XII Suppl. 479 = Robert (n. 8), no. 55 = Mann (n. 18), no. 80. From Thasos.
37 Mentioned already for having fought to a draw, st(ans) exit (see n. 7).
38 Two examples: IGRom. 774 = Robert (n. 8), no. 29 = Mann (n. 18), no. 57, from Arkadioupolis; Robert (n. 8), no. 294 = IK Kyzikos 400 = Mann (n. 18), no. 156, from Edincik, lost.
39 Robert (n. 8), no. 169 = SGO 23/03 (= 02/04/02) = Mann (n. 18), no. 87. Second or third century ad. Garden in the village of Karakollar, south-west Turkey. For the concept of being ‘taken’ by an opponent, see also n. 19 above, and n. 48 below. For further discussion, see Mann (n. 18), 163–4.
40 Robert (n. 8), no. 146 = SGO 02/10/02 (photo) = Mann (n. 18), no. 145. Second or third century ad. Jenice-Köy, in the courtyard of Abdullah-Oglu Ibrahim. Frontal pose; (?)five wreaths. For the phrase Μοῖρα θανάτου, i.e. ‘doom of death’, see Lattimore (n. 24), 151.
41 Robert (n. 8), no. 81 = IK Nikaia 276 = SGO 09/05/10 = Mann (n. 18), no. 162, lost.
42 Robert (n. 8), no. 30 (Plotinopolis) = IGRom. I 773 = Mann (n. 18), no. 66. Hermitage, St Petersburg.
43 Robert (n. 8), no. 285 = IG XII/2, no. 644 = IK Alexandreia Troas 104 (photo) = SGO 07/05/02 (drawing) = Mann (n. 18), no. 147 (Tenedos). Çannakkale Museum, inv. 2328. Dog and seven palm fronds.
44 Robert (n. 8), no. 214, pl. III = IK Ephesos 1177 = SGO 03/02/53 (photo) = Junkelmann (n. 21), Abb. 361 = Mann (n. 18), no. 104. Ephesus, Marmorstraße. Attack pose.
45 Robert (n. 8), no. 238 (Smyrna) = IK Smyrna 546 = SGO 05/01/27 (drawing) = Mann (n. 18), no. 114, lost. Left-handers were particularly formidable, because most people, being right-handed, did not get much practice against them: see Coleman, K. M., ‘A Left-Handed Gladiator at Pompeii’, ZPE 114 (1996), 194–6Google Scholar.
46 Robert (n. 8), no. 237 = IK Smyrna 547 = SGO 05/01/28 = Mann (n. 18), no. 115, lost.
47 Robert (n. 8), no. 34 = IGBulg. III/1, no. 1019 (Philippopolis?) = Mann (n. 18), no. 63. Church of St Bogorodica, Asenovgrad.
48 Robert (n. 8), no. 66 = IC IV, no. 374 = Mann (n. 18), no. 82. For ‘taken’ (ἐ[λ]είφθην), see also nn. 19 and 39 above.
49 IK Stratonikeia 1497 = SEG LVI 1212 = Mann (n. 18), no. 98. Muğla Museum. Frontal pose, (at least) fifteen wreaths.
50 For the reminiscence of Hom. Il. 3.237, πὺξ ἀγαθὸν Πολθδεύκεα, see Staab, G., ‘Zu den neuen Gladiatorenmonumenten aus Stratonikeia in Karien’, ZPE 161 (2007), 44–5Google Scholar; Mann (n. 18), 227.
51 Mann (n. 18), no. 101; see also n. 34, above.
52 CIG II 2942b = Robert (n. 8), no. 149 = SGO 02/02/06 (photo) = Junkelmann (n. 21), Abb. 96 = Mann (n. 18), no. 102, Abb. 7. Archaeological Museum, Istanbul, inv. 762. Attack pose, six wreaths.
53 Robert (n. 8), no. 79 = SGO 11/02/01 (photo) = Junkelmann (n. 21), Abb. 40 = Mann (n. 18), no. 170, Abb. 13. Early second century ad. Musées royaux du Cinquantenaire, Brussels, inv. A 1562. σουμμάρου is an error for the transliteration of the Latin term summae rudis (= genitive singular, ‘umpire’). For the ‘trickery’ of the umpire, see Carter, M., ‘Blown Call? Diodorus and the Treacherous Summa Rudis’, ZPE 177 (2011), 63–9Google Scholar, suggesting that Demetrius was downed by a legitimate move on the part of Diodorus, but that the summa rudis, interpreting his fall as an accident, let him stand up and retrieve his weapons, with results fatal for Diodorus.
54 Robert (n. 8), no. 124 = T. Ritti and S. Yilmaz, ‘Gladiatori e venationes a Hierapolis di Frigia’, Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Morali, Historiche e Filologiche. Memorie ser. 9, 10 (1998), no. 20, Abb. 39 = SGO 02/12/08 = Mann (n. 18), no. 177. First three centuries ad. North necropolis.
55 On Roman narratives of military defeat, see I. Östenberg, ‘War and Remembrance: Memories of Defeat in Ancient Rome’, in B. Alroth and C. Scheffer (eds.), Attitudes towards the Past in Antiquity. Creating Identities (Stockholm, 2014), 262–3.
56 Mann (n. 18), no. 146; see also n. 23, above.
57 SEG XLIX 1755 = LI 1691 = SGO 23/11 (photo) = 07/06/07 = Mann (n. 18), no. 149. Second or third century ad. At entrance to excavations. Inscription without relief sculpture.
58 Mann (n. 18), no. 74. Second or third century ad. Muzeul de Istorie Natională şi Arheologie, Constanţa, Romania, inv. 814.
59 Robert (n. 8), no. 191 = Mann (n. 18), no. 76. Cos, House of Captain Dimitri.
60 IC III 51 (drawing) = Mann (n. 18), no. 86. Third century ad.
61 C. Mann, ‘Gladiators in the Greek East: A Case Study in Romanization’, International Journal of the History of Sport 26 (2009), 272–97; Mann (n. 18), 156–74.
62 L. Robert, ‘Les épigrammes satiriques de Lucilius sur les athlètes’, in L’épigramme grecque, Entretiens Fondation Hardt 14 (Vandoeuvres, 1968), 181–295.
63 Translation from W. H. Race, Pindar. Olympian Odes. Pythian Odes (Cambridge, MA, 1997), 347.
64 Translation from ibid., 143–5.
65 For the range of postures, see Coulston (n. 14), 200–6.
66 F. Kanz and K. Grossschmidt, ‘Dying in the Arena: The Osseous Evidence from Ephesian Gladiators’, in Wilmott (n. 14), 214.
67 A similar pose is preserved on a lamp from the later first century ad in the Sammlung Axel Guttmann in Berlin: see Junkelmann (n. 21), Abb. 225. On a flask from Cologne from the second or third century ad, now in the Römisch-Germanisches Museum, the defeated gladiator is lying on his stomach, with the victor kneeling on his legs: see Junkelmann (n. 21), Abb. 226.
68 Ritti and Yilmaz (n. 54).
69 Wendowski, M. and Ziegert, H., ‘The Wadi Lebda Roman Villa, Libya’, Minerva 16 (2005), 33–4Google Scholar; Musso, L., Matug, G., and Sandri, S., ‘Leptis Magna, il mosaico delle terme dell'uadi Lebda: contesto, iconografia, valorizzazione’, in Trovabene, G. (ed.), XII Colloquio AIEMA. Venezia, 11–15 settembre 2002. Atti (Verona, 2015), 305–17Google Scholar; Dunbabin, K. M. D., Theater and Spectacle in the Art of the Roman Empire (Ithaca, NY, 2016), 193–4Google Scholar.
70 Although there is a shield beside the gladiator on the right, from the manica on his left arm, the galerus on his left shoulder, and the gaiters on his legs, he must be the retiarius; his trident is shown above, lying behind the helmet of his opponent, the secutor, who is holding his sword in his left hand, with a manica on his sword arm and protection on both legs. For gladiatorial armaturae, see also n. 21 above.
71 Coleman (n. 3), 440–2.
72 The epigrammatist plays on the identity of the opponent, Achilleus, who used to be an actor.