Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T21:54:51.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Spectacle of the Patibulum: A Response to Ruben van Wingerden

In honorem Kathleen M. Coleman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2022

John Granger Cook*
Affiliation:
Religion & Philosophy, LaGrange College, 601 Broad St, LaGrange, GA 30240 Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ruben van Wingerden's articles on carrying a patibulum and σταυρός are admirably precise. However, his analyses of two texts of Plautus and a fragment of Clodius Licinus are problematic. In contrast to van Wingerden's rather minimalistic conclusions regarding carrying a patibulum or σταυρός, it seems likely that carrying a patibulum was a general element in Roman practice in accounts in which patibula are mentioned in conjunction with crucifixions – even when there is no explicit reference to carrying the patibulum through the streets.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. Introduction

Ruben van Wingerden's recent articles on carrying a cross are admirable in their precision.Footnote 1 Van Wingerden's aim is to determine which ancient texts are the most probable references to carrying a cross. In his two articles he carefully analyses the Latin and Greek evidence respectively. His conclusions are that very few texts actually mention the practice outside of the Gospels. Those texts are: Plautus, Carb. fr. 2, ‘possibly’ Mil. glor. 358–60, Clodius Licinus, Rer. Rom. 21, lex Puteolana ii.8–10, Chariton, Chaer. 4.2.7, 4.3.10, Plutarch, Sera 554a–b, and Artemidorus, Onir. 2.56. As a methodology, this seems too restrictive.Footnote 2 He omits some crucial scholarly references and, in my view, makes some errors.Footnote 3 In contrast to van Wingerden's rather minimalistic conclusions, it seems probable that carrying a patibulum was a general element in Roman practice in accounts in which patibula are mentioned in conjunction with crucifixions – even when there is no explicit reference to carrying the patibulum through the streets. Much of the article will be devoted to establishing this thesis, and a set of tables will be included as evidence for the contention. The Roman writers likely assume that their readers are intimately aware of this sort of spectacle – an assumption that linguists call a ‘pragmatic presupposition’ and which Umberto Eco calls a ‘known frame or scenario’.Footnote 4 A warrant for the presupposition is the lex Puteolana, and an expanded defence of the reading patibul(atum) in ii.9 is offered below. Although carrying a furca (fork) was not precisely equivalent to carrying a patibulum (horizontal bar), both actions were probably frequent spectacles in Roman culture. There is some confirmation of this thesis in the three oldest depictions of crucifixion – which happen to depict Tau-shaped crosses.

2. Plautus (Writing ca 205–184 BCE)

Some of van Wingerden's analyses of texts from Plautus need to be revised in my view. In the Miles Gloriosus the slave Sceledrus is standing in a doorway blocking it, presumably with his arms outstretched. Palaestrio, a slave, says to Sceledrus (who had helped his master kidnap Philocomasium, a prostitute whom Palaestrio's master had fallen in love with):

Credo ego istoc exemplo tibi esse pereundum Footnote 5 extra portam, / dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis. Footnote 6

I suppose you'll soon have to go (‘disappear’) outside of the gate in a posture like that with your hands spread out, when you'll have a patibulum.

The gate is the Esquiline, ‘outside of which the poor were buried and public executions took place’.Footnote 7 Mason Hammond, Arthur M. Mack, and Walter Moskalew – reading pereundum – comment on line 359: ‘The patibulum (in the next line) was a crossbar which the convicted criminal carried on his shoulders, with his arms fastened to it, to the place for execution. Hoisted up on an upright post, the patibulum became the crossbar of the cross’.Footnote 8 Van Wingerden's conclusion that ‘Whether Plautus’ Mil. glor. 358–60 is to be counted as a “traditional” instance of cross-bearing is defined by which reading one adopts’, is probably incorrect due to the reasons given below.Footnote 9 esse pereundum poses a difficulty for translators. Michael Hillen's entry in the ThLL is enlightening:

i. usu strictiore de eis, qui -eunt ita: (A) ut omnino esse desinant … saepius a notione sub B illustrata separari non potest … (B) ut non iam adsint eo quod auferuntur, amoventur, (1) potius e loco quodam …

In a stricter sense concerning those who pereunt in such a way: (A) that they entirely cease to be … more often cannot be separated from the sense illustrated in B … (B) that they are no longer present on account of the fact that they are carried away, removed (1) preferably from a certain place … Footnote 10

Plautus frequently uses the verb in sense i.B.Footnote 11 As an example of the difficulty of distinguishing the two senses, Hillen refers to a text of Ulpian in his work On the praetor's edict (Ad edictum (praetoris)): Marcellus apud Iulianum notat verbo ‘perisse’ et scissum et fractum contineri et vi raptum (‘Marcellus as reported by Julian remarks that by the word “destroyed,” cut up, broken, and forcibly abstracted are meant’).Footnote 12

Both senses are likely present in Plautus's use of pereo, and he can use the verb for motion as noted. In Plautus's other texts (§ 7), the patibulum is an object one carries, like the furca (§ 6) – a context that supports the inclusion of sense i.B.Footnote 13

Since there are no other texts, to my knowledge, in which the patibulum is used for a non-fatal punishment, it is highly probable that Plautus envisions the slave Sceledrus parading along the via Esquilina with the patibulum on his shoulders on the way to his death by crucifixion, due to his usage of pereo and patibulum in other texts, the identity of the Esquiline as the place of execution, and crucifixion as the servile supplicium in ancient Rome.Footnote 14 This is simply one of many jests or curses in Plautus exchanged between slaves, or between masters and slaves, such as I dierecte in maxumam malam crucem (‘go to an extreme evil cross’).Footnote 15

Van Wingerden also is somewhat sceptical about a passage in Plautus's Mostellaria in which a slave named Grumio predicts the fate of a crafty, dishonest slave named Tranio:

You executioner's sieve! At any rate that's what I believe you'll be if the old man returns here, so thoroughly will the executioners pierce you with cattle prods while you carry the crossbar through the streets.

O carnufic<i>um cribrum, quod credo fore: / Ita te forabunt patibulatum per uias / Stimulis, ‹carnufices› si huc reveniat senex. Footnote 16

In the judgement of van Wingerden, ‘Although this passage lacks the context of crux-terminology or references, later on in the play Tranio mentions the crux at various times as a threat, but it remains unclear whether we can see this threat as a prelude to crucifixion (i.e. crux-terminology)’.Footnote 17 Again, here van Wingerden fails to detect the pragmatic presupposition of Plautus, or in his terminology, taken from Eco, known ‘frames’ and ‘scenarios’. Most fundamental is the universal association of patibulum with a fatal punishment.Footnote 18 There are expressions such as suffigere patibulo where individuals are crucified and where patibulum comprises a pars pro toto (part for the whole) usage – that is, the word patibulum in those contexts refers to the horizontal and vertical members of a cross.Footnote 19 Second, any Roman reader of Plautus would have been aware of the existence of the servile supplicium – death by crucifixion. To express it differently: no ‘patibulated’ (Plautus's patibulatum) individual escapes death by crucifixion. Third, Grumio tells Tranio that he will be the carnufic<i>um cribrum (the sieve of the executioners), pierced by their cattle prods as he is led through the streets. This usage of cribrum according to the OLD is a reference to ‘its many perforations’.Footnote 20 Being pierced by goads while being driven through the streets is not identical with flagellation, but the parallel is clear (see the lex in § 4).Footnote 21

Few Romans would have been ignorant of the flagellations and other tortures that often preceded crucifixions.Footnote 22 Fourth, a Roman reader would have been aware of the impending doom signified by the term carnifex. Admittedly it can mean ‘torturer’, but its most general sense was ‘executioner’.Footnote 23 Richard Meister describes its primary meaning as ‘1 occisor: a qui supplicium sumit de condemnatis, tortor, (praecipue de servo publico cf. Hitzig, PW iii 1599)’ (1 killer: a who exacts punishment on the condemned, torturer (especially of a public slave)).Footnote 24 Sense two is ‘2 cruciator, perditor: a de hominibus’ (2 torturer, destroyer: a of people).Footnote 25 Meister classifies the usages in Plautus under the first sense.Footnote 26 The slave Tranio is facing death by crucifixion after being forced to carry the patibulum through the streets while being tortured by goads.

3. C. Clodius Licinus

Van Wingerden's treatment of C. Clodius Licinus's fragment needs additional discussion, since he does not make a final decision on the text but initially prints what is found in the MSS and then discusses various options: ‘Deligat{a} ad patibulos. deligantur et circumferuntur, cruci defiguntur’ (‘Fastened to a patibulum, They are fastened and led around and then nailed to the cross’).Footnote 27 Van Wingerden notes that deligata is dropped by the edition of T. J. Cornell (general editor) and does not object. However, he does not present the text as edited by Stephen Oakley in Cornell's collection, although he mentions its existence in his notes:Footnote 28

Patibulum (transverse/horizontal beam) is neuter in gender. Licinus in book 21 of his Roman Affairs uses it in the masculine: they are bound to patibuli and paraded around, and then fixed to the cross.

patibulum genere neutro. Masculino Licinus rerum Romanarum libro xxi: ad patibulos deligantur et circumferuntur, cruci defiguntur.Footnote 29

Van Wingerden apparently overlooks Oakley's decision not to place a period after patibulos.Footnote 30 Oakley's reconstructions avoid the awkward repetition of deligo in the MSS (deligata ad patibulos. deligantur …). The first fragment of Clodius Licinus in Oakley's edition describes an event in the Second Punic War, when the first historical accounts of Roman crucifixion emerged.Footnote 31

4. The lex Puteolana

The lex supports the general thesis of the article: namely, that carrying a patibulum was a common practice in ancient Rome. Van Wingerden is somewhat uncertain about the relevance of the lex Puteolana: ‘To sum up, if Cook's reading is correct, then this is another instance that speaks of individuals carrying a patibulum to the crux’.Footnote 32 This warrants further argumentation. The lex, which describes a concession for funerals and executions in Puteoli (Figure 1), contains the most detailed description of the technology of crucifixion.Footnote 33

Figure 1. Lex Puteolana col. II.1–19; credit: Professor Giuseppe Camodeca; used by permission

The section for private individuals reads:

ii. 8 Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male slave or female slave at private expense, as he (the owner) who wants the (punishment) to be inflicted, he (the contractor) exacts the punishment in this manner: if he wants (him) to lead the patibulated individual to the cross (vertical beam), the contractor will have to provide wooden posts, chains, and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the patibulum and for the floggers and also for the executioner.

Column ii. 8 qui supplic(ium) de ser(vo) servave privatim sumer(e) volet uti is {qui} sumi volet ita supplic(ium) sumet si in cruc(em) / 9 patibul(atum) Footnote 34 agere volet redempt(or) asser(es) vincul(a) restes verberatorib(us) et verberator(es) praeber(e) d(ebeto) et / 10 quisq(uis) supplic(ium) sumet pro oper(is) sing(ulis) quae patibul(um) ferunt verberatorib(us)q(ue) item carnif(ice) HS iiii d(are) d(ebeto) /

Scholars disagree on the restoration of patibul(…) in ii.9. The photograph of the lex does not help. As Giuseppe Camodeca writes, the initial letters of ii.9 are damaged and quite small (Figure 1).Footnote 35 The survey (§ 7) of uses of patibulum justifies John Bodel's solution: patibul(atum) – ‘an individual whose hands are fastened to the patibulum/bar’. This image comports well with the general thesis of this article concerning the frequency of the spectacle of the patibulum. No other restoration is possible syntactically or semantically, if one follows extant classical usage. agere in patibulum is unacceptable from a syntactic and semantic basis, because it contradicts known Latin usage. Sergio Castagnetti's restoration, patibulo, in ii.9 (an ablative bearing the sense ‘with the patibulum’) also does not appear anywhere else in Latin literature. He is forced to translate with a paraphrase: ‘se vorrà che venga messo in croce col patibolo’ – not having an object for agere, which in all other texts has an object, or a subject when the passive agi occurs (§ 5).Footnote 36 ii.9 indicates that in ii.10 the workers bring the patibulum from the lucus Libitinae, or wherever such implements were stored, to the house where the slave to be punished is held. From there the slave him-/herself ‘carries’ (wears) it to the place of execution.Footnote 37 The lex shows that the scene of a male or female slave carrying the patibulum to the crux was common in Puteoli.

5. A Roman spectacle: Driving Victims to the Cross (agere quemdam in crucem) or Victims Being Driven to the Cross (quidam … agi in crucem)

In the sections that follow, I will attempt to establish the thesis that carrying the patibulum was a frequent element in Roman crucifixions in accounts in which patibula are mentioned. This is in contrast to van Wingerden's minimalistic results that emphasise the texts he takes to be certain. The first step is to show that taking the condemned to the cross was a common practice according to the extant evidence. There is a phrase in Latin that hints at a Roman spectacle that must have been repeated with endless frequency, since so many examples have by chance survived into the modern world: driving a victim to the cross. Both the active (agere in crucem) and passive (agi in crucem) are used in references to the spectacle.

The Latin is equivalent to the NT phrase ἀπάγɛιν ɛἰς τὸ σταυρῶσαι (Matt 27.31 par) or the classical ἀπάγɛιν ἐπὶ τὸν σταυρόν.

Table 1. Agere/Agi in Crucem

The Latin formulas are so brief that it is fairly obvious that one may assume nearly any Roman reader knew the implications – the spectacle of being driven to execution and the drawn out, miserable death on the cross awaiting the condemned. They do indicate that agere is the vox propria for the journey to the cross. The comparable Greek phrases are likewise short, for the most part.

Table 2. ἀπάγɛιν (etc.) ἐπὶ τὸν σταυρόν

Certainly, these phrases resemble those of Mark and Matthew (Mark 15.20 ἐξάγουσιν αὐτὸν ἵνα σταυρώσωσιν αὐτόν par Matt 27.31). It is worth keeping in mind that if one only had Mark 15.20 and Matt 27.31, one would not know that the cross of Jesus had a patibulum or that Simon of Cyrene had carried the patibulum part of the way to the crux. Six texts with patibulum (§ 7 below) portray a spectacle in which an individual is led to crucifixion, and many of the texts in this section may similarly include patibula – although they are not mentioned explicitly. There are explicit hints in several texts that do describe victims carrying patibula that indicate the practice was common, which will be discussed below (§ 7). Carrying a furca provides an important analogy for the thesis concerning the frequency of the spectacle of the patibulum.

6. An analogy: the spectacle of the furca

The point of the argument here is that carrying the furca closely resembles carrying the patibulum. The furca, a punishment for slaves, was apparently frequent in ancient Rome. Combined with the other evidence, the frequency of the spectacle of the furca helps warrant the thesis of the article. In general, individuals punished by the furca survived the miserable experience.Footnote 63 Henceforth others could call them a furcifer.Footnote 64 A presumably legendary episode describes a slave who was punished by the furca before a circus of Romans.Footnote 65 In some accounts the slave was executed afterward.Footnote 66 The authors who portray the event are aware of its nature as spectacle. Iulius Paris (§ 5), the epitomator of Valerius, summarised the text as a reference to the crucifixion of the slave, but Iulius does not write that the slave carried a furca to a crux.Footnote 67 Macrobius transforms the punishment into the similar but not identical spectacle of the patibulum.

(1.11.3.) … a certain Autronius Maximus beat his slave, tied him to a patibulum, then drove him through the Circus before the start of the show … (5.) … it is called the dies instauricius, not (as some think) from the patibulum – that is, stauros in Greek – but from the act of making whole again, as Varro holds, noting that instaurare means ‘to replace the equivalent amount’ (instar novare).

3. … Autronius quidam Maximus servum suum verberatum patibuloque constrictum ante spectaculi commissionem per circum egit: … 5. … isque instauraticius dictus est non a patibulo, ut quidam putant, Graeco nomine ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, sed a redintegratione, ut Varroni placet, qui instaurare ait esse instar novare Footnote 68

Since other sources from Macrobius's era (Lactantius, Augustine, Arnobius), particularly Iulius Paris, indicate that the slave was executed, as did Valerius Maximus before them, it seems most probable that Macrobius envisioned the slave's subsequent execution – especially given his translation of patibulum by σταυρός – a word associated with crucifixion.Footnote 69 Furca makes an appearance in classical texts in various constructions:

Table 3. Constructions with Furca

From this evidence one can conclude that in general the furca, although a humiliating spectacle for the slave, was not usually a fatal punishment. A further warrant for this thesis is the liberal usage of the term ‘furcifer’ – used for an individual who had been obliged to carry the furca around.Footnote 78 The penalty of the furca resembles that of the patibulum, although the latter was always fatal. Both spectacles were probably frequent in ancient Rome, although the claim concerning the frequency of the spectacle of the patibulum needs additional evidence.

7. The Patibulum in Roman texts and the Spectacle of Carrying It

The classical evidence for the use of patibulum follows below. Many of the texts below are pars pro toto usages. The first five examples indicate a spectacle in which the condemned individual carries the patibulum through the streets (some have been mentioned above). In the sixth example, the headless torso of Carbo Arvina is carried about fixed to a patibulum in a clear imitation of the spectacle illustrated by the first five texts. The seventh example is also a spectacle, although the image of the dead pretender Celsus, whose corpse had been consumed by dogs, is attached to a patibulum in a pars pro toto usage.

Table 4. Constructions with Patibulum

It is worthwhile remembering that Lucian identifies the stauros with the Tau shape – although in the Greek texts above there is a usage of synecdoche (σταυρός for patibulum).Footnote 108 These texts illustrate the syntactical and semantic usage of patibulum. One is immediately aware that there are no examples of cum patibulo or sub patibulo, nor are there any examples where patibulo appears as an ablative bearing the meaning ‘with the patibulum’.Footnote 109 The word also appears universally in fatal spectacles – either of a condemned individual carrying the patibulum through the streets or crucified with his or her arms stretched out on the horizontal bar, suspended in the air. The one possible exception is the text from Macrobius, but his translation of patibulum by σταυρός probably indicates that the slave was executed (see § 6). Like the furca, bearing the patibulum through the streets before crucifixion was a spectacle.

Gunnar Samuelsson justifiably argues that the Gospels are sparing in their narratives of the crucifixion.Footnote 110 Nevertheless, the most vivid portrayal of crucifixion which survives the literature of Greco-Roman antiquity is that of the Gospels, including the detail in which either Jesus (John 19.17) or Simon of Cyrene (Matt 27.32 par Mark 15.21 par Luke 23.27) carries the patibulum through the streets of Jerusalem. In the Gospels (Matt 27.26 par Mark 15.15, John 19.1), with the exception of Luke where no such torture is mentioned, Pilate had already scourged Jesus, and no scourging is mentioned while carrying the patibulum itself. Only Luke (23.27–31) describes a crowd of onlookers following Jesus and Simon, including the mourning women of Jerusalem. It is all part of a Roman spectacle as in some of the texts above. Since in Luke's spectacle Simon carries the patibulum, the two criminals most likely carried theirs (27.32): Ἤγοντο … ἕτɛροι κακοῦργοι δύο σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρɛθῆναι. To van Wingerden's examples of Greek texts in which one carries the patibulum, one should probably add that of Peter in the Gospel of John, although there is disagreement. The risen Jesus (John 21.18) prophesies that he, too, will bear the bar (to the crux). The extension of Peter's hands is likely a reference to the patibulum.Footnote 111

The texts of the lex Puteolana, Chariton, Plutarch, and Artemidorus imply a broader cultural practice (rather than reporting on singular events).Footnote 112 They indicate that carrying the patibulum before crucifixion was a common practice in the Roman world – even if Plutarch (‘every criminal’) and Artemidorus exaggerate somewhat. Six other Latin texts (§ 7) also assume Roman familiarity with practice, and it was a regular element of Plautus's humour who assumes the audience is well aware of the spectacle. The frequency of the spectacle contrasts with van Wingerden's minimalistic results. Since the Romans had the technology to suspend an individual on a simple vertical beam (see Figure 2 in § 8), and since many texts portray the leading of an individual to a cross, I would suggest as a reasonable hypothesis that whenever patibula are mentioned in Roman texts, one can probably assume that the individual had earlier carried it through the streets. This assumption would constitute a ‘pragmatic presupposition’ of Mediterranean literature that readers would take for granted. Mention of the patibulum itself brought to the Mediterranean mind a spectacle (as it did in the case of Jesus, Simon of Cyrene, and the examples canvassed above) – one in which an individual was forced to carry it to a place of execution. The classical texts listed above and the Gospel texts about ‘taking up one's σταυρός’ warrant the thesis that the patibulum spectacle was frequent in Roman society.Footnote 113

Figure 2. lagynos depicting damnatio ad bestias; Inventory: O.39628. © Römisch – Germanisches Zentralmuseum; credit: R. Müller

8. The T-shaped Images and the Spectacle of Carrying the Patibulum

The Romans had the technology to suspend – easily, one presumes –an individual on a vertical beam without a patibulum. The scene (Figure 2) of damnatio ad bestias vividly illustrates that possibility, and Martial combines the penalties of crucifixion and damnatio ad bestias in one of his spectacles in which he mentions the actual crucifixion of the star of a well-known mime.

… so Laureolus, hanging on no false cross, gave up his defenceless entrails to a Scottish bear. His mangled limbs were still alive, though the parts were dripping with blood, and in his whole body there actually was no body.

nuda Caledonio sic viscera praebuit urso
non falsa pendens in cruce Laureolus.
vivebant laceri membris stillantibus artus
inque omni nusquam corpore corpus erat.Footnote 114

The hypothesis lies near at hand – in contrast to van Wingerden's minimalism – that when the patibulum is mentioned, it indicates the spectacle of the condemned individual's carrying it through the streets. It is certainly intriguing that all of the most ancient images of Roman crucifixion depict individuals on Tau-shaped crosses in which the horizontal beam comprises the patibulum: the crucified Alkimila (Figures 3 and 4) in the Puteolan taberna from the Trajanic-Hadrianic era; the graffito (Figure 5) of the crucified donkey-man (iii ce); and the Pereire gem (Figure 6) of the nude crucified Christ.

Figure 3. Puteoli: graffito of Alkimila's crucifixion: credit: Professor Giuseppe Camodeca; used by permission

Figure 4. Alkimila; credit: Professor Giuseppe Camodeca; used by permission

Figure 5. Palatine graffito; by permission of the Ministero della Cultura – parco Archeologico del Colosseo

Figure 6. Magical gem, intaglio, jasper. British Museum 1986,0501.1, 30 x 25 x 5.8 mm, late ii ce – early iii ce. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum. All rights reserved

Although the images do not themselves give visual evidence that the patibula were carried, as Felicity Harley-McGowan justifiably insists, ‘they might imply it to a viewer who understands the practice (presuming that the practice was known at the time and place the images were created)’.Footnote 115 The literary sources encourage the reader to assume that where a patibulum is mentioned, the spectacle of the journey through the streets to the crux is not far behind.

9. Conclusion

In addition to the texts that van Wingerden affirms in support of the carrying of the patibulum to the crux, there is further material to take into account. The readings above of Plautus and Clodius Licinus are warranted. The suggested reconstruction of lex Puteolana ii.9 (patibul(atum)) makes best sense in my view and conforms closest to extant Latin usage, and the lex warrants the frequency of the Roman practice in Puteoli one might name the ‘spectacle of the patibulum’.

One can restrict the image of carrying a patibulum to texts that are deemed certain as van Wingerden does. Admittedly, one cannot demonstrate that the patibula were carried by the condemned from solely the semantics of the texts in which the following phrases and words appear: agere/agi in crucem; ἀπάγɛιν ɛἰς τὸ σταυρῶσαι (etc.); and patibulum. The following pragmatic presupposition does, however, have reasonable grounds: when one encounters the above phrases and words in the description of a Roman spectacle, it is likely that ancient readers (often) – at least those inhabitants of the empire who lived in or near towns – envisioned the condemned individual carrying the patibulum to the crux.Footnote 116 Doubtless this was not true in all such cases. However, the Roman love of spectacle (consider the furca) probably implies that there is plenty of justification for believing that the supposition is reliable. The prevalence of this spectacle in Roman society, if the hypothesis is correct, indicates that the Gospels’ depiction of the patibulum-bearing of Jesus, Simon of Cyrene, (probably) Peter, and individuals who wish to follow Jesus was easily recognisable for Mediterranean readers, who would have witnessed the unavoidable scene in their own streets.

Acknowledgements

I thank Professors John Bodel, Jerker Blomqvist, Giuseppe Camodeca, Kathleen M. Coleman, Felicity Harley-McGowan, Robert A. Kaster, and the anonymous reviewers for comments on various issues in the article.

Competing interests

The author declares none.

References

1 Wingerden, R. van, ‘Carrying a patibulum: A Reassessment of Non-Christian Latin Sources’, NTS 66 (2020) 433–53Google Scholar, idem, ‘Carrying a σταυρός: A Re-Assessment of the Non-Christian Greek Sources’, NTS 67 (2021) 336–55 Cf. idem, ‘Crucifixion Practices: How to Attach a patibulum to a stipes’, NovT 64 (2022) 269–76 and idem, ‘Horizontal or Not? The Patibulum in Sallust, Hist. 3 Frg. 9’, Biblica 99 (2018) 592–9.

2 For the Latin material, see van Wingerden, ‘patibulum’, 452–3, and for the Greek material, see van Wingerden, ‘σταυρός’, 352.

3 Omitted key references: Cobet, C. G., ‘Annotationes criticae ad Charitonem’, Mnemosyne 8 (1859) 229303Google Scholar; Gatti, P., ‘patibulum’, ThLL x/1.706.48–708.30; and S. Castagnetti, Le ‘leges libitinariaeflegree. Edizione e commento (Napoli: Satura, 2012)Google Scholar.

4 Van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 445 refers to Umberto Eco's concept, ‘encyclopaedic knowledge’, in which ‘interpreters resort to known “frames” (other texts) or “scenarios” and common and specific knowledge from which to make certain assumptions to understand the text. This resorting to other texts and frames (is) what Eco called “inferential walks”’ – citing (no pagination) U. Eco, Six Walks in the Fictional Woods (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994). This phenomenon corresponds to the ‘pragmatic presuppositions’ of linguistics. Cf. Stalnaker, R., ‘Pragmatic presuppositions’, Semantics and Philosophy (ed. Munitz, M. and Unger, P.; New York: New York University Press, 1974) 197214Google Scholar and van Valin, R. D., Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘Pragmatic Presupposition: The set of propositions lexicogrammatically evoked in an utterance which the speaker assumes the hearer already knows or believes or is ready to take for granted at the time of speech’; with reference to Lambrecht, K., Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 52)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Plautus, Mil. glor. 359 (CUFr IV, 196 Ernout). esse pereundum is a correction for esse perfundum in MS A (Ambrosianus Palimpsestus (G 82 sup.), saec. iv–v). Other manuscripts’ variations are esse eundum and esset eundem.

6 Plautus, Mil. glor. 359–360, cp. 352–53. Trans. of K. M. Coleman (private communication; slightly mod.).

7 T. Macci Plauti Miles Gloriosus (ed. with an introduction and notes by M. Hammond, A. M. Mack, and M. Moskalev; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997) 109. For references to the Esquiline as a place of burial for the poor and for victims of execution (which Maecenas later converted into gardens), cf. Bodel, J., ‘Graveyards and Groves: A study of the Lex Lucerina’, American Journal of Ancient History 11 (1986 [1994]) 1133Google Scholar, at 38–9, 107, and Cook, J. G., Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (WUNT 327; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2 2019) 21, 53, 385–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 428.

8 Hammond et al., T. Macci Plauti Miles, 109.

9 Van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 441.

10 M. Hillen, ‘pereo’, ThLL x/1.1325,65–1341.75, at 1327.42–4 and 1330.11–2. Trans. (for the most part) Robert A. Kaster (communication of 18 October 2021). Cf. Hillen, ibid. 1330.11–27 for examples of sense i.B.

11 Similar uses are: Plautus, Capt. 537 peri<i>sti e patria tua (‘you disappeared from home’), trans. of Plautus (5 vols.; LCL; ed. and trans. W. de Melo; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011–13) i.561; Poen. 68 quoniam periisse sibi uidet gnatum unicum (‘when he sees that his only son was lost’), ibid. 86 cum nutrice una periere a Magaribus (‘they disappeared from Megara together with their nurse’), ibid. 989 periere pueri liberi Carthagine (‘freeborn children were stolen from Carthage’), de Melo, Plautus iv.25, 27, 125; Curc. 654 Therapontonigonus (miles): sed tu dic mihi, / Ubi is est homo qui te surripuit? / Planesium (virgo): Nescio: / Verum hunc servavi semper me cum una anulum, / Cum hoc olim perii (‘(Therapontonigonus the soldier:) But you, tell me, where is the man who snatched you? (Planesium, a virgin:) I don't know. But I've always kept this ring with me. With this ring I got lost back then’), de Melo, Plautus ii.305; Mil. glor. 118–9 capiunt praedones nauem illam ubi uectus fui: prius perii quam ad erum ueni quo ire occeperam (‘the pirates take that ship I've been traveling on: I've been snatched away before reaching my master, where I'd begun to go’), trans. mod. of de Melo, Plautus, iii.155; and Truc. 52 periit aurum (a piece of jewellery got lost), de Melo, Plautus v.273. Consequently, van Wingerden's worries (‘patibulum’ 440) that ‘While with the reading esse pereundum it is not clear that Sceledrus would have to carry the patibulum through the gate, the variant eundum would clearly imply that’ are unnecessary.

12 Ulpian, libro quinto ad edictum apud Digesta 50.16.9; trans. of Watson, A., ed., The Digest of Justinian (4 vols., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985)Google Scholar iv.448.

13 Cf. OLD s.v. extra § 6c ‘(w. vbs. of motion) to the outside of, out of’.

14 Cf. Chapman, D. W. and Schnabel, E. J., The Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus: Texts and Commentary (WUNT 344; Tübingen 2015), 866CrossRefGoogle Scholar s.v. ‘Slave Revolts and crucifixion’, ‘slaves and crucifixion’ and Cook, Crucifixion, 548 s.v. servile supplicium. For Macrobius (the one possible exception), see § 6 below.

15 Plautus, Poen. 347. Cf. Chapman and Schnabel, Crucifixion, 713–53 on such taunts.

16 Plautus, Most. 55–57, trans. modified of de Melo, Plautus, iii.323 (who has ‘hangman’ for carnifex). ‘carnufices’ is a reasonable conjecture where there is a lacuna in the MS.

17 van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 442. Although he (ibid., 441 n. 47) refers to the OLD, s.v. patibulatus for the lemma ‘fastened to a yoke or gibbet’ and (P. Gatti, ‘patibulatus’,) ThLL x/1.706(.40–1) ‘i.q. patibulo affixus’ he fails to translate the expression (fixed to a patibulum/horizontal bar) in accordance with Gatti's general approach to the meaning of patibulum. He does not engage the arguments for crucifixion of Chapman and Schnabel, Trial, 565–6.

18 Cf. the index in Cook, Crucifixion, 547–8 s.v. ‘patibulum’, ‘patibulatus’.

19 Cf. Gatti, ‘patibulum’, ThLL x/1.706.70–75 and Cook, Crucifixion, 547–8 s.v. ‘patibulum: pars pro toto’.

20 See OLD s.v. §b.

21 forabunt, ‘pierce’, refers to the actions of the goads, not nailing. Cp. Lucretius 1019 adhibet stimulos torretque flagellis (applies goads and torments with scourges).

22 On scourging and crucifixion, cf. Chapman and Schnabel, Trial, 866 s.v. ‘scourging and flogging’; Cook, Crucifixion, 547 s.v. ‘flogging’.

23 See R. Meister, ‘carnifex’, ThLL iii.478.1–479.47.

24 Meister, ‘carnifex’, 478.9–10. See H. F. Hitzig, ‘carnifex’, PW iii (1899) 1599–1600. Hitzig notes that originally the carnifex was responsible only for the crucifixion of slaves (Bacch. 687–8 cruciatum … carnuficem, Capt. 1099 ad carnuficem dabo ‘I will give him to the carnifex’ (the slave Stalagmus to be executed for kidnapping, almost certainly by crucifixion)). cruciatum does not necessarily refer to crucifixion, however. Cf. O. Hey, ‘cruciatus’, ThLL iv.1218.52–1220.54. See ibid., 1218.63–4 ‘cruciatus est quivis dolor asper et vehemens sive corporis sive animi …’ (cruciatus is ‘anyone in bitter and vehement pain either of the body or the soul’). On executions before the Esquiline gate, Hitzig mentions Tacitus, Ann. 2.32.3, Plautus, Pseud. 330–2, and Suetonius, Claud. 25.3.

25 Meister, ‘carnifex’, 479.10.

26 Plautus, Asin. 311, 482, 697, 892; Bacch. 688, 785, 876; Poen. 369, 1302; Cist. 384; Capt. 597 (pix atra agitet); Rud. 322, 778, 857; Amph. 376, 422, 518, 588; Merc. 618; Most. 1114; Persa 547, 747; Pseud. 707, 950.

27 van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 443–4.

28 T. J. Cornell, general ed., The Fragments of the Roman Historians. Vol. i. Introduction, Vol. ii. Texts and Translations, Vol. iii. Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), i.482–3 (introductory comments on Clodius Licinus by S. P. Oakley), ii.924–7 (testimonia and fragments; edited by Oakley), iii.560–3 (commentary and discussion of deligata ad patibulos deligantur … by Oakley). Cf. van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 444, n. 6.

29 C. Clodius Licinus frag. 3, text and trans. (slightly revised) from Oakley in Cornell, Fragments, ii.926–7 (Oakley uses ‘gibbet’ for patibulum, following the OLD). Cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 453–5. For an analysis of patibulum as a horizontal beam, cf. Gatti, ‘patibulum’, ThLL x/1.706.48–708.30 and Cook, ibid, 16–34.

30 For the evidence from the MSS and the various conjectures, cf. Oakley, Fragments, 2.926.

31 Clodius Licinus frag. 1 (Oakley, Fragments, ii.924) with commentary in ibid., iii.560–1. Cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 161–3 for crucifixions during the Second Punic War.

32 Van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 448.

33 Information on the lex may be found in Cook, Crucifixion, 370–86 and n. 34. The stone is now displayed in a small and beautifully lit room in the Museo Archeologico dei Campi Flegrei.

34 F. Hinard and J. C. Dumont, ed., Libitina: Pompes funèbres et supplices en Campanie à l’époque d'Auguste (Paris: De Boccard, 2003) 18 app. crit.: patibul(um) Bove, Moreau; patibul(atum) Bodel, Dumont. They (18) leave patibul(...) in their edition. S. Panciera, ed., Libitina e dintorni … (Libitina 3; Rome: Quasar, 2004) 40, 49 (patibul(um)), 49 n. 23 ‘patibul(atum) Bodel’. Castagnetti, Le ‘leges libitinariae’ flegree, 13, 26 patibul(o). In his interpretation the slave is taken to the cross with the workers carrying the patibulum. He notes (179–80): past participles in the lex otherwise only omit the case endings.

35 Communication of 6 October 2021. See especially Hinard and Dumont, Libitina, Plates 4–5 for ii.9.

36 Castagnetti, Le ‘leges libitinariae’ flegree, 26: ‘if he wishes that he come to be put on the cross, with a patibulum’.

37 I owe these two formulations to John Bodel (communication of 1 December 2021).

38 Iulius Paris, Epit. 1.7.4 (BiTeu Valerius Maximus ii, 652,14–15 Briscoe).

39 Suetonius, Cal. 12.2.

40 Cicero, Ver. 2.5.165.

41 Cicero, Ver. 2.5.164.

42 Cicero, Ver. 2.5.163.

43 Cicero, Ver. 2.5.170. ‘Some one obscure individual’ from R. G. C. Levens, Cicero: The Fifth Verrine Oration (London: Methuen, 1946) 162.

44 Cicero, Fin. 5.92. A description of Polycrates.

45 Seneca, Con. 7.6.6; trans. of Winterbottom, Seneca the Elder, Declamations, 2.125.

46 Cicero, Fin. 5.84.

47 Petronius 53.3.

48 Calpurnius, Decl. 17.

49 Calpurnius, Decl. 23.

50 Calpurnius, Decl. 33.

51 Livius 22.33.1–2.

52 Orosius, Hist. 5.9.4.

53 Cicero, Clu. 187.

54 Valerius Maximus 8.4.2.

55 Orosius, Hist. 6.18.33.

56 SHA Septimius Severus 4.3.

57 Lucian, Peregr. 34. Cp. Luke 23.27: Ἠκολούθɛι δὲ αὐτῷ πολὺ πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ γυναικῶν.

58 Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 12.6.6.

59 Photius, Codex 94 Bekker 78a; text of Photius, Bibliothèque. Tome ii (‘Codices’ 84–185) (ed. R. Henry; Collection Byzantine; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1960) 47. Trans. mod. of Stephens, Susan A. and Winkler, John J., Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments. Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995) 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Photius, Codex 94 Bekker 78a (47 Henry).

61 Photius, Codex 94 Bekker 78a (47 Henry).

62 Ps. Callisthenes, Historia Alexandri Magni (recensio α) 1.37.4 (W. Kroll, ed., Historia Alexandri Magni (Berlin: Weidmann, 1926) 42.23–4).

63 See H. Rubenbauer ‘furca’, ThLL vi/1.1609.59–1610.82 and Cook, Crucifixion, 37–44.

64 See H. Rubenbauer, ‘furcifer’, ThLL vi/1.1610.84–1611.36. Cf. the description of the punishment in Donatus, Ad Terenti Andr. 618.2 (BiTeu 192 Wessner = BiTeu 199 Cioffi) with a parallel in Isidore, Orig. 10.108.

65 Livy 2.36.1; Cicero, Div. 1.55; Valerius Maximus 1.7.4; Dionysius Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.69.2.

66 Cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 24–5, 38–9 and van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’ 450–2. In Valerius Maximus 1.7.4 he is executed.

67 Cp. Lactantius, Div. 2.7.20–1 verberatum servum sub furca medio circo ad supplicium duxerat (‘he led a slave being beaten “under the furca” through the middle of the circus to execution’), Augustine, Civ. 4.26 (BiTeu i, 178,19–20 Dombart/Kalb) … quod primo eorum die in quodam scelerato, qui populo spectante ad supplicium duci iussus estimperium (‘on the first day of the games, in the case of a criminal who had been condemned to death while the crowd watched, a command …’), and Arnobius 7.39 (no mention of the furca): servum pessime meritum per circi aream mediam transduxisse caesum virgis et ex more multasse post patibuli poena (‘(he) led a slave who merited the worst through the middle of the circus, beaten with rods, and according to custom punished him with the penalty of the patibulum’).

68 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.11.3 (= ThLL x/1.707.28), 1.11.5 (= ThLL x/1.707.38–39). Trans. of Macrobius, Saturnalia (2 vols.; LCL; ed. and trans. R. A. Kaster; Cambridge, 2011) i.111–3 (he uses ‘gibbet’ for patibulum).

69 Van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 452 argues that a ‘crucifixion context is missing’, but the mention of σταυρός does imply crucifixion, and Iulius Paris and Arnobius explicitly mention crucifixion.

70 Livy 2.36.1. Cp. Valerius Maximus 1.7.4.

71 Cicero, Div. 1.55.

72 Plautus, Cas. 438, trans. of de Melo, Plautus, ii.59 (who has ‘fork’, here and in the examples below).

73 Plautus Cist. 248, trans. of de Melo, Plautus, ii.159.

74 Plautus, Cas. 389.

75 Plautus, Men. 943, trans. of de Melo, Plautus, ii.523.

76 Horace, Serm. 2.7.66.

77 Plautus, Pers. 855–855a, trans. of de Melo, Plautus, iii.557.

78 Rubenbauer, ‘furcifer’, has many examples.

79 Plautus, Mil. glor. 359–60.

80 C. Clodius Licinus frag. 3.

81 Plautus, Most. 55–57.

82 Plautus, Carbonaria frag. 2.

83 Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.11.3.

84 Valerius Maximus 9.2.3.

85 SHA Tyranni Triginta 29.3–4 (Trebellius Pollio), trans. of Historia Augusta (3 vols.; LCL; ed. and trans. D. Magie, Cambridge,: Harvard University Press 1921–32) iii.133.

86 Seneca, frag. 124 (BiTeu 42, Haase).

87 Seneca, Dial. 6.20.3.

88 Seneca, Dial. 7.19.3.

89 Apuleius, Met. 4.10.3–4 (F (Laurentianus 68.2 saec. xi) patibulum; patibulatum cj. Scaliger: cf. SCBO, 77 Zimmerman); trans. Apuleius, Metamorphoses. Book iv, 1-2 (trans., intro., and comm. B. L. Hijmans; Groningen: Bouma, 1977) 83 (patibulum as a play on beam for a cross and bar for doors).

90 Apuleius, Met. 10.12.4.

91 Tacitus, Hist. 4.3.2.

92 Sallustius, Hist. 3 = Nonius Marcellus, De comp. doctr. iv (BiTeu 2, 582 Lindsay), frag. 9 (the MSS have improbi).

93 Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 6.31.58. Van Wingerden, ‘Carrying a patibulum’, 449–50 incorrectly argues, ‘it is uncertain that it reflects the Roman practice of crucifixion (which might have been abolished by the time Firmicus wrote)’. The Mathesis can be securely dated between 334–337 ce, and a Roman senator like Firmicus would have been familiar with a Roman practice that had only recently been abolished. Cultural memory does not disappear overnight (cf. the evidence in Cook, Crucifixion, 398–416; e.g., Aurelius Victor (ca 360 ce)). On the date, cf. S. Gersh, ‘12 Firmicus Maternus (Iulius) RE 11’, Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques (ed. R. Goulet, Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 2000) iii.423–5.

94 Tacitus, Ann. 1.61.4.

95 Tacitus, Ann. 4.72.3.

96 Tacitus, Ann. 14.33.2.

97 Apuleius, Met. 6.31.1.

98 Cicero, Ver. 2.4.90.

99 Seneca, Ep. 101.12.

100 Apuleius, Met. 6.32.31 (she is to be sewn inside a dead ass).

101 Codex Theodosianus 9.5.1 = CIL iii, 12043 = InscCret i (Lyttos), 188 and CIL v, 2781. Cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 395.

102 Orosius 5.9.6.

103 Aurelius Victor, Hist. abbrev. 41.4.

104 Chariton, Chaer. 4.2.7.

105 Chariton, Chaer. 4.3.10.

106 Plutarch, Sera 554a.

107 Artemidorus, Onir. 2.56.

108 Lucian, Jud. voc. 12. Chapman and Schnabel, Trial, 310–12 unjustifiably doubt the Lucianic authorship. Cf. Swain, S., Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 48Google Scholar. On the synecdoche, cf. Cook, Crucifixion, 28–32.

109 These facts are important for the reconstruction of patibul(…) in the lex Puteolana in § 4.

110 Samuelsson, G., Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion (WUNT 2/310; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2 2013) 237–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Cf. Plautus's dispessis manibus in § 2, Seneca's extendendae per patibulum manus and brachia patibulo explicuerunt in § 7, and Artemidorus, Onir. 1.76 τὴν τῶν χɛιρῶν ἔκτασιν (‘the stretching out of the hands’). For a defense of that interpretation (and ref. to some who disagree), which is also supported by the parallelism between 21.19 and 12.33, 18.32, see W. Bauer, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31933) 238–9, H.-W. Kuhn, ‘Die Kreuzesstrafe während der frühen Kaiserzeit. Ihre Wirklichkeit und Wertung in der Umwelt des Urchristentums’, ANRW ii/25.1 (1982) 648–793, at 699, J.-M. Prieur, Das Kreuz in der christlichen Literatur der Antike (Bern et al.: Peter Lang, 2006) 210, M. M. Thompson, John: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: John Knox, 2015) 443, and J. G. Cook, ‘The Tradition of Peter's Crucifixion’, in: Talking God in Society: Multidisciplinary (Re)constructions of Ancient (Con)texts. Festschrift Peter Lampe (vol. 1; ed. U. E. Eisen and H. E. Mader; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021) 733–51.

112 I take this formulation from a reviewer who also notes that the Chariton novel relies on the reader recognizing the patibulum-carrying as a readily accepted literary device.

113 Matt 10.38, 16.24, Mark 8.34, Luke 9.23, 14.27 (crucifixions of Christians seem to have been infrequent after the Neronian executions until the Great Persecution). For the crucifixions during Nero's imperium, cf. Cook, J. G.Chrestiani, Christiani, Χριστιανοί: A Second Century Anachronism?VC 74 (2020) 237264CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Coleman, K. M., ‘“Informers” on Parade’, The Art of Ancient Spectacle (ed. Bergmann, B. and Kondoleon, C.; Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1999) 231–45Google Scholar, at 232–4 investigates several examples of processions (e.g., Suetonius, Tit. 8.5, Martial, Sp. 4, Pliny, Pan. 34.1) of delatores (informers) that are comparable to the spectacle I am portraying.

114 Martial, Sp. 9(7).3–6. Trans. of M. Valerii Martialis Liber Spectaculorum (edited with introduction, translation, and commentary by K. M. Coleman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 82–96, at 82.

115 Communication of 4 Oct. 2021. On these images, cf. Harley-McGowan, F., ‘The Alexamenos Graffito’, The Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries (vol. 3; ed. Keith, C., Bond, H., and Schröter;, J. London/New York: T&T Clark, 2019) 105–40Google Scholar and Cook, Crucifixion, 540 index.

116 I take the formulation about the town dwellers from John Bodel (communication of 1 December 2021).

Figure 0

Figure 1. Lex Puteolana col. II.1–19; credit: Professor Giuseppe Camodeca; used by permission

Figure 1

Table 1. Agere/Agi in Crucem

Figure 2

Table 2. ἀπάγɛιν (etc.) ἐπὶ τὸν σταυρόν

Figure 3

Table 3. Constructions with Furca

Figure 4

Table 4. Constructions with Patibulum

Figure 5

Figure 2. lagynos depicting damnatio ad bestias; Inventory: O.39628. © Römisch – Germanisches Zentralmuseum; credit: R. Müller

Figure 6

Figure 3. Puteoli: graffito of Alkimila's crucifixion: credit: Professor Giuseppe Camodeca; used by permission

Figure 7

Figure 4. Alkimila; credit: Professor Giuseppe Camodeca; used by permission

Figure 8

Figure 5. Palatine graffito; by permission of the Ministero della Cultura – parco Archeologico del Colosseo

Figure 9

Figure 6. Magical gem, intaglio, jasper. British Museum 1986,0501.1, 30 x 25 x 5.8 mm, late ii ce – early iii ce. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum. All rights reserved