Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Turn of the century hotelier's magnificent find: The House of the Fruit Orchard (Casa del Frutteto)!

A history resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2024

I've been intrigued with The House of the Fruit Orchard since I searched for images of artwork that compared frescos from the House of the Wounded Bear with other houses and one of those discussed by Wolfgang Ehrhardt was Casa del Frutteto. I stumbled across a wonderful account of the house's discovery by a 1913 Italian hotelier published in an Australian paper, "The Age." So, I am working on an extensive article about the house and thought you might be interested in a shortened version of it. The house was one of those restored as part of the Great Pompeii Project in 2019 so we now have some wonderful images of the frescos thanks to Professor Johannes Eber as well as some other recent visitors. I will be uploading these images to Wikimedia Commons so they can be freely used for teaching and research.

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), looking east through doorway courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12 (Maiuri plan), painting of fountain from south wall in southeast corner courtesy of Johannes Eber
(See more images below the article)

As I have mentioned before, here in the US, photographs of two-dimensional public domain artwork are considered in the public domain as well and that license is applied on Wikimedia Commons which is based in the US.
But first, here is a brief (well, somewhat brief!) version of my article:

As part of The Great Pompeii Project, the Casa del Frutteto, House of the Orchard, was extensively restored and reopened to the public in December of 2019. Also known as the House of Euplia and the House of the Floral Cublicula, the house was originally constructed in the late third century BCE and subsequently restructured at least four times. After the earthquake in 62 CE, a wine shop where over 150 amphorae of wine were discovered, was incorporated into the complex with an entrance opening onto the Via dell'Abbondanza at 1 9,7.
The structure was excavated first in 1913 by the proprietor of the Hotel Suisse near the buried Roman city, who had acquired a piece of land about a kilometer and a half from the Herculaneum Gate. He began excavations at his own expense with the permission of the Italian government and uncovered what he described as several small living quarters, a very large kitchen and adjoining anterooms, part of the peristyle, and thirty-foot square dining room with high vaulted stuccoed ceiling and a sweeping view of the sea. The paintings on the walls in what are now numbered Rooms 8 - 12, were described as in an excellent state of preservation.
As reported in the May 17, 1913 issue of the Australian paper, The Age, "...the eye is feasted with a riot of brilliant color, put on with that sense of harmony which distinguishes the mural decorations of the ancients. No less beautiful are the decorations of that portion of the main hall brought to view. They are almost entirely pictorial, the lines of the figures being for the most part of a deep terra cotta red, such as is frequently found on the best painted walls of Pompeii. The subjects are of infinite variety and clear up several obscure points in details relating to heathen mythology."

The Italian government immediately began negotiations for the site and effectively blocked the lucrative sale of the property to J.P. Morgan.
With the exception of a fragment of Pompeian First Style paintings in room 13, and fragments of Second Style paintings found in the tablinum but thought to have fallen from the upper story, the mostly Pompeian Third Style paintings were left in situ and excavations did not resume until 1951 under the supervision of Pompeii superintendent Amedeo Maiuri. He considered the paintings of garden and orchard to be the finest found in Pompeii as recorded in his book "Pompeii" published in 1957.
"Instead of being painted , as was done mostly, on the open and well lit side-walls of porticos and gardens, they are to be seen on the inside walls of two cubicles. These walls are divided into sections by means of slender uprights looking rather like trellis supports than like columns, and show against a black or blue background the finest varieties of fruit trees that a skilled Pompeian gardener might raise in his orchard whether within the city or in the country: figs, dark and light plums, pears, medlars, arbutuses, cherries, and by their side lemon trees with their yellow fruits amid dark foliage, that represented a garden rarity in Campania during the first century of our era. Birds flying or resting on the branches, bushes of oleanders, of honeysuckle and of rose trees must have provided the owner, resting in his inner cubicle, with the cherished illusion to be gazing upon an open air orchard, so that these paintings respond to that lively love for nature that was among the principal inspiring motifs of the decoration of Roman houses."
In his paper, "The Social Structure of the Roman House," Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, observes, "The hallmark of imperial (i.e. third and fourth style) decoration is that the architectural details, which previously had formed the focus of the decoration, are used only as a frame. This framework gives structure to the decorated wall; and it provides the context for the panel paintings which now occupy the focal point. But in framing central spaces and structuring walls, these architectural details also 'frame' the social space of the room...A similar point emerges from those triclinia in which three architecturally framed panel paintings precisely surround the three couches of the triclinium at the upper end of the room. Here the paintings are scarcely visible to the diners themselves, who lie with backs to the walls; but the social activity of the convivium is magnificently framed from the viewpoint of an observer at the bottom end of the room." He cites the black triclinium [room 11] of the Casa del Frutteto as a good example.
Agneta Freccero, in his 2019 paper, Insula I 9: paintings, that appeared in Vol. 30 of Rivista di Studi Pompeiani, expressed his opinion that the four subject paintings in the triclinium, the Fall of Icarus on the east wall, the Duel of Eteocles and Polynices on the north wall, Artemis' revenge on Actaeon on the west wall, and the Punishment of Dirce on the south wall, point to an overall theme of the tragedy of unhappy love.
"...in each single painting we can follow a story from the beginning to the final punishment and fall," Freccero notes.

Freccero also attributes the paintings to the Boscotrecase painter, comparing them to those in the Casa di Marcus Lucretius Fronto and the Casa del Bell'Impluvio. He also observes other scholars have compared the garden paintings to those from the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta, to paintings in the Auditorium of Maecenas and to those in the Casa del Bracciale d'Oro.
Based on the high-quality paintings and finds, including a rare obsidian mirror found only in three other houses in Pompeii, a fine candelabrum, a rare bronze water heater, and ceramic and bronze tableware, Freccero concludes the proprietor was a prosperous man with a severe religious or occult outlook on life.
Images: A note about the room numbers. The room numbers have been modified to reflect room numbering as it appears in Maiuri's original excavation floorplan, not the sequence of pompeiiinpictures.com. Maiuri's room numbers are used by many academic scholars including those working on the Regio I Insula 9 Project of the British School of Rome. I have included a floorplan based on Maiuri's floorplan for your reference and it will also be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as well.

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), detail from south wall with painting of Ariadne and Dionysus courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2018 Room 8 (Maiuri plan) looking east along south wall towards south-east corner courtesy of Aude Durand

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2017 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), zoccolo from lower east wall courtesy of Buzz Ferebee

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), Detail of painting of Egyptian pharaonic statue and cherry tree courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), Looking towards northeast corner and centre of east wall courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), detail from upper east wall courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2023 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), looking east through doorway courtesy of Miriam Colomer

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 8 (Maiuri plan), Detail of painting of Egyptian pharaonic statue and lemon tree north end of east wall courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) garden painting from upper west wall of cubiculum above doorway courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) upper painted panel of birds in tree from south wall in southeast corner courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2021 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) looking towards east wall, south-east corner, and south wall  courtesy of Davide Peluso

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) looking towards zoccolo on lower east wall of cubiculum courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) detail of painted table with Isis jug or jar on east wall courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) looking towards centre of east wall with painted table with Isis jug or jar of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 1966 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) east wall of cubiculum with detail of garden trellis painting white vases and Isis jar courtesy of Stanley Jashemski

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) east wall of cubiculum with painting of a snake in a fig tree with birds courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) looking towards east wall of cubiculum courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) painting from upper north wall at east end courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) partially recomposed ceiling courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2017 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) looking east across flooring courtesy of Annette Haug

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2023 Room 12, (Maiuri plan) looking east from doorway courtesy of Miriam Colomer

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 11, (Maiuri plan) west wall of triclinium. Painting of Acteon and Artemis, or Diana courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 11, (Maiuri plan) north wall of triclinium Painting of the War under Troy or Seven against Thebes courtesy of Johannes Eber

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2023 Room 11, (Maiuri plan) looking towards north wallcourtesy of Miriam Colomer

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2018 Room 11, (Maiuri plan) looking towards north wall, north-east corner and east wall courtesy of Aude Durand

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2022 Room 11, (Maiuri plan) triclinium, east wall with central painting courtesy of Johannes Eber
House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2017 Room 5 (Maiuri plan), looking south from flooring in atrium, across mosaic doorway threshold and flooring in tablinum courtesy of Annette Haug

House of the Orchard I 9,5 Pompeii 2019 Room 5, tablinum, (Maiuri plan) fragment of decorated upper wall courtesy of Klaus Heese



Floorplan:



Bibliography:

"EXCAVATIONS IN POMPEII." The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954) 27 May 1913: 11. Web. 19 Sep 2024 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article199438557>.

FRECCERO, AGNETA. “Insula I 9: Paintings.” Rivista Di Studi Pompeiani, vol. 30, 2019, pp. 119–34. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27123872. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.

Maiuri, Amedeo. Pompeii, Istituto Geografico de Agostini - Novara, 1957, p. 108. retrieved from the Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/pompeii0000amed/page/n5/mode/2up?q=orchard) Sept. 2024.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. “The Social Structure of the Roman House.” Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. 56, 1988, pp. 43–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40310883. Accessed 16 Sept. 2024.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!


Monday, September 9, 2024

Did increased trade between India and the Roman Empire point to Caesarion's ultimate fate?

by Mary Harrsch © 2024


William Dalyrumple's new book, The Golden Road, (https://www.theguardian.com/.../the-golden-road-how...) appears to explore, in depth, a lucrative trade relationship between India and the Roman Empire that developed after Octavian's defeat of Antony and Cleopatra. But, was this relationship developed because of Rome's subsequent control of Egypt or did it reflect India's collaboration in the disposal of Caesarion by agents of Octavian in India?

Ptolemaic-era gold diadem with dangling pearl or shell ornaments pointing to early trade between Ptolemaic Egypt and India, 225-175 BCE, that I photographed at the Getty Villa in 2006. 
 

"Behold, you came with your vague charm. In history only a few lines are found about you, and so I molded you more freely in my mind. I molded you handsome and sentimental. My art gives to your face a dreamy compassionate beauty. And so fully did I envision you, that late last night, as my lamp was going out -- I let go out on purpose -- I fancied that you entered my room, it seemed that you stood before me; as you might have been in vanquished Alexandria, pale and tired, idealistic in your sorrow, still hoping that they would pity you, the wicked -- who whispered "Too many Caesars." - Constanine P. Cavafy, Greece, (1863-1933).

Although this evocative poetry is quite moving, it envisions Caesarion in a vanquished Alexandria while Plutarch relates Caesarion actually escaped to India, at least for a time, before being betrayed to Octavian’s agents.
Caesarion, who was said to be Cleopatra's son by Julius Caesar, was sent by his mother, with much treasure, into India, by way of Ethiopia. There Rhodon, another tutor like Theodorus, persuaded him to go back, on the ground that [Augustus] Caesar invited him to take the kingdom. - Plutarch, Life of Antony
Plutarch's account coincides with an oral tradition in India that the Cheras of Kerala traded extensively with Egypt and the descendants of that royal family were told letters were exchanged with Cleopatra.
The [Canadian] historian George Woodcock states Caesarion did indeed manage to escape with a large treasure and was granted asylum in Kerala. Lucy Hughes-Hallet in her book “Cleopatra: histories, dreams, distortions” says the Queen herself intended to flee to India but fell ill and therefore ordered her son to leave without her...whether or not he reached Kerala and survived is not known clearly, but the story assumes that he arrived in Kerala and was received as a honored guest of the royal family. In fact, such was the respect and importance of this guest that there is said to have been a matrimonial alliance between the Egyptian prince and a Chera princess. -Cleopatra and Cheraman Perumal
Furthermore, Nicolaus of Damascus reported ongoing communications between factions in India and Augustus at this time.
"This writer [Nicolaus of Damascus] states that at Antioch, near Daphne, he met with ambassadors from the Indians, who were sent to Augustus Caesar. It appeared from the letter that several persons were mentioned in it, but three only survived, whom he says he saw. The rest had died chiefly in consequence of the length of the journey. The letter was written in Greek upon a skin; the import of it was, that Porus was the writer, that although he was sovereign of six hundred kings, yet that he highly esteemed the friendship of Cæsar; that he was willing to allow him a passage through his country, in whatever part he pleased, and to assist him in any undertaking that was just."
I am disturbed that so many western scholars seem to discount the writings of eastern scholars when it comes to Caesarion's demise. When I asked Gemini about it, Gemini said most western scholars claim there simply wasn't enough time for Caesarion to reach India before Octavian's forces besieged Alexandria. I personally find that statement utterly ridiculous. The battle of Actium occurred on 2 September 31 BCE. Octavian did not seize control of Alexandria until 1 August 30 BCE - almost a full year later. Do they assume a very intelligent Cleopatra VII would have waited until the last minute to safeguard her precious son by Julius Caesar?
Other scholars point to the sudden increase in trade with India as just a consequence of Rome's complete takeover of Egypt and resulting exposure to Indian luxury goods. But did India trade as heavily with Egypt before Octavian's conquest? The geographer Strabo observes the intensity of activity at Alexandria's ports was significantly higher than it was under Ptolemaic rule.
Of course, any time you are evaluating ancient sources, you must consider the statement's accuracy if the source is patronized by a particular ruler. In Strabo's case, Strabo's participation in the military campaign into Arabia Felix alongside Aelius Gallus suggested a deeper connection with the Roman state. While it doesn't definitively prove direct financial support from Augustus, it strengthens the case for Strabo's work being influenced by, and potentially beneficial to, the emperor's interests.
So, what about the missive from a ruler in India (Porus is actually a Greek term referring to a king or chieftain and not necessarily a name) offering their assistance in "any undertaking that was just?" The clue that the document was written on animal skin points to the correspondence being of royal or noble origin and the contents deemed important enough to use animal skin and not more perishable palm leaves used commonly in India of that period for day-to-day administrative communications. The fact that it was intercepted near Antioch reflects the possibility of an origin in northwest India. At that time, northwest India was known as the Indo-Greek Kingdoms originally administered by descendants of Alexander the Great's commanders.
These Kingdoms periodically clashed with the Cheras of Kerala in southern India over control of trade, particularly the pearl trade, much of it involving pearl diving activities in the gulf of Manar. One or more of these chieftains would have been more interested in garnering control of the pearl trade than in any past promise of asylum made by one of the Cheras of Kerala to the 17-year-old descendant of a Ptolemy who no longer held any meaningful sovereignty.
All of this information was gleaned from my research of Indian's ancient pearl trade to see if a study of the source of pearls in Ptolemaic and Roman jewelry could point to the ultimate fate of Caesarion. I plan to public a full research article as my health permits.
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!


Saturday, September 7, 2024

The Furies and Medusa: Distinctions in Greco-Roman Art

History resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2024

Orestes Pursued by the Furies by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (PD)

Although I have studied the plays of the Oresteia many years ago I did not remember that The Furies as well as Medusa have serpents for hair until I read Classical Wisdom's recent article about The Furies. It explains how The Furies were transformed from raving avengers to goddesses worshipped in Athens for their oversight of justice. This raised a question in my mind, from a Greco-Roman art perspective, as to how depictions of a fierce female with serpents for hair is identified as Medusa and not one of the Furies. Gemini told me:

"While both Medusa and the Furies are depicted with snakes for hair, there are several key visual cues that can help differentiate them in Greco-Roman art:

Medusa:

Face: Medusa is often portrayed with a hideous, distorted face, sometimes with protruding tongue or fangs. Her expression is typically one of terror or rage.

Wings: Medusa is usually depicted without wings.

Weapon: She is often armed with a sword or a shield, reflecting her role as a dangerous monster.

Petrifying Gaze: The most distinctive feature of Medusa is her petrifying gaze. Artists often depict her looking directly at the viewer, implying the viewer's potential transformation into stone.

Furies:

Face: The Furies, also known as Erinyes, are typically depicted with more human-like faces, although they may have a fierce or menacing expression.

Wings: The Furies are often portrayed with wings, symbolizing their swiftness and relentless pursuit of their victims.

Weapons: The Furies are often depicted with whips, torches, or snakes, which they use to inflict punishment.

Pursuit: The Furies are usually depicted in a state of pursuit, often chasing after their victims.

In summary, while both Medusa and the Furies share the characteristic of snake-like hair, their overall appearance and context within the artwork can help distinguish them. Medusa is typically more monstrous and intimidating, while the Furies are often more human-like and associated with pursuit and punishment."

I then pointed out the article said The Furies were often depicted in antiquity (not in the painting below) as old women and wouldn't this be a distinct difference as well? Gemini replied:

"Yes, that's a good point. The Furies are often depicted as having the visage of old women, which can help distinguish them from Medusa. This image of old women reflects their ancient and primordial nature as deities of vengeance and retribution.

So, to summarize the key differences:

Face: Medusa has a hideous, distorted face, while the Furies have the visage of old women.

Wings: Medusa is typically without wings, while the Furies often have wings.

Weapon: Medusa is often armed with a sword or shield, while the Furies use whips, torches, or snakes.

Gaze: Medusa has a petrifying gaze, while the Furies are often depicted in pursuit.

By considering these factors, you can more accurately identify whether a depiction in Greco-Roman art is of Medusa or one of the Furies."

The article mentioned how the song of The Furies was used to drive transgressors mad. So, I asked "When Athena convinced The Furies to essentially become the Eumenides, did they continue to use their devastating song to punish the convicted?"

Gemini replied:

"Yes, even after their transformation into the Eumenides (the Gracious Ones), the Furies continued to use their devastating song to punish the convicted. However, the nature of their punishment changed.

Before their transformation, the Furies were known for their relentless pursuit of victims and their ability to drive them to madness and suicide with their blood-curdling screams. After their transformation at the urging of Athena, they became more associated with justice and retribution. Their song, while still powerful, was now used to inflict a sense of guilt and shame upon those who had committed crimes.

The Eumenides were seen as agents of divine justice, ensuring that wrongdoers were punished and that order was maintained in society. Their song, while no longer as terrifying as it once was, still carried a significant weight and served as a powerful deterrent against evil."

If you are interested in studying the trio of plays known as the Oresteia, in which the Furies play a prominent role, I highly recommend The Great Courses series, "Greek Tragedy" presented by Professor Elizabeth Vandiver of Whitman College. Her other courses include "The Iliad," "The Odyssey," "The Aeneid" and "Herodotus:The Father of History", the very first course of The Great Courses offerings that I purchased and inspired me to buy others ever since. At present, I am thoroughly enjoying another of The Great Courses programs, "The Greek World: A Study of History and Culture" presented by Professor Robert Garland of Colgate University. I found his observation some scholars have suggested The Trojan War was triggered by the Trojans increasing demands for payment from the Greeks for passage through the Hellespont to trade with the Black Sea region, and not Helen's abduction, interesting, too.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!


Thursday, August 29, 2024

Motif and Stylistic Classification of the Decorations of the Casa dell’ Orso (Ferito) Pompeii (VII 2, 44-46)

I have finally uploaded my English translation of the chapter “Motif and Stylistic Classification of the Decorations” from the text “Hauser in Pompeji: Volume 2, Casa dell’ Orso [Ferito] (VII 2, 44-46) edited by Wolfgang Ehrhardt originally published in 1988, part of the Hauser in Pompeji project overseen by Volker Michael Strocka.


The author points to evidence, that although much of the artwork was applied before the earthquake of 62 CE, it stylistically belongs to the 4th Pompeian Style rather than the 3rd Style. This is in contrast to previous assumptions that all 4th Style paintings in Pompeii were created after the earthquake.
One example is Ehrhardt's comparison of a mask on the east wall of the House of the Wounded Bear with a Third Style mask from the House of the Orchard:
"A comparison of the mask painted on the east wall with that of the Casa dell' Frutteto and that of the Casa di Fabio Rufo shows that it can no longer be associated with the Third Style. The hair falling in broad, dark brown strands that end in a point at the bottom next to the mask, the deep, dark brown shadows of the eye sockets and under the nose and the lip, are less graduated than in the other two. This difference cannot be a matter of handwritten features, since the shadowed temple and cheek areas of the mask from the Casa dell' Orso contrast more strongly with those of the Third Style with the light-shaded whitish front surface imitating marble."

Mask from the east wall of Garden m (Mau floorplan) from the House of the Wounded Bear (Casa dell'Orso Pompeii VII 2, 44-46) photograph courtesy of Peter Grunwald.

Third Style mask from the House of the Orchard (Casa del Frutteto Pompeii 1 9,5) image courtesy of Johannes Eber.

In addition to original photographs by Peter Grunwald and Wilhelm Gut, I have incorporated additional illustrations of comparative artwork from some of Pompeii’s most iconic structures including the House of the Vettii, the House of the Silver Wedding, the House of the Ephebe, and the House of the Orchard available from accredited sources in 2024. 
If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!


Monday, May 13, 2024

Servi poenae: Were Roman emperors free to determine the fate of those condemned to the arena?

by Mary Harrsch © 2024

On November 24, 2024, once again we will be regaled with scenes of Roman spectacle as Gladiator II makes it way to cinemas around the world. Hollywood productions, like this, portraying emperors using a seemingly spontaneous thumb gesture to seal a gladiator's fate in response to an amphitheater packed with howling spectators baying for blood or clementia, has reinforced the widely-held assumption that Rome's princeps could wield his power of granting life or death with little or no other input. But, Aglaia McClintock, Associate Professor at the University of Sanno in Benevento, Italy points out this could not be further from the reality of governing a Roman world defined by complex laws in which the fate of individuals often involved consideration of their position within the social hierarchy and the circumstances leading to their participation in the spectacle.

A Murmillo Gladiator Fights a Barbary Lion in the colosseum in Rome during a condemnation of beasts. Oil painting by Studio artist of Firmin Didot courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Collectionsbalsorano.

"The arena was a microcosm populated by people of every class and condition: professionals, citizens, freedmen, slaves, imperial slaves and obviously convicts who before the criminal verdict could have been either slaves or citizens. Even for ancient authors it was not always easy to determine the legal status of individuals who fought as gladiators, harenarii and bestiarii...Many individuals worked or performed in the arena voluntarily retaining their citizenship, others were slaves of the emperor, of the impresario, or of private individuals involved in the games. Others still had been sold to the ludus (understood here as a centre for recruiting and training) or to a lanista from a dominus as a punishment or just on a whim. Sources speak of owners who threw their slaves in the arena so they could brag of their servants’ abilities or attractiveness. Finally, many (both citizens and slaves) were in the amphitheatre as convicted criminals, sent there by the public authority. The emperors had to face the confusion that could arise and make clear that although the arena was considered a polluted place where blood was shed, the voluntary workers retained their freedom and citizenship." Aglaia McClintock, Servi poenae: What Did it Mean to be 'Condemned to Slavery'

 Roman gladiator helmet from Herculaneum 1st century CE. Photographed by Mary Harrsch.

Of those who were slaves, some may have been prisoners of war, found guilty of a capital offense, or simply victims of a slave owner's capriciousness. To minimize the latter group, emperors as far back as Augustus issued rescripts limiting the arbitrariness of a slave owner's punitive powers. The lex Petronia, thought to be issued between 19 CE and 61 CE is one example.

"...placed in the Julio-Claudian age [it] forbade owners to send their slaves ad bestias on a whim, sanctioning not only the sellers but also buyers who did not comply, but granting the application of the penalty if the owner’s request to the magistrate was substantiated." Aglaia McClintock, Servi poenae: What Did it Mean to be 'Condemned to Slavery'
However, subsequent imperial rescripts made it clear that a dominus continued to have the right to send slaves directly to the arena without state approval if they had been caught red-handed committing a crime.

Statuette of a Samnite-equipped gladiator photographed at Musée de l'Arles et de la Provence antiques by Wikimedia Commons contributor Michel Wal


As prisoners of war, some participants in the games could no longer claim any social status since it was essentially dissolved at the time of their capture. Their ultimate fate depended on several factors. High-ranking officers or nobility from the defeated enemy were often held for ransom. If Rome needed skilled labor, however, POWs with valuable skills like carpentry or metalworking were often enslaved and put to work for the state either in military service or on public works projects. But, during times of total war or vengeance against a particular enemy, POWs that were not brutally executed were forced to fight to the death in gladiatorial games.

Overall, Roman society viewed POWs as property of the Roman state, not people. The Roman general credited with the victory in which they were captured determined whether the individuals were held for ransom, executed, or designated to be sold into slavery. The appropriate quaestor responsible for managing finances and logistics within a province or military campaign would organize an auction to sell the POWs and deliver the proceeds to the Roman treasury. Until their sale, POWs did not "belong" to either the victorious general or the emperor but were regarded as spoils of war.
During the Roman Republic, victorious generals, especially those with strong political influence, often had considerable autonomy in deciding how much to reward their troops from the spoils of war (booty). This included deciding on the payment of donatives, which were cash bonuses distributed to soldiers. The Senate might intervene if they felt a general was distributing excessive donatives that could strain the treasury or weaken their own authority.

Ornate Roman gladiator helmet from the gladiator barracks in Pompeii with relief including an eagle and Priapus photographed by Mary Harrsch.


During the Imperial Period, however, the Senate's power gradually diminished. Emperors, holding ultimate military authority, controlled the treasury and authorized the distribution of donatives, partially or fully funded by the sale of POWs, at their discretion. Emperors who valued the Senate's support, though, might seek their approval (or at least avoid their disapproval) for major donatives.
If few captives were taken on campaign so any donatives would have had to have been either paid directly by the commanding general (Julius Caesar was actually criticized by his opponents for doing this during the late Republic) or funds in the imperial treasury, the emperor usually had the final say over these types of ddistributions These decisions were further complicated by political tension or instability and whether or not either generals or emperor needed to restore the loyalty of their troops or solidify their own political power. If the treasury was depleted, there was more pressure to sell captives to slave traders for ready cash rather than divert them to auxiliary units or send them to state-owned mining operations. If these men appeared in the arena, by that time they had become the property of possibly elite slave owners, so, considering the ancestral traditions of Mos Maiorum, granting their freedom or ordering their death would need to be negotiated with their current owners.
But with audiences as large as 20,000 to 50,000 spectators, emperors overseeing a spectacle needed to be able to display their clementia or be seen fulfilling justice as pater patriae of the Roman people.
"...during the first principate, the punitive power of the princeps and the dominus coexisted on slaves. In this respect the leges libitinariae from Campania in force in Pozzuoli and Cuma are remarkable evidence of this situation. They are datable to Augustan age or slightly later, and are so called from the name of the goddess Libitina who in the ancient Roman world oversaw everything that had to do with death... The opposition between coexisting punitive powers manifested itself during the ludi, when the princeps, on his own initiative or to meet the favour of the audience, wished to free a slave who was in the arena because he had been sent there on a whim or as a punishment by a private dominus. The owner’s power, including the possibility to free his slaves even after he had condemned them to die, could potentially undermine the stature of the princeps. " - Aglaia McClintock, Servi poenae: What Did it Mean to be 'Condemned to Slavery'

Ornate shin guard depicting Silenus and a stork battling a serpent found in the gladiator barracks of Pompeii photographed by Mary Harrsch


This was further complicated by the fact that public executions took place during religious festivals. Nemesis, the goddess of retribution, a poena in a technical sense, was therefore closely tied to the imperial ideology of dramatic displays of the punishments for those who opposed the imperial order. The blood sacrifice is thought by scholars to symbolize the highest expression of "Romanitas" in every province of the empire.
It is not surprising that Augustus, despite his repeated protestations that he was merely a priinceps, first among equals, moved to demonstrate his ultimate power in such public venues as the games by placing the fate of slaves, especially those condemned to the arena, firmly in his control.
"Augustus issued regulation to control manumissions occurred in similar conditions with the lex Aelia Sentia20 (4 CE): slaves who had been put in chains by their masters as a punishment, who had been branded with a hot iron, who had been found guilty as a result of torture, or who had been destined to fight in the arena with a sword or against wild beasts, did not become Roman citizens if set free by their master or someone else, but acquired only a condition compared to that of the peregrini dediticii." - Aglaia McClintock, Servi poenae: What Did it Mean to be 'Condemned to Slavery'

Crest of a murmillo's helmet found in the gladiator barracks of Pompeii courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Carlo Raso



By the third century, emperor Antoninus Pius issued a number of rescripts defining the power of private owners and those of the ruling princeps over slaves sentenced to death in the arena. He intentionally distinguished these convicts from the servi Caesaris (who enjoyed special rights and participated in the administration of the res publica) and created a new and specific legal category of persons making them a slave of the punishment not of the emperor or prior dominus
"The condemned to the worst kind of torments lose their citizenship and freedom and this happens immediately; therefore this new “condition” (hic casus) precedes their death, sometimes for a long time, as happens in the case of the persons condemned to the beasts. Often they are kept alive after the condemnation, so that they can be tortured to provide information against others." - D. 48.19.29 (Gaius, Lex Julia et Papia, book 1):
"On one hand he wanted to limit the owner’s power of life and death over slaves, on the other he wanted to gain full control of the power to punish and to set free individuals living in the empire, whether they be citizens, foreigners or slaves. Only the Emperor could have the last word on the servi poenae. And even if imperial rhetoric despised criminals it is noteworthy that the emperor had an economic interest for convicts which he exploited in mines and in the arena...In the age of the Antonines, jurists created a form of subjugation that did not even ideally aim to progress toward the status of the free. They excluded once and for all from the legal system those who had been found guilty in a formal trial. Free persons were branded on their faces, were deprived of freedom and citizenship, lost their property (which was seized by the imperial treasury), and their marriages were dissolved. They could not manumit their slaves, nor could they make a will or be written into one, or receive anything through intestate succession. Slaves lost the hope of being freed by a master, since the condemnation made them masterless. At least formally, all servi poenae were masterless because as convicts they could not hope to regain freedom (except if their sentence were overturned and they were restored to their previous condition). This is the great difference with regular slavery. Slavery inflicted during the republic meant becoming slave of a private individual, slavery inflicted from the reign of Antoninus Pius onwards meant becoming a criminal convict, a death row inmate waiting to die." - - Aglaia McClintock, Servi poenae: What Did it Mean to be 'Condemned to Slavery'

Provocator helmet from the Pompeii gladiator barracks courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Carlo Raso



I know many of us had wished the general of Ridley Scott's original "Gladiator", had not died at the end of the film. But, in the portrayed time period after the reign of Antoninus Pius, Maxiumus, as one of the servi poenae, would have been doomed to a life without citizenship or legal rights, and probably would have been executed anyway since he would still have been viewed ultimately as a regicide despite the provocations he endured.
References:

McClintock, Aglaia. (2023). Servi poenae: What Did It Mean to Be ‘Condemned to Slavery’?. 10.1515/9783110987195-007. The Position of Roman Slaves: Social Realities and Legal Differences.
Note: Aglaia McClintock is associate professor of Roman Law at the University of Sannio. She is Life Member of Clare Hall, Cambridge University.
D. 49.14.12 (Callistratus, Judicial Examinations, book 6)
D. 48.19.29 (Gaius, Lex Julia et Papia, book 1)
Kathleen M. Coleman, “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments,” Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990): 44–73, 72.
Kyle, Spectacles of Death (n. 12): 77, 103 n. 6.
Cf. Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators (n. 14): 78.
Cf. Hopkins, Death and Renewal (n. 10): 10;
Michael B. Hornum, Nemesis, the Roman State and the Games (Leiden/New York/Cologne: Brill, 1993): 7

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!