The Coliseum: Approval and Disapproval amongst Roman contemporaries of the Games and Punishment of Criminals

Built in the volatile aftermath of Nero’s death, the construction of the Coliseum was a politically astute move by Emperor Vespasian. Placing it on the site of Nero’s Golden House, Vespasian was wiping his hated predecessor from the face of Rome and returning that land to the citizens for their use as the first dedicated site for gladiatorial games.

A symbol of democracy and good governance, citizens of all classes came together in the Coliseum to see justice meted out and crime punished. The amphitheatre represented the glory of Rome and imperial generosity; as such it created a bond between the Emperor and his people.

An immense, elliptical amphitheatre over 500 feet wide on its short diameter and 150 feet high, it took only ten years to build. Consisting of load-bearing piers supporting concrete vaults, the articulated façade was split into four ‘storeys’, decorated with different classical orders: Doric, Ionic and Corinthian. The top storey supported the velarium, the great awning that provided shade for the audience.

The strength of this structure meant it could hold 50,000 spectators safely and the maze of passages and stairways provided excellent crowd control. Spectators entered through one of seventy-six numbered arches and followed the corresponding passageways to their sector of seating. Despite being open to all of society, the different classes were strictly segregated, and this use of specific entrances prevented people mingling with their social superiors.

Once on the seats, the steepness of the tiers gave everyone an uninterrupted view of the proceedings. The vast arena could cater for many types of entertainment and the holding pens beneath ensured the safe confinement of the animals and prisoners to be used in the shows.

The design of the amphitheatre, incorporating Vitruvius’ recommended combination of ‘commodity, firmness and delight’ also contributed to its symbolism: its scale and majesty were a reflection of the glory of Rome and its stance on crime, rebellion and treachery.

Amphitheatrical games were an enormous part of the culture of Rome and gladiatorial combats thrilled citizens throughout the empire. We cannot say why the games started, but their popularity cannot be doubted. Every major town and city had some form of amphitheatre at the empire’s height, and rich citizens vied with each other over who could provide the most lavish spectacles.

Most saw the games as both punishment and entertainment, like Martial. He lauded the Emperor for giving the Coliseum to the people and, discussing an execution, said: “…he met with the punishment he deserved”.

Apuleius, a philosopher and orator, referred to the games as: “…grand and splendid…for the public’s pleasure…” His attitude towards the deaths was merely to note: “…criminals…without hope of reprieve, who were to provide a banquet of themselves to fatten the beasts”. He clearly saw no moral dilemma in men being torn apart, merely good entertainment.

We see also in Cicero’s ‘Tusculan Disputations’ that: “In the days when it was criminals who killed one another, no lesson in how to endure in the face of pain and death could be more efficacious…” Here Cicero testified that the spectacle of combat and death was ‘good’ for society in general.

Other writers held different attitudes towards the games, and these can be roughly split into two groups: those who objected on moral and ethical grounds, and those who objected for religious reasons. This latter group were the early Christians.

Cicero, the politician who lauded gladiatorial combat as instilling martial spirit into the populace also said: “…what pleasure can it be to a man of refinement when either a powerless man is torn by a very powerful beast, or else a magnificent beast is spitted on a hunting spear?…”  Here, it seems, Cicero objected to gratuitous bloodletting. Combat was acceptable, he implied, whereas thoughtless slaughter was not.

Seneca recalled: “I happened to drop in on a midday show, looking for entertainment, wit, and some relaxation…“ Note his use of the word ‘entertainment’ to describe the games. He went on: “…we are offered sheer butchery…Most of the spectators prefer this [combat without armour] to the regular matches...” Seneca’s disapproval was rooted in the response of the spectators to the bouts, not the fact that the gladiators were slain.

In contrast to Seneca’s and Cicero’s moral standpoints, the writings of the Christians express very ambiguous attitudes: deploring the games and yet craving martyrdom in the arena. This paradoxical belief is perfectly illustrated by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in the 250s CE: “The tortured showed more bravery than the torturers…The blood which flowed might have sufficed to…put out the flames of Gehenna with its glorious gore…What a spectacle this was for the Lord - how sublime, how magnificent, how acceptable to God’s eyes is the allegiance and devotion of his soldiers.”

The words “…glorious gore…” alone are enough to make many of us gape in disbelief and his unwitting comparison of God as a celestial Emperor with the martyrdoms put on for His entertainment is not particularly flattering.

Of all the opinions put forward here, it is those of the Christians that appear the most contradictory. They elevate the status of being killed in the arena to martyrdom, but only for themselves, and express no sorrow for any non-Christians condemned alongside them.

They bear similarities with both opposing sets of attitudes: Saint Augustine agreed with Seneca that the games degraded the spectator, but Cyprian glorified death in the arena as much as Martial, albeit for different reasons.

Prudentius believed taking pleasure from the killings was wrong but then startlingly stated that a city that executed criminals was a city devoted to God. This is an interesting point considering how, centuries later, Christian Europe’s favourite pastime was cheering at public executions.

The Christians’ attitudes may have been so different to that of others because their religion was different: the Romans had volatile gods, even a God of War, whereas the Christians were spreading a creed of pacifism and love. The ultimate difference is that they saw death in the arena as a reward, not as a punishment. This attitude must have been incomprehensible to the Romans who condemned them, and combined with their refusal to bow before anyone but God, they must have seemed dangerous to Rome‘s very way of life.

The positive attitudes towards the games of the ’pagan’ Romans are actually easier to understand than the Christians‘; life was bloody and strictly hierarchical, the empire was expanding relentlessly and justice had to be seen to be done. Public executions were a part of life, and holding them in the arena ensured the message spread to all sectors of society that crime was punishable with death.

None of the writers who opposed the games did so because they believed the criminals should not be punished, nor even that their lives should be spared. The objections were moral and ethical; their concerns were for the welfare of the spectators, never the criminals. Every attitude, including that of the Christians, is similar on this point. No voice was raised in their defence, none argued for clemency. The death penalty was expected and deserved in the eyes of all Romans. It was the use of death as entertainment that divided the attitudes of Rome‘s ancient writers.