The Final Curtain

[caldrail]

Recently I was told the sad news that a family friend had died. Not too unusual, I've lost family, friends, plus a stranger or two in my time. I won't bore you with gory detail but the gratuitous nature of his death has left me very reflective, and I find myself asking what the romans thought of such things.

 

My instincts are that the same viewpoints we see today existed then. Some were horrified or entertained. Inconsolable or smirking, sympathetic or smirking.

 

Theirs was a society that tolerated and enjoyed violence. Crowds thrilled to the sight of two men fighting for their lives with swords and shield. Expensive and exotic animals from faraway lands were herded in for slaughter to the very same crowd. They watch criminals put to death by imaginative means. Boxers use metal gloves to protect their fists and hurt the opponent. Wrestlers in the pancration can do almost anything to the opponent except gouging his eyes out. Slaves are killed during theatre plays for realism. A mob riots for lack of food. Soldiers are permitted to rampage murderously in a captured town. Gangs of drunken young men assault innocent passers-by at night, if they avoid the muggers and cutthroats. Rape is considered an occupational hazard for prostitutes or serving wenches. Unwanted babies are abandoned, exposed, left to die or be taken by slavers.

 

The poor did not expect medical care and disease lurked in their quarters. Now unlike the violence that pervades roman society it seems disease is something they were genuinely wary of. Out of ignorance for the most part, but also because it was a silent killer - something that takes away their virility and liveliness.

 

These days our lives are protected by countless rules, regulations, practises, and techniques designed to prevent us coming to harm (and from having fun too I might add). A woman was killed during a storm some years ago. Her car was waiting for traffic lights to change. A tree threatens to break and fall on her. Pedestrians warn her, but instead of driving four feet forward or back she sits open mouthed until the last minute, when she protects her head in her arms to no avail. It was probably the first time anything actually dangerous had ever happened to her.

 

The romans did not feel the need for safety legislation. It was a dangerous world. Earthquakes, fires, volcanoes, famine, floods. The gods will smite a man who offends them. Barbarians lurk in dark forests. Your rival may taint your food. A slave who injures himself in an industrial accident can be replaced without too much difficulty. A gladiator regards it as a point of honour to accept a fatal blow if he's condemned by the crowd. Charioteers take huge risks to win their race. Soldiers must kill men, women, or children on command. Noblemen should commit suicide rather than face humiliation.Young men are expected to be boisterous and rowdy.

 

Only two out of five romans survive the age of twenty. You may well be a grandparent at the age of thirty. Life is short and often brutal. It seems then that the romans viewed death as commonplace, and I think they had less fear of it than we do today, especially if they could watch someone else suffer it.

[Faustus]

Noblemen should commit suicide rather than face humiliation.

 

Only two out of five romans survive the age of twenty. You may well be a grandparent at the age of thirty. Life is short and often brutal. It seems then that the romans viewed death as commonplace, and I think they had less fear of it than we do today, especially if they could watch someone else suffer it.

This is something I've considered also. Why would a Roman, or anyone of the ancient world, accept death so willingly, but, maybe not? I think it comes down to honor. A Roman found it unnacceptable to live without honor, such that it was better to accept the alternative of death, and whatever "after life" would be availed to one dying honorably. Seeing so much of death may have dulled the fear of it to some degree also.

 

A residual Stoicism as it related to death (He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly ) may have been a part of it.

 

Faustus

 

-------------------

I sent my Soul through the Invisible, some letter of that After-life to spell:

And by and by my Soul return'd to me, and answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell"

Heav'n but the Vision of fulfill'd Desire, and Hell the Shadow of a Soul on fire,

Cast on the Darkness into which Ourselves, so late emerg'd from, shall so soon expire.

Rubaiyat/Fitzgerald

[Nephele]

Noblemen should commit suicide rather than face humiliation.

 

Only two out of five romans survive the age of twenty. You may well be a grandparent at the age of thirty. Life is short and often brutal. It seems then that the romans viewed death as commonplace, and I think they had less fear of it than we do today, especially if they could watch someone else suffer it.

This is something I've considered also. Why would a Roman, or anyone of the ancient world, accept death so willingly, but, maybe not? I think it comes down to honor. A Roman found it unnacceptable to live without honor, such that it was better to accept the alternative of death, and whatever "after life" would be availed to one dying honorably. Seeing so much of death may have dulled the fear of it to some degree also.

 

A residual Stoicism as it related to death (He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly ) may have been a part of it.

 

By the end of the Republic, disfavored noblemen were obliged to commit suicide not merely to avoid humiliation, but also to preserve their childrens' inheritances.

 

But I believe those Romans who followed the Stoic philosophy viewed the taking of one's own life as a commendable means of controlling one's own destiny. Seneca wrote in praise of a German barbarian who, when selected for fighting wild beasts in gladiatorial games, chose instead to end his own life by the only means he had available to him -- which was a latrine sponge which he used to choke himself to death by stuffing down his throat. (From Seneca's Epistle 70: "On the Proper Time to Slip the Cable") It was an unpleasant death, but nevertheless praiseworthy because it was the barbarian's own choice -- rather than a choice made for him by his masters.

 

Btw, condolences to you, Caldrail, on your personal loss.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

To some extent the experience of seeing death around does dull your sensibilities - there's plenty of modern evidence for that. There's also a cultural angle too. Some societies adopt the concept of honour, thus the risk of losing it is a 'fate worse than death', since the disapproval and rejection from your peers is too much to bear - its also a loss of status. Therefore the person so afflicted sees nothing but torment ahead and then honourable suicide offers a chance to redeem his name is some small way, since the ending of your own life by choice is something that rails against our survival instincts, and so carries with it a notion of courage and... well... honour. Its a matter of dignity in this case. To die as punishment inevitably means someone (or something) does that to you. Honourable suicide, even if enforced, does not carry with it the stain of someones elses hand, that in some way the act of killing has been transmuted to something acceptable.

[The Augusta]

Phew what a thought-provoking thread, Caldrail. But firstly, may I - like Neph - offer my condolences on your loss. I speak as someone who knows quite a bit about it, having lost quite a few close family members by the time I was 33 years old - and this included both parents and a young sister.

 

But getting back to the Roman view, this has made me think. The Roman age was just another symptom of a time when human life was not valued as much as it is today in any case. Or rather, perhaps I should qualify that by saying that human life was categorised into 'best people' and others, and death of the great was seen (publicly at least) as more of a loss than the death of a fishmonger by the Tiber. These values are something we cannot dream of today when all life should carry equal weight (philosophically, at least).

 

I think you hit on something with the suicide thing, however. This very much reminds me of the captured Germans who committed suicide rather than surrender. My Mum used to say they were cowards, but I reminded her that in our own 'glorious' days of empire men would do the same rather than fall into enemy hands, and certainly history tells us of Romans willingly falling on their swords. This is a question of honour. One thinks of that epitaph of Achilles, who stated that it was better to have a short life full of glory than to live a long but useless life without fame. It's a totally different mindset that perhaps we can't identify with today.

 

And then there is the question of belief in some sort of afterlife, and how this informs each person's view of impending death. I, personally, do not believe there is anything after this, therefore I cannot view death with equanimity - but am rather like Lucretius and Epicurus who believed that we return to the oblivion before we were born. I wonder whether, for most Romans, this was the case too. Their lives on this earth were what was important to them. However, I am sure there were some Romans who did not look forward to death at all, and perhaps even feared it - like any other normal person throughout history, but I do believe they were a bit more pragmatic than us. They knew it was something they couldn't escape, therefore why get steamed up about it?

 

It is an interesting topic, and we could go on and on. I'd like to hear more members' views on this.

 

And you make a point that resonates deeply with me, when you say that dying at another person's hand can be anathema. This is my personal bete noir. The idea of execution makes me shiver - not necessarily through any moral reasons; more, it is a case of the control being taken away. Even if one has an illness, one can give in to nature to a degree and accept it. However, the thought of someone actually taking my life..... Perhaps it's a little old gene stored away somewhere that I share with a Roman ancestor or something.

 

Great topic, even if a little gloomy.

Edited November 13, 2007 by The Augusta

[docoflove1974]

Well, I think a lot of what we Westerners think about death, and in particular suicide, is shaped by the Christian church. As I recall, it was early on in the dogma that life is precious, and therefore one should not take one's own life needlessly. The question is, of course, what does "needlessly" really mean. The concept of honor is so intertwined with this subject--so much so that it is difficult anymore to tease out what's based on honor and what's based on religious teaching/dogma.

 

A friend of mine also argued the 'macho' side of it, and that this element (which varies among cultures) is interlaced and often confused with honor. An example: soldiers being caught by the enemy. For some cultures, the 'macho'/honorable (you decide which) thing to do is to fall on the sword; for others, it's to ride things out (the "you can do what you like, but I'm strong enough to live through it" mentality). And who's to say that one is 'the better option' than the other? So often even this is completely contextual, and an individual issue.

 

One recent favorite movie is "Mar Adentro" ("The Sea Inside"), a very interesting Spanish tale which stars Javier Bardem (who deserved every award he received for the role). He plays a man who, as an adult, had a diving accident that left him a quadriplegic. For something like 20 years he fought for the right for euthanasia--his argument being that he can't do anything anymore, and he's a burden to his family (who are his caretakers), and essentially his life is wasting away. His brother disagrees, and fights him all the way; he takes the side of the Catholic church...and in this movie, the local priest (bishop, perhaps?) is himself a quadriplegic. He gets his day in court...and well, I won't spoil the rest, but the central questions revolve the idea about the 'right to die', quality of life...and what is life itself. And while the movie never gives an answer, I think the perspective that is most argued in the movie is that it is an individual decision: what one person believes is not necessarily what the next believes. And I think this applies to this topic of death, too.

[DecimusCaesar]

What I find interesting on the Roman attitude towards death is that they didn't dwell on it as much as many other ancient cultures did, despite being confronted by it on a regular basis.

As far they were concerned, living life to its fullest was important, not the afterlife. You often see symbols of death involving food, drinks or partying - skeltons with wine jugs for instance- and they represent the Romans attitude that seems to be 'live every day as if it were your last'

If you compare that attitude with the Ancient Egyptians' morbid obsession with death, corpses and the afterlife, as well as the Christian obsession with living your life in preparation for the more important afterlife; the Romans appear much more modern in their attitudes towards death.

 

(My condolences with your loss Caldrail).

Edited November 14, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[docoflove1974]

As far they were concerned, living life to its fullest was important, not the afterlife. You often see symbols of death involving food, drinks or partying - skeltons with wine jugs for instance- and they represent the Romans attitude that seems to be 'live every day as if it were your last'

 

Really!? You wouldn't happen to have any sources on this?

 

I ask because this is very similar to the Aztecan approach; when the Spaniards imposed Catholicism and moved the Aztecan 'day of rememberance' from the summer to All Souls' Day (2 November), it created this incredible mix of rituals, which in my opinion is quite beautiful. The main 'symbol' is a calavera ('skull') or esqueleto ('skeleton'), which is dancing around and making merry. The image is meant to represent the belief that life is no longer bad for these now defunct souls...so they're enjoying themselves now. It's also meant to laugh at the face of death, that it's not so bad.

[Ursus]

Pantheistic philosophies and salvation religions aside, the most common belief seems to have been that on death a person would have joined Dii Manes, the spirits of the dead. Roman domestic cult took the view something survived death, but there was no heaven or hell, just a kind of spirit world that somehow intersected with the world of the living. Roman domestic religion actually centered on the worship of one's ancestors and local spirits of the dead. They spent their lives making offerings to their ancestors, and when they died they felt their ancestors would honor them.

 

I submit such a view of the afterlife makes one less timid about death than either an agnostic view on the complete end of existence, or a Monotheistic belief in possible eternal torment. Die in battle, committ suicide, catch the plague? No matter - you all go the same place, and your ancestors carry on your memory with religious ritual.

[Flavia Gemina]

... The Roman age was just another symptom of a time when human life was not valued as much as it is today in any case. Or rather, perhaps I should qualify that by saying that human life was categorised into 'best people' and others, and death of the great was seen (publicly at least) as more of a loss than the death of a fishmonger by the Tiber. These values are something we cannot dream of today when all life should carry equal weight (philosophically, at least)...

 

I respectfully disagree that human life was valued any less than it is today. One small example among a plethora of epigrams, epitaphs and laments is the moving poem written by Martial about a female child slave, surely the 'lowest of the low'.

 

To you, my parents, I send on

This little girl Erotion

The slave I loved, that by your side

Her ghost need not be terrified

Of the pitch darkness underground

Or the great jaws of Hades hound.

This winter she would have completed

Her sixth year had she not been cheated... etc.

(translation James Michie)

 

We also put a value on life. Are we honestly as moved by the death of another baby in Africa as we are by a great artist or statesman?

 

And I disagree that they the Romans thought less about death than we do! The very fact that they had skeleton cups and mosaics and the phrase 'memento mori' meant they thought about death every day. Probably far, far more than we do -- we who are so protected from it.

 

Here are two examples, both from the area around Vesuvius...

 

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

 

My condolences on your loss, big C.

[caldrail]

I respectfully disagree that human life was valued any less than it is today. One small example among a plethora of epigrams, epitaphs and laments is the moving poem written by Martial about a female child slave, surely the 'lowest of the low'.

 

Their system of values were different to ours, and whilst a person may show affection or concern for others, that was an individual expression of humanity, not the general mindset of a culture, whose attitude toward human life was more concerned with expedience. Your point is valid - I just think it needs to be put in perspective. There were many romans who wouldn't have cared one jot for that female child slave. Plenty more at the market.

[caldrail]

A number of people have expressed sympathy for the death of my families friend. I would like to take a moment to thank you for those sentiments, but in all honesty, I only met him once and knew him solely through my relations. His death was unnecessary and deliberate, and like many others who lose friends and family in this way, it shocks you that people you know personally can end the same way as names on the tv news. Thank you kindly nonetheless.

[Nephele]

I respectfully disagree that human life was valued any less than it is today. One small example among a plethora of epigrams, epitaphs and laments is the moving poem written by Martial about a female child slave, surely the 'lowest of the low'.

 

Their system of values were different to ours, and whilst a person may show affection or concern for others, that was an individual expression of humanity, not the general mindset of a culture, whose attitude toward human life was more concerned with expedience. Your point is valid - I just think it needs to be put in perspective. There were many romans who wouldn't have cared one jot for that female child slave. Plenty more at the market.

 

Yes, the Romans had a different system of values from ours, but I believe that one point FG was making was that, in many ways, the Romans were no different from us. It wasn't so much exhibited as "an individual expression of humanity" (your phrase), but (as with us today) rather more often an expression of humanity for individuals.

 

I agree with FG that there are many people in our society today who are not as moved by the death of another baby in Africa, in comparison to the death of a statesman -- or a celebrity. Our attitude may not be "plenty more at the market" (your phrase for the Roman attitude), but it is certainly not far from something like: "there will always be dying babies somewhere, and still more to be born." In my own nation there were more newspaper headlines over the alleged suicide attempt of actor Owen Wilson, than there have ever been for the thousands of children in the Sudan who are forcibly conscripted to fight (and die) in those civil wars. Or for children living in both your nation and mine who aren't individually "newsworthy". There is certainly not as much individual, personal concern (or media frenzy) for the hundreds of children who are abducted annually as there is for a Madeliene McCann or a JonBenet Ramsey.

 

Even in that touching epigram of Martial's which FG provided, the lowly slave child in question has a name -- Erotion -- and is personally known to Martial. There were no doubt many such slave children in Roman homes, and I believe that Martial may have been expressing a sentiment that his fellow Romans would have readily recognized.

 

It's familiarity that breeds concern. As it is for us, so it was for the Romans who, even en masse, spared their favorite and celebrity-status gladiators.

 

-- Nephele

[caldrail]

Gladiators were spared for popularity, not for humanitarian concerns. Quite the reverse, the lower classes often called for the deaths of these men and we see a change in the style of fighting toward the end of the empire, when weapons designed to wound rather than kill outright were becoming commonplace. Make no mistake, this is a culture that routinely exposed its children and left them to die or live as slaves. I agree this wasn't always true - sometimes an unwanted child was given to friends or deserving couples, or even given to slavers directly (at least the child would then live, however poor and downtrodden). The thing is that although individual sensibilities may have been humanitarian, and there is plenty of evidence that such people lived in roman times, roman culture was hard hearted. It had developed from a time when they scraped out a living on hillsides under threat of invasion or tyranny from their neighbours, and this mindset persists in the roman psyche for centuries. Its easy to get carried away with the actions of individuals who call for death or torture at a whim. But lets use another example. In the war against the Lusitanii the roman commander, Galba, knew they were tired of the war and hit on a ruse. He let it be known that if they surrendered and gave up their weapons, the romans would call it quits and give them land to farm if they paid taxes. So thirty thousand or more turned up at three camps and did so, whereupon Galba had nine thousand slain on the spot and carted off the rest in chains for a life of slavery. The senate were appalled, not to mention the bad publicity, and had galba prosecuted. He of course was a little more wiley, and brought in his tearful children to sway the hearts of the senators who couldn't bear the thought of these children going without a father. Now then - what seems a humanitarian decision is in sentimentality, the roman love of family, which this case is being exploited by Galba. Exploitation is the key word. Thats what romans did. They exploited human beings as much as any other commodity, and that does not breed humanitarian sentiment. If there was, why did romans not campaign to dismantle the slave trade? Why did they allow the slaughter of vast numbers of exotic animals? These are not humanitarian viewpoints. There was a fourth century writer lamenting the loss of these fine creatures, commenting there were no more lions in Thessalay, that rhino's and crocodiles were vanishing from africa. Of course they were - there was a massive export business to have these animals killed for public entertainment - but did he decide that the games were a bad thing? Of course not. Exploitation of the natural world was a natural thing to him, he did not see that by changing things the loss of these animals copuld be averted. It simply did not occur to him. The games were there, that was how roman society functioned, and who was he to attempt to change entertainment of the masses? A monk named Telemachus (amongst others) tried to in AD392, by rushing into the arena and attempting to stop the gladiatorial fights. An impatient gladiator cut him down and the fights continued...

 

The point must be recognised that roman culture was inherently biased against humanitarian considerations, that it supported exploitation, that it tolerated violence and death in many circumstances. Roman society had clear divisions on what was acceptable. For a father to kill his errant son was for a long time acceptable practice. For a son to kill his errant father was a heinous crime. Rape of a barmaid was tolerated - what did she expect working in such a place? - but to break into a womans house and commit the same crime left romans horrified. You see? There's a black and white morality here, a line beyond which which what we see as a criminal act is no longer considered so by romans.

 

The lower classes must take a large portion of the blame. Their poverty breeds a hardened frame of mind, that survival must come first. They were the ones who revelled in gladiatorial deaths, who thrilled at boxers fighting with metal gloves, who stood captivated as a charioteer met a grisly end. They were not educated people. Their sentiments are not generally recorded, and although I would have to accept that some, perhaps many, felt human kindness toward one another there were many who didn't. The unwanted child is a burden - it must be exposed. The child is old enough - it must earn its keep. I cannot earn enough - I must go the the patron and kiss his feet for a handout. I cannot feed my family - I mustl take money from late late revellers who stray into my street. I cannot pay my creditors - I must consider slavery,

 

You might say that these sentiments are understandable and necessary for survival. My point is that such sentiment inevitably hardens peoples attitudes, and that roman culture as a whole was biased toward a macho, callous attitude, where aggression underlies roman interaction and entertainment.