Crucifixion and Roman punishment

[sylla]

Torture may have been a common result for a slave assassin, but since the slave was his and therefore not sent to kill him by someone else, was there any need to uncover the reason? Slaves are either obedient or punished. Caesar is therefore dealing with Philemon in a very practical manner and to do otherwise would give Philemon status he did not deserve.

If any of my slaves (or let say my dogs, their closest modern equivalent) ever tried to kill me, I'm pretty sure I would like to know the reason.

Being Philemon Caesar's property in no way excluded an external influence, as Suetonius actually stated ("Philemon... had promised Caesar's enemies that he would poison him").

[DDickey]

It's possible the story is apocryphal. If not, this certainly isn't a case of state-sanctioned crucifixion, so I excluded it from the discussion.

As I have already noted, this story was reported by three independent and regularly used classical sources, two of them regularly considered as particularly reliable. With all due respect, this story performs far better on this count than Jesus' crucifixion.

BTW, it is exactly because it wasn't state-sanctioned that this crucifixion is so relevant for this discussion.

 

The major question is: Was it independently attested, or did the authors use a common source?

 

That aside, on its face, the story is suspect: It

[sylla]

The major question is: Was it independently attested, or did the authors use a common source?

 

That aside, on its face, the story is suspect: It

[DDickey]

The major question is: Was it independently attested, or did the authors use a common source?

 

That aside, on its face, the story is suspect: It

[sylla]

Well, all right; I'm willing to concede that my discussion of the sources isn't relevant to this conversation. However, I still maintain that the entire Caesar/crucifixion-of-the-pirates story isn't relevant because it wasn't state sanctioned.

Then, I'm willing to agree that we disagree.

[DDickey]

Well, all right; I'm willing to concede that my discussion of the sources isn't relevant to this conversation. However, I still maintain that the entire Caesar/crucifixion-of-the-pirates story isn't relevant because it wasn't state sanctioned.

Then, I'm willing to agree that we disagree.

 

I disagree.

 

Just kidding.

 

I'll agree to that.

[DDickey]

This is interesting. I found this in the book, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome by Donald G. Kyle, pgs. 168-169

 

Clearly there were executions in the area of the Esquiline, and the corpses may have been buried, dumped, or exposed nearby. Dumping on the Esquiline was primarily a way to dispose of the indigent and the abandoned dead of Rome. 90 Neither ancient texts nor Lanciani connect the Esquiline to arena spectacles. Moreover, torture, execution, abuse, and disposal were not confined to the suburbs. From Rome's earliest days such things took place in the Forum, and as the spectacles grew they were transposed to arenas in the heart of town. The more spectacles of death were concentrated within the city, and the more the city expanded, the less likely was it that deposition on the Esquiline or similar fields would be used for arena disposal. 91 Pits could provide a symbolic casting out, along with non-provision and probable prevention of burial by relatives, but the lustral quality of pits could be outdone. Other options must be considered, including crucifixion and fire.

 

Understandably, discussions of crucifixion often focus on the Christian Gospels and the debated historicity of the accounts of the death and disposal of Jesus, 92 but executions in Judea were perhaps adapted to local Jewish customs. Archaeology shows that death might be hurried and corpses of crucified men might be taken down at night and allowed burial in Judea, 93 and in Italy the case at Puteoli suggests that corpses were removed 'if' an order was given. Victims of crucifixion died slow, agonizing deaths, 94 and they were guarded-certainly until dead and probably longer.

 

Crucifixion should be seen as a form of exposure to the elements and beasts, for, outside Judea, it is unlikely that most corpses were taken down, let alone buried after crucifixion. In Petronius' story of the widow of Ephesus the governor of a Greek province ordered that some thieves be crucified near the tomb where a widow was mourning her buried husband. A soldier assigned to watch the crosses, 'to prevent anyone taking down a body for burial', of course, became preoccupied with the widow. While the soldier neglected his watch, the parents of one of the crucified men took down his corpse at night and gave it burial rites. The next day, seeing one of the crosses empty, the guard feared punishment, but he and the widow conveniently found a replacement. 95 Usually, then, to prolong the message of deterrence, corpses were simply left to suffer excarnation via animals and decay. This horrid but probably effective custom seems to have continued at medieval gallows. 96

[sylla]

Were we studying marriages in our regular classical sources (ie, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc.), we would find that almost all of them were of political nature, involving the families of famous men and women and their close associates.

 

That doesn't mean the regular anonymous Roman mob remained unmarried for life; it simply means that our scholar annals and biographies couldn't care less about the prosopography of "Caius Populus" and his wife.

 

At the risk of overstating the obvious, the vast majority of the Roman sources available to us are political in nature; unsurprisingly, their record of specific social events is heavily biased. That applies the same to marriages as to crucifixions. That's why it's so hard to find the detailed description on how "Caius Populus" crucified his slave.

 

Anyway, here comes another curious account about a non-political crucifixion, this time affecting a Roman citizen (Suetonius; Galba 9,1):

 

" (Galba) crucified a man for poisoning his ward, whose property he was to inherit in case of his death; and when the man invoked the law and declared that he was a Roman citizen, Galba, pretending to lighten his punishment by some consolation and honour, ordered that a cross much higher than the rest and painted white be set up, and the man transferred to it."

Edited May 14, 2009 by sylla

[Maty]

Another point that's going to need a Bible scholar to resolve definitively... Let's agree to disagree why Jesus was crucified, but what about the two gentlemen he was crucified alongside? The English version of the Bible says 'thieves'. We might stretch this to 'bandits' or even, to get technical, Jewish 'listim'.

 

However, if these are defined in the Latin version as 'ladri' (thieves) then we have to accept that in a book designed for a Roman audience, in a section which those writing it wanted to be as credible as possible, people are reported as being crucified by the Roman authorities for being thieves.

[DDickey]

Another point that's going to need a Bible scholar to resolve definitively... Let's agree to disagree why Jesus was crucified, but what about the two gentlemen he was crucified alongside? The English version of the Bible says 'thieves'. We might stretch this to 'bandits' or even, to get technical, Jewish 'listim'.

 

However, if these are defined in the Latin version as 'ladri' (thieves) then we have to accept that in a book designed for a Roman audience, in a section which those writing it wanted to be as credible as possible, people are reported as being crucified by the Roman authorities for being thieves.

 

In the research I've done, the Greek word used in the New Testament, lestai, means insurrectionists. It's typically translated into English as Thieves or Bandits to illustrate that Jesus was Crucified among the lowest of the low. Insurrectionists has led some scholars to speculate that those crucified alongside him were his conspirators in whatever "real" reason he was crucified. I'm not sure I buy that--because it's pure speculation--but it is interesting.

 

Another quote I found reads as follows:

 

lestai is a "Greek word that could mean 'freedom fighter/insurgent/zealot' to the Jews under occupation but 'bandit/terrorist' to the occupiers."

Edited May 14, 2009 by DDickey

[sylla]

Another point that's going to need a Bible scholar to resolve definitively... Let's agree to disagree why Jesus was crucified, but what about the two gentlemen he was crucified alongside? The English version of the Bible says 'thieves'. We might stretch this to 'bandits' or even, to get technical, Jewish 'listim'.

 

However, if these are defined in the Latin version as 'ladri' (thieves) then we have to accept that in a book designed for a Roman audience, in a section which those writing it wanted to be as credible as possible, people are reported as being crucified by the Roman authorities for being thieves.

The four Gospels were originally written in koine Greek, which I can't read.

 

As explained in previous posts, bona fide political rebels like the zealots were regularly called "robbers" or equivalent terms under the legal nomenclature of the time, widely attested by Josephus; this would be analogous to the Nazi terminology for the European resistance.

 

My position is still the same (BTW, in agreement with Maty): the relevant point for this thread is not if the zealots and the WWII partisans were regular thieves or not (which they obviously weren't) but rather that the use of such denomination allowed both the Romans and the Nazi to punish their opponents; ergo, the crux was as valid an option for regular thieves in Roman Judea as a firing squad was in the Nazi occupied Europe.

 

This passage clearly came from Mark, as the three synoptic Gospels (but not John) called

[sylla]

This is interesting. I found this in the book, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome by Donald G. Kyle, pgs. 168-169

Thanks,DD.

 

Kyle indeed seems to be a rather interesting source; he quotes literally myriads of non-political crucifixions, for example, Scipio's on Roman deserters (obviously citizens) in 146 BC at

the siege of Carthage.

 

I don't think any more evidence on the high prevalence of non-political crucifixions will be required.

Edited May 15, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

Torture may have been a common result for a slave assassin, but since the slave was his and therefore not sent to kill him by someone else, was there any need to uncover the reason? Slaves are either obedient or punished. Caesar is therefore dealing with Philemon in a very practical manner and to do otherwise would give Philemon status he did not deserve.

If any of my slaves (or let say my dogs, their closest modern equivalent) ever tried to kill me, I'm pretty sure I would like to know the reason.

Being Philemon Caesar's property in no way excluded an external influence, as Suetonius actually stated ("Philemon... had promised Caesar's enemies that he would poison him").

 

I suspect most people would be curious to discover the reason for betrayal. However, you also need to realise that most of us aren't of the same mindset as Caesar. He isn't a man to prevaricate. He considers the risk and dismisses it as an obstacle to be overcome in the furtherment of his objectives. He acts. He does things. He believes he can succeed in his endeavours.

 

His slaves, as described by Suetonius, are possessions and whilst he may not have been as cruel as some owners, he clearly doesn't have any humane leanings such as Claudius. The period in which Caesar lived was the high point of slavery. The wars had brought in thousands. Delos had apparently traded ten thousand in one day. Labour was cheap, faceless, and as we see in the earlier root causes of some slave revolts, so plentiful that some owners bought more than they could afford to care for.

 

Caesar therefore isn't concerned with the petty motives of his possessions. They aren't human beings, certainly not comparable to a man of breeding and status as Caesar is. They are expected to be obedient and loyal. If not, they are dispatched. Why would he need to discover the reason for a slaves betrayal? Caesar is already well aware of his enemies, their activities, and to ignore or be unaware of such things in the political bearpit of late Republican Rome would invite an assassination.

 

Since a slave cannot by definition have any high handed motive of his own, and indeed Philemon is acting on the behalf of others, his motive is clear without need of further investigation. Therefore, Caesar is not concerned with Philemons desires. He is concerned solely that it happened, and therefore Philemon must be punished.

[sylla]

I suspect most people would be curious to discover the reason for betrayal. However, you also need to realise that most of us aren't of the same mindset as Caesar. He isn't a man to prevaricate. He considers the risk and dismisses it as an obstacle to be overcome in the furtherment of his objectives. He acts. He does things. He believes he can succeed in his endeavours.

 

His slaves, as described by Suetonius, are possessions and whilst he may not have been as cruel as some owners, he clearly doesn't have any humane leanings such as Claudius. The period in which Caesar lived was the high point of slavery. The wars had brought in thousands. Delos had apparently traded ten thousand in one day. Labour was cheap, faceless, and as we see in the earlier root causes of some slave revolts, so plentiful that some owners bought more than they could afford to care for.

 

Caesar therefore isn't concerned with the petty motives of his possessions. They aren't human beings, certainly not comparable to a man of breeding and status as Caesar is. They are expected to be obedient and loyal. If not, they are dispatched. Why would he need to discover the reason for a slaves betrayal? Caesar is already well aware of his enemies, their activities, and to ignore or be unaware of such things in the political bearpit of late Republican Rome would invite an assassination.

 

Since a slave cannot by definition have any high handed motive of his own, and indeed Philemon is acting on the behalf of others, his motive is clear without need of further investigation. Therefore, Caesar is not concerned with Philemons desires. He is concerned solely that it happened, and therefore Philemon must be punished.

Criminal investigation doesn't seem to be our strong point by now.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, the only rational choice for Caesar (or any other slaveowner from any time or place) after a criminal intent from any of his slaves must have been the utter determination of the motives by any available mean, and certainly not because of his concern for the slave's sensibilities.

Needless to say, the Romans (like everyone else) were perfectly aware that any slave could have motives of any kind like any human, irrespectively of their legal status.

Edited May 15, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

Criminal investigation doesn't seem to be our strong point by now.

Perhaps, but we're discussing the finer points of Roman slavery and the psychology of Caesar, with reference to the general condition of the Roman slave market and the politics of the late Republic. That wasn't considered criminal by the Romans.

 

At the risk of overstating the obvious, the only rational choice for Caesar (or any other slaveowner from any time or place) after a criminal intent from any of his slaves must have been the utter determination of the motives by any available mean, and certainly not because of his concern for the slave's sensibilities.

Then lets make this as obvious as possible. Your logic is yours, not Caesars. You're dealing with an adventurer. Such people aren't concerned with logic or enquiry, they act quickly on information they have or go with gut instinct. All Caesar needed to know was that Philemon had been disloyal. Philomen was his slave, a tool, officially a servant with no reason to make any self determination at all.

 

Why would Caesar bother to investigate? As I said before, he was an asprining politician with the same mindset as a gangster. Thats what he was. He was out to take control of the town, by hook or by crook. Such people are not entirely rational, though in Caesars case we have to allow for his intelligence (something often lacking in the unimaginative criminal fraternity). He already knows who his enemies and rivals are. The fact someone has plotted to kill him is neither here nor there in his mind. He expects such attempts and is prepared for them. He does not waste his time in revenge when he can wreak veageance after he has total control of the territory, when he has a position of power (and therefore, an assumed 'safety'). All that matters is Philemon was disloyal. Like a modern gangster, Caesar wacks him. Done. A lesson for everyone, now lets get back to the business in hand.

 

Needless to say, the Romans (like everyone else) were perfectly aware that any slave could have motives of any kind like any human, irrespectively of their legal status.

Thats a modern perspective. For the Romans, freedom of self-determination was an essential quality of being human. Slaves did not have this quality - they were not human. The Romans really did make this differentiation. For instance, a perusal of Cassius Dio's history will show many examples of men who were forced to comply with instructions - although not of a slave status, Dio still refers to them as such. Further, in Agricola Tacitus refers to the Britons becoming slaves by virtue of the decandent luxuries offered by Roman civilisation.

 

Since the concerns of a slave were only that of the enviroment provided by his master, of what possible concern would politics have for a slave? There wouldn't have been many Roman masters who wanted the opinions of a slave. They were described as "Talking Tools". Means to an end. The legal status of a slave in Roman times was one thing (that actually changed over time with increasingly humane restrictions on their use during the imperial period) but the attitude of the master to the slave is not bound by legislation. It varied by the temperament and character of the owner.

 

Philemion does not change this situation. Even if we ascribe the man with his own motives, he acts with the support or at the behest of Caesars enemies. In Roman psychology, he is not acting alone, of his own volition. He is merely merely disloyal to his owner. For a Roman to treat his slave as a free man would be undesirable. It would give the slave ideas, to convince him that he was still human, and encourage disobedience. It's easy to point at Spartacus as an example. However, in his case, he never accepted his enslavement and was fighting for his own enrichment. The often-quoted 'Fight For Freedom' is nonsense, though the bulk of his followers attracted by his rebellion were indeed slaves and vagabonds who saw him as an excuse to seek relief from their labour. Certainly the Roman establishment were under no illusions, whatever lyrical stories were told of him.

 

After all, the Romans lived with their slaves around them. The laws concerning their behaviour are very specific. Should a slave kill his master, all slaves of that household are condemned to death. There is only one recorded instance of that law being contested in a real case, and interestingly, this was for "fairness" rather than humanitarian reasons.

 

Please be aware that your own humanitarian views are not those the Romans, for whom slavery was an everyday condition and whilst pitiable, not a matter of shame, especially since the ownership of slaves was a visible indicator of your own wealth and status.