Death in Ancient Rome. By CATHARINE EDWARDS. New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2007. Pp. xii + 287. Cloth, $35.00. ISBN
978–0–300–11208–5.
Order this text for $28.50 from Amazon.com using this link and
benefit CAMWS and the Classical Journal:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20
Previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php
A CJ Online Exclusive: 2008.07.03
Catharine Edwards’ (E.’s) latest book is a thoughtful study of dying in
the Roman world between roughly the 1st century BC and the first half of
the 2nd century AD. The introduction (pp. 1–19) analyzes what constitutes
a Roman death and foreshadows the most important conclusions revealed in
the remainder of the study. A number of key arguments underlie the
analysis. The Roman upper classes, or at least those who wrote about the
topic, were pre-occupied and obsessed with dying. Romans viewed dying as an
active rather than as a passive process which aimed to reveal, or was
believed to reveal, the individual’s true character; an honorable death
required careful preparation with the aim of communicating a message.
Dying, in other words, was a form of communication. It was accordingly a
spectacle that required an audience, represented by the process of watching
gladiators die in the amphitheater, as well as in the very public staging
of political suicides under the Julio-Claudian emperors.
E.’s introduction is followed by eight chapters that focus on specific
aspects of dying, including death on the battlefield, the death of the
gladiator, the philosophy of dying, the culture of suicide (two chapters,
one dealing with political connotations, the other with theatrical
aspects), death and the dinner-party, women and suicide, and Christian
martyrs. The topics are diverse and challenging, but E. successfully
presents them as key areas of concern for Roman writers of the period.
There is much to admire in this book, which bristles with careful attention
to the latest scholarship, and the chapters on women, theatrical images and
martyrs in particular provide interesting new angles on Roman culture.
Overall, E. neatly brings out how the Roman literary and cultural
imagination developed a set of typically Roman attitudes toward dying. One
might argue with some justification that studying the Roman way of dying
reveals essential characteristics of what it was to be Roman: the social
profile was dominated by a desire for honor, control and agency. Yet not
everything in this volume convinces, mainly because E. has preferred to
keep her arguments compact and coherent rather than confront a variety of
possible interpretations. The following points address this issue.
E. frequently emphasizes that the Roman upper classes were not merely
concerned with the issue of dying, but they were preoccupied, fascinated
and obsessed with it. A reading of Lucan’s Pharsalia, Tacitus’ Annals
and Seneca’s Epistulae Morales, to name but a few, suggests that dying
and death were indeed important issues, but some discussion of what
constitutes an obsession with dying would have been helpful. In at least
one case E.’s qualification of the Roman obsession with the moment of
death is an exaggeration. In her chapter on the death of the gladiator she
calls attention to the fact that a popular representation of gladiators on
household utensils frames the moment when a defeated fighter waits for the
decision of the editor as to whether he will receive the final blow or will
be granted mercy (pp. 55–9; cf. illustrations on pp. 56–7). E. argues
that this scene is predominant among visual representations of gladiators
in combat, especially among those on oil lamps. [n. 1] Georges Ville (who
was the first to call attention to the imagery) states that it enjoyed
extraordinary favor, but that is not the same as arguing that it is the
prevalent image of gladiators in combat. Ville uses the evidence to
reconstruct a matter of technical significance, the procedure of requesting
missio, whereas E. uses it to make a cultural statement, claiming that even
ordinary Romans who owned such representations could imagine themselves as
instrumental in deciding a gladiator’s fate (p. 59), thus adding to the
argument that the Romans of this time had a strong fascination with the
moment of death. It needs to be emphasized that E.’s selection of one
type of representation as the focus of her argument is not representative
of how Romans viewed gladiators.
Dying had the potential to reveal an individual’s character, in the way
he or she faced death as well as in how a self-inflicted death was chosen.
E. illustrates this throughout the book (p. 5), although the idea is
particularly associated with the writings of Seneca (p. 87). But dying out
of character appears to have been an equally appealing image to Roman
writers. Sallust’s portrayal of Catiline (pp. 29–31) could have been an
excellent point of departure for such a discussion. Another important case
is that of the emperor Otho. E. refers to negative reports in Tacitus about
him (p. 38), but without marking them out as a complicating factor. The
fact of the matter is not that Tacitus finds Otho’s suicide admirable (p.
38), but that his suicide is so out of character. This interest is not
unique to Tacitus, even though his account of the Pisonian conspiracy teems
with similar examples, including that of the freedwoman Epicharis, whose
life-style had been consistently non-virtuous until she became involved in
the conspiracy, but who died heroically without revealing the names of the
other conspirators (p. 204). [n. 2] In both cases E. acknowledges that a
contradiction between life and exit from life exists, but she never uses
this material to revisit the question of dying in character. This raises
the question of what constitutes the norm, and how the contradiction should
be resolved or at least addressed. This also suggests that E. occasionally
misunderstands a key scene. Seneca’s dying scene has sometimes been read
negatively, but E. prefers to see his death in Tacitus as a model of the
admirable suicide. Seneca’s death is slow and excruciatingly painful, and
he is forced to change strategy several times; an expert on suicide, he is
somehow incapable of killing himself. [n. 3] In contrast, there is the
uncomplicated and almost blissful suicide of L. Antistius Vetus and his
family, who share a single sofa and knife between them. Fate observed the
right order, with the two eldest individuals dying first (Tac. Ann.
16.10–11).
The behavior E. studies in her book, and especially the cult of political
suicide under the Julio-Claudians, seems concentrated in a relatively short
space of time. This requires an explanation, and E. provides one that in my
view does not entirely convince. She argues that the Roman upper class
preoccupation with dying and with dying well was the result of the gradual
demilitarization, that is, the gradual removal of senators from the
battlefield (p. 7). This development was accompanied by a countertrend in
which senators are more exposed to the political tensions brought about by
the establishment of monarchy. Stripped of the possibility of advertising
their glory and earning a reputation on the battlefield, senators were now
thrown back on the domestic front. If this is correct, it would mean that
in the days of the Republic a man’s value was primarily established on
the battlefield, as a commander of soldiers, while in the 1st century AD
many senators had no battle experience. I am not convinced that in the
middle and late Republic the military ideology was so dominant as to shape
senatorial identity to the exclusion of other fields, such as rhetoric and
politics. Nor do I not know of any way to measure the reduced involvement
of senators in military deployment, let alone to examine its impact on the
senatorial mentality. In any case, E. never demonstrates that those who
committed suicide were excluded from military affairs. The same argument
has been used to explain the popularity of the gladiatorial games in the
1st century AD. The similarities between soldiers and gladiators (cf. pp.
51–3) can then be used to explain the rising popularity of the one
through the absence of the other. Overall, however, I do not believe that
exposure to war had declined between the 1st century BC and AD. What had
changed was the political situation with the establishment of a monarch who
was more dependent on personal publicity than the regime he had come to
replace.
This book offers a number of important insights in the cultural world and
literary imagination of imperial Rome. It is an engaging study, which
builds on a wide range of scholarship and stimulates further thinking about
death and dying in ancient Rome. With all the material on suicide,
gladiators and attitudes toward dying combined in one volume, the question
why the Romans developed their thinking in the way they did becomes even
more urgent.
MARC KLEIJWEGT
University of Wisconsin at Madison
[n. 1] George Ville, La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de
Domitien (Rome, 1981) 410–15, with the reference to “faveur
extraordinaire” on p. 410.
[n. 2] For a good discussion of this phenomenon, cf. A. La Penna, “Il
ritratto paradossale da Silla a Petronio,” RFIC 104 (1976) 270–93.
[n. 3] Cf. most recently Willy Evenepoel, “The Philosopher Seneca on
Suicide.” AncSoc 34 (2004) 217–43.
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online list-serv by sending an email
to: [log in to unmask] Leave the subject line blank, and in the first
line of the message write: UNSUBSCRIBE
|