Breve Historia de Hércules

Valerie M.Hope

Everyone who has done some great and memorable deed should, I think, not only be excused but even praised if he wishes to ensure the immortality he has earned, and by the very words of his epitaph seeks to perpetuate the undying glory of his name.

(Pliny to Cremutius Ruso, Letters 9. 19)

A funerary memorial is an aid to memory; it indicates where human remains are interred to prevent future interference and to ensure future respect. Simultaneously it may also memorialise chosen features of the identity of the deceased. If inscribed the memorial may preserve the name, gender, age or occupation of the dead individual. Sculpture may similarly capture facial features, while carved tools and equipment may indicate employment. The size, location and permanence of the memorial may also intimate relative wealth and social status. Thus the identity of the deceased has the potential to be remembered by the words and design of the funerary monument. This makes the hundreds of thousands of funerary memorials which survive from the Roman world a valuable source, as how individuals are presented in death should relate to their role and position in the living society. It has been noted, however, that the image created in death may not be a direct reflection of the reality of life (Hodder 1982, 146; Morris 1992, 21–4). The tombstone can be persuasive in the image it creates, and the identity of the deceased may be an idealised creation rather than a representation of reality.

Pliny speaks in praise of Verginius Rufus, who had composed his own epitaph and planned his own funerary memorial. Verginius Rufus’ expectations were, however, frustrated, as nine years after his death his monument remained unfinished (Pliny, Letters 6. 10). It was not unusual in the Roman era for people to circumvent such difficulties by anticipating death itself and overseeing the inscribing of their own epitaph and the construction of their own tomb. Among

Pliny’s generation the creation of large funerary edifices and the composing of flattering epitaphs may have been condemned by some members of the elite (Pliny, Letters 9. 19) but human remains had to be disposed of and in many cases the site of interment received some form of marker, however simple (Toynbee 1971, 101). It was not just the great and the glorious who aspired to be commemorated in a tangible form and thus remembered. Indeed, for the majority who had performed no famous deeds by which posterity would recall them, the funerary monument may have had a particular appeal.

The image fashioned by the tombstone could become an act of self- presentation. For those who created their own memorial before death this may have been particularly true. The monument represented how they wished to be remembered rather than how others might actually remember them. For memorials set up by the survivors of the deceased a similar principle could still apply; the representation of the deceased and the loved one could champion and recall elements thought insignificant by others or might reflect aspects of the identity of the commemorator rather than of the deceased.

The text, decor, scale and location of the Roman tombstone were manipulated to create a specific impression upon the viewer. An illustration of this is the use of the tombstone as a statement and symbol of integration. Roman society was complex and multi-layered and the funeral memorial was a method of expressing cultural and social alignment. In a recently conquered province of the Empire, for example, the inscribing of a Latin epitaph by a native inhabitant represented the adoption of Roman customs and the fusing of cultural forms. Furthermore for certain groups enduring persistent inconsistencies in their social or legal status, and thus occupying liminal positions, the Roman tombstone had a particular significance as a symbol of legitimisation. Freed slaves, for example, during the late Republic and early Empire used memorials decorated with funerary portraiture to lay claim to citizenship and as a symbol of their integration into society (Zanker 1975; Kleiner 1977, 1987). The message created and conveyed by the tombstone was not, however, a static one. As a medium of communication how and by whom the tombstone was exploited was constantly redefined (MacMullen 1982; Meyer 1990; von Hesberg 1992; Cannon 1989).

The intention of this chapter is to explore the presentation of the dead through a specific group of funerary memorials. The tombstones commemorating the gladiators of Roman Nîmes will be investigated to establish how this particular social group were presented in death and how the identity created related to the reality of their lives and the lives of those around them. The amphitheatre and the gladiator are identifiable symbols of Roman culture. Yet despite his cultural importance the social status of the gladiator was complex and ambiguous. How did the reaction of the community towards the gladiator and the response of the gladiator to his own position manifest themselves in the act of commemoration?

The memorials of Roman Nîmes

Nîmes came under Roman control in 120 BC and was probably established as a colony under Augustus (Rivet 1988, 162–3). The colonia Nemausus became a flourishing town and several notable landmarks survive, such as the Maison Carrée, the Tour Magne, the Porte d’Auguste and the amphitheatre (Rivet 1988, 163–7; Bromwich 1993, 93–108). The line of the town walls has been established and the sites of the cemeteries of Nîmes have been approximately located along the roads which radiated from the town (Rivet 1988, 16). Several hundred funerary memorials have been recovered but rarely were the monuments discovered still associated with the human remains they were intended to protect and commemorate. The majority of the stone monuments survive because of reuse, especially in the construction of the early Christian centres of the town. These funerary memorials mainly date to the first and second centuries AD and in terms of scale and decor are not particularly striking; there are, for example, no towering structures such as those surviving in Glanum (Rolland 1969). A few blocks exist which may have originated from large-scale monuments but this involves speculative reconstructions (Varène 1970).

The majority of the funerary monuments of Nîmes take the form of either

stelae or small altars. The decorative range of these memorials is limited. A few

are adorned with portrait busts, often arranged in rows with the names inscribed beneath (see, for example, Devijver 1989). The vast majority of the memorials are decorated with floral designs. On the stelae (Plate 11.1) these are very simple, often consisting of a single rosette in the gable, sometimes accompanied by palmette acroteria. On the altars (Plate 11.2) the floral designs could become extremely ornate, twisting their way around the inscription panel, forming a border incorporating flowers, vines, leaves and even small animals and birds (Sauron 1983).

A large number of Roman funerary monuments survive from Nîmes but we cannot assume that they provide us with a cross-section of the population of the town. It has been argued that inscribed tombstones were within the reach of people of modest incomes (Saller and Shaw 1984, 128). But even if this generous prediction is accepted we must acknowledge that not all burials would have been marked in this way. Markers made of more perishable materials such as wood and pottery have been identified as indicators at other Roman sites (Toynbee 1971, 101–3). In communal tombs individual graves and remains were frequently not indicated by a separate inscription or memorial (Eck 1987, 65–8) and the possible use of mass anonymous graves (puticuli) in large urban centres cannot be ignored (Hopkins 1983, 207–11; Bodel 1986 [1994], 38–54). In addition we know that inscribed tombstones were not constantly in production throughout the Roman period (MacMullen 1982). It is these variations in use and occurrence which make the exploration of the tombstone record potentially fruitful as we need to understand who was commemorated and how.

A small group of tombstones found at Nîmes can be related to one of its famous Roman landmarks, the amphitheatre. There survive from Nîmes fourteen attested funerary monuments which recall gladiators. This is one of the largest collections of memorials set up to gladiators known from the Roman world and as such it provides an opportunity to assess how these tombstones functioned.

A cemetery of gladiators?

Observations can be made initially about the original location of these gladiatorial tombstones. Of the fourteen tombstones eight have attested find Plate 11.1 Tombstone with a triangular gable decorated with a single rosette. The epitaph

spots (Haon 1969, 88). Three of these (CIL XII. 3325, 3326; ILGN 435) are definitely associated with reuse and this also seems likely of a fourth (ILGN 433), the circumstance of the discovery of which is uncertain. The remaining four memorials (CIL XII. 3327, 3329, 3332; ILGN 436), however, were found, in situ, close together. They were discovered at the end of last century to the south of the amphitheatre at the crossroads of the rue de Saint-Gilles and the rue Charlemagne (Haon 1969, 90). Cinerary urns were also found in this area, with one accompanying the tombstone of the gladiator Lucius Pompeius (CIL XII. 3327). The discovery of these four associated tombstones suggests that the area may have been preferred for the burial of the gladiators of Nîmes (Haon 1969, 90–1).

Other examples survive from the Roman world which indicate similar group burial for gladiators. At Salona or Split in the former Yugoslavia, for example, a group of gladiatorial funerary urns was uncovered near the town’s amphitheatre (Cambi 1987, 260). It is possible that the associated burial of gladiators was deliberately and freely chosen as an expression of group affiliation in death: the gladiators lived, fought and died together. The existence of a sense of community among gladiators is illustrated by attested gladiatorial collegia which may have had a funerary function (Wiedemann 1992, 117–18). A second possibility is that the site of gladiatorial burial may have been donated by the troop leader or a generous patron. Communal tombs erected by the organisers of gladiatorial shows for the burial of the dead combatants are known from Trieste (CIL V. 563;

EAOR II. 19) and Venusia (CIL IX. 465; EAOR III. 67). Such structures served to

Plate 11.2 Funerary altar with an ornate floral border encircling the inscription. The epitaph commemorates Gaius Aurelius Parthenius, an honorary decurion and sevir augustalis (CIL XII. 3203)

promote the name of the donor and to commemorate the splendour of his games as much as to recall the dead gladiators (Wiedemann 1992, 17).

An alternative explanation, although not mutually exclusive of the existence of a collegium and/or the benefactions of the wealthy, is that gladiators may have been buried communally more from coercion than from choice. It is probable that as victims of a violent death and as members of a stigmatised profession gladiators were excluded from normal burial areas and were segregated in death (Ville 1981, 340, 462–3; Hopkins 1983, 23; Wiedemann 1992, 30). The possibility that those stigmatised by profession and behaviour could be excluded is supported by a surviving inscription from Sarsina (CIL XI. 6528). Horatius Balbus, of Sarsina, donated some land for the burial of his fellow citizens but it was stated that burials of suicides and those living by immoral activities were not to be allowed. The gladiator was probably included among the excluded, as he suffered from the legal penalty of infamia and was socially stigmatised (Ville 1981, 339–45; Wiedemann 1992, 28–9; Gardner 1993, 135–40). The gladiator was of low status, he lived by killing and would himself be the victim of a violent end. The gladiator, like a prostitute, was viewed as selling and exploiting his body (Wiedemann 1992, 26); through performance and entertainment the gladiator was the common possession of the people (Funari 1993, 143). Thus the location of the gladiatorial tombstones at Nîmes supports the existence of the interment of gladiators within a separate cemetery or a segregated area of a cemetery. The location of this gladiatorial burial ground in proximity to the amphitheatre would have facilitated easy removal of the corpses of the dead gladiators from the city. Polluted by death, penalised by the law and stigmatised by society, the gladiator was contemptible and unworthy of contact in life, or burial in death, with decent and upright citizens.

The gladiatorial monuments

The tombstones of the gladiators are stelae; simple slabs of stone which would have protruded from the ground, indicating the place of interment (Plates 11.3– 4). None of these stelae has any sculptural decoration; the stones are simply shaped with a rounded or semi-circular upper edge. These memorials, in terms of what was available in stone at Nîmes, must have been at the cheaper end of the scale. The simplicity of the execution is emphasised by the quality of the inscription. The characters of the text are of irregular size and the lines are frequently not horizontal (Plates 11.3–4). The memorials give the impression of having been produced hurriedly or created by people inexpert in the production of such items. Nevertheless the similarity in design and execution between the memorials of the gladiators creates a strong sense of group identity which would have been intensified had the memorials been placed together.

Similarities are also apparent in the content of the inscriptions. The epitaph composed to the gladiator Aptus (Plate 11.3) will serve as an illustration.

TR(ex)

APTVS NAT(ione) ALEXSAND(rinus) ANN(orum) XXXVII

OPTATA COIVX sic DE SVO.

(CIL XII. 3329)

The epitaph indicates, by abbreviation, the type of gladiator commemorated;

thraex, myrmillo, retiarius. Aptus was a ‘Thracian’ gladiator which entailed him

fighting with a curved sword and a small shield, The age of the deceased is given in eight of the inscriptions. Aptus lived to the age of thirty-seven, outstripping his colleagues, who were killed at the ages of twenty (ILGN 434), twenty-one (ILGN 433), twenty-five (CIL XII. 3323, 3325, 3327, 3352) and thirty (CIL XII. 3331). The frequency of the occurrence of ages divisible by five suggests uncertainty as to the precise length of life of those involved (Duncan- Jones 1977, 1990). Eight of the epitaphs also give the number of appearances in the arena: these range from three (CIL XII 3332) to thirty-seven (CIL XII 3324); presumably the final combat resulted in death.

The names of the deceased, often single names such as Aptus, Calistus (ILGN 434) or Orpheus (ILGN 435), suggest that most of the gladiators were slaves. Some of these single names may also represent stage or nick names reflecting skills, nationality or qualities associated with heroes and precious items; the name Beryllus (CIL XII. 3327), for example, recalls a precious stone (Luca Gregori 1994, 55–6). A few of the gladiators were former slaves who had obtained their freedom—for example, Beryllus (CIL XII. 3323) was freed after twenty appearances in the arena, although only one (CIL XII. 3324) of the ex-slave gladiators has the tria nomina of a Roman citizen. Four others have the tria,

nomina (CIL XII. 3327, 3328, 3330, 3332) with no indication of former slavery or

free birth; it is unlikely but not impossible that these were freeborn Roman citizens (Hopkins 1983, 23–4; Wiedemann 1992, 106–7; Gardner 1993, 40).

Several of the gladiators have their nationality stated; three were from Gaul (CIL XII. 3325, 3327; ILGN 436), but a Spaniard (CIL XII. 3332), a Greek (CIL XII. 3323) and an Arab (CIL XII. 3324) were also commemorated. Aptus was originally from Alexandria in Egypt. The inclusion of gladiators of foreign extraction in the combats at Nîmes may have added to the excitement of the arena but the mixed nationalities also reflect the potential geographical mobility of an individual gladiator and of gladiatorial troops (Wiedemann 1992, 114).

The commemorators, or those setting up the tombstones, are often identified as friends or the female partners of the gladiators. Aptus, for example, was commemorated by Optata, his coniunx. The sexual attraction of gladiators has often been expounded, with suggestions that they attracted female followers who were the ancient equivalent of pop groupies’ (Ville 1981, 339–2; Hopkins 1983, 22–3; Wiedemann 1992, 20; Gardner 1993, 137–8). The women mentioned