UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Animal spectacula of the Roman Empire Epplett, William Christopher 2002-09-22

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2002-731561.pdf [ 26.03MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0090535.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0090535-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0090535-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0090535-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0090535-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0090535-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0090535-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

ANIMAL SPECTACULA OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE by WILLIAM CHRISTOPHER EPPLETT B.A., McMaster University, 1992 M.A., McMaster University, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies, Ph.D. Classics) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 2001 © William Christopher Epplett, 2001 UBC Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation Form 12/13/01 9:24 AM In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of CLASCAL ,AJ£At EASrF&M Aa)T) fcuG/OVZ <rrUT>l£S The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date &EcmBf.£. (\ 'ZOO I littp:/Avw\v. library, ubc.ca/spcoll/thesauth.html Page 1 of 1 ABSTRACT Although gladiatorial spectacles in ancient Rome have been the subject of a great deal of recent scholarly literature, comparatively little attention has been paid to the contemporary animal spectacles and staged beast-hunts (venationes), the events most closely associated with gladiatorial combat in the imperial period. A number of different works have dealt with such topics as the origins and organization of gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome, but relatively few scholars have attempted to address similar questions concerning the venationes. Only a single monograph in English, written approximately 60 years ago, has been produced on the phenomenon of Roman animal spectacles. The purpose of .this thesis is to give a comprehensive account of Roman venationes and animal displays, incorporating, in certain cases, evidence that has only recently become available or has largely been overlooked by previous scholars. A wide variety of evidence will be used in this study, ranging from literary sources to archaeological data. The paper will trace the historical development of these spectacles, from Republican displays staged in imitation of contemporary Greek events, to the beast-hunts of the Byzantine empire. Another major focus of the thesis will be the infrastructure and organization behind Roman animal spectacles, in particular the methods by which the Romans captured and transported the large numbers of animals necessary for events staged throughout the empire. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iiList of Figures v Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 Greek and Republican Antecedents 6 Late Republican and Imperial Animal Spectacula 27 Animal Enclosures and their Administration 6Performers and Spectacle in the Arena 85 The Capture and Transport of Animals 128 Supply Personnel for Animal Spectacula 162 Principal Venues for Animal Spectacula 191 Appendix A: The End of Animal Spectacula 219 Appendix B: Animal Distribution 224 Appendix C: The Animals of the Spectacula 233 Conclusion 345 Illustrations 9 Bibliography 401 iii LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Tomb of the Augurs 349 Fig. 2. Plan of Ludus Matutinus and Area 350 Fig. 3. Magerius mosaic 35Fig. 4. Rudston mosaic 1 Fig. 5. Vivarium location near Porta Praenestina 352 Fig. 6. Route from Vivarium to Colosseum 353 Fig. 7. Copy of Vivarium wall-painting 35Fig. 8. Copy of Vivarium wall-painting 354 Fig. 9. Copy of Vivarium wall-painting 355 Fig. 10. Praetorian Vivarium 356 Fig. 11. Enclosure near Trier 7 Fig. 12. She-ass mosaic 358 Fig. 13. Zliten mosaic 9 Fig. 14. El Djem mosaic 360 Fig. 15. Le Kef mosaic 1 Fig. 16. Detail of Radez mosaic 36Fig. 17. Carthage mosaic 362 Fig. 18. Diptych of Anastasius 3 Fig. 19. Apri relief 364 Fig. 20. Ephesus reliefFig. 21. Areobindus diptych 365 Fig. 22. Tomb of Ampliatus(?) 6 Fig. 23. Narbonne relief 367 iv Fig. 24. Great Hunt mosaic from Piazza Armerina 368 Fig. 25. Elephant ear from Piazza Armerina 36Fig. 26. 'Water-trap' mosaic from Utica 369 Fig. 27. Carthage-Dermech mosaic 370 Fig. 28. Esquiline mosaic 371 Fig. 29. Mosaic from Hippo Regius 37Fig. 30. Copy of wall-painting from tomb of the Nasonii 372 Fig. 31. Leopard capture from Great Hunt mosaic 373 Fig. 32. Villa Medici sarcophagus 37Fig. 33. Ship cages on Great Hunt mosaic 374 Fig. 34. Althiburos mosaic 375 Eig^S. Enclosure (C) at Cyrene 376 Fig. 36. Mosaic from Square of the Corporations, Ostia 377 Fig. 37. Veii mosaic 378 Fig. 38. Relief from Miletus 379 Fig. 39. Salzburg mithraeum relief 380 Fig. 40. Shield roundel from Roman Britain 381 Fig. 41. Dura-Europos graffito 382 Fig. 42. Glass dish from Cologne 3 Fig. 43. Rhinoceros coin of Domitian 384 Fig. 44. Campanian terracotta plaques 38Fig. 45. Colosseum basement 385 Fig. 46. Basement of Pozzuoli amphitheatre 386 Fig. 47. Plan of Cagliari amphitheatre 387 Fig. 48. Fencing of theatre at Stobi 388 v Fig. 49. Plan of Merida amphitheatre 389 Fig. 50. Tray mold from El Djem 390 Fig. SI. Sabratha mosaic, Ostia 1 Fig. 52. Elephant sarcophagus 392 Fig. S3. Medallion of Gordian III 3 Fig. S4. Elephant papyrus 394 Fig. SS. Lion diptych 5 Fig. 56. Antioch tiger mosaic 396 Fig. S7. Leopard diptych 7 Fig. 58. Venator and bull mosaic 398 Fig. 59. Borghese mosaic 399 Fig. 60. Venatio diptych 400 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor, Dr. A.A. Barrett, for the encouragement, guidance, and sound advice given to me in the writing of this dissertation. I would also like to thank the other members of my supervisory committee, Dr. H. Williams and Dr. H. Edinger, for their advice and encouragement over the past few years. Special thanks should also go to the members of my examining committee, Dr. R. Windsor-Liscombe, Dr. G. Sandy, Dr. P. Vertinsky, and Dr. D. Kyle, for their helpful comments and suggestions. In addition, I would like to thank the members of the Department of Classical, Near Eastern and Religious Studies at U.B.C, and the Department of History at the University of Lethbridge, who have given me advice and assistance in the preparation of this dissertation. Finally, I would also like to thank my family and friends, who have always supported me in my studies. W.C.E. vii 1 Introduction Although staged beast-hunts, or venationes, were one of the most important public entertainments in ancient Rome, comparable in their popularity to both gladiatorial games and chariot-races, such events on the whole have not received the scholarly attention they deserve. Numerous works have been written on 'blood-sports' in Rome, such as, to take a recent example, Wiedemann's Emperors and Gladiators, but almost all of them treat the venationes in a relatively superficial fashion. In particular, previous studies have largely failed to address the infrastructure and organization behind the beast-hunts. The relative neglect of venationes in modern discussions of Roman spectator events is not the only reason to write about the beast-hunts. A number of secondary works have been written on animals and spectacles involving them in the Greco-Roman world, but the majority are relatively dated, such as Keller's Die Antike Tierwelt (1913) and Jennison's Animals for Show and Pleasure in Ancient Rome (1937). While these books still contain much useful information, and are cited throughout the dissertation, important evidence has been discovered since their publication, making a new study of the Roman beast-hunts necessary. In addition, the present work aims to reexamine other evidence largely overlooked by previous scholars. The letters of Libanius and Symmachus, for example, many of which have not yet been translated into English, will be studied for the evidence they provide on the beast-hunts and other related spectacles. It should be pointed out that venationes were not the only form of animal entertainment in ancient Rome. Although the main focus of this dissertation is the beast-hunts, the Romans also staged other events where animals were merely exhibited to spectators or performed tricks for their amusement. As will be seen, wild animals were also often used to kill condemned criminals in the arena. For the purposes of clarity, throughout this work the term venatio will be used for a beast-2 hunt proper, while the events in which animals were not killed will be referred to as 'displays'. The term spectaculum/a will be used for Roman animal events in general, both of the violent and non-violent varieties. The provision of Roman animal spectacula entailed similar problems to those faced by zoos in the modern world: how best to ensure a steady supply of exotic animals to various locales, and keep them healthy after they arrived at their destinations. Although many of the animals involved in the spectacula were slaughtered relatively soon after their capture, others involved in displays would have to be looked after for an extended period of time. While ancient evidence for the Roman animal-trade is not abundant, enough does exist to give a coherent sense of the arrangements made both to procure and maintain thousands of captive animals throughout the empire. The primary objective of this dissertation is to give a detailed outline of the historical development of the Roman spectacula, much as different authors have done for the Roman gladiatorial games. Various topics, ranging from the types of performers employed in such events, to the structural modifications undertaken in different venues to allow animal displays and venationes, will be discussed in the course of this work. Special attention will be paid to the infrastructure behind these spectacula: as will be seen, a large number of both soldiers and civilians throughout the empire ensured that such events could go ahead smoothly in Rome and elsewhere. In terms of general organization, the first major subject to be addressed in this dissertation will be the historical development of animal spectacula in Rome, in order to provide a chronological framework for subsequent discussion. The next general topic to be looked at will be the organization and personnel necessary for the staging of these events in Rome and other centres, including animal-enclosures and performers in the arena. The focus then shifts to how the animals were captured on the frontiers and safely shipped to their ultimate destinations, as well as how various 3 venues were altered to make them safe for events involving animals. The appendices in the dissertation deal with such topics as the end of animal spectacula, their effect upon animal populations in antiquity, and the individual species employed by the Romans for their enjoyment. The first section of the dissertation, Greek and Republican Antecedents, looks at the various Greek and early Republican animal spectacles which may have acted as precedents for the elaborate events of the late Republic and imperial period. In addition, native Italian traditions which may have contributed to later Roman exotic animal spectacula, such as the wild animal combats of the Samnites and the animal-enclosures (vivaria) of Republican aristocrats, are also examined. In the second section, Late Republican and Imperial Animal Spectacula, a study is made of the various animal events of the late Republican period, such as those staged by Pompey and Caesar. Particular attention is paid to Cicero's correspondence concerning the planned venatio of the aedile Caelius, a spectacle which in particular sheds some light upon the methods used by the Romans to obtain exotic animals during this period. An examination is then made of the various animal events staged during the imperial period, and the changes to the organization and infrastructure of animal spectacula made by such emperors as Augustus and Domitian. The letters of Symmachus and Libanius are studied in detail to provide information about the staging of these events by Roman officials under the empire. Various features of the animal spectacula put on by wealthy citizens are also examined, including corporations such as the Telegenii who provided the hunters and beasts. Finally, the specialized individuals, such as doctors, are also discussed. The third section of the dissertation, Animal Enclosures and their Administration, looks at the different types of animal-enclosures which existed during the imperial period, as well as the various individuals entrusted with their upkeep. The animal-pens specifically used for the maintenance of animals employed in Roman spectacula, such as those in Laurentum and Rome itself, are first of all 4 examined, while the care and training of animals in these facilities are also discussed. The evidence for private enclosures, such as those belonging to various emperors, is also investigated. In the fourth section, Performers and Spectacle in the Arena, an examination is made of the various types of spectacles involving animals in the Roman world. The various performers involved are also discussed in detail, including such aspects as their equipment and social status. The fifth section, The Capture and Transport of Animals, looks at the means by which animals were obtained for Roman spectacula, including those which were given as gifts to the Romans by foreign monarchs. The methods used to capture and transport beasts are also examined in detail, including those depicted on the famous 'Great Hunt' mosaic from Piazza Armerina. In the sixth section, Supply Personnel for Animal Spectacula, the individuals who captured animals throughout the empire for the Roman spectacula are discussed, both civilians and soldiers. The seventh section, Principal Venues for Animal Spectacula. examines the various structures in which animal spectacula were staged throughout the empire. These buildings ranged from large amphitheatres like the Colosseum to theatres and stadia in the eastern empire, which were specially adapted for animal events. This section also examines various props, such as artificial trees, as well as the structural modifications made to different venues to allow for marine events involving animals. In the eighth section, The End of Animal Spectacula. the reason for the eventual disappearance of these events is discussed. Roman animal spectacula, unlike gladiatorial combats, do not appear to have been adversely affected by the conversion of the empire to Christianity. Problems of supply were evidently the main cause for their disappearance. The ninth section, Animal Distribution, discusses the ancient populations and ranges of the various exotic animals which the Romans imported for their spectacula. It is argued that the effect of this widespread animal capture alone on certain species has sometimes been exaggerated by modern scholars. While the death 5 of thousands of animals in the venationes did of course negatively affect various animal- populations, particularly in North Africa, other factors, such as the clearance of previous wilderness for agricultural use, were just as much or more damaging in this regard. Finally, the last section of the dissertation, The Animals of the Spectacula, examines the individual animal species that are known to have participated in Roman animal spectacula, from elephants to hares. The ancient range of these creatures, as well as the specific methods used in capturing them, are among the topics of discussion. The appearances of each of these animals in Roman displays and venationes are also examined in detail. Many of the conclusions reached in this dissertation are conjectural, rather than being statements of fact. This is largely because of the nature of the evidence for ancient venationes and animal displays. As will later be discussed in more detail, many ancient authors, apart from recording the staging of these events, were otherwise not interested in noting other pertinent details, such as the infrastructure behind the capture and transport of the necessary animals. Problems also exist with the archaeological evidence relating to Roman spectacula. Apart from mosaic and wall-paintings, most other evidence of this type (including the animals themselves) is of a more 'perishable' nature. Apart from possible post-hole marks in the soil, for example, nothing remains of wooden animal-enclosures from the ancient world. 6 Greek and Republican Antecedents In this section we shall examine the precedents for the venationes and animal displays of imperial Rome. As we shall see, two contemporary but different traditions, both of which were important antecedents for later animal spectacula, existed simultaneously in Republican Rome. The Greek practice of periodically exhibiting wild animals in public strongly influenced the development of such displays in Rome. The emergence of venationes in the Republican period, however, owed little to Greek influence. The native Italian tradition of hunting wild animals, as well as contemporary gladiatorial spectacles, were evidently far more important factors in the development of beast-hunts. Greek Animal Spectacles: Animal exhibitions and processions are known to have occurred in Greece as early as the fourth century BC. Isocrates, commenting upon the spectacles of trained lions and bears in Athens, states that such festivals occurred every year (...<a9'' £<aoTov TOV eviauTov...).1 He thereby implies that such events had been occurring for some time in Athens, but unfortunately does not specify whether they occurred on a set date each year, or merely occurred whenever animal-trainers passed through the city. One of the most famous, and perhaps influential, Greek animal spectacles was Ptolemy IPs elaborate zoological procession staged in Alexandria in 275/74 BC.2 Some idea of this procession's size can be gleaned from the fact that it is said to have taken an entire day to pass through the stadium of Alexandria.3 The hundreds of animals participating in the procession included Indian elephants, antelopes, lions, leopards, cheetahs, camels, ostriches, a rhinoceros, a bear, and a giraffe.4 7 The majority of Greek animal events, like that of Ptolemy II, appear to have been non-violent, but there were exceptions. One was the particular type of bull fighting practiced in Thessaly (see page 273). This spectacle, however, does not appear to have contributed to the violence of Roman venationes. Thessalian bull fighting was introduced to Rome by Julius Caesar, long after Roman animal spectacula had become violent on their own.5 Many Greek animal-displays appear to have occurred as part of religious festivals, such as a procession of wild animals dedicated to Artemis which Theocritus alludes to, and they, like their secular counterparts, usually did not include the slaughter of the animals involved.6 One apparent exception is the festival of Artemis at Patrae which Pausanias witnessed in the second century AD, featuring a priestess riding in a chariot drawn by stags, as well as the grisly burning alive of a number of wild animals.7 As Jennison notes, however, the animal slaughter included in this festival may well have come about because of the influence of the Roman venationes: this appears especially likely in a city like Patrae, which had been made a Roman colony by Augustus, and which included a large number of ethnic Italians in its population.8 Although Burkert quite rightly points out that religious 'fire rituals' were not unheard of even in the archaic Greek world, the number and variety of animals consigned to flames in Patrae were apparently exceptional, again suggesting possible Roman influence: Pausanias goes so far as to call the festival in Patrae an ETTixcopioc; Buoiac;.^ It has been suggested that, like gladiatorial combats, the early animal-displays of ancient Rome may have included a religious component, perhaps imported from Greece. Loisel speculates that the lions, bears, and leopards belonging to followers of Cybele and Isis in Italy may have been influential in the development of Roman spectacles. Since neither of these cults was formally established in Rome before 204 BC, however, some time after the first recorded animal-displays in the city, it is questionable how much direct influence they really had.10 8 Early Roman Animal Spectacula: The earlier Roman animal spectacula, like the majority of their counterparts in Greece and the Hellenistic world, appear to have concentrated more on animal exhibition than on slaughter. The spread of non-violent animal shows from the1 eastern Mediterranean to the west was no doubt facilitated by a corresponding movement of entertainers; many Greek animal showmen, as depicted in a number of Roman paintings and sculptures, may have begun to appear at an early date in Italy as Roman contact with the eastern Mediterranean intensified in the Republican period.11 The earliest recorded displays of wild animals in Rome took place in 275 and 250 BC, when elephants captured from Pyrrhus in Italy and the Carthaginians in Sicily were exhibited respectively by Manius Curius Dentatus and Lucius Metellus.12 In the late third century BC Plautus refers to ostriches in the circus (...vola curriculo istuc marinus passer per circum solet...) and mures Africanos (see below) being led in procession, the latter suggesting that the killing of exotic animals in venationes evidently had not yet become more popular than mere public display.13 This impression appears to be borne out by the fact that the first recorded venatio in Rome only occurred in 186 BC (see page 17): in addition, Pliny records that the first combats involving multiple lions and elephants took place in 104 and 99 BC respectively, a full century after Plautus.14 Prior to the development of a keen Roman interest in the large-scale slaughter of exotic animals, apparently at sometime in the second century BC, their killing at various spectacula was evidently limited in scale. A spectaculum staged by Nasica and Lentulus, the curule aediles of 169 BC, in the Circus Maximus does not appear to have resulted in the slaughter of the animals involved.15 Livy records that 63 Africanae, 40 bears, and an unspecified number of elephants were involved in this particular display. No mention is made of these animals being killed, only that they participated (lusisse) in the spectacle. The use of 9 this verb indeed suggests that the event was non-violent in nature. Further support for this view comes from the passage of Pliny just cited, which explicitly dates the first elephant combat in Rome to some 70 years after Nasica and Lentulus' spectaculum. Although we can determine the general nature of early Roman animal spectacula, it is quite often difficult to identify what animals participated in such events. A much-disputed passage of Plautus is relevant here: namely, it is unclear what animals the playwright is referring to in the Peonulus.16 The remark in question is a jest made by one of the characters that a certain Carthaginian wants to sell mures Africanos to the aediles in Rome for the procession at one of their games (...non audis? mures Africanos praedicat in pompam ludis dare se velle aedilibus...). Some scholars have suggested that the use of mures Africanos in this passage is a periphrasis for leopards, animals that were frequent participants in Republican spectacula. Jennison, however, prefers to see the term as a joking reference to all of the different species of African animals obtained by the Roman aediles for their spectacles. Presumably Plautus would not have made such a joke if the importation of these animals was something with which his audience was unfamiliar.17 Africanae bestiae are referred to in several Roman documents, but it is not always clear what specific animals are meant by this term. Livy's use of the phrase in describing the spectaculum of 169 BC appears to denote lions, leopards, and possibly other large felines, as does Augustus' use of it in his Res Gestae.18 No extant Roman inscription records the presence of Africanae bestiae and lions at the same show, which suggests that the former term could include the latter animal. Pliny, however, discusses the senatorial ban on Africanae bestiae in the middle of his section describing panthera, possibly suggesting that the phrase could be used in reference to leopards alone. A further complication in the use of the adjective 'African' results from the probability that on some occasions, animals actually imported from Asia Minor, but also native to North Africa, may have been described 10 as Africanae in advertisements of upcoming spectacula because of the reputation for fierce animals which the continent enjoyed amongst many Romans.19 Roman Vivaria and Animal Enclosures: Displays of animals, like the processions of captured elephants staged by Dentatus and Metellus, were not the only opportunity contemporary Romans had to view exotic creatures. Many wealthy Romans of the Republic possessed animal enclosures, or vivaria, on the grounds of their estates, stocked with wild beasts from Africa and other regions.20 The enclosures of Hortensius and Lucullus, for instance, were both famous in the late Republican period.21 Animal preserves of some kind were to be found in Rome from at least the mid-second century BC onwards: a speech of Scipio Aemilianus quoted by Aulus Gellius refers to a roborarium, an enclosure which evidently took its name from the oak panels used to enclose it.22 Such venues, used for occasional hunting as well as breeding of livestock, were instrumental in inculcating many wealthy Romans with the same love of hunting as that possessed by aristocratic Greeks.23 To judge from a passage of Varro, writing in the first century BC, the transition of the small traditional Roman hare-enclosures (leporaria) to large vivaria containing such animals as deer and wild goats only took place on a large scale at a date near the author's own lifetime, most likely reflecting the increased supply of wild animals reaching Rome in the late Republic.24 According to Pliny, the first Roman aristocrat to establish a vivarium of the larger type was Quintus Fulvius Lippinus, otherwise known as an accomplished snail-breeder: the 40 iugera vivarium he set up in Tarquinii shortly before 50 BC contained such animals as stags, boars, wild sheep, and roes. Lippinus' vivarium served as a precedent for the enclosures of other Roman nobles, such as the 50 iugera therotrophium of Hortensius in Laurentum.25 The chronological development of these vivaria would be consistent 11 with the series of Roman conquests in the late Republic: the successful outcome of the Punic Wars gave Rome access to a large number of African animals, while the subsequent expansion of Roman power in the first century BC into areas such as Gaul and Asia Minor no doubt greatly multiplied the number and variety of exotic animals available for Roman aristocrats to stock their vivaria with. Some of the animals on the estate of Marcus Pupius Piso, for example, may have been aquired through contacts he acquired while serving under Pompey in the latter's eastern campaigns.26 Republican vivaria in Gaul and other provinces were evidently substantially larger than their counterparts in Italy, perhaps reflecting in part the greater variety and number of wild animals to be found in or closer to those regions.27 Columella, in describing the fencing used for vivaria, states that in Gaul and other provinces such enclosures could be built on a much larger scale than in Italy because of the locorum vastitas north of the Alps.28 Varro records a contemporary animal-enclosure in Transalpine Gaul of approximately 36 square kilometres in size, which he considered to be much larger than any such structure to be found in Italy.29 Although direct evidence is lacking, Roman vivaria may have partially drawn their historical inspiration from Hellenistic animal-enclosures, in particular that possessed by Ptolemy II (283-46 BC) in Alexandria, which appears to have continued in use for centuries after his death.30 According to Jennison, an enclosure of approximately 100 acres would have initially been required to house the vast assortment of animals employed in Ptolemy's famous procession.31 This enclosure, or at least part of it, may have continued in use for the faunal collections of later Ptolemies, although the evidence for this is scanty at best. Athenaeus, drawing upon a description made in the second century BC of Ptolemy VII's royal palace in Alexandria, records the presence there of Median pheasants, some of which were actually bred in Egypt.32 Strabo, drawing upon the late second century BC 12 geographer Artemidorus' description of a rhinoceros, states that the latter saw one of these animals in Alexandria, presumably in some sort of state-owned vivarium. To judge from Artemidorus' description of the animal, it was an 'exotic' one-horned Indian rhinoceros rather than a two-horned African one he saw.33 In addition, the giraffe exhibited by Julius Caesar in Rome in 46 BC, as well as the rhinoceros and hippopotamus killed in Augustus' Roman spectacle of 29 BC, may have been taken as war booty from Alexandria.34 If such a vivarium did continue in existence until the Roman takeover of Egypt, it may well have continued in use under Augustus and subsequent emperors for the many animals imported from Ethiopia for spectacles in Rome and elsewhere. Philo records the presence of lions, bears, and leopards, as well as their handlers, in first century AD Alexandria, while Galen comments that elephants, presumably for use in various spectacles, were a common sight there a century later. Jennison speculates that the animal-trainers of that city would have found ready employment throughout the empire in various venationes.35 Other Hellenistic enclosures, such as those possessed by the Antigonid kings of Macedonia (until 168 BC), may have also served as prototypes for early Roman vivaria.ib A more contemporary inspiration for the Roman animal-pens of the first century BC may have been the animal-enclosure with attached hunting-grounds established in Pontus by Mithridates VI (120-63 BC), as well as the famous Syrian temple in Hieropolis with its own vivarium and collection of wild animals.37 In any case, the Latinized Greek terms (for example therotrophium) used by authors such as Varro to denote such structures strongly hint at the possibility that early Roman vivaria drew their inspiration from the Greek east.38 Apart from their use as hunting-preserves, private Roman enclosures could also be used to stage privately sponsored animal-displays similar to contemporary public exhibitions. In an incident recounted by both Varro and Pliny, Quintus Hortensius' therotrophium was the site of an elaborate (and non-fatal) reenactment 13 of the myth of Orpheus, complete with many different types of animals. According to Varro this display differed from the contemporary venationes of the aediles only in the absence of African animals.39 Private mythological reenactments like that staged by Hortensius may well have been one of the models for the far more bloody mythological reenactments staged during the spectacula of the imperial period. Apart from the vivaria maintained by wealthy Romans for their personal pleasure, the relatively small number of animals used in early venationes and displays were likely kept beforehand in state or privately-owned enclosures in Italy, like the one from which Caesar had a number of elephants sent to Africa just before the battle of Thapsus in 46 BC.40 The elephant which Caesar is said to have earlier brought with him to Britain would have also likely come from such an enclosure. Perhaps the strongest argument for the existence of such a structure involves the forty elephants carrying torches which escorted Caesar to the Capitol on the last day of his triumph in 46 BC: as Jennison states, training elephants to perform such a trick would take a great deal of time, which means that these elephants could not have been those which Caesar captured at Thapsus some six months earlier in the year.41 Some evidence also exists for late Republican commercial enclosures in the northern provinces. Columella, writing in the mid-first century AD, notes that animal-enclosures intended for profit, as opposed to sport, need forest and a natural or artificial water supply to keep the captive animals fed. In this passage Columella seems to be referring to the animal-pens of Gaul and other provinces, since he implies that animals in Italian enclosures were, on the contrary, fed by their keepers.42 Although Columella is writing in the early imperial period, he nowhere suggests that these structures outside of Italy were a recent innovation: presumably those in Gaul were set up soon after Caesar's conquest of the region.43 14 Roman Hunting and the Development of the Venationes: The aim of this section is to examine the possible antecedents for the venationes of ancient Rome, events in which the participating beasts were hunted and slaughtered in the arena, rather than merely being exhibited to the public. Although, as we have just seen, the development of vivaria and animal displays in the Roman provinces seems to be at least partially based upon Greek precedents, Roman hunting practices initially evolved independently of such influence. Like most ancient peoples, the Romans appear to have been active hunters, in addition to their agricultural pursuits. Wildlife like boar and deer are known to have been hunted in the region of Rome before the development of the city. The fact that Diana, goddess of the hunt, predated the development of the Roman state in Latium also suggests that hunting was a common activity in the area from an early date.44 Hunting, however, does not appear to have been an especially esteemed activity amongst the Romans. The Roman aristocracy, unlike that of the Greeks, had no real tradition of hunting as a 'social pastime' until it became involved with the Hellenistic states. Such an activity was at variance with the strong Roman agricultural tradition: while the Greeks praised the hunting prowess of such notables as Alexander the Great, the Roman hero (and farmer) Cincinnatus was praised for returning to his plough after his exploits.45 The earliest Roman aristocrat credited with a strong interest in hunting was Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of Macedon, and his son Scipio Aemilianus in the second century BC.46 Plutarch records that Aemilius Paullus took pains to educate his sons in all the Greek arts, including hunting, and that the latter art in fact could be taught only by Greeks at that time (...SiSaoKaXoi Gqpac "EXXrivsc rpav...).47 The expansion of Roman power during this period into areas with rich hunting grounds like Spain, or areas with strong traditions of hunting animals like leopards and lions, as in the Near East, may well have also provoked Roman interest in hunting and/or exotic animals foreign to Italy.48 Roman 15 authors such as Varro and Sallust, however, ridiculed the hunting practiced by Hellenized Roman aristocrats, Sallust going so far as to call such activity a ...servile officium.49 Hunting, both for private and 'public' purposes, was virtually unrestricted throughout the Roman world, except for injunctions against hunting in sacred areas and on religious holidays. Only in the later empire did restrictions on hunting emerge. An imperial edict of 414 AD allowed Roman subjects to kill lions threatening their property without fear of prosecution, thereby implying that hunting of lions at this time (eg for the venationes) was normally limited to imperial officials.50 As in the case of hunting, a native tradition of men fighting animals existed in Italy from an early date. A famous scene from the Tomb of the Augurs at Tarquinia, dating from the late sixth century BC, depicts a hooded man in combat with an animal (Fig. 1). This is commonly identified as a dog, but as Futrell points out, the long, wide tail of the animal, as well as the firm grip of its claws upon its opponent's leg, suggests that it may in fact be some sort of large feline rather than a canine. If this identification is correct, it therefore raises the possibility that the Etruscans were capturing and perhaps importing animals for their own violent entertainment long before the Romans did so.51 A number of other Etruscan tombs, such as the Tomb of the Leopards, depict various exotic animals, which may also suggest that some sort of wild animal trade existed in Italy even at such an early date. Unfortunately, the evidence of such scenes cannot be pressed too far: they may in certain cases reflect Greek artistic influence rather than native Etruscan culture.52 Evidence from a now-destroyed Oscan tomb-painting in Allifae, however, also suggests that venationes of some sort, perhaps as a funerary ritual, were staged from at least the end of the fourth century BC onwards in Italy. The painting in question depicted a combat between an unspecified number of men and a single lion.53 Evidently the Samnites were importing such exotic animals even at such a relatively early date.54 16 Apart from possible Etruscan and Samnite antecedents, other scholars have connected the venationes to archaic Roman religious rituals involving the slaughter of animals: in the Ludi Cereales foxes were set alight in the Circus Maximus, while the Ludi Florales featured the hunting of hares and roe deer in the same venue.55 As Kyle states, these events may have helped habituate the Romans to venationes, but it is questionable how much direct influence they had upon the development of arena spectacula involving the slaughter of hundreds of wild (and much more dangerous) animals. Cassiodorus, writing in the sixth century, postulates another religious origin for the venationes. According to him, such events found their origin in the cult of Diana in Scythia, and travelled from there, via Athens, to Rome: Such a show, ennobled by its building, but most base in its performance, was invented in honour of the goddess Scythian Diana, who rejoiced in the spilling of blood. O the error, the wretched deceit, to desire to worship her who was placated by human death! The prayers of countrymen, made in woods and groves, and dedicated to hunting, first, and by a lying fantasy, formed this three-fold goddess: they asserted that she was the Moon in heaven, the Mistress [Diana] in the woods, Proserpine among the shades...This cruel game, this bloody pleasure, this - so to speak - human bestiality was first introduced into their civic cult by the Athenians. Divine justice allowed it, so that the invention of a false religion's vanity might be degraded by a public show.56 If there is any accuracy in Cassiodorus' account, the linking of Diana Scythica with the goddess of the underworld Proserpina suggests that, like gladiatorial combat, 'ritual' venationes may have originally had the purpose of appeasing the latter goddess with blood and death, in this case the blood of animals sacred to her counterpart Diana. Although the date at which this Scythian cult of Diana was established is unclear, it was evidently an ancient one: Strabo blames the influence of this same 'barbaric' cult for the institution of the rex nemorensis at the temple of Diana in Aricia, itself an ancient cult of the goddess in Italy.57 A far more questionable detail of Cassiodorus' explanation of the venationes is his assertion that such public events were first staged by the Athenians. The institution of venationes in Athens earlier than those in Republican Italy is not 17 indicated by any other evidence, artistic or literary. Perhaps Cassiodorus is merely thinking of the early exhibitions of trained animals in Athens mentioned by Isocrates (see page 6). The venationes were evidently attributed to the Athenians by Cassiodorus merely as a conjecture, since the Romans in so many other areas did copy, or at least draw inspiration from, the Greeks, and from the Athenians in particular. Apart from possible Greek and Etruscan antecedents, a more immediate factor in the development of the earliest venationes may have been Roman territorial expansion in the mid-Republic. Lafaye contends that the Romans may have first thought of staging public hunts, rather than mere displays of exotic animals, after the Second Punic War; as a result of Scipio Africanus' campaigns in North Africa they became familiar with the hunting of animals native to that region, and also obtained a potential source of supply for these animals destined for games in Rome and elsewhere.58 Perhaps more importantly, the increased supply of animals brought about by successful warfare overseas allowed the Romans to kill large numbers in the venationes without having to worry unduly about obtaining more for subsequent events. The earliest recorded venatio in Rome, in fact, occurred shortly after successful campaigns against the Carthaginians and Seleucids had expanded Roman influence into North Africa and Asia Minor. This spectacle, a combat involving lions and leopards, was put on by Fulvius Nobilior in 186 BC to celebrate his Aetolian triumph.59 Nobilior's spectacle indeed appears to have been the very first venatio, as opposed to animal display, staged in the city, or at least the first such event involving lions and leopards. Livy, in describing Nobilior's games, states: Athletarum quoque certamen turn primo Romanis spectaculo fuit et venatio data leonum et panther arum... Although primo certainly refers to the fight between the athletes, it may also be connected grammatically with the venatio in question, as at least one commentator on Livy has suggested.60 The money spent on procuring lions and 18 leopards evidently made Nobilior's presentation one of the most expensive yet staged in Rome: only seven years after the event, the Senate decreed that no one was to spend more on games than Nobilior had.61 Although the animals at Nobilior's venatio theoretically could have come from either Africa or Asia Minor, Africa is perhaps more likely, given the Romans' much longer involvement in North Africa. Another important piece of evidence pertaining to the origin of Nobilior's animals is the short-lived senatorial ban between 186 and 170 BC on the importation of African felines, which was overturned in the latter year by the tribune Gaius Aufidius.62 The original ban on African animals may have been brought about by the Senate's uneasiness at one of its members like Nobilior blatantly promoting himself amongst the masses by such a novel spectacle. It is not impossible, however, that at least some of Nobilior's animals may have come from Asia Minor. Since Livy, in describing Nobilior's spectacle, nowhere describes the animals as African, Jennison suggests that Nobilior may have arranged for his animals to be shipped to Rome from the east while he was still in Aetolia.63 The popularity of venationes in the early second century BC, apart from the two senatorial decrees just mentioned, is also indicated by the building of iron cages for animals in the Circus Maximus by the censors of 174 BC.64 Evidently, many non-African animals were also being used in the Roman beast-hunts of the period, since the construction-work carried out in 174 BC suggests that venationes continued unabated during the period of the senatorial ban. The popularity of these events, even at such an early date, may also perhaps be measured by the fact that a tribune, traditionally the people's champion, was responsible for rescinding the ban. The contemporary poet Terence, echoed by Horace at a later date, indeed complained that the gladiatorial and venatorial munera were becoming more popular in Rome than conventional theatre.65 19 Very little information is preserved about the games, including animals, that Aemilius Paullus sponsored in 168 BC to celebrate his victory over Macedonia, but they may well have achieved new levels of violence.66 Paullus, as part of his programme, is said to have condemned deserters to beasts, including elephants, the first recorded Roman to do so.67 Polybius explicitly states that the spectacle in 166 BC staged by Antiochus IV (175-C.164 BC) in Daphne was done in an attempt to surpass that of Paullus. Since Antiochus' event included a venatio as well as gladiatorial combat, one can perhaps assume that Paullus' did as well.68 Subsequent venationes featured new types of animal combat. In 104 BC the aediles Scaevola and Crassus staged the first fight of multiple lions in Rome, while the first combat involving elephants in Rome was given only a few years later, in 99 BC, by the aedile Gaius Claudius Pulcher. Sulla, in 93 BC, was the first Roman to stage a combat of maned lions, a gift given to him by King Bocchus of Mauretania (C.105-C.81 BC). Seneca comments that this spectacle was the first occasion on which exhibited lions were not actually chained together, perhaps an indication of the Romans' increasing confidence in handling these animals.69 In 78 BC, possibly the first fight between elephants and bulls was staged by the aediles Lucius and Marcus Lucullus. In 61 BC the aedile Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus included 100 Numidian bears, as well as 100 venatores, in his spectacle. Three years later the aedile Marcus Scaurus displayed a hippopotamus, 5 crocodiles, and 150 leopards: the latter animals probably came from Syria, where Scaurus had served from 65 to 59 BC. In 55 BC Pompey put on a venatio involving approximately 20 elephants, 410 leopards, 500 or 600 lions, and a number of other animals including apes and a rhinoceros. Julius Caesar included 400 lions, Thessalian bulls, elephants, and a giraffe for the first time in the games staged to celebrate his quadruple triumph of 46 BC.70 Although the ancient accounts of Caesar's spectacle do not agree in specifics, a combat was evidently staged in the Circus Maximus involving forty elephants, at least 20 500 infantry, and a number of cavalry.71 None of these sources specifies how many, if any, of the elephants were killed in this event, but it is unlikely to have been a large number: at least some of these forty elephants were likely part of the force of war-elephants which defected from Antony to Octavian in 44 BC.72 It is highly unlikely that Caesar, having seen the outrage Pompey's slaughter of elephants had provoked amongst the Roman populace a few years earlier, would risk similar anger against himself by allowing the destruction of the elephants used in his spectacle. The rising popularity of bloody gladiatorial combat in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC was likely an important factor in the gradual introduction of bloodshed into what had originally been mere processions of exotic animals.73 Kyle has argued that the original impetus for large and violent gladiatorial games may have been the Roman defeat at Cannae in 216 BC, after which the 'insecure' Romans needed to see their enemies, as represented by gladiators, slaughtered on a previously unmatched scale.74 Contemporary animal displays likely appeared tame by comparison, which may have prompted the organizers of such events to increase their violent content as well. A final factor in the rising bloodshed of the venationes may have been the demographic shift to urbanism in Italy after the Second Punic War; city-dwellers who no longer hunted in the wild may have found the staged hunts in Rome particularly entertaining.75 As Roman power and influence expanded in the Republican period throughout the Mediterranean, the popularity of beast-hunts quickly spread among foreign nations and peoples as well. The spectacle staged by Antiochus IV in Antioch suggests the popularity of venationes amongst non-Romans even as early as the second century BC. The event included Greek elements like the no|jnn of soldiers and elephants, but Polybius states that it also included thirty days of gladiatorial games and beast-hunts. Although the immediate inspiration for these games may well have been the venationes staged by the Romans in 169 and 168 BC, Antiochus was also undoubtedly influenced by the time he had earlier spent as a hostage in Rome, where 21 he would have witnessed a number of gladiatorial games and animal spectacula. Interestingly enough, Antiochus evidently considered that the venationes, and for that matter the gladiators, would also be popular amongst his Greek subjects: indeed, the Greek historian Polybius, while censuring other aspects of Antiochus' spectacle, merely notes the gladiatorial combat and venationes without any associated criticism.76 Animal Spectacula as Propaganda: At many late Republican spectacula the particular animals at a given event were chosen to advertise the expansion of Roman influence into, or outright control of, a particular region, normally under the auspices of the very magistrate giving the show. Such a tendency in 'animal selection' can also be witnessed in the spectacula staged by subsequent emperors. An early example of this practice was the show put on by Scaurus in 58 BC, at a time when Rome was increasingly becoming involved in the politics of Ptolemaic Egypt: the featured participants were five crocodiles and the first ever hippopotamus seen in Rome. Shortly thereafter, in 55 BC, Pompey exhibited the first Ethiopian apes and the first rhinoceros seen in Rome, in order to advertise his influence in Africa and the East. The Gallic lynx seen in Rome for the first time at this same spectacle may well have been provided by his ally Caesar to advertise his own achievements in a different theatre of war: in 46 BC Caesar exhibited a giraffe at his triumph as a mark of his own successes in Egypt.77 Sometimes particular events could be staged to serve these same propaganda purposes: Thessalian bull-fighting was introduced to Rome as part of Caesar's spectaculum in 46 BC.78 As Jennison notes, this undoubtedly had something to do with the fact that Caesar's decisive victory over Pompey had occurred at Pharsalus in Thessaly only a few years earlier. The Thessalians had perhaps sent their bull fighters to Rome out of gratitude for the privileges Caesar had granted them after the 22 battle, but it appears more likely that Caesar had requisitioned these specialists for his triumphal games in Rome to remind the Roman populace of his exploits in that region.79 The Organization of Republican Animal Spectacula: While most of the specific animal spectacula just discussed were all staged on special occasions by triumphant Roman generals, Plautus' Poenulus confirms that aediles in Rome were also given responsibility for such events from as early as the 3rd century BC, a practice maintained in the last century of the Republic. Apart from the exceptional venationes of individuals like Pompey and Caesar, other such spectacula were normally staged by either the curule aediles or, on occasion, the urban praetor. Spectacula were incorporated into games such as the ludi Romani, which were already organized by these officials, although they were only staged after the 'sacred' portion of such ludi had been completed. Although the aediles were provided with money from the aerarium for these events, they could, and quite often did, supplement this fund with their own wealth, in order to gain the personal popularity accruing from a large-scale venatio or animal display.80 Unfortunately, not much information survives concerning the organization of Republican animal spectacula: the majority of evidence comes from inscriptions detailing the careers of later imperial officials involved with these games in varying capacities. The venationes and displays of the later Republic appear to have been relatively 'impromptu' affairs, with little of the infrastructure behind the subsequent imperial spectacula. Although Italian merchants in Africa may have occasionally shipped exotic animals back to Rome as early as the period of the Jugurthine war, the wildlife exhibited by Republican magistrates was evidently supplied predominantly by their powerful 'contacts' overseas as need required, rather than by any established and regular exporters of animals. King Massinissa of 23 Numidia (203-148 BC) may have supplied many of the animals used in early Roman spectacula, while Sulla was later supplied with 100 lions for his venatio in Rome by his ally King Bocchus of Mauretania (c.l05-c.81 BC).81 As we have seen, Republican spectacula subsequent to that of Nobilior came to involve more and more animals of different types, in more and more violent events, culminating in the elaborate events put on by Caesar and Pompey. It should be noted, however, that at least some of the spectacula of the late Republic do appear to have included only easily-obtainable animals native to Italy, alongside those featuring far more exotic beasts. In a passage written in about 36 BC, Varro compares the variety of native Italian animals in a private vivarium to the variety of animals to be seen in aediles' venationes staged without African animals, thereby implying that such events were not at all uncommon (see page 12).82 Notes: 1 Isocrates, Antidosis, 213. 2 Jennison (1937) 3: for the date of this procession, see Coleman (1996) 49-50. Although it is unclear how many Romans personally witnessed Ptolemy's spectacle, they regardless would have been in a position to collect information about it soon afterwards. In 273, the Romans sent an embassy to Ptolemy, and the latter may have sent his own ambassadors to Rome as early as that year: see Green (1990) 177, 370. 3 Jennison (1937) 30. 4 For a detailed discussion of this procession see Jennison (1937) 30-35. 5 For the introduction of Thessalian bull-fighting in Rome, see Pliny, NH, 8, 70. 6 Theocritus 2, 66-68: Jennison (1937) 24. 7 Pausanias 7, 18, 7-13. 8 Jennison (1937) 25-26. 9 Burkert (1985) 62-63. 10 Loisel (1912) 65, 91: For the tamed lions employed by priests of Cybele, see St. Augustine, Civitas Dei, 7, 24. 11 Loisel (1912) 90-91. 12 Pliny, NH, 8, 6: Seneca, De Brevitate Vitae, 13, 3: Pearson (1973) 118: Toynbee (1996) 34. Although Coleman (1996) [51-52] plausibly suggests that in general Roman triumphal processions of captured animals may well have been inspired by Ptolemy II's animal procession in Alexandria representing Dionysus' Indian triumph, this was likely not so in the case of Dentatus' triumph. As stated previously, Ptolemy's procession, at the earliest, took place in the winter of 275, which means that word of it could not possibly have reached Rome prior to Dentatus' spectacle. Word of Ptolemy's preparations for his procession, however, which undoubtedly began long before the actual event, may well have reached Rome even prior to 275, and perhaps thereby played some role in inspiring Dentatus' exhibition. 24 13 Plautus, Persa 189-99; Poenulus 1011-12: Bertrandy (1987) 211-212. For the derivation of the ostrich's name in Latin or Greek from the word for sparrow, see Toynbee (1996) 237-38. 14 Pliny, NH, 8, 7; 20. 15 Livy 44, 18, 8. 16 Poenulus, 1011-12. 17 Jennison (1937) 45: Epidicus, variously dated to 196 or 190 B.C., also mentions pantherinum genus in his work: see Aymard (1951) 75, n. 5. 18 Livy 44, 18, 8: Res Gestae 22: Jennison (1937) 45. 19 Pliny, NH, 8, 24: Jennison (1937) 46. 20 Such enclosures, commonly known as vivaria, varying widely in size, basically consisted of a fenced-in area of parkland or forest containing various wild animals, which could be used by the owner for hunting and/or breeding purposes. 21 Varro, De Re Rustica 3, 3: Pliny, NH, 8, 78: Bertrandy (1987) 213: Orth (1914) 562-63. 22 Aulus Gellius, Atticae Noctes, 2, 20: Jennison (1937) 133-34. 23 Aymard (1951) 71-73. These vivaria should be distinguished from the animal-enclosures maintained by the imperial Roman army, which were primarily designed as 'holding areas' for exotic animals before they were shipped off to their ultimate destination. 24 Varro, De Re Rustica, 3, 12: Jennison (1937) 133, n. 1. 25 Pliny, NH, 8, 78; 9, 82: Varro, De Re Rustica, 3, 12: Jennison (1937) 135. 26 Varro, De Re Rustica, 3, 13: Jennison (1937) 135. 27 Jennison (1937) 135-36. 28 Columella, De Re Rustica, 9, 1. 29 Varro, De Re Rustica, 3, 12: Jennison (1937) 136. 30 Toynbee (1996) 16: Aymard (1951) 54-55. 31 Jennison (1937) 35: As Coleman (1996) [56] notes, this animal preserve may have been built in imitation of those possessed by the Seleucids, such as that enjoyed by Demetrios Poliorcetes while being held under 'house arrest' by Seleucus I: See Aymard (1951) 47-48. 32 Athenaeus 14, 654b. 33 Strabo 16, 4, 15. However, since the second horn of the white rhino is negligible in size, it is possible that Artemidorus saw one of these animals rather than their Indian counterpart: see Gowers (1950) 64. 34 Pliny, NH, 8, 27: Dio 51, 22, 5: Jennison (1937) 30. 35 Philo, De Decern Oraculis, 23: Galen, Therapeutics for Glaucon, 2, 12: Scarborough (1985) 128-29: Jennison (1937) 167-68. 36 Toynbee (1996) 16: Aymard (1951) 54-55: Anderson (1985) 85. Hellenistic enclosure were themselves undoubtedly based upon early Persian paradeisoi first encountered by Alexander: see Lane Fox (1996) 141-42; Anderson (1985) 78-79. 37 Strabo 12, 3, 30: Lucan, De Dea Syria, 41: Jennison (1937) 134. This Syrian city was more commonly called Hierapolis, but I have used the alternative name of Hieropolis in order to distinguish it from the Phrygian town of Hierapolis, also mentioned in the thesis. 38 Jennison (1937) 5: Lane Fox (1996) 146. 39 Varro, De Re Rustica, 3, 13, 2-3: Pliny, NH, 8, 78: Coleman (1990) 67: Wiedemann (1995a).66-67. 40 Toynbee (1996) 37, 47. 41 Polyaenus 8, 23, 5: Suetonius, Julius, 37, 2: Dio 43, 22, 1: Jennison (1937) 58. 42 Columella, De Re Rustica, 9, 1: Jennison (1937) 136. 43 A copy of a wall painting from the Tomb of the Nasonii near Rome gives an idea of what Roman animal-enclosures may have looked like in the imperial period. The panel in question shows a wedge-shaped enclosure containing what appear to be two 25 deer pursued by a dog. The latticework fence, which includes an enclosed walkway on one side, appears to be made of wood: see Messineo (2000) 65, fig. 66. Unfortunately, the paintings from the Tomb of the Nasonii discussed in this dissertation only exist now in the form of copies made after the tomb's discovery in the seventeenth century. The original paintings dated to the second century AD: see Messineo (2000) 7-10. 44 Kyle (1998) 188-89. 45 Aymard (1951) 60: Cartmill (1993) 42: Anderson (1985) 83. 46 Aymard (1951) 54-56: Anderson (1985) 84-85. 47 Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus, 6, 5: Lane Fox (1996) 146. 48 Orth(1914) 562. 49 Sallust, Bellum Catilinae, 4, 1: Varro, Sat, Men., 161, 293-96, 361: Cartmill (1993) 42: Anderson (1985) 86-87. 50 CT 15,11,1: Pharr (1969) 436: Orth(1914) 563-64. 51 Futrell (1997) 15-16; 233, n. 28. This hypothesis naturally depends upon whether or not the depicted feline belonged to a species native to Italy in the Etruscan period. 52 Strong (1968) 121-23: for the Tomb of the Leopards, see e.g. Blanck and Weber-Lehmann (1987) 125-28. 53 Weege (1909) 135. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no photographs or drawings of this painting were made before its destruction. 54 It should be noted that other, even more distant, territories may have been importing African animals as early as the fourth century B.C. A skull of a Barbary ape found at the Irish site of Navan has been carbon-dated to between 390 and 20 B.C.: see Raftery (1994) 79. 55 Kyle (1998) 42-43: Beacham (1999) 11-12. 56 Cassiodorus, Variae, 5, 42, 2-4: Loisel (1912) 92: Barnish (1992) 91. It should be noted that Cassiodorus is speaking here of contemporary venationes, which as we shall see, were apparently more dangerous to the human than to the animal participants. 57 Strabo 5, 3, 12: For the relative antiquity of the cult of Diana at Aricia, see Beard, North, and Price (1998) Vol. 2; 15. 58 Lafaye (1963) 700: Ville suggests that the idea itself of hunting as a spectator sport may have originally come from Africa as well, although given both the Hellenistic and Roman precedents for animal-display and the like, this theory is not overly convincing. As Ville notes, a certain Hanno the Carthaginian is said (Pliny, NH, 8, 21) to have been the first individual to exhibit a tamed lion, but unfortunately Pliny does not specify his date: see Ville (1981) 53. 59 Livy 39, 22, 2. In the following section I am concentrating on Republican spectacles in which the specific animal participants have been recorded by the ancient sources: for a fuller listing of Republican venationes, see Ville (1981) 51-72, 88-99. 60 Weissenborn and Muller (1965) Vol. 9; 44, n. 2: For a contrary view, see Aymard (1951) 75, n. 1. 61 Livy 40, 44, 8-12: Beacham (1999) 12. 62 Pliny, NH, 8, 24: Bertrandy (1987) 212. 63 Jennison (1937) 47. 64 Livy 41, 27, 6. Animal displays, such as that Nasica and Lentulus in 169 BC, also continued in this period, but from Nobilior's beast-hunt onwards, venationes became the most popular animal event among the Romans. 65 Terence, Hecyra, 25-33: Horace, Epistulae, 2, 1, 184-86: Scobie (1988) 192-93. 66 For specific details of Paullus' games, see Edmondson (1999) 78-80. 67 Edmondson (1999) 79: Livy, Periochae, 51, 22-24: Valerius Maximus 2, 7, 13-14. 68 Polybius 30, 25-26. For the details of Antiochus' spectacle, see Edmondson (1999) 84-88. Edmondson [(1999) 80], however, does not think that Paullus' games in Greece included venationes. 26 69 Pliny, NH, 8, 7; 20: Seneca, De Brevitate Vitae, 13, 6: Athenaeus 5, 194C: Toynbee (1996) 17-18, 345, n. 10. 70 Pliny, NH, 8, 2; 20; 24; 28-29; 40; 54; 70: Dio, 39, 38, 2-5; 43, 22, 23: Cicero, Ad Fam. 7, 1, 3: Suetonius, Julius, 37, 2: Jennison (1937) 50-51: Coleman (1996) 61-62. The exact date of the first combat between elephants and bulls is uncertain: Pliny, citing Fenestella, states that the first such confrontation took place in 78 B.C., while the later historian Granius Licinianus [36] dates it to 99 B.C. [see Ville (1981) 89]. Since Pliny was more contemporary with the events he describes, it is perhaps preferable to take his evidence over that of Licinianus. 71 Pliny, NH, 8, 7: Suetonius, Julius, 39, 3: Appian, Bellum Civile, 2, 102: Dio 43, 23, 3. 72 Cicero, Philippics, 5, 17, 46: Dio 45, 13, 4: Jennison (1937) 57-58. 73 Jennison (1937) 3, 41-42: Aymard (1951) 77-79: for a brief list of ancient Roman festivals and sacrifices involving the slaughter of common animals such as dogs and fish, see Kyle (1995) 194-95. 74 Kyle (1998) 47-48. 75 Kyle (1998) 63, n. 56. 76 Polybius 30, 25-26: Edmondson (1999) 87-88: Jennison (1937): 2-3. 77 Merten (1991) 140-42: Ville (1981) 348, n. 10: Shelton (1999) 245-46, 249-50. 78 Pliny, NH, 8, 70. 79 Jennison (1937) 59. 80 Ville (1981) 94-95, 97-99: Shelton (1999) 233-34. 81 Sallust, Bell. Jug. 21, 2; 26, 1: Livy, 39, 22; 44, 18: Bertrandy (1987) 228: Pliny, NH, 8, 20: Seneca, De Brevitate Vitae, 13, 6: Frank (1959) Vol. 4; 17, 21; Vol. 1; 203. 82 Varro, De Re Rustica, 3, 13: Jennison (1937) 43. 27 Late Republican and Imperial Animal Spectacula By the 1st century BC, Roman citizens evidently expected as a matter of course that politicians with foreign contacts would requisition exotic creatures for various spectacula. Sulla, upon losing his first campaign for the praetorship, claimed the only reason for this setback was that the people of Rome wanted him to serve first as aedile, so that he could provide them with splendid venationes and combats of African animals through his friend Bocchus.1 At a slightly later date, Quintus Gallius staged a gladiatorial show in Rome to compensate the populace for a venatio which, lacking animals, he had failed to put on during his aedileship in 67 BC.2 It is important, however, to note that animal spectacula at this time had evidently not yet become a formalized part of the Roman games, unlike gladiatorial combat. Vatinius attempted to defend the illegal games put on during his candidacy for the praetorship in 55 BC by claiming that he had only employed bestiarii (animal fighters), performers who were not subject to the law banning the formal exhibition of gladiators during one's candidacy for public office.3 The Requisition of Animals: A variety of means existed in the late Republic to supply the animal spectacula staged by Sulla and other politicians. Autocrats like Pompey or Caesar probably exacted at least the majority of the wildlife used in their spectacula as tribute from states subject to Rome or from conquered foes.4 The variety and number of animals used by Pompey in 55 BC reflected his wide-spread political contacts throughout the Mediterranean basin, thanks to his campaigns in the east and his 'sponsorship' of African kings like Ptolemy Auletes in Egypt.5 It may also have been Pompey, the first Roman to involve himself seriously in the affairs of ancient Palestine, who first requisitioned exotic animals from the region, although direct evidence is lacking. 28 One of the prime pieces of indirect evidence is a dictate from the fourth Seder of the Mishna, a Jewish legal code edited at the end of the second century AD. The edict in question forbids Jews from selling lions, bears, and other potentially harmful animals to the heathen.6 Since this problem was thought serious enough to require a law preventing it, the trade in animals from Palestine had probably been going on for some time, perhaps as early as the time of Pompey.7 Caesar, like Pompey, also appears to have had his own men working overseas to procure wildlife for his spectacula: one of Caesar's opponents in the civil war, Lucius Caesar, is said to have murdered several of the former's slaves, freedmen, and exotic animals. Suetonius does not specify where this slaughter took place, but it probably occurred in North Africa, where Lucius Caesar was active between 49 and 46 BC.8 Caesar, like later emperors, may well have given some of his slaves and freedmen the specific responsibility of obtaining and looking after exotic creatures for his spectacula in various locales. As animal displays and venationes, like the gladiatorial games, became subject to increasing organization in the late Republic, the supplying of animals, often a quite difficult task, became the responsibility of the magistrates putting on a particular show. In a relatively well-known example, the aedile candidate Marcus Caelius Rufus, responsible for producing a venatio in Rome if elected, wrote a series of letters to Cicero requesting a supply of leopards when the latter was governor of Cilicia in 51 BC.9 By September of 51 BC, Caelius had obtained twenty African leopards from Gaius Curio, who was collecting his own animals for the tribunician games of 50 BC.10 In order to obtain his Cilician leopards, Caelius urged Cicero to pressure the inhabitants of Cibyra, a city in his province, to provide the animals. In addition, Caelius asked Cicero to contact Pamphylia in this regard, even offering to send some additional men to Cilicia to supervise the transport of the leopards should Cicero's enquiries and commands prove particularly successful.11 This series of letters began well over a year before Caelius in fact had to stage his aedilician games, presumably 29 at the Ludi Romani in September of 50 BC, indicating how slow and precarious the transport of exotic animals to Rome could be.12 Cicero's letters show how at this time there appear to have been no legal guidelines for the shipment of animals: such arrangements were evidently left up to the discretion of individual governors. Cicero himself refused to exact money from the Cilicians for the expenses of Caelius' show, and merely issued a mandate for professional hunters to capture the leopards.13 In other cases governors may well have exacted funds from their provincials to pay for such spectacula, yet another possible instance of governmental corruption in the late Republic. Cicero's reluctance to order his provincials to round up leopards as Rufus requested, rather than merely provide a commission for their capture, may well have been unusual behaviour for a Roman governor of Cicero's day.14 An interesting figure appearing in a few of Cicero's letters concerning the Cilician leopards is the Roman equestrian Patiscus. In a letter dated to September of 51 BC, Caelius informs Cicero that this individual had already supplied Curio with ten leopards for the latter's games.15 A subsequent letter written in April of 50 BC throws more light on the activities of Patiscus. At this time, according to Cicero, 'professional hunters' (qui venari solent) and Patiscus were both in the process of attempting to capture Caelius' leopards, possibly even going so far as to leave Cilicia, because of the apparent scarcity of such animals in that province.16 Although the letter is not explicit, Patiscus, since he had previous experience in capturing leopards for Curio, may well have been in charge of the group of hunters mentioned by Cicero. In all likelihood entrepreneurs like him were active throughout Roman territory in the late Republic, gathering various animals for their clients' spectacles.17 Curio, mentioned above in connection with Caelius Rufus, evidently had an effective network of such individuals in his employ, to judge by the fact that he gave the extravagant gift of twenty leopards to Caelius for his expected aedilician games, ...ne putes ilium [Curio] tantum praedia rustica dare scire.18 30 The Organization of Animal Spectacula: The growing popularity and importance of animal displays and venationes can be measured by administrative changes made in the late Republic to facilitate their production. As we have seen, early animal spectacula were staged irregularly on special occasions, such as the triumphal celebrations of Roman generals, but in 44 BC the munera as a whole (spectacles including both gladiatorial and animal events) were incorporated into the preexisting public games by the Senate. Only two years later, the aediles substituted the munera for chariot races at the festival of Ceres.19 Higher officials also began to stage animal spectacula in this period, no doubt because of the increasing prestige attached to the latter: coinage issued in 42 BC by Lucius Regulus commemorated the venationes staged during his praetorship.20 After the fall of the Republic, animal spectacula, as well as their gladiatorial counterparts, were gradually brought under imperial control and organization. These events, which under the Republic had been staged on occasions like triumphs, or appended to the traditional Roman ludi, were linked with the regularly-scheduled gladiatorial games by Augustus. The munera as a whole, beginning in his reign, began to be held during the Quinquatrus and Saturnalia at Rome. Beginning in 20 BC, beast-hunts, under the jurisdiction of the praetors, were also amongst the events staged to celebrate the birthday of the emperor each year.21 The important innovation of staging animal spectacula on the same day as gladiatorial combat appears to have occurred first in AD 6: the games of that year dedicated by Germanicus and Claudius to their deceased father Drusus included gladiatorial games associated with a display of trained elephants. A passage from Ovid's Metamorphoses (...matutina cervus periturus arena...) suggests that the staging of venationes in the morning, which subsequently became the regular pattern, in connection with afternoon gladiatorial games, was also current during the reign of Augustus.22 The integration of gladiatorial and animal spectacula in 31 general appears to have become the norm by at least the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty: the latter events were no longer associated with the traditional Roman ludi after the reign of Vespasian.23 The merging of animal and gladiatorial events appears to have progressed at a similar pace outside of Rome: by at least the end of the first century, both types of spectacle were "...sur un pied d'egalite...".24 I Despite the increasing integration of animal spectacula into the regular Roman games, emperors such as Augustus, like earlier Republican generals and magistrates, would sometimes sponsor such events independent of gladiatorial combat, an indication of how they continued to be popular events in their own right under the empire.25 At least two of Augustus' successors, Caligula and Claudius, staged venationes of Africanae bestiae in the circus to provide relief from the monotony of hours of chariot-races: the latter emperor is said to have staged such a venafio after every fifth race.26 Augustus realized that in Rome itself, the staging of munera including venationes and animal displays, a powerful method of currying favour with the Roman populace, had to be ultimately under the emperor's control, rather than remain in the hands of ambitious senators or wealthy citizens. In the 20's BC the praetors were restricted to only two munera per year. Further limitations were put on non-imperial munera by Tiberius.27 By the reign of Domitian no games could be staged in Rome unless by the emperor or one of his officials.28 This organization lasted until the third century when the munera, like other important activities, were brought under even tighter imperial control.29 Despite strict imperial control over the production of spectacles in Rome, however, it is important to note that munera staged by various officials (with imperial permission) did not by any means disappear from the city. Especially during the early empire, when Republican traditions were still within living memory, the games, under imperial patronage, continued to be produced in the name of the various magistrates. In 25 BC, 300 bears and 300 other African animals, all of which 32 were killed, were exhibited by the praetor Publius Servilius.30 In addition, we hear of the quindecimviri producing a venatio as part of the Secular Games of 17 BC, while in AD 39 the praetors were forced by Caligula to put on a venatio as their predecessors had in the Republican and Augustan period. In 41, this obligation, as well as that of staging a gladiatorial munus, was lifted from the praetors by Claudius.31 Instead, by a law of 47, Claudius made the quaestors responsible for putting on munera 10 days every December rather than continue their previous duty of paving roads, an arrangement which continued at least into the fourth century.32 Apart from regular events staged each year under the emperor's auspices, various spectacles were also put on periodically by officials and individuals in Rome. Munera are known to have been staged by the consuls over the first two centuries AD, but it is unclear whether they, like the quaestors' games, were held annually. Games, including animal spectacula, continued to be held occasionally by magistrates or members of priestly colleges to celebrate a new office, as well by members of other collegia.33, Curule aediles often staged such munera, and were legally responsible for damages caused by wild animals en route to the games.34 Even private citizens with imperial permission could evidently still stage their own munera in Rome as late as Symmachus' lifetime. Patrons who received imperial permission to stage munera had to use the services of a lanista who supplied them with the necessary number of gladiators and/or animals for their games.35 The Personnel of Animal Spectacula: As the venationes and animal displays became more formalized in the imperial period, an elaborate infrastructure of officials was gradually instituted to ensure that all of the important aspects of these spectacles ran smoothly. The duties of these men ranged from supervising venatores in Rome itself to training the animals involved in the spectacles. A number of freedmen and individuals of lower status were also 33 involved with the more mundane aspects of animal spectacula, such as providing medical treatments to the participants. One of the earliest-known imperial officials associated with the venationes is the unfortunate curator munerum ac venationum attested for the reign of Caligula. The distinction between munera and beast-hunts in this individual's title suggests that venationes had not yet been fully incorporated into the regular games.36 Perhaps at this relatively early date venationes were staged on their own more often than in the later Empire, when such spectacles were staged without gladiatorial combat only rarely.37 Some scholars, because of the existence of this curator venationum during the reign of Caligula, have suggested that the Ludus Matutinus ('Morning School'), the training-school for the venatores in Rome, may also have originally been built around this time.38 Others have suggested that the training-schools in Rome were instituted as early as the reign of Augustus, in keeping with this emperor's reorganization of the games during his reign.39 The Flavian emperors added a new degree of organization and control to the imperial venationes, at the time when the Colosseum and the Ludus Magnus were being built. Many of the equestrian officials assigned to supervise various aspects of the venationes appear to belong to the Flavian period.40 Although, as noted above, it has been suggested that Caligula was responsible for the construction of the Ludus Matutinus on the Caelian, it is more likely to have been built during the reign of Domitian (81-96): Flavian brick-stamps were in fact found in the excavated portion of the building (Fig. 2).41 In addition, the earliest epigraphically-attested procurator Ludi Matutini dates to the reign of Trajan.42 This position, as noted, evidently entailed supervision over the venatorial training school in Rome, much as the procurator Ludi Magni supervised the main gladiatorial school in the city.43 The importance of the venationes relative to gladiatorial combat in ancient Rome may perhaps be measured by the fact that the Ludus Matutinus, measuring approximately 32 by 21 metres in size, was about half the size of the nearby Ludus Magnus.44 34 The Ludus Matutinus was used to train not only the venatores, but the animals as well. Contrary to popular opinion, a wild animal will not generally attack even an early Christian if not trained beforehand to do so. According to Jennison, a Pompeiian fresco may illustrate one of the training methods used in such facilities. The scene in question depicts a leopard, bound to a bull, attacking a man in front. The binding of the two animals together would allow the vena tor fighting the leopard to withdraw in relative safety should the combat turn against him.45 A number of inscriptions identify persons associated with the Ludus Matutinus. A third-century Greek inscription found in Rome lists an unnamed official, apparently from Alexandria, as having served as tniTponov AouSou MOTOUTEIVOU in addition to his other offices, such as the procuratorship of Noricum and Macedonia, and the procurate of the XouSoi of Asia. Although it is not absolutely clear whether or not the 'schools of Asia' refer to gladiatorial or venatorial schools, the former is more likely, since we know from elsewhere of the existence of such gladiatorial facilities in Asia. The various offices suggest that the procurate of the Ludus Matutinus was considered a position of no small importance, to be entrusted only to officials of some administrative experience.46 One might suppose that the unnamed Greek official perhaps had some previous experience with the animal trade in Alexandria, since many of the exotic animals exported from Africa to Rome for the venationes or animal displays passed through Egypt en route.47 The procurator Ludi Matutini, however, appears to have held a lesser rank than the official in charge of the Ludus Magnus, who in all the cases we know of held more important positions throughout his career. In all known cases, the procurator Ludi Magni, who received a salary of 200,000 sesterces per year, had previously been a member of the prestigious Praetorian Guard, while in the case of the inscription just cited, the Ludus Matutinus was entrusted to a Greek from Alexandria with no such military experience. In addition, the post of procurator Ludi Matutini probably only carried an annual salary of 60,000 or 100,000 sesterces. 48 35 An Ostian inscription of 220-224 AD sheds some light on the relative importance of the post of procurator Ludi Matutini. The inscription records the career of Publius Bassilius Crescens, who started his career with the tribunate of the first German cohort, possibly stationed in Cappadocia, through the procuratorship of the Ludus Matutinus to the procuratorship of the annona Augusti Ostis.49 One notes how early in his career Crescens obtained control of the Ludus Matutinus, apparently going directly from command of an auxiliary cohort to command of the major venatorial school in the empire. Perhaps Crescens and his cohort had some previous experience with the animal-trade while in Asia Minor. Another inscription from Taormina in Sicily records a former procurator Ludi Matutini and ducenarius Ludi Magni as procurator familiarum gladiatoriarum in Sicily, Aemilia, and Dalmatia, thereby showing that the same equestrian official could supervise both the gladiatorial games and venationes at different stages in his career.50 An inscription from Palestrina, dating to approximately 180, suggests that it was perhaps not at all unusual for the same official, in this case a certain Titus Flavius Stephanus, to hold the procuratorship of the Ludus Matutinus as well as the Ludus Magnus. Stephanus may have held the former post in c. 165 and the latter in c. 170.51 A late first or early second century inscription from Corsica also sheds light on the infrastructure of the venationes. Besides mentioning a local familia venatoria ('beast-hunt association'), the text records an equestrian official as procurator Ludi Matutini et bestiarum [Africanarum?]. The Corsican ludus bestiarum implied by this inscription may have served as a counterpart for one located in Rome itself: Seneca indicates that the latter facility existed as early as the reign of Nero. According to Buonocore, the ludus in Corsica may have supplied animals to other areas through the familia venatoria mentioned in the inscription.52 In the Greek east venationes were evidently as popular as in the western provinces and, as in the latter area, were usually staged in conjunction with 36 gladiatorial contests. Numerous eastern inscriptions record such dual spectator events, normally staged by the priest of the imperial cult within a given city.53 As a result of the popularity of beast-hunts in the region, several terms for the lesser officials involved with these contests also survive in Greek inscriptions. A number of texts record individuals involved in training the animals used in eastern spectacles. Two inscriptions record enpcrrpocpoi from Heirapolis and Akmonia, who evidently trained and looked after the wild animals in their enclosures when they were not appearing in the arena. A third eqpoTpocpoc; from Bithynia is mentioned in the Life of St. Auxentius.54 One may think of these men as the approximate equivalent of the adiutores ad feras recorded in inscriptions from the western empire.35 Some additional information about the Heirapolis and Akmonia eqpoTpocpoi, as well as the events they were associated with, can be gained from their respective tombstones. The relief associated with the Heirapolis inscription depicts a trainer subduing a lion with his whip, which perhaps indicates that lions were among the more popular animals involved in the local spectacles (since they were chosen as the 'representative' species to include on the trainer's tombstone relief). The errors in the inscription may also suggest that the enpcrrpocpoc; in question was not a native Greek speaker, but may have been from one of the regions (for example North Africa) where his animals were obtained.56 The Akmonia inscription records the death of another such official from the attack of an unspecified animal named Bacchus. As Robert suggests this animal may well have belonged to one of the species most commonly associated with Dionysus, such as a leopard or lion.57 The inscription also notes that the unfortunate eqpoTpocpoc; did not perish in the arena, but in yupvaoiac; KAUTOTC;. There is some question among commentators, however, whether the adjective KXUTOC was originally intended to describe the eqpoTpocpoc or the yuMvaoim: if the latter is the case then the exercises in question may not have consisted of animal training in private, but some sort of public exhibition of the animals. 37 A first century BC inscription from Caria denotes an individual as a TaupocpE-rnc, a man who evidently supervised, and at least in some cases, provided the community's supply of bulls. According to the text of the inscription the bulls put under this man's jurisdiction were used for a variety of purposes, not just a single type of event; although he is credited with supplying several bulls at his own expense, only one bull is specified as having been sent sic Kuvqyiov. Afterwards, in another display of euergetism, the Taupocpe'Tnc distributed the meat of the slain bull to the populace.58 Given the evident variety of bull spectacles in the Greek east, it does not appear unreasonable to assume that other Greek cities may also have possessed their own TaupocpETcu or similar officials to ensure the smooth running of such events. A late Roman inscription from Aphrodisias records a TaupcoTpocpoc who evidently raised bulls for the venationes.59 Less information is available for the imperial infrastructure associated with the capture and raising of animals in the later empire. Lafaye maintains that the necessary equipment for imperial hunts was supervised by procurators of various hunting districts (cynegia) throughout the empire, under the ultimate authority of the comes sacrarum largitionum.60 In all likelihood, the comes rei privatae, who was responsible for imperial lands throughout the empire, at least shared some of the responsibility for animal spectacula. Among the subordinates working under this official in the eastern empire were the praepositi gregum et stabulorum and the procuratores saltuum. Although their duties mainly involved the supervision of agricultural estates and herds of elite race-horses, they presumably also included the maintenance of various imperial enclosures and the exotic animals raised therein.61 At least one specific official associated with the beast-hunts in the later empire is attested to in the literary sources. In his Anecdota, Procopius records that the future empress Theodora's father Acacius was apKTOTpocpoc of the Green faction's animals in Constantinople during the reign of Anastasius (491-518), presumably before the banning of wild beast-hunts by this emperor in 498 (see page 221).62 38 Acacius performed many of the same duties in caring for and training these animals as the eopoTpocpoi mentioned in the inscriptions from Hierapolis and Akmonia: Procopius refers to Acacius as a eqpioKOMoc;. One interesting aspect of Procopius' description is Acacius' official title of apK-roTpocpoe;. Although he was evidently responsible for a wide variety of animals used in the beast-hunts (enpioKopoc; TCOV iv Kuvnysoiop Oqpiwv), his official title (ap<TOTp6cpoc;) refers only to bears. A possible explanation of this anomaly may be that in the later empire at least, when exotic animals were harder to come by, the relatively common bear may have formed the staple of the venationes in Constantinople, and thus officials like Acacius became associated with the one animal the city's populace saw most often in the spectacles. Additional information about the apKTOTpocpoi can be gleaned from Procopius' account. The post of apK-roTpocpoe;, as described by Procopius, could at least on occasion be hereditary, and was under the control of the circus factions in Constantinople.63 Apparently this office was not an exclusively male preserve, but could legally be held by women as well: Procopius records that Acacius' widow remarried soon after his death to have someone to help her care for the animals. The reference to circus factions controlling Acacius' office of apK-roTpocpoe. is the earliest such mention of the factions' involvement in the spectacles of the amphitheatre: such involvement does not appear to have predated the fifth century.64 According to Cameron, the involvement of the circus factions in amphitheatre spectacles originated in the state taking over the civic revenues of cities during the reign of Constantius II (337-61). This change in administration meant that the state, and not the individual city government, was now responsible for funding the various spectacles staged throughout the empire. Accordingly a centralized state bureaucracy arose to administer all the various types of spectacle: the same official could be entrusted with the task of providing both the state-owned race-horses and stage-performers with their fodder. 39 To preserve the 'competitive spirit' of the various spectacles, now all funded from the same government source, the state divided the new 'entertainment bureaucracy' among the four preexisting circus factions: hence from the fifth century onwards the Blues and Greens were to be found in the amphitheatre as well as the circus. Some idea of the hierarchy of this new bureaucracy can be gleaned from Procopius: the opxnoTnc; of a particular faction evidently controlled the appointment of the ap<TOTp6cpoi. The fact that the 'senior dancer' had the power to control such appointments may perhaps reflect the relative popularity of pantomimes versus venationes in the eastern empire.65 As various inscriptions indicate, imperial freedmen also played an important role in the production of imperial beast-hunts in Rome and elsewhere. Not all of the attested titles of these freedmen date to the same time period, and it is impossible to state with certainty whether or not all of these offices were contemporary. For instance, we hear of a certain Marcus Aurelius Prosenes, a freedman of Commodus, who at one point in his career fulfilled the role of procurator munerum, a kind of supervisor over the various spectacles put on by the emperor.66 Titus Flavius Augustalis, a Flavian freedman, performed the duties of a tabularius a muneribus, and was in charge of the finances involved with such spectacles.67 An inscription possibly dating to the reign of Caligula shows that a certain Proculus(?) was libertus commentariensis Ludi Matutini, evidently acting as administrative secretary to the procurator Ludi Matutini.^9, Other freedmen officials were concerned not with the animals themselves, but with the trained venatores responsible for fighting them in the games. An inscription from the Trajanic period mentions the freedman Marcus Ulpius Euphrosynus, libertus a veste venatoria. This official was evidently in charge of supplying the clothing for the venatores, as his counterparts, liberti a veste gladiatoria, were for the gladiators.69 40 Another group of imperial freedmen was involved with attending to the inevitable medical needs of the venatores after combat with various animals. For instance, we know of at least two imperial freedmen who were doctors at the venationes, much like their counterparts who served at the gladiatorial games. An inscription found in Rome lists a certain Eutychus Neronianus as medicus Ludi Matutini, that is to say doctor of the venationes. The cognomen Neronianus suggests that such doctors may have been imperial property like gladiators and venatores, since we know gladiators owned by Nero in Capua were known as Neroniani to distinguish them from gladiators owned by earlier emperors.70 It has been suggested that the doctor Eutychus may have been employed at Capua. Another inscription from Rome referring to Eutychus calls him medicus Ludi, which, along with his cognomen Neronianus, has led some scholars to assume that he worked as a doctor at the gladiatorial ludus in Capua before being 'promoted' to the venationes in Rome.71 An alternative suggestion, since the relative dates of the two Eutychus inscriptions are unclear, is that the term medicus Ludi may instead refer to his work at the venatorial training-school in Rome, and the word Matutinus was simply left out of the second inscription for reasons of space. A Greek inscription now in Rome, dating to the reign of Antoninus Pius or a little later, mentions the Hadrianic freedmen Titus Aelius Asclepiades, surgeon of the Ludus Matutinus.72 It goes without saying that numerous other unrecorded doctors and surgeons must have been present at such dangerous spectacles as the venationes. According to Wiedemann, medical specialists may have been even more in demand at the venationes than at gladiatorial combats, since the venatores in the former contests were more likely to suffer painful but non-fatal wounds (from mauling) than the gladiators.73 Two other inscriptions, one found in Rome and the other in France, record men of uncertain status who also appear to have performed subordinate roles associated with the venationes. Both texts suggest that one could perform not just one 41 but a variety of functions associated with such events. The first inscription records Apollodorus Tromentina, medicus equarius et venator.74 It can be interpreted one of two ways, if Apollodorus was more than a 'recreational' hunter. He could have been a participant at the venationes who also performed veterinary duties periodically for the various animals, or was promoted full-time to the post of veterinarian after a successful stint fighting in the arena. Another theory, espoused by Walker, is that Apollodorus may have performed the function of veterinarian and venator within the army. Practitioners of both of these occupations were amongst those soldiers granted immunitas from more mundane duties.75 Apollodorus could theoretically have been amongst the soldiers of the Praetorian Guard entrusted with the collection and supervision of animals for the venationes in Rome. One problem with Walker's theory, however, is that the inscription nowhere identifies Apollodorus' military status, an identification one would expect on the analogy of numerous other inscriptions set up by soldiers in the Roman army: the omission of such information would be particularly surprising if he had indeed been a member of the Praetorian Guard. The second inscription in question, from Aix-en-Provence, records another individual who evidently performed a variety of duties associated with the venationes.76 In the relevant section, the departed boasts: I was well instructed in the the skilful sport of young men [lusus iuuenum] in the arena, and was that 'Good-looker' [Puleher] girt with a variety of weapons. I often made sport of wild animals, but I also lived as their veterinarian and a pal of the ursarii [comes ursaris]..77 The dedicatee obviously participated in some sort of arena spectacle apart from fighting animals (feras), but the nature of this is unclear. The lusus iuuenum mentioned in the inscription was evidently a venatio: another inscription from Sangeminus specifically praises an editor luuenalium for the insignes venationes he staged.78 Courtney suggests that the dedicatee may have fought as a gladiator under 42 the name of 'Pulcher' in the arena, but it is also possible that this was his 'stage name' as a vena tor.79 Like Apollodorus in the previous inscription, this individual also performed a veterinarian's duties, either part-time between bouts in the arena, or full-time after he finished his competitive career. The first of these interpretations, strange as it may seem, is more likely, since the dedicatee of the inscription appears to have been listing a series of activities which occurred more or less simultaneously, rather than listing progressive stages of his career. Unfortunately the term comes ursaris is also somewhat ambiguous. The ursarii referred to could be civilian bear-hunters or members of the military assigned to capture such animals on the frontiers, whose existence is attested to by a number of other inscriptions.80 Given the dedicatee's involvement in public games, ursarii in this inscription might be taken to mean venatores who specialized in fighting bears, just as other combatants are known to have specialized in bull-fighting.81 The Development of Imperial Animal Spectacula: As previously noted, imperial venationes tended to become larger and more violent over time. Augustus boasts of having killed 3500 animals in the twenty-six venationes bestiarum Africanorum held during his reign (an average of 135 per show), a sum which included 460 lions, 600 African animals of indeterminate type, 36 crocodiles, a rhinoceros, and a hippopotamus. 420 leopards were also put on display on one occasion by the emperor.82 Caligula's games in 37 saw the death of 800 Libyan animals, including 400 bears, while 300 bears and 300 Libyan beasts perished in the spectacles staged by Claudius four years later. In 55 Nero's bodyguard killed 300 lions and 400 bears at a single imperial venatio.83 Amongst this emperor's unfulfilled schemes was, in imitation of Hercules, the killing of a specially trained lion in the amphitheatre with either his bare hands or a club.84 43 Unlike the Republican period, when all of the animals involved in spectacula were not necessarily slaughtered, by the reign of Caligula (37-41), a violent death appears to have been the ultimate fate for most if not all of the animals participating in a given event. This change may reflect an attempt on the part of Roman emperors to make the spectacula more exciting, like the gladiatorial games, by adding the element of combat and death. It may also reflect the fact that the supply of exotic animals to Rome was now much more regularized than it had been during the Republican period, allowing emperors to have large numbers of animals killed in the assurance that more would always be forthcoming.85 The number of animals killed in the venationes rose further under the Flavians, and reached even higher levels under Trajan and Hadrian.86 As part of the spectacles celebrating the opening of the Colosseum in 80, for example, 9,000 tame and wild animals are said to have perished.87 Part of the reason for the increased destruction of animals in the later first century was the fact that more venationes were staged per year than previously. As noted above, the beast-hunts appear to have been fully integrated into the regular Roman games by the end of the Julio-Claudian period. The Calendar of Philocalus from 354 indicates that, under this 'developed' system, 10 days at the end of December each year were specifically reserved for munera involving gladiators and venationes, although the total number of such munera staged each year in Rome was probably higher due to special celebrations staged by various emperors.88 The largest number of animals killed in a series of imperial venationes, for which there is credible evidence, is the 11,000 who are said to have perished over 123 days in the games held by Trajan after his final Dacian war.89 The 120 days of munera held by Hadrian as Trajan's potential heir, funded by four million sesterces from the latter, are also said to have included the slaughter of 11,000 animals.90 A segment of the fasti Ostienses from around 120 records the death of 2689 animals in 44 games held under Hadrian.91 It is unclear whether the 1000 ferae displayed in Athens by Hadrian were ultimately slaughtered as part of the spectacle or not.92 Although, as Jennison points out, the literary evidence for imperial venationes from the reign of Hadrian onwards is quite sparse, compared with those staged at an earlier date, some trends in the varieties of animals used for the later events do seem apparent. Lions and leopards, which had been a staple of late Republican and early imperial venationes, did not evidently feature as often in spectacles of the later empire. Conversely, larger number of herbivores appear to have been employed in venationes from the reign of Hadrian onwards. New animals, such as zebras, continued to be introduced at these games, and many of the animals which had first been introduced in the first century AD continued to be involved in subsequent spectacles, perhaps an indication of improved Roman trading-links in the second century with the foreign powers supplying these animals.93 The decreasing numbers of lions and leopards in later venationes may indicate that the population of these animals in the 'traditional' hunting-areas from which the Romans had procured them since Republican times was diminishing. Numismatic evidence, consisting of coin-reverses with the legend MUNIFICENTIA and images of elephants and lions, appear to confirm the spectaculum of 149 attributed to Antoninus Pius by the SHA, when animals like elephants, lions, hyenas, tigers, rhinoceroses, hippopotami, and crocodiles were exhibited by the emperor. Again it is unclear whether this was the animals' last public appearance or not.94 Among the animals Commodus personally dispatched in public on various occasions were lions, leopards, ostriches, 100 bears, 6 hippopotami, 3 elephants, rhinoceroses, a tiger, and a giraffe.95 A seven-day venatio staged by Septimius Severus (193-211) included a combat between 60 boars, as well as 100 animals per day entering the arena from a collapsing ship mechanism. These animals included asses, bisons, lions, bears, leopards, and ostriches.96 As aedile under Severus, Gordian I is said by the SHA to have put on a massive venatio featuring 1000 bears, 100 ferae 45 Libycae, 30 wild horses, 200 stags, 10 elks, 100 sheep, 100 Cypriot bulls, 300 ostriches, 150 boars, 30 asses, 200 gazelles, and 200 ibexes.97 Many of the herbivores involved at this spectacle, if it or anything remotely similar was in fact staged by Gordian, may have been bred at imperial animal-enclosures in Italy.98 Although Dio states that Caracalla (211-17) was devoted to hunting, even going so far as to force senators to provide animals, it is not clear how far this interest extended to the staged venationes of the amphitheatre. The occasion upon which Caracalla personally killed 100 boars in a single day, however, might be more readily thought of as a public display of the emperor's hunting prowess, like those staged by Commodus (see page 44), rather than a private hunt in some sort of game-enclosure.99 Elagabulus (218-22) on one occasion exhibited his collection of Egyptian animals to the Roman populace, and on the occasion of his wedding had animals, including an elephant and 51 tigers, killed at a celebratory venatio.100 Philip the Arab (244-49), using animals originally gathered by his predecessor Gordian III, is said to have staged a large venatio on the occasion of the Secular Games in 248 including 32 elephants, 100 lions of various types, elks, giraffes, tigers, hippopotami, asses, wild horses, hyenas, and a rhinoceros.101 As Wiedemann states, the source for many of these spectacles, the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, cannot always be taken at face value.102 Nevertheless, the scale of the venationes it attributes to these emperors could not always have been so outlandish as to provoke outright disbelief in its contemporary readership. Later emperors like Probus and Aurelian are also credited by the SHA with the production of elaborate munera including venationes during their reigns. Aurelian (270-75) is said to have exhibited numerous animals including 20 elephants, 200 ferae mansuetae from Libya and Palestine, giraffes, elks, and tigers at his triumph celebrated in 274.103 At the last recorded imperial venatio staged by Probus (276-82) in 281, he is said to have displayed at the Circus Maximus 1000 ostriches, 1000 boars, and 1000 stags, as well as numerous other herbivores. On another day 100 maned lions, 200 46 maneless lions (?) (leopardi), 100 lionesses, and 300 bears, participated in a venatio staged in the Colosseum.104 The pictorial and literary evidence suggests that in the third and fourth centuries emperors tended to concentrate on providing rare species of animals in their venationes rather than killing off vast numbers of more common species of animals as emperors like Trajan had done. This trend may well be related to a diminishing supply of animals suitable for the venationes in the late empire. Unusual combinations of animals, such as bears and bulls, were also forced to fight each other in order to increase the novelty of the games.105 A passage from the SHA indeed suggests that, at least on occasion, later emperors were perhaps more sparing of their animals than their predecessors. It records a list of wild animals kept in Rome during the reign of Gordian III, ...quae omnia Philippus ludis saecularibus vei dedit vei occidit..., including tame lions and leopards.106 The word order may suggest that more animals were exhibited than were slaughtered by Philip; ninety tame felines, that in all probability did not perish as part of the spectacula, form a sizeable portion of the listed number of animals. In addition, it cannot always be assumed that the common term ferae as used in the SHA and other sources refers to predators which would be involved in violent spectacles. Ferae rather appears to refer to undomesticated animals in general, some of whom, such as gazelles, are not naturally aggressive and would therefore be as suitable for simple, non-violent displays as for venationes. The passage just cited records that Gordian III had prepared both feras mansuetas et praeterea efferatas for his planned Persian triumph, of which the former group may have been intended for display and the latter for combat. Only in the case of animals labelled bestiae, a term which apparently does refer normally to predators, can we assume with a fair degree of certainty that such animals were involved in venationes.107 1 47 Animal Spectacles as Propaganda: As in the Republican period, the variety of exotic animal(s) exhibited to the public by different emperors often was meant to reflect recent Roman military or diplomatic successes in a given region. Under Augustus, at least one tiger was exhibited to the Roman populace as a reflection of current public and official interest in the Indian subcontinent, while the rhinoceros(es) and hippopotamus displayed and slaughtered during the same reign reflected the recent annexation of Egypt.108 Claudius, although explicit evidence is lacking, no doubt attempted to introduce new and exotic animals from Britain into his spectacula after the invasion of 43, while animals such as warthogs and zebus displayed during Nero's reign reflected contemporary Roman interest in the region of the upper Nile. Trajan probably included a large number of animals from recently-conquered Dacia in the massive venationes of his reign. Even a more pacifistic emperor like Antoninus Pius used various animals in his spectacula to emphasize Roman control over the known world: the SHA credits him with including tigers, lions, rhinoceroses, in short animals ex toto orbe terrarum in one of his games, likely his decennalia celebrations of 148. Coins minted under Antoninus Pius in 148/49, which depict such animals as lions and elephants, appear to confirm this account.109 'Non-Imperial' Animal Spectacula and their Infrastructrure: The staging of spectacles, including animal events, was of course not limited to those sponsored by the emperor in Rome itself. In the major cities of the Greek east, priests of the imperial cult are known to have possessed their own troupes of gladiators and venatores with which they could periodically stage various spectacles.110 Magistrates or wealthy citizens throughout the empire, although not legally required to do so, were also normally expected to stage munera by their 48 communities, who often contributed money towards the cost of such spectacles.111 The games of Pliny the Younger's friend Maximus, for example, were staged under popular pressure in Verona as a tribute to the latter's deceased wife. Maximus' attempt to procure wild felines for his venatio implies that even in the late first century there still existed a private trade in such animals.112 Not surprisingly, local magistrates like Maximus would often commemorate their munera in some fashion so as to impress posterity with their generosity towards their communities. Many of these records contain incidental details which help us to reconstruct the types and scale of spectacles staged in smaller communities outside of Rome. To judge from the surviving inscriptions concerning venationes in particular, the organizers of these events often boasted of the number of animals involved and killed during the proceedings in order to enhance their own prestige. The duumvir Publius Baebius Justus, for example, boasted of having killed 10 'cruel' (crudeles) bears and 16 herbanae over a period of four days in his venatio staged in Minturnae on August 1, 249. The adjective crudeles used to describe the bears served to emphasize the bravery of Justus' venatores and further justify the slaughter of the animals.113 In 57, the year in which he built his wooden amphitheatre in Rome, Nero instituted a short-lived ban on all munera in the provinces, except those under imperial patronage. Although Tacitus implies that this measure was taken to relieve the financial burden that the magistrates staging their own games were imposing on their local communities, Nero may also have felt that provincial games outside of his control would undermine the prestige and popularity he would earn by staging his own munera in the capital.114 Apart from the literary and epigraphic evidence just mentioned, several works of art, in particular mosaics, also shed additional light on the organization and infrastructure behind non-imperial venationes staged in the Roman provinces. These pictorial scenes, like inscriptions, often give information concerning the 49 different varieties and numbers of animals involved in particular events. A few mosaics, to be discussed below, are particularly important, since they provide evidence of the venatio corporations working behind the scenes to produce the spectacles of local magistrates. The most famous, and informative, African venatio mosaic is likely the mid-third-century Magerius mosaic from Smirat, which illustrates a 'typical' beast-hunt staged by a local magnate (Fig. 3). Like the Zliten (see page 88) and El Djem mosaics, that of Magerius appears to have been commissioned for the estate in which it was found, so that its owner could advertise to his guests and clients his wealth and munificence, as typified by the depicted venatio. As Dunbabin notes, the lack of an amphitheatre, or even a sizeable settlement at Smirat in the Roman period, makes it probable that Magerius gave his venatio in one of the nearby large cities such as Thapsus, which did in fact possess such facilities.115 The mosaic depicts four venatores in combat with four leopards. Diana, holding a stalk of millet, presides over the scene as patron goddess of the amphitheatre.116 All of the leopards wear garlands of either millet or ivy. The first hunter Spittara, mounted on what appears to be stilts, dispatches the leopard Victor with his hunting-spear. The second vena tor Bullarius fights the leopard Crispinus with the assistance of Hilarinus, whose leopard Luxurius is already mortally wounded. The last hunter Mamertinus is depicted slaying the leopard Romanus. Despite the fact that the venatores all apparently belong to the same troupe, they wear different costumes. The bare-chested Spittara has virtually no protection against the leopards' attacks, while Bullarius is afforded at least some protection by the leather-reinforced tunic he wears. The most interesting aspect of this mosaic, apart from the depiction of the combatants, is the request of the herald and the acclamation of the spectators. The request of the herald runs as follows: 50 Proclaimed by the curio: "My lords, in order that the Telegenii should have what they deserve from your favour for (fighting) the leopard, give them five hundred denarii"117 As we shall see, the Telegenii mentioned here were evidently the corporation responsible for staging this particular venatio. Numerous corporations such as this one staged venationes in Africa by providing the animals, hunters, and attendants necessary for such shows. Inscriptional evidence indicates that the Telegenii were active throughout Roman Africa, while other such groups were more local in character.118 Each had its own number and emblem so as to be easily distinguishable from its competitors. Larger corporations like the Telegenii were apparently subdivided into sections of succursales or filiales. Supporters could evidently join their favourite group (for example, become a Telegenius), similar to the circus factions of the later empire.119 It is entirely possible that one of these hunting-corporations possessed a travelling-troupe of arena bears based in Carthage, to judge from the evidence of a number of mosaics depicting such animals in the vicinity of the city.120 The curio's declaration also provides some information about the financial arrangements behind local spectacles such as that staged by Magerius. The curio requests Magerius to pay the Telegenii 500 denarii per leopard, evidently the minimum fee for the animals provided. The generosity of Magerius is indicated in the mosaic by the depiction of four sacks of 1000 denarii apiece, thereby indicating he paid the Telegenii double the sum requested by the curio.121 It is of course dangerous to speculate from a single piece of evidence such as this, but those providing animals for venationes may, like Magerius, have normally paid separately for each animal which appeared in the spectacle. This would seem to be a more sensible arrangement than paying a bulk sum for the expected number of animals beforehand, given the distances and other uncertainties involved in the shipment of animals to various centres. 51 The crowd's acclamation in the Magerius mosaic provides further information concerning the venatio, details of which can perhaps be viewed as typical for spectacles staged by local magistrates and benefactors throughout the provinces. The text in translation runs as follows: They shouted: May future generations know of your munus because you are an example for them, may past generations hear about it; where has such a thing been heard of? When has such a thing been heard of? You have provided a munus as an example to the quaestors; you have provided a munus from your own resources. That day: Magerius gives. This is wealth. This is power. This is now. Night is now. By your munus they were dismissed with money-bags.122 The first point to note about this acclamation is the comparison of the venatio staged by Magerius to those staged by the quaestors in Rome. The beast-hunts put on by the quaestors each December, being perhaps the only regularly-scheduled venationes in the capital (see page 43) were natural objects of comparison for spectacles staged by local magnates like Magerius. The acclamation in the mosaic also suggests that Magerius' venatio lasted but a single day, since it explicitly links the departure of the Telegenii with their money to the coming of night.123 Undoubtedly, most of the animal spectacles staged outside of Rome only lasted one day since the local sponsors, unlike the emperors and their officials, would not normally have been wealthy enough to purchase the number of animals necessary for an event staged over several days. The fact that the crowd's acclamation in the Magerius mosaic appears to treat the term munus as being synonymous with venatio indicates the popularity of venationes among North Africans in particular. The text makes reference to Magerius' games as a munus, despite the fact that the mosaic provides no evidence that anything other than a venatio was involved in the spectacle. This terminology may indicate, as previously suggested, that gladiatorial contests were extremely rare in third century Africa, and that venationes alone were the standard spectacles produced at that time by African editores.124 52 Hunting-corporations responsible for producing local venationes such as that staged by Magerius were evidently not confined to North Africa. A mosaic from Britain, dating to the mid-fourth century, may indicate just how widespread the activity of African corporations like the Telegenii really was. The mosaic in question, whose central medallion depicts Venus and a Triton(?), comes from a large Roman villa near Rudston in Yorkshire (Fig. 4). For our purposes, the most interesting sections of the floor are the four lunettes surrounding the Venus roundel. Each of these zones depicts a different wild animal: a bull labelled TAURUS OMICIDA ('Man-killing bull'), a leopard, a stag, and a wounded lion denoted as [LEO] F[R]AMEFER ('Spear-bearing lion'(?)). The figures of four huntsmen (one of which is now destroyed) fill the spaces between these animal scenes. The fact that the bull is named Omicida, a name which, as we shall see, is used elsewhere to denote arena animals, suggests that the mosaic as a whole depicts a venatio rather than a hunt in the wild. The most interesting aspect of the scene, however, is the staff with a crescent-shaped head above the bull. Neal suggests this object may be a goad, yoke, or axe, but none of these interpretations is particularly convincing.125 The device most closely resembles the crescent-headed staff, representative of the Telegenii, held by one of the figures in a previously-mentioned mosaic from El Djem (see note 119).126 Given the above evidence, it appears likely that the owner of the villa hired the Telegenii to stage a venatio featuring imported African animals (for example leopards), and, like the commissioner of the Smirat mosaic, subsequently commemorated his generosity with a mosaic in his own home. If this interpretation is correct, it incidentally suggests that African wild animal populations were not as devastated by the venationes as is commonly assumed, since even as late as c. 350, such animals were still being exported from Africa to Britain. Although the evidence is not conclusive, it is reasonable to assume that corporations similar to the Telegenii also produced spectacles in the eastern empire. An inscription from Mylasa honouring the patron of a group of venatores may have 53 been commissioned by such an association.127 The lanista from Beroea who staged an animal-spectacle in Antioch (see page 78) also was perhaps in charge of one of these local groups. Since these corporations were present in both North Africa and the eastern empire, they probably existed in the western provinces as well, although firm evidence is lacking. Animal Spectacula of the Late Empire: Most of the detailed evidence for venationes staged by imperial magistrates in Italy and the provinces comes from the late empire. The letters of Symmachus, for example, provide a great deal of information about the staging of venationes by public officials in late fourth and early fifth century Rome. Symmachus describes two sets of such games staged on behalf of his son in his letters, the first for the latter's quaestorship in 393 and the second for his praetorship in 401.128 Symmachus, expecting his son to become praetor in 400, began two years earlier to collect the animals to celebrate the expected event, a good indication of the preparation time required for an animal spectacle. An additional year of preparation time was gained when the son was not elected praetor until 401.129 In two letters written at this time Symmachus thanked Stilicho for allowing the use of the public post to his agents buying Spanish horses, and requested the use of the Colosseum for the praetorian games, a request which was ultimately granted.130 The variety of animals gathered by Symmachus indicates that, whatever problems may have existed in the later empire with declining animal populations and the like, an infrastructure still existed at the end of the fourth century sufficient to bring large numbers of exotic animals to Rome for the venationes, at least on occasion. For the games to celebrate his son's quaestorship, Symmachus expected to obtain some lions, most likely from North Africa, and bears. A popular attraction at these games were the seven Irish wolfhounds brought all the way from Scotland. I n 54 order to further increase the splendour of this particular spectacle, Symmachus also asked the current governor of Africa, Paternus, to send a group of famed local arena venatores to Rome for the beast-hunt.131 A subsequent letter written in 394, however, indicates that some of the animals procured from overseas for these games were lost in a shipwreck en route to Rome.132 An even larger variety of animals was also brought to Rome for the praetorian games of 401, in particular horses for the chariot-races. Although some of these animals appear to have come from Italy itself or Gaul, the majority were imported from Spain, no doubt because of the outstanding reputation horses from the latter region enjoyed in antiquity. Symmachus was once more able to obtain the use of the public post for his servants in order to facilitate their journey to Spain.133 After a number of horses sent by one of Symmachus' friends in Spain perished en route to Rome, he asked another friend in Aries to winter some other Spanish horses on the latter's estate, evidently so that they, unlike some of the earlier group of horses, would not die of exhaustion on a long, non-stop journey to Rome.134 To judge by his letters, Symmachus also brought a large number of bears to Rome for this particular spectacle, from such diverse regions as Italy, Dalmatia, and in all likelihood, the Balkan peninsula, as well as the northern frontier of the empire.135 Particularly exotic animals involved in the games included an unspecified number of leopards, which may have participated in a procession rather than a venatio: Symmachus refers to a leopardorum cursus in the arena.136 Lions in all likelihood also took part in the games of 401, since in a letter dated to 400, Symmachus asks for imperial permission to obtain an additional supply of Libycae ferae.137 Other African animals which Symmachus at least attempted to import for the praetorian games included topi and impalla antelopes from Africa.138 Egyptian crocodiles were evidently one of his prize exhibits at the games of 401. In one of his letters, Symmachus mentions all the animals being imported for the praetorian games, but only specifies the crocodiles by name. Another indication of this animal's special 55 status is the fact that Symmachus attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to keep these crocodiles alive until some of his relatives who had been absent from the spectacles could reach Rome to see them.139 Claudian, a contemporary of Symmachus, records similar details concerning the gathering of animals from widely scattered locations for the games. For the venatio held during the consulship of Manlius in 399, Claudian records the importation, or at least expected importation, of bears, lions, leopards and other animals from such diverse locations as Gaul, Spain, and the Alps.140 A similar variety of animals was expected for the spectacle celebrating Stilicho's consulship in 400: Claudian gives a highly romanticized account of capturing lions from Libya, boars from Germany, deer from Corsica and Sicily, lions and leopards from Ethiopia, and bears from Spain, as well as unnamed animals from Gaul, Dalmatia and Italy. Tigers, snakes, and lynxes are also included in the list of animals collected for these games.141 Claudian further records the presence of Libyan lions at the games staged to celebrate Honorius' sixth consulship in 404.142 The letters and orations of Libanius also provide an insight into the organization of the contemporary venationes staged in Antioch. Such spectacles in Antioch were normally the responsibility of the Syriarch, an official whose term of office was apparently four years. Ideally, the Syriarch was to stage annual venationes for the province of Syria during his term, although we shall see that this schedule was not always rigidly observed. One of these spectacles was normally produced at the conclusion of the games of Olympian Zeus held in Antioch every four years.143 The letters of Libanius make it clear, however, that beast-hunts unconnected with the festival of Olympian Zeus also took place periodically in Antioch, such as those staged by the governor of Syria Tisamenus in 3 8 6.144 The importance of venationes at this time can be measured by the fact that their production in all cases was entrusted to officials of high status, be they Syriarchs or provincial governors. 56 The expenses of such spectacles were so great that those staging them were often forced to beg assistance from other officials in order to help defray the costs.145 In 356/57 Libanius wrote to a councillor of Antioch by the name of Antiochus, requesting the latter to assist Libanius' cousin by capturing bears for an upcoming venatio in Antioch. Interestingly enough, this same Antiochus is known to have had estates in Phoenicia, from which the bears in question may have come.146 A second letter concerning the same spectacle indicates that Libanius' cousin had to obtain an imperial 'nod' (VEGMO) before he could go ahead with it. Although this 'nod' may have merely been imperial sanction for the venatio, it could also have involved the release of funds necessary for such an expensive event.147 In 363 Libanius sent another letter to the vicarius of Asia, Caesarius, requesting him to aid in the collection of bears from Mount Ida for another venatio staged by the Syriarch Celsus.148 A second letter containing virtually the same request was also sent to the official Dulcitius, evidently in charge of Ionia at the time.149 The first of these two letters makes it clear that a venatio had not been staged in Antioch for some time because of the costs involved. Such a spectacle had evidently not been seen in the city for at least three years, and perhaps as long as seven.150 In 390, a certain Argyrius, who may well have been Syriarch at the time, was forced to request funds from Tatian, the current praetorian prefect, in order that his planned venatio might go ahead.151 The expense required to stage the venationes in Libanius' day can also be deduced from the efforts some officials took to avoid responsibility for them: in the early 380's reluctant decurions were pressured to assume the Syriarchate and its attendant costs, which in turn led to legislation in 383 stipulating that this office could only be undertaken by volunteers.152 In 386, the governor Tisamenus, who had failed to cajole one of his colleagues to stage a venatio in Antioch, embarrassed them by bringing in an unnamed 'lanista' with his animals and huntsmen from neighbouring Beroea to do so.153 If, as Liebeschuetz argues, the office of the 57 Syriarchate was exclusively concerned with the production of annual venationes, the failed attempt by the praetorian prefect Tatian to force Syrian senatorial landowners to contribute to the expenses of the Syriarch is also indicative of the cost of such spectacles.154 The few relevant financial figures from the late empire illustrate the expense of animals involved in the venationes (as well as the spectacula in general). The price of an 'regular' animal should first of all be cited by way of comparison: for example, in early fourth century Palestine, one could buy a young cow for 3-4 solidi (approximately 7250-9700 denarii).155 Diocletian's Edict on Maximum Prices lists the price for a single first-grade African lion (the most expensive item in the document) at 150,000 denarii (approximately 62 solidi), while a lion of the second grade is listed at 125,000 denarii (approximately 52 solidi). A first grade lioness is listed at 120,000 denarii, while one of the second-grade is listed at 100,000 denarii (approximately 42 solidi). The price for a first-grade leopard is not preserved, but that of a second-grade specimen is quoted at 70,000 denarii (approximately 30 solidi). Although the prices of the bears and wild asses listed in the Edict have not survived, a first-grade wild boar is quoted at 6000 denarii (2.5 solidi). An unidentified animal of the second-grade is listed at 2000 denarii (approximately 8/10 of a solidus).156 Judging from this price, as well as its position in the text between wild boars and asses, the animal in question was evidently quite run-of-the-mill. In 409, approximately a century after Diocletian's edict was published, the finances of Antioch's magistrates, who were responsible for staging venationes in the city, were temporarily restored by a grant of 600 solidi. As Liebeschuetz notes, this sum, discounting inflation over the past century, would pay for only twelve of the first-grade lions mentioned in Diocletian's edict.157 Although the bears and leopards mentioned in Libanius' letters were much less expensive to purchase than lions, extra money would also have to have been set aside in order to feed the animals before their appearance in the arena, as well as to hire the venatores to fight 58 them.158 Skilled troupes of venatores may well have been scarcely less expensive than the more exotic animals they were pitted against. Apart from the actual cost of the animals involved in the spectacula of the later empire, there was also a tax, or portorium, levied on their transport, at least in the western empire. In two letters of 397-98 concerning his brother Cynegius' upcoming games in Rome, Symmachus complained about candidates for the quaestorship having to pay such a levy, fit only for private ursorum negotiatores, on the transport of bears.159 This tax, under the ultimate authority of the comes sacrarum largitionum, consisted of a 2 or 2.5% levy on selected goods arriving in Rome. Members of the imperial family were of course exempt from such taxation.160 Since members of the quaestorial order, according to Symmachus, had never previously paid the portorium on animals, it appears to have been a recent innovation: Symmachus himself did not have to pay any such tax when helping to organize the quaestorial games of 393.161 In the later empire, the government evidently no longer wished, or had the financial reserves, to uphold an earlier decree of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, whereby...fiscum remouerunt a tota harena.162 One possible motivating factor for this change of policy may have been the disorder in the western empire after the death of Theodosius in 395: amongst the problems placing a burden on Honorius' treasury in 397 were Stilicho's campaign against Alaric in Greece and the revolt of the comes Gildo in Africa.163 Although not explicitly stated by Symmachus, it is likely that this portorium applied to all wild animals imported for the spectacula, and not just bears alone.164 Justinian's Digest records, amongst other luxury-goods subject to a vectigal, lions, lionesses, leopards, maneless lions, and cheetahs.165 Since bears, however, to judge by the correspondence of both Libanius and Symmachus, were the most frequent participants in the animal-spectacles of the later empire, they would have been an ideal commodity to tax for cash-strapped imperial officials. If one assumes that bears made up the majority of animals imported by Cynegius (and therefore were 59 responsible for the majority of the portorium to be paid), this would perhaps explain why Symmachus mentioned only these animals in his complaint to Paternus. Since lions, lionesses, leopards, maneless lions, and cheetahs were rare enough to be classified as luxuries subject to the vectigal in the late empire, the whole group, and not just the lions, may well have belonged to an imperial monopoly. All of these animals, and not just lions and elephants, were perhaps denoted by the term bestias regias mentioned in the Historia Augusta.166 In another of his letters written to Stilicho in 400, Symmachus praised the emperor Honorius for providing leopards for his son's spectacle in Rome, thereby suggesting that the supply of these animals was indeed under imperial control, at least in the western empire.167 In order to procure a sufficient supply of animals and performers for the shows, preparations for the Antioch venatio, like those in Rome, were apparently often undertaken more than a year in advance.168 The letter written to Antiochus concerning the collection of what may well have been Phoenician bears has already been mentioned. A number of letters written in 357 record Libanius' efforts to obtain bears from Bithynia, whose wildlife evidently enjoyed something of a reputation, for an upcoming venatio in Antioch.169 In 363 Libanius wrote two other letters in an attempt to procure bears from the mountains of Ionia, in particular Mount Ida.170 The latter letter, as well as another written in 357, suggest the presence of large numbers of leopards in Syria and Ionia respectively.171 To judge from Libanius' letters, arena venatores, like their animal opponents, were also recruited from various locales. Writing in 360, Libanius stated that the finishing touch of his cousin's liturgy would be the recruiting of such performers from all over the region (noAAaxoBsv). In this particular letter Libanius was attempting to procure some of the obviously renowned beast-hunters from Phoenicia for his cousin's spectacle.172 Venatores in the diocese of Asia itself also appear to have enjoyed a certain degree of popularity: the athletes which Libanius requested from the vicarius of Asia, Clearchus, in 364 were evidently such beast-fighters.173 60 Libanius' letters suggest that the methods used to capture animals for the spectacula were much the same as those employed in Cicero's day. Prominent individuals could still appeal directly to administrators in 'wildlife-rich' areas for various animals, much as Caelius had done to Cicero. In two letters concerning the capture of animals for a venatio of 364, Libanius urges both the current vicarius and proconsul of Asia to assist a certain Polycarpus in purchasing animals for the event in Bithynia.174 Polycarpus evidently acted as a middle-man in the animal-trade between Bithynia and Antioch, much as Patiscus did for the shipment of leopards from Cilicia to Rome some four hundred years earlier. In the latter fourth century at least, notables from different regions could also assist each other in gathering animals for the spectacula: in two of his letters dating to 357, an exchange of Syrian leopards for Bithynian bears is mentioned by Libanius.175 Notes: 1 Plutarch, Sulla, 5. 2 Ville (1981) 59.This episode illustrates the fact that plebeian aediles, as well as curule aediles, were at least occasionally entitled to stage animal spectacles in Rome: see Ville (1981) 96-97. 3 Cicero, In Vatinium, 15, 37; Pro Sestio, 44, 134-35: Ville (1981) 64-65. The law in question was the lex Tullia de ambitu, passed by Cicero during his consulship in 63 B.C. 4 Bertrandy (1987) 229. 5 Jennison (1937) 51-52. 6 Mishna, Avodah Zarah 1, 7: Jennison (1937) 167: Friedlander (1968) Vol. 4; 534. 7 Although the edited Mishna code as a whole dates to the late second century AD, it has been suggested that the edict banning the sale of wild animals is at least as early as the first century in date, perhaps even earlier: see Hayes (1997) 175. 8 Suetonius, Julius, 75, 3: Munzer (1918) 471-72. 9 Plutarch, Cicero, 36, 5: Cicero, Ad Familiares, 2, 11, 2; 8, 2, 2; 8, 4, 5; 8, 6, 5; 8, 8, 10; 8, 9, 3; Ad Atticum, 5, 21, 5; 6, 1, 21: Bertrandy (1987) 212: Toynbee (1996) 20: Jennison (1937) 137-40. The term used in the letters is pantherae, which technically can denote a number of different spotted felines. Most scholars [for example Toynbee (1996) 20; Jennison (1937) 137] assume, however that the animals requested from Cicero were leopards. Caelius' subsequent colleague in the aedileship, Marcus Octavius, also requested leopards from Cicero: see Cicero, Ad Atticum, 5, 25,1; 6,1, 21: Jennison (1937) 139. 10 Cicero, Ad Familiares, 8, 9, 3: Jennison (1937) 138, n. 1. 11 Cicero, Ad Familiares, 8, 4, 5; 8, 9, 3. 12 Jennison (1937) 150-51. 61 13 Cicero, Ad Familiares, 2,11, 2; Ad Atticum, 6,1, 21. 14 Jennison (1937) 139, n. 3: cf. Ville (1981) 349. 15 Cicero, Ad Familiares, 8, 9, 3. 16 Cicero, Ad Familiares, 2, 11, 2: Jennison (1937) 140. 17 cf. Jennison (1937) 140, n. 1: Ville (1981) 348. 18 Cicero, Ad Familiares, 8, 9, 3. 19 Scobie(1988) 195. 20Lafaye (1963) 700. 21 Wiedemann (1995a) 55, 59: Ville (1981) 123-25: Edmondson (1996) 79. For a far more detailed discussion of the venationes staged by the Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperors, see Ville (1981) 99-116, 129-55. 22 Pliny, NH, 8, 2, 4-5: Ovid, Metamorphoses, 11, 25-27: Ville (1981) 126-27: However, although the precedent for the later 'fixed' association between gladiatorial combat and venationes was established under Augustus, such an arrangement did not become standard until after his death. An inscription from Pompeii (CIL 4, 1200) actually refers to venatores as matutini: see Sabbatini Tumolesi (1980) 81-82. 23 Ville (1981) 155-58. 24 Ville (1981) 387-88. As Fora [(1996b) 44] notes, however, independent venationes could still be staged as late as the third century. 25 Suetonius, Augustus, 43, 1: Jennison (1937) 63. 26 Suetonius, Caligula, 18, 3; Claudius, 21, 3: Jennison (1937) 68-69. 27 Wiedemann (1995a) 48, n. 16: Galsterer (1981) 415-16. 28 Wiedemann (1995a) 8. 29 Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 39-40, 127-128: Robinson (1994). 169. 30 Dio 53, 27, 6: Toynbee (1996) 18. 31 Dio, 69, 14; 60, 5, 6: CIL 6, 32323: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 47: Robinson (1994) 169. Ville (1981) 164-65. 32 Suetonius, Claudius, 24, 2: Tacitus, Annals, 11, 22, 2: Scobie (1988) 195, n. 35: Galsterer (1981) 415: Ville (1981) 165-68: According to Tacitus [Annals 13, 5, 1-2], Nero abolished this obligation in 55, but this ban on quaestorian munera did not even survive his reign. 33 Galsterer (1981) 415-16. 34 Robinson (1994) 169. This responsibility for damages was likely taken over by the urban prefect when he became responsible for the disciplina spectaculorum. 35 Symmachus, Epistulae, 2; 46, 76, 77: 4; 7, 8,12, 58-60, 63: 5; 56, 62, 82: 6; 33, 35, 43: 7; 48, 59, 82, 98, 105, 106, 121, 122: 9; 15, 16, 20, 27, 117, 135, 141,144,151: Robinson (1994) 167. 36 Suetonius, Gaius 27, 4: Wiedemann (1995a) 170. 37 Buonocore (1992) 144. 38 Wiedemann (1995a) 170: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 39-40. It is possible, since the regionary catalogues of Rome place the Ludus Matutinus in the second region of the city, that an earlier structure existed in this area, replaced by the building erected near the Colosseum by Domitian: see Ville (1981) 282-83. 39 Wiedemann (1995a) 8. 40 Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 39-40, 127-28. 41 Jennison (1937) 174. For details of this structure's excavation, see Colini (1944) 287. 42 AE 1972, 574: Buonocore (1992) 28. 43 Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 128. 44Golvin(1988) 150, n. 435. 45 Jennison (1937) 194. 46 IGUR 1060: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 33, 40. 47 Frank (1959) Vol. 2; 348. 48 Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 128: Buonocore (1992) 26. 49 ILS 1428: Fora (1996a) 33-34. 62 50 Buonocore (1992) 26. The inscription also raises the question of whether or not 'regional procurators' existed for familia venatoria in different areas as they evidently did for their gladiatorial counterparts: was there, for example, also a procurator familiarum venatoriarum in Sicily, Aemilia, and Dalmatia? 51ILS 1420: Fora (1996a) 31-32. 52 AE 1984, 450: Buonocore (1992) 27-28. 53 Robert (1971) 309-10. 54 Patrologia Graeca, 104, 1432a: Roueche (1993) 73, n. 44. 55 Robert (1971) 320: For the adiutor ad feras see CIL 6, 10208. 56 Robert (1971) 155-56, n. 125: the errors in question include the use of Xeps instead.of XoJpe in the inscription. 57 Robert (1971) 157-58, n. 129. 58 Robert (1971) 315. 59 Roueche (1993) 73, n. 44. 60 Lafaye (1963) 697. It should be noted however that, although Lafaye cites the Notitia Dignitatum as evidence for this comment, the text in fact nowhere records such cynegia: in his discussion of the role of the comes sacrarum largitionum. Jones nowhere mentions such a responsibility: see Jones (1992) 427-38. 61 Notitia Dignitatum, Or., 14, 6-7: For the duties of the comes rei privatae, see Jones (1992), 412-17. 62 Procopius, Anecdota, 9, 2: For the banning of venationes by Anastasius, see Cameron (1973) 228. 63 These circus factions administered the various chariot-teams (ie Blues and Greens) racing in Constantinople. Due to the tremendous popularity of chariot-racing in the city, such factions enjoyed a considerable degree of power and even political influence. 64 Procopius, Anecdota, 9, 5: Cameron (1976) 194-95. 65 Cameron (1976) 218-22. 66 CIL 6, 8498: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 19-20. 67 CIL 6, 33981: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 20-21. 68 CIL 6, 352 (30746): Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 39-40. 69 CIL 6, 8555: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 24. 70 CIL 6, 10172: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 40-41. 71 CIL 6, 10173: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 41-42. 72IG 14, 1330: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 42. 73 Wiedemann (1995a) 117. 74 ILS 7813: The term medicus equarius does not necessarily mean that Apollodorus dealt only with horses; it may merely be used to indicate his profession as veterinarian, as opposed to a doctor with human patients. See Walker in Toynbee (1996) 313-14. 75 Walker in Toynbee (1996) 314. 76 CIL 12, 533. 77 ILS 6634: Courtney (1995) 327. 78 Courtney (1995) 327: A number of other inscriptions record gladiatorial combat or venationes staged by the iuvenes of various cities throughout the empire. Interestingly enough, the infamia which attached to professional gladiators and venatores does not appear to have affected amateurs such as these: see Ville (1981) 216-20, 269-70. 79 Courtney (1995) 327. 80 For military ursarii see e.g. CIL 13, 5243; 12048; 5703. The latter inscription was likely dedicated by a soldier or officer, although this is not made explicit in the text. 81 For specialist bull-fighters, see e.g. CIL 8, 696, 11914: ILS 5053. 82 Res Gestae, 22: Pliny, NH, 8, 24: Toynbee (1996) 18, 21: Edmondson (1996) 70. 63 83 Suetonius, Claudius, 21, 3: Dio 49, 7, 3; 60, 7, 3; 61, 9, 1: Toynbee (1996) 18, 21. 84 Suetonius, Nero, 53, 3. 85 cf. Coleman (1996) 64. 86 Galsterer (1981) 415. 87 Dio 66, 25, 1: Toynbee (1996) 21-22. 88 Wiedemann (1995a) 11-12. By comparison, note again that Augustus only staged twenty-six venationes of African beasts during his forty-five year reign. 89 Dio 68, 15: Wiedemann (1995a) 60-61: Edmondson (1996) 70. 90 SHA, Hadrian, 3, 8: Dio 68, 15, 1: AE 1933, 30: Wiedemann (1995a) 11. Both these games and those held earlier under Trajan would involve the slaughter of approximately eighty-nine animals per day. 91 CIL 14, 4546: Fora (1996a) 42-43. 92 SHA, Hadrian, 19, 7; 19, 3: Toynbee (1996) 18. 93 Jennison (1937) 83. Scattered references to venationes legitimae or plenae (which appear to be synonymous terms) outside of Rome may in fact denote such spectacles where a full range of animals (ie bulls, bears, felines, boars, stags etc.) appeared: see Ville (1981) 399. Of course it would not be unusual for smaller municipalities, unlike Rome, to boast of the variety of animals employed in a given event. Sabbatini Tumolesi [(1980) 27-28, 139)], on the other hand, suggests that the term venatio legitima merely indicates that the event was a sanctioned and integral part of the day's programme. 94 SHA, Antoninus Pius, 10, 9: Toynbee (1996) 18. 95 SHA. Commodus, 8, 5: Dio 73, 10; 18-19: Herodian 1, 15, 5-6: Ammianus Marcellinus 31, 10, 18-19: Toynbee (1996) 22. 96 Dio 77, 1: Toynbee (1996) 18. As Coleman (1996) [54] states, the collapsing ship may have been meant to represent cargo-ships transporting animals to Rome, which would undoubtedly have been familiar enough to a majority of the city's inhabitants. Although Dio states that this spectacle was staged iv TW Btarpu, contemporary depictions of the event, which show various monuments from the spina of the Circus Maximus along with the collapsing ship, indicate that it in fact occurred in the latter venue, presumably for reasons of space: see Humphrey (1986) 115-16. 97 SHA, Gordiani Tres, 3, 6, 7: Toynbee (1996) 18. 98 Jennison (1937) 89. 99 Dio 78,10. 100 SHA. Elagabulus, 28, 3: Toynbee (1996) 18-19. 101 SHA, Tres Gordiani, 33, 1, 2: Toynbee (1996) 16. 102 Wiedemann (1995a) 13. 103 SHA, Aurelian, 33,4; 34, 1: Toynbee (1996) 19. 104 SHA. Probus, 19: Toynbee (1996) 19: Jennison (1937) 93. IDS Wiedemann (1995a) 61, n. 15. 106 SHA, Gordiani Tres, 33, 1-3. 107 SHA. Gordiani Tres, 33, 3: Merten (1991) 152-53. 108 Dio 51, 22, 5: Suetonius, Augustus, 43, 4: Ville (1981) 110-11: Merten (1991) 141-42. 109 Merten (1991) 143: Aymard (1951) 186-89: SHA. Antoninus Pius, 10, 9. 110Roueche (1993) 61-64. 111 Wiedemann (1995a) 9-10: for an extensive discussion of spectacles staged outside of Rome, see Ville (1981) 175-225. 112 Pliny, Epistulae, 6, 34: Coleman (1990) 50. 113ILS 5062: Coleman (1990) 50: Fora (1996a) 71-73. 114 Tacitus, Annals, 13, 31, 4-5: Balsdon (1969) 304: Wiedemann (1995a) 43, n. 129: Toynbee(1996) 17. 115 Dunbabin (1978) 68-69. 116 Beschaouch (1987) 678: Dunbabin (1978) 67. 64 117 Wiedemann (1995a) 16-17. 118 Although the evidence dicussed in this section concerns the participation of hunting-corporations like the Telegenii in small-scale venationes, there is no reason why these organizations could not also assist in the gathering of animals etc. for larger 'imperial-sponsored' beast-hunts on occasion (see pages 162-63). 119 Beschaouch(1987) 680: Dunbabin (1978) 67-68: Roueche (1993) 74-75: For more information on these corporations see the various articles written by Beschaouch on the subject: CRAI (1966) 134-57; CRAI (1977) 486-503; CRAI (1979) 410-18; CRAI (1985) 453-75. A famous third century mosaic from El Djem depicts members of the Telegenii, Leontii, Sinematii, and Pentasii corporations at a cena libera prior to an upcoming venatio: see Salomonson (1960): 25-55. Although Roueche points out that such corporations could apparently own property, it is unclear how many of the actual arena participants belonging to these organizations were of free status. 120 Dunbabin (1978) 73-74:Bomgardner (1989) 92. 121 Beschaouch (1987) 679: Dunbabin (1978) 68: Coleman (1990) 50-51. 122 The translation is largely based on that of Wiedemann (1995a) 17 and Veyne (1987) 111. 123 Beschaouch (1987) 679-80. 124 Beschaouch (1987) 679-80. 125 Neal (1981) 92-93. 126 cf. Frere and Tomlin (1992) Vol. 2(4); 86-87, n. 24448.7: Henig (1992) 134. Although RIB notes that the staff above the bull does resemble the emblem of the Telegenii, it suggests that this symbol was merely one of many artistic motifs copied from North African mosaics. Given the fact, however, that the Rudston mosaic, so far as I know, is the only one outside of Africa to include such a symbol, in association with arena animals, I would argue that the inclusion of the crescent-staff in the design is no mere artistic coincidence. 127 Robert (1971) 179, n. 175: Roueche (1993) 74-75. 128 Jennison (1937) 94-95. Although obligatory praetorian games had been discontinued by Claudius, such spectacles reappeared in Rome under Constantine, and thereafter became a regular yearly feature, as indicated by the mid-fourth century calendar of Philocalus: see Jones (1964) 537; Ville (1981) 390-91. 129 Symmachus, Epistulae, 6, 35; 4, 63; 5, 62: Jennison (1937) 95. 130 Symmachus, Epistulae, 4, 7-8; 6, 33. 131 Symmachus, Epistulae, 2, 46, 76-77; 5, 59: Jennison (1937) 96-97. 132 Symmachus, Epistulae, 9,117. 133 Symmachus, Epistulae, 4, 58, 60; 5, 56, 82; 7, 48, 82, 97; 9, 20: Jennison (1937) 96: Another letter of Symmachus [4, 62] indicates that notables from as far away as Antioch purchased such horses from Spain: see Petit (1955) 124. 134 Symmachus, Epistulae, 5, 56; 9, 20: Jennison (1937) 151. 135 Symmachus, Epistulae, 7,121; 9, 27, 132, 135, 142: Jennison (1937) 97. 136 Symmachus, Epistulae, 4, 12: Jennison (1937) 96: Although Jennison [186-87] points out that the term leopard! could be used to denote maneless lions, by Symmachus' day the term appears to have been used for leopards proper: cf. SHA, Elagabulus, 25,1, where such animals are referred to both as pardi and leopardi.. 137 Symmachus, Epistulae, 7, 59; 122: Jennison (1937) 96. 138 Symmachus, Epistulae, 9, 144: Jennison (1937) 97. 139 Symmachus, Epistulae, 6,43; 9, 141, 151: Jennison (1937) 97. 140 Claudian, Panegyricus Dictus Manlio Theodoro Consuli, 291-310. 141 Claudian, De Consulatu Stilichonis, 3, 237-369: Jennison (1937) 98. 142 Claudian, De Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti, 619-20. 143 Liebeschuetz (1972) 141: Liebeschuetz (1959) 118-20: Petit (1955) 127-29: cf. Libanius, Epistulae, 544. 144 Libanius, Orationes, 33, 21; Epistulae, 970-71: Petit (1955) 129: Liebeschuetz (1959) 65 116-17. 145 Libanius, Epistulae, 218, 544, 1399-1400: Liebeschuetz (1972) 141-42: Petit (1955) 142. 146 Libanius, Epistulae, 544: Liebeschuetz (1972) 42: Petit (1955) 125. 147 Libanius, Epistulae, 545: Liebeschuetz (1959) 119. 148 Libanius, Epistulae, 1399: Norman (1992) 179. 149 Libanius, Epistulae, 1400. 150 Libanius, Epistulae, 1399: Liebeschuetz (1972) 141: Petit (1955) 129. 151 Libanius, Epistulae, 970-71: Liebeschuetz (1959) 117, 122. The granting of such funds may have been a regular necessity: in these letters Argyrius requested the same funds which his father Obodianus (a Syriarch?) had received from a previous praetorian prefect for a venatio in 359. 152 CT 12, 1, 103: Liebeschuetz (1972) 141-42. 153 Libanius, Orationes, 33, 14-15, 21: Liebeschuetz (1972) 142. 154 CT 6, 3, 1 (393): Liebeschuetz (1959) 122: Liebeschuetz (1972) 142. However, it should be noted that despite the prohibitive expenses, the wealthiest Antiochene councillors were evidently still able to assume the Syriarchate and stage venationes, thereby showing up their less fortunate colleagues. This may partially explain legislation of 465 which transferred the functions of the Syriarch to the Consular of Syria, thereby ending such losses of prestige a councillor might suffer for failing to put on a show while Syriarch: see Liebeschuetz (1959) 126. 155 Sperber (1974) 105. In this paragraph I have assumed an exchange rate in practice of approximately 2500 denarii to the solidus in the early fourth century, although one must keep in mind that this rate fluctuated throughout the century. 155 SEG 14, 386: Bingen (1971) 193, 281-82: Mattingly (1927) 227-28: Jones (1992) 1017-18: Corcoran (1996) 226. In Diocletian's edict, the XsonapSoc in question is in all likelihood a leopard proper, since a maneless lion would presumably not be thousands of denarii cheaper than a 'proper' lion merely because of its lack of a mane. 157 Liebeschuetz (1972) 157. 158 Based on the figures quoted above, 600 solidi would purchase approximately twenty second-grade leopards. Judging from the position of the bears listed in Diocletian's Edict (between leopards and wild boars), such animals would cost between 6000 and 70,000 denarii (approximately 2.5 to 30 solidi), although perhaps closer to the boars in price. 159 Symmachus, Epistulae, 5, 62; 65. 160 Chastagnol (1960) 337: Cagnat (1907) 592: if the portorium merely applied to items involved in commercial exchange, then it would likely never have been applied to the bears for a quaestorial munera in the first place. See De Laet (1975) 475-76. 161 Symmachus, Epistulae, 5, 62: Callu (1982) 198, n. 2. 162ILS 5163: Callu (1982) 198, n. 2. 163 See O'Flynn (1983) 33-37. 164 Chastagnol (1960) 337. 165 Digest, 39, 4, 16, 7: Mommsen (1985) Vol. Ill, 407-08: Since the terms pardi, leopardi, and pantherae are used to denote three of these animals, one of them must in all likelihood be a cheetah: see Jennison (1937) 187. 156 SHA, Aurelian, 20, 7. 167 Symmachus, Epistulae, 4, 12: See my comments above for the identification of these leopardi as leopards proper rather than maneless lions. 168 Liebeschuetz (1972) 141. 169 Libanius, Epistulae, 544, 586-88, 598-99: Petit (1955) 125. 170 Libanius, Epistulae, 1399-1400. 171 Libanius, Epistulae, 598, 1400: Petit (1955) 125. / 66 Libanius, Epistulae, 217: Petit (1955) 125. Libanius, Epistulae, 1179: Petit (1955) 135. Libanius, Epistulae, 1399-1400. Libanius, Epistulae, 588, 598: Petit (1955) 125. 67 Animal Enclosures and their Administration In this section we shall examine the various animal-enclosures found throughout Roman territory in the imperial period. It is important to note that these structures were not all of one uniform type: animal-pens ranged from large enclosures built to house the beasts for spectacula staged in Rome and elsewhere, to private vivaria used for the personal pleasure of their owners. We shall also look at the limited evidence pertaining to the care of animals within these structures, most of which relates to the raising and training of beasts for various spectacula. Imperial Animal Enclosures: Much of the existing evidence for the Roman animal-trade concerns the enclosures in which various creatures were kept, as well as individuals entrusted with their care. Several imperial freedmen, presumably under the jurisdiction of the procurator Ludi Matutini, were involved with this aspect of animal spectacula. As in the case of other 'spectacle-related' officials discussed in the preceding chapter, those associated specifically with the supervision of exotic animal pens appear to have first arisen in the Julio-Claudian period. A certain Tiberius Claudius Speclator, active in the reign of Claudius and/or Nero, is attested as having been procurator Laurento ad elephantos: at least some of the elephants arriving in Italy were quartered in an imperial enclosure in Laurentum before being sent to Rome or elsewhere for various spectacula. Laurentum lay some 24 kilometres due south of Rome, close to the coast of the Tyrrhenian sea. Juvenal also alludes to Laurentum's elephant pen in his twelfth satire.1 The elephants used for processions in Rome, which Didius Julianus attempted to train for combat in the face of Septimius Severus' march on the capital in 193, may also have come from the same enclosure.2 Although the majority of the elephants 68 kept in this pen must have been imported from Africa or India, some at least were evidently born in captivity in Italy, despite Juvenal's assertions to the contrary. According to Aelian, one of Germanicus' spectacles in Rome featured twelve elephants born near the city, in all probability in Laurentum.3 Other varieties of animals were also evidently quartered in separate pens in Laurentum. A tombstone found on the Via Laurentina between Ostia and Rome, dating to the Flavian period or a little later, records another imperial freedman, Titus Flavius Stephanus, as praeposito camellorum. The relief on the tombstone depicting an elephant between two camels suggests that the enclosures for these different animals may indeed have been in close proximity to each other. Although some scholars have thought that Stephanus' supervision may have only involved animals used for military purposes, the fact that the relief associated with this inscription depicts an elephant as well as camels suggests that this official was indeed involved with animal spectacula, since elephants were not used by the Roman imperial army. The camels kept in Laurentum were likely used not only for imperial venationes, but for various circuses and pompae as well.4 Animal-enclosures were undoubtedly built at Laurentum because of its strategic location: the animals only had to travel a short distance from Ostia, their main port of entry into Italy, to Laurentum, and kept in readiness for the games in Rome without endangering the urban populace.5 In addition, a nearby river could provide fresh drinking-water for the creatures during their stay in the area.6 The natural advantages of Laurentum were obviously recognized even at an early date: one wonders if at least one of these imperial pens in Laurentum was developed from the therotrophium possessed by Quintus Hortensius in the Republican period.7 Two other animal-enclosures alluded to in inscriptions of the imperial period may also have been located at Laurentum, although hard evidence is lacking. An imperial freedman, Aurelius Sabinus, likely from the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, is listed as a praepositus herbariarum on a funerary inscription found in 69 Rome. It has been suggested that herbariae were perhaps the non-African or oriental animals used in spectacula, although as their name suggests, they may merely have been the various herbivorous animals, such as antelopes, shipped to Rome for the games. 8 Another funerary inscription, likely from the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, mentions Marcus Aurelius Victor, adiutor ad feras. This freedman was perhaps the assistant to a procurator ad feras, although the latter office is not directly attested by any epigraphical evidence.9 Victor may well have been in charge of supervising the disembarkment of wild animals at Ostia and their transfer to Rome.10 Another of his responsibilities may well have been the purchase of cattle to feed carnivorous wild animals brought to Rome: Suetonius records that Caligula, thinking that such cattle were too expensive to be used as fodder for wild animals, substituted condemned criminals instead.11 The foregoing evidence suggests that in the imperial period, animals of different types, such as wild and domesticated, were quartered separately and supervised by a core of specialist imperial freedmen. As Bertrandy suggests, one can imagine a heirarchy of officials, with the procurator in charge of the imperial enclosure and praepositi beneath him in charge of various animal types or breeds.12 The previous four inscriptions suggest that animals may have been divided into separate groups for administrative purposes according to different criteria at different periods of time. The first two inscriptions, dating to the later first century, imply that various herbivores, like elephants and camels, were subdivided at that time by species. The latter two inscriptions from approximately a century later indicate a simple distinction between herbariae and ferae bestiae. This apparent disparity, if not merely due to the small sample of inscriptions, may suggest a worsening supply of animals for spectacula in Rome between the first and second centuries AD. In the case of the elephant, it appears that they became scarce in animal spectacula of the imperial period rather quickly, and may indeed have been 70 largely extinct in Roman Africa by the fourth century.13 By the second century, because of the lavish venationes staged by emperors like Trajan and Hadrian, the supply of exotic herbivores, as well as carnivores, may have grown so scarce in Rome that it was no longer felt necessary to distinguish between their different varieties, but only to separate them in general for the obvious reasons mentioned previously.14 The Enclosures of Rome: It seems probable that several imperial enclosures would have been scattered throughout Italy to ensure a ready supply of animals for the numerous recorded animal spectacula in Rome. Unfortunately direct evidence for such establishments is not abundant. The largest and most elaborate animal-enclosure(s) undoubtedly existed in Rome itself.15 Procopius mentions an enclosure for lions and other animals beside the Porta Praenestina, adjacent to Aurelian's city-wall and enclosed by an additional circuit-wall, which had its own gate leading through the city-wall into the city proper. This enclosure may have been located between the Via Labicana and the Aurelianic wall, approximately two kilometres distant from the Colosseum (Fig. 5).16 Such a location, in a thinly populated area of the city, would be ideal for keeping wild animals: large numbers could be transferred at night along the Via Praenestina from the enclosure to the Colosseum without encountering many passersby (Fig. 6).17 The topography of the area around the Porta Praenestina, combined with Procopius' account and subsequent archaeological discoveries, allows us to obtain some idea of the enclosure's dimensions and appearance. As late as the eighteenth century a section of wall with windows was situated to the south of the Porta Praenestina, in an area commonly referred to by contemporaries as the vivarium. Three wall-paintings of exotic animals, earlier discovered in a subterranean room in the same area, also indicate that the ancient animal-pen was located south of the city-gate (Figs. 7-9).18 Since the Aurelianic wall took a sharp turn 64 metres south of the 71 Porta Praenestina, the enclosure could not have been wider than this: assuming that it continued lengthwise to the west until encountering the next wall-bastion, Jennison (maintaining that the enclosure was situated within the city-wall) speculates that its length may have been approximately 400 metres, thereby creating an area approximately 28,160 square metres in size. Such an enclosure would accord well with Procopius1 description of it as a flat rectangle of land.19 Although Procopius explicitly states that the enclosure wall lay outside (k'^toesv) that of the city (and most modern scholars concur), Jennison's estimates for the actual dimensions of the enclosure do not appear unreasonable.20 In any event, the structure would most likely not project past the corner of the city-wall, and the distance between bastions of this wall is roughly equal to the space between it and the Via Labicana. Richardson maintains that the animal-enclosure could not have been situated in this area, since the Aquae Marciae would have run through the middle of it, causing "...problems of pollution as well as maintenance."21 However, his arguments are not compelling. In the first place, it is difficult to see how the animals Q could pollute the water running high above their heads. Secondly, this enclosure presumably contained a number of animal-pens, in which the dangerous animals could be contained while any work was being done on the aqueduct. Having an aqueduct running through the enclosure would also of course remove the potential difficulty of providing enough fresh water for the animals within. Renaissance copies of the wall-paintings give a good idea of the variety of animals which could be housed in the structure at any one time. All three of the panels depict a variety of animals arranged in registers, including elephants, camels, bears, lions, a leopard, and giraffe. Although no precise date can be given to the originals on which these paintings are based, their division into registers, with several different ground-lines, suggests a date no earlier than the late second century.22 The juxtaposition of some of the animals in the same scene, such as lions and antelopes, belongs more to the realm of fantasy than reality: such animals must 72 have been segregated within the vivarium to ensure their survival. Unfortunately, the identity of some of the animals is difficult to determine, whether due to the ineptitude of the original artist or the Renaissance copyist. Interestingly enough, at least five of the seven elephants included in the panels are clearly of the Indian variety, which further confirms that such animals, as well as their African counterparts, were imported by Rome.23 In sum, these paintings suggest that a wide variety of animals, even in the later empire, was still being transported to Rome. Other epigraphic and archaeological evidence suggests that the army, as well as the urban cohorts of Rome maintained and supervised at least one other animal enclosure, in addition to that described by Procopius. A funerary inscription found in Rome, dating to the Antonine period, records a certain Titus Aelius, legionary centurion.24 Aelius, according to the text, "...habuit vivar[ium et curaml] supra iumenta [Caesaris]..." The enclosure supervised by this individual, as we shall see, could not have been that mentioned by Procopius. The find-spot of the inscription indicates that it existed somewhere in the vicinity of Rome, perhaps near Laurentum, where other such enclosures are known to have been located. It is unclear, if one assumes the restoration of the inscription is correct, whether or not the imperial beasts of burden over which Aelius had jurisdiction were housed in this particular enclosure. It is possible that Aelius had two separate, but related, responsibilities: the supervision of both exotic animals in a vivarium and domestic animals kept elsewhere. Another inscription from Rome dated to 241 mentions the venatores immunes cum custode vivari Pontius Verus and Campanius Verax, both soldiers of the sixth praetorian cohort, as well as the custos vivari cohortium praetoriarum et urbanarum Fuscius Crescentio. The venatores immunes mentioned in inscriptions such as this were evidently soldiers who received exemption from certain routine duties in return for undertaking frequent hunting trips for the animals needed at the games and elsewhere. The inscription shows that soldiers could be assigned to the capture or 73 maintenance of animals, and that certain of these soldiers, like Verus and Verax, were evidently promoted to a more supervisory role over the animals in Rome, presumably because of their previous experience on the frontiers as venatores immunes.25 Perhaps the praetorian venatores immunes possessed some authority over their counterparts in the provinces, through whom they were able to procure some of the animals needed for spectacula in Rome.26 Further evidence suggests that, at least on occasion, the praetorian and urban cohorts could indeed stage their own venationes. A black-and-white mosaic found near the Castra Praetoria, depicting a tiger flanked by two venatores, carries the inscription EX VICEN F L VELT or VELT (ex vicennalibus fecit Lucius Vettius vicit (?)) Although the exact restoration of the inscription is uncertain, the vicennalia in question, judging by the apparent later second century date of the mosaic on stylistic grounds, may well be that of Antoninus Pius in 158.27 The medici veterinarii attested as belonging to the Praetorian Guard may well have been primarily concerned with the upkeep of wild animals in Rome destined for such venationes, as well as other spectacula.28 The enclosure inscription discussed above was found between the Castra Praetoria and the Servian wall, at some distance from Procopius' structure. The fact that the Castra Praetoria and a neighbouring building were at one time referred to as vivarium or vivariolum implies that another animal-enclosure was indeed located in this area. In addition, the finds of exotic animal wall-paintings in a subterranean chamber under the Via Tiburtina, similar to those discovered near the Porta Praenestina, undoubtedly at one time belonged to this structure. Remains found in the area, which were finally destroyed in the nineteenth century, indicate that the enclosure was surrounded by a wall constructed of similar masonry to that used in the legionary camp at Albano. Gates in the western wall gave access to the city, while cells to contain the animals were built against the eastern wall of the enclosure. A channel of flowing water for drainage ran in front of the cages, and a basin in the 74 centre of the pen provided the various animals within with drinking water. According to Lanciani, the length of this structure at one time was estimated at 388 feet (approximately 118 metres) (Fig. 10).29 Some debate has arisen over whether or not this enclosure and that described by Procopius were part of the same complex. Contrary to what scholars such as Lanciani have stated, it is most unlikely that they were one and the same structure. If the estimate for the length of the 'praetorian' animal-pen given above is at all accurate, it could not have extended to the section of wall where Procopius places it. As Richardson points out, the two structures are not likely to have been constructed at the same time. Since the enclosure described by Procopius was flanked on at least one side by the Aurelianic wall, it could not have been built before it, whereas the inscription mentioned above indicates that the animal-pen south of the Castra Praetoria was in use well before this date.30 The 'praetorian' enclosure likely fell into disuse either when the new city wall was built (which may have bisected its original area), or, more likely, when Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard and dismantled their barracks, thereby leaving the structure without a 'supervisory' staff.31 Therefore, if this theory is correct, the animal-enclosure described by Procopius may well have been built in the early fourth century to replace the older one situated south of the Castra Praetoria.32 As Jennison states, with the number of animals recorded as participants in various imperial spectacula, it would not be at all surprising if a number of animal-pens existed at the same time in Rome.33 Another imperial enclosure may even have been located on the Vatican. Loisel records the discovery of animal-dwellings underneath the present-day church of St. John and St. Peter, which apparently belonged to such a facility. Although the date at which this enclosure was established is uncertain, it was evidently in use by the reign of Claudius: in all likelihood the enormous boa said to have been killed on the Vatican during this emperor's reign was being kept at this pen prior to its death.34 75 Imperial Animal-Enclosures in the Provinces: Scattered literary references indicate that state animal enclosures may have been relatively widespread in other cities throughout the empire. Tertullian implies that animals escaping from their cages in the cities were relatively common, a sentiment echoed at a later date by both John Chrysostom and Libanius.35 Although none of these references refers specifically to enclosures and could theoretically refer to animals escaping from their cages during transport through a city, John Chrysostom elsewhere states that enclosures in the city are located far away from such important civic structures as the law-courts and palace, so as to minimize the potential damage an escaping animal could cause.36 At the very least provincial capitals like Antioch in all probability possessed their own animal-pens. An imperial order issued to postpone indefinitely an upcoming venatio in Antioch presumably indicates that facilities were available to house the animals spared by this decree.37 Although literary evidence exists for animal-enclosures throughout the Roman empire, physical evidence of such structures outside of Rome is not abundant, presumably because most were constructed out of wood.38 However, the remains of one such possible enclosure are located east of the city of Trier, one of the capitals of the Tetrarchy. The structure in question consists of a low stone wall 72 kilometres in length, enclosing an area of approximately 220 square kilometres (Fig. 11). The two metre high wall was not designed to serve any defensive purpose, but would have been ideally suited for fencing in various animals.39 Inscriptions set up by some of the troops building the wall indicate that it was erected in the second half of the fourth century, most likely during the reign of Valentinian.40 The fact that Roman soldiers were enlisted to build this wall indicates that it was commissioned at the very least by a high government official, possibly by the emperor himself.41 Although the area enclosed by the wall did not include the most fertile soil in the region, it was still rich enough to support woodlands and agriculture. A number 76 of structures located within the wall, including villas, pottery-kilns, and tile-manufacturing facilities, indicates that different areas of the enclosed space were used for different purposes.42 Theoretically, a smaller area within could have been fenced off for either the raising or hunting of wild animals such as bears. It is not altogether impossible that one of the vivaria frequented by the emperor Gratian during his campaigns in Gaul (see below) was indeed located within this wall.43 Imperial Vivaria: Apart from enclosures specifically concerned with providing animals for Roman spectacula, a number of ancient sources make reference to private vivaria maintained by various emperors, on the model of those possessed by nobles in Republican Rome. The parkland around Nero's Domus Aurea was apparently stocked with all types of animals while Domitian's Alban estate was probably equipped with a vivarium to provide animals for the private hunts said to have been staged there.44 Pliny the Younger's invective against emperors who collect animals in cages for their own sport suggests that it was not at all uncommon for emperors prior to Trajan to possess their own such animal-enclosures: ...principes usurpabant autem ita ut domitas fractasque claustris feras, ac deinde in ipsorum ludibrium emissas, mentita sagacitate colligerent.45 In a letter sent to Marcus Aurelius in 144 or 145, Fronto gives the young Caesar hunting advice for his new vivarium: ubi vivarium dedicabitis, memento quam diligentissime, si feras percuties, equum admittere.46 The exact location of this enclosure is uncertain, but it may have formed part of the imperial estate at Centumcellae, which Fronto states was Marcus' destination at the time when he was dedicating the vivarium. Such a site would have been ideal: Pliny the Younger describes the estate as being surrounded by open fields and having excellent harbour facilities.47 Although Marcus obviously hunted in this vivarium, it, like 77 other such enclosures, was in all likelihood normally used as a breeding and feeding ground for various wild animals when the emperor was absent. Marcus' son Commodus (180-93) is also said to have kept animals at his estate in order to have a stock ready at hand for his own amusement. Fifty years later, Gordian III (238-44) supposedly maintained a vivarium for his anticipated Persian triumph, containing 20 asses, 40 wild horses, 10 elks, 32 elephants, 60 tame lions, 10 tigers, 10 hyenas, 30 maneless lions, 6 hippopotami, 10 arcoleontes, 10 giraffes, and one rhinoceros.48 Presumably if such vivaria really existed, the various animal types within them were kept subdivided as at Laurentum. At the end of the third century, Galerius is said to have possessed a special collection of bears for his own bloodthirsty pleasure: quotiens delectare libuerat, horum aliquem adferri nominatim iubebat. His homines non plane comedendi, sed obsorbendi obiectabantur...49 In the mid-fourth century, a hunting-park evidently existed at Macellum in Cappadocia, where Gallus and Julian were sent by Constantius II.50 In his second oration Julian specifically credits this emperor with an avid interest in hunting various animals, including leopards, bears, and lions: presumably at least some of these separate species were collected together into an imperial animal-enclosure.51 Further evidence for such vivaria concerns the later family of Valentinian I, which seems to have been keenly interested in the venationes and the wild animals participating in them. Ammianus Marcellinus records that Valentinian I (364-75) actually kept two of his favourite man-eating bears near his own bedroom in order to protect them and ensure their savage presence in upcoming events.52 Sozomen records an anecdote dating to the reign of Valentinian's son Gratian (367-83), when Ambrose of Milan was forced to sneak into the emperor's private venatio exhibition in order to plead for a condemned man's life. Interestingly enough, Sozomen comments that such private venationes were by no means uncommon (...Kuvqyiwv. oVac; jniTEXsiv sicoGaaiv oi 3aoiX£?<; TEpncoXqc; I5fac; X«piv ou 5q|JOoiac;...), which suggests that many emperors may have had their own vivaria, not otherwise attested, in order to provide 78 the animals for such events.53 Ammianus Marcellinus confirms Gratian's pleasure in private venationes, many of which presumably occurred during his stay in Gaul: ...intra saepta quae appellant vivaria sagittarum pulsibus crebris dentatas conficiens bestias...54 Ammianus' use of the plural in this passage incidentally suggests that animal-enclosures were still relatively common in the late fourth century. Gratian's younger brother Valentinian II (375-92) is also credited by the sources with having a keen interest in the venationes. Amongst this emperor's favourite pastimes are said to have been bear and lion-hunts, a fact which drew censure from some of his less 'sporting' subjects. According to the historian Philostorgios, Valentinian II was so stung by this criticism that he actually had his collection of wild animals destroyed so as to avoid any similar comments in future.55 Unfortunately Philostorgios does not specify where Valentinian II's animal-enclosure^) may have been located, although he, like other similarly-minded emperors, may well have maintained vivaria originally established by much earlier emperors. Private Animal-Enclosures: Some private citizens were also involved in animal commerce to stock their own private vivaria or enclosures. As noted previously, zoological parks are known to have existed as early as the late Republic at Laurentum, Tarquinia, and Tusculum, and certain exotic animals, such as the lion of Macrinus, were evidently kept as pets by the wealthy.56 Libanius indignantly mentions an 'entrepreneur' from the town of Beroea near Antioch who maintained his own arena animals and venatores, and presumably some type of animal-pen as well.57 An excerpt from Basil suggests that even as late as the fourth century wealthy citizens could stage their own venationes, presumably using animals kept in private enclosures like that at Beroea.58 79 Various Roman laws also suggest that wild animal-pens were common throughout the empire. A statute from Justinian's Digest discusses in general terms the rights of a usufruct in regard to the wild animals within his landlord's enclosure.59 Other laws, while not mentioning enclosures per se, discuss legal issues concerning various animals presumably housed in such structures, including bears, lions, elephants, and camels.60 Smaller enclosures such as these are depicted in various media: a first century Gallo-Roman relief depicts a bear-pit with a tree in the centre for climbing, while a Roman medallion depicts three bear-cages presumably belonging to such a structure.61 Perhaps the most curious private individual associated with animal-husbandry is a certain Aurelius, son of Pacatianus. A second or third century inscription on a miniature terracotta boat found near Seville on the lower Guadalquivir river, records this individual as possessor liiopardoru[m], denudator giminasius Arescu[sae].62 The enclosure containing leopards maintained by Aurelius, assuming it was located somewhere near the findspot of the inscription, would be easily accessible via the Guadalquivir to animals coming from both the coast and further inland. One of the primary functions of the enclosure may have been to act as a 'way-station' for African animals on their way elsewhere. Theoretically, it could also have served as a staging-post for various animals captured in the Spanish hinterland and on their way to other provinces. The animal-pen in question may well have contained other animals besides leopards. The relatively humble function of gymnasium attendant {denudator) also performed by Aurelius suggests that he may have held a relatively low post in the administration of the animal-enclosure as well. If the enclosure, as well as the gymnasium, were owned by the same Arescusa mentioned in the inscription, one could perhaps see Aurelius as one of her employees. It seems quite plausible that an official in overall charge of the vivarium supervised other individuals, including Aurelius, entrusted with the care of different varities of animals: such a situation 80 would mirror the division of responsibilities amongst officials in Italy such as the procurator ad elephantos and adiutor ad feras. The Care and Training of Captured Animals: Once the various animals had been captured, or had safely arrived at their enclosures, it was the responsibility of other personnel, the mansuetarii, to tame and train them for the arena. A variety of techniques were used to achieve this purpose.63 Both Pliny and Aelian record starvation as a normal means of reducing captured elephants to submission, while Martial suggests that lions were routinely beaten by their trainers (verbera securi solitus leo ferre magistri...).64 A relief from Florence depicts a similar means of pacifying a bear: the instruments held by the trainer in this scene are a whip and bait. Trainers, however, were not always cruel to animals in their care: far gentler devices such as musical instruments could also be used to 'soothe the savage beast'.65 Certainly animals on occasion could become quite attached to their trainers, as illustrated by Seneca's anecdote of the lion defending its former magister from the other animals in the arena.66 Under the imperial administration, animal-trainers could be imported along with their charges, on occasion, in order to teach them various tricks in their enclosures. Strabo records that the Tentyritae were brought to Rome from Egypt for one of Augustus' spectacles because of their expertise in handling crocodiles.67 Seneca adds the topos of an Ethiopian training an elephant to walk the tight-rope: ...elephantum minimus Aethiops iubet subsidere in genua et ambulare per funem.68 Martial also records the presence of an African(?) elephant along with his imported trainer, certainly African (Ethiopian?), at an imperial spectacle: ...et molles dare iussa quod choreas nigro belua non negat magistro...69 Although specific evidence for the care of animals within enclosures is lacking, a curious mosaic from Roman Africa (whose exact provenience is 81 unfortunately unknown) may relate to the raising of young animals by the Romans. Undoubtedly, many juvenile as well as adult animals were captured for the venationes: for example, various ancient sources agree that the Romans preferred to capture young rather than adult tigers.70 The mosaic in question depicts a she-ass, evidently in some duress, suckling a pair of small lion cubs (Fig. 12). Although it has been suggested that this scene represents some sort of arena spectacle, the vegetation in the scene suggests instead an outdoor setting. One alternative interpretation of the scene is that it represents the feeding of captive young animals with milk from a surrogate parent. The milk of a she-ass, although not as rich as that of a lioness, would be sufficent to feed lion cubs until they were weaned: in many modern zoos dogs' milk is used for the same purpose.71 Asses' milk was evidently highly valued among the Romans, which may explain why they would have used it for lions, and perhaps other exotic animals. Varro states that animals fed on barley, such as the ass, produce the most nourishing milk, and adds that the purgative effect of asses' milk is second only to that produced by mares.72 Pliny comments that asses' milk, the thickest of all such liquids, could even be substituted for rennet: its thickness was perhaps one reason it may have been considered suitable for wild animals.73 Both Pliny and Juvenal note the practice of bathing in asses' milk among wealthy Roman women.74 This noble connotation may have been another reason it was deemed appropriate for the 'king of beasts'.75 Notes: 1 CIL 6, 8583: Juvenal, 12, 102-07: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 24-25. 2 Herodian 2, 11, 9. 3 Aelian, De Natura Animalium, 2, 11: Toynbee (1996) 47. According to Loisel, a separate enclosure was even located in nearby Tivoli for sick elephants: see Loisel 82 (1912)102. 4 AE 1971, 68: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 24: Fora (1996a) 29: Bertrandy (1987) 231: for the use of camels in the Roman games, see Kolendo (1969) 292-93. 5 Bertrandy (1987) 223-26. 6 Loisel (1912) 102. 7 On modern maps, the area of ancient Laurentum is sometimes designated as Tenuta di Caccia ('Hunting Ground'), which suggests either that it continued to be used for hunting-preserves long after the Roman period, or that its use by the Romans has been remembered by popular tradition up to the present day. 8 CIL 6, 10209: Suetonius, Gaius, 27: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 25. 9 CIL 6, 10208: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 25-26. 10 Bertrandy (1987) 231-32. 11 Suetonius, Caligula, 27,1. 12 Bertrandy (1987) 232. 13 Bertrandy (1987) 227: Frank (1959) Vol. 4; 117. 14 Trajan is said to have had slaughtered 11,000 animals during the games celebrating his Dacian triumph (Dio, 68, 15), while an inscription of 120 A.D. records the slaughter of 2,246 animals as part of the games lasting between April 18 and May 25 (CIL 14, 4546): Fora (1996a) 42-43: Toynbee (1996) 21-22. 15 Some of the wide variety of animals examined and/or dissected by Galen in the mid-second century, such as bears, Barbary apes, and ostriches may well have been housed in such a structure, although this is admittedly mere conjecture: see Scarborough (1985) 123-24; 132, n. 6: Singer (1956) xxi. 16 Procopius, Bellum Gothicum, 1, 22-23: Platner and Ashby (1929) 582-83: Lanciani (1979) 385. 17 Jennison (1937) 175. 18 Herodian [1, 15, 4] mentions seeing paintings of exotic animals sometime prior to Commodus' venationes in the Colosseum: were the Porta Praenestina paintings the ones seen by Herodian, or were they perhaps commissioned by Commodus to commemorate the large number-of animals brought to Rome for his spectacles? 19 Jennison (1937) 175-76: Lanciani (1990a) 277-78. 20 For the traditional placement of the vivarium, see Platner and Ashby (1929) 582. 21 Richardson (1992) 432. 22 For the dating of similarly composed artwork in other media see Dunbabin (1978) 34-35, and Lehmann (1990) 37. If, as will be argued below, the enclosure to which these paintings belonged was constructed no earlier than the reign of Aurelian, such a date for the paintings would be perfectly reasonable. 23 Other evidence for Indian elephants employed in the Roman games includes, for example, the scene of an Indian elephant being loaded onto a ship in the Great Hunt mosaic from Piazza Armerina, as well as a poem from the Anthologia Latina [195], which states that ...diues nostris India misit [elephants] oris. 24 AE 1973, 39. Unfortunately, both the cognomen and legion of this individual have not been preserved in the extant inscription. 25 CIL 6, 130: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 26. 26 Bomgardner [(2000) 24] suggests that, for example, the urban cohorts stationed at Lyons and Carthage were involved in supervising the transport of animals captured in the northwestern provinces and Africa. 27 CIL 6, 33990: SHA, Antoninus Pius, 10, 9: Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988) 87-88. 28 For such veterinarians see e.g. ILS 9071. 29 Lanciani (1990a) 277-78: Lanciani (1979) 75, 383-84: Jennison (1937) 175. 30 Richardson (1992) 432. 31 For the dismantling of the Praetorian Guard and their barracks, see Richardson (1992) 78-79. 83 32 Lanciani's plan of the Castra Praetoria and surrounding area rForma Urbis Romae. PL 11] indicates that the western wall of the nearby vivarium was the Aurelianic wall, thereby suggesting that the layout of the earlier enclosure was altered to mesh with it. Assuming Lanciani's plan is at all accurate, it therefore indicates that this vivarium was still in use up until the reign of Constantine. 33 Jennison (1937) 175: Toynbee (1996) 20, 345, n. 30. 34 Pliny, NH, 8, 14: Loisel (1912) 100. 35 Tertullian, Ad Martyres, 5: John Chrysostom, Horn, in Matth., 28, 5: Libanius, Or. Artemis, 14. 36 John Chrysostom, Horn, in Matth., 59, 6. 37 Libanius, Epistulae, 218-19: PLRE. Vol. 1, "Eusebios 15", 303-04: Liebeschuetz (1959) 117. 38 The wooden circular structure at the Lunt Roman fort in England may have been an animal enclosure of some sort (see page 185). 39 Demandt (1989) 327, n. 15: Wightman (1970) 170: Cuppers (1984) 288-90. 40 Cuppers (1984) 290: Wightman (1970) 170. 41 Wightman (1970) 170. 42 Wightman (1970) 170-71: Cuppers (1984) 290-91. 43 Ammianus Marcellinus 31, 10, 18-19: Heinen (1985) 290. 44 For Nero's game preserve, see Suetonius, Nero, 31, 1: For Domitian's Alban estate, see Suetonius, Domitian, 4, 4: Juvenal 4, 100: Jennison (1937): 135: Anderson (1985) 100-01. 45 Pliny, Panegyricus, 81, 3. 46 Fronto, Ad M. Caes., 3, 21. 47 Pliny, Epistulae, 6, 31. 48 SHA, Commodus, 8, 5; Tres Gordiani, 33, 1, 2: Toynbee (1996) 16, 22. The meaning of the term arcoleontes (or argoleontes) in the latter text of the SHA is unclear: suggestions have ranged from white to wild, or even exceptionally large, lions. See Merten (1991) 146, n. 35. 49 Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum, 21, 5, 6: Keller (1913) Vol. 1; 179. 50 Jennison (1937) 136. 51 Julian, Orationes, 53B: Demandt (1989) 327. 52 Ammianus Marcellinus 29, 3, 9. 53 Sozomen 7, 25, 10-12. The SHA records that both Lucius Verus and Elagabulus also staged private venationes and gladiatorial combats at their banquets, although one or both of these anecdotes may well be fictitious: see Verus 4, 9; Elagabulus 25, 7-8: Ville (1981) 290-91. 54 Ammianus Marcellinus 31, 10, 19: Jennison (1937) 136. 55 Philostorgios 11,1: Keller (1913) Vol. 1; 179. 56 Pliny, NH, 8, 78: Bertrandy (1987) 222, 230: For the lion of Macrinus see SHA. Diadumenos, 5, 6. Although both ancient and modern sources tend to use the term vivarium indiscriminately in referring both to 'private zoos' maintained by wealthy Romans (i.e. Hortensius) and more 'utilitarian' enclosures built for animals en route to the games, for the purposes of this paper, I shall use the term only in denoting those structures maintained for personal enjoyment by Roman aristocrats and emperors. 57 Libanius, Orationes, 33, 21. 58 Basil, Homilia in Luc, 3: Wiedemann (1995a) 159. 59 Justinian, Digest, 7, 1, 62: Lanata (1998) 70. 60 E.g. Gaius, Institutes, 2, 15-16:Justinian, Digest, 9, 2, 2. 61 Loisel (1912) 100-101. 62 CIL2, 6328: AE (1891) 43. 63 Loisel (1912) 110-11. 84 64 Pliny, NH, 8, 9: Aelian, De Natura Animalium, 10, 10: Martial, Epigrams, 2, 75. 65 Cougny and Saglio (1962) 695-96. 66 Seneca, De Beneficiis, 2,19. 67 Strabo 17, 1, 44. 68 Seneca, Epistulae Morales, 85, 41. 69 Martial, Epigrams, 1,104. 70 See, for example, Pliny, NH, 8, 24. 71 Private communication, Richard Johnstone, Education Coordinator, Metro Toronto Zoo. 72 Varro, De Re Rustica, 2, 8, 4; 11, 1-2. 73 Pliny, NH, 11,96. 74 Pliny, Ibid: Juvenal, 6, 468-69. 75 Lions appear to have been relatively revered animals in antiquity. For example, the lion was commonly associated with deities like Cybele, as well as mythological heroes like Heracles, and a number of emperors chose to depict lions on their coinage, presumably because of the latter's own 'regal connotations': see Toynbee (1996) 63-64; Sear (2000) 55. 85 Performers and Spectacle in the Arena The animal spectacles of imperial Rome were not all identical. Events ranged from those in which most, if not all, of the participating beasts were slaughtered, to those in which the men involved were in far more danger than the animals. Like the spectacles themselves, the humans participating in them were not all of one type. Certain performers (venatores) specialized in fighting various types of beasts, while others were merely proficient in evading their attacks. In this section we shall first of all look at the different types of animal events enjoyed by the Romans, followed by a closer examination of the humans taking part in such spectacles. The Proludia: A few Greek inscriptions of the Roman period, from the cities of Pinara and Xanthos, use the term npoKuvnyia to describe some sort of specialized animal-spectacle.1 Unfortunately the exact meaning of this term is unclear. One might think that the word is a variant of the more usual Kuvqyiov (beast-hunt), like 0£aTpo<uvny£oiov, and that the preposition npo- is merely used to specify that the hunt took place in front of an audience. The fact, however, that the terms Kuvnyia and npo<uvqyia are used together in the Pinara inscription speaks against this. Two apparent synonyms for the word npoKuvnyia are prolusio and proludium, used by Roman writers. The first of these terms is described by Cicero, in connection with 'Samnite' gladiators brandishing their spears, as an event which leads...non ad volnus, sed ad speciem. Ovid also makes an apparent allusion to the prolusio of the arena: ...petit primo plenum flaventis harenae nondum calfacti militis hasta solum... Ville suggests that the prolusio may have involved a non-violent demonstration of weapon-skills prior to actual combat in the arena.2 Symmachus, however, also mentions Irish wolfhounds being admired on the praelusionis dies, which suggests 86 that such an event could also involve an exhibition of exotic animals prior to the main spectacle.3 The use of proludium by Ammianus suggests also that its cognate npo<uvnyia was some sort of exercise preparatory to the actual venatio. On two occasions Ammianus refers to the proludium in connection with military exercises (...proludia exercitus, ...proludia disciplinae castrensis), while on a third he mentions proludia in the sense of preliminaries undertaken before any serious business (....in proludiis negotium spectaretur).4 A third century curse tablet from Carthage's amphitheatre indicates that the proludium was also the name of some sort of arena spectacle: the fragmentary curse in question asks for a certain venator to be injured even in the proludium.5 Given the foregoing evidence, we can assume that the npoKuvqyia, or proludium/prolusio consisted of an entertaining but non-lethal (to the venator at least) routine performed in the arena before the regular beast-hunt or spectacle. Wunsch suggests that the event in question may have involved the slaughter of relatively harmless chained animals by venatores, such as the combat with a chained panther depicted on a relief from Pompeii. It should be noted, however, that any combat involving such a dangerous animal as a panther perhaps belonged to a venatio proper rather than any sort of preliminary spectacle.6 Alternatively the proludium may have consisted of the exhibition to the crowd of the animals involved in the forthcoming venatio, or perhaps a simple practice exhibition of weapon skills by the venatores. A relief from the tomb of Ampliatus(?) in Pompeii may depict a proludium: above a venatio scene proper, including a bear and a bull, five much less dangerous animals, two rabbits, two dogs, and a deer, are shown.7 It is possible that a preliminary combat involving these relatively harmless creatures was staged in order to whet the audience's appetite prior to the appearance of the professional venatores and their far more lethal opponents. The scene of a dwarf in combat with a 87 boar from the early second century Zliten mosaic may also signify a spectacle staged for "...light relief..." prior to the more 'serious-minded' gladiatorial and animal events.8 Venationes: The most popular animal spectacles in the Roman empire were venationes, or staged beast-hunts, resulting in the death of some or all of the animal and human participants. A variety of different terms were used to denote these events throughout the empire. While the majority of Latin inscriptions commemorating animal combats in the arena did so by denoting them as venationes, the terminology used for such events in Greek inscriptions was more varied, showing the different forms they could take.9 In the Greek world, the combat between venatores and various animals within the arena was generally called a Kuvnyeoiov, although variant forms of this term, such as Kuvqyiov, are also attested. Combat between animals alone was evidently denoted by the term 6qpio|jaxia. Inscriptions such as that found in Oinoanda, which mentions both Kuvnysoia and 6npio|jocxiac, indicate that both types of events could be included as part of the same spectacle.10 One measure of the popularity of venationes is the relative frequency of their portrayal, as compared to other types of spectacles, in Roman art. For example, the relatively small number of Roman coins and medallions depicting scenes from the munera, such as one of Gordian III (238-44) with a fight between a bull and rhinoceros, all show venationes rather than gladiatorial scenes.11 Paintings and mosaics from throughout the empire also depict far more hunting than gladiatorial scenes, particularly in the eastern half of the empire. Beginning in the third century, Roman mosaics usually omit gladiatorial scenes in favour of chariot-racing and hunting scenes.12 88 As various pieces of epigraphic and literary evidence indicate, venationes were not confined to large cities like Rome, but were popular enough to be staged in smaller centers throughout the empire. Not surprisingly, the scale of beast-hunts staged in cities like Pompeii was decidedly more modest than that of events in the capital: the number of animals slaughtered at individual ve.nafJO.nes in smaller towns does not appear to have been very large.13 Except in cases where inscriptions indicate the number of days a particular beast-hunt lasted, one can assume that such events were staged on a single day: in most cases, apart from major centres like Antioch, the smaller cities of the empire would not have had the resources to procure the large number of animals needed for a multi-day venatio like those staged by the emperors in Rome.14 To judge from the artistic evidence, beast-hunts were particularly popular events in the cities and towns of Roman North Africa. The majority of 'spectacle-mosaics' from the region, particularly from the Severan period onward, depict venationes. These beast-hunts may well have been as popular with the individuals staging them as with spectators. Since a large number of animals used in the venationes were native to Africa, local editores likely found beast-hunts cheaper to stage than gladiatorial contests, and therefore increasingly concentrated on the first type of spectacle as time went on. A large number of North African mosaics commemorate venationes staged by local editores: these depictions are amongst the most important pieces of evidence for the size and scale of beast-hunts staged outside of Rome. A Flavian mosaic from Zliten (Fig. 13), as well as the late second century mosaic from the Domus Sollertiana in El Djem (Fig. 14), suggest that African editores in particular could procure a relatively large variety of animals for their spectacles.15 Apart from gladiatorial combat, the Zliten mosaic depicts venatores in combat with such animals as wild goats, asses, and stags, as well as condemned criminals being exposed to leopards and lions.16 Like the 89 Zliten mosaic, that of the Domus Sollertiana depicts a spectacle in the arena involving a variety of different animals, including leopards and bears.17 Another mosaic illustrating a 'typical' North African venatio is that found at Le Kef, dating approximately to the mid-third century (Fig. 15). The mosaic depicts twenty ostriches and approximately the same number of deer enclosed by circular netting. Hunters about to loose dogs upon this collection of animals stand ready at the three openings to the enclosure. The relatively small number and variety of animals in the scene, as well as the unusual depiction of the moment before combat, rather than the combat itself, suggest that the mosaicist was commissioned to show a particular spectacle put on by his patron, rather than a generic (and imaginary) venatio scene.18 The small scale of this particular spectacle is further indicated by the apparent lack of arena venatores: evidently it merely consisted of dogs, ostriches, and deer killing each other in the arena. On occasion, other editores would provide additional information to posterity by denoting the actual number, or even names, of different animals involved in the venationes commemorated by their mosaics. An early fourth century mosaic from Radez in Tunisia depicts a combat involving several types of animals, including bears, boars, bulls, and an ostrich (Fig. 16). Several animals are given names, such as the bears labelled Simplicius and Gloriosus. The single bull shown in the mosaic does not bear a name, but rather the letter N and the number XVI.19 This notation likely indicates that 16 bulls took part in the venatio commemorated by the mosaic.20 A mosaic of similar date from Tebessa, commemorating a venatio and athletic contest, also assigns numbers to several of the depicted animals, including eight boars, two gazelles, ten bulls, and eighteen bears.21 A mid-third century mosaic fragment found in Carthage also records the number of animals employed in a particular venatio: the animals depicted include a bull, leopards, boars, antelopes, bears, sheep, ostriches, and stags (Fig. 17). Several of the depicted animals have inscriptions of N[umero] followed by Roman numerals, 90 indicating how many belonging to these particular species participated in the illustrated venatio: in this instance 70 bears, 16 wild sheep, 15 antelopes, and 25 ostriches. The mosaic is also bisected by a vertical line of three millet stalks. The fact that some animals, such as the bears and wild sheep, are labelled with a different set of numbers on either side of the millet stalks may indicate that the stalks are meant to separate two separate days of the spectacle represented by the mosaic: thus, 40 bears and 10 wild sheep were exhibited on one day, 30 bears and six wild sheep on the other. The inscription MEL QUAESTURA {melius quaestura) found on the mosiac presumably indicates that, at least in the mosaic patron's mind, his multi-day spectacle was better than those staged by the provincial quaestors.22 Animals as Spectacle: Although most of the animals brought to the games were slaughtered as part of the proceedings, on occasion they were merely displayed rather than killed. Pliny suggests that a pyrricha of performing animals such as bears and elephants was often part of the morning's venationes.25 Less dangerous animals, like camels and monkeys, could also be introduced into such non-violent events.24 These pyrrichae often included non-violent reenactments of mythological tales, as opposed to the fatal reenactments sometimes used for executions in the arena.25 As Jennison notes, a number of the animals at any given venatio, in particular those that fought well, could be spared at the end of the spectacle so as to be able to entertain the crowd again on another occasion. The arena lion mourned by Statius was obviously a veteran of more than one venatio: ...abire domo rursusque in claustra reverti suetus...26 We know from Martial that popular arena animals, like gladiators, could also on occasion be granted missio by the editor of the spectacle.27 91 A late third or early fourth century mosaic from El Djem depicts a spectaculum which at least some of the animals involved could expect to survive. A number of venatores are shown engaged in combat with various wild animals, including a leopard, bull, and bear. The most dangerous weapon wielded by any of the performers is a whip, while others attempt to overcome their opponents with lassoes or even bare hands. Not surprisingly, given this lack of armament, two of the venatores in the scene are wounded. The sistrum-shaped brand on the bull in the scene, which has been identified as a mark identifying animals belonging to a specific troupe of venatores, suggests that the mosaic depicts a public spectacle rather than the breaking in of such animals prior to their use in the arena.28 Although as a rule the slaughter of animals at particular spectacula was evidently much greater under the empire than it had been during the Republic, non-violent animal displays did continue under the Roman emperors. Plutarch, writing in the early second century, records that the imperial spectacles offered many examples of the EULICXBEICX and sucpuia of wild animals.29 Amongst the prizes distributed to the audience by Nero at his Ludi Maximi were various mansuetae ferae, probably animals which had been trained to perform tricks at spectacles.30 Evidently one of Martial's favourite spectacles was a lion trained to allow hares to climb into its mouth and back out again unharmed.31 The appearance of animals trained to perform tricks in imperial spectacula was certainly not an indication of increasing 'tender-heartedness' on the part of the Romans, but was more likely introduced to add more variety and interest to the animal events in the Colosseum and elsewhere.32 Apart from the lion witnessed by Martial, Plutarch also records horses and steers taught to perform dances or specific poses for an audience.33 The fact that such spectacles are said by Plutarch to occur iv eEcWpoic; suggests that they were relatively common outside Rome. Perhaps these displays were staged by smaller communities who could not afford to hire out trained elephants or lions for their own spectacula. 92 The writings of Libanius also support the notion that, at least in the later empire, exotic animals were not always slaughtered in the arena. In one of his orations Libanius mentions the bears, leopards, and beast-hunters brought for a spectaculum to Antioch from the nearby town of Beroea, adding that the animals and human performers had previously alternated in defeating each other in the arena, which suggests that their contests were non-lethal.34 In another speech, Libanius complains about the turmoil caused in Antioch by various entertainers, including those with tame lions, bears, dogs, and apes. Although Libanius does not specify exactly where such animals and their trainers performed in the city, it is possible that at least some of them may have performed various tricks in the arena.35 Arena Acrobats: Certain performers at spectacula were not beast-hunters proper, but instead acrobats who entertained the crowd by evading the attacks of various animals, much as modern-day rodeo clowns. Although non-violent animal displays occurred in the early empire, events involving acrobats were especially common in the late empire, perhaps as a cost-saving measure: the animals employed in such events could be reused in subsequent spectacula. The popularity of such entertainers can be measured by the relatively frequent references to them in late antique literature.36 One class of these performers used wooden poles to evade animals in the arena. The Corpus Glossariorum Latinarum refers to them as salitores, nq&rp-ai, and aA|jaoTioTai.37 The Anthologia Graeca also contains a reference to one of these acrobats, an individual who somersaulted over an onrushing animal by means of a pole fixed in the arena floor and thereby escaped it.38 The fact that the audience loudly applauded this man's exploit suggests of course that it was an 'approved' routine: the person in question was not merely a frightened (and lucky) venator trying to escape injury. Since he is described as a eqpiopaxnc* however, the epigram's 93 subject may have been a lightly-armed beast-hunter able to perform such acrobatics in the course of combat, rather than a salitor in the strict sense of the term, unless the author of the epigram is using imprecise terminology. The salitores were apparently not expected to kill any animals as part of their duties. Although there is no way of determining for certain, the animal involved in the epigram episode may well have been a bull, since, as has been seen, these animals often participated in events where venatores jumped onto their backs or actually rode them in combat. Another reference to similar performers is contained in a letter from Theodoric to the consul Maximus composed in 522. One of the athletes in the venatio outlined by Theodoric is described as using a wooden pole to leap over unspecified onrushing animals: The first hunter, trusting to a brittle pole, runs on the mouths of the beasts, and seems, in the eagerness of his charge, to desire the death he hopes to avoid. They rush together with equal speed, predator and prey; he can win safety only by encountering the one he hopes to escape. Then the man's bent limbs are tossed into the air like flimsy cloths by a lofty spring of his body; a kind of embodied bow is suspended above the beast; and, as it delays its descent, the wild beast's charge passes beneath it.39 Prudentius, writing at a somewhat earlier date, confirms the impression derived from Theodoric's letter that such acrobatic displays were common in late imperial animal spectacula. In his work on the origin of sin, Prudentius claims that the madness of the mob is responsible for the fact that...feras volucri temeraria corpora saltu transiliunt mortisque inter discrimina ludunt.40 Several representations of such 'animal acrobats' survive from the ancient world. Often perches in the arena used by the acrobats for their dangerous maneuvres are included in such works as the wall-painting found in Corinth's theatre, showing a man employing such a device to leap onto a leopard's back.41 The diptych of Areobindus, manufactured in Constantinople in 506, depicts a scene similar to that described in Theodoric's letter to Maximus: an individual grasping a pole is shown at the apex of his vault, just preparing to execute a front flip, while an enraged bear beneath lunges at him.42 A similar depiction is included in the arena 94 scene from the Sofia relief, dating to the early fifth century, as well as one of the later Anastasius diptychs (Fig. 18).43 A contorniate medallion from the later empire depicts a woman using a pole to execute a back-flip over an onrushing lion.44 This pictorial evidence, as well as the mention of the fixed pole in the 9npiopaxoc epigram just cited, suggests that such acrobatics were not mere 'diversions' staged as part of the larger (and more bloody) venationes, but may have been full-fledged spectacles in their own right: the salitores, with their poles and perches, likely would have hindered the conventional beast-hunters if they were both in the arena simultaneously. In the case of depictions showing men flipped in mid-air over various creatures, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether the person is a salitor or an unfortunate venator. Robert suggests that the person depicted falling backwards over a bear in the Apri relief (Fig. 19) might be one of the former executing a back-flip, but to judge by his shield, he seems more likely to have been an unsuccessful beast-hunter being rammed by the bear.45 Another unarmed man flipping over a bear in one of the Kibyra reliefs, however, may well be a salitor. the fact, at least, that he is clothed suggests that he is an arena performer rather than a criminal condemned ad bestias.46 A final relief from Ephesus also appears to depict a salitor in action. On the left of the scene, an individual, holding a mappa, appears to be provoking a bear rushing towards him. Above the bear, another unarmed performer is shown performing a flip over the enraged animal (Fig. 20).47 Another unusual specialist who occasionally took part in animal spectacula was the SEvSpopd-rnc or arborarius, listed in the Codex Glossariorum Latinorum as one of the performers who participated in amphitheatre events.48 A passage from the Scriptores Historiae Augustae may allude to the participation of these or very similar specialists in events staged at the Colosseum. Probus is said to have had trees planted in the floor of the Colosseum for one of his venationes, which could have been done either to make the beast-hunt seem more 'natural' to the audience or to allow for the 95 inclusion of SEvSpopcWai in the spectacle.49 Such performers were evidently a class of combatants who climbed trees set in the arena floor in order to escape an onrushing animal. The standard creature involved in this particular spectacle was the bear, an animal able to climb up the trees after its quarry; as Robert states, the sight of an animal like a bull vainly butting its head against a tree while the oEvSpoPdTqt; sat above in perfect safety would have been less than entertaining for audiences accustomed to more violent and dangerous events.50 A relief from Narbonne evidently depicts a SEvopoPd-rqc; and his 'partner'. The central section of the relief depicts a venator and a bear, while the left hand side shows a tree trunk with inset rungs for the convenience of the climbers. Other arena scenes including trees, such as reliefs from Hierapolis and Aizanoi, may also allude to the presence of SEvSpoPcWai at these spectacula.51 In the later empire yet another type of non-violent animal-display is recorded by the sources. The biography of Carus in the Historia Augusta records an event in which ...exhibuit et toechobaten, qui per parietem urso eluso cucurrit, et ursos mimum agentes...52 Some debate has arisen about whether or not the latter event involved actual bears performing a mime, or only actors wearing bear costumes. In his Metamorphoses, Apuleius describes a gang of robbers sewing up one of their number into a bear-skin in order to disguise him as one of these animals. Because of Apuleius' detailed description of this process, at least one scholar has surmised that he was familiar with a well-known practice of putting actors into animal costumes to perform mimes, such as those mentioned in the biography of Carus.53 In the passage from Carus' life, however, the bear involved with the toechobates was certainly a real animal, and the same is to be assumed for the mime-performing bears also mentioned in the text.54 Trained animals performed in spectacula at least as early as the late Republic, to judge by Varro's description of the Orpheus reenactment staged by Hortensius on his estate.55 A munus staged by Germanicus in the Theatre of Marcellus is said to have featured elephants 96 performing such feats as dancing and tight-rope walking, while a performing dog greatly impressed Vespasian with its faked death-throes during one of his spectacula.5