Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman Power

Rating:
Summary: Roman Spectacle
Review: This book, by Professor Alison Futrell of the University of Arizona, is a reworking of her doctoral dissertation. The title is somewhat misleading; there is little blood in any of the arenas discussed in this book. What we do get is a very intelligent, comprehensive examination of Roman spectacle and the role that it played in shaping (I should say reflecting) Roman society. Although I don't always agree with Futrell's analyses on the role of spectacles, I'll be lucky to pull off a dissertation as good as this one. Fortunately I won't be doing any dissertation work in ancient history.

Futrell starts her analysis with a short history of the two types of games that predominated amphitheater productions: the munera and the venatio. The munera are gladiatorial contests that actually started out as funeral rituals. Futrell provides evidence that gives support to Etruscan origins for the munera. The venatio are the animal exhibits; both peaceful-gee-watch-the-neat-animals-do-tricks kinds and the ones where the animals were slaughtered. Unfortunately, Futrell doesn't provide much more information on venatio. Most of the book deals with munera, although there is also information on arena types and constructions.

Arenas took several forms. Everyone is familiar with the Colosseum, built by the Flavians around 80 A.D. The first theaters were much less impressive. At first, most games were held in the Forums. Eventually, small wooden amphitheaters were built, both during the Late Republic and Early Empire. Augustus was the first to really devote sufficient energy to the amphitheaters. He used them to consolidate his rule by connecting games with an Imperial cult dedicated to himself and Roma. In the provinces, mixed edifice theaters (consisting of seating and stage) melded together local and Roman customs to provide a loyalty to Rome. The military also had their own amphitheaters, which doubled as training grounds for soldiers. Building amphitheaters could be expensive, depending on the type of theater. Oftentimes, liturgies were used to build them, or the emperor provided funds for construction. In the Republican era, generals celebrating triumphs used war booty to build monuments such as these. An intricate series of contracts and labor were required to construct these buildings. Permission was required from the emperor himself because constructing a building that held so many people could be used for seditious behavior. Of course, as a sign of gratitude, the emperor's name would be engraved on the building.

Futrell often makes interesting connections during the course of her examinations. An explanation of the mixed edifice theaters in the provinces involves a long digression into Irish and Welsh myths. This is done so that the reader will understand why Rome built amphitheaters where they did. The Romans wanted to incorporate local traditions as much as possible, if nothing more than to show Roman dominance over them. In Celtic regions, these were built near bodies of water or other types of boundaries, areas that were central to Celtic religion. Another discussion on the role of human sacrifice in Rome incorporates information on sacrifices in Sumer, China, Central America and Carthage in order to make comparisons with the activities in Rome. Different types of ritual sacrifice are discussed and debated, with Futrell arguing that human sacrifice did take place in Roman life, but usually only in times of great social distress. The sacrifices were carried out in order to bring alignment back to society by appeasing angry gods. Futrell carries this idea of sacrifice into the arena, where gladiators were seen as sacrifices to the idea and history of Rome. Gladiatorial games could be seen as the working out, under controlled conditions, of the founding of Rome and the reassertion of the social order.

Futrell's digressions can be a bit disconcerting, and she does have her melodramatic moments (the arena has cosmic dimensions, etc.). Her claim that the amphitheaters also worked to reinforce social hierarchy is widely accepted, but how was this done, exactly? Amphitheaters seated only so many people, most of whom were the well off. Therefore, it is safe to assume that these buildings reinforced social hierarchy amongst the upper classes. The lower classes would have been least affected. In this I think Futrell has a tendency to overplay the role of the amphitheater and games. I do think that the amphitheater, taken in concert with other social controls, worked its magic on the lower classes, but that idea is absent here (or at least understated). Recommended reading for the lovers of Rome.