Love, Joy, Feminism
This week Atretes arrives at the ludus at Capua. A ludus was a gladiatorial training school. Interestingly, it was from this ludus that Spartacus and his associates escaped almost 150 years before our story.
Malcenus sells Atretes to Scorpus, the owner of the lupus. Perhaps not surprisingly given what we’ve been told about him so far, Atretes refuses to swear the oath of the gladiator and is put in “the hole” for four days, without room to sit up or stretch his legs. When he is finally released, the trainer (Tharacus) easily bests him in a fight, given his weakened state. Tharacus then induces him to swear the oath of the gladiator by threatening to cut his penis off if he doesn’t.
Rivers tells us that Atretes does not fear death, only dishonorable death.
Atretes is handed off to one Trophimus for some remedial training alongside a group of subpar slaves. As soon as Atretes’ performance improves—with food and rest—he will return to Tharacus for more advanced training. Atretes is humiliated, but he begins to obey orders, hating himself but remembering Tharacus’ threat to make him a eunuch every time he wants to take out a guard or disobey a direct order.
I’m wondering what context here. How would a Germanic warrior at this time have understood such a threat? I don’t doubt that it would be one hell of a threat, but I’m wondering if Rivers did any research on Germanic ideas about things like castration, or if any such research exists (some googling didn’t give me much). I’m also wondering if this is something a trainer at a Roman ludus would realistically threaten. Did Rivers read this somewhere, or simply suppose that this would be a good threat to turn to, when looking for some explanation for Atretes’ decision to submit and start following orders?
After all, Rivers has set up Atretes as this huge, powerful, proud, belligerent, effective Germanic warrior. She emphasizes Atretes’ pride and unwillingness to submit throughout her passages on him, including this one:
The other captives kept their eyes downcast in proper subservience—except for Atretes, who spread his legs and glared openly at the merchant, showing all the hate he felt pumping through him.
For her tale to work, Atretes has to start obeying, without giving up his hatred. Is the castration threat historically merited, or simply fixed on out of convenience? I’m honestly curious, and if anyone can dig up any answers (regarding its historicity) I’d be interested.
Overall, it’s clear that Rivers did some research to prepare for writing a story about a captive of war induced to be a gladiator, but not a lot. Her research feels very surface level. For instance, when first trying to force Atretes to take the oath of the gladiator, Scorpus, the owner of the ludus, says the following:
“You will take the oath of a gladiator to suffer yourself to be whipped with rods, burned with fire, or killed with steel if you disobey me.”
However, what I’m reading suggests that this oath wasn’t linked to disobedience, but was rather understood as an oath of absolute submission to and acceptance of the gladiatorial life. We find the oath described thusly in the Satyricon 117, a work of Roman fiction, in a scene in which a group pretends to be the slaves of one of their compatriots, Eumolpus:
“What hinders us then,” cried Eumolpus, “to arrange our little comedy? Make me master, if you like my plan.” None of us ventured to disapprove a project where we had nothing to lose. Accordingly, to ensure the deception being faithfully kept up by all concerned, we swore an oath in terms dictated by Eumolpus, to endure fire, imprisonment, stripes, cold steel, and whatsoever else he might command us, in his behalf. Like regular gladiators we vowed ourselves most solemnly to our master, body and soul.
Becoming a gladiator involved a lot more than swearing an oath to endure punishment upon disobedience. Rivers likely felt that in altering the gladiatorial oath she was making its meaning more clear, but in fact it looks like she obscured and actually changed its meaning. This may be at least in part because we don’t have a profession that involves such absolute submission and acceptance in the modern day. The idea is unfamiliar.
And yes, I did use the word profession.
By this time, the majority of gladiators were actually volunteers who fought for money, not slaves, prisoners of war, or criminals. That is absolutely not apparent in Rivers’ writing. In fact, any normal reading of this passage would suggest that all of the gladiators at the ludus are slaves and prisoners of war. Not only does Rivers say that Malcenus’ visits to the ludus to sell his wares prevented Scorpus from having to go out to find gladiators himself (thus implying that all of his gladiators are slaves), Rivers also writes as follows:
The sun rose higher, beating down on the trainees as they returned to the obstacle course. … Atretes managed it without too much difficulty. He’d spent his life in the forests of Germania. … Others who had been purchased from mines and fields stumbled and fell…
Every single other gladiator is described as a prisoner or slave, from the mines or forced labor or conquered areas. Check out Seneca’s description of the gladiatorial life in a letter to his correspondent Lucilius around 65 AD, on “allegiance to virtue”:
1. You have promised to be a good man; you have enlisted under oath; that is the strongest chain which will hold you to a sound understanding. Any man will be but mocking you, if he declares that this is an effeminate and easy kind of soldiering. I will not have you deceived. The word of this most honourable compact are the same as the words of that most disgraceful one, to wit: “Through burning, imprisonment, or death by the sword.” 2. From the men who hire out their strength for the arena, who eat and drink what they must pay for with their blood, security is taken that they will endure such trials even though they be unwilling; from you, that you will endure them willingly and with alacrity. The gladiator may lower his weapon and test the pity of the people; but you will neither lower your weapon nor beg for life. You must die erect and unyielding. Moreover, what profit is it to gain a few days or a few years? There is no discharge for us from the moment we are born.
Rivers’ understanding of gladiators comes from an earlier era, the age of the Republic. By the time of the Empire, where she has set her story, things had changed. Rivers appears to hold an understanding of gladiators that is more popular than historical, which makes me question the quality of her research more generally.
For fans of HBO Rome, it occurs to me that if Titus Pollo had lived during the Empire (rather than during the last days of the Republic) he might well have signed on as a gladiator at the end of his time in the army. Ex-soldiers who couldn’t work out a life outside the army were, based what I’ve read in researching this post, one of the key demographics that volunteered to fight for money as gladiators during this period.
I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In