Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts
Department of Theatre Studies
Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis
2018 Lucia Steltenpohlová
Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts
Department of Theatre Studies
Theatre Theory and History
Lucia Steltenpohlová
Theatricality of Naumachiae Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Eliška Poláčková, Ph. D.
2018
Declaration
Hereby I declare that this paper is my original authorial work, which I have worked out on my own. All sources, references, and literature used or excerpted during elaboration of this work are properly cited and listed in complete reference to the due source.
Lucia Steltenpohlová
i
ii
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Eliška Poláčková Ph.D., for all her professional support and enthusiasm with which she guided me throughout the process of research as well as writing of this thesis, for all the corrections and comments, for her patience. To all the staff of the department of Theatre studies for constantly broadening my horizons. A big thank you to my friends, namely the wonderful future doctor Simona Halajová and German language mage Bc. Andrea Bukovská, who had to listened to my theatre talk and did not complain the least bit. To Bc. Viktor Solík, for using his remarkable informatics skills to help me in the process of putting the formalities of this thesis together (and for teaching me that there are far too many names for brackets). To Michal Solčiansky, for cooking for me when I needed it the most. Last but not least a huge thanks to my family, for all that you have done and still do for me.
iii
iv
Contents
Declaration ...... i
Acknowledgement ...... iii
1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Evaluation of Sources ...... 5 1.2 Naumachiae: in Search of a Suitable Term ...... 7
2 The Performative Context ...... 9 2.1 Staged Naval Combat in History ...... 10
3 The Venues ...... 11 3.1 The Early Structures ...... 11 3.2 Lake Fucinus ...... 13 3.3 The Amphitheatre ...... 13 3.3.1 The Colosseum ...... 14
4 The Performers ...... 17 4.1 The Combatants ...... 17 4.2 The Guards ...... 19 4.3 The Emperor ...... 21 4.4 The Triton ...... 22 4.5 The Audience ...... 24
5 The Props ...... 27 5.1 The Costume ...... 27 5.1.1 Costume of the Combatants ...... 28 5.1.2 The Emperor’s Clothes ...... 28 5.2 The Sound – Military Signals ...... 29 5.3 The Ships ...... 31
6 The Script ...... 33 6.1 The Beginning ...... 34 6.1.1 The Pompa ...... 34 6.1.2 Introduction of the Combatants and the Context of the Performance ...... 35 6.1.3 The Dialogue ...... 36 6.2 The Battle ...... 38 6.3 The Ending ...... 40
v 7 The Dramaturgy ...... 41 7.1 The Celebration of the Triumph ...... 41 7.2 Extravaganza as a Manifestation of Power ...... 42 7.3 Deities and Deification of Roman Emperors ...... 44 7.4 The Themes ...... 44 7.4.1 Historical Themes ...... 45 7.4.2 Fictional Themes ...... 48
8 Summary ...... 51
Bibliography ...... 55
vi
1 Introduction
The staged naval combats, naumachiae, were extravagant naval spectacles that featured several thousand involuntary performers and even greater numbers of spectators. These extravagant water-shows were a demonstration of the power of the Emperor as well as a precious gift to the spectators. Naval spectacles taking place in Rome from 46 BC (Caesar’s triumphal games) up until 80 AD (Titus’ inauguration of the Colosseum) will be the subject of the analysis in this work. The naumachiae were incorporated into the frame of ludi. The ludi can be divided into two major categories: ludi circenses and ludi scaenici. Ludi circenses, located in the Circus, would feature not only the popular chariot races, but also gladiatorial combat and later on also naumachiae. Ludi scaenici primarily involved artistic representations of the world, such as theatre productions, recitations of poetry, singing contests and similar and, thus, would have been in great opposition to the ludi circenses in which the performers would have been harmed in the course of the performance. The naumachiae, however, represented a slight shift from the principles of ludi circenses. Their content, the struggle between two opposing teams, became largely theatricalized, more than in the other shows, perhaps except for the gladiatorial combat. This shift of naumachiae towards the principles of ludi scaenici can be seen mainly seen in the fact that the performers were assigned collective roles for the performance. The accounts state a general opposition of two teams who represented two opposing nations during the naval combat. The assigned nationality of the prisoners, however, did not necessarily correspond with their actual nationality. In order to better represent the individual collective roles, decoration of the ships and possibly even the armor of the combatants would have been in place. The assignment of roles and usage of props are usually the domain of theatre, which makes the naval battles an interesting phenomenon on the verge of sport and theatrical event. A similar phenomenon, the mythological re-enactments, was staged in Colosseum in the 1
1 Introduction times of Domitian; however, these shows usually feature only one performer. Although these mythological performances primarily concentrated on the individual, the common grounds with naumachiae is evident as the condemned were forced to re-enact the myths and assume the roles of the mythological figures as for example the myth of Leander staged in the Colosseum as Coleman informs.1 Elaborate scaenography and the costuming of the combatants(s) would have been used to create the environment of the myths. In this work, the staged naval combats will be analysed as cultural performances. Erika Fisher-Lichte states that “culture is brought forth as and in performances – not only in performance of the different arts but also, and foremost in performances of rituals, festivals, political rallies, sport competition, fashion shows and the like”.2 In accordance with the definition, spectacles of Ancient Rome would definitely be considered manifestations of the Roman culture. It is possible to argue that much of the culture of Imperial Rome was constituted by the ludi, as a wide range of games and spectacles had been held throughout the year.3 These ludi were associated with various deities such as the “Ludi Plebeii (for Jupiter), Ludi Apollinaires (for Apollo), Ludi Megalenses (for the great mother) and Ludi Florales (for Flora)”,4 and would have been vital to the community. The large number of games organized in one year is not only an evidence of their popularity but also creates the notion that the games were a means of mediating important messages between the spectators. As Fisher- Lichte claims, “any performance – even an artistic one – is also to be regarded as a social process.“5 These games would have been the places of social interaction, where the main values of the society would have been presented. Garret G. Fagan states in the sociological study Lure of the Arena that “[b]eing a militaristic and imperial culture, the Romans adopted, even celebrated, an ideology of dominance through the application of violence.”6 This notion is
1 Coleman 1993, 62-63 2 Fisher-Lichte in Musilová 2014, 15 3 Tuck 2008, 28 4 Futrell 2006, 3 5 Fisher-Lichte 2014, 3 6 Fagan 2011, 27
2 1 Introduction apparent both in the spectacles in general, as well as in the case of the naumachia in particular, which is a great manifestation of violence, as, most of the combatants were destined to perish in the course of the performance. It is through the analysis of such spectacles that the meanings underlying the staging of the games are uncovered. Indeed, Bettina Bergmann in the introduction to the monograph The Art of Ancient spectacle stresses the need for analysis of the spectacles as a process rather than text: “[H]istorians and philologists have begun to reveal the primary role of performance in the transmission of Greek and Latin texts”; however, the “often text-centered readings tend to neglect the essential role of physical sites, special effects, choreography, props and visual representation.”7 As theatre is primarily concerned with the analysis of spectacle, which possesses the crucial quality of the performance defined by Fisher-Lichte: “What happens in performance, is transitory and ephemeral”.8 By application of the tools of Theatre Studies it is possible to re-create parts of the performances and help assess their meanings. The aim of this work is, thus, to analyse the theatrical aspects of the naumachiae from the known historical testimonies. Tools used for analysis of theatre performance will be applied to individual spectacles in order to better demonstrate the mechanisms of their staging, as well as the meanings they conveyed. For that reason, theatrical terminology such as script (for the order of the individual parts of the spectacle) and performers (for the condemned non- voluntary participants), etc. will be used. This thesis can be divided into three parts - analysis, synthesis and reception. In the premier part of the thesis, the performances are decomposed in order to provide insight into the crucial issues concerning naumachiae: the basin, the performers, and the props respectively. At the beginning, the performative context of Roman games, the ludi, is provided for the individual productions. Subsequently, the evolution of the entertainment venues is provided from early basin to the amphitheatres. The specifics of these structures in the context of naumachiae as well as the whole ludi are included. Next, the performers are
7 Bergmann 1999, 9 8 Fischer-Lichte 2014, 1
3 1 Introduction discussed through the analysis of their roles in the performances (including all hypothetical groups of performers, because in some instances the sources do not provide sufficient details). The props are divided into ships, costume and musical instruments. By means of synthesis of the individual remarks from the primary accounts, a script of a model performance is then constituted. The script outlines the possible patterns common to all of the performances and their order in the course of the spectacles. Lastly, possible meanings in the performances are assessed to determine the impact of on the Roman spectator. The ways in which the meanings were conveyed and received are explored in the chapter on dramaturgy and themes of the naumachiae. Details of how the emperor would have been perceived depending on the success of the shows and the impact of the choice of the themes on the perception of the spectators is outlined. Throughout all the parts of the thesis various approaches to the literary sources are used to provide a complex overview of the spectacle. The main method of analysis stems from the comparison of the sources, questioning of the accounts, assessing information concerning the theatrical aspects of the events that can be drawn from them and summarizing the acquired information. A great deal of this thesis unavoidably wanders in the field of assumptions. The main problem with grasping the phenomenon of naumachiae is the fact that these shows were very complex and would have greatly varied from performance to performance. This is also one of the greatest challenges of the attempt to generalize about naumachiae – what would have been true for one performance could have been true for a certain number of them, all of them, but also for none. It is also important to be aware of the blank spots that the sources do not mention. There are several reasons for this: The primary sources would have left out considerable amounts of data from the performance of the naumachiae, as their authors would consider it superfluous. Customarily, the writers shared common cultural background from which they describe the spectacles, which is – unfortunately – difficult to reconstruct in its full extent. Therefore, we now desperately lack information that the Ancient authors felt no need to elaborate on it had been common knowledge for them.
4 1 Introduction 1.1 Evaluation of Sources
There are various types of sources dealing with naumachiae, the staged naval battles of the Roman Empire. The literary sources can be divided into two main groups: primary and secondary. The amount of primary sources concerning the naumachiae is regretfully small. There are two main primary sources, namely The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (De Vitis Caesarum) by Suetonius and the Roman History (Historia Romana) by Dio Cassius. My evaluation of the relevance of the primary sources comes from the information drawn from the secondary sources, which in general do not consider the account of Suetonius9 reliable as compared to that of Dio Cassius.10 As the primary sources were written in Latin, I made use of the translations of the accounts to English. As for the translations of the accounts of all the primary sources, are taken from the electronic version of the Loeb Classic Library edition. Quite often The Annals by Tacitus are handled as testimony, namely its book XII. The edition used in this thesis is that of the Modern Classic Library from 1942, the electronic version of which is available on Perseus, the online platform where the original text as well as the English translation can be found. Other primary sources are dealt with only scarcely as they mostly do not depict the actual performance, but an image of it modified considerably according to the purposes of its author. Such sources deal, for example, with the placement and water input of the basin (stagnum) as is the case of Frontinus’ account in De Aquaeductu (The Aqueducts of Rome). Apart from a small number of testimonies of the games, the specific ideological purpose of the written accounts is another obstacle for the analysis of naumachiae. Essentially, the authors usually note down that what had been
9 “L’autre en revanche, est donnée par des manuscrits qui selon H. Ailloud, traducteur de Suétone, sont ’tout á fait médiocres’, et comprennent un grand nombre de ’défauts et d’interpolations’.” (The other, in comparison, is given by manuscripts, which are, according to H. Ailloud, translator of Suetonius, ’quite mediocre’ and contain a great number of ’defects and interpolations.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 154) 10 “Ainsi Dion Cassius, avec, la précision qui lui est habituelle [...].” (Thus, Dion Cassius, with his costumary precision [...]). (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 12)
5 1 Introduction new, unusual or extraordinary about the displays. Naturally, the ordinary and common would have been subject to omission. It also cannot be expected that any of the sources would intend to give a thorough analysis of the spectacle, or describe the event in a full extent. This is also the reason why the sources do not inform us explicitly about the number of performers, the setting or even the identity of the performers, etc. The secondary sources that explain and contextualize the extant accounts are, thus, crucial for my understanding of the accounts, and for their theatrical analysis. The general overview of the ludi in the first century Rome, their evolution as well as the reactions of the audiences are provided in the book of Alison Futrell, The Roman Games: a sourcebook. One of the most important secondary sources for the spectacle of naumachiae is the book Les spectacles Aquatiques Romains (The Roman Aquatic Spectacles), written by Anne Berlan-Bajard. This book is the most extensive analysis of the water spectacles of Ancient Rome published by now. The first part serves as a detailed introduction to the problematics, other chapters give a detailed analysis of the spaces where the spectacles took place and the origin of the naumachiae as a spectacle. Berlan-Bajard also provides an exhaustive study of iconographic sources; thus, in this thesis, the iconographic sources are only dealt with partially and I refer the reader to Berland-Bajard for the details. Secondly, a study of K. M. Coleman, which goes by the title Launching into History: Aquatic displays of the Early Empire, deals in depth with the naumachia of Titus which took place in 80 AD in the Colosseum during its inauguration. This case study is not restricted to a single spectacle, but also discusses the general principles of naumachiae (and other displays such as the venationes). One of the chapters of this article even bears the title ‘Performance’, which is in accord with the methodology used in this thesis, i.e. the analysis of the spectacles from the theatrical point of view as a cultural performance. Coleman has written several studies about the spectacles in Ancient times. One of her work also features The Art of Ancient Spectacle, a monograph, which consists of a variety of essays on performance from Hellenistic Greek times approximately up to the middle of the 1st century AD which is the third important secondary source used in the analysis of the spectacle of staged naval combat. Various discussions had been
6 1 Introduction incorporated in the book, such as the study of Steven L. Tuck ‘Scheduling Spectacle: Factors Contributing to the Dates of Pompeian "Munera"’ and the ‘Discrimina Ordinum:Lex Julia Theatralis’ by Elizabeth Rawson. The individual studies allow an insight into the performative culture of the Roman Empire as a whole with the emphasis on the perception of the spectator. The tendency to anachronism which is a threat to proper analysis of historical facts is diminished not only by the fact that the authors of the essays are specialists in their respective fields of study, but also by the number of specialists involved which allows for a comparison and double checking the relevance of the given data and arguments. Lastly the thesis features makes use of a number of individual studies which provide an insight into specific issues such as the musical instruments in naumachiae detailed in ‘The trumpet’ by John Wallace and Alexander McGrattan, or and the evolution of the amphitheatre as a building type in the book written by Katherine E. Welch, Arena Games During the Republic: from its origins to the Colosseum.
1.2 Naumachiae: in Search of a Suitable Term
For the first time the term “naumachia” (pl. naumachiae) occurred in Greek and referred to actual naval battles. Presumably, the word Naumachia comes from the Greek Naus standing for a “ship” and machesthai which means "to fight“.11 During the Roman republic, the term naumachia was also used in Latin;12 this time, however, to describe a staged naval combat. The first recorded water spectacle of this kind was staged in 46 BC as part of the triumphal games of the Emperor Julius Caesar. The term naumachia also acquired a third meaning - the basin where staged naval combat was performed, 13 such as the stagnum
11 “Naumachia” In Merriam-Webster, [accessed at 2018-04-26] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ . 12 “Etymologically, naumachia is the Romanised term for the Greek ‘naval battle’” (Ramos Gay 2015, ) 13 Since the term naumachia can designate the site for a naval spectacle as well as the spectacle itself”. (Coleman 1993, 50)
7 1 Introduction
Augusti. As there is a wide range of meanings assigned to the term, difficulty arises in assessing what the term ascribes to in a particular contemporary source – whether a spectacle or a basin. In order to forego confusion, the architectonic structures used for the spectacles will simply be referred to as a ’basin’, for the naval spectacle the term ’naumachia’ or ’staged naval combat’ and such will be used.
8 2 The Performative Context
Naumachiae were part of the celebrations of the games (ludi), which represented an essential part of the festivals that “grew out of religious holidays to become spectacular celebrations of divine pantheon [...] that encouraged, even required, the participation of an expanded human audience”.14 The shows consisted of three parts, namely “procession, sacrifice and games”,15 which merged the religious context with lavish celebration. Naumachiae were not a regular part of the shows; for their elaborateness and sumptuousness they were only held occasionally, as the scarce evidence of their actual organization suggests. A naumachia was firstly held as a celebration of triumph. Such were the naumachiae of the early Emperors Caesar, Augustus and Claudius. The first naumachiae took place in the basins located on the riverbank of Tiber and were specially crafted for this purpose. During the games other venues were available for the spectacles, however, the naumachiae would only have been held in the same spot; the staged naval battles had an air of exclusiveness. Alison Futrell in her book The Roman Games: Historical Sources in Translation states that during Augustus’ reign “(t)he munus legitimum or standardized show established by Augustus had three main parts. Venationes, the wild animal fights, took place in the morning. At mid-day were the executions. In the afternoon, viewers enjoyed the highlight of the spectacle, the gladiatorial combats.”16 Later, when the naumachiae started to be held in amphitheatres, they were incorporated into the program of the games more tightly, becoming one of the series of different spectacles that took place at the same venue.17 Even though Futrell identifies the gladiatorial shows as “the highlights of the spectacle”,18 the importance of the individual shows definitely varied over the time and different
14 Futrell 2006, 1 15 Welch 2009, 27 16 Futrell 2006, 84 17 “Two hundred and sixty lions were slaughtered in the Circus. There was a gladiatorial combat in the Saepta and a naval battle [...]. Afterwards, water was let into the Circus Flaminius and thirty-six crocodiles were there slaughtered.” (Dio LV, 10.7-8) 18 Futrell 2006, 84 9
2 The Performative Context
occasions.19
2.1 Staged Naval Combat in History
Naumachiae have a long history from the Classical Antiquity to modern days. Not only were these epic naval battles staged during the Roman republic, revivals of their staging could have been seen even during the famous baroque Medici wedding,20 and also in Britain in the middle of the 18th century when the naval battles took place in specially built ponds in the gardens of the nobility.21 Similarly, the reenactments from the end of the 20th century could also be considered a variation of naumachiae.22 What differs the prior Roman spectacles from the later ones is not only the spaces, where naumachiae were performed, the script and costuming. Roman spectacles most probably involved condemned involuntary participants and accounted for a bloody imitation as opposed to the later, theatricalized versions with voluntary participation.
19 Cicero, Letters to his friends, 7.1 Letter to M. Marius dated September of 55 BCE in Futrell 2006, 13. Cicero suggests that the best shows were the venationes: "Or perhaps, having scorned gladiators, you are sorry not to have seen the athletes! Pompey himself admits that they were a waste of time and midday oil! That leaves the venationes, two every day for five days, magnificent – nobody says otherwise." 20 “In Italy, the baroque movement staged a naval battle commemorating the wedding of the Grand Duke Ferdinando I de Medici of Tuscany to Christine de Lorraine”. (Ramos Gay 2015, 2) 21 “By the 1750’s, the British naumachiae had become a pleasurable fashion enacted on the lakes of aristocracy and gentry landscape gardens in patriotic celebration of the Royal Navy as the agents of Britain’s imperial expansion.” (Eyres 2007, 172 In Ramos Gay 2015, 2 ) 22 “The mock-naval battles staged in parks, gardens, and theatres in England in the 18th and 19th centuries would have been conscious re-creations of these events. Though never operating with so Herculean a scope nor reaching such magnificent effects, aqua-dramas and naumachias were held in parks―chiefly Peasholm Park, in Scarborough―and in playhouses, such as the Sadler’s Wells theatre in London, which specialised in marine plays and nautical melodramas.” (Ramos Gay 2015, 4)
10 3 The Venues
A naumachia was a site-specific spectacle requiring a basin with the possibility of being filled as well as drained in a short period of time.23 The basin needed to be of an adequate size and depth, so that ships could float on it (and in some instances, exotic animals could swim about).24 Throughout the existence of the Roman Empire, the venues of the staged naval combats became increasingly complex and so did the spectacles. Firstly, naumachiae took place in a basin on a riverbank, later on a lake, and lastly in an amphitheatre.
3.1 The Early Structures
The first recorded structure specifically built as a stage for a naumachia was constructed by Julius Caesar in 46 BC on the bank of river Tiber, on the Campus Martius.25 Apparently, this was the only naumachia that was performed in this space. Uniquely the structure had been a stagnum: “a pool of water without an outlet.”26 This is one of the indications that the venue was not meant to last as stagnant water is prone to corruption and thus poses a health risk. In truth,
23 There were two ways in which a naval spectacle could have been inserted right after the gladiatorial combat in the course of the spectacle: Either by draining the structure or by covering the water by wooden planks, as was the case with one of the two naumachiae of Titus that had taken place in the vetus naumachiae during the inauguration of the Colosseum. 24 “The morning show featured exhibitions of animals, the more exotic the better. This phase usually ended in the slaughter of the beasts (venatio).” (Fagan 2011, 5); A naumachia could have been preceded by such a spectacle: “For Titus suddenly filled this same theatre with water and brought in horses and bulls and some other domesticated animals that had been taught to behave in the liquid element just as on land. He also brought in people on ships, who engaged in a sea-fight there, impersonating the Corcyreans and Corinthians.” (Dio LXVI 25.2-3) 25 “For the naval battle a pool was dug in the lesser Codeta and there was a contest of ships.” (Suetonius, The Deified Julius, 39) 26 “Stagnum“ In Merriam-Webster, [accessed at 2018-04-26] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ . 11
3 The Venues several years later, the stagnum was covered up27 for the fear of spreading of the plague.28 Another structure had been built on the bank of river Tiber by Caesar’s successor, Octavianus Augustus. Frontinus in his Stratagems De Aqueductu describes the input of the Naumachia Augusti, the aqueduct Aqua Alsientina. According to this testimony, the water of Aqua Alsientina as one of the worst water supplies of the city and exclaims that “[t]he conduit of Alsientina terminates behind the Naumachia for which it seems to have been constructed.”29 It would have been convenient to build such a basin in close proximity to the river as a proper water depository. The stagnum, which was known under the name naumachia Augusti or later on as vetus naumachia, was put to use even on later occasions, such as during the reign of Titus in 80 AD.30 A third basin was built by the Emperor Domitian who “often gave sea-fights almost with regular fleets, having dug a pool near the Tiber and surrounded it with seats”.31 There are no further descriptions of spectacles that could have been held there extant, nor is the history of the basin recorded.
27 “[La naumachie] faisait partie d’une grandiose mise en scéne, des dépenses colossales engagées par Caesar non pour enrichir durablement Rome en matiére d’infrastructure de spectacles, mais pour éblouir ses concitoyens l’espace de quelques jours. Dans la mesure oú il s’agissait d’une installation provi- soire et gráce a l’humidité de la zone oú elle fut creusée, le bassin ne fut certainement pas maconné.” ([The naumachia] was part of a grandiose mise-en-scéne, of colossal expenses incurred by Caesar not to enrich Rome permanently in terms of entertainment infrastructure, but to dazzle its fellow citizens for a few days. As it was a temporary installation and due to the humidity of the area where it was dug, the walls of the basin certainly were not made of bricks). (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 160) 28 “Succeeding these terrors a terrible plague spread over nearly all Italy, because of which the senate voted that [...] the spot where the naval battle had taken place should be filled up.” (Dio XLV, 17.8) 29 Frontinus, The Aqueducts of Rome, 22 30 “[...] and others gave a similar exhibition outside the city in the grove of Gaius and Lucius, a place which Augustus had once excavated for this very purpose.” (Dio LXVI, 25.3) 31 Suetonius, Domitian, 4.2; “[...] and in a new place he produced a naval battle. At this last event practically all the combatants and many of the spectators as well perished.” (Dio LXVII, 8.2)
12 3 The Venues 3.2 Lake Fucinus
The Naumachia of Claudius was given in 52 AD as a celebration of Emperor’s triumph in Britain.32 The staged naval combat was performed on the Lake Fucinus,33 which is the only natural body of water where a naumachia was staged during the ancient times. The triumph was also the first festival where gladiatorial contests took place before as well as after the performance of the staged naval battle. The gladiatorial combats took place on wooden planks on the lake which were also used for hosting a banquet for the nobility. The spectators were seated around the lake, as we are told by Tacitus: “The shores, the hills, the mountain-crests, formed a kind of theatre, soon filled by an untold multitude, attracted from the neighbouring towns, and in part from the capital itself, by curiosity or by respect for the sovereign.”34
3.3 The Amphitheatre
The last type of space used for a staged naval combat is an amphitheatre – an oval structure used for hosting the “ludi”. The first Emperor to host a naval battle in a wooden amphitheatre was Nero in 57 AD.35 This was also the first structure to be called an amphitheatre.36 Although in his time, there had already
32 “[A]nd without any battle or bloodshed received the submission of a part of the island, returned to Rome within six months after leaving the city, and celebrated a triumph of great splendour.” (Suetonius, The Deified Claudius, 17.2) 33 “About the same time, the mountain between Lake Fucinus and the river Liris was bored through, and that this grand work might be seen by a multitude of visitors, preparations were made for a naval battle on the lake, just as formerly Augustus exhibited such a spectacle, in a basin he had made on this side the Tiber, though with light vessels, and on a smaller scale.” (Tacitus, The Annals, 12.56) 34 “An immense multitude from the neighbouring towns, others from Rome itself, eager to see the sight or to show respect to the emperor, crowded the banks, the hills, and mountain tops, which thus resembled a theatre. The emperor, with Agrippina seated near him, presided; he wore a splendid military cloak, she, a mantle of cloth of gold. A battle was fought with all the courage of brave men, though it was between condemned criminals. After much bloodshed they were released from the necessity of mutual slaughter.” (Tacitus, The Annals, 12.56) 35 Suetonius, Nero, 12.1 36 Dio Cassius described Caesar’s ‘cynegeric theater’ as follows: “He built a kind of hunting-theatre of wood, which was called an amphitheatre from the fact that it had seats all around without any stage.” (Welch 2009, 41-42)
13 3 The Venues been permanent structures used for entertainment,37 temporary venues were still popular. By building an elaborately decorated temporary amphitheatre the Emperor exhibited his wealth and power. It is, thus, safe to assume that temporary amphitheatres were part of the ludi extravaganza.38 The advantages were still there: sponsors could still impress spectators and the general public by constructing something completely new and highly decorative for a specific set of games. In 57 CE, Nero built a notoriously lavish, huge wooden arena. It is also true, that restrictions concerning the construction of permanent public structures with mass seating in Rome had been in place. One of the reasons why they were called off had been the recurring fires, which would often easily spread through the city from temporary buildings usually made of wood. One of such cases had been the great fire of Rome during the reign of Nero.39
3.3.1 The Colosseum
In 70 AD the Emperor Vespasian started building a permanent amphitheatre of non-flammable materials – the giant Flavian Amphitheatre, better known under the name Colosseum.40 However, it was not until 80 AD when his successor, Titus, hosted a naval battle as part of the games on the occasion of dedication of his public baths and the Colosseum.41 The games consisted of various spectacles, such as the venationes, gladiatorial combats and among them a naumachia. The other historically attested naumachia that took place in the Colosseum was held by Emperor Domitian.42 One of the problems would have been the water supply. However, recently,
37 “It was not until 55 BC that Rome’s first permanent amphitheatre was constructed (the theatre of Pompey in the Campus Martius).” (Welch 2009, 62) 38 “Even after the Theatre of Pompey had broken the barrier on stone spectacle venues sponsors still chose to build temporary facilities.” (Futrell 2006, 59) 39 Suetonius, Nero, 39 40 “The Flavian amphitheatre was the crowning example of the building type. Shining with marble that faced the brick and concrete fabric of the building, the Amphitheatre made the use of the latest advances in crowd control and materials technology, becoming a model of design for arenas empire-wide.” (Futrell 2006, 62) 41 “Most that he did was not characterized by anything noteworthy, but in dedicating the hunting-theatre and the baths that bear his name he produced many remarkable spectacles.” (Dio LXVI, 25.1) 42 “[...] and he even gave a naval battle in the amphitheatre.” (Suetonius, Domitian, 4.1)
14 3 The Venues
“Crapper, who has done one of the few hydraulic studies of the Colosseum, [...] has calculated (in a later correction to his original article) that the arena of the Colosseum (4241 m3) could be filled in approximately thirty-four to seventy-six minutes, depending upon where flow was measured and assuming that all the water was dedicated to that purpose.”43 This was possible as the capacity of the basin would have been smaller compared to the naumachia Augusti, which took some 2-3 weeks to fill.44 For a long time, it has not been believed that it might have been technically possible in the Roman times to host a naval battle and other shows in succession in the Colosseum as the primary sources inform us.45 The main hypothetical problem that might have prevented the flooding of the Colosseum and hosting of the naval spectacles was seen in the existence of the sub-structures (hypogeum).46 These structures, located in the arena, provided trap-doors and similar devices for special effects.47 This system of underground tunnels would have taken up considerable amount of space even on the ground level, making it impossible for the ships to move about the arena freely. Alison Futrell proposes that rather than filling the arena with massive amounts of water a “shallow and brief flooding of the arena [could have] created the impression of a sea and allowed for some splashy events”.48 It is, however, improbable that the inauguration of the Colosseum would feature only a small scale naval combat, even less so had the reenactment of a great historical naval battle been opted for. This notion might lead to the assumption that the
43 Grout, James. The Naumachiae of Titus and Domitian. Encyclopaedia Romana [online]. [accessed 2018-28-04]. Available at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/gladiators/naumachia e.html 44 “Since the aqueduct delivered 392 quinariae […], i.e. 16,228 m3 in twenty four hours (=676.2m3 per hour), the empty stagnum would have taken 17 days to fill from this source [Aqua Alsietina].” (Coleman 1993, 53) 45 “For Titus suddenly filled this same theatre with water.” (Dio LXVI, 25.2) 46 “En effet, comme l’observe notammente G.Cozzo, dans Ingenieria romana, les sous- sols de l’amphitheatre, dans leur etat actuel etaient incompatible avec la presentation d’une naumachiae.” (As noted by G.Cozzo, in Ingenieria romana, the sub-structures of the amphitheater, in their current state, were incompatible with the presentation of a naumachiae.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 246) 47 Berlan-Bajard proposes that such devices used for special effects could have been made of wood and easily dismantled before other shows took place. (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 249); 48 Futrell 2006, 80
15 3 The Venues
Colosseum would not have been an ideal venue for the naval combats and it would have been more sufficient to choose “the vastly-larger basin of the official naumachia”,49 the naumachia Augusti. Berlan-Bajard refutes this theory using textual evidence from the sources of Dio Cassius, Suetonius and Martial, establishing Colosseum as the venue of two spectacles, one of Titus and one of Domitian, maintaining that the permanent substructures did not exist at the time these spectacles took place.50 Berlan- Bajard assumes that there had been a confusion in the dating of the primary sources, which do not inform us about the precise time when the naumachia of Domitian given in the Colosseum took place, neither about the year when the sub-structures were added.51 Although there is much uncertainty left about the Flavian amphitheatre,52 it remains true that it was one of the most famous entertainment complex of the first century AD. The entertainment venues where naumachiae took place gradually evolved from simple stagna, through theatres into the amphitheatres. These spaces are an internal part of Roman culture as they evolved based on their ever-increasing popularity among the people of Rome as well as the need of more and more technically complex spectacles to please the spectators.
49 “More serious demands would be placed on a facility hosting naval battles, amply provided by the vastly-larger basin of the official naumachia.” (Futrell 2006, 80) 50 “Une fois admise la présentation effective de nau- machies dans l’arène du Colisée, il reste donc à supposer que les grands sous-sols de l’arène dont on peut voir aujourd’hui les vestiges n’existaient pas sous le règne de Titus, ni au debut de celui de Domitian.” (Once we admit that the presentation of naumachiae in Colosseum must have been conducted effectively, it is reasonable to suppose that the great sub-structures the traces of which we can now spot in the arena did not exist in the time of Titus, nor at the beginning of Claudius´ reign.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 249) 51 Berlan-Bajard 2006, 249 52 “[W]as there a hypogeum or water basin underneath the arena floor in the original phase of the Colosseum? How deep was this basin? Could it have accommodated large numbers of men on relatively shallow-drafted boats? Could it have been drained (and if so, how?), or perhaps permit the arena floor to be returned to its place while water was still present? (Futrell 2006, 80)
16 4 The Performers
“The Roman Empire was realised by means of controlled violence and obsessive military discipline.”53
4.1 The Combatants
The naumachiae were water spectacles with a large number of performers. Customary, it is assumed that the performers were prisoners of war54 condemned to death55 as was the case of the naumachia given by Caesar in 46 BC. Such prisoners skilled in (naval) combat would require no further training for the performance. As a staging of a mock sea battle, naumachia required that some of the participants be not only skilled in fighting but also in rowing.56 (The primary sources establish such division of performers without any further specification of their respective roles.) Although it is highly probable that every prisoner who took part in the performance was a prisoner of war or went through any kind of combat training,
53 Welch 2009, 27 54 “[N]ous apprend aussi quel était le statut des nau machiarii de Claude : "[...] «dans toutes ces rencontres combattirent les prisonniers de guerre et les condamnés á mort». Il est donc évident que la naumachie, mentionnée immédiatement avant cette remarque, fait partie des spectacles où parurent prisonniers de guerre et condamnés à mort. [...] le recruit-ment des rameurs des naumachies était probablement analogue.” ([W]e also learn of the status of the naumachiarii of Claudius: [...] in all the clashes fought the prisoners of war condem-ned to death. [...] the recruitement of the oarsmen for the naumachiae was probably analogical.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 17 ; inner quote from Dio) 55 “Le statut des naumachiarii les destinait en principe à périr au cours de spectacle.” (The status of the naumachiarii principally destined them to perish in the course of the spectacle.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 19) 56 “[T]here was a contest of ships of two, three and four banks of oars”. (Suetonius, The Deified Julius, 39) 17
4 The Performers e.g. in rowing or handling weapons, there is no direct evidence of this.57 The early naumachiae were celebrations of military victories and, naturally, assured a great influx of prisoners/performers. The later naumachiae (by Nero, Titus and Domitian) were not held as a part of triumphal festivities, thus, prisoners from various parts of Italy would presumably have been recruited for the occasion.58 One of the main difficulties with such a high number of involuntary performers was their motivation to perform. One of the possible motivations could have been the notion that by the end of the performance the combatants may have been granted liberty:59 “[i]n the arena, even the lowly and barbarous were expected to maintain the proper appearances. Doing so could make the difference between life and death, for when a fallen fighter appealed for his life, the decision to kill or spare was reached by the sponsor on the basis of how the gladiator had performed in the fight.”60 Similarly to the issue of training, there is no account of rehearsals prior to the lethal performance. Had there been no training and no rehearsal, the staging would have been chaotic and disorganized. Order could have been maintained in several ways, not only by assigning roles to the performers as rowers and/or fighters, but also roles stemming from the fictional narrative of the staged battle.
57 “Ils étaient sans doute sommaierement formés au maniement des rames, à moins qu’ils n’aient déjà eu une expérience de la navigation, comme les prisonniers égyptiens de César”. (They were, undoubtedly trained in the use of oars, unless they already had experience with navigation, like the Egyptian prisoners of Caesar.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 18) 58 “[T]ous ces spectacles, qui ne furent pas donnés à la suite de victoires militaires assurant un afflux de prisonniers, durent nécessiter le recrutement de tous les condamnés à une forme aggravée de la peine de mort, à Rome mais aussi en Italie, voire dans les provinces voisines.” ([A]ll these performances, which were not given as a result of military victories ensuring an influx of prisoners, required recruitment of all those sentenced to an aggravated form of the death penalty, in Rome but also in Italy, and even in the neighboring provinces.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 18) 59 “After much bloodshed they [the performers] were released from the necessity of mutual slaughter.” (Tacitus The Annals 12.56) 60 Fagan 2011, 20
18 4 The Performers
This way, the performers could have been divided into two opposing groups based on clear stage directions. As the primary sources mention thousands of combatants on each side, such basic division (into two fighting teams) probably still would not have been sufficient as the only controlling device.
4.2 The Guards
A more efficient way of controlling the performance could have been by establishing a hierarchy of the performers. It is, thus, reasonable to assume that the most skilled (and the highest ranking, for that matter) in combat would have been assigned leaders of individual ships. A different way of establishing a hierarchy among the performers could be the introduction of other types of performers: the gladiators or the nobility - although this is unlikely. Gladiators were mostly prisoners, trained to become professional fighters, who usually fought in a single combat or sometimes in smaller groups. However, with regards to the costly training they received in gladiatorial schools, their participation in naumachiae is improbable for economic reasons. Most probably the gladiators would have been ‘spared’ for other small-scale productions which served as regular accompaniment to the mock sea battles where the skills of the individual fighters would have been emphasized. The nobility could also participate in the gladiatorial combats.61 However, as Futrell informs us, as soon as 46 BC restrictions to the participation of nobility were applied to the spectacles.62 Even Emperor Augustus, by means of passing the Lex Julia Theatralis, tried to control the involvement of nobility in the games; his
61 “In the gladiatorial contest in the Forum Furius Leptinus, a man of praetorian stock, and Quintus Calpenus, a former senator and pleader at the bar, fought to a finish.“ (Suetonius, The Deified Julius, 39.1) 62 “The first known prohibition of Roman elites from appearing as performers in spectacles dates to 46 BC and the triumphal games sponsored by Julius Caesar as dictator.” (Futrell 2006, 156)
19 4 The Performers
efforts had been only partially successful.63 Unsurprisingly, the popularity of the games stemmed from the benefits that could be acquired from voluntary participation,64 such as social status.65 Nevertheless, Caesar had established a new tradition, which had been (in most cases) respected even by later Emperors, as well as the audience who considered the participation of the Roman elite unusual.66 This was a major twist in the perception of the games starting at the beginning of the Roman Empire. The audience would have perceived the participation of the Roman citizens in the arena in a more negative way than beforehand and even if the participation were voluntary it would create a negative feeling as it would have been mainly condemned criminals who would perform for the crowds (as part of their death sentence). It would not seem proper to introduce the nobility in any relationship with the condemned criminals, except as spectators of the dangerous shows. The role of a controller would, thus, most probably been assigned to performer whose job would have been in accord with the notion of power and control during the games - the soldiers. 67 One way we are informed about the presence of the guards in the entertainment venues is from the records that tell us about their banishment from these spaces.68 It is also true that massive
63 “[H]e carefully regulated expenses, and also the various kinds of performers, making not wholly successful efforts to see that members of the two highest ordines did not appear among them.” (Rawson 1987, 84) 64 “[T]hirty members of the equestrian order fought as gladiators.” (Dio LXI 8.1) 65 “During the plays Decimus Laberius, a Roman knight, acted a farce of his own composition, and having been presented with five hundred thousand sesterces and a gold ring, passed from the stage through the orchestra and took his place in the fourteen rows.” (Suetonius, The Deified Julius, 39.2) 66 “Later references to elites in the arena register shock, indicating that their presence there was not typical, and identify this as a sign that behavioral standards have slipped, a failure usually attributed to poor leadership at the top.” (Futrell 2006, 157) 67 “The soldier-to-civilian ratio in Imperial Rome has been calculated at between 1:125 and 1:25, so that troops were constantly to be seen both in person and in representation on the monuments.” (Fagan 2011, 21) 68 “Indeed he forbade soldiers the soldiers who hitherto had always been present at all public gatherings to attend them any longer. The reason he assigned that they ought not to perform any but military duties.” (Dio LXI 8.3)
20 4 The Performers amounts of spectators coming to the city for the shows had to be regulated by the patrols.69 Supporting evidence of the presence of the soldiers at the staged naval combats as regulators can also be found in the account of Tacitus detailing the naumachia of Claudius: “Claudius equipped galleys with three and four banks of oars, and nineteen thousand men; he lined the circumference of the lake with rafts, that there might be no means of escape at various points”.70 This arrangement is logical: A large number of soldiers – controllers who were skilled fighters would have been needed to regulate the actions of the performers/prisoners in order to forego any revolts, and, at the same time, keep them from attacking the crowds/the audience. The extent of their interference in the performance would have varied depending on the actual occasion.
4.3 The Emperor
Assuming that there had been a large number of guards, there would also have to be somebody controlling their action in the performance. This most probably would have been either the patron of the games (editor muneris), the praetor or the consul71 who were the ‘managers’ of the ludi. The Emperor would, thus, have “only” presided the games. There are several ways that the status of the Emperor72 throughout the games had been manifested. To a great extent this was achieved by the organization of the performance space. The Emperor would have been seated above the damnati as
69 “[A]ny guard present, as it normally was, at least after Agustus’ time, would have its special station or stations”. (Rawson 1987, 99) 70 Tacitus, The Annals, 12.56 71 “The seriousness with which Augustus regarded the ludi is clear enough; he took most of them away from the aediles, to put them under the more serious praetors, and sometimes the consuls”. (Rawson 1987, 84) 72 “Rolad Auguet built on Juvenal’s famous aphorism about bread and circuses and explored the meaning of games and their role in society. They were used by Emperors to elevate their own status and to keep the mob docile, they were mechanisms of interaction between the ruler and the ruled; they were sustained by the institution of slavery, which conditioned Romans to see people as instruments.” (Fagan 2011, 17)
21 4 The Performers well as divided from the ordinary spectators. The seating of the ruler had been exclusive and on display. The power and mightiness of the Emperor would have been shown ostentatiously, what would have been in strong contrast to the comparative powerlessness of other participants. The basic principles of the mighty versus the weak, the one and the many, and the one up and the other low can be clearly seen in the spatial organization of the show.
4.4 The Triton
Only in one instance the extant sources mention another possible type of performer. In order to create an effective beginning, the son of Poseidon, Triton the Messenger,73 metaphorically blessed the oncoming performance, all the performers, and spectators that gathered on the occasion of the triumph of Claudius at the Lake Fucinus. The account of the appearance of Triton is, however, more problematic than it might seem at first sight. Discrepancies in the account make space for polemics over the Triton, namely whether the mythological figure was represented by a live performer or a statue. The original account of Suetonius uses “who” (qui) for a performer or dramatic character, the English translations, however, use “which” for objects.
“[...] the signal was sounded on a horn by silver Triton, which was raised from the middle of the lake by a mechanical device.”74 (“[...]exciente bucina Tritone argenteo, qui e medio lacu per machinam emerserat.”) Together with the notion of the horn being sounded, these are two strong supportive arguments for the option of a live performer. What would
73 “Triton: a son of Poseidon described as a demigod of the sea with the lower part of his body like that of a fish.” ("Triton." In Merriam-Webster. (Acessed 26/04/2018)) Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ . 74 Suetonius, The Deified Claudius, 21.4
22 4 The Performers undermine the credibility of the account is the spatial proximity of the writer to the spectacle. This naumachia was an open-air75 event without predetermined spaces for watching, at least for those who were not of high order feasting on the banquet with Claudius. The author of the account, thus, might not have been close enough to assess whether the performer was a person or not. Had the silver Triton been a statue, the horn would have, naturally, been sounded by a different performer. These might be some of the reasons which would explain the decision of the English translators to use the word “which” that stands for an object, rather than a person. The main problem of the account stems from the vague description of the placement of Triton in the actual performance and performing space. The account does not specify where Triton exactly rose from – whether from the middle of the lake, from the water, or from the surface of the lake. If the Triton was a statue, either case would be possible; less so if it was an actual performer. It would not have been possible for a performer to be kept under water for a long period of time. Combined with the possible delay of the beginning of the performance caused by unexpected circumstances, it would have been impossible to plan for the performer to be arisen from the water with no threat of any harm. What supports this notion is also the fact that if exposed to water, the instrument most probably would not have functioned properly. Therefore, the horn would have been placed above water for the sake of its protection, while the statue could have been kept in the water for greater authenticity. It is also possible that a monument could have been built in the middle of the Lake.76 A machinery could have been placed on the monument for the performer to climb on it to blow the horn. What the account does not specify, is neither the way the hypothetical performer would climb down the structure and depart, nor what his social status was. Most probably the performer would have
75 “An immense multitude from the neighbouring towns, others from Rome itself, eager to see the sight or to show respect to the emperor, crowded the banks, the hills, and mountain tops, which thus resembled a theatre.” (Tacitus, The Annals, 12..56) 76 See ch. "Script", section "Battle" where information about the usage of the monument is provided in greater extent.
23 4 The Performers been one of the damnati. Performance of myths featuring one performer became common later during the reign of Emperor Domitian. One of the most famous performances of this kind is the reenactment of the myth of Leander as analyzed by Coleman.77
4.5 The Audience
The ludi were religious festivals aiming at a massive number of spectators. Essentially the games “served not a community but a region”78 and could attract spectators from great distances.79 What essentially influenced the influx of the spectators to the spectacles was the timing of the games. Steven L. Tuck in his study Scheduling Spectacle: Factors Contributing to Pompeian Munera proposes - on the grounds of analysis of the preserved advertisements of the spectacles and games, which "cover a range from Augustan to Flavian times”80 - that the games in Pompeii were planned in such a way in order not to coincide with the date of the games in Rome, most probably out of fear of low attendance.81 A different problem was the audience seating in the entertainment venues, which divided the Roman society. Apparently, Augustus passed a law concerning the seating of the spectators. Suetonius gives an overview of this law,
77 Coleman argues that for this show a monument would also have been placed in the middle of the basin: “Perhaps ’Leander’ swam across to the island in the middle of the Stagnum, climbed through a lighted window of the monument (supposedly - and titillatingly - into his belloved’s bed), and then completed the journey to emerge out of the water and the gloom.” (Coleman 1993, 63) 78 Fagan 2011, 14 79 “[S]pectacle games, notably in the Circus Maximus, may have drawn audiences from the communities along the Bay of Naples over 200 kilometers.” (Tuck 2008, 25) 80 Tuck 2008, 26 81 “Pompei avoided conflict with the major spectacle entertainments and markets and fairs in Rome, suggesting that the organizers were aware of the possibility of audience overlap and that the games in local communities around the Bay of Naples strove to avoid conflict with major games in Rome either because audiences from Rome traveled to these games or, as maybe more likely, that the populations on coastal Campania traveled to Rome for the major ludi there.” (Tuck 2008, 25)
24 4 The Performers known as the Lex Julia Theatralis (issued sometimes around 17-26 AD),82 by which the people of Rome were assigned seats depending on their social status. Elizabeth Rawson proposes that the Lex Julia Theatralis would have been applied to both theatres and amphitheatres83 as well as the seating in other spectacles outside of the permanent entertainment complexes.84 The Lex Julia Theatralis marks the importance of status in the Roman society even on the occasions of festivities. Stratification of the population according to their social status by means of regulation of the seating arrangements in theatres is a primary example of the division in praxis: The furthest from the arena were situated those of the lowest rank (slaves, plebs) the closest seats were occupied by those of high status (equestrian order, senators and the Emperor). It is also important to note the role of the audience in the spectacle. The accounts specify a great popularity of the ludi.85 The spectators would have most probably been active during the performances. For example, there would have been shouts and brawls in the crowd, which the ever-present guards might have tried to suppress. Such interaction of the spectators would be an essential component of the atmosphere of the ludi.
82 Suetonius, The Deified August, 44 83 “Indeed, it is probable that as the Colosseum inscription suggests, the words theatrum and theatralis in the law actually covered amphitheatrum and amphitheatralis [...]. And one can identify numerous passages in ancient literature where theatre is certainly used to cover amphitheatre.” (Rawson 1987, 86-87) 84 “It seems extremely probable that the Lex Julia Theatralis not only tightened up the seating arrangements for the theatre, but extended them to the hitherto in this respect much less strictly organized gladiatorial and other games (venationes and so on) which had usually taken place in the Forum; at least when these were held in the proper amphitheatre on the Campanian model.” (Rawson 1987, 86) 85 “Such a throng flocekd to all these shows from every quarter, that many strangers had to lodge in tents pitched in the streets or along the roads, and the press was often such that many were crushed to death, including two senators.” (Suetonius, The Deified Julius, 39)
25 4 The Performers
26 5 The Props
The primary written accounts do not give a clear and detailed overview of the props used in the staging of naumachia. In most cases the sources mention only the ships, biremes and triremes. In some instances other props are mentioned as well, such as heavy war equipment of the Roman military as a protecting and regulating device (Claudius).86 The props are important for several reasons: economically in terms of spent resources, but also from the theatrical point of view - what meanings were conveyed with their help.
5.1 The Costume
As there were various types of performers present in a naumachia, various costumes were assigned to each of the groups of participants. The dress-code would have been strictly ordained. For example the plebs was expected to wear the “festal white”.87 Had this requirement not been fulfilled the spectator was subject to punishment.88 However, sometimes the audience could be pardoned
86 “On the raft stood companies of the prætorian cohorts and cavalry, with a breastwork in front of them, from which catapults and balistas might be worked. The rest of the lake was occupied by marines on decked vessels.” (Tacitus, The Annals, XII 56.1) 87 “The plebs Romana in its white togas occupied at least the main part of the media cavea.” (Rawson 1987, 94) 88 “Even in the theatre people tended to be regrettably lax about wearing toga - Martial has various anecdotes of improperly dressed people being thrown out of the XIV rows or other part of the house by Leitus and Oceanus, probably imperial freedmen acting as ushers”. (Rawson 1987, 113); “[T]he peregrini were expected to wear festal white; in Trajan’s reign the villainous prefect of Egypt, Vibius Maximus, is accused of actually killing a man (not apparently a Roman citizen) in the theatre at Alexandria for not wearing white garments.” (Rawson 1987, 94) 27
5 The Props from this obligation as a show of goodwill of the emperor.89 Only the guards would have worn their everyday clothes, their toga.90 As for the other performers such as the high-ranking (nobility and emperor) as well as the naumachiarii, the costume would have been specialized for the occasion.
5.1.1 Costume of the Combatants
In Roman Histories, Dio Cassius states that the naumachiarii were “styled ‘Rhodians’ and the other ‘Sicilians’”.91 However, what particular stylization had been in place the sources do not mention. Coleman proposes color coding: The combatants possibly wore colored armor depending on the team they fought in.92 Alternatively, the coloring might have been assigned to the individual ships. By assigning certain colors to the combatants it would have been easy to distinguished the combating teams as well as assess, based on the prevailing color who is winning and who losing in the course of the performance.
5.1.2 The Emperor’s Clothes
Emperor Claudius is the only Emperor who performed in a naumachia. In his work The Annals, Tacitus describes the occasion, depicting the costumes of the Emperor Claudius and his wife Agrippina: “He and Agrippina presided, the one in a gorgeous military cloak, the other – not far distant in a Greek mantle of cloth
89 “[A]nd the rest of the spectators [wore] whatever pleased their fancy.” (Dio, LXI, 33.3) 90 “[T]he praetorians wore toga in Rome when off duty, and even when on duty.” (Rawson 1987, 99) 91 Dio, LX, 33.3 92 “The two sides in naumachia must have been easily distinguishable, both for their ow sakes and for the benefit of spectators; "colour coding" for ships and armor along the lines of the circus would have been the most economical way to distinguish the opposing teams, but the historicizing context would suggest rather that each side was kitted out in what was supposed to be authentic gear and that the ships were distinctly decorated.” (Coleman 1993, 67-68)
28 5 The Props of gold.”93 The expensive costumes of the Emperor and Empress were not only a demonstration of power, but also had a symbolic meaning. Although Claudius had never himself fought in a battle by hosting a triumphal ludi Claudius creates the myth of himself as a capable military leader.94 The military cloak and his power over the guards regulating the naumachia effectively serve to enhance the image of mightiness of the emperor. The costume of Agrippina, on the other hand, is a reminiscence of the Hellenistic period, when the legendary naval battles took place. As Romans drew heavily from the Greek culture and religion, the presence of the Empress in a Greek costume would serve as an approval of the ancestors for the Roman games. Essentially, in Claudius dressed as a Roman military leader and Agrippina as the Greek beauty in a mantle of cloth of gold, the two cultures are effectively married.
5.2 The Sound – Military Signals
Sound is a convenient transmitter of meanings: the message is delivered to a great number of people, in no-time and with minimum effort. There is also no space for misinterpretation - to every signal a specific meaning is attached, thus, sounds effectively enable coordination of armed forces. It also needs to be mentioned that sounds of the trumpets were part of everyday Roman life. Therefore, authors of testimonies reflecting naumachiae would consider mentioning the usage of such ordinary instruments superfluous as for example the description of seating arrangement. The only occasion in which we learn of a musical instrument used in
93 “The emperor, with Agrippina seated near him, presided; he wore a splendid military cloak, she, a mantle of cloth of gold". (Tacitus, The Annals, 12.56); Another account pertaining the costume: “He gave representations in the Campus Martius […] and presided clad in a general’s cloak.” (Suetonius, The Deified Claudius, 21.6) 94 Altough Claudius had not fought in any battle, he celebrated his triumph over a part of Britain when “without any battle or bloodshed [he] received the submission of a part of the island”(Suetonius, The Deified Claudius, 17.4)
29 5 The Props naumachiae is the staged naval spectacle of Claudius held on the Lake Fucinus in 52 AD. In ancient Roman times, musical instruments were not only regarded as an instrument of the military, but also “featured ceremonial activity”.95 However, neither is there a clear definition of a bucina,96 or the bucinator97 to be found in the sources available to analysis. It is, however, most probable that the sound that marked the beginning of the battle would have been the ”classicum [which] is the name for the signal sounded by the bucinatores on the cornu. This is considered the sign of the High Command, because the classicum is sounded when the Emperor is present or when a capital punishment is being inflicted on a soldier, since this must be done according to the Emperor’s laws.”98 By usage of the sound derived from military practice with a defined meaning the boundaries between a staged or mock naval battle and an actual naval battle become even more blurred. By introducing such sound into the performance as well as the fact, that this particular naumachia had been staged in a natural setting (on the Lake Fucinus), Claudius created another dimension to the spectacle, tying it more closely to reality. Moreover, the trumpet also marked the importance of the messenger-god, Triton, who would by the usage of its sound have granted approval of the gods of the naumachia. An answer as to why Suetonius mentions the trumpet (bucina) sounded by silver Triton would simply be its unusual use in the occasion. The testimony, however, does not specify whether there had been any trumpet calls afterwards or if there had been a way of officially announcing who is winning or losing
95 Wallace and McGrattan 2012, 20 96 “The term originally referred to an animal horn, but eventually came to denote horns adorned with, or made entirely of, brass, and in its military use was associated in particular with the cavalry. John Ziolkowski notes, however, that the historical evidence that bucina signified a distinct instrument is inconclusive. In Roman literature bucina also denoted the conch trumpet.” (Wallace and McGrattan 2012, 20) 97 “Ziolkowski argues that the various terms for trumpet and horn players referred more to their duties than the instruments they played, and that the duties of the bucinator included announcing the time, signalling the night-watches and calling an assembly, which could be performed on a tuba, cornu, lituus or a simple animal horn.” (Wallace and McGrattan 2012, 21) 98 Wallace and McGrattan 2012, 21
30 5 The Props during the spectacle whether in words or by means of sound. Also, it had been a common practice to do some betting at the games.99 The betting could have been done on the winner, on the number of ships sinking on the lengths of the performance and similar. Had the betting been done, the military sound signals (e.g. sounding the horns and such) would not only have served as a means of regulation but also a way of “keeping count”.
5.3 The Ships
Naumachiae were grandiose naval spectacles, which required ships. In the spectacle of Sextus Pompeius prior to the introduction of naumachiae proper to Rome, unspecified barks were used for the spectacle.100 Later, Dio Cassius in his account of the spectacle of Julius Caesar in 46 BC specifies that biremes and triremes and in some cases even quadriremes101 had been used.102 Biremes and triremes were ships typical of the contemporary Roman navy.103 These battle ships were of considerable size and had a given capacity: “One
99 “The greater the risk, the more likely that the spectators laid bets on the protagonists’ chance of survival.” (Coleman 1993, 63) 100 “Pour la naumachie de Sextus Pompée, les bateaux utilisés furent de simple barques, de bois ou de cuir.” (For the naumachia of Sextus Pompeius, simple barks of wood or leather were used.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 22) 101 “M. Reddé estime qu’il devait y avoir environ 230 á 250 rameurs sur une quadriréme.” (“M. Reddé estimates that there must have been about 230 to 250 oarsmen in one quadrireme.”) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 23) 102 “Les sources évoquant les naumachies de César, d’Auguste et de Claude, offrent également indications sur le nombre des navires.” (About the naumachiae of Caesar, Augustus and Claudius, the sources also offer indications about the number of vessels.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 23) 103 “[I]l semble que les naumachies de César, d’Auguste, et de Claudius au moins aient mis aux prises des unités semblables á celles qui composaient la flotte militaire romaine.” ([I]t seems that for their naumachiae, Caesar, Augustus, and Claudius brought about vessels at least similar to those that made up the Roman military fleet.) (Berlan-Bajard, 2006, 23); “[L]a triréme était l’unité la plus courante dans les flottes du Haut-Empire.” ([T]he trireme was the most common unit in the fleets of the Principate.) (Berlan-Bajard, 2006, 23)
31 5 The Props trireme was about 35 metres long, and with its oars out had a breadth of 10 metres and a draught of 1.2 metres. The crew consisted of about 150 oarsmen and 80 marines.”104 Knowing the size of the ships, it is also possible to assess the available space for manoeuvres in the performances.105 Another question is what happened with the ships before the onset of the naumachiae. It is only in the Colosseum that we learn about the procedure in which the ships were introduced into the space for the naval spectacle.106 The process of destroying the ships in the course of performance would have been one of the ways in which tension could have been held. By being destroyed in the water the ships sunk; even if the basin would not have been very deep, it would pose potential danger for other ships to manoeuvre through the wrecks. Similarly, people who would have survived the crash of the ships would have been swimming around in water, getting near the ships, which would certainly have been lethal to at least some of them. Once off of a ship, it would have been impossible to get back on.
104 Köhne 2000, 74 105 “En effet, les conditions de navigation dans un bassin artificiel étant bien évidemment très différentes de celles de la pleine mer, on pouvait certainement surcharger quelque peu le navire sans inconvénient, d’autant plus que les manœuvres susceptibles d’etre exécutées dans cet espace resserré devaient être relativement réduites.” (Indeed, the conditions of navigation in an artificial basin had obviously been very different from those of the open sea, the ships being in danger of overload, the more so that the maneuvers likely to be executed in this limited space had to be relatively reduced.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 25) 106 Berlan-Bajard comments on the introduction of ships to Caesar´s and Augustus naumachiae: “Le fait qu’elle ait été stagnante qu’aucun dispositif assurant sa bonne circulation, analogue á celui dont fut plus tard doté la naumachie d’Auguste, n’avait été prévu. Cependant elle devait certainement communiquer par un chenal avec le Tibre.” (The fact that it was stagnant proves that no device ensuring good circulation, analogical to that which was later endowed with the naumachie of Augustus, had been planned. However, it certainly had to communicate through a channel with the Tiber.) (Berlan- Bajard 2006, 161)
32 6 The Script
The aim of this chapter is to recreate the common course of the spectacles, to create a framework, which would have been shared by all the individual naumachiae. This reconstruction, however faces several difficulties. Firstly, there are no preserved scripts, which would provide an insight into any of the actual performances of Roman naumachiae. Similarly, individual performances of the staged naval battles would have greatly varied depending on the spaces, number of performers, etc. For all these reasons, the framework of such spectacles described in this chapter must remain a hypothesis.107 The reconstruction of the common course of the spectacle is therefore non- specific and only possible parts mapping the patterns of the performance are outlined. The choice of the components listed as part of the performance is based on the assumption that the course of the naumachiae would have been inspired by the firmly established performative tradition of the other shows, such as gladiatorial combat, that were part of the ludi. The performances (of the games and naumachiae among them) would have been “optimized” by the interference of the Roman army, which could have operated on the grounds of
107 “Il semble pourtant que si le but du spectacle avait été de reproduire à l’identique un événement aussi célèbre que la bataille de Salamine, l’un ou l’autre de nos auteurs n’aurait pu manquer de le rappeler plus explicitement, en particulier dans le cas de la naumachie d’Auguste, comme nous le verrons. Enfin, si le spectacle s’inspirait souvent d’une bataille réelle, il pouvait aussi présenter des affrontements qui n’étaient pas attestés historiquement, et dont l’issue, par conséquent, n’avait nulle raison d’être déterminée à l’avance. Les principes de la naumachie voulaient donc que les combats qu’elle présentait aient une issue incertaine. (It seems, that if the aim of the spectacle was to precisely replicate the event as known as the battle of Salamis, one or the other of our authors would not miss the opportunity to mention it more explicitly, especially in the case of the naumachia of Augustus as we shall see. Finally, even if the performance was inspired by a real battle, it could still present clashes that were not historically attested and the outcome of which had no reason to be determined beforehand. In effect, the principles of naumachiae also required that the fights they presented had an uncertain outcome.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 15) 33
6 The Script such a ‘framework’. Still, the main source of information are the instances in the written accounts that provide details about the individual performances and that way shed light on the possible patterns common to all of the performance.
6.1 The Beginning
6.1.1 The Pompa
The beginning of the imperial Roman ludi was usually marked by a parade, popular among the spectators, called “Pompa”.108 Those about to participate in the games had been paraded through the city in a procession. This display would serve as an introduction to the shows as well as a “teaser”. The spectators would have been given an overview of the participants, and, in the context of the oncoming shows based on combat, their physical disposition. Coleman suggests that “we should not rule out the possibility that a naumachia was preceded by a parade in which prominent leaders on each side were identified on inscriptions similar as those carried in a triumph.”109 However, it is questionable whether the naumachiarii would have been paraded in such a procession. The argument which would stand best against such suggestion concerns the number of prisoners. Parading such a great number of prisoners, sometimes counted in thousands, could have posed a safety risk. Besides, the large numbers of combatants would have been exhausting to watch and ineffective. Similarly, a considerable amount of time would have been needed for boarding the masses of fighters on the ships and delivering them into the arena. Besides, “parading” costumed prisoners on distinctly decorated ships in a flooded stagnum, would have been more effective than a comparable parade through the city.
108 “Cicero notes people traveling long distances to view the spectacle of pompa of displayed prisoners.” (Tuck 2008, 33) 109 Coleman 1993, 70
34 6 The Script 6.1.2 Introduction of the Combatants and the Context of the Performance
Whether the theme of the naumachiae was rooted in history or based on fiction, there must have been an entré in which the combating sides would have been presented.110 Yet it remains unclear how exactly the combating teams would have been presented as this could have been done at least two ways: either by announcing the combatants in words or by presenting them (as in a pompa) as a display without commentary. Although none of the accounts specifically states that the teams would have been presented verbally, the combating sides surely would have been recognized by the decoration of their ships as well as by their costuming. The division by props would also help the spectator orientate themselves among the combatants in the battle (establish to which team they belonged to). A question related to that of the presentation of the outcome, is the one concerning the presentation of the outcome of the naval spectacles. Whether the outcome had been presented prior to the performance or officially announced after, or whether there had been a need for the presentation of the outcome at all remains a topic for debate. No indication as to the answer to these questions is contained in the sources. Had the outcome been presented before the beginning of the fight, it would have had considerable impact on the atmosphere of the performance and the spectators’ expectations and their subsequent emotions and reactions during its course. By stating a certain result the guards would have had to regulate the naumachiae purposefully in such a way that they would end as predicted. A
110 It is impossible to determine the exact time when the teams would have been presented. Firstly, the dialogue presented on this occasion would most probably have been considered the beginning of the performance. The account of Suetonius could serve as a confirmation of the order of the individual parts: first the dialogue, then the introduction of the performers (Suetonius, The Deified Claudius, 21.6). However, on the contrary, the account of Dio Cassius mentions the performers later than the dialogue is presented and that way obscures the aforementioned order (Dio, LXI, 33.3).
35 6 The Script different ending of the spectacle than that which was established beforehand would undermine the credibility of the performance and subsequently the organizer of the naumachiae, i.e. the Emperor. However, it seems more probable that the ending was not presented prior to the fights. Greater tension would have been created as the spectators would await an unknown outcome. The naval spectacle would, from this perspective, rather be a performance than a re-enactment. (Had the knowledge of the outcome been considered general knowledge, there would have been no need for further announcements.) By not presenting the outcome, space for error would have been created: Had the guards not been able to regulate the naumachiae successfully (helping the chosen team to win) the alternative outcome would not have looked like a mistake but rather as a presentation of an alternative to the prior event.
6.1.3 The Dialogue
There are only two testimonies that inform us about the beginning of a naval spectacle.111 The testimony of Suetonius contains two lines from the dialogue between the Emperor Claudius and the prisoners; the testimony of Dio Cassius mentions only the greeting of the Emperor. According to Suetonius the dialogue went:112 Morituri: Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant.
111 “Little evidence for the use of the gladiator’s salute can be found; far more exists in the nineteenth–century novelists and poets who were captivated by the cheerful fatalism they perceived in the formal greeting. The only source for the ritual dates to the reign of Claudius ad the elaborate naumachia he presented prior to the drowning of the Fucine lake.” (Futrell 2006, 88) 112 “[W]hen the combatants cried out: “Hail, emperor, they who are about to die salute thee,” and he replied, “Or not,” and after that all of them refused to fight, maintaining that they had been pardoned. Upon this he hesitated for some time about destroying them all with fire and sword, but at last leaping from his throne and running along the edge of the lake with his ridiculous tottering gait, he induced them to fight, partly by threats and partly by promises. At this performance a Sicilian and a Rhodian fleet engaged, each numbering twelve triremes”. (Suetonius, The Life of Claudius, 21.6)
36 6 The Script
Claudius: Que non.
(The Condemned: Hail, emperor, we (those) who are about to die salute you.113 Claudius: Or not.)
The account of Dio Cassius informs only about one line of the dialogue and rather focuses on the action of the Emperor Claudius, after the refusal of the morituri to perform. Cassius Dio114 assigns an almost identical line to that of the morituri given in the testimony of Suetonius:
“χαιρε, αυτοκρατορ: οι απολουμεvοι σε ασπαζομεθα.”
(Hail, Emperor! We who are about to die salute thee.) In this short dialogue several messages are communicated. The line of the prisoners stands for a greeting, an introduction and at the same time a form of submission. The bottom line is the demonstration of status and its subsequent reversal stemming from the reply of Claudius. First comes the salute of the Emperor – “Ave Caesar!” Then the prisoners call themselves “morituri” (we (those) who are about to die). The line announced by the prisoners is an acknowledgement and an acceptance of their lower position in hierarchy. By saying “te salutant”(salute thee), as a basic show of respect in the military, the prisoners metaphorically agree with their assigned roles, the roles of the soldiers. It is important to notice that the prisoners do not call themselves damnati or naumachiarii, but “morituri” in accord with their military status acquired for the games. At this point a great discrepancy and irony between
113 “Morituri Te Salutamus.“ In Merriam-Webster, [accessed at 2018-24-04] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/ . 114 “First they assembled in a single body and all together addressed Claudius in this fashion: “Hail, Emperor! We who are about to die salute thee.” And when this in no wise availed to save them and they were ordered to fight just the same, they simply sailed through their opponents’ lines, injuring each other as little as possible. This continued until they were forced to destroy one another.” (Dio, LXI, 33.4)
37 6 The Script reality and fiction can be perceived: The criminals condemned to death who were a threat to the Roman Empire assume roles of military to fight nobly even when facing death. The importance of the idea of noble and honourable death in the fight is thus accentuated. “Morituri te salutant” is a statement inspiring absolute trust into the hands of the Emperor: the prisoners are “morituri” – if he pleases so. Vaguely the Emperor Claudius answers “Que non” (“or not”). According to Suetonius the performers refused to fight and Claudius ran around the lake trying to persuade them to do so. To the prisoners the answer of Claudius meant a graceful promise of liberty. As Suetonius informs us, the status of the performers, the Emperor and the prisoners had, thus, been reversed. The response of the Emperor made the situation comical. Although the formulae said by the prisoners seem to be a part of the opening ceremonial, there are no other accounts testifying that any other similar situation would occur during the existence of Roman naumachiae. Suetonius had most probably written the situation down because it violated the usual course of the spectacle. As Claudius’ shows were very elaborate, it could also be suggests that parts of the mock-sea-battle of Emperor Claudius would have been exaggerated, hyperbolized and theatricalized as visible when it is spoken about costuming115 and spatial organization of the spectacle.
6.2 The Battle
The beginning of the battle would have been marked by a trumpet call as it was common to all battles in Roman Antiquity. The fight would have then proceeded. (There is no satisfactory account of whether there had been any trumpet calls after the beginning of the performance or if there had been a way of announcing officially who is winning or losing during the course of spectacle.) In the case of the naumachiae of Titus, the prisoners were to get to ‘assault a
115 See ch. "Props", section "Costume"
38 6 The Script monument placed in the middle of the stagnum.116 The antagonism of the combatants might not have been indicated only by costuming and the names of the teams, but also by the fact that these two teams were to complete a task other than simply “kill” their rival. The destruction of the teams becomes a “by- product”, a means, as the “assault and capture [of] a monument” becomes the ends of the whole spectacle. The rules of the naumachiae were clearly set - whoever wins the monument over becomes the winner of the battle, the two teams are supposed to enact a believable battle and the winner might be granted liberty. This staged naval battle resembles a game117 and as the monument, the place around which the action evolves, is located in the middle of the basin, the fights are visible to all the spectators. It is important to note that the performers never left the stage in the course of the naumachiae, neither did any of the ships. As the performance proceeded, the waters would have become increasingly dangerous. The main problem for those aboard would have been navigation across the scattered wrecks of the ships. Similarly, the chances of survival for those in the water would have diminished as the show proceeded. Boarding the ship once a performer went overboard would have been virtually impossible as there would have been vessels on both sides of the ship and the front and back had been too high for the prisoners to
116 “Quant á Dion Cassius á propos d’un spectacle donné en 80 ap. J.-C. par Titus dans la naumachie d’Auguste, il évoque la présence au centre du bassin d’un ilot (νησιδιον) sur lequel était bati un monument com- mémoratif (μνημιειον).” (As for Dio Cassius, in the spectacle given in 80 AD by Titus in the naumachia Augusti, there had been an island in the middle of the basin (νησιδιον) on which a commemorative monument was constructed (μνημιειον) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 168) 117 We do not possess knowledge of any other of rules of naumachiae (had there been any). There are no accounts which would tell us about when the battle would have ended, whether it had been solely a decision of the Emperor, or whether the fight had been limited by time and the winner was decided based on the number of survivors or ships afloat. Time-limit would have been a good option as other games must have followed the naumachia - or had there been any space for delay? Had the naumachiae ended early, had there been any other shows put on instead? The available testimonies do not reveal any answer to these questions. One reason why we are not informed might be that the answers to these questions had not been public knowledge.
39 6 The Script climb back inside. Swimming in close proximity to the ships would have been lethal for the performers.
6.3 The Ending
By the end of the show there would have been a considerably smaller amount of fighting teams left on the water and, consequently, the battle would have started to lose tension. That is, had the number of combatants decreased significantly and had the survivors been trapped on the opposite sides of the stagnum it would have been ineffective to pit them against each other. The battle would most probably have ended with another trumpet call. It is possible that now officially the ending had been presented together with the praise of the current Emperor. The survivors might have been set free or imprisoned again, or left behind in the draining basin. The naumachiae that took place in the amphitheatres are quite problematic concerning their organization. Other shows had been put on in the same spot, and right after the end of the naumachia the arena needed to be prepared for another kind of spectacle. Supposing that the remains of the previous naval combat, such as the wrecks of the ships, had persisted in the basin, more time than just for draining the water out of the structures would have been needed for preparation of the space for the following shows.
40
7 The Dramaturgy
The naumachiae were a powerful tool of propaganda utilized to convey important messages to the spectators. Berlan-Bajard identifies several common features of all naumachiae: the celebration of a triumph, manifestation of power of the emperor, and a celebration of a deity.118 The importance of the features in the individual shows varied. The early naumachiae were lavish celebrations of military victories (Caesar, Augustus, Claudius). Later, as there had not been any recent naval victories, the naumachiae became glorious celebrations and extravagant exposures of the architectonic and technical abilities of the Roman Empire (Nero, Trajan). This shift is apparent in the written accounts reflecting the respective events namely in Roman Histories by Dio Cassius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius and Annals by Tacitus. By the end of the first century AD, the accounts of naumachiae slowly disappear.
7.1 The Celebration of the Triumph
It was the early naumachiae (Caesar’s, Augustus’ and Claudius’) in particular that served as a celebration of triumph. Interestingly enough, none of those naval combats was a representation of a current naval victory. In fact, there is only one account of a recent military victory which had been staged as part of the celebration of a triumph: A terrestrial combat, the sacking of a British village, had been staged by the Emperor Claudius in 52 AD.119 Coleman proposes that in that case, the nationality of the performers could have corresponded with their actual roles in the spectacle. This could also have been the case with the first triumphal naumachia of Caesar in 46 BC where the role of Egyptians could also
118 See Ch. 7 "La signification symbolique des spectacles aquatiques et son Évolution" in Berlan-Bajard 2006. 119 Suetonius, The Deified Claudius, 21.6 41
7 The Dramaturgy have been taken by the damnati of the same nationality. Effectively, the choice of current or contemporary victories and themes, or at least the participation of performers connected to the present military campaigns would create a wholly new dimension of the games for the spectators. Staging of such themes also “enables retrospective participation”.120 Not only did the Roman spectators have the opportunity to retrospectively take part in the fight, but also to identify with the fighting teams, especially the winners. Identification with a fight can either be established by staging a recent military victory and/or a famous historical naval battle. Berlan-Bajard proposes that the fights must have evoked the last major naval battle in the history of Rome, the battle of Actium, which became a part of the topoi of naumachiae.121 There had been no important naval combats in the Roman history after the battle of Actium122 and, consequently, not much training of the soldiers in manning the ships and fighting on water would have taken place. The new generations lacked the imminent experience of a naval combat and only possessed second-hand information about the battle of Actium. Naturally, it became increasingly difficult for the new generations of spectators to identify with this kind of spectacle. This might be one of the reasons why later naumachiae given by Nero and Titus, grew distant from the historical context, and rather became extravagant exposures of the power of the Emperor.
7.2 Extravaganza as a Manifestation of Power
A common aspect to all the spectacles was their prodigality. Firstly it was
120 Coleman 1993, 49 121 “La symbolique de ces spectacles peut être ainsi mise en parallèle avec des as d’époque augustéenne portant au revers un crocodile enchaine à un palmier, et destinés eux aussi á évoquer la victoire d’Actium.” (The symbolism of these shows can be paralleled with the attire of oarsmen of Augustan era who wore on their backs an image of crocodile chained to a palm tree, which was intended to evoke the victory of Actium.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 337) 122 “Actium had marked the definitive conquest of the Greek East, there were no more naval battles (and there would not be another for centuries)”. (Coleman 1993, 70)
42 7 The Dramaturgy allowed for people of lower rank to hold a naumachia;123 however, later on it was only the emperors who had this advantage as the staged naval battles became a display of the imperial power in particular. Soon, the ludi in general became an important part of the imperial propaganda. Naumachiae would have carried a sense of prestige not only for the Emperor but also for the witnesses, the spectators. This agenda started as early as the reign of Emperor Augustus who was the one to establish a norm for the spectacle: “[S]ans précédent dans l’histoire de Rome, n’aurait pas voulu présenter un spectacle de moins grande ampleur que celui d’Auguste. Si les combattants étaient 3000, soit 1500 de chaque côté”.124 One of the examples of lavishness of the naumachiae of the later Empire comes from the period of Nero’s reign. Although it had been common practice to hold the ludi in temporary facilities in Rome, instead, Nero built a lavishly decorated wooden amphitheatre to host his naumachia.125 Later on, Nero was criticized for his wastefulness.126 The spectacles necessarily evolved in the course of time: from only being extravagant – extravaganza for extravaganza - they gradually turned into showing the technical abilities of the Romans – extravaganza as a demonstration of skill. A typical example of how the power of construction was manifested in public spectacle was through the erection of one of the greatest amphitheatres – the Colosseum. The manifestation of the technical abilities during Roman times is captured in the account of Dio Cassius in which he states that the water used in the production of a naumachaie was drawn off immediately after the
123 “The seriousness with which Augustus regarded ludi is clear enough; he took most of them away from the aediles, to put them under the more senior praetors, and sometimes consuls”. (Rawson 1987, 84) 124 “None of the following Emperors wanted to hold a worse spectacle than Augustus. The number of combatants equaled 3000, that is 1500 on each side.” (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 26) 125 Dio, Nero, 12.1 126 “Accordingly he made presents and wasted money without stint. On Tiridates, though it would seem hardly within belief; he spent eight hundred thousand sesterces a day.” (Suetonius, Nero, 30.3)
43 7 The Dramaturgy performance, and terrestrial shows followed.
7.3 Deities and Deification of Roman Emperors
The roman games, ludi, in which naumachiae were incorporated were organized as a part of the religious celebrations of an important event such as military victory (triumph) or construction of an important building (inauguration of the Colosseum). These celebrations were often linked with construction of new buildings, especially temples of various deities, (e.g. Caesar erected the temple of Mars at the celebrations of the quadruple triumph in 46 BC), thus, Roman gods always played an important role in the ludi. The ’presence’ of the deity represented the approval of the gods of the shows. In some cases even the Emperor could be likened to a god. One such example represents Emperor Claudius, who had metaphorically conquered the water element by draining the Lake Fucinus. Consequently, contemporary poetry had likened him to Okéanos, the deity of water and sea.127 As the Emperors gained popularity with the crowds (usually as a result of performing “miracles” analogous to that of Claudius and proving for the Romans by giving ludi), the Emperor could have started to be perceived as a deity himself. The deification of the Emperors resulted in cults such as the cult of Caesar.128
7.4 The Themes
Throughout the existence of the Roman Empire, the arena had been an important space for community. People from the whole region gathered to watch
127 Claudius was likened to Okeános mainly in the arts, especially poetry. (Berlan- Bajard 2006, 352) 128 “For not only did he accept excessive honours, such as an uninterrupted consulship, […], but he also allowed honours to be bestowed on him which were too great for mortal man […] temples, altars, and statues beside those of the gods; a special priest, an additional college of the Luperci, and the calling of one of the months by his name.“ (Suetonius, The Deified Julius, 76.1)
44 7 The Dramaturgy shows which featured violence, blood and oftentimes death of the participants. The Emperors provided such spectacles as celebrations of the deities, but also as a form of propaganda. Their ability to create other, transcending spaces within the walls of the entertainment venue would have been one of the key factors in assuring the sympathy of the crowds. Most of the naumachiae were representations of the legendary naval battles from history. Sara K. Berkowitz points out that “the spectacle was not about the suspense of the “kill”, but of creating a convincing environment.”129 It could be suggested that for the Romans one of the criteria for a good spectacle would have been the “believability” of the battle: the extent to which the audience could get immersed in the battle by the means of its theatricalization.130 In truth, the result of the games would have always been dependent on luck. Supposing, however, that the games were regulated by the guards it is vital to ask how much control have the guards had over the course of the performance. A different question is to what extent was the control effective, i.e. what impact did the guards have on the course of the spectacle, and to what extent was the control restricted by the presence of the audience.
7.4.1 Historical Themes
Most of the naumachiae were reenactments of historical battles. The most frequent topic is the Peloponesian war which was chosen twice, by Augustus and Nero.131 In the case of naumachiae with historical themes there was an interesting relationship between the Roman perception of the present and the past. Essentially, the outcome of the staged naval battles might have served as a confirmation or rather as an approval of the Emperor for the outcome of the original historical battle. Berlan-Bajard points out that Dio Cassius, when
129 Berkowitz 2017, 45 130 “[T]he more detailed and spectacular the staging the more likely they [the Roman spectators] were to have accepted its authenticity.” (Coleman 1993, 73) 131 Both naumachiae of Augustus and Nero were representations of the naval battle of Persians and Athenians; cf. Dio LV, 10; Dio LXI, 9.
45 7 The Dramaturgy describing the naumachiae of Titus, writes that the Athenians “again”132 defeated Syracusans. The word was used deliberately to illustrate how the staged naval battle related to the orginal historical battle (i.e. as a prefigure). Had this not been the intention of the author, the word is “superflué”.133 Berlan- Bajard even goes a bit further to suggest the possibility of an outcome contradicting the historical fact.134 Staging famous military naval battles from history was also a matter of propaganda. Berkowitz points out that displays of historical themes served as a means by which the Caesars “proclaimed ownership over the intellectual property and culture of the conquered territories.”135 This was also the bottom line of the frequent venationes (slaughters of exotic animals brought in from the conquered territories, such as the curious cameleopard).136 The naumachiae often depicted famous naval battles from Greek and Egyptian history to expose the inferiority of the nations. This strategy was a source of cultural references for the ancient Rome, and depiction of the conquered nations was often used to create an exotic atmosphere in public spectacles.137 Interestingly, none of the themes of the known naumachiae involved any of
132 The English translation goes: “and the ‘Athenians’ prevailed as of old.” (Dio LV, 10.8) 133 “La même Dion Cassius fait sur la naumachie d’Auguste une remarque qui pourrait paraître superflue: και ενικων και τοτε οι ’ ΑΘηναιοι (et les Athéniens, cette fois encore, furent vainquers)” (The same Dion Cassius makes a remark on the naumachia of Augustus that might seem superfluous: και ενικων και τοτε οι ’ ΑΘηναιοι (and the Athenians, this time again, were victorious) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 15) 134 “La présence même de cette précision, soulignée en outre par l’expression και τοτε, prouve bien qu’il était possible, selon des principes géneraux de cette précision, d’envisager une victoire des Perses.” (By the very fact of the necessity of such clarification, underlined by the expression και τοτε it is proved sufficiently shows sufficiently that itmight have been possible, based on the precision of the given account, to envisage a victory of the Persians.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 15) 135 Berkowitz 2017, 42 136 “I will give an account of the so-called cameleopard, because it was then introduced into Rome by Caesar for the first time and exhibited to all.” (Dio, XLIII, 23.1-2) 137 “To provide a context for his displays he would naturally look east, since in trying to capture a glamorous exotic mood the Romans automatically turned to Greece and Egypt for inspiration.” (Coleman 1993, 70)
46 7 The Dramaturgy the famous Roman battles, current or past. One of the reasons, as Coleman proposes, might be that the ending of naumachia was difficult to secure and, thus, it might have happened that the Romans would be defeated in the course of the spectacle, contrary to the real outcome of the historical battle.138 A loss at the side of Rome would be in stark contrast to the purpose of the games: the celebration of the power of the Romans. However, there could be a much more complex reason for Roman hesitation to stage naumachiae based on historical events, which stems from the Roman despise of actors and acting.139 As Berkowitz argues, acting was closely tied to the Greek culture which Romans perceived in opposition to their own as inferior, corrupted and perverted. The Romans would, thus, be hesitant to lay their valiant history to be subject to actorial performance; even the more so when the actors were supposed to be the damnati, people of no social status. The representation of Romans in the games was, naturally, of great importance as it constituted a certain self-image of the Roman society. If the Roman nobility decided on voluntary participation in the arena, they would surely intend to present themselves as opposed to the involuntary condemned participants representing their assigned roles. To fight in the arena as a Roman would have been a privilege. Analogically, had a famous naval battle featured Roman nationality, most probably actual Roman military would have taken part in the performance
138 “The absence of a battle involving Rome may indicate that the outcome was unpredictable; it would not strike the right note for a Roman fleet to be defeated.” (Coleman 1993, 72) 139 “By forcing a state criminal to conform his or her body to the movements, attitudes and dress dictated by the Greek plotline, I argue that Romans [...] participated in transforming the criminal into one of the most maligned figures in society, an actor.” (Berkowitz 2017, 41); Although Berkowitz primarily analyzes the reenactments of Greek myths in Roman amphitheatres from 80 AD onwards, when this genre gained popularity, and draws distinction between the prior shows such as naumachiae or venationes and the later spectacles, the role of the attitudes towards actors in the Roman society before 80 AD would have been similar. Besides, oftentimes famous Greek naval battles would have been chosen as the topic for the performance.
47 7 The Dramaturgy without assuming any alternative identity.140 However, involvement of the actual Roman military in a staged naval combat is improbable (apart from their role as controllers of the performance.)141 The naumachiae, as most of the arena games, were based on the principle of staged executions and exposing the loyal and able fighters of the Roman Empire to mass slaughter would have been contraproductive.
7.4.2 Fictional Themes
There are two naumachiae where the chosen theme contradicted history: one of Julius Caesar, the other of Titus. Each of these naumachiae is specific in terms of the choice of the theme. In the case of Caesar, the naumachia evolved around a fictitious theme. The theme of the naumachia of Titus could have stemmed from history, the outcome, however, contradicts the historical event. Both instances will now be presented with the implications such historical travesty poses on the perception of the contemporary Roman spectator of the spectacle. The first naumachia, held as part of Caesar’s quadrupple triumph, had surely evolved around a fictitious theme. This staged naval battle of 46 BC was the premier naumachiae to take place in Rome as well as to have two parties struggle independent of any historically attested clash. The two fighting teams represented the Persians and Tyrians. One of the possible reasons for the choice of the latter could have been to show Egypt as fractured and inferior. Comparably,
140 Solely Nero exhibited combats in the arena in which the nobility had the opportunity to participate: “But he compelled four hundred senators and six hundred Roman knights, some of whom were well to do and of unblemished reputation, to fight in the arena. Even those who fought with the wild beasts and performed the various services in the arena were of the same orders.” (Suetonius, Nero, 12.1) The participation in the games posed danger to the nobility. This might be one of the reasons why Nero had been despised as Emperor. 141 See ch. “Performers” section “Guards” and “Audience“
48 7 The Dramaturgy
Rome would have appeared as a stronger and more unified power.142 However, according to Berlan-Bajard, there could have been a different intention. The spectacle was to a great extent inspired by Alexandrian art143 (part of a common display of Roman architecture), which shows staged water spectacles with expensive costumes and ships solely in the Egyptian environment. Caesar could have adopted the concept without any further actualization. Interestingly enough, Caesar’s staged naval combat is also recorded in the later historical accounts as an actual naval battle between “Persians” and “Tyrians”. This allows for a hypothesis that the spectators could have perceived the spectacles as if they had witnessed the process of creating history. The fact that a naval combat is subsequently recorded as an actual historical event144 shows not only how the Romans perceived historical events, but also the reception of naumachiae: not only as an orchestrated spectacles (performance), but to an extent as a real battle. The thin line between the illusion of the performance and reality of the past naval battle can also be seen in other naumachia which contradicted history: The naumachia of Titus, which took place at the time of the inauguration of the Colosseum in 80 AD. Coleman identifies it as a re-enactment of “Athenian’s unsuccessful attack on Syracuse in 414 B.C.”145 The staged naval battle, in which “Syracusans” and “Athenians” met, however, contradicted history. Had the
142 “Mais un combat naval livré sur le champ de Mars lui-meme, par de véritables navires de guerre, ne pouvait que souligner le pouvoir désormais incontesté de César sur toutes les flottes du monde romain. Il était destiné á evoquer, d’une maniére generale, le succés navals remportés par le dictateur.” (However, a naval battle delivered on the field of Mars itself, featuring real warships, could only emphasize the by now unchallenged power of Caesar over all the fleets of the Roman world. It was intended to evoke, in a general manner, the naval success obtained by the dictator.) (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 330) 143 Berlan-Bajard 2006, 303-310 144 “Caesar’s battle between Tyrians and Egyptians, historically unattested, finds an interesting parallel in Book VII of Chariton’s Callirhoe, where Egyptian forces under Greek leadership attack the Persian army gathered at Tyre.” (Coleman 1993, 69) 145 “[W]hy stage a replica of an historical event (in this case the Athenians’ unsuccessful attack of on Syracuse in 414 BC) only to allow the outcome to contradict the facts of history?” (Coleman 1993, 49)
49 7 The Dramaturgy spectators been familiar with the outcome of the original naval battle, they would have perceived the discrepancy between the ending of the historical event and staged spectacle. Effectively, the outcome of the original historical event is questioned. A space for a ’what if?’ is created and opens the military conflict to debate and performative revision. For those who were not familiar with the original combat, the history is essentially rewritten. As most of the naumachiae from 46 BC to 100 AD were based on real events and historically accurate, these two fictional accounts could be considered anomalies. The first, Caesar’s, naumachia with fictitious theme could represent a yet undeveloped prototype of the spectacle - its dead-end branch. Further development of naumachiae would then have taken another direction, getting more closely linked to history. The second case in which the team that originally won in the historical event, lost in the reenactment, might represent an insufficiently regulated naumachia. This is one of the naumachiae of Titus which took place in the vetus naumachia and contradicted history. The other had most probably taken place at the Colosseum during the inaugural games. Supposing that the guards had been regulators of the spectacle, it might have happened that there had not been a sufficient number of soldiers to regulate both spectacle venues at once. Similarly it is also more probable, that the Guards would have been primarily stationed in the newly opened Flavian amphitheatre rather than in the vetus naumachiae. This would have resulted in a mistake, a naumachiae contradicting history.
50
8 Summary
The grand-scale naval spectacles, naumachiae, were a part of the popular Roman religious and secular celebrations. These monumental displays were an occasion where huge numbers of spectators as well as performers had the opportunity to gather and watch a theatricalized spectacle pregnant with ideological meanings. Not only were they a display of mightiness of the Roman Emperor, essentially they created a space for sharing of the values of the Roman society: for example, they visualized and cemented the class division based on the acquired social status of the individual spectators. The magnificent productions had considerable impact because of the wide range of meanings they could convey. There were several dimensions to the spectacle: Naumachiae were important in terms of entertainment closely tied with the propaganda of the Emperor. Holding a naumachia would also be important in terms of security as the Empire ‘disposed’ of massive amounts of potentially dangerous prisoners. The productions also had an aesthetical value, the displays being elaborate and immensely theatricalized events providing an unforgettable experience to the spectators. The spaces where naumachiae were held evolved from basins dug out on the riverbank of Tiber into huge multipurpose complexes such as the Colosseum. The venues determined the number of spectators as well as the size of the stage and its technical equipment. One example for all is the naumachia of Titus, which not only took place in the Colosseum with subsequent shows introduced before and after, but also featured a monument built in the middle of the arena. Introduction of naumachiae into the venues of the ludi - whether the later technically more advanced amphitheatres or the basins specifically built for this purpose or Lake Fucinus, for that matter - were of great astonishment to the spectators. The Roman audience is only one type of actors, who had contributed to the course of the spectacle. The involuntary performers (damnati), who were
51
8 Summary assigned roles of the fighting peoples, had been at the centre of this display presenting an actual naval combat, which had been in most cases lethal to all the combatants. The role of other performers in the spectacles can be only sketched due to the scarcity of the extant sources describing the events. For example, there must have been a way to regulate both the performers and the spectators in the course of the performance. Thus, a role of the controller must have also been part of the performance. Most probably it would have been secured by the guards operating under the control of the Emperor. Besides, there is another type of performer attested that took part in the naumachia of Claudius on the Lake Fucinus, the silver Triton sounding on a horn. This is, however, the only attested case of a musician in the course of the spectacle, even though music in the form of military signals definitely would have been a part of the spectacle and the presence of the trumpeters cannot be rule out. One type of the props which would have been put to use was the horn (or trumpet called bucina). The instrument, or rather its use in the course of the performance, would have been important not only to make signs to the damnati, but also for the guards who would have controlled the performance. Sound would have served as a means of coordination of the armed forces and possibly weaponry to provide safety for the audience and control the performers. The naval spectacle would have naturally featured ships, ornated by decoration in order to distinguish the fighting teams. Splendor would have been brought into the ranks of the audience and the Emperor, as was the case of Claudius and Agrippina who wore distinctly decorated costumes on the occasion of the naumachia on Lake Fucinus. In order to better understand the course of these performances, I tried to recreate a model script that might be to some extent relevant to all naumachiae. The beginning of the shows would feature an introduction of the teams, presentation of their fictive roles, and possibly a dialogue between the morituri and the Emperor as is attested for the naumachia of Claudius. (The order of the individual parts of the performance, however, can not be assessed as the sources do not present us with enough data.) Throughout the battle the ships would have been crushed and their wrecks would have been scattered in the basin
52 8 Summary posing danger to the ships still afloat. The performers in the water would not only have been exposed to these wrecks, it would have also been impossible for them to board the ships again. How the performance was ended also remains open to debate. Whether the outcome had been officially announced, or the spectators simply left the stagnum, cannot be assessed. It is also not known how the remains after the battle had been disposed, which is perplexing mainly in the case of the amphitheatres subsequently hosting terrestrial spectacles. The performances of the ludi also had the dimension of propaganda. The way in which the meanings are conveyed and the general implications of holding a naumachiae constitute the dramaturgy of the whole performance. The staged naval spectacles held in Rome were used as a manifestation of power over conquered territories or more generally of the power of the Emperor and his subsequent deification within the context of Roman festive culture. These displays were in all cases extravagant bounteous celebrations of the greatness of the Romans and their Empire, events where the values of the Roman Empire such as status were reaffirmed and their superiority over the conquered nations was manifested, notably through the choice of the themes for the performances. In general, the staged battles were enacted either according to actual historical battles, or fictional combats from mythology. The historical themes represented famous naval spectacles fought between nations the Romans conquered, most usually Greece. Essentially, these representations could serve as a remembrance and confirmation of the events of the past and general approval of their outcome. In the case of the fictional naumachiae, Caesar’s and Titus’ ones, the opposite is the truth. By staging a spectacle, which is historically not attested, the history is created in the present and the spectators are a part of it. In the other fictional naval battle, the nations represented in the spectacle met in a performance of a conflict taken from history. However, the outcome of the performance differed from the result of the historical conflict. These two spectacles based on fictional themes seem, however, to have been an exception - the first a yet undeveloped prototype of naumachiae, the other an insufficiently controlled performance. The naval spectacles of the Roman Empire were grandiose site-specific spectacles
53 8 Summary which featured astounding numbers of involuntary combatants and even greater numbers of spectators. They were a specific product of their time, a theatricalized form of mass execution with aesthetic features. As a matter of fact, staged naval spectacles are a recurring motive in the history and occur even today in their more theatricalized forms, e.g. as living history reenactments of the antique naumachiae146 or even as works of art.147 It can be said that the naval spectacles remain one of the diverse entertainments available even nowadays and still help in constituting the culture of the present.
146 See “Ludi Megalenses 2761 AUC (Nova Roma)/Naumachia” In Nova Roma [accesed at 2018- 30-04] Available at: http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2761_AUC_(Nova_Roma)/Naumachia#4:00_PM_.7E_N AUMACHIA.21.21.21 147 See BOUCHER 2009, unpag.
54
Bibliography
Primary sources:
DIO COCCEIANUS, Lucius Cassius and Earnest CARY. Dio's Roman Histories [online]. 1-9. London: William Heinemann; New York: The Macmillan co., 1914 [accessed 2018-04-26]. Loeb Classical Library. Available at: https://archive.org/details/DioCassiusRomanHistory9books7180WithIndices
FRONTINUS, Sextus Iulius and Charles E. BENNETT, CAPPS, E., E. PAGE and T. E. ROUSE, ed. The Aqueducts of Rome. In The Stratagems and The Aqueducts of Rome [online]. London: William Heinemann, 1925, 331-389 [accessed 2018-04- 26]. Loeb Classical Library. Available at: https://archive.org/details/L174FrontinusStratagemsDeAqueductuTacitus
SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS, Gaius and J.C. ROLFE. The Lives of the Caesars [online]. 1-2. London: William Heinemann, 1924 [accessed 2018-04-26]. Loeb Classical Library. Available at: https://archive.org/search.php?query=suetonius%20loeb
TACITUS, Cornelius, A.J. CHURCH, W.J. BRODRIBB and S. BRYANT. The Annals [online]. New York: The Modern Library, 1942 [1942] [accessed 2018-04- 26]. Edited for Perseus. Available at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Tac.%20Ann.%2012&lang=ori ginal
55
Bibliography
Secondary sources:
BERGMANN, Bettina. Introduction: The Art of Ancient Spectacle. Studies in the History of Art [online]. 1999 (56), 8-35 [accessed 2018-04-26]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42622231
BERKOWITZ, Sara K. Staging Death: Performing Greek Myths in Roman Arena Executions. Chronika journal [online].2017, 40-54 [accessed 2018-04-26]. Available at: http://www.chronikajournal.com/resources/Berkowitz%202017.pdf
BERLAN-BAJARD, Anne. Les spectacles aquatiques romaines [online]. Rome: École française de Rome, 2006 [accessed 2018-04-28]. Collection de ľécole française de Rome. Available at: https://www.torrossa.com/resources/an/2250911
BOUCHER, Brian. Duke of Hazards. Art in America Magazine [online]. 2009 (November), [accessed 2018-04-30]. Available at: https://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/magazines/duke-of- hazards/
COLEMAN, K. M. Launching into History: Aquatic Displays in the Early Empire. The Journal of Roman Studies [online]. 1993 (83), 48-74 [accessed 2018-04- 26]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/300978
FAGAN, Garrett G. The Lure of the Arena: Social Psychology and Crowd at the Roman Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Culture as Performance: Theatre History As Cultural History. ACTAS/ PROCEEDINGS, 2014. [accessed 2018-04-27]. Available at: http://ww3.fl.ul.pt/centros_invst/teatro/pagina/Publicacoes/Actas/erika_def .pdf
56 Summary
FUTRELL, Alison. The Roman games: a sourcebook. Malden, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Blackwell sourcebooks in ancient history.
GROUT, James. Encyclopaedia Romana [online]. [accessed 28/04/2018]. Available at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/index.html
JUNKELMANN, Marcus. Familia Gladiatoria. In KÖHNE, E., E.C. EWIGLEBEN a R.J. JACKSO. Gladiators and Caesars [online]. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2000, 33-74 [accessed 2018-04-27]. Available at: https://ia601404.us.archive.org/14/items/bub_gb_5pzs975hnpoC/bub_gb_5p zs975hnpoC.pdf
Ludi Megalenses 2761 AUC (Nova Roma)/Naumachia. In: Nova Roma [online]. Nova Roma, Inc., 1999 [accessed 2018-04-30]. Available at: http://novaroma.org/nr/Ludi_Megalenses_2761_AUC_(Nova_Roma)/Nauma chia#4:00_PM_.7E_NAUMACHIA.21.21.21
Merriam-Webster [online]. 1828- [accessed 2018-04-26]. Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/
MUSILOVÁ, Martina. Teatralita veřejných událostí – uvedení do problematiky. Theatralia [online]. 2014 (1), 9–24. [accesed 2018-04-27]. Available at: https://digilib.phil.muni.cz/bitstream/handle/11222.digilib/129835/1_Theatr alia_17-2014-1_5.pdf?sequence=1
RAMOS GAY, Ignacio. Naumachias, the Ancient World and Liquid Theatrical Bodies on the Early 19th Century English Stage. Miranda [online]. 2015 (11), 1-15 [accessed 2018-04-28]. Available at: http://miranda.revues.org/6745
57 Bibliography
RAWSON, Elizabeth. Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis. Papers of the British School at Rome [online]. 1987 (55), 83-114 [accessed 2018-04-26]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40310839
TUCK, Steven L. Scheduling Spectacle: Factors Contributing to the Dates of Pompeian "Munera". Rivista di Studi Pompeiani [online]. 2008 (19), 25-34 [accessed 2018-04-26]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/44291816
WALLACE, John and Alexander MCGRATTAN. The Trumpet [online]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012, 5-35 [accessed 2018-04-26]. Available at: http://ezproxy.muni.cz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?di rect=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,uid&db=nlebk&AN=444307&lang=cs&site=eds -live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_6
WELCH, Katherine E. The Roman amphitheatre: from its origins to the Colosseum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
58