To Philosopher Jay
The claim appeared to have been made that the Romans of the first century did not know what the roman execution by crucifixion was.
In Britain the execution by hanging was well understood even if the precise steps and procedures might have varied .
It is difficult to believe that natives subject to the Roman authority would not know what crucifixion meant for them , even if the natives had never used that form of execution themselves.
Beginning in page 177 of his pdf book online , the book cites Cicero's In Verrem in support of his claim.
The problem is that his translations are very different from other translations.
For instance:
Gunnar. page 177
Some he had killed by ax, some he put to death by imprisonment, some he suspended on a crux (in crucem sustulit) while they cried out their rights as freemen and Roman citizens. 115
115 Cic. Ver. 2.1.7. quos partim securi percussit, partim in vinculis necavit, partim implorantes iura libertatis et civitatis in crucem sustulit
But the Translation by
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi ... .7&getid=1
2.1.7
The punishments of Roman citizens are driving him mad, some of whom he has delivered to the executioner, others he has put to death in prison, others he has crucified while demanding their rights as freemen and as Roman citizens.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.02.0018
2.1.7
The punishments of Roman citizens are driving him mad, some of whom he has delivered to the executioner, others he has put to death in prison, others he has crucified while demanding their rights as freemen and as Roman citizens.
NB I am waiting for my library to deliver another translation to compare with the one by Loeb.
• Cross-references in general dictionaries from this page (18):
o Cicero, Against Verres, 2.1.7
o Cicero, Against Piso, 18.42
o Cicero, For Rabirius on a Charge of Treason, 3.10
o Plautus, Aulularia, 3.5
o Plautus, Persa, 5.2
o Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.2
o Plautus, Pseudolus, 5.2
o Horace, Satires, 1.3.82
o Tacitus, Annales, 15.44
o Plautus, Asinaria, 5.2
o Plautus, Bacchides, 4.2
o Plautus, Captivi, 3.1
o Plautus, Casina, 3.5
o Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.2
o Cicero, de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, 5.30
o Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, Book 4, 2.17
o Statius, Silvae, 4.3
o Columella, Res Rustica, 1.7.2
Cic. Pis 18.42
42] Should I, if I were to see you and Gabinius both nailed to a cross, feel greater rejoicing at the laceration of your bodies, than I do at the tearing to pieces of your reputations?
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ,027:18:42
Crucifixion Roman Empire
-
PhilosopherJay
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm
Re: Crucifixion Roman Empire
Hi beowulf,
I think the claim by Samuleson is that crucifixion could take a multitude of forms.
Think of the term "capital punishment." If I said, "John Doe received capital punishment for his crime," you would know that he was put to death, but you wouldn't know how. One might also think of the term "beheaded." If I said, "The Count was beheaded," you would not know if his head was cut off by a knife, sword, an axe, or guillotine.
All the pre-Second century uses of the term "crucifixion" either do not describe the punishment or describe a variety of different punishments, some postmorterm (to a dead body) and some antemortem (happening while alive), some causing immediate death (impalement generally and some long lingering deaths). Without a description no reader could possibly tell how somebody died by the simple term crucifixion.
The term "crucifigere" (translated as ""to crucify") , first used by Seneca the Elder (54 BCE - 37 CE). meant attaching a human to a wooden structure for torture of death.
The term "stavros" meant some kind of stake of pole. Only much later did it take on the meaning of a T-shaped cross. The Gospels and NT text only tell us Jesus died on a "Stavros." I believe it is only much later (probably in the Third or Fourth century) that we get the first descriptions of the Stavros that Jesus died on being a T-shaped cross.
Samuelson does mention the quote by Cicero as being one of a few crucifixion texts that mention being "nailed" to a suspension instrument. Others talk about ropes and impalement as means of attachment. None of the passion narratives speak of nails. I believe only the gospel of John mentions nails in a post-life appearance by Jesus.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
I think the claim by Samuleson is that crucifixion could take a multitude of forms.
Think of the term "capital punishment." If I said, "John Doe received capital punishment for his crime," you would know that he was put to death, but you wouldn't know how. One might also think of the term "beheaded." If I said, "The Count was beheaded," you would not know if his head was cut off by a knife, sword, an axe, or guillotine.
All the pre-Second century uses of the term "crucifixion" either do not describe the punishment or describe a variety of different punishments, some postmorterm (to a dead body) and some antemortem (happening while alive), some causing immediate death (impalement generally and some long lingering deaths). Without a description no reader could possibly tell how somebody died by the simple term crucifixion.
The term "crucifigere" (translated as ""to crucify") , first used by Seneca the Elder (54 BCE - 37 CE). meant attaching a human to a wooden structure for torture of death.
The term "stavros" meant some kind of stake of pole. Only much later did it take on the meaning of a T-shaped cross. The Gospels and NT text only tell us Jesus died on a "Stavros." I believe it is only much later (probably in the Third or Fourth century) that we get the first descriptions of the Stavros that Jesus died on being a T-shaped cross.
Samuelson does mention the quote by Cicero as being one of a few crucifixion texts that mention being "nailed" to a suspension instrument. Others talk about ropes and impalement as means of attachment. None of the passion narratives speak of nails. I believe only the gospel of John mentions nails in a post-life appearance by Jesus.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
beowulf wrote:To Philosopher Jay
The claim appeared to have been made that the Romans of the first century did not know what the roman execution by crucifixion was.
In Britain the execution by hanging was well understood even if the precise steps and procedures might have varied .
It is difficult to believe that natives subject to the Roman authority would not know what crucifixion meant for them , even if the natives had never used that form of execution themselves.
Beginning in page 177 of his pdf book online , the book cites Cicero's In Verrem in support of his claim.
The problem is that his translations are very different from other translations.
For instance:
Gunnar. page 177
Some he had killed by ax, some he put to death by imprisonment, some he suspended on a crux (in crucem sustulit) while they cried out their rights as freemen and Roman citizens. 115
115 Cic. Ver. 2.1.7. quos partim securi percussit, partim in vinculis necavit, partim implorantes iura libertatis et civitatis in crucem sustulit
But the Translation by
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi ... .7&getid=1
2.1.7
The punishments of Roman citizens are driving him mad, some of whom he has delivered to the executioner, others he has put to death in prison, others he has crucified while demanding their rights as freemen and as Roman citizens.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.02.0018
2.1.7
The punishments of Roman citizens are driving him mad, some of whom he has delivered to the executioner, others he has put to death in prison, others he has crucified while demanding their rights as freemen and as Roman citizens.
NB I am waiting for my library to deliver another translation to compare with the one by Loeb.
• Cross-references in general dictionaries from this page (18):
o Cicero, Against Verres, 2.1.7
o Cicero, Against Piso, 18.42
o Cicero, For Rabirius on a Charge of Treason, 3.10
o Plautus, Aulularia, 3.5
o Plautus, Persa, 5.2
o Plautus, Pseudolus, 3.2
o Plautus, Pseudolus, 5.2
o Horace, Satires, 1.3.82
o Tacitus, Annales, 15.44
o Plautus, Asinaria, 5.2
o Plautus, Bacchides, 4.2
o Plautus, Captivi, 3.1
o Plautus, Casina, 3.5
o Plautus, Menaechmi, 2.2
o Cicero, de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, 5.30
o Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, Book 4, 2.17
o Statius, Silvae, 4.3
o Columella, Res Rustica, 1.7.2
Cic. Pis 18.42
42] Should I, if I were to see you and Gabinius both nailed to a cross, feel greater rejoicing at the laceration of your bodies, than I do at the tearing to pieces of your reputations?
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ,027:18:42
Re: Crucifixion Roman Empire
Thank you .
It is the conclusion of his book in regard the execution of a convicted criminal in Judea early in the first century what really matters. Without that marketing trick this book is nothing at all.
The question is : what would the soldiers that had to carry out the sentence --do the actual killing--would have understood as their duty when a Roman magistrate had sentenced someone to be attached to a wooden device until he/she was dead.
Herodotus tells us that Darius crucified the defeated Babylonians . Alexander the Great crucified the defeated Tyre and Alexander Jaenaus crucified his fellows Jews and so forth and that the Persians hoisted the decapitated body of Leonidas after Thermopylae was breached .
Cut heads were displayed in XVI century England at the end of pointed object and the Conquistadors impaled Aztecs on wooden sticks , all this is a very old story .
The book uses the confusion of history to make a very a precise statement , namely : the Roman magistrates in Jerusalem around 30 CE did not know what they were saying when sentencing somebody to die on the cross , and that no one among his soldiers would know how to carry out the sentence. The statement also says that the witnessing populace could not know what the Roman execution by crucifixion of some of their countrymen meant and that when the crowd spoke they spoke in ignorance .
Cicero, In Verrem , is the only piece of evidence relevant to the conclusion reached in the book and I am willing to examine this evidence with you. But if you think that this examination is not necessary, then I will post no more on this subject
It is the conclusion of his book in regard the execution of a convicted criminal in Judea early in the first century what really matters. Without that marketing trick this book is nothing at all.
The question is : what would the soldiers that had to carry out the sentence --do the actual killing--would have understood as their duty when a Roman magistrate had sentenced someone to be attached to a wooden device until he/she was dead.
Herodotus tells us that Darius crucified the defeated Babylonians . Alexander the Great crucified the defeated Tyre and Alexander Jaenaus crucified his fellows Jews and so forth and that the Persians hoisted the decapitated body of Leonidas after Thermopylae was breached .
Cut heads were displayed in XVI century England at the end of pointed object and the Conquistadors impaled Aztecs on wooden sticks , all this is a very old story .
The book uses the confusion of history to make a very a precise statement , namely : the Roman magistrates in Jerusalem around 30 CE did not know what they were saying when sentencing somebody to die on the cross , and that no one among his soldiers would know how to carry out the sentence. The statement also says that the witnessing populace could not know what the Roman execution by crucifixion of some of their countrymen meant and that when the crowd spoke they spoke in ignorance .
Cicero, In Verrem , is the only piece of evidence relevant to the conclusion reached in the book and I am willing to examine this evidence with you. But if you think that this examination is not necessary, then I will post no more on this subject
-
PhilosopherJay
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm
Re: Crucifixion Roman Empire
Hi Beowulf,
Think about when you read a newspaper headline saying that somebody has been sentenced to ten years in jail. What does this really tell you? There are jails that are filthy and dark, with terrible overcrowded cells, wretched food, and prisoners live daily in fear for their lives. There are other prisons where prisoners have their own cells, a host of recreation and educational opportunities, conjugal visits, decent food and prisoners live without any undue fear and can even have passes to go outside the prison compound. Besides there are generally rules of reduction of sentences for good behavior. So someone might return to society in seven years or even five years on a ten year sentence. Obviously from reading the headline, we cannot tell what the conditions will be like for the prisoner. They vary enormously. This does not mean that the Judge, cops and prison wardens do not know how the conditions under which the sentence will be carried out. It just means that the reader cannot tell these conditions. It may mean ten years of a living hell for the prisoner that will cause his death or a long five year stay at a moderately unpleasant summer camp environment.
What Samuelson is saying based on the best review of the evidence ever done is that we can only point to the diversity of crucifixion experiences in ancient times but have little way of ascertaining which one the gospel authors had in mind. Their text simply does not inform us.
Why do you imagine that Cicero's description of a crucifixion is more accurate than anybody else's description in antiquity? He was best known for his rhetoric, not for telling the truth.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
Think about when you read a newspaper headline saying that somebody has been sentenced to ten years in jail. What does this really tell you? There are jails that are filthy and dark, with terrible overcrowded cells, wretched food, and prisoners live daily in fear for their lives. There are other prisons where prisoners have their own cells, a host of recreation and educational opportunities, conjugal visits, decent food and prisoners live without any undue fear and can even have passes to go outside the prison compound. Besides there are generally rules of reduction of sentences for good behavior. So someone might return to society in seven years or even five years on a ten year sentence. Obviously from reading the headline, we cannot tell what the conditions will be like for the prisoner. They vary enormously. This does not mean that the Judge, cops and prison wardens do not know how the conditions under which the sentence will be carried out. It just means that the reader cannot tell these conditions. It may mean ten years of a living hell for the prisoner that will cause his death or a long five year stay at a moderately unpleasant summer camp environment.
What Samuelson is saying based on the best review of the evidence ever done is that we can only point to the diversity of crucifixion experiences in ancient times but have little way of ascertaining which one the gospel authors had in mind. Their text simply does not inform us.
Why do you imagine that Cicero's description of a crucifixion is more accurate than anybody else's description in antiquity? He was best known for his rhetoric, not for telling the truth.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
beowulf wrote:Thank you .
It is the conclusion of his book in regard the execution of a convicted criminal in Judea early in the first century what really matters. Without that marketing trick this book is nothing at all.
The question is : what would the soldiers that had to carry out the sentence --do the actual killing--would have understood as their duty when a Roman magistrate had sentenced someone to be attached to a wooden device until he/she was dead.
Herodotus tells us that Darius crucified the defeated Babylonians . Alexander the Great crucified the defeated Tyre and Alexander Jaenaus crucified his fellows Jews and so forth and that the Persians hoisted the decapitated body of Leonidas after Thermopylae was breached .
Cut heads were displayed in XVI century England at the end of pointed object and the Conquistadors impaled Aztecs on wooden sticks , all this is a very old story .
The book uses the confusion of history to make a very a precise statement , namely : the Roman magistrates in Jerusalem around 30 CE did not know what they were saying when sentencing somebody to die on the cross , and that no one among his soldiers would know how to carry out the sentence. The statement also says that the witnessing populace could not know what the Roman execution by crucifixion of some of their countrymen meant and that when the crowd spoke they spoke in ignorance .
Cicero, In Verrem , is the only piece of evidence relevant to the conclusion reached in the book and I am willing to examine this evidence with you. But if you think that this examination is not necessary, then I will post no more on this subject
Re: Crucifixion Roman Empire
Hi,
Why Cicero In Verrem?
Cicero is used extensively in the book
In Verrem is about a criminal trial in 70 BCE.
When a Roman magistrate formally sentenced a convicted criminal to death by crucifixion in around the first century--Did anyone know what he meant?
The Trial
Criminal Procedure in the Gaius Verres Case
Complaint In the case of Gaius Verres, representatives of the plundered cities appeared in Rome to bring an action de Repetundis against their former provincial governor. By joint resolution, they authorized their case to be prosecuted by Cicero. A case formally began with the postulatio, an application to the praetor for redress against the accused.
Cicero was the Prosecutor
The Jury
Composition of the Jury Since 81 B.C., a governor of a province (such as Gaius Verres) faced a jury consisting exclusively of men of his own rank, including senators who might themselves have been guilty of exploiting the provinces. This control of the courts by the senate is called the prerogative of the judicium
Evidence Gathering Cicero, accompanied by his cousin, traveled extensively around the island of Sicily for about fifty days gathering evidence and statements from witnesses that might be used in the prosecution of Verres. Verres examined public records in all major towns and took the testimony of hundreds of persons injured by Verres or his henchmen. In almost all cases, Cicero was enthusiastically received by the people. (The major exception was at Messana, the city where Verres stored many of his stolen treasures, and a city to which he extended favorable treatment during his governorship.) Efforts were made by the new governor of Sicily, Metellus, to hinder Cicero's efforts, but to little avail
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edure.html
Cicero was the prosecutor in a very high profile criminal trial and he took great care to collect reliable evidence to be examined and challenged by a distinguished defence lawyer acting for Verres .
The book says that what I have already stated in my previous post
In page 178 of the book :
"Some paragraphs later, Cicero describes a rather different suspension, which Verres carried out "openly in the middle of the assembly."1 1 9 The chief magistrate of Messana, Sopater, was stripped naked in midwinter rain by the lictors on Verres' order. In the forum of Messana were some statues, and one of them became the suspension tool on this occasion."
119
Cie. Verr. 2.4.86.
.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi ... 86&getid=1
.
86]
And all these things (for I do not think that I ought to omit any particular of his impudence) were done openly in the middle of the assembly, while Verres was sitting on his chair of office, in a lofty situation. It was the depth of winter; the weather, as you heard Sopater himself state, was bitterly cold; heavy rain was falling; when that fellow orders the lictors to throw Sopater headlong down from the portico on which he himself was sitting, and to strip him naked. The command was scarcely, out of his mouth, before you might have seen him stripped and surrounded by the lictors. All thought that the unhappy and innocent man was going to be scourged. They were mistaken. Do you think that Verres would scourge without any reason an ally and friend of the Roman people? He is not so wicked. All vices are not to be found in that man; he was never cruel. He treated the man with great gentleness and clemency. In the middle of the forum there are some statues of the Marcelli, as there are in most of the other towns of Sicily; out of these he selected the statue of Caius Marcellus, whose services to that city and to the whole province were most recent and most important. On that statue he orders Sopater, a man of noble birth in his city, and at that very time invested with the chief magistracy, to be placed astride and bound to it.
Verres is using his authority as the governor of the province to unlawfully appropriate a valuable statue. Sopater is the local magistrate and Verres is asking him to destroy the evidence..
This passage has nothing to do with suspension
Why Cicero In Verrem?
Cicero is used extensively in the book
In Verrem is about a criminal trial in 70 BCE.
When a Roman magistrate formally sentenced a convicted criminal to death by crucifixion in around the first century--Did anyone know what he meant?
The Trial
Criminal Procedure in the Gaius Verres Case
Complaint In the case of Gaius Verres, representatives of the plundered cities appeared in Rome to bring an action de Repetundis against their former provincial governor. By joint resolution, they authorized their case to be prosecuted by Cicero. A case formally began with the postulatio, an application to the praetor for redress against the accused.
Cicero was the Prosecutor
The Jury
Composition of the Jury Since 81 B.C., a governor of a province (such as Gaius Verres) faced a jury consisting exclusively of men of his own rank, including senators who might themselves have been guilty of exploiting the provinces. This control of the courts by the senate is called the prerogative of the judicium
Evidence Gathering Cicero, accompanied by his cousin, traveled extensively around the island of Sicily for about fifty days gathering evidence and statements from witnesses that might be used in the prosecution of Verres. Verres examined public records in all major towns and took the testimony of hundreds of persons injured by Verres or his henchmen. In almost all cases, Cicero was enthusiastically received by the people. (The major exception was at Messana, the city where Verres stored many of his stolen treasures, and a city to which he extended favorable treatment during his governorship.) Efforts were made by the new governor of Sicily, Metellus, to hinder Cicero's efforts, but to little avail
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edure.html
Cicero was the prosecutor in a very high profile criminal trial and he took great care to collect reliable evidence to be examined and challenged by a distinguished defence lawyer acting for Verres .
The book says that what I have already stated in my previous post
In page 178 of the book :
"Some paragraphs later, Cicero describes a rather different suspension, which Verres carried out "openly in the middle of the assembly."1 1 9 The chief magistrate of Messana, Sopater, was stripped naked in midwinter rain by the lictors on Verres' order. In the forum of Messana were some statues, and one of them became the suspension tool on this occasion."
119
Cie. Verr. 2.4.86.
.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi ... 86&getid=1
.
86]
And all these things (for I do not think that I ought to omit any particular of his impudence) were done openly in the middle of the assembly, while Verres was sitting on his chair of office, in a lofty situation. It was the depth of winter; the weather, as you heard Sopater himself state, was bitterly cold; heavy rain was falling; when that fellow orders the lictors to throw Sopater headlong down from the portico on which he himself was sitting, and to strip him naked. The command was scarcely, out of his mouth, before you might have seen him stripped and surrounded by the lictors. All thought that the unhappy and innocent man was going to be scourged. They were mistaken. Do you think that Verres would scourge without any reason an ally and friend of the Roman people? He is not so wicked. All vices are not to be found in that man; he was never cruel. He treated the man with great gentleness and clemency. In the middle of the forum there are some statues of the Marcelli, as there are in most of the other towns of Sicily; out of these he selected the statue of Caius Marcellus, whose services to that city and to the whole province were most recent and most important. On that statue he orders Sopater, a man of noble birth in his city, and at that very time invested with the chief magistracy, to be placed astride and bound to it.
Verres is using his authority as the governor of the province to unlawfully appropriate a valuable statue. Sopater is the local magistrate and Verres is asking him to destroy the evidence..
This passage has nothing to do with suspension
Re: Crucifixion Roman Empire
The book says in page 177 the following:
... but adds an unusual - and essential - feature to the knowledge of the punishment method.
[quote=book cic ver 2,4.26]"With what face have you in fact presented yourself in the gaze of the Roman people? [You have even] not [yet torn down] that crux, which is even now at this time stained with blood of Roman citizens.... Is your city elected [to be a place that] when anyone enters it from Italy, he sees a crux of a Roman citizen before he sees a friend of the Roman people? " 117[/quote]
In this text, Cicero indicates that the crux-punishment was somehow connected with bloodshed, if the blood is not to be understood metaphorically.
The blood revives the Gospel connection, since it could be seen as a witness of the use of nails or scourging, which is vital in Christian interpretations of Jesus' death, in both theology and art. However, the text does not prove anything beyond the notion that Cicero somehow connects blood with the crux. There is nothing in the text that contradicts a traditional reading.
1 1 7 Cie. Verr. 2.4.26
Translation of 2.4.26
Cic. Ver 2. 4.26
[26] But I will make my complaint of this conduct, if ever the time comes that there is any discussion concerning you among that body, which, up to this time, has been affronted by no one but you. With what face have you presented yourself before the eyes of the Roman people? when you have not yet pulled down that cross, which is even now stained with the blood of a Roman citizen, which is fixed up in your city by the harbour, and have not thrown it into the sea and purified all that place, before you came to Rome, and before this tribunal. On the territory of the Mamertines, connected with us by treaty, at peace with us, is that monument of your cruelty raised. Is not your city the only one where, when any one arrives at it from Italy, he sees the cross of a Roman citizen before he sees any friend of the Roman people? which you are in the habit of displaying to the people of Rhegium, whose city you envy, and to your inhabitants, Roman citizens as they are, to make them think less of themselves, and be less inclined to despise you, when they see the privileges of our citizenship extinguished by such a punishment..
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.02.0018
This passage 2.4.26 written in 70 BCE (BC) .
Explanation of the text:
Cicero is stating what Verres did. Cicero says : Verres has crucified a Roman citizen and raised the cross on the harbour of the city of Messana ( modern Messina) , the port used by travellers between Sicily and Italy ( Messana and Rhegium) for all people to see. The blood of the victim of the execution still stains the wood of the cross ( or pole)
What about the blood? The presence of blood means the victim was nailed to the wood.
The blood is real and it is the unimportant consequence of the nail passing through the flesh. It is the repugnant indifference of the criminal Verres coming to Rome while the evidence of his cruel crime is on display , that is what Cicero wants to record.
Roman citizens were never lawfully crucified .
N. B. It is a 'fundies ' book for those of a contrary disposition .
... but adds an unusual - and essential - feature to the knowledge of the punishment method.
[quote=book cic ver 2,4.26]"With what face have you in fact presented yourself in the gaze of the Roman people? [You have even] not [yet torn down] that crux, which is even now at this time stained with blood of Roman citizens.... Is your city elected [to be a place that] when anyone enters it from Italy, he sees a crux of a Roman citizen before he sees a friend of the Roman people? " 117[/quote]
In this text, Cicero indicates that the crux-punishment was somehow connected with bloodshed, if the blood is not to be understood metaphorically.
The blood revives the Gospel connection, since it could be seen as a witness of the use of nails or scourging, which is vital in Christian interpretations of Jesus' death, in both theology and art. However, the text does not prove anything beyond the notion that Cicero somehow connects blood with the crux. There is nothing in the text that contradicts a traditional reading.
1 1 7 Cie. Verr. 2.4.26
Translation of 2.4.26
Cic. Ver 2. 4.26
[26] But I will make my complaint of this conduct, if ever the time comes that there is any discussion concerning you among that body, which, up to this time, has been affronted by no one but you. With what face have you presented yourself before the eyes of the Roman people? when you have not yet pulled down that cross, which is even now stained with the blood of a Roman citizen, which is fixed up in your city by the harbour, and have not thrown it into the sea and purified all that place, before you came to Rome, and before this tribunal. On the territory of the Mamertines, connected with us by treaty, at peace with us, is that monument of your cruelty raised. Is not your city the only one where, when any one arrives at it from Italy, he sees the cross of a Roman citizen before he sees any friend of the Roman people? which you are in the habit of displaying to the people of Rhegium, whose city you envy, and to your inhabitants, Roman citizens as they are, to make them think less of themselves, and be less inclined to despise you, when they see the privileges of our citizenship extinguished by such a punishment..
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.02.0018
This passage 2.4.26 written in 70 BCE (BC) .
Explanation of the text:
Cicero is stating what Verres did. Cicero says : Verres has crucified a Roman citizen and raised the cross on the harbour of the city of Messana ( modern Messina) , the port used by travellers between Sicily and Italy ( Messana and Rhegium) for all people to see. The blood of the victim of the execution still stains the wood of the cross ( or pole)
What about the blood? The presence of blood means the victim was nailed to the wood.
The blood is real and it is the unimportant consequence of the nail passing through the flesh. It is the repugnant indifference of the criminal Verres coming to Rome while the evidence of his cruel crime is on display , that is what Cicero wants to record.
Roman citizens were never lawfully crucified .
N. B. It is a 'fundies ' book for those of a contrary disposition .