Whose crucifixion was Seneca describing in DE IRA? Jesus'?

[rakovsky]

Seneca wrote On Anger after January 41 AD and dedicated it to his brother Gallio, who gave a favorable verdict in Paul's case in c.51-52 AD in Acts 18. In chapter 2, in order to criticize anger, Seneca gives a list of famous leaders who were killed in ill-fortune:

See all the chiefs whom tradition mentions as instances of ill fate; anger stabbed one of them in his bed, struck down another, though he was protected by the sacred rights of hospitality, tore another to pieces in the very home of the laws and in sight of the crowded forum, bade one shed his own blood by the parricide hand of his son, another to have his royal throat cut by the hand of a slave, another to stretch out his limbs on the cross: and hitherto I am speaking merely of individual cases.

The Latin says "alium in cruce membra diffindere". Does the Latin phrase literally mean "stretched his limbs on a cross" and necessarily refer to crucifixion?
Does Seneca anywhere else in his writings talk about a leader who was crucified?

Seneca suggests that the victims were:
1. Killed unjustly (since Seneca is using their ill-fate as an argument against anger)
2. Killed unluckily (their fate was not to be expected, like the victim struck while protected by hospitality)
3. Leaders or "chiefs"
4. Killed treacherously (like in the bed or by the victim's son)
5. Mentioned in "tradition"
6. Likely well-known to Seneca and Gallio (since Seneca didn't need to name them)
7. Likely listed chronologically? (Why else did Seneca list them in this order?)

One writer says:

The context indicates that this unnamed individual was of foreign nationality, and that his death occurred later than that of Pompey [d. 48 BC]--hence within living memory. See Léon Herrmann, Chrestos (Brussels, 1970), pp. 41-43.
https://www.metrum.org/gosen/fromtraggospel.htm

A) Is this book available?
B) Why would one of those killed be Pompey?

Pompey was stabbed by three assassins, the first Achillas was head of the army, Lucius Septimius had been an officer, and the third was Savius (I don't know if Savius was a slave, and I didn't find mention of Pompey's throat being cut). Septimius "thrust a sword into Pompey and then Achillas and Savius stabbed him with daggers." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey#Ci ... assination)

Ben Smith wrote:

I asked for candidates for these six victims of anger on the FRDB (formerly the IIDB), and Jeffrey Gibson further submitted my inquiry to Classics-L, and the following are the suggestions for each victim:

Stabbed in bed: Candaules by Gyges.
Struck down at a banquet: Cleitus the black by Alexander of Macedon.
Killed in the forum: Lucius Appuleius Saturninus by a mob.
Parricide: The only suggestion was Oedipus as a sort of archetypal figure, but the one making the suggestion acknowledged that it seemed less apt than the suggestions for the rest of the list.
Throat slit by a slave: Ptolemy of Mauretania [d. 40 AD] on orders from Caligula.
Crucified: Gavius by Verres, or Hannibal (a Carthaginian general, but not the famous Hannibal Barca) by his own men.

http://www.textexcavation.com/seneca.html

(A) Did the FRDB or Inquiry to Classics-L provide more information on Seneca's list?
(B) What writings say that Ptolemy of Mauretania had his throat cut by a slave?
(C) Was Gavius in any way a "chief"? It does not sound like it, as it sounds like Verres was the regional chief who killed him:

A good example would be Cicero's accusation of Verres, former governor of Sicily, for inflicting the cruel penalty of crucifixion on a Roman citizen, Gavius, without adequate investigation and proof to show that he was indeed a spy. This unjust action of Verres was clearly unbearable and scandalous to Cicero...

Paul's Message of the Cross as Body Language, by Wenhua Shi

(D) I found two General Hannibals being crucified. Are you able to find out how the first ended up getting killed by his men?:

Hannibal [d.257 BC]: Carthaginian general, played a role during the first years of the First Punic War. [First Punic War was in 264-241 BCE]

In 258, he was sent to Sardinia, which he had to defend against the Romans. However, he was no match for the Roman commander Gaius Sulpicius Paterculus, who defeated him. Hannibal was crucified by his own men.
http://www.livius.org/articles/person/hannibal-2/

Hannibal (died 238 BCE) was a Carthaginian general who took part in the Mercenary War between Carthage and rebel mercenaries. He should not be confused with the more renowned Hannibal Barca, son of Hamilcar Barca.
...
During the siege of Tunis he was captured during a night raid and crucified, along with some other high-ranking Carthaginians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_(Mercenary_War)

One could say that since the former was killed by his own men that he was killed unjustly, unluckily, and treacherously. They were chiefs within their military (generals), although not of their nations. Since they fought Rome, they showed up in Roman tradition. But they wouldn't fit last in a list arranged chronologically, since they lived long before Pompey or Ptolemy of Mauritania. So it isn't clear that either Hannibal would fit.

(E) Another candidate is the consul Regulus, who was known in Rome's history and about whom Seneca himself wrote. But does Regulus' form of death match the description of the sixth victim in Seneca's list ("in cruce membra diffindere")?

He was a Consul captured by Carthaginians during the Punic War and held captive. The Carthaginians sent him to Rome (250 BC)to argue for an exchange between Carthage and Rome of captives and for peace. Instead he argued against the exchange and peace, because it was not in the best interests of Rome. He then kept his word and went back to Carthage where he was mercilessly tortured to death. He is considered an idealized Roman for his loyalty to Rome above all else, his honor, as well his ability to stratagize.
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... ml?t=64505

Seneca, ON PROVIDENCE, III.
. . . Let us come now to Regulus+: what injury did Fortune do to him because she made him a pattern of loyalty, a pattern of endurance? Nails pierce his skin, and wherever he rests his wearied body he lies upon a wound; his eyes are stark in eternal sleeplessness. But the greater his torture is, the greater shall be his glory. Would you like to know how little he regrets that he rated virtue at such a price? Make him whole again and send him back to the senate; he will express the same opinion.

Seneca, EPISTLE LXVII.
......
Now a life of honour includes various kinds of conduct; it may include the chest in which Regulus was confined, or the wound of Cato which was torn open by Cato's own hand, or the exile of Rutilius, or the cup of poison which removed Socrates from gaol to heaven.

Tertullian, On Martyrs, Chapter 4
.....
Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside, he endured so many crucifixions.

IN Latin
Regulus, dux Romanorum, captus a Carthaginensibus, cum se unum pro multis captivis Carthaginensibus compensari noluisset, maluit hostibus reddi et in arcae genus stipatus undique extrinsecus clavis transfixus, tot cruces sensit

Regulus was killed unjustly, unluckily, and treacherously, since he was a diplomat. And he was well known to Seneca and in Roman tradition. But he was a consul, and so I am doubtful that he would be called a "chief". I am very doubtful that it would have been said by Seneca that "he stretched his limbs on a cross". And he was killed centuries before Pompey or Ptolemy Mauritanius.

Finally, let's consider Jesus. In the Christian story, he was killed unjustly, treacherously and in ill-fortune, because he was a prince of peace who sought a heavenly kingdom rather than an earthly one and didn't tell the Christians to rise militarily against Rome. In the Christian story, Jesus was destined or fated to be crucified for the world's sins and was betrayed by Judas. He was a chief or leader of this heavenly kingdom, the church, the Messiah of Israel, "king of the Jews", and what Josephus called the "tribe of the Christians". Jesus' story would likely have been heard by Nero's tutor Seneca and by Gallio, as the latter heard Paul's case in Greece and Paul in a Biblical epistle sent greetings to Caesar's (Nero's) household, especially the secretary Epaphroditus. Jesus was killed after Ptolemy of Mauritania and Pompey and before the date of writing of On Anger, so he would fit the chronological list and the book's own date. However, it is questionable whether Seneca would say that Jesus was mentioned in "tradition", since Jesus would have been killed in 33 AD and Seneca would have been writing within about 30 years of that event.

So Jesus and Hannibal seem like both reasonable candidates, but not unquestionable matches.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, On Martyrs, Chapter 4
.....
Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside, he endured so many crucifixions.

IN Latin
Regulus, dux Romanorum, captus a Carthaginensibus, cum se unum pro multis captivis Carthaginensibus compensari noluisset, maluit hostibus reddi et in arcae genus stipatus undique extrinsecus clavis transfixus, tot cruces sensit

Regulus was killed unjustly, unluckily, and treacherously, since he was a diplomat. And he was well known to Seneca and in Roman tradition. But he was a consul, and so I am doubtful that he would be called a "chief".

The Latin word which Seneca uses for "chief" is dux, and your quote from Tertullian calls Regulus exactly that. Until later in the imperial period, dux simply meant a leader of men, especially in battle. It was not, however, an official title at that time.

[rakovsky]

Thanks!

Anthony Smith writes in his study of De Ira (p.200, note 512):

The leader killed in the forum could be Lucius Appuleius Saturninius (V.Max.9.7.4) or Asellius
(App.B.C.1.54). The crucified leader could be Gavius (crucified by Verres: Cic.Ver.5.158-170), or Hannibal
(by his own men; not Hannibal Barca: D.S.1.119, D.S.3.69), or Hermias (by Darius III, according to some
accounts: Did.in D.col.5, 19-20) (even Jesus has been suggested: Herrmann (1970) 41-43).

[rakovsky]

The Latin word which Seneca uses for "chief" is dux, and your quote from Tertullian calls Regulus exactly that. Until later in the imperial period, dux simply meant a leader of men, especially in battle. It was not, however, an official title at that time.

Regulus could be the best candidate if his death by being shut in a chest and then driven through with nails could be described in the Latin words "alium in cruce membra diffindere".

I don't read Latin, but it the two manners of death sound very different.

[Ben C. Smith]

The phrase alium in cruce membra diffindere = "another had his limbs divided on a cross."

[rakovsky]

Thanks. It is nice to write with you about these topics. You are clearly a deep, knowledgeable researcher and a careful one.

[Ben C. Smith]

Thank you for that.

[Ethan]

The Latin word cruce is not a cross, the definition is ' a gallows, frame, tree ' , the same is true for σταυρός , so none of these words suggest a 'cross-shape', that people have in mind , however the Greek word for Cross is χιάζω, a word never used in the New Testament, so where are people getting the cross from? it's all in the head .

[rakovsky]

The Latin word cruce is not a cross, the definition is ' a gallows, frame, tree ' , the same is true for σταυρός , so none of these words suggest a 'cross-shape', that people have in mind , however the Greek word for Cross is χιάζω, a word never used in the New Testament, so where are people getting the cross from? it's all in the head .

Supposing that cruce means "frame", "tree", etc., whereby Seneca's victim's limbs were stretched across a frame, Regulus would still not be a good candidate, because he was put in a chest and pierced with nails. At least in the case of Jesus, he could be said to have his limbs stretched across a "frame", "tree", etc. ("ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου·" ("having hanged him [Jesus] on a tree"), Acts 5:30)

[Ben C. Smith]

Supposing that cruce means "frame", "tree", etc., whereby Seneca's victim's limbs were stretched across a frame, Regulus would still not be a good candidate, because he was put in a chest and pierced with nails. At least in the case of Jesus, he could be said to have his limbs stretched across a "frame", "tree", etc. ("ὁ Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου·" ("having hanged him [Jesus] on a tree"), Acts 5:30)

The Latin word is crux (cruce is in an oblique case). Seneca also writes:

Seneca, Of Consolation, to Marcia 20.3a: 3a I see crosses [cruces] there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the patibulum.

The truth is that a crux/σταυρός does not always have a crossbeam (patibulum). The lie is that it never does. In our case, in which Seneca specifies that the limbs were divided, the safe bet is that the stake had a crossbeam. So do all of those stakes which various authors compare to the letter T (tau), obviously.

ETA: Here is a famous representation of a crucifixion which includes the patibulum: