Home In the arena: Communication between animals and Christians in damnatio ad bestias
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

In the arena: Communication between animals and Christians in damnatio ad bestias

  • Aarne Ruben EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 17, 2015

This paper is about the problem of unusual prey. The author compares human and animal difficulties of understanding in damnatio ad bestias (execration, actually, public execution through beasts) in the arenas of Rome during antiquity. The prey’s signals to the predator consist of many components, including mimicry, spreading pheromonic scents, and leaving the footprints. Mimicry techniques, cryptic as well as conspicuous strategies are used by the prey. The survival of the Christians in the Roman arenas was due to the different message channels of men and animals. The Christians who survived never showed fear and therefore no predator touched them. If new prey bears no resemblance to normal prey, a predator could assume a surrender or playful position, while still cautious of the prey’s movements. The latter could be a possibly metacommunicated scene, which is universal for animals as well as humans. In that case, all possibilities of mimetic techniques and survival strategies from both sides are described here: how animals and their prey objects code their messages. Four types of arena interaction signs are presented here. The conclusion is: if the prey does not run, the predator considers it plausibly sick or poisonous. Even a domestic cat carefully avoids a mouse that dares to attack him. The cat considers it to be poisoned and leaves alone. The Christians’ “poison” was their faith.

References

Arana, I., A.Irizan & C.Seco. 2002. gfp-Tagged cells as a useful tool to study the survival of Escherichia coli in the presence of the river microbial community. Microbiological Ecology45. 2938.10.1007/s00248-002-1029-9Search in Google Scholar

Cassel-Lundhagen, A., T.Tammaru, J. J.Windig, N.Ryrholm & S.Nylin. 2009. Are peripheral populations special? Congruent patterns in two butterfly species. Ecography32. 591600.10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05685.xSearch in Google Scholar

Dale, James2006. Intraspecific variation in coloration. In Geoffrey E.Hill & Kevin J.McGraw (eds.), Bird coloration II: Function and evolution, 3686. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctv22jnr8k.5Search in Google Scholar

Eco, Umberto.1993. Cercavano gli unicorni. Alcune false identificazioni da Marco Polo a Leibniz. http://www.umbertoeco.it/CV/Cercavano%20gli%20unicorni.pdf (accessed 25 May 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Endler, J. A1988. Frequency-dependent predation, crypsis, and aposematic coloration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B319. 505523.10.1098/rstb.1988.0062Search in Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, B. M. & D. C.Turner.2000. Hunting behavior of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations. In D. C.Turner & P.Bateson (eds.), The domestic cat: The biology of its behavior, 152175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gluesing, Ernest A.1983. Collared lizard predation: The effects of conspicuous morphology and movement. Copeia3. 835837.10.2307/1444359Search in Google Scholar

Godfery, D., J. N.Lythgoe & D. A.Rumball. 1987. Zebra stripes and tiger stripes: The spatial frequency distribution of the pattern compared to that of the background is significant in display and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society32 (11). 427433.10.1111/j.1095-8312.1987.tb00442.xSearch in Google Scholar

Huber, Ulrich1719. Dissertatio juridica inauguralis, de condemnatione ad bestias. Groningen: Groningen University.Search in Google Scholar

Kaufman, Donald W.1974. Differential owl predation on white and agoutic Mus musculus. Auk91(1). 145150.10.2307/4084669Search in Google Scholar

Krause, Jens & Kraeme D.Ruxton.2002. Living in groups. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kreutzwald, Friedrich Reinhold1961. Kalevipoeg: Scientific edition of epos “Kalevipoeg,”PaulAriste & AugustAnnist (eds.). Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia.Search in Google Scholar

Lotman, Jurij.1995. Ne-memuary [in Russian]. In Lotmanovskij sbornik, 553. Moscow: IC-Garant.Search in Google Scholar

Maran, Timo.2008. Mimikri semiootika [in Estonian]. Tartu: Tartu University.Search in Google Scholar

Martialis, Marcus Valerius. 1825. Epigrammata, vol. 2. Paris: Didot.Search in Google Scholar

O’Reilly, Augustine. 1874. Martyrs of the Colosseum: Historical records of the great amphitheater of Rome. Toronto: Hunter, Rose.Search in Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S.1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C.Hartshorne, P.Weiss & A. W.Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Search in Google Scholar

PophamE. J.1942. Further experimental studies of the selection action of predators. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London A112. 105117.10.1111/j.1469-7998.1943.tb00074.xSearch in Google Scholar

Roach, Marilynne2002. The Salem witch trials: A day-by-day chronicle of a community under siege. Lanham: First Cooper Square Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ruesch, Jurgen & GregoryBateson.1951. Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A.1969. Semiotics and ethology. In Thomas A.Sebeok & AlexandraRamsay (eds.), Approaches to animal communication, 200231. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110862850Search in Google Scholar

Sebeok, Thomas A.1986. “Talking” with animals: Zoosemiotics explained. In JohnDeely, BrookeWilliams, & FeliciaKruse (eds.), Frontier in semiotics, 7682. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tinbergen, Niko.1965. The animal behavior. London: Time-Life.Search in Google Scholar

Turovski, Aleksei.2011. Loomult loom [Animal by nature]. Tallinn: Varrak.Search in Google Scholar

Urmancev, J. A.1974. Simmetrija prirody i priroda simmetrii. Moscow: Izdat.Search in Google Scholar

Von Uexküll, Jakob. 1982. Theory of meaning, Thure Uexküll (trans.). Special issue, Semiotica42(1).10.1515/semi.1982.42.1.25Search in Google Scholar

Zagrodzka, Jolanta & TadeuszJurkowski.1988. Changes in the aggressive behavior of cats treated with amphetamine. International Journal of Neuroscience41. 287297.10.3109/00207458808990735Search in Google Scholar

Ziller, Dolf1979. Hostility and aggression. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-7-17
Published in Print: 2015-10-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Sports utility semiotics: A semantic differential study of symbolic potential in automobile design
  3. Making meaning in women’s spiritual autobiography: Language, materiality, and agency in colonial New Granada
  4. What is the proper characterization of the alphabet? VII: Sleight of hand
  5. Towards a semiotics of multilingualism
  6. In the arena: Communication between animals and Christians in damnatio ad bestias
  7. Dire l’indicible et décrire l’indescriptible: Ressources imagières et linguistiques des poilus
  8. Mathematics and Peirce’s semiotic
  9. Icarus ignored: Riffaterre and Eagleton on Auden’s Musée des Beaux Arts
  10. The “monster” of Seymour Avenue: Internet crime news and Gothic reportage in the case of Ariel Castro
  11. Kenneth L. Pike and science fiction
  12. Environmental communications: The reader’s perspective
  13. A Peircean typology of cultural prime symbols: Culture as category
  14. The poetry of sound and the sound of poetry: Navajo poetry, phonological iconicity, and linguistic relativity
  15. The language of fashion in postmodern society: A social semiotic perspective
  16. From Saussure to sociology and back to linguistics: Niklas Luhmann’s reception of signifiant/signifié and langue/parole as the basis for a model of language change
  17. The machine or the garden: Semiotics and the American yard
  18. Photogénie as “the Other” of the semiotics of cinema: On Yuri Lotman’s concept of “the mythological”
  19. Who said it? Voices in news translation, from a semiotic perspective
  20. Why semiotics, why poetry?
  21. How brands (don’t) do things: Corporate branding as practices of imagining “commens
  22. Film space as mental space
  23. Netizen communicology: China daily and the Internet construction of group culture
  24. Questions toward a Peircean phenomenological description of association
  25. Colonial bodies: Slavery, wage-slavery, and the representation of race
  26. Discourse analysis with Peirce? Making sense of discursive regularities: The case of online university prospectuses
  27. Heidegger and the signs of history
  28. To be continued: meaning-making in serialized manga as functional-multimodal narrative
  29. Empiricism within the limits of postmodernism alone: On the emergence of the logically real within the multi-perspectival field
  30. Propaganda mala fide: Towards a comparative semiotics of violent religious persuasion
  31. Review article
  32. Peircean visual semiotics: Potentials to be explored
Downloaded on 13.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2015-0060/html
Scroll to top button