THE
'TUNICA M O L E S T A ' A N D T H E N E R O N I A N
P E R S E C U T I O N OF T H E
CHRISTIANS
M.J. Mans, University of Pretoria
Whenever one enjoys some "fish, and chips" (formerly a familiar dish, nowadays
a luxury, one recalls the years when this old acquaintance among the "takeaways" was wrapped in newspaper because of paper shortage'. In the time of
Martial (C.40-104 A.D.) paper on which poetasters wrote their unsuccessful
and feeble poetry also served many purposes. Martial writes in his Epigrams
that this spoilt paper had mainly three uses or, as he implies, "destinies",
namely a paper-bag or cornet in which incense or pepper was kept and sold
(3.2.2-5); or it found its way into schools, where the boys made use of the
clean backs of the sheets for their exercises (4.86.11); or to wrap up fish
(mainly mackerels) in the fishmongers' shops and dark kitchens (3.2.2-5;
3.50.9),
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
The following statement is particularly relevant to this topic and serves as
a starting point: "nec scombris tunicas dabis molestas" (4.86.8). It is evident that Martial here uses the' term tunica molesta mockingly and even euphemistically: the paper on which the poetic trash was written will eventually
serve as a tunica molesta for the mackerels. The sarcasm and irony are contained in the fact that this paper cover is unpleasant, troublesome (molesta)
and humiliating - even to the stinking fishes. Although tunica molesta was
sometimes used with the customary derision and scorn, it also connoted in the
first century A.D. that infamous apparel of execution and death and was most
definitely not the common name for wrapping-paper. In the works of the disappointingly few ancient authors explicitly mentioning the tunica molesta, we
shall however, find manifest evidence that it was anything but a garment worn
to swank in public.
The majority of scholars I consulted simply assumed that the tunica molesta
was directly connected with the first persecution of the Christians by Nero.
This persecution (and execution) of Christians, which occurred after the conflagration in Rome in 64 A.D., was (since Christ's crucifixion) in all probability the first by the Romans that we know of, ^ but the secondary sources,
with the aid of the references they present, fail to indicate clearly how and
why they come to the conclusion that the Christians were dressed in tunica
molesta when they were burnt alive by Nero. Not even Tacitus , the only_
pagan first century author who gives a description of the Neronian execution,
explicitly uses the term tunica molesta. Yet, as I shall point out, according
to evidence to be found in classical literature, its use in the first century
A.D. was commonly accepted.
Dictionaries and lexica obviously and understandably resisted the temptation
to link the Christians and the use of the tunica molesta, and confined themselves to criminals in general. The Thesaurus Linguae Latinae defines a
tunica molesta as follows: dicitur vestimentum pice illitum quo induebantur
ad ignem damnati. Lewis and Short concurs with the Thesaurus by calling it
"a dress of pitch in which a malefactor was burned". The Lexicon Totius
Latinitatis, edited by I.J.G. Scheller, calls it "the troublesome coat" and
continues: "it was made of inflammable materials, and those condemned were
obliged to put it on". "A tunic of inflammable material in which criminals
were burnt alive", is the "Oxford Latin Dictionary's" concise description.
53
All the above-mentioned definitions of the tunica molesta are clearly based
on information obtained from the classical authors Tacitus, Seneca, Iuvenal
and Martial. Not one of these writers produces conclusive evidence that the
Christians were wearing the tunica molesta when they were set on fire.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
Numerous scholars, however, connect the tunica molesta with the incineration
of the Christians by Nero. J.D. Duff 3 ) draws the following inference: "Criminals guilty of arson were burnt alive in what was called the tunica molesta:
the Christians, whom Nero accused of setting fire to Rome A.D. 64, were probably the first to undergo this punishment (Tac. Ann.15.44)." W.P. Miller4·)
also assumes that the Christians who had to serve as "street-lamps" "would
be dressed in the tunica molesta.
Likewise Bernard W. Henderson^) assumes
that the Christians, each clad in his tunica molesta, were set on fire.
White and Kennedy°·' state it explicitly as follows: "Incendiaries, especially Christians in the Neronian persecution, were burnt alive in the arena wearing a .tunica molesta or "shirt of pain", made of pitch". Hull's description
of this tunica is slightly different: "a skin coated with pitch, in which
criminals were sometimes burnt alive, as the Christians were by Nero"''). In
his well-known work, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, Frend decides that the burning of the Christians took place with the aid of (as he
calls it) the molesta tunica.
Some classicists give a variation on the theme but make no mention of the
term tunica molesta, e.g. Geo. 0. Holbrooke, who sees the execution of the
Christians as follows: "Nero wrapped them in tarred sheets and burned them"9)
Others, e.g. E.T. Salmon, quite sensibly simplify the matter by saying: "Many
of them were consequently given an appropriate punishment: they were smeared
with pitch, tied to stakes and set on fire"!®). Schaff similarly ignores the
existence of the tunica molesta when he gives his impression of the gruesome
incineration: "Christian men and women, covered with pitch or oil or resin
and η
of pine, were lighted and burned as torches for the amusement
Contrary to the preceding opinions are the views of those scholars who, although using the term tunica molesta, make no mention of the Christians in
this connection. Furneaux is, in my opinion, a supporter of this school of
thought, based purely on the evidence of the authors Tacitus, Iuvenal, Martial
and Seneca. I quote Furneaux: "Those executed by burning were usually dressed in the tunica molesta, noticed by Juvenal (8.235) as the appropriate punishment for incendiaries, and also mentioned by Martial (10.25), and described by Seneca (Ep. 14.5)"12). Paoli tells us that slaves, whenever they committed an offence, could be burned alive "in a cloak impregnated with pitch
(tunica molesta}" 3).
The "exact" wording (as we have it today) of Tacitus' description of the Neronian execution of the Christians may hopefully bring some clarity: Et pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum tergis contecti laniatu canum interirent
aut crucibus adfixi aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies, in usum noctumi luminis urerentur (Ann. 15.44). Judging from this, it is evident that
scholars cannot sufficiently substantiate their point of view that the Christians were undoubtedly dressed in the tunica molesta when burnt to death by
relying (only) on Tacitus' rendering of the macabre events. In the light
of the problems arising from the incineration of the Christians, and the
tunica molesta in particular, many a classicist would pardonably get excited
over the following reading of the abrfve text: aut crucibus affixi et flam-
54
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
mandi (alimenta ignium induerentIf
only it were authentic'. As I shall
indicate later, Seneca also uses the words alimentis ignium for "inflammable
material". Unfortunately H. Fuchs' edition of the "Annals" is the only among
all the available texts and codices proposing the above emendation in Ann.15.
44 and therefore lacks sufficient credibility for acceptance. As already indicated, the majority of scholars fail to account for and explain their assumptions with respect to the burning of the Christians in the tunica molesta,
and also fail to meaningfully and satisfactorily interpret the fragmentary and
scanty evidence of the ancient authors Juvenal, Martial and Seneca on this
matter.
From what Seneca says in Ep. 14 with regard to the tunica molesta we can by
virtue of the pronoun, illam, infer that the tunica to which the writer refers
must undoubtedly have been well-known in the years between 60 and 70 A.D., the
period in which the Christians were burnt alive by Nero: Cogita.. .illam tunicam alimentis ignium et inlitam et textam. Judging from the above description
it was a torture garment, smeared with inflammable material (i.e. pitch or
resin, probably pine-resin from the pitch-pine) and woven or made of inflammable material: without any doubt fire and incineration were therefore part
and parcel of its use and purpose. The sticky pitch most probably furnished
the infamous tunica with the characterizing description molesta^\
Pitch was
already set on fire in the second century B.C. by the carnifex in order to torture criminals (and in all probability also to execute them): Atra pix agitet
apud carnuficem tuoque capiti inluceat^'. We also find evidence in Martial
that the tunica molesta must have been a means of punishment:
nam cum dicatur tunica praesente molesta / 'Ure manum', plus est dicere 'Non facio' (10.25).
The Mucius in this epigram, who, according to the poet, held his hand in the
fire (an event that gave rise to the concluding advice quoted above) bears a
strong resemblance to C. Mucius Scaevola, a celebrated hero in early Roman
history who, according to tradition, made an unsuccessful attempt on the life
of the Etruscan king, Porsenna. Being seized and threatened with torture, he
thrust his right hand into the fire on the altar to show his constancy, and
held it there until it was consumed'.16'
It is in Juvenal, however, that we find conclusive proof that the tunica molesta,
i.e. incineration, was used to punish incendiaries: avma tamen vos / nocturna
et flammas domibus templisque paratis, / ut bracatorum pueri Senonumque minores,
ausi quod liceat tunica punire molesta (8,232-235). Even more explicit confirmation of burning as a method of execution is found in Juvenal's first satire:
pone Tigeltinum : taeda lucebis in ilia
qua stantes ardent qui fixo gutture fumant (1.155).
In this satire the poet illustrates how dangerous and futile it is to satirize
the vices of the great. In order to bring this message home to us he compares
the peril awaiting such an audacious person to one of the severest punishments
of his time, namely burning people alive. In point of fact, Juvenal implies
much more in the preceding few lines: by using the notorious Tigellinus as
an example of such important and dangerous persons, he not only transfers us
immediately to Nero's regime, but also to the period when the very same Tigellinus assisted Nero in his persecution of the Christians17^. The verb lucebis
is particularly significant: it refers to the torch as the source of light
{lumen), but of course it also supposes darkness, in other words the night(s)
during which the Christians were burnt to death. A taeda is a torch made of
the branch of the pitch-pine, which burns easily because of its resin. The
55
words taeda, lucebis, stantes, ardent, gutture and fumant accordingly portray
a macabre scene of human beings tied to stakes being nothing less than burning human torches illuminating the dark. Tacitus employs a Vergilian term,
nocturna lurrrina (Aen. 7.13) in his description of this horrible spectacle,
and the horror of the sight of smoking human torches is perhaps heightened
by the use of the two words nocturni luminis (Ann. 15.44). Vergil uses these
words to help him create the mysterious atmosphere of the supernatural world
while he depicts Circe, the sorceress, who keeps the scented cedarwood burning to illumine the night (nocturna in Iwnina). Seneca, who must have witnessed Nero's cruelty, gave voice to his indignation at the nocturnal execution of senators and robbers, but doesn't refer to the Christians as such:
Quid tam inauditum quam nocturnum supplicivm? (De Ira 3.19). it is interesting to note that Duff summarily translates taeda lucebis in ilia as 'you will
give light in that coat of pitch18). The foregoing evidence possibly also
refers to the Christians who met a nocturnal death by fire. According to
Seneca nocturnal executions were till then unheard of.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
Plutarch informs us that, in order to add mockery to the punishment and to
make the humiliation even worse, criminals, clad often in tunics of gold and
purple mantles, were set on fire in the amphitheatre.19) (Moralia de sera
nwninis vindicta 554B). The colourful and sumptuous έσθης referred to by
the writer is actually a variation of the tunica molestal A further variation occurs in Tertullian's Apologeticus 15.5: here the writer relates to
us that he saw how a man, made up like Hercules, was burned alive before
the eyes of the audience in the theatre.
By virtue of the preceding evidence of Tacitus, Seneca, Martial, Juvenal,
Plutarch and the secondary sources, we can at most arrive at the conclusion
that incendiaries, criminals, slaves and, of course, Christians sometimes met
their death by fire. We must still find an answer to the" question whether
the Christians were really dressed in the tunica molesta while they were burnt
alive.
In Tacitus' terse report on the gruesome Neronian execution of the Christians
(the only description of this occurrence by a pagan author of the classical
period), three methods of execution are mentioned: some were covered with (or
sewn up in) wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs, some were crucified,
many were burned to serve as a nocturnal illumination. The 'resourceful' Nero,
for his own amusement and as a spectacle for the mob, adapted the method of
burning people by using the Christians as burning human torches to illuminate
his 'circus' and gardens. These three punitive measures bear a significant
resemblance to the mode of punishment prescribed for magic; but for the word
bestiis it is in fact identical. The well-known Roman jurist, Paul, quotes
the following law in the early third century A.D.: Magicae artis conscios
summo supplicio adfici placuit, id est bestiis obici aut cruci suffigi.
Ipsi
autem magi vivi exuruntur.^Q) According to Tertullian (in his Apologeticus 12)
the very same capital punishment was inflicted upon the Christians at the end
of the second century A.D.: Crucibus et stipitibus inponitis Christianas. ...
Ad bestias im pellimur. ... Ignibus urimur. In Lactantius 2
we read that in
the early fourth century A.D. (during the reign of Gaius Galerius Valerius
Maximianus) Christians were still thrown to wild beasts, crucified, and burnt
alive. Burning, crucifixion and exposure to wild beasts were things done daily
and, according to Lactantius,especially Christian of private station were
condemned to be burnt alive. Warmington alleges that 'burning alive is well
attested as the regular penalty for incendiarism, a not infrequent crime in
56
Rome, while exposure to the wild beasts or crucifixion also indicates the noncitizen and slave element which was numerous among the early Christians.1
In support of the previous viewpoints, Henderson makes the following contribution: 'The confession of the name was enough, for it was held to connote so
infamous a reputation that Christians became liable at once to the summary
jurisdiction of the executive magistrate, and were classed with robbers, bandits, assassins and magicians.'23)
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
Suetonius's brief reference to the Christian,persecution under Nero, and
especially his opinion of the Christian religion, are particularly significant
with respect to punishment inflicted upon the Christians: afflicti suppliciis
Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae.Judging
from
his choice of words, we may infer that his typification of Christian religion
as superstitio malefioa almost certainly implies inter alia charges of magical
craft brought against the Christians. Such a transgression had always been
severely punished and even in the Later Empire this offence was till considered
a capital offence.25
The word malefioa is equally significant in this context
due to the following meanings it has: 'criminal', 'wicked', 'evil-doing',
'vicious'; 'of' or 'belonging to magic1'; 'harmful'. Janssen points out that
the Romans were constantly warned by authors such as Cato, Columella, Horace
and Pliny the Younger against the pernicious influence of superstitio.2^' The
Christian religion was therefore contemptuously classified by the Romans in'
the same category, i.e. superstitio, as the national cults of the non-Roman
population e.g. the cult of Serapis and Apis in Egypt, the cult of Isis, the
national deities of the Gauls, Germans, Jews, Parthians, and even the cult of
the otherwise much honoured gods of the Asiatic Greeks. 27 ) Consequently the
nomen Christianum was in direct conflict with the nomen Romanum.28)
By merely
confessing Christianus sum, the Christians brought capital punishment on
themselves.29^ In the light of all the preceding information and evidence it
now becomes evident that the Romans, when punishment had to be inflicted, considered the Christians and their religion a threat to public order and a menace
to state religion and accordingly treated them like the B a c c h a n a l s , 3 0 ) Chaldaeans, and professional a s t r o l o g e r s , 3 1 ) and, as already indicated, gave Christians
the same treatment as incendiaries, criminals (e.g. robbers, bandits,'murderers),
slaves and sorcerers.
It has already been indicated' that incendiaries, criminals, slaves and sorcerers
were dressed in the tunica molesta whem condemned to be burnt alive. If this
is true then, that the Romans and particularly Nero (when the mode of punishment
had to be prescribed) made no distinction between Christians and the abovementioned elements - by virtue of the available information there is every
reason to believe this - it can be assumed that in the time of Nero the Christians were also clad in the tunica molesta when they were burned alive. Nero
however, treated some of those Christians who were to be burned differently by
using them as human torches. Especially in this macabre usage of human beings
as torches is locked up the awful humiliation and mockery,33) all of which to
a great extent undoubtedly contributed to the ludibria referred to by Tacitus,
and this must have made the execution of the Christians even more spectacular.
Since the human torches had to serve as a nightly illumination for Nero's
circus and gardens, such a tunica, seeing that it was smeared with pitch
or other inflammable materials and made of combustible material - with all due
respect - probably ensured a prolonged burning period and also promoted effective illumination. Once again then, if classical and other authors quoted in
this article produced evidence that burning in the tunica molesta was one of
the customary and accepted methods of executing incendiaries, criminals, slaves
and sorcerers, there is apparently no reason why it cannot be accepted that
57
the Christians were also dressed in the tunica molesta while they were consumed by the flames.
NOTES
1. J.D. Duff, Juvenal: Satires, C.U.P. 1957, 322; Sulpicius Severus,
Chronicorum libri (ed.) C. Halm, Vienna 1866, 2.28,29: "hoc initio in
Christianos saeviri coeptum"; cf. Tert. Apol. 5; Oros.-Hist. 7.7.
2. Tac. Ann. .15.44.
3. Duff, 322.
4. W.P. Miller, Tacitus: Annales 15, London 1973, 97.
5. Bernard W. Henderson, The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero,
19Q3, 252.
6.
G.W. White and E.C. Kennedy, Roman History,
1950, .173.
7.
K.W.D. Hull, Martial and his times, London 1957, 74.
8. W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom
162-163.
9.
Life and Literature, London
and Persecution in the Early Church, Oxford 1965,
Geo. 0. Holbrooke, The Annals of Tacitus, London 1982, 417 n.20.
10. E.T. Salmon, A History of the Roman World, London 19686,
History of Rome, London 1885, (vol. 4) 511.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
London
182; V. Duruy,
11.
P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids 19752, 381.
12.
H. Furneaux, The Annals of Tacitus, London 1907, vol. 2, 376.
13.
U.E. Paoli, Rome: its people, life and customs, London 19776, 125-126.
14. Plin. 23.1.24; 47: picem meminisse debemus non aliud esse quam combustae
resinae fluxum; Tac. Germ. 45; Ov. Met. 14.532; Lucr. 10.491.
15.
Plaut. Cccpt. 3.4.597; cf. Lucr. 3.1017; Euseb. 6.5: Boiling pitch was
poured slowly over different parts of Potamiaena's body.
16. R.M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy, Oxford 1965, 262-263; cf. L. Friedlaender, (ed.) M. Valerii Martialis, Epigrammaton libri, Amsterdam 1967,
122.
17. M. Cary and H.H. Scullard, A History of Rome, London 19753, 359.
18. Duff, 133.
19. άλλ' οΰθεν ευυου δυαφέρουσυ παι,δαρύων, α τους χαχουργους εν τοΕς θεα'τροι,ς
θεώμενα, πολλάχι,ς έν χι,τωσι, δι,αχρυσοι,ς χαί χλαμυδι,'οι,ς άλουργοΐς έστεφανωμενους χαί πυρρι,χίζοντας, αγαταυ χαί τε'θηπεν ώς μαχαρίους άχρι, οδ χεντουμενοι, χαί μαστίγουμενοι, χαί πΰρ άνι,έντες έχ της άνθινης έχει,'νης χαί πολυτελοϋς έσθητος όφθωσι,ν.
(Moralia de sera numinis vindicta 554B.)
58
20. Paulus, Sententiae, 5.23.17; cf. Th. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, ·.
Graz 1955, 639-643; L.H. *Canfield, The Early Persecution of the Christians,
New York 1913, 61.
21.
Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum,
21-22.
22. B.H. Warmington, Nero: reality and legend, London 1969, 126; cf. K. Baus,
History of the Church, London 1980, vol. 1, 129; R. Auguet, Cruelty and
Civilization: the Roman Games, London 1972, 93, 96.
23.
Henderson, 251.
24.
Suet. Nero,
25.
L.F. Janssen, '"Superstitio' and the Persecution of the Christians", VChr
33 (1979.) 133, 135-138, 157.
.
,
26.
Janssen, 136-138;
16.2.
cf. Frend, 162-163.
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
27. Janssen, 151; F. Smuts, "Waarvan is die Christene voor Plinius aangekla?"
AClass 8 (1965) 82.
.
28.
Janssen, 157-159..
29.
id. 133.
30.
Liv. 39; cf. Frend, 162-163;
Plin. Ep. 10.96;
Smuts, 81.
3.1. Frend, 163.
32.
Henderson, 251; W. Ramsay and R. Lanciani, A Manual of Antiquities,
London 1894, 355; Frend, .162-163; White and Kennedy, 133-134.·
33.
Tacitus (ed.) E. Heller, Annales, Munchen 1982, 864 n. 66.
59