Which Way Do You Point Your Thumb?

[Andrew Dalby]

Yes, that's the question. Someone is asking me, so I'm asking everybody. As a Roman at the Colosseum (let's say), when you were voting to save the losing gladiator, did you do precisely this? And did you actually turn the whole thing upside down if you felt he wasn't worth your trouble? I should say that my old Lewis & Short dictionary (under 'pollex' = thumb) describes the gesture differently. It says as follows:

 

"to close down the thumb (premere) was a sign of approbation; to extend it (vertere, convertere) ... a sign of disapprobation". How exactly you close down your thumb I'm not sure, but I don't think it means this:

 

So, what's the answer? Does anyone know?

[Pertinax]

I say , on behalf of the worthy men of Ludos Gladiotorum( and I suspect BIG incoming if I represent them incorrectly), that the gesture was: thumb extended but drawn sideways across the throat as in "cut here" , approval being a wave or gesture of dismissal by wavng the hand palm down, a sort of modern "close it down gesture" for someone operating machinery.

[Pantagathus]

Some chap on the History Channel was saying it was the way Lewis & Short descibes it.

 

If the thumb was up that ment stick it to 'em. It was explained a bit differently from Pertinax's answer but I think our answer is somewhat the same.

[Spurius]

Well, there is the troubling ambiguous line by Juvenal in his third satire about the thumb being extended to save the gladiator...translated as simply extended, up raised and downturned by differing scholars. But it does imply that the extended thumb did play a part in arena judgements.

 

There's a work by Pliny from the first century CE that reads: 'to bend or bow down the thumbs when we give assent unto a thing, or do favour any person, is so usuall, that it is growne into a proverbial speech, to bid a man put down his thumb in token of approbation.' (translated by Philemon Holland in 1601). So that seems to say that thumbs down is the safe gesture. But that was also in reference to regular life and the arena always seemed to have contrary rituals.

 

Then you can muddy the waters by adding in Desmond Morris's research where the thumb's up was generally regarded as good in northern europe, but was least recognized as a good gesture in Italy.

 

Add in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, starting in the 1870 edition, states:

"If they wished him to live, they shut up their thumbs in their fists (pollice compresso favor judicabatur); if to be slain, they turned down their thumbs..."

 

Finally, you have to decide in thumbs down meant a direction or mearly that the thumb was tucked into the fist or palm and thumbs up mearly means to extend a thumb. Is the thumb really a weapon representation and "thumb out" means weapon out and "thumb in" is sheathe the weapon.

 

So, with all that...and more I imagine is out there...I'll make my semi-educated guess:

 

Hell if I know

 

But I'll go with up = bad, down or in = sew him up.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Spurius

[Pantagathus]

That is some excellent input Spurius! No wonder it's still a confusing issue!

[Andrew Dalby]

Thanks to everyone so far. Not easy, is it? Spurius, can you give me a reference to the Desmond Morris research?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Some chap on the History Channel was saying it was the way Lewis & Short descibes it.

 

If the thumb was up that ment stick it to 'em. It was explained a bit differently from Pertinax's answer but I think our answer is somewhat the same.

 

I saw that too. Generally, a Roman battlefield skill was 'Under & Up' , Knocking an enemie with his shield, thrusting the gladius under the enemies' shield and stabbing up into his chest. It kinda makes sense in the arena too with the thumb and all.

 

Wow, one of Rome's biggest mysteries... thumb direction.

Edited July 21, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[Pertinax]

An aside on Gladiatorial combat: from what I have gleaned from gladiatorial re-enactment , the sword (of whatever ilk) is either held high or concealed behind the scutum (of whatever shape) , the logic is as in Japanese swordplay-threaten the "centre" especially the eyes , (rather than the throat in the oriental case ). If you do not threaten the eyes, then conceal the blade so that a strike can be from any angle of inclination.

 

A further note, the sword /shield combo is much better than net / trident , the logic is this - armour is a vital life saver close up,and an offensive capability-a retarius has very little cover, if you close inside the trident he/she is finished , of course the net is tricky, but range is vital. Retarii are a solution to providing cheap entertainment with minimal weaponry, a cut fishing net and tuna fork will do.

[Lost_Warrior]

To throw something even more confusing into the mix, I once saw a (presumably misinformed) documentary on PBS which showed that it was the defeated gladiator himself who chose life or death. In their (fantastical) recreation, the defeated gladiator would make a hand motion (I believe it was thumb in pleading for mercy or thumbs out asking for death) and if he asked for death, the victorious gladiator would give his sword to the defeated gladiator, with which he would take his own life. :ph4r:

 

There is also mention of a "turned thumb" or "pressed thumb". Whatever that means...is open to interpretation

 

There is record of the defeated gladiator holding up one finger as a signal of surrender and pleading for mercy, that is rather well documented.

 

It's a shame such things are not shown in the anicient artwork in a manner which would solve this mystery!

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

For me, I would just have my extented thumb point towards my throat to signal kill.

[Spurius]

Thanks to everyone so far. Not easy, is it? Spurius, can you give me a reference to the Desmond Morris research?

 

Morris, Desmond, Bodytalk: The Meaning of Human Gestures, Crown, 1995, p.92 (if some old footnotes of mine are correct).

[caldrail]

Its highly likely that the gesture had regional differences. In sicily today a 'thumbs up' gesture used to get a lift from a passing motorist is in fact a mortal insult and may well get you shot.

 

A gladiator who chose to die (and some did believe or not- it was a matter of professional honour and pride, or possibly some other reason behind the scenes) need only bare his throat. Usually he wouldn't get the choice. A ruthless opponent wasn't going to wait to let his opponent plead for mercy - we know that from the inscription on a tomb that says 'Take heed from my fate and show no mercy'. By being ruthlessly murderous you would quite likely find yourself without mercy one day, so most gladiators did offer their defeated opponents some chance to plead.

 

I doubt very much that gladiators would disarm themselves to allow another to commit scuicide. Once condemned by the games editor, the fatal blow would follow swiftly (Maximus took too long in getting ready to kill Titus of Gaul in the film Gladiator. Had that been for real, the blow would have landed immediately. But then Maximus was a bit of a softie in gladiator terms) Giving a weapon to an opponent and leaving yourself unarmed isn't too clever is it? Not all gladiators were honourable. There were plenty of dirty tricks in use.

 

The killing blow depended on the weapon in use. With a gladius, the preferred method was to plunge the blade through the top of the shoulder and into the heart. That way the blow is fatal and the ribcage doesn't get in the way. Throats were often cut instead, and the boomerang shaped sword of the thraex would be better in this fashion. A spear or trident might be used against the opponents head if no helmet protected him.

 

Now the gesture used by the crowd must have had some relation to the act of killing or not. The traditional thumbs down is still my personal favourite although there's no actual evidence to say thats what was done, and as I've mentioned before, no-one really knows no matter how many books they sell.

[Gaius Octavius]

For the sake of argument, presume a mob of some 50,000 blood thirsty fans in the stands and a decent, non-fraudulent to-do. Does the victor stop to count the direction of thumbs for majority rule? Can he actually see the direction? If the louts are all screaming for different results, what then? Could it be that there was just one arbiter? Then it is back to A.D.'s query.

[caldrail]

It was up to the games editor (or the emperor if he was present) to decide a gladiators fate. The crowd of course would heavily influence his decision. Does he justly condemn a man and make himself popular with the plebs? Or does he let him off and ensure his senatorial owner is still on friendly terms? As editor, your future career prospects rest on these decisions. In any case, if the crowd are making loud noises its a fair bet most of them are saying the same thing.

[Skarr]

I think the final outcome for the defeated gladiator (death or life) depended on how well the fight was fought and whether it was a spirited fight, without any display of cowardice by the one vanquished.

 

Gladiators were valuable to their owners, who invested a lot of time and money in them and if they fought well in the arena but were yet defeated, I think it would be highly unlikely that they would be killed, unless the wounds were so debilitating that a death by way of mercy killing would be the most appropriate.

 

The editore (during the Republic, later the Emperor) was the only one who decided his fate, although Hollywood likes to think it was the crowd, showing a dramatic thumbs up or down.

 

The gladiator was often granted missio, which meant that he would be allowed to live and possibly fight again in all but the most extreme of cases, for cowardice or for a very poor showing in the arena - no skills or talent displayed. In that case, the gladiator would be worthless to the owner and he would not be angry at the editore for not granting missio.

 

As in everything, economic considerations played a large part in their decision, particularly the future worth of the defeated gladiator. Most of my observations are with reference to the Republic. In later periods, it may have been well different as many of the Emperors were quite blood thirsty and possibly killed off many a good fighter.