37 The author <reid@morningside.edu> is with the Dept. of Philosophy, Morningside College, Sioux City, IA 51101. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 2006, 33, 37-49 © 2006 International Association for the Philosophy of Sport Was the Roman Gladiator an Athlete? Heather L. Reid Historians traditionally exclude Roman gladiators from their books on ancient sport. 1 They classify their munera as shows or spectacles, and they relegate gladia- tors to the category of servants or entertainers. The term “athlete” is usually reserved for contestants in Olympic-style agones, and the shining ideal of Classical Greek athletics consigns the events of the Roman arena to darkness. After pointing out in Athletics in the Ancient World that Hellenic contests exist for the sake of the competitors, who are free citizens, Gardiner sniffs, “The Roman games are ludi, amusements, entertainments, and the performers are slaves or hirelings; they exist for the spectators” (10: p. 119). Is this exclusion justified? Few modern athletes have a problem with being “hirelings”; some actually cultivate their status as entertainers. Today, philosophers of sport tend to be more open about what counts as sport and who can be called an athlete. Even those who deny, for example, that so-called professional wrestling is a sport may still be willing to call its participants athletes. Nevertheless, there is something significant about the distinction between Romeʼ s gritty gladiators and Greeceʼ s idealized Olympians. It is a distinction based on the Hellenic association of athletics with virtue 2 and the background assumptions about sport made by those who still buy into that association. It is significant because the ancient Greek use of athletics as character education serves as a foundation and defense of sport in education today. Romans generally rejected athletics as part of education for the upper classes (18: p. 258), so those looking at sport to cultivate virtue today will understandably adopt Greek and reject Roman models of sport. Furthermore, their reasons for doing so will revolve around moral principles such as meritocracy, responsibility, and respect for persons. Is the rejection of gladiators and their munera justified according to these criteria? The ancient Olympics were open only to free men and boys of Greek descent who swore an oath not to sin against the games; victory was viewed as a confir- mation of aristocracy. 3 Greek gymnasia were usually publicly funded educational centers, and athletic training was thought to cultivate and reveal the physical and moral virtues that made worthy citizens. 4 Gladiators, in contrast, occupied the class of moral outcasts called infamia, and they were apparently forced to kill for entertainment. But do these historical facts about athlete exploitation, forced participation, and the constant threat of death amount to a cogent argument against munera being sport? And even if they show that munera fail, when compared with Olympic-style sport, to respect the dignity and autonomy of their contestants, does it follow that gladiators should not be considered athletes as capable of virtue as their Greek counterparts? 04Reid(37).indd 37 04Reid(37).indd 37 4/17/06 11:14:02 AM 4/17/06 11:14:02 AM