The Roman Black Banquet

Join Kelli as she talks about Rome's first ever Black Banquet, hosted by Emperor Domitian in 89 CE. 

Today's episode covers some Roman history including the creation of the Colosseum, the Flavian Dynasty, Cynicism and Stoicism, Memento Mori, and Domitian's spooky banquet - so scary, his guests fled in terror, fearing for their lives!

Happy early Halloween, APHOUT fans <3

Referenced Sources:

• C. Suetonius Tranquillus, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, first composed in 121 CE. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Titus*.html
• Cassius Dio, Roman History. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/67*.html
• https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-cynicism/

The Folium Diary Wants You! (to listen and have fun ;-)
101 Nights of Storytelling! (Scheherazade on a budget). A show that will change the whirl.

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Chapters

• 24:01 [Ad] The Folium Diary Wants You! (to listen and have fun ;-)
• 24:51 (Cont.) The Roman Black Banquet

Transcript

The Roman Black Banquet
Intro
Welcome to A Popular History of Unpopular Things, a podcast that covers the… unpopular stories from history - tales about disease, death, and destruction. I like learning about all things bloody, gross, mysterious, and weird.

It’s spooky season! So let’s celebrate with a scary story. And what could be spookier than a banquet - of death?

In 90 CE, Emperor Domitian hosted what was later called the black banquet. It was loosely and perhaps ironically based around the stoic principle of memento mori - or, remember… that you must die. And by some accounts, the banquet was so spooky that Domitian’s guests fled in terror!

So in today’s episode, let’s learn about Emperor Domitian and his family, the history of Roman entertainment, this one particular event, and how it showcases the tensions between Rome’s emperor and the Senate.

Ancient Rome is an era of history I’ve barely touched… I did a joint episode about Vercingetorix and Julius Caesar’s attack on the Gauls at Alesia, but that was a suuuuper long time ago. And there are so many juicy stories rooted in antiquity, so it’s time I start peppering some into the programming.

Happy October, APHOUT family!

Let’s get started! 
Historical Context
For those of you who are new here, I typically start my episodes with historical context. It’s important to know what was happening in that period of time to understand why an event took place. Otherwise, you might be looking at it out of context and miss something important. So for today’s story, we need to take a look at what was going on in Rome that led to Emperor Domitian holding a spooky banquet. Out of context, it was just a weird party. But there was so much more going on than a weird, macabre feast, and the only way to get the full story is to look at the historical context. And for that, I want to briefly start with how Rome became an Empire, how Domitian and his predecessors came into power, and who Domitian actually was. Because he kinda sucked. 

Rome became an Empire in 27 BCE when Octavian was granted the imperial title of Augustus Caesar. It was the end of a period of chaos where multiple men vied for control of Rome. There were civil wars, rising factions, and lots of murders - I’m looking at you, Julius Caesar. And those are all stories for another day. But in the end, Rome transitioned to an Empire with Augustus on top. And this began the reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. You’ve got Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. I’d love to tell you more about some of those guys - particularly Caligula and Nero - but not today.

After the end of the Julio-Claudian line, we have the “Year of Four Emperors” in the year 69 - which is exactly what it sounds like. But the final Emperor of that year was Vespasian - the founder of the Flavian Dynasty. 

Now I used to tell my AP World students this all the time. One of the most important things a new emperor had to do was assert his legitimacy. There needs to be a buy-in, right? Emperors weren’t voted in - they either inherited the throne, played politics, or took power with military force. So when Vespasian took power, he needed to gain political legitimacy. He was a successful general with the support of his troops, so that helped, and he also managed to get the Senate’s support. But controlling Rome was more than just currying favor with the Senate and the army - you also had to win the love of the people. And Vespasian did this by ordering the construction of a major, enduring piece of Roman monumental architecture - the Colosseum.

Vespasian died before it was completed, but his son and heir, Titus, completed the project. He presided over the first ever games in the Colosseum, which lasted for 100 days. According to the contemporary Roman historian Suetonius in his invaluable work, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, quote,  

[Titus] was second to none of his predecessors in munificence. At the dedication of his amphitheatre⁠ and of the baths which were hastily built near it he gave a most magnificent and costly gladiatorial show. He presented a sham sea-fight, too, in the old naumachia [naw MAH kee uh],⁠ and in the same place a combat of gladiators,⁠ exhibiting five thousand wild beasts of every kind in a single day.

End quote.

Can you imagine? 5,000 wild beasts every day for 100 days?! That seems like a lot. That might have been an exaggeration. But anyway, I should probably define the naumachia [naw MAH kee uh] as well. The Naumachia[naw MAH kee uh] refers to two things - the mock naval battles that would entertain the masses, as well as the name given to the specially constructed water-arenas where these battles would take place. We have sources that the naumachia[naw MAH kee uh] happened in amphitheatres, including the Colosseum, but also in artificial lakes and basins. If you saw Gladiator II - which was not good, by the way - they performed a naumachia[naw MAH kee uh] in the Colosseum. But there was a million things wrong with that scene, and… you know what? I’m.. I’m not going to fall down that rabbit hole.

Let’s see what some other Roman sources say about Titus’ inaugural games. I just want to build up the idea of the lengths the Flavians went to to impress their people. It’s relevant, I swear.

Here’s a source from Cassius Dio, a Senator who put together his Roman History over a span of 22 years, finishing around 229 CE. So, importantly, this is a history, not a primary source; the Colosseum was built 149 years before he published this book. So we can’t look at this as an eyewitness account. But it still gives us some good information about Titus’ reign and the majesty of these games. In Book 66, chapter 25, Dio writes, quote:

…in dedicating the [Colosseum] and the baths that bear his name he produced many remarkable spectacles. There was a battle between cranes and also between four elephants; animals both tame and wild were slain to the number of nine thousand; and women… took part in dispatching them.

As for the men, several fought in single combat and several groups contended together both in infantry and naval battles. For Titus suddenly filled this same theatre with water and brought in horses and bulls and some other domesticated animals that had been taught to behave in the liquid element just as on land. He also brought in people on ships, who engaged in a sea-fight there, impersonating the Corcyreans and Corinthians…

These were the spectacles that were offered, and they continued for a hundred days; but Titus also furnished some things that were of practical use to the people. He would throw down into the theatre from aloft little wooden balls variously inscribed, one designating some article of food, another clothing, another a silver vessel or perhaps a gold one, or again horses, pack-animals, cattle or slaves. Those who seized them were to carry them to the dispensers of the bounty, from whom they would receive the article named.

End quote.

Cassius Dio is one of our main sources of evidence that the naumachia[naw MAH kee uh] actually took place in the Colosseum, but again, it was written way later, so it’s likely exaggerated or inaccurate in some places.

So, suffice to say, Titus knew how to use the Colosseum. He put on quite a show for the masses, even giving away prizes to a handful of lucky people. But it wasn’t just in the Colosseum where Roman Emperors showed off; it was customary to throw a banquet for friends, Senators, and others in high places. Suetonius tells us that Titus put on pleasant banquets. That’s how he described them. Pleasant, not extravagant. And these banquets, like shows at the Colosseum, were a way for Emperors to show off their power.

Barry Strauss, author of the book Ten Caesars: Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine, noted that banquets were a way to keep your friends close and enemies closer; emperors could display power and wealth, dispense favors, monitor rivals… it was like a networking event. Picture men in togas, reclining on couches, eating and drinking wine to excess. There’d be music, troupe performances, maybe even wild animals on display.

Titus certainly wasn’t the first to host a banquet, but as the heir to a relatively new ruling dynasty, he’d want to make sure he made the right friends. Roman sources note he was a good man, a good Emperor. But unfortunately, upon his untimely death, his younger brother Domitian became Emperor.

Unlike Titus, who finished their father’s Colosseum project, worked hard to establish the Flavian dynasty, put on lavish shows for the people, held pleasant banquets for senators and other wealthy Romans… Domitian was… well, here’s what Cassius Dio had to say. Quote:

Domitian was not only bold and quick to anger but also treacherous and secretive; and so, deriving from these two characteristics impulsiveness on the one hand and craftiness on the other, he would often attack people with the sudden violence of a thunderbolt and again would often injure them as the result of careful deliberation.

End quote.

Suetonius echoes a similar sentiment, telling us that, quote,

he never ceased to plot against his brother secretly and openly, until Titus was seized with a dangerous illness, when Domitian ordered that he be left for dead, before he had actually drawn his last breath. And after his death he bestowed no honour upon him, save that of deification, and he often assailed his memory in ambiguous phrases, both in his speeches and in his edicts.

End quote.

There is some rumor in ancient texts that he might have been responsible for his older brother’s death because he had previously plotted against him. Dio tells us that, quick quote, the 

“tradition is that, while [Titus] was still breathing and possibly had a chance of recovery, Domitian, in order to hasten his end, placed him in a chest packed with a quantity of snow, pretending that the disease required, perhaps, that a chill be administered.” 

End quote. 

There’s no way to corroborate this, but it at least gives you an idea of what kind of man Domitian was compared to his brother and father. So even if these sources were biased and exaggerated - as they often were, because Roman writers often wrote with an agenda - we still get a general sense that Domitian was not “pleasant” like his older brother. And I think the best example of that is the story at the heart of today’s episode, his Black Banquet.
Memento Mori and Stoicism
Now before we talk about the banquet itself, at least what the sources say about it, there are a few more things that we need to learn about to understand the context. And one of those things is the idea of memento mori.

Memento Mori essentially means - “remember that you must die.” And how do you remember that you will die one day? Well, through images associated with death - skulls, other assorted bones, maybe coffins, wilting flowers, an hourglass that represents your time running out… I’m sure you get the point. 

But while that thought might scare you - you know, the never-ending, looming existential threat that your life will definitely end one day - it’s not actually meant to be a bad thing. By remembering that one day life will end, that our time on earth is finite, we can stay rooted in the present and enjoy the things we have now. It’s a beautiful reminder not to waste or squander our most precious commodity - time. Because we can’t get time back when it’s gone.

This concept comes from the philosophical traditions of stoicism. So let’s go over stoicism.

Bet you didn’t think you were getting a philosophy talk today, did ya? Learning can be sneaky like that :) 

Now Stoicism traces back to the Greek philosopher Zeno of Citium, which is modern-day Cyprus. And for any philosophy buffs out there, I’m definitely going to be over-simplifying some things to get to the point, because I know a lot of people out there just want me to talk about the Black Banquet! 

But you guys know me - I think the context is the most important part of history. I think it’s important to have a handle on the background information that leads up to events, because it gives us a lens to understand how and why things happened. But you already knew that :)

So before stoicism, there was a philosophy known as cynicism. The cynics, those who practiced it, emphasized a life of virtue and ethics. It was meant to dictate a way of living life; virtue could be found by living a life in accordance with nature. To the cynics, nature is governed by reason, self-sufficiency, and freedom. Humans should aspire to live the same way. And by asserting social conventions into the equation, like moral and legal codes, stuff like that, the cynics felt that we were moving away from the perfection seen in nature. So in order to be free, to live a life closest to the way nature intended, a good cynic should focus on self-sufficiency and not living according to social conventions.

This might mean living in poverty. Embracing hardships. We call this asceticism - denying oneself things like luxuries, passions, and desires in order to focus on enlightenment of some kind. Thinking of asceticism always makes me think of the isolated Buddhist monks in their orange robes, abstaining from almost everything this world has to offer to focus on spiritual enlightenment and reaching nirvana - not the band. The original Cynics would probably like this. They wanted to live as close to nature as possible, which also meant speaking with radical honesty - not hiding truths because they upset the social order. 

You could imagine it might have been hard for, lets say, the Athenian government trying to keep things together to deal with philosophers following cynicism. Imagine men just walking around, saying whatever they wanted, rejecting social norms… it makes people following the status quo and embracing order uncomfortable. Which was the point.

I found this amazing description of the founder of cynicism, Diogenes, on the Daily Stoic website. I’ve edited it slightly to make it more family friendly. Listen to this. Quote:
The spirit of Cynicism is best illustrated by its founder, Diogenes, who is one of the most fascinating characters in all of philosophy. Diogenes lived in a tub and owned nearly nothing. He had no respect for social norms and thought humans should live in the simplest way possible and disdained much of what “civilization” supposedly offers us. He’d say that “humans have complicated every simple gift of the gods.”

…Have ever heard the famous story of a philosopher who had the audacity to tell Alexander the Great to move out of his way because he was blocking his sun? Yes, that was Diogenes. And the philosopher who purposefully broke one of his only possessions—a cup—after seeing a child drink water with his hands, [who then said] (“Fool that I am, to have been carrying superfluous baggage all this time!”)? Diogenes again.

He took his beliefs seriously to the point of public indecency. He would eat in the marketplace ([where] nobody was supposed to), spit or urinate on people who were rude to him, [uhhh, please himself] in public, and defecate in inappropriate places. 

…It may be surprising that such a person is called a philosopher, but his intention was to raise a point about the need for social norms. Humans are animals and lived for a very long time without most of the social norms we take for granted. Diogenes believed that civilization and all its rules had made life worse and all the artificial pleasures it offered take away from our enjoyment and full experiencing of life.

End quote.

And that is an excellent encapsulation of what philosophical cynicism is.

And because you’re probably wondering - is there where we get our word for cynical? Absolutely! Though of course its meaning has slightly changed over time. The dictionary definition of cynical is “believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.” We usually use it to describe someone who is negative, right? Or at least very cautious. 

So based on what Greek cynicism was, living a life that is as close to nature as possible, speaking freely, and ignoring social conventions… someone who is cynical might be distrustful of humans or society, yeah. It sure sounds like Diogenes was. Of course it’s changed meaning over the years - the inclusion of “motivated by self-interest” in the definition certainly tells us how the cynics were seen by others; by not conforming to the status quo of the political and social conventions of the time, by bucking tradition to follow their own path in accordance with nature, from society’s perspective, yes, perhaps they were motivated purely by self-interest and not the interest of the whole community.

But anyway, back to the point.

Philosophical cynicism gave way to Stoicism. The two are definitely linked, or as the Roman poet Juvenal [joo ven uhl] wrote in his Satires, the Stoics “differ from the Cynics only by a tunic.” Stoics, like Cynics, also believed in living in virtue, and as closely to nature as possible. But unlike the cynics, who valued asceticism and didn’t believe in following the laws of men, the stoics found value in human constructs. They saw laws and customs as natural extensions of what it means to be human - it’s what we do, therefore it is natural.

The key difference between the two is that the Stoics value society. And to become virtuous - the goal for both - one has to participate in public life, treat one another with respect, and follow human laws. This was the way Stoics could obtain virtue - live a civilized life within the constructs of human society. 

Broaden this a bit - you might see how governments were much more tolerant of stoics than they were cynics, right? Stoics will follow the rules because it’s how they obtain virtue. No wonder we see so many stoics in positions of power, like the great Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.

So how does a stoic find virtue in his or her every day life? Government and society can be so chaotic, with people doing what they want for their own self-interests. So how does a stoic find peace and virtue in all of that?

Well, they focus on accepting what is within their control. If a stoic is anxious about something, they accept that something bad might happen, but also recognize that it is out of their power to change it. Epictetus [epic tee tus], a Greek stoic philosopher, wrote that, quote,
Practice, therefore, to say frankly to every harsh appearance: ‘You are just an appearance, and not at all what you appear to be’. Next, examine it and test it by the measures you have, first and chiefly whether it concerns the things that are within our control or the things that are not within our control. And if it concerns the things that are not within our control, be prepared to say: ‘it is nothing to me’.

End quote.

Or, more simply, if you can’t control it, then banish it from your thoughts. You are the master of only that which you have control over.

I know it’s not easy to do that - just stop worrying about the things you can’t control. But that’s why stoicism is a lifelong practice.

You might now also see where the concept of memento mori fits in to stoicism. Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations on Stoicism that, quote, “You could leave life right now. Let that determine what you do and say and think.” To a stoic, that is out of our control, right? It’s going to happen. We can’t control that. But what we can control is how we enjoy the time that we have. Time is a gift. What did Master Oogway teach us?

Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present.

Epictetus taught that, quote,
Keep death and exile before your eyes each day, along with everything that seems terrible— by doing so, you’ll never have a base thought nor will you have excessive desire.

End quote.

The best way for a stoic to focus on the present, to accept the things he or she cannot control, and to find virtue in human society, was to remember memento mori - to remember that you will die, so don’t waste the time we’ve been given. Act with honor, integrity, and virtue. Maintain your principles. Live a good life according to the social customs of the day.

So that was the theme of Domitian’s banquet. Death. But Domitian was… not a Stoic. In fact, he persecuted the stoics who opposed his rule, which they saw as going against the established social norms of the day. Domitian saw stoicism as a threat to his power - if the stoics were living according to their own principles and what they saw as virtue and discipline, then they may not follow Domitian’s orders and rules.

Let’s take a closer look now at Domitian’s Black Banquet.
Domitian’s Banquet
So when Domitian took over in the year 81 after the quick and mysterious death of his brother, he got to work quickly. To consolidate his power - remember, an important thing for any new leader - he virtually ignored the Senate and centralized power. And sure, his father and brother were also Emperors too, but they at least kept up with the facade of a Senate, because completely upending the social order usually makes someone unhappy.

In this case, the Senate deeply despised Domitian. The army and the people, though, were happy. To curry favor with the army, Domitian raised their pay and joined them on campaigns fighting enemies at the borders - first the Germanic tribes to the north, and later the Dacians[day shins] in modern-day Romania. 

To win over the people, he expanded the Colosseum to include more seating and the underground complex known as the hypogeum, tunnels and rooms where gladiators and animals were housed before combat. He also had engineers install elaborate trap doors and elevators to make men, animals, and sets appear as if by magic through the sandy stadium floors. It was quite the spectacle, and the people loved it.

This helped feed into Domitian’s cult of personality, a phrase that denotes exaggerated public devotion for a leader. This happens with authoritarian regimes; the leader in question uses propaganda to control the masses and make themself seem god-like, infallible, mythical even. 

Think Mao Zedong mandating everyone to keep a picture of him in their home. Or the cult of personalities surrounding Hitler. This is a dangerous tool used by authoritarian leaders to gain complete and individual control over the government. It’s the antithesis of the democratic principles inherent in a republic… it’s why the Roman Republic fell, and why Rome became an Empire. 

Domitian actively encouraged his cult of personality. He saw himself as being divinely appointed, and even insisted on calling himself dominus et deus[DOM-in-oos et DAY-oos] - master and god. Cassius Dio notes that he didn’t just call himself this out loud - he wrote it on paper too. And those who stood in his way of total and complete rule were often killed. Suetonius tells us of several Senators who were put to death, some because they plotted revolution against him, and others for any trivial reason Domitian could come up with. Quote:
He slew Ælius [EYE-lee-oos] Lamia for joking remarks, which were reflections on him, it is true, but made long before and harmless.

…He put to death Salvius Cocceianus [Koh-kee-AHN-oos], because he had kept the birthday of the emperor Otho, his paternal uncle; 

Mettius Pompusianus [pom-poo-see-AH-nus], because it was commonly reported that he had an imperial nativity and carried about a map of the world on parchment and speeches of [other] kings and generals,

[and] Junius Rusticus [YOO-nee-us ROOS-ti-kus], because he had published eulogies of [Stoics] Paetus Thrasea [PAI-toos thra-SE-ah] and Helvidius Priscus and called them the most upright of men; and on the occasion of this charge he banished all the philosophers from the city and from Italy.

End quote.

Seems like a pretty petty guy - finding any reason whatsoever to kill his enemies or banish them from Rome. See? I told you he didn’t like the Stoics. Men like this, dictators, typically don’t like learned men because they challenge his authority and intelligence. The Stoics followed their own moral code and wouldn’t be likely to bend to his demands. Domitian, over time, became more cruel in his dealings with Senators, academics, and the upper classes of Rome.

And to establish his dominance and hierarchy over them, in 89 CE, after a string of victories against the Dacians[day shins], he held the first ever Black Banquet. Let’s get our info about this straight from Roman sources.

Here’s what Cassius Dio recorded about the feast. Quote!
He prepared a room that was pitch black on every side, ceiling, walls and floor, and had made ready bare couches of the same colour resting on the uncovered floor; then he invited in his guests alone at night without their attendants.

And first he set beside each of them a slab shaped like a gravestone, bearing the guest's name and also a small lamp, such as hang in tombs. Next comely naked boys, likewise painted black, entered like phantoms, and after encircling the guests in an awe-inspiring dance took up their stations at their feet.

After this all the things that are commonly offered at the sacrifices to departed spirits were likewise set before the guests, all of them black and in dishes of a similar colour. Consequently, every single one of the guests feared and trembled and was kept in constant expectation of having his throat cut the next moment… there was dead silence, as if they were already in the realms of the dead, and the emperor himself conversed only upon topics relating to death and slaughter.

Finally he dismissed them; but he had first removed their slaves, who had stood in the vestibule, and now gave his guests in charge of other slaves, whom they did not know, to be conveyed either in carriages or litters, and by this procedure he filled them with far greater fear.

And scarcely had each guest reached his home and was beginning to get his breath again, as one might say, when word was brought… that a messenger from the [Emperor] had come.

While they were accordingly expecting to perish this time in any case, one person brought in the slab, which was of silver, and then others in turn brought in various articles, including the dishes that had been set before them at the dinner, which were constructed of very costly material… Thus, after having passed the entire night in terror, they received the gifts.

End quote.

Oooh, boy. Let’s break that down event by event.

So first, these Senators and other leading Romans showed up to this dinner and everything was black. I bet the Rolling Stones would have been proud. The walls were painted black, the couches were black, the tables, even the slaves serving them were painted black. And they were told to come in alone, something they normally wouldn’t have done. Senators, men in power, would have a whole host of people following them around. So this was offputting. Senators already knew that Domitian hated them, and had killed some of them for essentially no reason, so they must have been thinking about that when they came into the room.

Next, they were given a tombstone-shaped slab with their names on it. Ominous. Again, pretty pointedly telling them that they were going to die - can you imagine getting a tombstone with your name on it at a dinner party hosted by your enemy? That’s pretty dark. If it’s a Halloween party, or if that’s the host’s vibe, then sure. All in good fun. But the Emperor of Rome hands you your name on a tombstone? Not a good sign.

Then the slaves, painted black, put on this macabre dance around the table as you’re presented with foods typically placed on the graves of the dead. Served on black dishes and plates.

Every single guest is petrified by this point, assuming they were all about to be slaughtered, right? And it didn’t help that Domitian only spoke about death. Now listen - he’s not a Stoic. He doesn’t believe in the principle of Memento Mori, right? He’s not trying to encourage the men to live life to the fullest because time is a privilege. He’s trying to scare the daylights out of them to keep them in line.

The meal comes to an end, and they’re not dead yet. And on their way out, the Emperor changes out their slaves with unknown ones that serve Domitian, also a bad sign. They must have thought - are these slaves going to kill us on the way home? Will they follow us inside and slaughter us there?

The guests get home - still alive - and… nothing happened. They must have sat in their homes trembling, trying to process what that all meant. Was death coming to them? Would it be soon, and at the hands of the man who clearly hates them? Suddenly, a knock - [knocking sounds] - the Emperor has sent a messenger bearing gifts. Do you accept? Do you risk not accepting? They took the gifts and discovered them to be the tombstone slabs with their names on it from dinner, made of silver and therefore valuable. A nice gift. With the tombstones were the expensive plates and dishes from the meal, too. Reminders of the experience. And the slave carrying said gifts was also to be theirs.

This, of course, was a reminder to those who might oppose him that Domitian is in charge, and it would not be wise to cross him. For death was coming for them. Memento Mori - but weaponized for the sake of Domitian’s cult of personality

Spooky, spooky stuff.

Domitian was assassinated in 96 CE. It was done by court officials who were fed up with his tyranny and wanton paranoia. Suetonius recounts his death. Quote:

Concerning the nature of the plot and the manner of his death, this is about all that became known. As the conspirators were deliberating when and how to attack him, whether at the bath or at dinner, Stephanus[STEH pah noos], [a] steward, at the time under accusation for embezzlement, offered his aid and counsel.

To avoid suspicion, he wrapped up his left arm in woollen bandages for some days, pretending that he had injured it, and concealed in them a dagger. Then pretending to betray a conspiracy and for that reason being given an audience, he stabbed the emperor in the groin as he was reading a paper which the assassin handed him, and stood in a state of amazement.

…The emperor grappled with Stephanus[STEH pah noos] and bore him to the ground, where they struggled for a long time, Domitian trying now to wrest the dagger from his assailant's hands and now to gouge out his eyes with his lacerated fingers.

…[In the] wounded Emperor [attempts] to resist, he was slain with seven wounds by [four others].

End quote.

Cassius Dio adds that his wife, Domitia, was also aware of this plot and did nothing to stop it. He also tells us that Stephanus[STEH pah noos] died in the ensuing struggle, because some were loyal to Domitian and avenged his death.

Memento Mori, Domitian. Remember that you will die.
Outro
Thanks for joining me for this episode of A Popular History of Unpopular Things! My name is Kelli Beard, and I hope you’ve enjoyed this spooky episode on Emperor Domitian’s Black Banquet. Thank you for tuning into my podcast, and check out some of the other episodes if you want more!

If you want to support the show, I’ve got a link in the description for Buy Me A Coffee, a site where fans can fund small creators like me, but without having to sign up for an account. I would of course appreciate any help you can give me, but honestly, I just appreciate you being here and listening to me talk about cool history stuff. You are why I’m still here doing this!

Be sure to like and follow my podcast, available wherever you listen, so you know when new episodes are dropped. And stay tuned to get a popular history of unpopular things.

Sources
C. Suetonius Tranquillus, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, first composed in 121 CE. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Titus*.html
Cassius Dio, Roman History https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/67*.html
https://dailystoic.com/stoicism-cynicism/