J
Juan1234
Guest
I’ve been thinking about the idea of the condemned criminal carrying his or her cross to the place of execution, and it has brought me to a conundrum. It seems that most historians agree this was probably common. So the logical part of my brain figures thusly: Either they carried the entire cross, or just the crossbeam. Most folks seem to think it’s unlikely they carried the whole cross - too heavy. Which means the upright stipes must have been in place already, ready and waiting to have naked criminals nailed to it. This would seem to imply that the authorities expected to be crucifying people on a somewhat regular basis, probably with some frequency. It also seems generally agreed that once a man or woman was stripped and crucified, he or she would not be coming down even for burial. The corpse would hang there and rot for deterrent value. Which implies that the crossbeam would not be taken down either. Therefore there would be no need for the next unfortunate criminal to carry the crossbeam to the execution site. Did they bring these beams back and make the condemned carry them just as a power play, to humiliate them? Or was crucifixion much less common than I tend to think? (In which case the old patibulum might rot or be taken down between crucifixions.) But in that case, why have a permanent stipes? Or even (as seems likely) multiple stipes (need help with the plural, Eulalia.) Any insight from anybody? The simple idea that SOMEBODY has to carry the cross, so it might as well be the miserable wretch about o be nailed to it — doesn’t seem to hold up.
(Oh, by the way - if you haven’t seen it, I finished “Talbus.”)
(Oh, by the way - if you haven’t seen it, I finished “Talbus.”)