However, being "at the arena but not of it" was much easier said than done. In Book 6 of his Confessions Augustine of Hippo tells the story of his young friend Alypius, who goes to Rome to study law. At one point Alypius allows himself to be dragged to the amphitheater by some classmates. Though confident in his ability to resist the allure of the games, Alypius is completely carried away by the action and becomes an ardent fan of the gladiatorial battles. Alypius was not alone. As Rome conquered more territory, the cities in its provinces quickly began to build amphitheaters and stage events modeled after the ones in Rome. By the third century A.D. there were over 200 amphitheaters around the empire. (5) There was something truly contagious about the arena. A Historical and Psychological Study of the Roman games How can we account for the tremendous popularity of the Roman games? One scholar who has investigated this question is Prof. Garrett G. Fagan of Penn State University. Fagan has recently completed a book manuscript on the crowd dynamics of the Roman arena, drawing upon a combination of ancient historical and archaeological evidence and modern psychological studies of group behavior. He summarized his findings in an Archaeological Institute of America lecture at Miami University in November 2008. Professor Fagan explained that the highly organized seating arrangements in the amphitheater enhanced the experience of the spectators. Following a ruling made by the Emperor Augustus in 19 B.C., spectators were grouped in specific sections of the arena according to factors like social class, age, gender, livelihood, and native region. Government officials and nobility were given the best seats, while people from lower social classes sat further away from the action. Being seated with one's peer group enhanced a spectator's sense of identity and connectedness with that group. The action at the arena also would have helped the various groups of spectators in the crowd to bond together. One can imagine a group cheering together for a particular gladiator or calling in unison for the punishment of some criminal. The level of excitement was raised further by musicians who provided instrumental accompaniment to the proceedings, accentuating key junctures in the battles. At the amphitheater the spectators were treated like "lords for a day" by the sponsors of the games. The sponsor might ask the crowd's opinion on whether an exceptional performance in the arena was deserving of a monetary reward. At the end of a gladiatorial battle, the crowd gave its "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to indicate whether the life of the loser should be spared. For a brief period the spectators at the games were in a position of power. Fagan's description of the crowd's experience at the Roman games helps us account for the addictive popularity of these events. It also invites comparison with today's spectator sports. At today's arenas and stadiums, crowds do not come to watch executions or battles to the death, and they are not granted power over the lives of the athletes. Seating is based on ticket prices rather than strict social class distinctions. However, there are also plenty of similarities between ancient and modern sporting events. Our sports are rarely deadly but often violent, and the violence is part of the attraction for some spectators. Music and other devices are used to raise the level of excitement, and crowds often behave badly. In a large stadium crowd, there will often be someone holding up a sign bearing the message "John 3:16." Perhaps some "Psalm 1:1-2" signs would also be appropriate. | 