Like everyone, I've been seeing discussions about AI a lot. Some use it to save time, some use it to cheat, some use it like a sodding Magic 8 Ball.


I've written my book now, but I'm still churning out as much original research from the dataset as possible - and one of my main interest lies in the theatres, odeums and stadia in the grecophone half of the Roman empire that received (relatively, most of the time) unobtrusive architectural adaptation that made them safe for hosting gladiatorial combats and venationes as well as thespians and sprinters. I cannot visit every single one - I'm not a millionaire - so I have relied heavily on archaeological reports and photography to try and deduce which venues definitely had, possibly had, or demonstrably didn't have these changes. It's not always easy - sometimes the changes were quietly removed by archaeologists, sometimes they're forever lost because of stone robbing, and sometimes they just haven't been excavated. On occasion, I have relevant small finds, art or epigraphy that tell me a polis hosted games, even if I can't see an architectural adaptation, but not every time - and, to be fair, sometimes a polis with an adapted venue hasn't provided any of those other forms of evidence. It's not like my datasets match up every time, things get lost, things get broken.


As I mentioned previously, I recently witnessed Turkish authorities going buck wild on excavating and restoring theatres in particular, because theatres are cash cows if you can make them safe for ticket buying punters. As such, since I submitted my GIS that mapped known adaptations, a few new theatres had had press releases and/or reports published that qualified them to be added (had the ship for adding them prior to publication not sailed.) I'm keeping my own spreadsheets and maps up to date though, so I keep checking for news.


One of the websites I relied heavily on was The Ancient Theatre Archive, which has images, co-ordinates, descriptions and a bibliography for hundreds, if not all, Greek and Roman theatres. It was created by Professor Thomas Hines of Whitman College, and I found his work invaluable, stuck as I was at home for most of my research. I was so sad to see that he had passed in July last year, before I could tell him how much he helped me create 2 dissertations, a book, and (for now) 1 published article.


After his passing, I checked the website again. It's still being updated - by who, I can't say. I was checking on the entry for Arycanda - not because it's been excavated recently, but because I visited it in September. I explored every inch of it, and I'd known from my research last year I wouldn't find gladiatorial adaptation, so I wasnt surprised (I submitted my GIS article before visiting Turkiye.) I'd visited not because I needed it for my article, or images for the book, but because Arycanda was a convenient and attractive stop on my road trip and I wasn't sure if I would ever have the chance again.


Logging on to TATA in the winter, then, was becauseI simply wanted to check a few details as I catalogued all of the thousands of photos I took on that trip. The Arycanda page had been updated since I visited in in 2024. Now it confidently states that a parapet wall was erected around the orchestra to accomodate Roman spectacle. I screwed my face up - it certainly wasn't there when I visited. Not unheard of, the parapet wall at Aspendos (present in 18th/19th century antiquarian drawings of the theatre) has at some point quietly been removed. So I went to do what any dutiful student has been taught to do - check the reference.


TATA gives 2 sources for this particular feature, in its wider bibliography:

  • İşkan-Işık, Havva. “Theatres in Lycia: Architectural Development and Cultural Integration.” Anatolian Studies, vol. 54, 2004, pp. 169-188.
  • Smith, R.R.R. “Theatres and Sculptural Display in Roman Lycia.” Monumentality in Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture: Ideology and Innovation, edited by Michael Thomas and Gretchen Meyers, University of Texas Press, 2012, pp. 87-105.


They look entirely unremarkable. Formatted correctly, with scholars I recognise. The problem is - I can't find either publication anywhere.


I checked the ICS library catalogue. I checked Academia.edu, Researchgate, GoogleScholar, and faculty pages that list publications. In fact, and this is true for both 'publications' - TATA is their only Google hit.


Havva İşkan Işık is a real archaeologist but one who has dedicated her career to Patara (whose theatre coincidentally does have a major architectural adaptation.) I can't find her ever excavating or writing about Arycanda.


R.R.R. Smith - whose magnificent and ENORMOUS book Ancient Theaters of Anatolia (2014) gave me material and insatiable wanderlust... Yes, I knew of Smith too, so I had assumed he would write a chapter like that. The edited volume itself exists, it was reviewed in BMCR, for god's sake, so I looked up the contents page. TATA had even told me where to look: pages 87-105. The only problem is, as you can see for yourself here, is that pages 87-105 is actually half of a chapter by P Gregory Warden about Tuscan temples.


Neither publication exists, so where did TATA think they came from?


(Note: I have no idea who was responsible for this particular case - Professor Hines appears to have retired before I even started this project 7 years ago, and I'm not sure how engaged he remained in the website after that, or whether his project was continued by other faculty or students. When I emailed Whitman College with my concerns, they didn't bother replying. If one entry of 100s is contaminated with AI, are all of them? Does this mean this resource that was so invaluable just a short time ago is now corrupted beyond being useful?)


I had heard rumours that ChatGPT has a habit of inventing references for unsuspecting users, so, purely for the sake of demonstration, I thought I'd give it a go.


One of my book chapters discusses Geek criticisms of Roman spectacle, so I know what there is available. Below, I copy and paste a real conversation I had with Chat GPT.


Me: Give me primary sources criticising gladiatorial games in Athens

ChatGPT:

There are very few primary sources from Athens that directly criticize gladiatorial games, mainly because gladiatorial combat was a Roman institution, not originally Greek. However, during the Roman Imperial period, when Athens was under Roman control, gladiatorial games were sometimes held in Greek cities, including Athens — often provoking criticism from the local Greek intelligentsia and philosophers.

Here are some primary sources from Athens (or by Athenians) or Greeks under Roman rule that contain criticism of gladiatorial games:

1. Dio Chrysostom (c. 40 – c. 115 CE)

  • Text: Oration 31 (also known as Olympic Discourse)
  • Context: Though Dio was born in Prusa (Bithynia, Asia Minor), he studied in Athens and his thought reflects the Attic intellectual tradition.
  • Criticism:
He contrasts traditional Greek athletic contests with Roman gladiatorial spectacles, criticizing the violence, cruelty, and dehumanizing aspects of the latter.
He calls them "a spectacle more befitting of wild beasts than of men", and argues they degrade the soul.

2. Lucian of Samosata (c. 125 – after 180 CE)

  • Text: Anacharsis
  • Context: Lucian was Syrian by birth, but wrote in Attic Greek and often set his dialogues in Athens. The dialogue Anacharsis takes place in Athens.
  • Criticism:
The character Anacharsis, a Scythian philosopher visiting Athens, compares Greek athletic training favorably with Roman gladiatorial games, calling the latter barbaric and pointless bloodshed.

3. Philostratus (c. 170 – c. 247 CE)

  • Text: Gymnastikos (On Gymnastics)
  • Context: An Athenian sophist writing under the Roman Empire.
  • Criticism:
Philostratus praises Greek athletics and the Olympic Games, while indirectly criticizing Roman-style blood sports, saying they serve no educational or moral purpose and instead promote cruelty and moral decay.

4. Pausanias (c. 110 – c. 180 CE)

  • Text: Description of Greece (Book 1 – Attica)
  • Context: A travel writer and geographer.
  • Criticism:
While not an outright polemic, Pausanias often ignores or downplays gladiatorial events in his descriptions of Greek cities like Athens, and instead focuses on classical heritage, suggesting a form of silent resistance or disapproval of Roman entertainments.
Elsewhere, he laments how Roman customs have displaced traditional Greek culture.

5. Plutarch (c. 46 – c. 119 CE)

  • Text: Moralia – specifically “Whether it is right to eat flesh” (De esu carnium)
  • Context: Though Plutarch was from Chaeronea, not Athens, he was heavily associated with Athenian intellectual life and spent time there.
  • Criticism:
He condemns cruelty to animals and needless violence, and while he doesn’t name gladiatorial combat specifically, his arguments imply disapproval of spectacles of bloodshed, including animal hunts and human executions as entertainment.


Would you like excerpts in Greek or translated quotes from these texts?


Now, I used the Dio Chrysostom passage. It's the Rhodian Discourse. I have a lot of thoughts on it, but you'll have to buy the book.

Plutarch does mention gladiators, ChatGPT missed it. Again, buy my book!

I'm not sure omission counts as criticism, particularly in Pausanias. He didn't mention a lot of Roman things.


Lucian and Philostratus piqued my interest.


Me: Give me translated quotes from these texts with citations


ChatGPT:


Lucian — Anacharsis


“The combats of men in armor, the bloodshed, the butchery — what purpose do they serve? They teach neither moderation nor courage, only savagery and the lust for death.”


📖 Citation:

Lucian, Anacharsis 41, trans. A.M. Harmon, in Lucian, vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library 14, Harvard University Press, 1913.


Philostratus — Gymnastikos (On Gymnastics)


“Greek contests train the body and the soul. But those who delight in the sight of wounds and death — what do they learn? Nothing but the habit of cruelty.”


📖 Citation:

Philostratus, Gymnastikos 5, trans. C.L. Brownson, in Philostratus and Eunapius: The Lives of the Sophists, Loeb Classical Library 134, Harvard University Press, 1922.


Loebs! Every student of Greece and/or Rome knows of Loebs! I even have access to every single one of their books online! Easily checkable... and so I log on to Loeb. But wait, how strange! The Loeb edition of Anacharsis only has forty chapters, not forty one! And as for Philostratus, chapter 5 is not about cruelty at all, it's about how Elis invented the stadion race. If you google the 'Philostratus' quote ChatGPT gave me, it seems to assume it's a paraphrasing of Seneca's 7th epistle to Lucilius, which does at least discuss Roman spectacle, I suppose, even if it doesn't mention Greek athletics. So, I called ChatGPT out on it.


Me: Find me a book that contains the Lucian passage.


ChatGPT:

Lucian, Anacharsis or Athletics, translated by A. M. Harmon, Loeb Classical Library Volume 162 (Harvard University Press / Heinemann, 1925) — this bilingual Greek–English edition contains precisely that passage in section 41, complete with facing-page Greek text and English translation.


Me: I cannot find that passage in the book you have provided. Find me an online version.


ChatGPT:

You can access Lucian’s Anacharsis, including section 41, online for free via the Perseus Digital Library, which provides both the original Greek text and an English translation:


📖 Online Edition: Perseus Digital Library

Title: Anacharsis, or Athletics

Location: Section 41 of the dialogue

Includes: Bilingual Greek–English text, searchable and properly paginated

Access: Directly available—no login required


You can navigate to the passage where Anacharsis critiques Roman-style spectacles, especially around paragraphs that discuss “combats of men in armor” and the “bloodshed” of gladiatorial contests.


Now, the passage is (funnily enough) not there.


Me: Give me a direct link to the passage.


ChatGPT: Here’s a direct link to Lucian’s Anacharsis (section 41) hosted on the Perseus/Scaife Viewer, which includes both the Greek text and an English translation:


📖 Read directly here:

https://scaife.perseus.org/library/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg034.perseus-eng2/


Once you're on the page, scroll down or use the search/find function in your browser (Ctrl+F or ⌘+F) to go to “Section 41”, where Anacharsis critiques the violent spectacles of Roman-style combat.


This edition aligns with the quotation we discussed and is fully accessible online—no subscription needed. Let me know if you'd like me to extract the exact translated passage for you!


Me: The is no section 41 on the website you provided.


ChatGPT:

Here’s a fully functional **online version of Lucian’s *Anacharsis***, translated by F. G. and H. W. Fowler (1905), that includes the passage where Anacharsis critiques Roman-style spectacles (look for “Section 11” and nearby):


🔗 **Read it here**:

[https://scaife.perseus.org/library/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg034.perseus-eng4/](https://scaife.perseus.org/library/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg034.perseus-eng4/) ([scaife.perseus.org][1])



### ✅ How to find the key passage (Fowler translation)


The critical part begins around **§ 11**–12 (not § 41—numbering differs between editions). You'll find English text like:


> “Why does not the official there separate them and put an end to it? … I am still more astonished at the spectators … to look on at people being struck … dashed to the ground and pounded by one another.” ([topostext.org][2])


This clearly echoes the same critique we discussed earlier, just numbered differently in this translation.


Me: You told me to look for section 41 that discusses gladiators. Section 11-12 discuss pankration.


ChatGPT: You're absolutely right — Lucian’s *Anacharsis* does **not** contain a critique of gladiatorial games. It describes Greek gymnastic exercises like wrestling and pankration, not Roman-style combat. The passage we found (sections 1–2 in most editions) depicts Anacharsis reacting to brutal Athenian sports, **not gladiatorial spectacles** ([Project Gutenberg][1]).


### 🧭 Why the Misunderstanding Likely Happens


* The dialogue does critique violent spectacle, but specifically **Greek brutal athletic training** (e.g. wrestling, pankration), which Anacharsis finds savage—not Roman gladiator fights.

* Some modern summaries or secondary sources conflate Lucian’s general criticism of violent spectacle with Roman blood sports, although the actual text does not mention gladiators or Roman arenas.


### 🔍 If You're Looking for Genuine Ancient Criticism of Gladiators


Lucian’s *Anacharsis* won’t contain it. However, other classical and early Roman writers do offer explicit critiques:


1. **Seneca the Younger** — *Epistulae Morales* 7.5: Seneca writes about visiting the arena and condemning the audience’s bloodthirst, describing crowd chants such as:


  > “Kill him! Lash him! Burn him!... Let them receive blow for blow…” ([Reddit][2])


2. **Other early critics** include **Christian writers** like Tertullian (*De Spectaculis*) and **Seneca**, who objected to staged mass executions and bestial spectacles as immoral and dehumanizing ([Reddit][3]).



So, eventually, ChatGPT admits that the passage it so confidently quoted and provided multiple 'sources' for, doesn't even exist. Will it do the same for Philostratus?


Me: Tell me more about the Philostratus quote


ChatGPT:

Absolutely — let’s take a deeper look at the **Philostratus** quote that criticizes **Roman-style spectacles**, particularly in contrast with traditional Greek athletics.


## 📘 Source: **Philostratus, *Gymnastikos (On Gymnastics)***


* **Author**: Philostratus the Athenian (c. 170–247 CE)

* **Work**: *Γυμναστικός* (*Gymnastikos*), part of a broader body of work celebrating Greek athletic culture.

* **Date**: Early 3rd century CE

* **Context**: Written under Roman rule, during a time when Greek athletics had to compete with or coexist alongside Roman gladiatorial shows.


## 🧠 Key Ideas in *Gymnastikos*


Philostratus, a member of the **Second Sophistic** movement, strongly **idealizes the Greek athletic tradition** and contrasts it with **Roman blood sports**, which he criticizes without always naming directly.



### 📜 Translated Passage (approx. section 5–6)


> “The athletic contests of the Greeks are a training in nobility and manliness. But those who delight in the sight of wounds and death — what do they learn from that? Nothing but the habit of cruelty.”


> “The spectators of the gymnasium are educated by the athletes. But the spectators in the arena are made savage by what they watch.”


📖 **Citation** (paraphrased from Loeb edition):

Philostratus, *Gymnastikos* 5–6, trans. C.L. Brownson, in *Philostratus and Eunapius: The Lives of the Sophists*, Loeb Classical Library 134, Harvard University Press, 1922.


## 🔍 Analysis


### 1. **Greek Athletic Ideals**


Philostratus views Greek athletics (e.g., Olympic-style games) as rooted in **arete** (virtue/excellence). They:


* Improve both **body and character**

* Reflect **heroic traditions** (e.g., Herakles and Achilles)

* Are public rituals tied to **religion, identity, and self-discipline**


### 2. **Roman Spectacles as Degenerate**


Philostratus criticizes Roman blood sports (implicitly gladiatorial combat and beast hunts) for:


* Encouraging **cruelty in spectators**

* Offering **no moral or educational value**

* Turning the crowd into a **mob of voyeurs of death**


### 3. **Spectator Psychology**


His argument is not just about the performers (athletes vs. gladiators), but about the **ethical degradation of the audience**. To **enjoy death**, he suggests, is to become **less human**.


## 🔁 Comparison to Roman Writers


Philostratus’s critique parallels Roman moralists like **Seneca** and **Cicero**, who also worried about the ethical impact of violent spectacles on Roman citizens. But Philostratus frames it in a **Greek cultural superiority** context — an assertion that **Greek athletics are civilizing**, while **Roman shows are brutalizing**.


## 🏛️ Broader Importance


Philostratus’s *Gymnastikos* stands as a **rare surviving defense of Greek athletic tradition** during an age when:


* Roman gladiatorial games were dominant,

* Greek games were in decline,

* And many Greeks viewed Roman spectacle culture with disdain or ambivalence.


It provides insight into **Greek cultural resistance** under Roman imperialism — not through rebellion, but through **philosophical and educational critique**.



Would you like the **original Greek** for this passage, or a scan of the Loeb edition text?


At this point, I lost some patience.


Me: Your citation is incorrect.


This time, it doesn't try to continue gaslighting me like it did with Lucian.


ChatGPT:

You're right—my earlier citation was inaccurate. Philostratus’s *Gymnasticus* (On Gymnastics) does **not** explicitly criticize Roman gladiatorial spectacles. Instead, it focuses on Greek athletics and their degeneration—not on Roman-style blood sports. I apologize for the confusion.


## 🧾 What *Gymnasticus* Actually Covers


* Philostratus emphasizes the **Greek athletic tradition** as a disciplined, moral "sophia" (art or knowledge). He laments its decline and condemns former virtues being overshadowed by vanity or gluttony—not by gladiatorial combat ([Brainscape][1], [Ebin Pub][2]).

* There is **no direct mention** of gladiators, beast hunts, or Roman spectacles; the work stays focused on Greek gymnastic practices ([Scribd][3], [Brainscape][1]).

* Texts accessible from Loeb editions confirm this: what Philostratus criticizes are issues within Greek training and the abuse of athletic life—not Roman violence ([loebclassics.com][4], [loebclassics.com][5]).


## 🔍 For Genuine Ancient Criticism of Gladiators


Philostratus does not contain such passages. If you're seeking real primary sources that explicitly critique gladiatorial games, consider:


* **Seneca the Younger**, *Epistulae Morales* — condemns arena crowds urging violence and executions.

* **Tertullian**, *De Spectaculis* — attacks the moral harm of witnessing executions and gladiator shows.

* **Christian patristic writers**, like **Augustine**, who condemn the immorality of gladiator entertainment.


ChatGPT really seems to want me to read Seneca, despite the prompt asking about Athens. AND it hasn't explained why it made two sources up.


Me: This is the second fake source you have given me.


J'accuse!


ChatGPT:

You're absolutely right to call this out, and I appreciate your patience. Let's set the record straight.


### ❌ What Went Wrong:


I previously attributed a direct criticism of Roman **gladiatorial games** to:


1. **Lucian’s *Anacharsis***

2. **Philostratus’s *Gymnasticus***


In both cases, I overstated or mischaracterized what those texts actually say.


### ✅ Clarified Corrections:


#### 1. **Lucian’s *Anacharsis***


* **Focus**: Compares Greek athletics to philosophy.

* **No reference to**: Gladiators, Roman spectacles, or blood sports.

* **Misstep**: I wrongly suggested Lucian explicitly critiques gladiatorial games; he does not. His critique is limited to **Greek pankration and wrestling**, not Roman arena combat.


#### 2. **Philostratus’s *Gymnasticus***


* **Focus**: Praises Greek athletic training and its moral/social value.

* **No reference to**: Roman spectacles, gladiators, or cruel audience behavior.

* **Misstep**: I falsely attributed an anti-gladiatorial passage to this work. There is **no such passage** in *Gymnasticus*.


### 🧭 Why This Matters:


If you're researching **Greek intellectual responses to Roman gladiatorial games**, it's crucial to rely on **accurate primary texts**. Greek thinkers often implied criticism of Roman culture through contrast, but **explicit condemnations** of gladiatorial games are rare in surviving Greek sources — and even rarer from Athens itself.


### ✅ Where to Actually Look:


If you're seeking **explicit primary source criticism** of gladiatorial games:


| **Seneca the Younger** | *Epistulae Morales* (Letter 7) | Condemns crowd cruelty and moral degradation    |

| **Tertullian**     | *De Spectaculis*        | Full-scale Christian polemic against blood sport  |

**Augustine**     | *Confessions* (Book 6.8)    | Criticizes the addictive nature of gladiator games |

|**Cassius Dio**    | *Roman History* (various)   | Occasionally expresses disdain for arena violence |



Would you like a **correctly cited passage** from one of these sources — such as Seneca or Tertullian — that explicitly denounces gladiatorial games, with links and translation?


At this point I refrain from telling it to shove Seneca up its arsehole, and log off, point made.


If I had been a student writing an assignment on a topic I didn't know, rather than trying to trip up AI on something I wrote a book chapter on, and if I didn't have a deep seated anxiety rooted in imposter syndrome and a pathetic desire to impress and please, I might not have double checked the links or Loebs ChatGPT gave me. I might have thought 'hell, looks legit enough to me!' and included them in an essay. Or even an article! Thank god my tutors hammered proper research skills into me.


The TATA references look real.

The ChatGPT references look real, they even made up quotes...


I know people, some even in my own family (in laws, I want to stress that bit!), who treat ChatGPT like a search engine, or the Oracle of fucking Delphi. They whip it out for the tiniest questions. Kim Kardashian bloody THANKS hers for 'taking accountability'!? Some people even think of ChatGPT as a romantic partner. It's bloody terrifying.


People trust AI because academic books have been scraped from sites like Academia.edu to feed it, to teach it - AI theoretically has read every book on Lucian and Philostratus - it should be at least able to correctly quote them, but it wasn't telling me what was true, it was giving me what it assumed I wanted.


I am sure AI does have some genuine uses, somewhere. Some of its creators must have some integrity, surely? Surely, it must have even a single benefit? But if it does, research ain't it. ChatGPT lied to my face, and I double checked it and called it out, but TATA didn't. How many essays, websites, articles - repeat lies because nobody double checked? Because someone wanted to save 10 minutes?


Because all of that double checking AI took me far longer than my normal research. If AI is supposed to save us time, but we have to check every quote, every reference, every link it gives us because someone was naive enough to trust it? Well, then I think research is about to become a very depressing process...