By the turn of the century, the circus was a spectacular phenomenon, both in its aesthetics and in its popularity, and already provided much ground for critical inquiry. In the wake of a larger conflict about the merits of and threats posed by a rapidly expanding mass culture, contemporaries began to speculate about the circus's relationship to classical art forms. They debated whether the circus could be traced back to Roman circus plays or to the first Olympic games, or whether the circus was in fact a product of modernity. The circus had become a force in a dynamic leisure-time culture and thus also figured prominently in contemporary debates about the aesthetics and the moral values of popular live entertainment. Advocates for the circus claimed that it was deeply rooted in Roman civilization. Because the circus was denied the status of “high” culture, they sought to establish its origins in the “classical age” in order to legitimate an entertainment genre that fascinated thousands all over Europe.

Nineteenth-century European circuses differed considerably from Roman circuses, however, particularly in their size, function, and aesthetics, as well as in how they were received by their audiences. Roman games were held in arenas in various localities before audiences that sometimes numbered 100,000 spectators. Modern circuses performed in a ring that might be surrounded by a crowd of 2,000 to 5,000 individuals. Because they were slaves, Roman artists were not part of a market economy in which they could freely promote their talents.