Religio Romana

This collegium and forum are dedicated to the study, discussion, re-creation and application of classical Roman and Greek religion and philosophy.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:32 am

Salve Ovidi

Personally I do not see how one can claim to be a practitioner of the Religio Romana and not practice outdoors. Any sacrifice, and almost any offering, needs to be made under an open sky before the celestial gods, and if to the Di inferi then with your hand placed on or over the earth, and the offering into the earth. Moderns emphasize having a lararium, which in itself is alright, but is never to be the exclusive focus of one worship. Instead there should be more emphasis, as you say, of connecting to the earth, to the local gods in the area wherever you happen to live.

The first thing is to look for, discover, intuit those places near you where you may feel a strong presence of your geni loci. A special tree, an alcove, a wilderness grove where you may feel a god or goddess has left a numen. If you own your own property you can establish altars about wherever you feel proper. One to Terminus, one main altar for the Di consentes, others as you feel the need, but in doing so, establishing altars, you first need to recognize and inform your genius loci of your intent. If you do not own land, nonetheless you come into contact with geni loci each day and may make offerings to them. Setting up temporary altars in the Roman manner of cutting and turning turf is usually frowned upon by local authorities, as is usually bringing libations of wine into public parks, but there are means. One practice of ancient Romans was to place a stone or pebble at a crossroad each time they passed, eventually forming a pile, which then became an altar on which to leave offerings of food and drink and flowers. When I am out foraging I always bring along some offering and if I come upon a strong presence I will bury an offering in the ground, or else pour a libation on the roots of a tree or over a large rock near where I feel the presence.

As for the geni loci in different lands, I live in Ohio, so I must assume that the local spirits, the Manes of this land, the native geni loci of this land would include native American Indians, perhaps the ghosts of later visitors as well. Therefore what I might offer to them would be in keeping with their culture. So tobacco, copal, soapstone, corn I may include among the offerings I give. Showing respect to the local spirits is entirely Roman in practice. The manner I make my offerings is by Roman rite, as that is my rite, but if I was a legionary off to distant Britannia I would give offering to the local gods of Britannia, and if in Syria, then to the local Syrian gods.

Di Deaeque te semper ament. Vale optime
Moravius Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

RP Question-*not* OT

Postby Aldus Marius on Sun May 25, 2003 10:41 pm

Avete Romani...

I'm a bit out of my element in the RP right now, and I shan't be able to come unstuck until I have the answers (or best-educated guesses) to a few very simple questions (on their surface).

(You'll have to forgive my 20th-century Christian perspective on what "church" is like, but I was used to being inside my places of worship, even during off-hours [say, for counseling or prayer meetings or something like that]. I say "20th-century perspective" because I have not gone to a house of worship at any time in the 21st.)

What exactly would a just-plain-Roman do at a Temple? I'm pretty sure most of the public stuff took place outside, on the front steps...but would an ordinary Roman, come to pay his respects to a particular God, still park himself on the porch, or could he go inside? Would he be permitted to gaze upon the image of the God? Maybe leave an offering there?

I remember something about pilgrims to the Temple of Aesculapius 'sacrificing' clay images of injured body parts, then spending the night in the Temple in hopes of a divine healing. Did any other Temples do anything like that?

What if a Roman had a personal problem with spiritual dimensions, and he just wanted to talk to a Priest? Where would he find the Priest--in the Temple itself, or in a dwelling-place nearby, or...?

And were all Gods worshipped in Temples...or did some of Them, e.g. Diana, still prefer Their sacred groves? If so, what went on in those places?

I suspect the answers to these will depend somewhat on which God/dess is being addressed. My character will be visiting Diana, Mars Ultor, and Vesta for sure, and I have scenes in mind for at least Mars and Diana.

Any and all help in drawing me an accurate and playable picture will be deeply appreciated!

Cum magnas et profundas gratias,
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.
User avatar
Aldus Marius
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:16 am
Location: At the Ballgame

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Mon May 26, 2003 3:15 pm

Salve Mari !

I think I will answer this under a new topic for templa as this is going to become lengthy.

Vale
Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:05 am

Salvete

It is about time, long overdue really, that I continue with my commentary on Cicero's De Legibus. This one was holding me up as I kept going off in different directions, making it very lengthy even by my standards :lol: So I have tried to cut back to some short observations.

PRAETER IDAEAE MATRIS FAMULOS, EOSQUE IUSTIS DIEBUS, NE QUIS STIPEM COGITO.

No one shall ask for contributions except the servants of the Idean Mother, and they only on the appointed days.


First, the introduction of the Magna Mater was not the adoption of a foreign cultus. Rather it was a completely Roman cultus, set up to greet the Idean Mother upon Her arrival at Rome. Her story begins in the wake of 338 BCE when Rome had finally defeated the Latins. It is in this period that the Latin sanctuary of the Thirteen Altars at Lavinium was reconstructed. One altar was eliminated, others were replaced, repaired, realigned, and new altars added. Other nearby buildings were removed and for the first time a pavement was laid down by the altars. Then the Heroon of Aeneas at Lavinium was built and dedicated just before 300 BCE. In this period we are told by Plutarch that patrician gentes were adopting new mythological origins to enhance their prestige. Rome, too, was enhancing its position among the Latins through the adoption or alteration of myth. Just as the Sabines claimed descent from Spartan heroes, or the Marsi claimed descent from Odysseus through Circe, Aeneas was adopted as the legendary ancestor of all Latins. He was first so adopted at Lavinium, but we should keep in mind that this was a Lavinium under Rome. Pyrrhus played on the myth, transforming his conflict with Rome into a new Trojan War, a theme the Romans also adopted to hold together the Latins.

By 204 BCE Rome, threatened once more by a foreign invader and desperate to hold its alliances together, turned then to the Idean Mother. That is, the goddess of Troy is brought to Her new home, the New Ilium that is Rome. This cultus that was first developed for Aeneas at Lavinium is then transferred to Rome itself. Earlier Rome under Servius Tullius had tried to replace the position of older Latin rites by establishing the Aventine sanctuary of Diana. We would see the same occur nearly two hundred years after Magna Mater's arrival, only on a grander scale, as the Augustan Restoration incorporated culti deorum from other Latin cities into Rome's own religio. Soon after the arrival of the Magna Mater at Rome the Latin sanctuary at Lavinium went out of use. The stories told about the Magna Mater's arrival represent a Roman cultus greeting Her. It does not mention that Latin rites were held in Her honor, or in anyway is Her arrival seen directly connected with the end of the feriae Latinae at Lavinium, but these events do indicate a process of transference to Rome and other changes being made in the Religio Romana at this time. The period 340-300 is also when plebeian magistrates are being regularly elected, gaining clientelia in other parts of Italy and especially Latium, while Latins are being brought in as new citizens of Rome. The period ends with the lex Ogulnia that not only brings plebeians into the pontifical and augural collegia but also breaks the monopoly of certain patrician gentes on the priesthoods and allows other patricians to be elected to these collegia. The Magna Mater is then brought to Rome by this new group of nobiles, the plebeians and new patricians, over the other patricians who had previously dominated Roman government and religion. Today when historians identify the Magna Mater with the patricians, this should be qualified as a specific group within the patricians who worked with plebeian nobiles to form a new oligarchy as it resulted from the lex Ogulnia.

The next point to bring up is that when the Magna Mater did arrive, in Her wake came a foreign cultus deorum. I will not go into all the details here as they should be known well enough. But since the Magna Mater was viewed as a Roman goddess, and had been officially invited by the Senate on the advice of the Decemviri, the Senate could not exactly expel the foreign cultus deorum as had been the case in the past. Instead they came to regulate the cultus. That is what is preserved in Cicero's proposed law here. The foreign priests were limited to a special compound from which they could not leave except once a year to beg for alms and to perform their special rites in public. No Roman citizen was permitted to become one of any of the different priests of Cybele. Nor was any Roman citizen so much as permitted to enter the compound of the foreign priests. The Senate attempted to isolate the foreign cultus from the Roman cultus of Magna Mater. In the imperial period, where you find inscriptions dedicated to the Magna Mater in the provinces, especially where these have been made by women, most often these represent the Roman cultus and the dedications were made specifically to identify their contributors as Romans. There is little mention of taurobolia or galli in these provincial inscriptions that would instead represent a foreign cultus.

The final point then is that this represented a change in Roman policy towards religious tolerance. In 186 BCE when scandal came to Rome among the Bacchanates, the Senate did not expel the cultus deorum entirely even though it was seen as foreign. Instead they regulated it, limiting the number of participants at any Dionysiac celebration to five, and specifying that these could be no more than two men, and no more than three women, and that special permission had to be received from the praetores before hand. This contrasts with the outright expulsions that were made both before and after that date. In 139 BCE praetor Cornelius Hispalis expelled the Chaldeans and a certain Jewish sect. Agrippa expelled Chaldeans and astrologers in 33 BCE. Vitellius and then Vespasian both expelled Chaldeans in 69 CE. Expulsion was still available and used, but was not applied in all cases. With the Isiacists attempts were made to expel their chapels only from within the pomerium and the final resolution came with Vespasian in 70 CE with the Isiac temple in the Campus and the Isiacists tolerated at Rome. Tolerance does not mean complete acceptance, or adoption into the Religio Romana. It only acknowledges a controlled presence. That is the course that Rome was to take later with other superstitiones as well, from the Isiacists down to the early Christians. Certain Christian sects were tolerated at Rome. You find Valentinus founding a Christian school of thought at Rome around 139 CE and being considered for the bishopric of Rome in 143. After Valentinus' death in 155, Secundus, Herakleon and Ptolemy remained active in Rome until 175, followed by Florinus the presbyter circa 200, and Adelphius and Aquilinus appearing at Rome in 225, in Plotinus' Neoplatonist school at Rome from 263 to 268, and remaining active until 275. That is 136 years without mention of any expulsions or persecutions of Valentinians from Rome. The verbal attacks made against them by Irenaeus (178) Tertullian (200), Clement of Alexandria (d. 218), and Hippolytus (230) include complaints that Valentinians were participating in the Roman culti deorum ex patria as any good citizens would. That indicates that Valentinians were an accepted part of Roman society, tolerated in their practices at the very center of the empire. This contrasts with the rescriptions made against other forms of Christianity in 177 and then under Decius in 249-251. Toleration was a double edged sword, regulating what was permitted and prohibiting the unacceptable. Rome's adoption of such policies went back to the introduction of the Magna Mater.

Valete optime
Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sun Jul 20, 2003 6:00 am

Salvete mi amici et amicae

Following Numa's reform, the Romans "constant preoccupation with the gods...had so tinged the hearts of all with piety that the nation was governed by its regard for promises and oaths, rather than by the dread of laws and penalties (Livy 1.21.1)." To Cicero and his contemporaries it appeared as though men had since gone astray from the gods, no longer honoring their oaths or the law. In his De Republica and De Legibus Cicero looks toward establishing a State modelled on this perceived ideal of Rome under Numa. The basis to Cicero's utopia is rooted in this idea of maintaining the special relationship between his idealized State and the Roman gods. Therefore he has included a section on religious laws, De Legibus II.19-22 that we are looking at. But in this section he has included what we might regard today more as civil laws, "dread laws and penalties" sanctioned as religious laws.

PERIURII POENA DIVINA EXITIUM, HUMANA DEDECUS.
For the perjurer the punishment from the gods is destruction, the human punishment shall be disgrace.

Cicero's proposal for perjurers can be compared to that found in the XII Tabulae:


VIII.5: If one should permit himself to be summoned as a witness, or has been a weigher, if he then does not give his testimony, let him be noted as dishonest and incapable of acting again as a witness.
VIII.23: A person who has been found guilty of giving false witness shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.

SACRUM SACROVE COMMENDATUM QUI CLEPSIT RAPSITVE PARRICIDA ESTO.

Whoever steals or carries off what is sacred or anything entrusted to what is sacred shall be considered as equal in guilt to a parricide.



The theft of objects entrusted to a sanctuary, or that were dedicated to a sanctuary was part of the charges laid against Verrus, young Cicero acting as his prosecutor. We can compare Cicero's proposal to that found on dedication inscriptions from sanctuaries.

ILS 4911 found in the vicinity of Spoleto:
In this sanctuary (the rule shall be) that one may not violate or profane, and not carry off, and not carry from it, whatever may be a part of this sanctuary, and not turn out or withdraw anything, unless for a purpose of no longer than a day. A year afterward he will make retribution without fraud on that date, this he may do after the rule of Diana (of the Aventine). It may be permitted that if anyone profanes Jove Bovus he may give a piaculum offering. If any would knowingly violate Jove Bovus with evil intent and fraud, the curatores (?) may designate what piaculum offering he must give and what fines may be imposed, and so designate as they please when those piaculum offerings and the fines dictated may be called in.



INCESTUM PONTIFICES SUPREMO SUPPLICIO SANCIUNTO.

The pontiffs shall inflict capital punishment on those guilty of incest.


In 216 BCE L. Cantilius, a pontifex minor or secretary to the pontiffs, was brought to the place of assembly and publicly beaten to death by pontifex maximus L. Cornelius Lentulus (Livy 22.57).The punishment exacted on Cantilius was for having seduced two virgines Vestales, Opimia and Floronia. One Vestal, Floronia, committed suicide upon discovery, while Opimia received the usual punishment of burial alive outside the Colline Gate. The Vestals had broken their vows of chastity. Cantilius' crime was incest for violating the Vestals, or more specifically for jeopardizing Rome's future relationship with the gods by taking something that had been dedicated to the gods in the name of the State, the Vestals' chastity.

While incestum refers to unchaste behavior of Vestals, it does not always carry the connotation of illicit sexual relations [For more discussion on this see T. J. Cornell, "Some observations on the 'Crimen Incesti'," in Le delit religieux dans la Cite Antique, 1981.] The Vestal Minucia was convicted of incestum and buried near the Colline Gate at the Campus Sceleratus ("the accursed field") solely for her "improper love of dress" (Livy 8.15.7). Vestal Postumia was likewise brought up on a charge of incestum for her attire being too colourful and for her caustic wit, "unmaidenly freedom in her manner of speech," as Livy puts it (4.44.11). In Postumia's case the pontifex maximus merely warned her to dress more appropriately as a Vestal when in public and to be less sarcastic in addressing others. With Livy incestum can mean any profaning of the sacred functions performed specifically by the Vestals (Livy 2.42.10). It can mean anything that would profane or pollute any sacred rite, as where a pontifex asked "Why would you make a polluted sacrifice to Diana?" when referring to a man who had not yet ritually cleansed his body (Livy 1.45.6). At one point though incestum takes an even broader meaning in Livy. He tells the story of how a debtor had placed his son's freedom for security on a loan, making the boy one of many nexi, and how the boy was then mistreated when he refused to submit to the lascivious desires of his father's creditor. The incident led to the outlawing of the nexi, holding people in bondage for repayment of loans, because it was judged to be incestum (Livy 8.28.3). The reasoning for this we will return to in the next post. It has to do with profaning culti geniale by turning free men into slaves.

Among other Latin writers incestum can mean evil deeds in general, more specifically as illicit loves (Horace Carmina 3.6.21), or the result of an illicit or unnatural sexual relation, as in the case of a hermaphrodite (Ovid Metamorphoses 4.387). Servius held that incestum est quaecumque pollutio (Ad Aen. 6,150). Tacitus however generally uses incestum with narrowly defined meaning, more closely to how "incest" is used in modern English. Tacitus uses incestum to describe the relationship of Nero with his mother (Annales 14.2), between a brother and sister (Annales 12.4), and at different places in reference to Claudius' marriage to his sister's daughter (Annales 11.5; 12.5; 12.8; 13.2). A false charge of incestum is brought against Lepida by Nero, where she was said to have had an affair with her brother's son (Annales 16.8). The sexual aspect of incestum with Tacitus is between very close relatives, more so than we would consider it today. In Latin a closer relation is made between an individual with his "sister's daughter" or a "brother's son" than with a niece or nephew. Similarly the son of a father's brother is called "brother" (frater) while the son of a father's sister is a "cousin" (consobrinus), and a similar distinction is made with soror and consobrina. In Lepida's case the charge of incestum was aimed at her nephew, and to enhance it further there was said to have been made a marriage ceremony between them, whereby a sacred rite had thus been profaned. Tacitus uses incestum in another case, where accusations were made against Cotta Messalinus for referring to the deified Caesar in the sense of his having been a man rather than a god, and that ceremonies in his honor amounted to a funeral banquet. Tiberius dismissed the accusations as frivolous (Annales 6.5). With Tacitus we see the changing sense of incestum. How he used it, incestum is very specific in meaning. Against Cotta others used incestum in an older sense that had to do with being disrespectful of sacred things or rites. Basically Tacitus dismissed this sense of the word along with Tiberius. While with Lepida the charge had a sexual connotation, it had to be backed up with another false accusation of profaning a religious ceremony in order to convey its older meaning to the more conservative members of the Senate.

In one other place, Opera minora 35.5, Tacitus refers to a rhetorical exercise of setting out the choices of an incesta matrum in what would be a matter of adultery. Here we move closer to a sense of incestum that can be found in an earlier period with Cicero. Several times Cicero refers to his political enemy Clodius as having committed incestum. Generally modern interpretation has made this charge over to a modern sense of "incest", considering the reference to be an illicit sexual relationship between Clodius and any of his three sisters. That is not likely the case however. In Pro Caelius Cicero refers to the older Clodia having had adulterous affairs, specifically between Clodia and Caelius, not with Clodius (14.34). Such a charge was brought up in the divorce case of the younger Clodia, where her husband accused her of adultery. That in itself could have been taken as incestum but he carried it further by trying to imply the adulterous affair was with her brother Clodius, an accusation no one actually believed but one on which Cicero later plays with in making the charge of incestum against Clodius for other reasons. More likely the accusation was that Clodius assisted his younger sister in her adulterous liaisons rather than that he had such an illicit relationship with her or his other sisters. We see this again at De Domo sua 40.105 where Cicero speaks of Clodius polluting sacred ceremonies "not only by his presence but also by his incestuous, shameful, and adulterous behavior (incesto flagitio et stupro)." The incestum Cicero refers to here is probably the old charge of Clodius having profaned the rites of the Bona Dea. Cicero uses incestum in that sense against Clodius, and distinguishes this accusation from one of adultery, at Oratio de haruspicum responso III.4.28 and at Pro Milo 5.13. Cicero made the same charge of incestum against Catalina for profaning sacred rites (In L. Pisonem 39.95).

With Cicero incestum has a general meaning of impious acts that profane or degrade what is commonly held to be sacred. He takes it a step further against Marc Antony at Philippicae 11.2.5 where his accusation is that Antony used insulting words to berate a most distinguished gentleman and that this amounted to a form of incestum. Behind that accusation there lies a characterization of Antony as a drunkard, adulterous debaucher, and a few other things. The incestum does not refer to any specific incident so much as it has a general characterization, much as Horace uses it to simply mean a doer of evil deeds (Carmina 3.2.25). What makes it become incestum, in Cicero's mind at least, is the disparity between the good character of one man and the evil character of the other. Incest in the sense of illicit sex between close relatives is incestum because it breaks a common tabu that is a condition of the compact between the gods and humans (although not all societies define this tabu in the same way). Adultery was considered a form of incestum because it violated the vows made at a sacred ceremony. At one time it probably referred only to those affairs outside a confarreatio and not other forms of marriage, since only the confarreatio was held to be a sacred rite. With Cicero incestum connotes profaning sacred rites, the sexual aspect being only secondary.

Let me return for a moment to something I said earlier about Clodius and the rites of the Bona Dea. I had said that it was possible that Clodius' presence at the rite was not in itself a violation of the rite. That is that a man may have been intended to be present, fulfilling a role in the ceremony. There is believed to have taken place in the rite a part where a person is beaten with myrtle rods, acting the part of Fauna. It is sometimes assumed that a servant girl fulfilled this role. That is not likely to have been the case however. Varro mentions that for the sacrifice of the Vestales Virgines to Consiva in the Regia, a women's rite, the pontifex maximus was present but veiled in the suffibulum; that is, in the guise of a Vestal himself (Lingua Latina 6.21). Recall that the rite of the Bona Dea was performed with the Vestales Virgines present in the house of the pontifex maximus. Clodius was at Caesar's house dressed in the guise of a woman, and Caesar was at that time the pontifex maximus. Cicero refers to Clodius' crime with both terms incesto stupro, that is "incest and adultery(Harusp Resp. 4.28). Cicero makes note that the alleged adulterous affair was with the wife of the pontifex maximus increasing the seriousness of the crime. It may be that Julius Caesar was intended to be at the rite and that Clodius had agreed to step in for him. Assuming Caesar's place in a rite that was to be performed by Caesar's wife may have brought the implication of adultery where none existed. And certainly another person assuming the role of the pontifex maximus could have been taken as profaning the rite.

These three laws proposed by Cicero, on perjury, theft of sacred objects, and profaning sacred rites or incestum, all deal with a common line of reasoning. All of them can be said to deal with incestum since they have to do with violating what was held as most sacred. The implication of incestum is a crime by an individual that is so impious that it could jeopardize the special compact between the gods and all of Rome. Impious acts were especially thought of as incestum when involving priests and priestesses since they impaired the performance of sacred rites. A Vestal's crime of incestum was not seen in her sexual act, but in her violation of a vow to the gods, how this then profaned any rite she would perform, and thus would impair Rome's relationship with the gods. That could mean any improper conduct of a minor nature by the priest or priestess, as we have seen with Postumia. Improper performance of a sacred rite is incestum. That is what lies behind Cicero's allegations against Clodius and Catalina, indirectly against Julius Caesar as well. With Cicero's allegation against Antony the same may be implied, since the insult could be seen to impair the man's ability to perform his sacred rites, public or private. I will carry this a step further in my next post that deals with the private rites of families and how Cicero's next proposal, too, referred to acts by Clodius that Cicero regarded as incestum.

In Cicero's time old forms of the Religio Romana had become forgotten. Priestly offices were left vacant. Old rites were no longer performed. The names of gods were forgotten, or else, as with Ovid and Summanus, the divine name was recalled if not the god Himself (Fasti 6.731). That is not to say that the Religio Romana was being neglected or in decline as some have assumed. The conservative elements of the Senate raled against innovations being made to the cultus civile just as much as they bemoaned any older aspect of the religio passing from fashion. With Cicero's proposal to impose capital punishment for offenses of incestum he is not proposing a new law. Lentulus' execution of Cantilius for incestum was an exceptional event by the late third century, implementing an ancient law. Cicero is projecting a different understanding of incestum than what was probably commonly held by the end of the Republic. That is, the definition of incestum was already narrowing towards how Tacitus would come to understand it. In a sense then Cicero was attempting to expand the common meaning of incestum, one may suspect to include the crimes he accused Clodius of performing. But he did so by proposing that an older meaning of the term be applied. Others, conservative and innovative elements alike, would do the same with the charges made against Cotta and Lepida. Perhaps too, Domitian's execution of Vestal Cornelia, generally posed as an injustice, based on Pliny the Younger writing to Cornelius Minicianus that she was probably innocent (Epist 4.11), is no more than the application of an older understanding of the law. Cornelia was executed "because the emperor wished to demonstrate his rigorous justice, however tyrannical. Punishing a Vestal signaled that he would maintain the purity and prosperity of Rome (Melissa Barden Dowling, "Vestal Virgins: Chaste Keepers of the Flame," Archaeology Odyssey, Jan./Feb. 2001)." Rome's prosperity it could be argued by a Cicero or a Domitian depended on maintaining Rome's purity, and that purity could only be maintained by piously following the religio.

Stringent application of ancient law was, however, only a vain reaction against the tide of innovation and change that occurred in any century. Caesar's party, on the other hand, had its share of innovators who employed the same tactic. It would take us too far afield from Cicero at the moment, but Granius Flaccus, Veranius, Caecina, Clodius Tuscus, Nigidius Figulus likewise posed their ideas as reintroducing ancient forms of religio attributed to Numa, the Etruscans, or as Latin culti geniale. Then too were the antiquarians who provided the material Augustus needed to reform Rome and the Religio Romana by posing it as a restoration of ancient religion. Then further, Vitellius could apply ancient privileges and make "an infamous construction on the somewhat incautious if not an incestuous relation between a brother and sister," removing Silenus so that Agrippina's son could marry Claudius' daughter Octavia, while arguing at the same time in the Senate that ancient concepts of incestum should be set aside to allow Agrippina to marry her uncle Claudius (Tacitus Annales 12.4-9). The application of ancient laws and rites was noteworthy at times by Livy and his sources because it was so rare. The appeal to reinstate more ancient forms of the Religio Romana is found frequently in Latin literature because it had emotive power, but more often it was made counter to public opinion, and we must assume therefore made by a minority opinion as well.

Valete
Moravius Piscinus
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:25 pm

Salvete mi amici et amicae

CAUTE VOTA REDDUNTO; POENA VIOLATI IURIS ESTO.
Vows shall be scrupulously performed; there shall be a penalty for the violation of the law.

Cicero's concern here is with the provisions of a vow being strictly carried out. His intention is not, as some may misconstrue, to advocate a scrupulous performance of the rite by which a vow is made. There is indeed some mention to that effect in the Religio Romana. "Laws were made to curb the power of the strong, and ancient rites were observed exactly (Ovid Fasti 3.279-80)." A case for extreme formalism may likewise be found in a passage from Pliny the Elder:

We see too that senior magistrates make their prayers using a precise formulae: someone dictates the formula from a written text to ensure no word is omitted or spoken in the wrong order; someone else is assigned as an overseer to check <what is spoken>; yet another man is given the task of ensuring silence; and a piper plays to prevent anything else but the prayer being audible. (Nat. Hist. 28.11).

Pliny, however, is citing this example as an exception and as a superstitious act rather than as the normal practice of the Religio Romana. Indeed the many examples of prayers found in Roman texts and Latin inscriptions do not show a repetitive use of formulae Prayers use within the body of the text what are formulaic grammatical expressions of an archaic nature, but the prayers are not themselves formulae. Cicero is instead speaking here about integrity. He follows what Cato Maior put simply in the Monosticha, "Keep your oath" (iusiurandum serva). . A vow is to be made carefully, promising no more and no less than intended. Then it is the provisions of the vow, as stated, that are to be scrupulously fulfilled. One cannot substitute an intention for what was actually stated, no more than one can alter any legal contract from its written provisions. As the song goes, "say what you mean; do what you say; one thing leads to another."

First Cicero says, CAUTE VOTA REDDUNTO quite literally translating as "caution should be made to give back what is vowed." His explanation then speaks of DILIGENTIAM VOTORUM or "diligently fulfilling the vows." He speaks strictly in the legal sense of fulfilling a contract made with the gods.

De Leg. II.16, 41: As for "scrupulous performance of vows" the words of law suffice, [if a vow is really a] contract, by which we are bound to a god. Surely "punishment for the violation of obligations sanctioned by religion" is open to no just criticism.

It is often noted how legalistically precise Roman prayers and vows are made. Cicero speaks directly to that when he says that the VOTIS SPONSIO is QUA OBLIGAMUR DAEO (De Leg. II 16, 41). The "obligation made to the gods" is a promise, a guarantee to pay what is owed, just as sponsio has a meaning in a strictly legal sense. It was used as a legal term for the guarantee given by the losing side in a lawsuit, promising to pay an obligation made by the decision of a court. Such a contractual relationship is recognized by Martial where he says, "thus am I the debtor of a vow (Epigr. 9.42)."

What gives Roman vows their legalistic appearance are the grammatical expresses, formulae verborum. Thus the citing of terms having a similar meaning in the devotio of Decius Mus: vos precor veneror veniam peto feroque (Livy 8.9.6), and the evocation of Scipio Aemilianus, precor veneror veniamque a vobis peto (Macrob. Sat. III 9.7). "I give, I pronounce, I dedicate." Do dico dedico (CIL III 1933). Dabo dedicaboque (CIL XII 4333). Do dedicoque (CIL XII 4333). "I call out, I summon; I entice with songs." Evoco educo excanto (Marcellus De Medicamentis 15.11). To Jupiter Capitolinus, Mars Gradivus and "the perpetual guardian of fire," Vesta, "guard, preserve, and push forward." Custodite servate proiegite (Vellius Paterculus II 131.1).

Such expressions are coupled with inclusionary formulae. "Whether you are a god or a goddess," si deus, si dea es (Cato Agr. 139). "If you are male or female," "Whosoever God He is," quisquis est deus (Plaut. Rudens 256). "Holy one among the gods, whoever you are," te sancte deorum, quisquis es (Verg. Aen. IV 577). See too Ovid Met. III 613, Fati VI 731; Seneca Oedip. 248; Lucan Phars. IX 860, et cetera. And these are comparable to another common expression, quidcumque deorum, for "each and every god" in Lucan Phars. IX 990; Valerius Flaccus Argonautica IV 674, Firmicus Maternus Astrol. V praef. Also inclusionary phrases of various types for the gods in general, the gods immortal, the gods above and below, those whoever inhabit this place, and so forth.

These and other grammatical forms then lead on to the "if this, then that" clause of any contract. "Jupiter Almighty, (if you) give assent to my bold enterprise, (then by) my own hand shall bring thee yearly gifts in thy temple (Virg. Aen. 9.625-6)." Numa petitions Jove, "If we have touched your offerings with pure hands, and a pious tongue solicits this, then grant this, what we ask, a sure appeasement from the thunderbolt (Ovid Fasti 3.335)." "O Gods, restore this to me in return for my (past) piety towards you (Catul. 76.26)."

Vows were so thought in contractual terms that care had to be given to how they were worded. The pontifex maximus Licinius once delayed a public vow because it provided for an indefinite sum of money to be used as an offering to the gods. The actual amount would depend on the outcome of events in the coming year. Licinius said that "the vow could not be fulfilled in strict conformity with its provisions." He said the vowed monies needed instead to be set aside immediately, in order to prevent its being used for any other purposes The consuls appalled to the Collegium Pontificum "to learn whether a vow for an indeterminate sum could properly be undertaken. The pontifices replied that it was possible and even more correct (Livy 31.9.7-9)." In their view a greater threat was posed to the State if a set amount had been vowed and could not then be met.

Another case in point is with the ver sacrum vowed in 217 BCE by praetor A. Cornelius Mammula (Livy attributes the vow also to praetor M. Aemilius). Pontifex maximus L. Cornelius Lentulus had said that such an innovative vow could not be made against the wish of the people, and thus it first had to be put to a vote in the Comitia. The provisions of the original vow are given by Livy (22.9.10-10.6). Performance of it provisions were not made until twenty-one years later, in 195 BCE, under the supervision of M. Porcus Cato and L. Valerius. By then though, pontifex maximus Licinius announced the sacrifices had not been performed properly and had to be conducted over again under the direction of the pontifices (Livy 34.44.1-3). This was done the following year.

We can see here what is likely to have been the origin of the "scrupulous observance" as Pliny the Elder tells centuries later. Why a formula from a written text is dictated by one person to a magistrate who performs the sacrifice, and then observed by another person to see that no words are omitted or are said in the wrong order, is that a sacrifice must follow exactly the wording that was given in the originating vow. The wording of the vow dictates what must be repaid to fulfill a vow. The most common formula found in inscriptions of a dedication fall along the line of solvit ex voto or, "he paid in full and resolved his debt in accordance with his vow." This goes along with all else that is known about the character and the manner of Romans. Whereas the notion that the practice of the Religio Romana is meant to scrupulously follow rites as they were performed in some archaic period makes over the Romans into something they were not, formalistic and superstitious.

What Cicero does advocate here is an extension of a Roman notion. Obviously for anyone who did not fulfill their vow, it was thought that they would be punished by the gods themselves, or else punishment could fall on the entire family over several generations. Such stories exist in Greek myth, where in Roman myth and history we find it emphasized more that descendents fulfill vows by their forefathers. Both sides of the equation is found in the stories of Valerius Maxium. Obviously, too, a magistrate acting on behalf of the Roman people who makes a vow and then does not fulfill it, or performs it incorrectly, or makes an inappropriate vow to begin with, was believed to bring disaster on all of Rome. Thus is explained the defeats of P. Claudius Pulcher after tossing those sacred chickens overboard, and Flamininus at Lake Trasimenus for not taking the auspices properly. What Cicero contends further though is that vows made by private citizens, left unresolved, likewise can do harm to the entire community. Since such impious Romans would reflect on all others, and the gods might not then continue its special relationship with Rome, even rites piously performed and vows made with well intentions could go unheeded. It could bring down the wrath of the gods, as is implied, too, by the rites performed each year in accordance to the direction of the decemviri in order to placate the gods for reported prodigies. But rather than just having the state make expiatory rites for the acts of private individuals, Cicero advocates that civil laws punish the offenders as well. "Surely," said Cicero, "punishment for the violation of obligations sanctioned by religion" is open to no just criticism."


Valete optime
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:28 pm

Salvete

IMPIUS NE AUDETO PLACARE DONIS IRAM DEORUM.
The impious man shall not dare to placate the gods with gifts.



Here, on the face of it, Cicero restates his first religious law. One must approach the gods by "bringing piety" to the sacrifice Therefore no one who is impious may attempt to placate the gods by sacrifice. More specifically here Cicero is again speaking of incestum. At the time Cicero is believed to have begun the De Legibus in 52 Clodius was dead. But it was probably still in his mind, even in 44 as he continued this work, that Clodius had been seeking the praetorship in 53, and the election was still not completed at the time of his death. That posed that a man whom Cicero regarded as impious and incestuous would potentially be offering sacrifices on behalf of the Roman State. Condoning such an election would in effect make the State guilty of incestum. Rome would break its pact with the gods and would therefore expose itself to an abandonment by the gods. That is an argument made by Symmachus regarding the return of the Ara to the Senate, and an attitude felt by some pagan senators as they welcomed Odovacar. The charge of incestum was brought up more frequently in the Late Republic, and with a much broader range of meaning, because it implied that rival candidates were unsuitable for office due to their lack of personal integrity and how that could affect the pact between Rome and the gods. Cicero accused Clodius, Clodius brought charges against Catalina of incestum for alleged affairs with Vestals, later Cicero accused Catalina of incestum for profaining sacred rites (In L. Pisonem 39.95), Cato accused Caesar in Gaul of incestum for violating fides, Crassus' death at the hands of the Parthians is attributed to his not abiding in correct practice of the Religio Romana, and Cicero accused him of more than that in his private letters. We may take all of this today as simply political posturing, and quite hypocritical, too. At the same time it is little different from political posturing today when allegations of adulterous affairs are tossed at politicians rather than debate over political issues. Such arguments we can assume did strike a chord among some Romans, just as today where Falwell's claim that the 9/11 attacks succeeded because his god withdrew his protection due to the government accommodating feminists, abortionists, gay activists and pagans. We may also assume that just as today, the standards that Roman politicians held up, at least for their rivals, were very different from what was commonly practiced or understood among the general populace.

For the moment I leave Cicero behind since I have already touched on these ideas of pietus, incestum, and what could be considered as the compact between Rome and gods. Instead I will touch on something I have mentioned elsewhere in the past, the other side of the do ut des formula as it was commonly practiced among the Romans. How very different was the Roman conception of a direct relationship with the gods than is commonly thought today. In Plautus' play Rudens is a scene where a procurer denounces Venus for Her fickleness and then makes a curse.

"May the gods damn any pimp who after today ever offers a single victim to Venus or presents her with a single grain of incense. Today, like a fool, with the gods angry at me, I sacrificed six lambs, and still could not make Venus propitious. Since I could not appease Her, I immediately left in anger. I refused to have the sacrificial meat cut off, I did not want to offer it since the haruspex said it wasn't any good, I did not think the goddess deserved it. In this way I cleverly got the better of that greedy Venus. Since She wasn't willing enough to have what was offered enough, I put a stop to it. That is the way I act, that is the way I ought to act. I will guarantee that all the other gods and goddesses will be more contented and less greedy after this, when they know how a pimp outsmarted Venus! (Rudens 449-50)."

The attitude expressed here by Plautus' pimp arises again when the crowd in Rome became angry with the gods over news of the death of Germanicus. They regarded his death as a breach of the compact, committed by the gods, and therefore sought to punish the gods. They then went to the temples, pulled images of the gods and goddesses out into the street where they then kicked dust on the images, and spat upon them (Tacitus Annales 2.82-3). It was a scene repeated in Italy even in modern times, where anger and frustration was taken out on statues of Christian saints. Where an image of Venus might be adorned with a golden necklace as a down payment for a do ut des vow, it could just as easily be taken away if the worshipper felt Venus had not been obliging in Her part of the bargain. Plautus' pimp takes it further, threatening all the gods and advising all Romans to act as he, coercing the gods to become more compliant to human desires. The scene must have provided a good chuckle in the audience, all the more so since the audience could relate the pimp to others who they would know with the same attitude.

Punishing the gods, coercing Them through tormenting Their images, occurs again in the defixiones. It represents a layer of the Religio Romana we do not usually consider. At times it is dismissed as though it were not part of the Religio Romana, relegating such practices to the ignorant and superstitious masses, even though it is the natural implication of a do ut des contract. At other times though Roman and Latin armies would attack temples in the aftermath of defeating an enemy town, punishing the gods as it were for aiding their enemies. One such case may be the Latin attack on Satricum (Livy 6.33.4-6). Prior to that, however, the remains found at Satricum indicate the Romans themselves had desecrated the city's acropolis and its temples, massacred the inhabitants who had sought sanctuary at the templum, before rebuilding the site into a Roman outpost. Instances of evocationes are rare, and likely promises made to foreign gods were made only when the resistance of enemies had to be undermined. The pillaging of enemy temples was far more common and may have been done deliberately as a way of punishing these foreign gods. It was not done however where the enemy's sacred centers might be gods whose worship the Romans shared. Depriving the gods of the temple offerings, and of worshippers was believed to impact directly on the gods. The notion does appear among the better educated as well, even if only in the negative. Augustinus of Hippo wrote, "Varro feared that many gods would perish not by hostile action but by neglect." Varro's fear was that the Roman masses might someday do what Plautus' pimp advocated, withholding their offerings or transferring their devotions to other gods. The same notion is implied by Cicero's insistence that the culti geniale be maintained, for otherwise neglect of these rites would at the very least induce the Manes to go elsewhere for their sustenance, abandoning Rome. Also Cato's instruction to Manius in the De Agricultura on allowing or not allowing slaves to their own worship may reflect an attitude of depriving foreign gods of any worship that would strengthen them, and thus might pose a threat of vengeance against the Roman masters.

Like the evocatio there is found "impious" prayers calling on the deities to withhold Their favors. A case in point is the Dirae attributed to Virgil:

"Impious ones, may the joys of Trinacria, that land blessed by Ceres, become barren for you and your fellows, and may the fruitful seeds in our old master's rich lands give birth to no wheat, the hills to no pastures, the trees to no fresh fruit, the vines to no grapes, the very woods to no foliage, the mountains to no streams...Outworn may the oats of Ceres be that you bury in furrows; pale and wan the meadows become, parched with heat; unripened may the drooping apples fall from the boughs! Let leaves fail the woods, water fail the streams, but let the strain that curses not fail my reeds! May these flowery garlands of Venus, with their varied beauties, which in springtime paint the fields with brilliant hues,,,may they change to blasting heats and loathsome poisons; may nothing sweet to eyes, nothing sweet to ears be wafted!"

The verse continues at some length, calling on Jupiter, Neptunus, and Dis Pater, thus encompassing the three realms against those who had seized the poet's land. Portions of the poem recall the very curses prohibited by the Twelve Tablets, the nature of which is expressly stated: quibus diras indiximus, impia vota. "On these we pronounce our curses, our impious vows." Why they are impious vows is because their intent is to prevent or to ask the gods not to perform Their natural functions Ceres withholds Her providence over the earth, causing famine, in order to coerce Olympus into aiding Her in the return of Proserpina. Disease is brought upon cities by Apollo not providing His healing powers. The reverse of placating Apollo's anger when disease arrives in your city, or offering supplicationes in thanksgiving for His preserving the public's health, would be to call upon Apollo to effect disease on other cities through neglect of His powers towards them. In the same vein a temple was dedicated to Fortuna Mala to appease Her by a vow that would have Her avert Her attentions from Rome and onto others. In other words She was asked not to perform Her natural function. That, in a sense, would constitute an impious vow, but something that was very much a part of the private and public practice of the Religio Romana.

Valete optime
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Wed Oct 29, 2003 11:57 am

Salvete

Another long one I'm afraid. It can't be helped, but the good news, I think I may have only one more though before completing this commentary on Cicero's De Legibus.

Consecrating Land

NE QUIS AGRUM CONSECRATO. AURI, ARGENTI, EBORIS SACRANDI MODUS ESTO.

No one shall consecrate a field; the consecration of gold, silver, and ivory shall be confined to reasonable limits.

De Leg. II 18, 45: In my prohibition of the consecration of land I am in complete agreement with Plato, who expresses his opinion in about the following words, if I can translate the passage, "The earth, therefore, like the hearth in a dwelling, is sacred to all the gods; wherefore no one should consecrate it a second time."

Earlier Cicero said that there should be shrines in the cities and sacred groves in the countryside. There he was referring to communities. Here he is referring to individuals who should be prohibited from consecrating land. There is a political aspect in this measure since the land in question would no longer be available to communities or others. Resistance to the Gracchan land distribution and of those that followed included this ploy of dedicating and consecrating land as shrines. And one is also led to think of Clodius? consecration of Cicero?s city property to Libertia. Here we will forego the "why?s" and look at the steps need to be taken in consecrating land that has already been designated and marked out by augures as sanctified.



The consecration of land took several ritual steps. Romans of the Late Republic attributed the entire rite to the Etruscans (Plut. Rom. 11.1-4). This may have been due primarily to Caecina?s account of the Etruscan founding of Mantua. The founding ritual extended back to a much earlier period. The rite was certainly not limited to the Etruscans alone, but was found throughout central Italy (Varro L. L. 5.143). The same basic rite is used to establish an estate, any religious shrine, a military camp, an oppidium or colonia, and also of course a city such as Mantua or Rome.



The foundation ritual consists of three basic parts, each of which would in itself involve a series of rituals. First is the establishment of the central point, or umbilicus. In establishing a city or town it would be here that the mundus was constructed. Pliny discusses the establishment of an estate by first marking out the cardinal directions (Nat. Hist. 18.76, 77). The process he describes is the initial phase of establishing a templum by the augures. A stick, called a gruma, is held vertically at the center of the land. Lines are drawn in accordance with the position of the sun on the horizon at its equinoctial rising; that is, due east. This establishes the east-west line called the cardo. It is not until midday, with the sun at its highest point, that the decumanus is then drawn along the axis of a person?s shadow to establish the north-south axis. At the center of the cross thus formed is made a pile of stone, called the umbilicus. Other lines are then drawn to form an eight-pointed star, giving the directions of the winds. According to Pliny, these also give the rising and setting points of the sun at the solstices. (There is another step, using Euclidean geometry that he neglected to mention.) From what Pliny says, the exercise would take place over several hours, performed in a precise manner, and capable of being performed only on specific days of the annual cycle. Varro, too, says that the marking off of shrines was made "in accordance with the celestial auspices that indicate their boundaries (L. L. 6.53)." That refers to the taking of auspices, a rite that began shortly after midnight so that observation of star positions aligned any templum. This is further indicated by Festus where he said, "From the sky above, like the stars, are the inaugurated places (locis inauguratis) fixed (351a)." We may note too that the Roman annual cycle began near either of those two equinoctial points. Tradition held the early civil calendar to begin with the Full Moon of March immediately preceding the vernal equinox. The ceremony of hammering a nail in the lintel of Minerva?s sacellum, said to have been first made by Marcus Horatius at the dedication of the Capitolium, is recalled on the Ides of September, or the Full Moon preceding just before the autumnal equinox. The same rite, according to Cincius, was performed at Volsinii, Etruria (Livy 7.3.5sq). At Rome and Volsinii the rite of hammering the nail marked the passage of the year. In contrast the rites conducted under Vespasian to consecrate the Capitolium anew took place 21 June, preceding the summer solstice by a few days. Whether you are speaking of an estate as did Pliny, or of a city, the orientation rite places the designated parcel of land into a context of celestial time and space.



At the center is the umbilicus that symbolizes the center of the world. Next would be to establish the mundus beneath this position so that it would become the center of the city. The mundus was an underground vaulted chamber.. "It was, so to speak, the gateway of the fateful and infernal gods that was opened. That was why religion banned not only engaging in combat, but raising troops, making them set out, weighing anchor, or marrying to have children (Macrob. Sat. 1.16.18, citing Varro)." Raising troops at one time took place in the comitia centuriata. Thus Festus mentions that no comitia could assemble, or any public business be conducted, on the days when the mundus was opened (p. 146.1). It was opened on 24 Aug., 5 Oct., and 8 Nov. of each year. Placed in the mundus on those days were the first fruits of the earth. It was thus similar to the underground altar of Consus in the Circus Maximus. Festus, however, associated the mundus with Ceres (p. 126.4). It had once been assumed that the mundus and the altar of Consus represented underground silos for storing grain. However no such underground storage facilities were ever used anywhere in Italy. It was assumed that offerings were placed at the end of harvest season in anticipation of the coming lean months of winter. However in the older calendar, when the year was reckoned to begin in September, the opening of the mundus would have been associated with the beginning of a growing cycle based on winter wheat production. Rather than an association with agriculture and grain storage, the mundus is always identified with the Underworld. That is affirmed further in Plutarch?s description, where the ritual concluded by each participant tossing a handful of their native soil over the offerings. The ritual was like a mock funeral, and the mundus itself became a collective shrine to the Manes of the City. On the days it is opened afterward the Manes are thought to walk the earth. The association of the mundus with Ceres may likewise point to a very early identification with the Underworld rather than with grain production. Ceres never quite lost Her identity as a goddess receiving the dead, although under Greek influence it became more closely identified with Proserpina as an aspect of Ceres. The mundus perhaps takes us back to the early development of Rome when the great houses had as their central shrine the tomb of an ancestor. Prior to the exclusion of tombs inside the city, burials took place near or under the front doorway of houses. We will see later with the pomerium wall how this comes into play.



The first mundus was said to have been established by Romulus on the Palatine Hill (Germalus locus). Later when the city was refounded by Servius Tullius the mundus was rebuilt in the Forum as the new center of the City. Plutarch confused the Romulan mundus with that of the Servian located in the comitium area in front of the Republican Senate House. During the imperial period this mundus was monumentalized into a small round shrine, and was possibly moved, behind the Rostrum and next to the Arch of Septimus Severus. Plutarch described the mundus as a round pit, which may again refer to its later version. Very similar to the mundus was the quadrata Romana. This is a simple sanctuary, similar to one found at Cosa, near ancient Vulci in southern Etruria. The better known one is that of Augustus, built in front of his house on the Palatine. Only a few meters from it is the archaic quadrata that possibly represented Romulus? original mundus. As its name implies, it is square in shape rather than round. At the center is a stone slab, two meters square. Augustus posed himself as founding a new city, thus becoming a new Romulus. He returned to the old practice of having a tomb-like structure placed near the front door of his house on the Palatine. The sides of the shrine were marked out and oriented in the same manner as a templum auguralis. This too identified Augustus with Romulus who took the auspices on the Palatine rather than on the Capitolium (Livy 1.6.4). The quadrata Romana represents the terrestrial templum from which the augur would call out to designate the boundaries of a city.



The next step was to establish the sulcus primordialis or sacred circle. This involved the plowing of a furrow around the plot of land, performed in a ritual manner. The plowman was dressed in the Gabii manner without a toga and with his tunic pulled off his right shoulder. What that implies is that the rite was among the Latins prior to the founding of Rome, and indeed all Roman accounts recall Romulus performing the rite as it was used among the Latins of Alba Mount. The plow was harnessed to an ox on the outside and a heifer on the inside, following the course of the sun in a clockwise manner. The plow was turned to a sharp angle so that as the furrow was made a mound would build up to the inside. The future positions of the gates were not plowed. Instead the plow was lifted out of the earth and carried over these spaces. As usual, the rite of plowing began with a prayer. Ovid places such a prayer into the mouth of Romulus that may have been based on one used for colonies.



As I found this city, be present, Jupiter, Father Mars, and Mother Vesta, and all gods who it is pious to summon, join together to attend. Grant that my work may rise with Your auspices. Grant that it may for many years hold dominion on earth, and assert its power over the east and west (Fasti 4.827-32)



Tacitus describes the course of Rome?s sulcus primordialis. It began in the Forum Boarium. "A furrow was drawn to mark out the town, so as to embrace the Ara Maxima of Hercules; then, at regular intervals stones were placed along the foot of the Palatine Hill to the altar of Consus, soon afterwards, to the old Courts, and then to the sacellum of Larunda and the Forum Romanorum. The Forum Romanorum and the Capitolium were not, it was supposed, added to the city by Romulus, but by Titus Tatius (Annales 12.24)." Tacitus? route beside the Palatine is thought to be that of the later day Luperci. It travels from the south-west to the north-east without completing the circuit around the Palatine. Varro however was quite clear that a circuit was once made fully around the antiquum oppidium Palatinum (L. L. 6.34). On the opposite side of the Palatine Carandini has discovered a pomerium wall that, if extended, would meet with the route described by Tacitus, and thus would confirm what Varro wrote (see below).



Another instance of drawing the siculus primordialis furrow is found with the sanctuary of Hercules at Avellanus. In 183 BCE Q. Fabius Labeinus settled a dispute over this sanctuary between Nola and Avellanus. The inscription recording his decision, written in Oscan, held that the sanctuary was originally established by Hercules performing the same rite made by Romulus in founding Rome. Hercules "built up the land" by plowing a circuit around the sanctuary. After the settlement both cities were to circuit the sanctuary in a "rite of fructification", supposedly in a joint rite, that was to provide for their mutual benefit "ensuring the fertility of the land." The rite described for this sanctuary is similar to the lustratio conducted at Rome, and to the lustratio described in the Iguvium Tablets. These relate to Cicero?s "inaugurations both for the vineyards and the orchards and the public safety of the people (Legibus II.21)." Indeed, Tacitus tells of the route of the luperci and of Rome?s siculus primordialis in conjunction with Claudius? reinstating the augury of the public safety. Of a similar nature but in private rites is that described by Cato for his estate (De Agri. 141). This may relate to a rural rite mentioned by both Tibullus and Virgil named an ambularia by modern historians (Georgic I.338-350). Cato?s lustratio makes use of a special sacrifice of a piglet, a lamb and a calf. This relates to the sacrifice known as a suovetaurilia that is depicted for use in state lustrationes and used for the foundation rite of colonies and military camps.



From Nola in northern Campania we can travel to Val Camonica in northern Italy. One rock painting from that region, at Doscui, appears to show the rite of plowing the first furrow. The scene shows a naked man plowing with a team of animals. To the side is shown a woman with upraised arms in a gesture of prayer that is described among Romans. This is not just a simple plowing scene; the figure of the woman indicates some rite was being depicted. It may well be a rite for the first plowing of the year. It could also be a foundation rite being depicted since it is a unique scene in the Val Camonica. The providence of this particular painting is probably the early Iron Age, although other scenes from the area would date back to the Bronze Age. It establishes that the whole complex of the Roman foundation rites was based on some much earlier rite involving plowing. It also shows that such rites extended throughout western Italy, beyond Etruria, at a very early date. The Doscui painting is possibly contemporaneous with the Villanova, possibly earlier, and either way would predate the emergence of the Etruscans as a distinct cultural group.



The third and final stage of the foundation rites was the setting up of the pomerium wall itself and laying out markers that extended out from the wall on either side. Livy tells of Servius Tullius expanding the pomerium:



He surrounded the city with a mound, moats and a wall; in this way he extended the pomerium. Looking only at the etymology of the word, they explain pomerium as postmoerium, but it is rather a circamoerium, for the space which the Etruscans of old consecrated, when founding their cities, in accordance with auguries, and marked off by boundary stones at intervals on each side, as the part where the wall on the inside and on the outside, which ground they leave virgin soil untouched by cultivation. This space, in which it is forbidden either to build upon or plough, and which could not be said to be behind the wall anymore than the wall could be said to be behind it, the Romans called the pomoerium. As the City grew, the sacred boundary stones were always moved forward as far as the walls advanced (Livy 1.44.3-5).



A shrine might be set off from its surroundings by a short wall, by hedges, by linen wrapped between trees, or simply by the placement of markers around the boundaries set for its templum. The pomerium designated the sacred center of a city or town, and was in a sense like a templum. Aelius Gallus stipulated that the wall around a city was sanctum. It was more than religiosum as would be tombs lying outside a city. It was less than sacrum as are any edifice dedicated to a god or goddess. Instead the wall was on a par with that of templum. It is holy and inviolable. This brings us for the moment to the story of Remus whose death concerns the inviolability of the pomerium. Among the twenty-four stories told of the founding of Rome and of Remus? death, one has him as a willing sacrifice, offered up to consecrate the pomerium wall. Even in the barest version, given by Livy, there is this suggestion with Romulus saying, "Thus shall perish whosoever else would leap over my walls (Livy 1.7.2-3)." Part of the consecration rite may have included a mock violation of the pomerium and the death of the violator. It was not always though just a mock performance.



Between 1862-66 there were discovered four pillars buried beneath Augustus? pomerium. They date to the first century BCE but were written in archaic Latin. One of these, column B, is inscribed with the single word Remureine indicating it may represent Remus. The four pillars were found in the Clivio, located near the house of M. Aemilius Scaurus, where the pomerium is crossed and where tradition held was the place where Remus had leaped over the wall. Then in the late 1990?s excavation conducted by Carandini discovered a pomerium wall near the Arch of Constantinus heading in the direction from southeast to northwest towards the Arch of Nerva. Extended onward towards the Arch of Titu, it would come to the house of Aemilius Scaurus. The wall, if it does extends further, would connect to the course given by Tacitus and may indeed fully circumscribe the Palatine Hill. Its lack of footers indicates it is indeed a pomerium wall rather than a defensive wall. This lack of footers may also attest to the wall?s very ancient origin. Beneath the wall was then discovered four interred graves dating to the time of Servius Tullius. Two are located inside the pomerium itself, the other two lying just outside the wall but still in the pomerium area on either side of the wall. It is suggested that the four pillars of the Augustan era represent these four individuals sacrificed when Servius expanded the pomerium wall.



The counterpoint to the mundus at the center of the city was the altar of Consus that lay in the Circus Maximus and thus outside the pomerium. Between them lay the pomerium that had been sanctified in Augustus? time by interring objects representative of human sacrifices. These burials sanctified the land in which they were made. With templa precincts there are similar deposits. Favissae have been found on the Viminal at S. Maria della Vittoria, another dispersed over an area on the Quirinal at the Villa Hofner, a third. on the right bank of the Tiber. In the Comitium, beneath the Lapis Niger, the ancient fanum was filled in with material that likely came from an earlier and unknown favissa. Two other favissae are of special import. One favissa was found at the foot of the Capitoline Hill near the Temple of Concord. This may suggest a pomerium of sorts, setting off the Capitoline Hill as a sacred district separated from the rest of the city. The other favissa Capitolina is associated with the Capitolium itself. Its material included miniature vessels of a type used as votives in gravesites, especially with cremations, of the mid 7th century and earlier. There were also terracotta representations of bread, and Italo-Corinthian pottery. Along with these were placed tiny figurines cut out from bronze sheeting. These human figurines possibly were offered in lieu of human sacrifices. Because of the number of them I would suggest that rather than human sacrifices they represent the Lares of the various Roman gentes. The favissa near the Temple of Concord likewise had bronze objects but too small to identify, and the bronze objects found in the favissa on the Viminal, over six hundred, no longer exist. We know something of the favissae from Varro?s reply to the jurist Servius Sulpicius



These are cells or cisterns found underground in that location (the Capitolium), in which it has been customary to place old decorational elements which have come off that temple and other things that have been consecrated by dedication (Gellius II 10).



Varro indicates that favissae resulted presumably when a temple was being renovated or reconstructed. Building material has never been found in favissae that would constitute a structure, only antefixes from temple roofs, bearing images of gods and goddesses. In the case of the rebuilding of the Capitolium under Vespasian the augurs instructed L. Vestinius to deposit the remains of the old temple in the marshes (Tacitus Hist. 4.53). This presumably did not include the sacred items that had previously been dedicated. Temple debris, old statues, ritual tools and votives could neither be discarded nor disturbed, and they could not leave the templum precinct in which they had been dedicated. This Q. Catulus discovered when he was instructed not to violate the favissa Capitlina when he sought to excavate the Capitoline in order to enlarge the Capitolium. Instead sacred objects had to be burned or buried, just as with the strictures placed on the pontifex maximus. But the favissae imply more than just that they were debris; they sanctified the land in which a templum was designated and were used to sanctify and temple or other structure that was to be built at the site.



A few things are brought together in Tacitus? description of the rededication of the new templum Capitolium. Previously the various steps had been taken to establish the templum itself. "The sacred enclosure was encompassed with chaplets and garlands." This would indicate the stone makers of the precinct?s boundaries were so decorated. A procession was then made within the precinct by soldiers with "auspicious names" and carrying boughs from sacred trees. The Vestal Virgins and a choir of children then "sprinkled the whole space with water drawn from the fountains and rivers." The "usual sacrifice of the suovetaurilia (consisting of a boar, ram, and bull)" was performed by the praetor, using prayers dictated to him by the pontifex maximus, that called upon "Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and the tutelary deities of the place, to prosper the undertaking and to lend their divine help to raise the abodes which the piety of men had founded for them." The foundation stone of the new temple was itself wreathed and presumably dedicated. Tacitus says that the praetor touched it wreathes and wound ropes on the stone. This was to profane it before it was dragged into place. At that point Tacitus describes what would be comparable to the favissa. "Contributions of gold and silver and virgin ores, never smelted in the furnace, but still in their natural state, were showered on the foundations. The augurs had previously directed that no stone or gold which had been intended for any other purpose should profane the work." (Note the second part to Cicero?s proposed law above on consecrating gold, silver and ivory.) Much later, after construction of the temple building itself, the ades, another procession around the boundaries of the templum would be made with all the attendant rites as in a lustratio. The dedication would be made with the hand placed on the doorpost of the main entrance (Livy II 8.6-8). The dedicator?s hand could not be removed while pronouncing the dedication.. For a fanum or similar shrine the gatepost would have been used to signify the entire structure. In the following years rites would be conducted on the anniversary of the site; these would repeat certain aspects of the dedication rites around the boundaries. The dies natalis recorded on the various fasti was an anniversary of a templum dedication (not necessarily of a temple building) when a lustratio of the precinct?s boundaries would be made. With Cato we read of the annual lustratio of an estate, where a portion of the estate, representing the whole, is circled in a family procession. Then too was the lustratio of the city?s boundaries, performed annually as at Iguvium and mentioned for Rome by Tacitus, or in times of crisis as Livy records for Rome.



Moving from one stage to the next we see similar rites being performed to designate the boundaries of a site. In the process the land?s sanctity is increased with every stage. Burial of certain objects would make the land first religiosum. Its boundaries designated by augurs, marked out as the sulcus primordialis and then the plowing of the circuit to form the site?s first pomerium transformed the locus to sanctum. Then with the pontifices conducting a lustratio on the boundaries and the dedication of the site, it was finally consecrated into sacrum. The series of rites built upon one another, and each emphasized the partitioning off of the site from the surrounding land. While the city?s pomerium designated the holy portion of the city from the rest, within Rome?s pomerium were areas regarded as holier still. The Capitoline Hill and Palatine Hill were two such districts. Within those districts were dedicated precincts, the templa, and there could be within these still other templa separating them from the rest of the holy precinct. Thus within the precinct that was the templum Capitolina there would be a separate area designated off from the rest of the precinct as the Capitolium itself, that is the aedes or temple building. The templum Capitolina is sanctified as holy, the Capitolium is consecrated as sacred. Also within the templum Capitolina would be an altar standing before the Capitolium. As at other sites an altar was dedicated separately and thus could have its own templum within the wider templum Capitolina. Likewise there could be other buildings constructed in a templum that would not be consecrated as an aedes or domus. Libraries, storage facilities, theater areas, dining facilities, some precincts served as hostels as well, none of which would have been consecrated.. Each of these buildings though would need to have had its own templum designated to partition it off from the rest of the precinct. Then too at times a lesser shrine to a different deity might be erected in the precinct of one of the great temples. A sacellum might be a small room or niche in the main temple building, or a small building by itself. Since it was an area being separated off from the rest of the main templum precinct it too would have its own templum, and since it was being dedicated to a specific deity it, too, could be consecrated



The same ideas contained here for public consecrations should be employed today in designating places of worship by a community of practitioners or by individuals for private use. A private dwelling can be sanctified and within it there should be little shrines in most if not all rooms, each passing through its own rite of dedication. The "hearth" of a private house is dedicated to the household Lares and is consecrated to all the Gods, acting as the private mundus. The boundaries of the family plot can likewise be sanctified, as can shrines on the property, each with their own dedication rite like the one made by Horace of a tree, or the shrine for Terminus and the one for the garden Priapus as every yard would have. Today's communities of practitioners should begin by dedicating a locus with its own templum. Inside this templum should then be dedicated a separate templum for open air altar precinct with its rules allowing for offerings being made for all Roman deities (and perhaps specifically excluding other deities). Within the greater templum of the locus can be dedicated other templa for various purposes, and eventually one for the construction of a temple edifice. That is, the individual practitioner and/or a community of practitioners should consider the process of dedicating land to religious purposes, keeping in mind how the sanctity of a site is built up over time and through a series of dedication rites.
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Previous

Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests