Roman Civilization

CMS 206 /History 206

• One way of understanding a variety of Roman religious practices is to consider them a vehicle for communication between men and the divine. With some practices, this is obvious - what do we do when we pray but talk to god (however we define her). What is interesting about Roman religious practices, is that they equally provide a way for gods to talk to men. To understand the communications between Romans and their gods, we first need to understand the way the Romans conceived of their relationship with the divine.
  
  
• It oversimplifies to say that Romans had a "contractual" relationship with their gods. It is true that a common prayer (do ut des - "I give so that you may give") and the Roman practice of public vows (in which the specific help requested, the performance promised in exchange, and the conditions under which the vow would be fulfilled [in their war with the Veii, for example, Romans in 394 BCE made a special kind of vow: an evocatio - to Juno, patron of Veii. If she would abandon Veii, Rome would continue her cult and build her a temple in Rome) suggest that prayer was a form of bargaining. But, in fact, the Romans didn't believe the gods would necessarily do what they wanted them to just becaused they prayed or sacrificed. The Roman relationship with the divine, instead was one of fides - a relationship of mutual trust, respect and responsibility. Thus, a Roman's prayer or vow didn't bind the gods to do as he wished. The gods could simply decline the offer. If they accepted, then the individual was obliged to offer what he had promised. Romans couldn't control their gods, but they could negotiate with them.
  
  
• To negotiate, Romans needed to communicate with their gods, and needed to recognized when the gods were talking to them. They did so by a variety of ritual activities. One way the Romans listened to their gods was through the practice of augury in which a Roman "took the auspicia" - or read evidence of divine intent from the flight of birds and the behavior of special animals (the sacred chickens) [our word auspicious is derived from this]. It was not the augur or priest who did this, but a Roman magistrate. The augur attended the ceremony and probably advised the magistrate and then report to his colleagues (the college of augurs) on the conduct of the ritual. The magistrate would announce the course of action for which he wanted the gods' opinion, mark out the templum, in which he would observe the celestial activity and then watch for birds and interpret their flight. Virtually every political action in Rome was preceeded by the taking of auspices. If the magistrate determined that auguries were inauspicious, no action could be taken. If later someone objected to the the results of the action (an election, the passage of a law, etc.), the Senate would ask the college of augurs to review the event and determine if the auguries were properly performed. If not, the action was deemed in valid ab initio. Because the rules and rituals for taking auspicies were so detailed and technical, the possibility for error was high. If the rules were violated, the magistrate had to start over from the beginning. If, in retrospect, the college of augurs determined the magistrated had erred in a ritual detail, whatever political action had ensued did not count.
  
  
• Another way of finding out the will of the gods was to sacrifice an animal and examine its exta (liver and gallblader). The priests who were skilled in the reading of entrails were called haruspices ("men who look at guts"). Romans believed that this kind of diviniation was an Etruscan art and haruspices were treated somewhat differently than other Roman priests. There was no "college of haruspices" for example until the late Republic. Romans thought there was something odd about them, but eventually they came to have as much authority as the augurs. Just as taking the auspices was an involved and complicated ritual, so was the reading of entrails. The animal to be sacrificed was blessed, a procession was made to an altar, the god(s) were invoked. The animal chosen to be sacrificed had to be of a specific age, gender, color etc (depending on what god was being questioned) and had to be killed with a single blow. If the animal struggled, it was a very bad sign indeed. If the man carrying the exta slipped or tripped, bad news was inevitable. The haruspex then butchered the animal and divided the meat into a section that would be inspected, a section that would be offered to the god(s) and a section that would be shared by participants at the sacrifice. If the exta were not flawless (gallstones and spots on the liver being obvious flaws), the god(s) indicated they would not accept the sacrifice and a new animal would have to be selected. If the exta were acceptable, then a litatio was achieved - the sacrifice would be made, the participants would feast, and the action for which divine sanction had been sought could be pursued.
  
  
• When Romans read entrails, the were specifically questioning their gods. But the gods might also indicate to Romans that they needed some attention. Monstra (or prodigies) might occur. Monstra could be any natural but bizarre event (our word monster derives from examples like the birth of two-headed calves, etc.) Similarly, lightening could appear in the sky. When such events occured, the Senate decided first that they were indeed prodigies and called in the haruspices to find out what was on the god(s)' mind. The haruspices would advise the Senate on what remedia were necessary. These divine signs weren't necessarily fatalistic harbingers of doom and they weren't specific (i.e., lightening after an election didn't necessarily mean the election was bad). Instead, the Romans understood them as warnings from the gods that they felt somehow neglected. The Romans needed to heed them, determine what prompted them, and remedy the underlying situation. Romans might fail to act quickly or effectively enough to forstall the wrath of the gods - but they had the chance.
  
  
• The Romans could also learn the will of the gods by consulting the Sibylline Books. Sibyls were priestess of Apollo and in Greece were often associated with prophecy. In the monarchical period of Rome, a Sibyl lived in Cumae and informed Tarquin the Elder that she had nine books which contained Greek verses which described the destiny of Rome. She offered to sell them to him for a set price. Tarquin declined and she promptly burned six of the books. Tarquin then bought the remaining three at the price she had asked for the complete set. The Sibylline Books do not appear to have contained prophecies, so much as remedia - advice on what to do when the gods were clearly annoyed. It appears that the Sibylline Books were frequently consulted when Rome chose to innovate its religious practices (e.g., import a new god).
  
  
• Finally, the gods might talk with Romans through dreams at the temple of Aesculapius on the island in the Tiber. According to Livy, an epidemic broke out in 293 BCE. The Senate consulted the Sibylline Books and were directed to bring the Greek god of medicine (Asklepios), to Rome. Envoys were sent and the god, in the form of a sacred snake, was happy to take up residence in a cult site and temple on the island (legend has it that the snake chose the spot). The temple served as a kind of hospital, but also as a site of incubation. A Roman troubled or ill went to the temple and, after purifying himself and sacrificing, slept within its confines, asking the god to visit him in a dream and explain what was wrong. Aesculapius' priests helped the worshipper interpret the dream. Any god might voluntarily appear in a dream, but Aesculapius was almost unique in his willingness to be take calls.