Reminders

Lecture Topics

Roman Prayer

The Ara Pacis

The Julio-Claudians

Roman Prayer - Talking With The Gods

• 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, thye 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.

The Ara Pacis

• Augustus played a decisive role in the design of two monuments to his rule. The first, the Res Gestae ("accomplishments"), is a lengthy inscription in which Augustus describes the accomplishments of his life up to the time when he handed the republic back to the Senate. In his will, Augustus directed that the Res Gestae be inscribed on the walls of his mausoleaum. In fact, Romans made many copies of the inscription (often in the temples of Rome and Augustus) and frequently translated the RG into Greek (the language of the eastern part of the Empire) as well. The Res Gestae is a quite valuable historical document, not in the least because it gives us the picture that Augustus wanted the world to have of himself.
  
  
  • The first copy of the RG was discoved in what is now Ankara, Turkey by Augier Ghislain de Busbecq, the Flemish ambassador to the court of Süleyman the Magnificent at the end of the 16th century CE.
    
    
    
• Augustus spent the years 16-13 bce in Spain and Gaul reorganizing the provinces. When he returned to Rome in 13 bc3 the Senate commissioned the building of the Ara Pacis Augustae [the Augustan altar of peace] to commemorate and celebrate the peace Augustus had brought to the Roman world. The building was erected in the Campus Martius and completed (and consecrated) in 9 bce. The building adapts Greek designs but uses all Italian materials (including the marbal).
  
  
• From our point of view, what is most interesting about the altar is the sculptures and reliefs in the design of the building which depict mythological scenes and a procession to the altar itself [not unlike the sculptural designs of the Parthenon?]. The long sides of the precinct walls around the altar depict Augustus and members of his family (and hence the future rulers of a peaceful Rome) in procession with Roman magistrates and priests. We can tour the altar thanks to Prof. Curran's website Maecenas.
  
  
• Sections of the altar discovered in Rome beginning in the 16th century. In the 1930s, the Italian government reconstructed the ara pacis (although not in the Campus Martius, but rather near the mausoleum of Augustus) inside a special designed enclosure. As you approach the enclosure, you will see the Res Gestae inscribed on its exterior walls.
  
  
• The altar itself is contained within four precinct walls. You approach the altar and pass through the walls by climbing a small (three step) staircase. The front precinct wall is decorated in two sections. The upper sections contain mythological scenes (close up). The lower sections are decorated with friezes of birds, animals and flowers.
  
  
• Like the Res Gestae, the Ara Pacis offers an idealizing image of Augustus' contribution to Rome (peace and security) and a bit of optimistic propaganda (the sons of my family will do the same for you as well). Themes set forth architecturally in the Ara Pacis are rehearsed both in the literature of the age and in other sculpture and architecture sponsored by Augustus or those close to him. While no one begrudges Augstus his self-assessment, we would all agree that his family, the Julio-Claudians, were a less than perfect legacy.
  
  
• For the purpose of review, you might want to read Imber's notes on Augustus.
  
  
  
  

Ara Pacis Augusti

Links for the Ara Pacis from LacusCurtius

Tour or the Ara Pacis from Maecenas

Suetonius' biography of Augustus

The Julio-Claudians

"Julio-Claudian" is a term scholars use to refer to the successors of Augustus who were related to him by blood or adoption. Augustus was the grandnephew of and had been adopted by Julius Caesar and so claimed to be from the Julian family line. Augustus adopted his second wife (Livia)'s son Tiberius whose father was from the gens Claudia. Both the Claudians and Julians were among the oldest and most aristocratic families in Roman republican history. There are a number of ways to entertain yourself with tales from the julio-claudians. 1) Read Suetonius' Lives of the Emperors. 2) Read Tacitus' Annales. 3) Read Robert Graves' novels I Claudius and Claudius the God. 4) Rent the BBC series I Claudius.

The succession issue:

Augustus' model of imperial rule depended on his wealth, the loyalty of the populace and army, and constitutional power. As importantly, it depended on his own personality and health. He ruled as princeps for 35 years. It was the longest period of civil peace the Roman empire had known in a very long time. To the extent that a regime depends on the identity of a ruler, it faces a period of great risk when the time comes to attempt to change rulers peacefully.

Augustus had hoped that a member of his own family (through his daughter by his first wife) would succeed him. Unfortunately all the potential male heirs kept dying (in a plot, Suetonius and Tacitus darkly hinted, by Livia to ensure that her son Tiberius became emperor). Augustus was finally compelled to adopt Tiberius and indicate his preference that Tiberius succeed him. No one can describe the Problem of the Augustan Succession more effectively than Professor McManus.

Tiberius (emperor from 14-37)

While all the evidence suggests that Tiberius was a very successful ruler (see Imber's notes on Tiberius), he was, particularly at the end of his reign, quite unpopular. As compared to Augustus we can conclude that he did a far worse job with his own succession, was a worse politician both in terms of the populace and the senatorial elite, and was willing to use his judicial power as princeps to supress his enemies.

Precisely because Tiberius, was not Augustus, however, we should read our literary sources with a grain of salt. In a way, Augustus was beyond criticism. Complaints about what Augustus had wrought, however, could be displaced onto Tiberius and may explain the extraordinarily hostile press given to him by Suetonius and Tacitus.

Caligula (emperor from 37-41)

Under any reckoning, however, Tiberius' decision to name Caligula as heir can only be judge a dismal failure (See Imber's notes on Caligula). Caligula was clearly insane and the fact that the praetorian guard (the army unit that existed soley to protect the princeps) killed him suggests the degree to which Caligula had alienated every constituency in Rome and hints at the armies developing role in resolving the issue of succession. Upon Caligula's death it was the army, not the Senate, who chose Claudius as the next Emperor of Rome. Restoring the republic was not even an option on the table.

Interestingly enough, it is in the reign of Caligula the the princeps begins to cultivate the virtue of clementia. While it is this virtue that got Julius Caesar killed, by Caligula's day the principate was so well established that the virtue of clementia became a way to restrain the princeps (or at least try to).

Claudius (emperor from 41-54)

Claudius was a member of the now 'royal' family, but little known. Unlike most of the Julio-Claudian men, he had not been brought to public notice (and prepared for rule) through priesthood, political office, and military command. Suetonius and Tacitus portray him as a bit of a doddering fool, with a stutter and a limp, and the personality of a college professor (in fact, he wrote historical and antiquarian books before his promotion). You might think this an unlikely pick for princeps, but the principal of inheritance remained important (can you think why?) and as it turned out, for awhile, he wasn't half bad. During his reign Rome's empire extended in North Africa and Britain. Claudius extended the citizenship, and improved judicial and provincial administration. Like Augustus he restored republican temples and cults.

Unfortantely, by the end of his reign, he had serious problem with his women. His first wife, Messalina, and her lover, a senator, tried to usurp him. This was grounds for divorce. He then married his niece, Agrippina, for reasons which remain obscure, to say the least. It was illegal for Romans to marry their nieces (incest) but using the powers of office, Claudius changed the law. Agrippina appears not to have been worth all this effort. She persuaded Claudius to adopt her son (Nero) even though he had a son of his own, and having done so, conspiring with the commander of the guard (Burrus), she poisoned him. (See Imber's notes on Claudius).

Nero (emperor from 54-68)

The surviving accounts of Nero are unremitting in their hatred for him. He came to the throne as co-heir with Claudius' son Britannicus just before turning 17, after his mother, Agrippina the Younger, had murdered his father and step-father. Once Claudius died, Agrippina arranged the murder of Britannicus so that Nero would not be hampered by rivals. During the early years of his reign, Nero submitted to the direction of his mother, Seneca, his tutor, and Burrus, chief of the praetorian guard. Seneca and Burrus, however, persuaded Nero to turn on Agrippina and force her into retirement in 57(eventually killing her in 59).

Nero himself was not particularly keen on the work side of being an emperor, and left running the western world to Seneca and Burrus until 62. In fact, until the death of his mother in 59, the biographical sources suggest he wasn't that bad of a kid. Apparently matricide is not good for character development, because Nero decided in 62 to banish then kill his wife, Octavia, so that he could marry Poppaea Sabina, the wife of a Senator (Otho) who was also a friend of his. No one objected and Nero discovered that there was literarly no constraint upon his power in this world. Burrus died in 62 and Seneca retired the next year (later killing himself at Nero's direction).

The rest of his reign was marked by literary and artistic pretension, poor military planning and control and horrible fiscal administration. Eventually Nero drained the Roman treasury. A conspiracy of political and intellectual elites organized by Piso formed against him but was easily found out and crushed in 65. In order to pay for his extravagances, Nero increasingly crushed the provinces with taxes, and they began to revolt. From Nero's point of view, the worst part of the revolt is that they were led by commanders of the Roman armies in the provinces. Galba in Spain and Vindex in France, as well as generals in the east began to march on Rome in 68. When the Praetorian Guard deserted him, Nero committed suicide (see Imber's Notes on Nero). Before you write him off as a total horror, however, remember, that Nero ruled a fairly long time and remained popular with the common folk until the end of his reign.

The succession issue

Folks had grown tired of the Julio-Claudians, and the Senate, certainly wasn't out looking for any that Agrippina might not have killed off. In fact, the Senate wasn't particularly impressive or effective in asserting its authority after Nero's death. It was the army which took the upper hand. Unfortunately, in the absence of the princeps as a figure of central authority, the army consisted of numerous legioins, many of whom wanted their general named Imperator. Thus commenced The Year of Four Emperors.

Galba ruled for seven months. Believing that Nero planned to assassinate him, Galba had joined Vindex (Governor of Gaul)'s revolt. His troops declared him Imperator and he marched on Rome. By the time he got there Nero had killed himself, and the Senate, loathe to take on the legions and unsure of the loyalty of the Praetorian Guard, accepted Galba's claim. Galba got to Rome and proceeded to kill a lot of senators and to alienate the Praetorian Guard, who wanted him to name Otho (Nero's old buddy) as his heir. So the Praetorian Guard killed him (in the Forum) and declared Otho imperator.

Otho thus held Rome with the support of the Praetorian Guard. Unfortunately for him, even before Galba's death, Vitellius' troops (the German legions) had rebelled and hailed their general as imperator. Otho had managed to gain the support of a number of legions but he insisted on an early battle with Vitellius' troops and got creamed. Having ruled Rome for four months, he committed suicide.

Vitellius entered Rome in July. The legions in Judea, however, had already hailed their general, Vespasian, as imperator. Vespasians troops handily defeated those of Vitellius and hoping to save his skin, Vitellius wanted to abdicate. The Praetorian Guard wouldn't let him. By the time Vespasian got to Rome in December, Vitellius' own troops killed him.

Conclusion: popularity with the legions is a lousy principle of succession.