From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion (29 page)

Flamen Dialis.
Scheid 1986.

10 Livy, 1.7.3; Dion. Hal.,
Ant. Rom.,
1.40.3.

11 Livy, 1.7.3.

1. Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   18;
   ibid., Sull.,
   35.1;
   ibid., Crass.,
   12.2.
   

2. Ov.,
   Fast.,
   3.167
   et seq.
   

3. Livy, 1.20.4; Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   2.70
   –
   71; see also Ov.,
   Fast.,
   3.259
   et seq.
   For an account of the rituals performed in Rome on this day, see Scullard 1981:85
   –
   87.
   

15 See e.g., Livy, 27.37;
ibid.,
31.12.9.

1. Most of the translations have been taken from the Loeb Classi- cal Library where available, with occasional minor alterations. Works not available in the Loeb Classical Library are my own translations unless specifically attributed.
   

2. The fate of the Bacchanalian conspirators in 186 BC is an exam- ple, if an extreme one, of the ruthlessness with which undesir- able religious activity could be suppressed by the authorities.
   

1 Cic.,
Att.,
1.12; Plut.,
Caes.,
9
–
10.

2 The source material on the Bona Dea has been conveniently assembled. See Brouwer 1989.

3 Cic.,
Att.,
1.13.

4 See for example, CIL 6.(1).60;
ibid.,
64. For a comprehensive survey of the epigraphic sources see Brouwer 1989:15
et seq.

5 Plut.,
Quaest. Rom.,
60; Gell.,
N.A.,
11.6.1.

6 It was customary for devotees of Hercules to sacrifice a tithe of their fortune at the
Ara Maxima
(Plut.,
Quaest. Rom.,
18). The sacrifice took the form of a public feast. Plutarch says that Cras- sus, when consul in 70 BC, feasted the people at 10,000 tables at

a sacrifice in honour of Hercules.
Ibid., Crass.,
12. See also
ibid., Sull.,
35.1.

7 Gell.,
N.A.,
11.6.1.

1. I discuss these mechanisms below. See pp. 40
   et seq.
   

2. According to this story Carmenta, the prophetic goddess and mother of Evander, came late to the celebration of the new rite, to the annoyance of Hercules who therefore excluded all women from his altar forever. Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   60.
   

3. Festus, p. 3 L. See also Quint.,
   Inst.,
   2.16.6.
   

4. Festus, p. 3 L.
   

5. Plut.
   Quaest. Rom.,
   1; marriage with fire and water appears to have represented the quintessentially Roman form of marriage,
   iustum matrimonium,
   where the man and woman possessed
   conubium,
   the legal capacity to marry. (See p. 72
   et seq.
   for a discussion of
   conubium.
   ) In order to reassure the abducted Sabine women that their marriages would be
   ‘
   lawful
   ’
   Romulus promised them marriage
   ‘
   with fire and water
   ’
   (Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   2.30.6). The concept of
   iustum matrimonium
   is difficult to translate into modern institutions of marriage. Marriages where
   conubium
   did not exist were not in any sense unlawful. They merely entailed different legal consequences as we shall see below. The ceremony involving fire and water was almost cer- tainly a part of marriage by
   confarreatio
   . It is highly likely that it was a part of the ceremonies of other forms of marriage as well. See Corbett: 1930:73
   et seq.
   

13 See for example, Ov.,
Fast.,
4.786
–
792; Pliny,
H.N.
2.103.222; Festus, p. 77 L. The symbolism of fire and water seems to have operated in much the same way in Greek ideology as well. In Aristotle
’
s
Problemata,
4.28.880a, 12
et seq.,
for example, he asks,

why is it that in summer men are less capable of sexual intercourse and women more so? The answer is, that the heat of summer balances the wet and cold nature of females, and strengthens their sexual drive, while men who are naturally hot and dry are weakened by excess of heat in the summer.

For a study which argues that the hot and dry, in Greek religion, is perceived in terms of enhanced male sexual potency, while the cold and the wet is seen in terms of impotence, see Detienne 1977.

14 Macr.,
Sat.,
7.6.15
–
18.

1. Verg.,
   Aen.,
   8.184
   et seq.;
   Ov.,
   Fast.,
   1.543
   et seq.
   

2. The order of the labours of Hercules never varies in the sources. They are: 1. the Nemean Lion; 2. the Lernean Hydra; 3. the Cerynitian Hind; 4. the Erymanthian Boar; 5. the Augean sta- bles; 6. the Stymphalean birds; 7. the Cretan Bull; 8. the Mares of Diomedes; 9. the girdle of Hippolyte; 10. the cattle of Geryon;
   

   11. the apples of the Hesperides; and 12. Cerberus. See e.g., Apollod.,
   Bibl.,
   2.5.
   

3. This was not the universal view of Cacus. Dionysius of Halicar- nassus describes him as a robber,
   Ant. Rom.,
   1.39; Livy simply calls him a shepherd, Livy, 1.7.5. However, the narrative details of both these versions are consistent with the version of Ovid and Virgil. In Ovid and Virgil the poetic transformation of Cacus into a figure of fantasy has the effect of defining the char- acter not of Cacus so much as of Hercules. When the
   Ara Max- ima
   was founded Hercules was not yet a god. The poets
   ’
   version of the tale brings the figure of Hercules closer to the divinity that was worshipped at the altar. See also Small 1982.
   

4. In some versions of the story the cult is founded by Evander in honour of Hercules. See Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   1.40.6; Tac.,
   Ann.,
   15.41; Strab., 5.3.3. See also Platner and Ashby: 1929 (hereinafter Platner-Ashby),
   s.v. Herculis Invicti Ara Maxima.
   

5. Cacus, Aventinae timor atque infamia silvae/non leve finitimis hospitibusque malum
   —‘
   Cacus, the terror and shame of the Aventine wood, to neighbours and to strangers no small curse.
   ’
   Ov.,
   Fast.,
   1.551
   –
   552.
   

20 See e.g., Prop., 4.11.15; Macrob.,
Sat.,
1.21.4.

21 Verg.,
Aen.,
8.193
–
195 (my emphasis). 22 Verg.,
Aen.,
8.241
–
246.

23 Ov.,
Fast.,
1.564.

24
Ibid.,
565
et seq.

25 Verg.,
Aen.,
8.225
–
227.

1. See Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   1.39.2; Livy, 1.7.5.
   

2. The comparison between the dragging of the cattle backwards and the rock suspended in iron is a legitimate one. It is a compar- ison that is valid both internally
   —
   within Virgil
   ’
   s story alone
   —
   and externally
   —
   when we compare Virgil
   ’
   s story with Ovid
   ’
   s. Note that the only two occasions in Virgil
   ’
   s account when Her- cules is baffled is when there is no evidence of the theft of the cat- tle and when he is confronted by the barrier to the cave. As for
   

the comparison between Virgil and Ovid, in Ovid, Hercules suc- ceeds in destroying the barrier which is immensely strong but contains no factor in its make up indicative of cunning. Thus Hercules
’
victory is not merely one of strength over strength, but of strength over cunning.

28 Verg.,
Aen.,
8.228;
ibid.,
230.

29
Ibid.,
8.219
–
220.

30

prima movet Cacus collata proelia dextra

remque ferox saxis stipitibusque gerit.

quis ubi nil agitur, patrias male fortis ad artes confugit et flammas ore sonante vomit;

At first Cacus fought hand to hand, and waged battle fierce with rocks and logs. But when these nought availed him, worsted, he had recourse to his sire
’
s tricks, and belched flames from his roaring mouth;

Ov.,
Fast.,
1.569
–
572

Note that in this passage, too, the belching of flames is por- trayed as a trick, an art, something that Cacus can control and manipulate at will, and therefore, equivalent to devious cunning.

31
Ibid.,
1.577.

32 Verg.,
Aen.,
8.194.

33
Ibid.,
199.

34
Ibid.,
252.

35
Ibid.,
253.

36 Verg.,
Aen.,
8.251
–
255.

37 Verg.,
Aen.,
8.249
–
250.

38 Cf. p. 18.

39 Livy, 1.7.3.

40 See note 9, p. 164, for an alternative to the version to be dis- cussed in this section.

41 Prop., 4.9; Macr.,
Sat.,
1.12.27
–
28.

42 Prop., 4.9.1
–
14. For a discussion of the various sources see Win- ter 1910.

43
Ibid.,
22.

44
Ibid.,
25
–
26.

45
Ibid.,
62
–
63.

46
Ibid.,
21.

47 See e.g., Cic.,
de Or.,
3.39; Verg.,
Aen.,
8.674.

48 See also pp. 15
et seq.

49 Prop. 4.9.32.

50
Ibid.,
37
–
50.

1. Apollod.,
   Bibl.,
   2.6.3. Propertius is indulging in a bit of poetic licence here. All these episodes that Hercules refers to actually take place later in his career. Stealing the cattle of Geryon, after which he arrived in Italy, was supposed to have been the tenth of his great labours
   —
   see note 16, p. 165. He carried the globe on his shoulders while Atlas went off to steal the apples of the Hes- perides for him in the eleventh of the labours. And the journey to the underworld was for the purpose of kidnapping Cerberus in the twelfth and final one
   —
   Apollod.,
   Bibl.,
   2.5. His adventure with Omphale took place later still. He was sold into her service by Hermes so that he could be purified a second time from the crime of murder
   —
   this time of Iphitus, son of Eurytus:
   ibid.,
   2.6.3.
   

2. See also Ov.,
   Fast.,
   2.303
   et seq.,
   where in quite a different narra- tive context Hercules and Omphale exchange clothing.
   

3. This was just one explanation for the blinding of Tiresias. Apol- lodorus gives an alternative tradition that Tiresias was blinded for revealing the secrets of the gods to men,
   Bibl.,
   3.6.7. Hyginus connects Tiresias
   ’
   blindness with the story of his sexual inver- sion, when, having been both man and woman, and being asked to arbitrate in a quarrel between Jupiter and Juno as to which sex derived more pleasure from sexual intercourse, Tiresias took Jupiter
   ’
   s side and said that women derived far more pleasure from sex. Thereupon Juno struck him blind,
   Fab.,
   75.
   

4. Macrob.,
   Sat.,
   1.12.24. For a different version of the myth see Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   20; Arn.,
   Adv. Nat.,
   5.18; Sex. Clodius
   ap.
   Lactant.,
   Div. Inst.,
   1.22.9
   –
   11.
   

5. See pp. 71
   et seq.
   

6. Aug.,
   de Civ. D.,
   6.9; see also Zeitlin 1986. 57 Festus, pp. 364
   –
   365 L.
   

1. This is one explanation suggested by Plutarch for the custom. See
   Quaest. Rom.,
   29. Another tradition of the marriage cere- mony, the parting of the bride
   ’
   s hair with the point of a bent- headed spear, is also related by Plutarch to the concept of violence, which in this case he connects directly to the violent abduction of the Sabine women, the first Roman wives. See
   Quaest. Rom.,
   87.
   

2. Plut.,
   Caes.,
   10. 60 Cic.,
   Mil.,
   27.72.
   

61 Plut.,
Caes.,
10.

62 Ov.,
Ars Am.,
3.243
–
244;
ibid.,
633
–
638.

63 Juv., 6.320.

1. Macrob.,
   Sat.,
   1.12.27
   –
   28. The main difference in the two ver- sions of the myth is that Macrobius omits the violation by Her- cules of the Bona Dea
   ’
   s cultic regulation
   —
   a violation made much of by Propertius. Otherwise the myth is essentially the same.
   

2. Mart.,
   Epigrams,
   11.1; Cic.,
   Att.,
   6.5.
   

3. Tib., 1.6.15; Gell.,
   N.A.,
   12.1.4 (of a young wife who has just given birth); Ov.,
   Fast.,
   2.557 (of a woman contemplating a sec- ond marriage).
   

4. Catull., 2;
   ibid.,
   35. 68 Juv., 6.127.
   

69 Prop. 4.9.61.

1. See pp. 18 and 24.
   

2. See note 9, p. 164.
   

3. See Platner-Ashby,
   s.v. Herculis Invicti Ara Maxima.
   

4. See e.g., Plut.,
   Rom.,
   21
   et seq.; ibid., Num.,
   8
   et seq.;
   Livy, 1.19
   –
   20.
   

74 Livy, 1.7.3.

75 Dion. Hal.,
Ant. Rom.,
1.31.2. 76 Verg.,
Aen.,
7.81
–
106.

77 Ov.,
Fast.,
4.641
et seq.

78 Cic.,
Nat. D.,
2.2.6.

1. Macrob.,
   Sat.,
   1.12.24. Cf. Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   20 where Bona Dea is Faunus
   ’
   wife whom he beats with myrtle for drinking wine.
   

2. Picus was sometimes called the father of Faunus. See Verg.,
   

   Aen.,
   7.48; Aug.,
   de Civ. D.,
   18.15.
   

3. Ov.,
   Fast.,
   3.285
   et seq.
   

4. Cic.,
   Nat. D.,
   3.6.15. For further evidence of the prophetic pow- ers of Faunus see Varro,
   Ling.,
   7.3.36; Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   20.
   

5. See Scullard 1981:72 and 201. Ovid makes Faunus the presiding god of the Lupercalia,
   Fast.,
   2.267
   –
   268. See also Livy, 1.5.2. with Serv.,
   Aen.,
   6.775.
   

6. In terms of space as well as of time Faunus belongs
   ‘
   outside
   ’
   Rome. This aspect of the god is not relevant to my analysis, but see Dum
   é
   zil 1970:344
   –
   350.
   

7. See also Verg.,
   Aen.,
   8.314
   –
   318.
   

8. For the horror that this particular form of incest evoked see Ov.,
   

   Met.,
   10.298
   et seq.
   Another aspect of the inability of Faunus to distinguish sexual boundaries was his willingness to have indis- criminate intercourse with animals. For this reason he was called
   ‘
   Inuus
   ’
   ab ineundo passim cum omnibus animalibus.
   Serv.,
   Aen.,
   6.775.
   

9. Tac.,
   Ann.,
   15.41. See Platner-Ashby,
   s.v. Herculis Invicti Ara Maxima.
   

10. See p. 13.
    

11. See pp. 5
    et seq.
    However this is not a new development in schol- arship. For an example of a similar attitude
    —
    albeit couched in different terms
    —
    of a scholar of an earlier generation see Warde Fowler 1911:29.