From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion (33 page)

50 Livy, 22.9;
ibid.,
22.10.10;
ibid.,
23.31.9; cf. Ov.,
Fast.,

4.873
–
876.

51 Tac.,
Ann.,
4.43; Suet.,
Claud.,
25.

52 Livy, 23.31.9.

53 Livy, 40.34.4;
ibid.,
30.38.10; Ov.,
Fast.,
4.871. See also Plat- ner-Ashby,
s.v. Venus Erucina, Aedes
(both entries).

54 Strabo, 6.2.6.

1. Varro,
   Ling.,
   6.3.16. See also Masurius
   ap.
   Macrob.,
   Sat.,
   1.4.6.
   

2. See e.g., Dum
   é
   zil 1970:183
   et seq.;
   Schilling 1982:91
   et seq.
   

3. Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   45.
   

4. See Schilling 1982:100.
   

5. See e.g., the story of Myrrha as related by Ovid,
   Met.,
   10.312
   et seq.
   

1. Without ceremony, that is, in comparison to the elaborate ritual of the punishment of the Vestal. Execution by public flogging can otherwise hardly be called unceremonious.
   

2. Cf. Fraschetti 1981, for an alternative interpretation of the ritual.
   

3. See Nock 1972: vol. 1, p. 254 with notes.
   

4. See Cornell 1981.
   

5. See MacBain 1982: esp. ch. 4. There appears to have been a for- mal procedure involved in the recognition and expiation of prodigies in which the senate played the central role. It was this body that decided which of the phenomena reported to them were to be recognized as prodigies. Having made the decision they then referred the matter to one of the priestly colleges. See Bloch 1963:120
   –
   122. There is no evidence that the senate was involved in the trial and punishment of an unchaste Vestal.
   

6. MacBain 1982:43. McBain assumes that all
   haruspices
   at Rome were Etruscans. North, however, observes that this need not have been the case, although
   haruspices
   appear generally to have been regarded as outsiders, whether this status was real or
   

   fictional. North 1989:609. For my purpose this distinction does not much matter.
   

7. See e.g., Obsequens, 22; 32; 34; 36; 48. See also MacBain 1982: Appendix E.MacBain points out that apart from one instance (Obsequens, 27) of an androgyne cast into the river, they were all cast into the sea.
   

8. Hominem mortum in urbe ne sepelito neve urito
   —‘
   No corpse must be buried or burned within the City.
   ’
   Cic.,
   Leg.,
   2.23.58. See also, Serv.,
   Aen.,
   11.143. There were individual exceptions. Plutarch writes that one of the honours granted to P.Valerius Publicola was that by the citizens
   ’
   vote he was buried within the city walls in recognition of his services to the Roman people. This privilege was also granted to his descendants, but they availed themselves of it only symbolically. The body was carried into the city, a lighted torch placed for an instant underneath it, and then removed. Plut.,
   Publiocola,
   23. Generals who had cele- brated a triumph also had a symbolic rite of burial within the city. After the body was cremated a single bone was taken into the city and buried there. See Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   79. See, gen- erally, Robinson 1975.
   

9. Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   96. It is a pity that Plutarch is not more spe- cific about which priests in particular made these offerings. It is tempting to assume that they were in fact members of the pontif- ical college who bore the responsibility of convicting the women. But we do not, unfortunately, have enough evidence to make such an argument possible.
   

10 Cornell 1981:27
–
28.

1. For a discussion of the problem of human sacrifice in Rome, see MacBain 1982:60
   –
   64 with references. The evidence suggests that human sacrifice could have taken place more often than the recorded instances might lead us to assume. The practice was outlawed as late as 97 BC. See also Fraschetti 1981.
   

2. Livy, 22.57.2; see also Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   83.
   

3. Modern scholarship has tended to lose sight of the fundamental importance of the notion of virginity to the institution of the Vestal Virgins. Largely responsible for this trend has been Mary Beard
   ’
   s suggestion that the Vestals were best seen as represent- ing simultaneously the characteristics of virgins, matrons and men, Beard 1980. For a direct challenge to this theory and a deconstruction of its supporting arguments see Staples 1993:131
   et seq.
   Beard appears now to have retreated from her
   

   former position in an
   ‘
   affectionate critique
   ’
   of herself. See Beard 1995.
   

4. In some societies to this day
   —
   orthodox Hindus in modern India are a good example
   —
   a bride may be repudiated by her new hus- band if he suspects on their wedding night that she did not come to him as a virgin. The Romans never put a similar value on vir- ginity. Though adulterous wives could by law be killed by either father or husband, and were on occasion, we have no examples of an unmarried girl punished for losing her virginity.
   

5. For an analysis of the distinction between physiological and semantically loaded virginity see Hastrup 1978.
   

16 Dio Cass, 47.19.4.

17 See e.g., Dion. Hal.,
Ant. Rom.,
8.89.3
et seq.; ibid.,
9.40. 18 Pliny,
Ep.,
4.11.

19 See p. 134.

1. Livy, 22.57; Plut.,
   Fabius,
   18.4. North relates the trial of the Vestals to the threat of invasion by the Cimbri and the Teutones. See North 1968. See also Cornell 1981.
   

2. Livy,
   Epit.
   63; Dio Cass., 26.88.
   

3. For an evocative description of the emotions engulfing Rome in 216 and the desperate attempts by the authorities to quell the panic that was caused by news of the defeat of the army, see Livy 22.54
   –
   56. The loss of men was so great according to this account that the
   sacrum anniversarium Cereris
   had to be omit- ted that year because all the women were in mourning and mourners were not allowed to participate in the rites. The senate was forced to limit the usual ten-month period of mourning to thirty days. Livy, 34.6.15. Plutarch, in a slightly variant account, says that it was considered more prudent to omit the festival because the small number and dejected mien of the par- ticipants would serve to emphasize the calamity that Rome had suffered. Plut.,
   Fabius,
   18.2. In other words the omission of the festival was not forced on the state as Livy suggests, but was a deliberate decision taken to prevent aggravating the hysteria of the moment.
   

For a discussion of the religious turmoil in the last 15 years of the second century BC in the context of which the trials of 114 took place, see Rawson 1974.

23 See p. 105.

1. See Rawson 1974:207. She interprets this as a plebeian chal- lenge to the religious authority of the patricians.
   

2. Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   3.67.2. 26 Scheid 1981:146.
   

1. Pliny,
   Ep.
   4.11.
   

2. Plut.,
   Crass.,
   1.2. 29 Livy, 4.44.11.
   

1. Further examples are Dion. Hal.,
   Ant. Rom.,
   8.89;
   ibid.,
   9.40.
   

2. The most comprehensive ancient account of the rules governing the Vestals is Gellius,
   N.A.,
   1.12.
   

3. See p. 74.
   

4. Default rules are legislatively or judicially imposed rules that govern contracts unless the parties contract around the rules. Similarly a Roman citizen male could have children with any category of woman he pleased. But if he wanted children that were legally his, he had to possess the right of
   conubium
   with their mother and had to be in a relationship of
   iustum matrimo- nium
   with her. Otherwise the children would belong to her.
   

5. Gell.,
   N.A.,
   1.12.9, my emphasis.
   

6. ‘
   Three elements may be seen in a [person
   ’
   s] status in Roman law
   

   —
   liberty, citizenship, and family rights
   —
   and changes of status may be analysed accordingly. The Romans speak in this connec- tion of
   capitis deminutio,
   or deterioration of status.
   Capitis deminutio maxima
   is the loss of all three elements, i.e. enslave- ment;
   capitis deminutio media
   is the loss of citizenship and fam- ily rights, usually as a punishment; and
   capitis deminutio min- ima,
   the most common, is the loss merely of family rights by either adoption, adrogation, marriage with
   manus,
   or emancipa- tion.
   ’
   Nicholas 1962:96.
   

7. Nicholas 1962:80.
   

8. See note 13, p. 182.
   

9. It is important to note that the new Vestal
   ’
   s status would also not correspond to her grandfather
   ’
   s status if he was still alive. Although neither would be subject to
   patria potestas,
   a
   paterfa- milias
   exercised
   potestas,
   while a Vestal did not. This is a critical difference.
   

10. Some scholars have suggested that the Vestals were in the
    potes- tas
    of the
    pontifex maximus
    . See Lacey 1986:126. The
    pontifex
    had disciplinary powers over the Vestals if they transgressed in their ritual duties, such as, for example, allowing the sacred fire in the temple to go out. He had absolutely no control over their property, which was a cornerstone of the institution of
    patria potestas
    . Cf. Gardner 1986a:23. The controversy as to whether
    

    the
    pontifex
    stood in the position of father or husband to the Vestals is thus gratuitous.
    

11. Religious functionaries in Rome were as a rule not confined to their ritual duties. Men were by and large free to pursue other interests. Sometimes a rule governing a priesthood would clash with a rule governing some other area of activity and this could keep a man from pursuing some particular ambition. So, for example, the
    flamen Dialis
    appeared to be excluded from politi- cal office because the rule forbidding the
    flamen
    to swear an oath prevented him from taking the oath of office. Plut.,
    Quaest. Rom.,
    96; Dion. Hal.,
    Ant. Rom.,
    2.67.4
    –
    5. But these rules were circumvented, often ingeniously, when occasion demanded. In 209 BC, for example, the Senate allowed the
    flamen Dialis,
    G.Valerius Flaccus to take up the office of curule aedile by tak- ing the oath of office by proxy. Livy, 31.50. In the case of a Vestal it was never possible to bend the rules.
    

12. Plut.,
    Num.,
    10. A Vestal could in theory own considerable wealth. She was paid a sum of money when entering the priest- hood by the state, and was thereafter supported by a stipend from the treasury. And although she had, of course, no intestate claim on anybody she was allowed to receive gifts and bequests. See Livy 1.20; Tac.,
    Ann.,
    4.16.
    

42 Pliny,
Ep.,
7.19.

1. Scullard 1981:75, with note 79.
   

2. Cic.,
   Cael.,
   14.34; Val. Max., 5.4.6; Suet.,
   Tib.,
   2.4. See also Cic.,
   Mur.,
   73.
   

3. See for example CIL 6.32414
   –
   32419. These all appear to be ded- ications to the same woman, Flavia Publicia, the
   Virgo Vestalis Maxima
   . Of these inscriptions, 32414 and 32415 record filia- tion, the others do not.
   

4. See Gardner 1986a:5 and 24. 47 Dio Cass., 56.10.2.
   

48 For a discussion of the function of dress in maintaining ritual categories see pp. 68
et seq.

49 Plut.,
Num.,
10.3; Dio Cass., 47.19.4.

1. Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   81.
   

2. Festus, p. 82 L. See also Plut.,
   Quaest. Rom.,
   113.
   

3. In AD 14 a sycophantic senate proposed that Livia, who on Augustus
   ’
   death became the
   flaminica Divi Augusti,
   should be granted the privilege of a
   lictor
   . Tiberius refused to allow this except when Livia was functioning as
   flaminica
   . Tac.,
   Ann.,
   

   1.14.3; Dio Cass. 56.46.2. According to Tacitus, Tiberius saw Livia as a threat to his own authority. To have allowed her the privilege of a
   lictor
   at all times would have marked her out as powerful, dangerously powerful as far as Tiberius was con- cerned. Granting a
   lictor
   to the
   flaminica Divi Augusti,
   how- ever, was an indication of the importance given to the cult of Augustus. The
   flaminica,
   in this case Livia, derived her power from that of the cult. There was no political dimension to that power and hence no threat to Tiberius.
   

4. Festus, p. 454 L.
   

54 Pliny,
H.N.,
8.7.194.

55 Festus, p. 55 L.

56 Festus p. 82 L; Pliny,
H.N.,
21.22.46.

57 Festus, p. 79 L. 58 Beard 1980:16.

1. For a discussion of the evidence for the nature of the
   stola
   see Wilson 1938:155
   et seq.
   See also Hor.,
   Sat.,
   1.2.94
   –
   95; Ov.,
   Ars Am.,
   1.31
   –
   32.
   

2. Wilson 1938:159. See also Scholz 1992: esp. 88
   et seq.
   

61 Livy, 1.20.3.

62 Dion. Hal.,
Ant. Rom.,
2.67.2
–
3; Plut.,
Num.,
10.2.

63 Beard 1980.

64 Pliny,
H.N.,
28.3.13.

65 Dion. Hal.,
Ant. Rom.,
2.68
–
69.

66 Plut.,
Num.,
9.5. See also Dion. Hal.,
Ant. Rom.,
2.64.5. Cicero, in enumerating the religious laws of his ideal state, sees the tend- ing of the public hearth fire as the Vestals
’
sole duty. Cic.,
Leg.,
2.8.20.