Hi

I’m really sorry about the lack of posts lately, I’ve just completely lost my enthusiasm for tumblr.

Hopefully it’ll come back soon.

"

Try not to guess what lies in the future, but
As Fortune deals days enter them into your
Life’s book as windfalls, credit items,
Gratefully. Now that you’re young, and peevish

Grey hairs are still far distant, attend to the
Dance-floor, the heart’s sweet business…

"

The Classical Calendar: April 22

238 CE

The Senate outlaws Maximinus Thrax…

… on account of his pretty bloody methods when it came to proscription.

The senate opted to support Pupienus and Balbinus in opposition to Thrax.

Together these three made up half of the supergroup known as the Year of Six Emperors. Gordian and Gordian II were also part of this select few, with Gordian III seeing out the year.

Deified Roman Women

ancientpeoples:

greywindsor said: What do you know about deified Roman empresses? I know the emperors were (for the most part) ‘automatically’ deified upon their deaths, but what about their wives?

You are right that wives and mothers of emperors were often deified for having that position in the Imperial family. This is a brief history of how the phenomena developed, I hope its what you’re looking for:

Cornelia the mother of the Gracchi. She, writing in the 2nd century BC, suggests that a mother, like the father, had a divine spirit that should receive family worship after death. This divine spirit/essence was called the Iuno which appears to be the equivalent of a mans Genius. The first mention of a Iuno appears in Augustan era texts and inscriptions however the idea probably developed between the end of the 2nd Punic War and the Augustan era in response to women’s increased wealth whose dependants wished to honour as the materfamilias.

Livia’s iuno is the first to gain significance at the time of the worship of her husband’s genius however few dedications survive. One can be found in Falerii where, between 4-14 AD, a freedman set up a dedication to the genio of Augustus and Tiberius and the iunoni of Livia. In 3 AD, a thanks giving offering in Africa was made to Livia’s iuno. Dedications at this point seem to be a logical extension of sentimental devotion to Augustus to include his family. 

Livia’s birthday was celebrated by the frates arvales two years before her death. This inclusion of her birthday in official cult ritual could point to the inclusion of her iuno into state cult.

By the last years of Nero’s reign the iuno of female members of the imperial family were receiving sacrifice in state cult in conjunction with the emperor. This was a step towards deification while these women were still alive. 

Events at the end of Livia’s life show that her deification had been considered by Tiberius and Livia but was refused by both. After Livia’s death Tiberius instructs the Senate that he does not want Livia to be deified. Both Suetonius and Tacitus say that Tiberius wrote the Senate that Livia herself had not wished divine honors. The discussion that now ensues in his Senate is a highly significant one that has not been scrutinized as an important phase in the development of the theoretical model for the deification of a woman. The Senate, although instructed not to deify Livia, now begins to discuss Livia’s virtues as if, in fact, it were debating the issue of whether or not Livia should become a diva. The discussion follows on the vote of an arch for Livia, a singular honour for a woman, never repeated, and not completed for Livia since Tiberius acceded to the request, promised to pay for the arch himself - thus removing the honour from the public sphere - but never did so. The arch may have been a substitute form of deification, since no arches existed for mortal women, but there were arches that contained statues of goddesses and were votive offering to female deities.

Tiberius’ refusal of divine honours for his mother was not necessarily the act of a jealous and vindictive son but a policy statement that Tiberius’ view of the state did not include a deified family. It is not hard to believe that the conservative Tiberius would have felt uncomfortable with the state worship of the Imperial domus, since it would have established a significant precedent for the future. Moreover, Tiberius himself had refused, albeit reluctantly, divine honours, which only added to the awkwardness of his mother’s receiving them.

Until the time of Caligula’s rule the official attitude about the deification of a woman had been virtually non-existent, for the evidence does not add up to any state policy. The final words of the Senate discussing Livia’s case prove that discussion was considered necessary as surely it was not in the case of Augustus. The Senate could find a rationale to deify Livia, and it did want one. Caligula, ignoring past history and influenced by the practices of the Hellenistic East, established a cult for his sister, which showed no attempt to integrate the cult into Roman traditions or to even provide a rationale. Drusilla was not the wife of the emperor or the mother of a potential emperor. She received a separate shrine of her own plus a priesthood of both men and women. Her divine honours, derided by Seneca, lasted as long as her brother held the throne. Caligula demanded allegiance to his whole house and prayers on behalf of all. His concept of his own family was as a domus divina.

With Caligula’s model before him Claudius proceeded far more cautiously when he, as one of his first acts of pietas, had Livia deified. His act was far more significant than the political and family act that it is usually interpreted to be. While it is true that he sought to emphasize his father and his brother and his Claudian kin, the deification of Livia, his grandmother, could have brought him only limited political benefit except to the extent that her deification established Claudius’ ties with Augustus. Claudius showed that he was aware of precedent and the new cult was presented to the world in a way that did not violate traditional Roman practices. Livia’s cult was joined to that of her husband in the same temple; cult practices were entrusted to the Vestal Virgins with whom Livia and successive Imperial women were closely identified. The coinage that Claudius struck was for DIVUS AUGUSTUS-DIVA AUGUSTA as the divine parents of the Roman people.

Claudius’ act is the second important theoretic moment in the history of the deification of women. His act shows that the idea of a ruling family of divine origin and divine character was a fully established idea; thus the inclusion of a woman could hardly have been felt as an innovation as clearly it would have been just twelve years earlier when the Senate debated Livia’s merits. It was not the deification of Drusilla that broke down reserve - although that might seem to be the case - but rather that the concept of a ruling family of divine nature had become an essential aspect of Imperial self-representation. The deification of Poppaea and her daughter Claudia only slightly later, as well as sacrifices to the iuno of Nero’s third wife, now appear completely understandable, even if Tacitus regards Nero’s actions as immoderate. Nero struck coins to an Augustus-Augusta, although these are controversial, probably a reference to Augustus and Livia with a possible further reference to Nero and his wife Poppaea. The coins, however, continue the idea of the Imperial family as a sacral institution introduced by Claudius. The idea of the domus divina is now firmly entrenched, and the deification of Roman women from now on becomes a regular Imperial custom. As the wives and mothers of emperors, they deserved a place in the divine hierarchy. There is no evidence that there was any discussion of Livia’s merita in Claudius’ announcement to the Senate that he wished her deified; rather, her merita was that she had produced the heirs to the throne and had been married to Augustus. On that basis rested the claims as well of all future female relatives of emperors to divine status.

Source: http://www.albany.edu/faculty/lr618/ahb-9-3e.html

 

The Classical Calendar: April 21

Happy Birthday Rome!

Well, yeah according to Roman tradition, on this day in 753 BCE, Romulus founded the city of Rome, spawning a successful monarchy, an even more successful Republic, a monstrous Empire which consumed everything in front of it, and then finally a fragile and crumbling empire, which moved its capital over a thousand kilometers to the east.

So we know the traditional stories behind the foundation of Rome (Very briefly… Romulus + Remus: children of a god and a priestess, abandoned at birth, grow up, have a fight, one kills the other, founds Rome, lives happily ever after; and Aeneas: guy gets his ass handed to him during the Trojan War, runs from the ruins of Troy, has many adventures in a pro-Augustus propaganda-filled epic, his children end up tying up the blood connections with Romulus and Remus).

Realistically though, evidence of human settlement which predates the 753 BCE foundation date has been found. Not only does this predate the traditional date, it blows it out of the water, suggesting that there has been human settlement at this location for some 14,000 years, with pastoral settlements and permanent dwellings being created much earlier than Romulus’ foundations.

Either way, the evidence is still open to interpretation - it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the villages on the hills which now encompass Rome banded together in the eight century BCE to form one city.

But the mythology is much more fun.