Religion as Antiquarianism

A C T A I N S T I T U T I R O M A N I F I N L A N D I A E Vo l . 3 5

dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano

Diffusione, funzioni, tipologie

religious dedications in the greco-roman World

Distribution, Typology, Use

Institutum Romanum Finlandiae,American Academy in Rome

19-20 aprile, 2006

a cura di John Bodel e Mika kaJava

ESTRATTO

ROMA 2009

John Bodel, Mika kaJava, Premessa / Preface 7

Abbreviazioni / Abbreviations 11

Concetti e definizioni / Concepts and definitions

John Bodel, ‘Sacred dedications’: A problem of definitions 17

Jörg rüpke, Dedications accompanied by inscriptions in the Roman Empire: Functions,intentions, modes of communication 31

paolo poccetti, Paradigmi formulari votivi nelle tradizioni epicoriche dell’Italia antica 43

Regolamentazione / Governance

paola loMBardi, Ἀναθέτω ἐν τὸ ἱερόν. Esempi di regolamentazione della dedica votivanel mondo greco 95

carlos galvao-soBrinho, Claiming places: sacred dedications and public space in Romein the Principate 127

Luoghi e contesti / Places and Contexts

lucia d’aMore, Dediche sacre e ginnasi: la documentazione epigrafica di età ellenistica 161

giulio vallarino, I dedicanti di Cos in età ellenistica: il caso dei magistrati eponimi trapolis e demi 181

Mika kaJava, Osservazioni sulle dediche sacre nei contesti oracolari 209

Pratiche / Practices

gaBriella Bevilacqua, Dediche ad Hermes 227

Marco Buonocore, La res sacra nell’Italia centro-appenninica fra tarda repubblica edimpero 245

Sommario

gian luca gregori, Il culto delle divinità Auguste in Italia: un’indagine preliminare 307

carlos Machado, Religion as antiquarianism: pagan dedications in late antique Rome 331

Dediche mute / Silent dedications

olivier de cazanove, Oggetti muti? Le iscrizioni degli ex voto anatomici nel mondoromano 355

laura chioffi, Anonime adprecationes 373

Indici / Indices 393

6 SOMMARIO

In the last quarter of the fifth century, the urban prefect Anicius Acilius Aginatius Faustus restored

the porticus adjacent to the senate house in the Forum, the atrium Minervae. The prefect celebrated

his initiative with the dedication of a restored statue of Minerva, in that same place. The dedicatory

inscription is an important document, and worth quoting in full:

The statue of Minerva (simulacrum Minerbae [sic]), broken by the collapse of the roof which was destroyed by fire during a civil conflict, was restored to better condition and in its entirety by Anicius Acilius Aginatius Faustus, of the senatorial order, judge of appeal and illustrious (illustris) urban prefect, for the happiness of our times.1

Scholars have paid great attention to this text, evidence of the concern of Roman aristocrats

with the preservation of late antique Rome’s urban fabric.2 It must be noted, however, that such a

dedication had much wider resonances than the mere celebration of building works. The Roman

senate was, by the late fifth century, a Christian institution. Roman aristocrats were not only de-

vout followers of the teachings of the Church, but also actively engaged in its political and daily

life. It is interesting, in this sense, that the rebuilding of such an important space of the Curia was

celebrated through the restoration of the statue of the pagan goddess Minerva. How are we to un-

derstand this contradiction? Could this monument have been seen as a reminder of the city’s past?

Was it intended to serve as a tribute to the history and origins of this space? More importantly,

what was the meaning of this specific dedication?

The phrasing of the dedicatory inscription is important in this context: it refers to the ‘simu-

lacrum’ of Minerva, terminology that was traditionally used for statues of a religious nature.3 A gilt

1 CIL VI 526 = 1664: Simulacrum Minerbae (sic) abolendo incendio tumultus civilis igni tecto cadente confractum Anicius Acilius Aginatius Faustus v.c. et inl. praef. urbi vic. sac. iud. in melius integro proviso pro beatitudine temporis restituit. For the identification and location of the atrium Minervae, and discussion of this inscription, see A. fraschetti, La Conversione. Dalla Roma pagana alla Roma cristiana, Bari 1999, esp. 157-70.2 As for example G. alföldy, ‘Difficillima tempora: Urban life, inscriptions, and mentality in late antique Rome’, in T. Burns & J. eadie (edd.), Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, East Lansing 2001, 3-24, and F.A. Bauer, ‘Beatitudo temporum: Die Gegenwart der Vergangenheit im Stadtbild des Spätantiken Rom’, in F.A. Bauer – N. ziMMerMann (edd.), Epochenwandel? Kunst und Kultur zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, Mainz 2001, 75-94.3 On issues of vocabulary, see P. stewart, Statues in Roman Society, Oxford 2003, 21f. More specifically, it seems to have been used for free-standing statues of deities: see the considerations of S. estienne, ‘Statues de dieux ‘isolées’ et lieux de culte: l’exemple de Rome’, CCG 7 (1997) 81-96, esp. 83f.

Religion as antiquarianism: pagan dedications in late antique Rome

carlos Machado

332 CARLOS MACHADO

statue was dedicated to this goddess in the senate house during the reign of Nero, and was later

moved to what was then known as the Chalcidicum (the atrium Minervae of late imperial sources).

It is impossible to be sure whether the statue dedicated by Faustus was the same splendid early im-

perial monument from the time of Nero, but this is suggested by the inscription, which celebrates a

restoration rather than a new work.4 In other words, the ‘happiness of the times’ was directly con-

nected to the principles and values of a previous age, an association that became crucial in a period

of dramatic changes.

Recent years have witnessed an increasing interest in the ways in which the past, particu-

larly its religious dimension, was valued and perceived in the later Roman Empire. This has gener-

ally been related to different factors, such as the philosophical influence of the second sophistic,

the artistic revival of classical forms, and the conservative character of Roman elite ideology.5 To

put it briefly, ‘the past’ was both a cultural heritage (and therefore something to be preserved) and

an ideological filter through which late antique men and women perceived their world.6 The aim

of this essay is to discuss the relationship between this particular world-view and the evolution of

late Roman paganism. More specifically, it will focus on the links between religious antiquarian-

ism and pagan dedications, in order to understand how late Roman pagans – and Christians, as

Faustus’s dedication suggests – conceived and experienced the beliefs and practices that were so

closely connected to the origins of the city in which they lived.

Defining the meaning and significance of religious dedications in late antique Rome is not

an easy task. This is particularly true in the case of pagan dedications. The setting up of a statue

of Minerva, by a Christian,7 in a prestigious space in the city centre, is a good indication of the

difficulties facing the modern scholar. This issue has traditionally been approached from differ-

ent points of view: scholars such as Andreas Alföldy and Herbert Bloch treated these initiatives as

genuine expressions of religious commitment, more intensely felt at the time of the ‘pagan reviv-

al’ of the late fourth century.8 Other scholars, most notably Alan Cameron, tend to consider these

4 Tac. ann. 14, 12, 1. See fraschetti, cit. n. 1, 153f., for the history of the statue. Unfortunately, the base did not sur-vive: R. lanciani, Storia degli scavi di Roma III, Roma 1990, 42. For the origins of the Chalcidicum, see M. torelli, ‘Chalcidicum. Forma e semantica di un tipo edilizio antico’, Ostraka 12 (2003) 215-38. 5 See the perceptive comments of J. elsner, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph, Oxford 1998, 169-97, and av. caMeron, ‘Remaking the Past’, in G. Bowersock – P. Brown – O. graBar (eds.), Late Antiquity. A Guide to the Post-classical World, Cambridge, MA 1999, 1-20.6 For modern conceptions of Time and History, see D. lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge 1985; for late antique conceptions, see A. gutteridge, ‘Some aspects of social and cultural time in Late Antiquity’, in W. Bowden – A. gutteridge – C. Machado (eds.), Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity (Late Antique Archaeology 3), Leiden 2006, 569-601.7 On Faustus’s career and relations, see PLRE II Faustus 8 and, more recently, S. orlandi, Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente Romano VI, Roma 2004, 475f.8 See, for example, A. alföldy, A Festival of Isis in Rome under the Christian Emperors of the IV century (Disser-tationes Pannonicae II.7), Budapest 1937; and also H. Bloch, ‘The Pagan revival in the West at the end of the fourth century’, in A. MoMigliano (ed.), The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford 1963, 193-218.

RELIGION AS ANTIqUARIANISM 333

dedications more or less explicit expressions of political and cultural interests.9 Pagan dedications

are treated, therefore, either as forms of self-representation or as expressions of religious piety. The

fact that the original editors of CIL published the inscription recording the restoration of the statue

of Minerva both as a sacred and as a political document is extremely revealing in this sense.10

Such difficulties in assessing late pagan dedications are partly due to the fact that it is near-

ly impossible to assess the intensity or sincerity of religious feelings of individuals or groups from

past societies.11 It should be noted, however, that there is no reason for viewing religious and secu-

lar motivations as necessarily contrasting ones: lighting a candle in a church can be an act of faith

and a statement about oneself at the same time.12 These issues, although present in different phas-

es of Rome’s religious history, were particularly important in Late Antiquity. The period between

the accession of Diocletian and the urban prefecture of Faustus was marked by dramatic religious

transformations: the establishment of the Church as a religious institution and also as a major play-

er in the political and social life of the city, as well as the development of a new, Christian identity.

In other words, it was marked by a profound break with the city’s religious past. In spite of these

changes, Rome’s pagan heritage was still very much alive in rituals, festivals, buildings, and stat-

ues displayed all over the city. This is a fact of which Christians like Faustus were well aware, and

that permeated their discussions about the history and religious life of the city.

The Antiquity of Late Paganism

Late antique Romans, pagans and Christians alike, had to deal with the inescapable presence of the

pagan past in the life of the city. This connection had been reaffirmed in different moments of Ro-

man history, especially in times of crisis: the city was founded according to the wishes of the gods,

and no part was left untouched by ideas of religion and of the divine.13 Earlier writers and their re-

ligious concerns were still influential in late antique Rome. This influence was explicitly acknowl-

edged by the very initiative of Julius Obsequens, who compiled the omens recorded in Livy’s early

history of Rome. It is not a coincidence, in fact, that in order to discuss the many issues raised by

the Visigothic sack of 410, Augustine felt it necessary to discuss the antiquarian works of Varro.

9 See A. caMeron, ‘The last pagans of Rome’, in W.V. harris (ed.), The Transformations of URBS ROMA in Late An-tiquity (JRA Suppl. 33), Portsmouth 1999, 109-21.10 See, respectively, CIL VI 526 and 1664.11 On these issues, see the articles collected in F. Bougard – C. la rocca – R. le Jan (edd.), Sauver son Âme et se perpétuer. Transmission du patrimoine et mémoire au haut Moyen Age (CEFR 351), Roma 2005.12 See, on this sense, the discussion of J. scheid, ‘Les sénateurs et le religieux: obligations publics et convictions pri-vées’, in W. eck – M. heil (ed.), ‘Senatores populi romani’. Realität und mediale Präsentation einer Führungsschicht, Stuttgart 2005, 270-82, esp. 276-80.13 As in Livy’s famous speech of Camillus, following the Gallic sack of 390 BC (5, 52, 2). See the interesting issues concerning Rome’s ‘religion of place’ in M. Beard – J. north – S. price, Religions of Rome I, Cambridge 1998, 167-74. On the connection between the city, as a community of citizens, and religion, see J. scheid, Religion et piété à Rome, Paris 1985, 17-22.

334 CARLOS MACHADO

The fourth century editor who included the Origo Gentis Romanae in the same collection as the

De Viris Illustribus and Aurelius Victor’s Caesares did not do it merely as a polemic against Chris-

tianity: in the eyes of late antique Romans, ‘contemporary history’ was inextricably linked to the

mythical origins of the city.14 Christians acknowledged the intimate link between antiquity and pa-

ganism, incorporating it into their arguments. In the late fifth century, bishop Gelasius explicitly

used the work of Livy in his letter against the Lupercals (11-12) as a source of information to

discredit the ritual of the Lupercalia. The celebration was a senseless custom, Gelasius observed,

as history showed that it never averted catastrophes or plagues. In fact, writing almost a century

earlier, Prudentius had already based part of his criticism of paganism on the fact that it was noth-

ing but an old error.15

For many Romans, the antiquity of pagan cults and beliefs was one of the attributes that

made them venerable. The religious initiatives of the ancients were held as virtuous, and as such

could be used as a standard for the appreciation of ‘modern times’. This is the case in the compari-

son made by Claudian between the long-awaited (and overdue) return of the emperor Honorius to

Rome and the decision of the ancients (priores) to dedicate a temple to Fortuna Redux.16 In the

same letter in which he congratulated Ausonius for being appointed consul, Symmachus praised

his friend by commending the wisdom of the ancients, who dedicated adjoining temples to Honos

and Virtus: they knew that one was necessarily connected to the other, and Ausonius was the per-

sonification of this connection.17 In other words, the dedication of temples carried out by ancients

could be seen as a model for the behaviour of fourth and fifth century Romans.

Antiquarian Dedications

Sacred dedications played a fundamental role in bringing together all the elements discussed so far.

Inscribing a text is a precise and relatively effective18 way of recording and communicating inten-

tions, values, and initiatives. It is also a way of expressing and negotiating identities, individual

and collective. It is, first and foremost, both a product and a structuring element in the relationships

14 On the Origo, and its polemical character, see A. MoMigliano, ‘Some observations on the Origo Gentis Romanae’, in Secondo contributo alla storia degli studi classici, Roma 1960, 145-76, esp. 157. For the ‘pagan scholarship’ present in this work, see A. caMeron, Greek Mythography in the Roman world, Oxford 2004, 328-34 and C.J. sMith, ‘The Origo Gentis Romanae: facts and fictions’, BICS 48 (2005) 97-136.15 E.g., Prud. perist. 2, 441-8 and 10, 401-8. Prud. c. Symm. 1, 433 has the emperor Theodosius referring to pagan be-liefs as ‘idle notions’ (veteres nugas).16 Prud. paneg. dictus Honorio cos. VI, 1-5. On the temple, see F. coarelli, ‘Fortuna Redux, Templum’, LTUR II (1995) 275f.; this will be discussed again below.17 Symm. epist. 1, 20, 1: ‘Bene ac sapienter maiores nostri, ut sunt alia aetatis illius, aedes Honori atque Virtuti ge-mella facie iunctim locarunt conmenti, quod in te vidimus, ibi esse praemia honoris, ubi sunt merita virtutis.’ But note that, according to Livy, the idea of dedicating one double temple was not accepted at the time, and this led to the con-struction of two independent but connected structures: see Liv. 27, 25, 7-9.18 Since it depends, to a certain extent, on the degree of publicity of the text and in the size and nature of the audience.


among men and between men and gods.19 The opening verses of Prudentius’s account of the mar-

tyrdom of Emeterius and Chelidonius of Calagurris are revealing in this sense: “Written in heaven

are the names of two martyrs; Christ has entered them there in letters of gold, while on earth he

has recorded them in characters of blood.”20 Although martyrdom immortalised the two Christians,

the act of inscribing had the power to publicise their honour, turning them into exempla. Whilst

referring to a specific moment in history, the golden letters carved by Christ removed the stories of

these martyrs from the contingencies of time and made them eternal.

This special relationship between inscriptions and the awareness of the passing of time ac-

quired a specific character in the late Empire. As Silvia Orlandi has recently argued, this can be seen

in the many references to the difficulties of the present and the restoration of a better (past) age that

are found in late Roman epigraphy.21 More than that, inscribed dedications could even alter the pass-

ing of time, bridging the gap between past and present.22 Symmachus recognised this fact when, as

urban prefect, he communicated to the emperor Theodosius the senatorial decision to dedicate eques-

trian statues to the emperor’s late father, consecrating the recently deceased general among the names

of the ancient heroes of the city.23 At the same time, dedications – whether sacred or not – should be

seen as a form of gift-giving, benefiting the giver as well as the receiver of the transaction.24 In the

case of sacred dedications, these were not always of a material nature, and could include intangible

elements. The dedicatory inscription, in this case, was particularly important, as it could make the

terms of the transaction clear to the dedicant, to the deity, and also to passers-by. A good example can

be seen in the double dedication made by the Roman aristocrat Postumius Rufius Festus (also known

as Avienius) and his son Placidus in the first half of the fourth century:

Rufius Festus, vir clarissimus, to the goddess Nortia about himself.

Festus, the descendant of Musonius and offspring of Avien(i)us, from whom the Cae-sian waters derive their name, I, a native of Vulsinii domiciled at Rome, worship you. I was twice honoured with appointment as proconsul, I wove many poems, lived an innocent life, was in my prime, blessed in my marriage to Placida and rejoicing in my numerous children. May they have a long life; all else will be drawn along by the es-tablished law of destiny.

19 There is now a long bibliography on the anthropology of writing, and especially on issues related to power. For a general introduction, especially with reference to inscriptions in the context of Roman society, see G. woolf, ‘Monu-mental writing and the expansion of Roman society in the Early Empire’, JRS 86 (1996) 22-39, esp. 25-9.20 Prud. perist. 1, 1-3 (transl. Thomson): ‘Scripta sunt caelo duorum martyrum vocabula, aureis quae Christus illic adnotavit litteris, sanguinis notis eadem scripta terries tradidit.’ 21 In ‘Passato e presente nell’epigrafia tardoantica di Roma’, a paper read at the conference Historische Erinnerung im städtischen Raum: Rom in der Spätantike, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, July 6-9, 2006. See also alföldy, cit. n. 2, and Bauer, cit. n. 2.22 See the observations of gutteridge, cit. n. 6, 580-81f.23 Symm. rel. 9, 4: Nam familiae vestrae et stirpis auctorem, Africanum quondam et Britannicum ducem statuis eques-tribus inter prisca nomina consecravit (...).24 R. parker, ‘Dedications: Greek dedications’, in ThesCRA I (2005) 270.

336 CARLOS MACHADO

His son Placidus to his worshipful father:

You will go to the home for which you long, for propitious Jupiter opens heaven for you, Festus, so that you may come. And now you do come; thence the company of the gods extend their right hands to you and, behold, over all the heavens applause for your echoes.25

The first dedication was composed by Festus himself, and consists of a short poem about

his life. The text celebrates his successful political career, his literary talents, as well as the origins

of his family (albeit not exactly noble).26 The precise date of this inscription is uncertain, since it

is impossible to know whether the original dedication was carved while Festus was alive or later,

when Placidus composed the second dedication to his father. The inscription was carved on a mar-

ble base (although it might also be an altar),27 but makes no reference to whatever object that might

have accompanied it. In fact, all it tells us is that Festus dedicated a poem about himself to the god-

dess, and that Placidus dedicated a poem about his [Festus’] glorious afterlife to his father. It is a

puzzling document, which leaves more questions open than solved.

And yet, the dedication(s) by Festus and his son are particularly important if we want to

understand the relationship between paganism and the antiquarian culture we have discussed so

far. The poem is dedicated to the Etruscan goddess Nortia, and it is striking that such a late dedica-

tion should be the only inscription from Rome to mention this ancient deity. The cult of Nortia was

particularly attached to the Etruscan past of Volsinii, the city from which Festus’s family came,

and where a temple was associated to her.28 The inscription was therefore not only a celebration of

the dedicant’s origins, but also of his connections with a foreign and archaic deity. The antiquarian

nature of the inscription established Festus’s identity in a way that the mere reference to Volsinii

would not have been able to do. In other words, not only his family roots but also his religious

identity were located in a distant past and in a different city.

25 CIL VI 537 = 30787 (transl. Courtney): R(ufius) Festus v(ir) c(larissimus) de se ad deam Norti[am]. Festus, Mu-soni suboles prolesque Avieni, unde tui latices traxerunt, Caesia, nomen, Nortia, te veneror Lari cretus Vulsiniensi, Ro-mam habitans, gemino proconsulis auctus honor[e], carmina multa serens, vitam insons, integer aevum, coniugio lae-tus Placidae numeroq(ue) frequenti natorum exultans. Vivax sit spiritus ollis; cetera composita fatorum lege trahentur. Sancto patri filius Placidus. Ibis in optatas sedes, nam Iuppiter aethram pandit, Feste, tibi candidus, ut venias; Iamq(ue) venis; tendit dextras chorus inde deorum et toto tibi iam plauditur ecce polo. On this inscription, see E. courtney, Musa Lapidaria. A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions (American Classical Studies 36), Atlanta 1995, 286-8; see also, on the inscription as well as on the date and identity of Festus, A. caMeron, ‘Avienus or Avienius?’, ZPE 108 (1995) 252-62.26 Festus was a descendant of the stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus, a member of the equestrian order. He had been proconsul of Africa and Achaia: see PLRE I Festus 12 (but note that he is incorrectly dated to the mid/late 4th c.).27 Unfortunately, it is impossible to be certain, since it was incorporated, after its discovery, into a wall of the Galleria Lapidaria at the Vatican Museums (GL 45,47). See I. di stefano Manzella, Inscriptiones Sanctae Sedis I, Città del Vati-cano 1995, fig. 56, n. 47.28 On Nortia, see L.R. taylor, Local Cults in Etruria (PMAAR 2), Roma 1923, 154-7; note that she identified Festus’ s’s inscription as coming ‘from a tomb’.


Festus’s dedication is important, furthermore, because it raises the issue of the relationship

between late antique Rome’s religious topography and the antiquarian character of late paganism.

In other words, to what extent were late Roman pagans informed about the religious associations

of the city-space? Although there is no information about the original place where it was dedicated,

Nortia’s base/altar was first recorded in the 16th century as in the sacristy of the church of S. And-

rea de’ Funariis (also known as S. Andrea in Vincis).29 This church was located on the slope of the

Capitoline hill, towards modern-day via del Teatro di Marcello, and was demolished in the 1920s

(Fig. 1).30 Although this is not necessarily the location where the discovery was made, the fact

that it is a heavy block of marble – and not just a slab – suggests that it might have come from that

same neighbourhood. In fact, the very position of this church in the map of Rome suggests a few

hypotheses worth considering here.

29 See information in CIL VI 30787: “basis marmorea in sacrario vulgo sacristia S. Andreae de’ Funariis sub rupe Tar-peia”.30 The demolitions were described in A. Muñoz – A.M. colini, Campidoglio, Roma 1930. See, for the history of the church, C. hülsen, Le chiese di Roma nel medioevo, Firenze 1927, 185f. and also M. arMellini, Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX, Roma 1942, 683-6.

Fig. 1: The location of S. Andrea in Vincis, with ancient structures underneath. [From: G. carettoni – A.M. co-lini – L. cozza – G. gatti, La Pi-anta Marmorea di Roma Antica I, Roma 1960, 90, with adapta-tions.]

338 CARLOS MACHADO

The demolition of S. Andrea revealed parts of a building that could be either an insula or a

small domus, located towards the back of the church (see ancient structures marked in Fig. 1). The

complex consisted of a series of interconnected rooms, datable to the period between the second

and the fourth century AD.31 It is possible, in fact, that this building belonged to Festus, since the

dedication – made by father and son – has a very strong personal character, which could indicate a

domestic context. It is known, furthermore, that this area had already been excavated on previous

occasions, including during the 16th sixteenth-century c. reconstruction of the church, and there are

other examples of altars dedicated in insulae in the city of Rome.32 It is curious, however, that the

discovery of Nortia’s base/altar in the church was never recorded, and the ritual and mythical as-

sociations of this deity suggest other possibilities.

Nortia was connected to the ritual of the clavus annalis, in which a nail was hammered into

a wall (or another structure) in this goddess’s temple at Volsinii to mark the beginning of a new

year.33 The same ritual was observed at Rome, prescribed by an ancient law, in the temple dedicat-

ed to Minerva that was part of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus.34 The connection between

the temple of Nortia at Volsinii, the clavus annalis, and the Capitoline temple make the identifica-

tion of the latter as the location for Festus’s dedication a very attractive possibility. It should be re-

membered that the work of Livy – source of most of our information – was still popular among late

Roman readers, and that the temple of Jupiter was conveniently located in the vicinity of the much

later church of S. Andrea. The problem with this hypothesis is that the ritual of the hammering of

the nail on the Capitol seems to have been abandoned after the third century BC, being revived

later by Augustus in a new location (the temple of Mars Ultor) and with a different meaning (to

mark the end of a censor’s term).35 Festus’s dedication in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus would

represent, in this case, a break with the very history of the ritual that gave meaning to it – albeit be-

ing closer to its origins. This would be a striking example of antiquarianism, to the extent of being

disconnected from the ritual practices of early fourth century Rome.

The intimate links between place, myth and ritual in late antique Rome should not be so

easily dismissed, however. Prudentius’s account of the martyrdom of Lawrence is a good exam-

ple of how well informed about these connections late Romans could be – even a Christian from

31 Described in Muñoz – colini, cit. n. 30, 64-68. Note that the building was already identified as a domus ecclesiae, but there is not solid evidence for that, apart from one fresco depicting an orans and the much later history of the area: see R. Martorelli, ‘S. Andrea in Vincis (Roma): domus ecclesiae o oratorio privato?’, in F. guidoBaldi (ed.), Domum tuam dilexi. Miscellanea in onore di Aldo Nestori (Studi di Antichità Cristiana 53), Città del Vaticano 1998, 571-86. 32 See arMellini, cit. n. 30, 685f. for the earlier excavations. An example of an altar dedicated in an insula is CIL VI 67, dedicated to Bona Dea in the insula Bolani.33 See taylor, cit. n. 28; the information comes from Liv. 7, 3, 7. On the ritual of hammering the nail, see L.A.A. foresti, ‘Zur Zeremonie der Nagelschlagung in Rom und in Etruria’, AJAH 4 (1979) 144-56.34 Liv. 7, 3, 5-9. On the observance of this ritual in Rome, see N. purcell, ‘Becoming Historical: the Roman Case’, in D. Braund – C. gill (eds.), Myth, History and Culture in Republican Rome, Exeter 2003, 12-40, esp. 29-31.35 See, in addition to the preceding notes, the observations of H.H. scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, London 1981, 187. For the Augustan revival, see Dio 55, 10, 4.


Spain.36 There is, in fact, another possible location for the dedication of Nortia in the vicinity of

S. Andrea, which help us bring all these elements – rites, myths, and place – together: the temple

dedicated to Fortuna by the Roman king Servius Tullius, in the area of S. Omobono.37 There were

strong connections between the Estruscan goddess Nortia and Fortuna, none the less through the

identification between the clavus annalis and the celebrations of New Year.38 It has been convinc-

ingly argued, moreover, that the Roman Fortuna had an Etruscan origin, an identification that is

reinforced by Servius’s close relationship with this goddess.39

It is more specifically the connection between the Roman king and Etruria that is of particular

relevance for our concerns, as they provide the cultural/religious background for Festus’s initiative.

There were two main traditions associated with the origins of Servius. The first, and best known, is

that he was the son of a slave, raised in the palace of Tarquinius Priscus, a king of Etruscan origin. The

second tradition is known through a speech of the emperor Claudius, in which he identified the king as

being the Etruscan warrior Mastarna, a companion of Caelius Vibenna.40 Either way, Servius was con-

nected to Etruria, an association that is reinforced by the affinities between the temples he dedicated

in the area of S. Omobono and the Etruscan temples at Pyrgi, in terms of the cults, origins, and deities

celebrated.41 These associations become more relevant once we consider the connections between this

area and the rituals and topography of the Roman triumph. Hendrik Versnel and Filippo Coarelli have

emphasised the links between the origins of Roman triumphal processions and Etruscan celebrations

of the New Year, in which the rite of the clavus annalis, discussed above, took place.42 Triumphal

processions were connected to the area around S. Omobono, crossing it in the direction of the circus

Maximus. Coarelli convincingly located the porta Triumphalis in this area, and argued that the Servian

temple of Fortuna should be identified, in its early imperial phase, as the temple of Fortuna Redux.43

36 See, for Prudentius, perist. 10. On the importance of the links between myth and ritual, see J. scheid, ‘Cults, Myths, and Politics at the Beginnings of the Empire’, in C. ando (ed.), Roman Religion, Edinburgh 2003, 117-38.37 See, on the history and archaeology of this temple, F. coarelli, Il Foro Boario, Roma 1988, 204-437. On Fortuna in general, see J. chaMpeaux, Fortuna. Recherches sur le culte de la Fortune à Rome et dans le monde romain des origines à la morte de César, 2 vols, Roma 1982, esp. 249-333 for the temple near the church of S. Omobono.38 On Nortia and Fortuna, see Taylor, cit. n. 28, and also H. versnel, Triumphus. An Inquiry into the Origin, Develop-ment, and Meaning of the Roman Triumph, Leiden 1970, 273f. (especially for the rituals of New Year).39 For the Etruscan origins of Fortuna, see I. kaJanto, ‘Fortuna’, ANRW II:17,1 (1981) 502-58, esp. 506-9.This is not accepted by Champeaux, cit. n. 37, 195-8, who stresses the diversity of cults of Fortuna in the Italian peninsula. The con-nection between the Roman and the Etruscan cults, however, seems uncontroversial: see Plut. quaest. Rom. 74 and de fort. Rom. 10, among other sources. This connection is further examined by R. thoMsen, King Servius Tullius, Copenha-gen 1980, 260-78 and coarelli, cit. n. 37, 253-77.40 See Liv. 1, 39, 5, for the first tradition; for Claudius’s speech, see ILS 212, I 16-23. These traditions are discussed in R. ridley, ‘The Enigma of Servius Tullius’, Klio 57 (1975) 147-77, esp. 170f., and more recently in T. cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, London 1995, 130-41.41 See the analysis of coarelli, cit. n. 37, 328-63.42 See versnel, cit. n. 38, 273f. and also coarelli, cit. n. 37, 422. 43 Following Mart. 8, 65; see coarelli, cit. n. 37, 363-414. Note that the precise identification of the arch with the six concrete pillars immediately in front of the temples of Fortuna and Mater Matuta as the porta Triumphalis has not been unanimously accepted: A. claridge, Rome, Oxford 1998, 252.

340 CARLOS MACHADO

The origins of the cult of Fortuna Redux

in Rome are not clear. The earliest explicit ref-

erence that survives is Augustus’s observation

that an altar was dedicated to this goddess in 19

BC, to celebrate his return from the East.44 This

dedication was commemorated in denarii depict-

ing the altar, issued by q. Rustius, a fact that led

Francesca De Caprariis to suggest that the origins

of the cult of this goddess should be traced back

to the Latin city of Anzio (ancient Antium), from

where the family of the Rustii originally came.45

As the author reminds us, the Fortuna of Anzio

was connected to naval voyages and to the Fortu-

na of Julius Caesar, but the evidence she presents

does not indicate a genealogical link between

Fortuna Redux and the Fortuna ‘Antiatina’. It

is very likely, however, that these different at-

tributes of Fortuna were associated at some point,

a possibility that is suggested by a series of finds

in the area around the vicus Iugarius, where the

temples of Fortuna and Mater Matuta were dedi-

cated (Fig. 2). These include a statue-base and an

altar found in the Roman Forum, near the arch of Septimius Severus, dedicated to Fortuna Redux

(Fig. 2: B), as well as a large marble altar dedicated to Fortuna, discovered near the church of S.

Maria della Consolazione (Fig. 2: C).46 The latter is particularly interesting because, as De Caprar-

iis noticed, it was dedicated by the otherwise unknown C. Rustius Severus, probably a member of

the gens Rustia from Anzio.47 To these should be added a marble relief, part of the architectural

decoration of a temple, depicting precisely the temple of Fortuna Redux, also found in the neigh-

bourhood of the temple dedicated by Servius (Fig. 2: D).48

44 R. Gest. div. Aug. 11. See F. coarelli, ‘Fortuna Redux, ara’, LTUR II (1995) 275.45 RIC I2 65, 322 (pl. 6). See F. de caprariis, ‘Fortuna Redux’, ArchClass 56 (2005) 130-53. We should be careful, however, not to take the identification of all Rustii as being originally from Antium: there are Rustii known to be from Rome as well, as Mika Kajava reminds me. For the problems involved in the epigraphy from Antium, including dedica-tions by the Rustii, see H. solin, ‘Contributi sull’epigrafia anziate’, Epigraphica 65 (2003) 69-116, esp. 95f.46 Respectively, CIL VI 196, 197, and 174. Note that they were all discovered around the same date, the mid-15th c.47 de caprariis, cit. n. 45, 148.48 Found between via del Mare and the Forum Boarium: see E.M. loretti, ‘Rilievo storico dell’area sacra di S. Omobono’, BCAR 98 (1996) 243-54, with a useful discussion of the representations of the temple in early imperial art.

Fig. 2: Nortia/Fortuna: structures and finds. [From: Roma. Guida d’Italia, Touring Club Italiano, 8th ed., Torino 1998, Atlante tav. 14, with adaptations.]


The identification of the Servian/Etruscan temple of Fortuna in the area of S. Omobono

with the temple of Fortuna Redux is therefore reinforced by the possible connection between

Nortia and this site. The topographical, mythical, and ritual connections linking the Porta Tri-

umphalis, triumphal processions, the rite of the clavus annalis, the goddess Fortuna, and Festus’s

dedication to Nortia are too strong to be overlooked. They also suggest, contrary to what was pre-

viously suggested, that this area was not destroyed at the beginning of the fourth century – a fact

indicated by Claudian (who still referred to the temple), and also by the late antique works carried

out at the neighbouring temple of Mater Matuta.49 In any case, whether Festus’s dedication came

from a domestic context, from the Capitoline temple, or from the temple of Fortuna Redux, it is

a striking illustration of the way in which religious antiquarianism could be used to express in-

dividual identity, publicising family origin, religious sympathies, and intellectual interests. It is a

good example of how ancient myths and rituals could be connected to specific places. This same

set of issues is raised by a group of inscriptions found very near the area of S. Omobono, recording

dedications to Hercules Invictus. The altars on which these inscriptions had been carved were dis-

covered in the sixteenth century, near the church of S. Maria in Cosmedin (Fig. 2: E), in the area of

the ancient forum Boarium, and constitute one of the main arguments for locating the ara Maxima

of Hercules on this spot. Of the eleven dedications discovered, seven are datable to the period that

concerns us here, more specifically to the late third and early fourth centuries.50 The inscriptions

are very laconic, informing us that they were offered to the god by different urban praetors.51

The ancient history of the cult of Hercules in this area was explained to visitors by another

altar, dedicated in the early third century: “Catius as urban praetor gladly consecrated this gift to

your divinity, invincible Hercules, when with pious intent and in due fashion he had performed the

ceremony which you entrusted to the Potitii in Evander’s day, to be carried out annually here at the

Ara Maxima.”52 The dedication preserved the tradition that Hercules himself had established the cult

at the Ara Maxima, leaving it under the responsibility of a Roman gens (the Potitii) from the time of

Evander. This inscription raises a variety of questions, related to issues of memory and of what was

49 Claudian. paneg. dictus Honorio cos. VI, VI, 1-5. The late antique works at the temple of Mater Matuta are attested by a new pavement of the complex, datable to the 4th-5th c.: see A.M. raMieri, ‘La chiesa di S. Omobono alla luce delle nuove scoperte’, RPAA 77 (2005) 41f. For the hypothesis of abandonment, see coarelli, cit. n. 37, 459; but note that the reliefs of Marcus Aurelius in the arch of Constantine that he attributed to the Porta Triumphalis are now thought to have been taken from Marcus’s arch in the Roman Forum: see A. viscogliosi, I fori imperiali nei disegni d’Architettura del primo cinquecento, Roma 2000, 35f.50 CIL VI 312-19 (314 is an altar with four dedications); the late antique dedications are 314-17. For the topography of the area, and more specifically the altar of Hercules Invictus, see coarelli, cit. n. 37, esp. 61-77; also V. vincenti, ‘L’Ara Maxima Herculis e S. Maria in Cosmedin. Note di topografia tardoantica”, in F. guidoBaldi – A. guiglia guidoBaldi (ed.), Ecclesiae Urbis (Studi di Antichità Cristiana 59), Città del Vaticano 2002, 353-75 and, more recently, G. fusciel-lo, ‘La piazza del Foro Boario e gli edifici romani nell’area di S. Maria in Cosmedin’, Palladio 28 (2001) 5-22.51 Such as CIL VI 317: Deo Herculi Invicto C. Iul. Pomponius Pudens Severianus, v(ir) c(larissimus), praet(or) urb(a nus). 52 CIL VI 313 (transl. Courtney, cit. n. 25, 133): Hercules invicte, Catius hoc tuo donu[m libens] numini sancto dicavit praetor Urbis […]cum pia sollemne mente rite fecisset [sacrum] tradidisti quod Potitis Evandreo [saeculo] administran-dum quodannis hic ad A[ram Maxim]am. Catius might be identified with P. Catius Sabinus, consul in 216.

342 CARLOS MACHADO

chosen to be recorded: it mentions the Potitii, but not the Pinarii, who according to tradition had also

been entrusted with the cult. It does not mention that these families delegated their responsibility for

the cult to public slaves and finally to urban praetors either.53 Instead of a long and tortuous history,

it presents an abridged version of the evolution of the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima, focusing

on the links between the individual city-official, the Potitii, and Hercules himself.

The selective character of this inscription is particularly interesting, since stories about the

foundation of the Ara Maxima were common currency in late antique Rome, and not only in the

works of earlier writers such as Livy and Virgil: it is also narrated by Macrobius and Servius, for

example.54 Such a learned dedication, by a city official, necessarily raises the issue of the cultural

and intellectual context in which it was carried out. Scholars have argued that, during the impe-

rial period, ancient myths had become the preserve of a very small elite of highly educated aris-

tocrats.55 Although this is partly true, we should be more careful when assessing the audience for

these stories, however. In the first place, because – as Alan Cameron showed – the works of my-

thographers had an extremely wide circulation in the Roman world, being sold in little bookshops

as well as being copied in the houses of aristocrats.56 In the second place (but not less importantly)

because important elements of Roman religion were under the direct responsibility of senators and

city magistrates, the very members of the educated elite who consumed these stories.57

Making a dedication to Hercules at the precise spot where the god himself had celebrated

his victory over the giant Cacus was a form of connecting past and present, attesting to the con-

nection between the antiquity of that religious space and the official life of the city. Late Roman

urban praetors who chose to dedicate an inscribed altar together with the heifer that was due to that

specific god were obviously aware of the presence of Catius’s dedication, which publicised the an-

tiquity of that practice.58 In other words, the links between past and present could play an essential

role in pagan dedications. This was acknowledged not only by private dedicants and city officials,

but also – and most importantly – by the imperial court. Religious antiquarianism played an impor-

tant role in imperial dedications, as can be seen in a group of inscriptions discovered in the Roman

Forum. Following the fire of 283, this part of the city was the focus of a great building programme

under Maximian and Diocletian. These works were marked by a complex combination of innova-

tion and conservatism, and had important repercussions for the way in which the city’s past was

presented to visitors in the Forum.59

53 The story is told by, among others, Liv. 1, 7, 4-15 and Verg. Aen. 8, 268-72.54 See Macr. Sat. 3, 11, 7; 12, 4; and Serv. Aen. 8, 269-71.55 As observed by P. veyne, Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths?, Chicago 1983, 45.56 Cameron, cit. n. 14, 218-20.57 As observed by scheid, cit. n. 12, 272-6.58 On the sacrifice of the heifer, see Varro ling. 6, 54.59 The re-shaping of the Forum is the subject of a fine analysis by F. coarelli, ‘L’edilizia pubblica a Roma in età tetrarchica’, in harris (ed.), cit. n. 9, 23-33; for the relationship between the Tetrarchic Forum and memory, see C.


A marble statue-base was discovered in the area of the ancient vicus Tuscus, near the basil-

ica Iulia, bearing the inscription Vortumnus temporibus Diocletiani et Maximiani.60 It is not clear

who dedicated the statue, but the most likely context is the imperial rebuilding of the neighbour-

ing Forum. Writers such as Propertius and Varro connected the cult of Vortumnus to Etruria, and

dated the introduction of the deity in the Roman pantheon to the period of the monarchy.61 What

is important for our purposes is the explicit association of ‘the times of Diocletian and Maximian’

to such an ancient statue. Also connected to the origins of the city, the cult of the Genius Populi

Romani was celebrated in the Forum by the emperors themselves.62 The cult of the Genius of the

Roman people is not attested to in our sources before the late third century BC, but we know from

Varro – cited by his most illustrious late antique reader, Augustine – that it occupied an important

place in Roman religious life.63

It is the reign of Maxentius, however, that provides us with the best examples for under-

standing the connection between religious antiquarianism and imperial policy. The clearest case

is the dedication of a statue in the Roman Forum, near the Lapis Niger: “To Mars Invictus, Father,

and to the founders of his eternal city, our lord emperor Maxentius, pious and fortunate, invincible

Augustus [dedicated]”. The date of the dedication was recorded in an inscription on the right-hand

side of the base: “Dedicated on the 21st of April, by Furius Octavianus, of the senatorial order, cu-

rator of sacred buildings”.64 Celebration of the founders of the city was one of the cornerstones of

Maxentius’s ideological programme, which involved naming his own son Romulus.65 The date of

the dedication in the Forum, 21st of April, was the anniversary of the city, and this association is

enhanced by the fact that the base was found near the Lapis Niger, often identified as the tomb of

Romulus (the founder of the city, in this case). It is impossible to be certain about the precise cir-

cumstances of this dedication, and especially how it was carried out. It is not clear whether Max-

entius was present at the ceremony, since the monument, albeit set up in his name, appears as dedi-

cated by the curator aedium sacrarum.

Imperial association with the mythical origins of the city was an important element in Ro-

man imperial ideology,66 and it was also celebrated in another initiative of Maxentius’s reign, the

Machado, ‘Building the past: Monuments and Memory in the Roman Forum’, in Bowden – gutteridge – Machado (eds.), cit. n. 6, 157-92.60 CIL VI 804; for the statue of Vortumnus, see J. aronen, ‘Signum Vortumni’, LTUR IV (1999) 310f.61 See references in aronen, cit. n. 60.62 CIL VI 36975 = 40714: [Genio P]opu[li Romani Dioclet]ianus e[t Maximianus invi]cti au[gusti].63 Aug. civ. 7, 2; on the Genius and its cult, see D. paloMBi, ‘Genius Publicus/Populi Romani’, LTUR II (1995) 365-68.64 CIL VI 33856: Marti Invicto Patri et aeternae urbis suae conditoribus, dominus noster Maxent[iu]s p(ius) f(elix) in-victus Aug(ustus); on the right side: Dedicata die XI Kal(endas) Maias per Furium Octavianum v.c. cur. aed. sacr.65 See the interesting, although polemical, considerations of F. coarelli, ‘L’urbs e il suburbio’, in A. giardina (ed.), Società Romana e Impero Tardoantico II, Bari 1986, 1-58, esp. 23 for this dedication; also J. curran, Pagan City and Christian Capital. Rome in the Fourth Century, Oxford 2000, 60-3.66 A good example being the first emperor himself: see P. zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor 1988, 167-238.

344 CARLOS MACHADO

extensive restoration of the temple of Venus and Rome. The temple, originally dedicated by Hadri-

an on the anniversary of the city, was restored following extensive fire damage in 307.67 What is

particularly striking about the fourth century dedication of this temple is the fact that, according

to Aurelius Victor, it was made by the senate in honour of Constantine, not by Maxentius (nor to

him): “Furthermore, all the buildings that he [Maxentius] had built in a magnificent manner, the

temple of the city [i.e., the temple of Venus and Rome] and the basilica, were dedicated by the

senate to the merits of Flavius [Constantine]”.68 The senate’s decision was part of the process of

damnatio memoriae that followed the death of Maxentius, which included the re-dedication of the

baths that he built on the quirinal (later named after Constantine), as well as the basilica near the

Forum.69 Imperial damnatio also involved the aforementioned statue dedicated to Mars Invictus

near the Lapis Niger, from which the name of the emperor was erased.

The fate of Maxentius’s antiquarian dedications is a good reminder of the political impor-

tance of the relationship between Rome, its past, and its gods. This importance was acknowledged

by different agents within Roman society, including individuals, city officials, the senate, and even

the imperial court. It is important to note that other elements, such as political agendas, functional

duties, and individual acts of self-display were important factors in these dedications. Neverthe-

less, these various motivations could still be framed and expressed in terms of the religious anti-

quarianism that interests us here. The long history of pagan cults and beliefs was an integral part of

the imperial state and of the city’s life. The period that started with the reign of Constantine, how-

ever, was marked by important religious changes, and it is important to consider them here.

Public Power and Religious Antiquarianism

quintus Aurelius Symmachus, in a letter to the emperor Valentinian II in 384, provides an interest-

ing account of the arrival of the former emperor Constantius II in Rome (in 357):

[…Constantius] followed an overjoyed senate through all the streets of the Eternal City and, with no sign of disapproval in his face, he saw its shrines, he read the in-scriptions giving the names of the gods on the pediments; he put questions about the origins of the temples; he showed his admiration for their founders; though he himself followed other rites, he preserved established rites for the Empire.70

67 Maxentius’s responsibility for the restoration is attested to in the Chronogr. a. 354 (chron. I p. 148, 32), and Aur. Vict. Caes. 40, 26 (next note).68 Aur. Vict. Caes. 40, 26: Adhuc cuncta opera, quae magnifice construxerat, urbis fanum atque basilicam Flavii meri-tis patres sacravere.69 For the Baths, see E.M. steinBy, ‘L’industria laterizia a Roma nel tardo impero’, in giardina (ed.), cit. n. 65, 142; for the basilica near the Forum and other examples, see coarelli, cit. n. 65.70 Symm. rel. 3, 7 (transl. Barrow): …et per omnes vias aeternae urbis laetum secutus senatum vidit placido ore de-lubra, legit inscripta fastigiis deum nomina, percontatus templorum origines est, miratus est conditores, cumque alias religiones ipse sequeretur, has servavit imperio.


According to Symmachus, the Christian emperor was interested in the city’s pagan past,

and the dedicatory inscriptions were the focus of imperial attention. They recorded the names of

the gods to whom the temples were dedicated, as well as the identity of their founders. The atti-

tudes of Constantius II reflect the complex relationship between fourth century emperors and Ro-

man paganism. Symmachus highlights this fact when observing that, while in Rome, the emperor

“filled the priesthoods with noble men”, something that could only be done as a pontifex maxi-

mus.71

Constantius II was responsible for important Christian dedications in Rome, such as the

basilica dedicated to the apostle Peter in the Vatican; and yet Ammianus, when narrating the em-

peror’s visit to the city, only mentions the dedication of an obelisk in the Circus Maximus (17,

4, 1). Ammianus’s selectiveness is not difficult to understand: the late fourth century historian did

not hide his interest in Rome’s classical/pagan monuments.72 Most importantly, focusing on the ob-

elisk gave Ammianus the opportunity to present a long excursus on the history of Thebes, the city

from where the obelisk had been brought, and on the origins of such monuments.73 Furthermore, it

provides us with a good example of religious antiquarianism in an imperial context. The antiquar-

ian character of this dedication can also be seen in a passage in which Ammianus explains that the

hieroglyphs carved into the obelisk were the product of ancient authorities of primeval wisdom,74 a

description that would have sounded familiar to late Roman pagans.

As the example of Constantius II indicates, Christian emperors were still connected, for

most of the fourth century, to the city’s traditional religious life. This is also the case of Valentinian

I, as Rita Lizzi Testa recently showed. The dedication of the bridge commissioned by this emperor

was a religious ceremony connected to the imperial anniversary, carried out by Lucius Aurelius

Avianius Symmachus (who performed the dedication) in the presence of Vettius Agorius Praetex-

tatus (the urban prefect).75 The occasion involved the dedication of statues of the pagan goddess

Victoria, as well as the usual vows for the imperial anniversary – ceremonies that were fulfilled

by two of the most illustrious pagan officials of the city.76 Physical distance, however, and most

importantly religious changes, led to a profound transformation in the relationship between the im-

perial court and pagan life, especially towards the end of the century. This period was marked by

71 Symm. rel. 3, 7: replevit nobilibus sacerdotia. See, on this issue, the considerations of a. caMeron, ‘Gratian’s repu-diation of the pontifical robe’, JRS 58 (1968) 96-102, esp. 99, and also R. lizzi testa, Senatori, popolo, papi. Il governo di Roma al tempo dei Valentiniani, Bari 2004, 408f.72 See the interesting observations of C. edwards, Writing Rome, Cambridge 1996, 98.73 Amm. 17, 4, 1-23. On the political and religious context for this dedication, and Ammianus’ response to it, see M. vitiello, ‘La vicenda dell’obelisco lateranense tra versione ufficiale e tradizione senatoria. Magnenzio, Costanzo e il senato di Roma’, MedAnt 2 (1999) 359-408.74 Amm. 17, 4, 8: …initialis sapientiae vetus insignivit auctoritas.75 See lizzi testa, cit. n. 71, 409-11.76 See the inscriptions collected in CIL VI 31402-12, and especially 31403 and 31404 for dedications to the Victoria Augusta. For the involvement of Symmachus, see Amm. 27, 3, 3.

346 CARLOS MACHADO

the withdrawal of public funds from pagan priesthoods and ceremonies, as well as by imperial re-

pudiation of the office of pontifex maximus.77 In spite of these changes, traditional religious rituals

and ceremonies remained important in the city life. Prudentius would still describe Rome’s official

and festive life, in the early fifth century, as largely influenced by pagan rituals and beliefs.78 The

continued importance of paganism is confirmed by the correspondence of Symmachus, as well as

by the calendar of 354, which are full of references to religious festivals and priestly duties.79

To understand this aspect of Rome’s public and ritual life, we must return to the question

of religious antiquarianism, and especially to the involvement of city officials in pagan dedications.

An inscription recording the restoration of the porticus of the Dei Consentes, in the Forum, in-

forms us that not only the building, but also the sacrosancta simulacra housed there were restored

to their original splendour by the urban prefect, Vettius Agorius Praetextatus.80 The reference to the

statues, and especially to their original condition, is extremely important. We know from Varro that

these were gilded images of twelve gods, and the language of the inscription emphasises its reli-

gious meaning.81 Praetextatus had been proconsul of Achaia a few years earlier, where he seems

to have been actively engaged in pagan rituals and in their defence before the court.82 It is not a

coincidence that he restored a structure in Rome that was connected to the altar of the twelve gods

in the Acropolis of Athens. Fourth century urban prefects were involved in the restoration of other

structures of religious nature, such as the temple of Apollo Sosianus and the Atrium Libertatis – a

building that had important religious associations.83 It could be argued, of course, that these initia-

tives were the result of individual commitment, rather than an official policy. On the other hand, it

should be noted that there is no record of the dedication of any Christian building (or restoration)

by the initiative of an urban prefect. Christian aristocrats made donations to the Church as individ-

uals, but this is something that their pagan colleagues also did, to their own religious structures.84 It

77 See, for an analysis of changes in imperial policy, curran, cit. n. 65, 161-217 and caMeron, cit. n. 71. For the em-peror as pontifex maximus, see R. gordon, ‘The veil of power: emperors, sacrificers and benefactors’, in M. Beard – J. north (edd.), Pagan Priests, London 1990, 201-31, esp. 202-19.78 E.g., Prud. c. Symm., 1, 215-25; perist. 10, 141-50; 10, 216-30. 79 E.g., Symm. epist. 1, 47; 1, 49; 2, 24; 5, 11; 9, 108. For the calendar, see the analysis of M.R. salzMan, On Roman Time. The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 1990, 146-76.80 CIL VI 102: [Deorum C]onsentium sacrosancta simulacra cum omni lo[ci totius adornatio]ne in f[ormam antiquam restituto V]ettius Agorius Praetextatus v.c. pra[efectus u]rbi [reposuit] curante Longeio [...v.c. c]onsulari.81 Varro rust. 1, 1, 4: …quorum imagines ad forum auratae stant, sex mares et feminae totidem, sed illos XII deos, qui maxime agricolarum duces sunt. The gods were Jupiter, Juno, Neptune, Minerva, Mars, Venus, Apollo, Diana, Vulcan, Vesta, Mercury, and Ceres. See estienne, cit. n. 3, 88f. for the architectural setting of these statues.82 He was proconsul in 362-364. On Praetextatus’s career, see PLRE I Praetextatus 1. Cod. Theod. 9, 16, 7 (from 364), addressed to him, granted permission for the continuity of nocturnal sacrifices in Greece. On the complexities of this law, see lizzi testa, cit. n. 71, 251f.83 On the Temple of Apollo, see CIL VI 45; on Atrium Libertatis, CIL VI 41378.84 See, for example, CIL VI 124 (statue of Diana, datable to the late 4th c.) and 754 (restoration and embellishment of a mithraeum, also from the late 4th c.). For further examples, in Rome and Italy, see C. goddard, ‘The Evolution of Pagan Sanctuaries in Late Antique Italy’, in M. ghilardi – C. goddard – P. porena (eds.), Les cités de l’Italie tardo-antique (IVe-Ve siècle). Institutions, économie, société, culture et religion, Roma 2006, 281-308.


seems clear that, whereas the imperial court had changed its attitude, at least at the municipal level

public officials remained more closely associated with the ancient religious traditions.

This association between public authorities and pagan structures is more striking in the

case of the senate, an institution that was at this time experiencing important transformations in

terms of its status, composition, and identity – but that was still involved in the restoration of tem-

ples in the Roman Forum. An inscription, still visible on the pediment of the temple dedicated to

Saturn, records works carried out by this venerable institution: “The senate and people of Rome

restored [the Temple of Saturn], consumed by fire.”85 Although the date for this restoration is not

mentioned in the inscription, the analysis of the surviving (re-used) architectural decoration sug-

gests a late date, between 360 and 380.86 Scholars have generally accepted this date, taking these

works as an example of late Roman civic pride,87 but it is important to consider its religious impli-

cations as well.

The late fourth century was marked by the conversion of increasing numbers of members

of the Roman Curia to Christianity. This process became clear when members of the senate peti-

tioned the imperial court for the restoration of the altar of Victory to the Curia. We are told by Am-

brose that the petition, put forward by pagan senators, had been opposed by Christian aristocrats

who refused to take part in the discussions. In other words, religious differences had acquired an

important role in the ways in which the institution defined itself.88 And yet, the senate appears as

institutionally responsible for the restoration of the temple. It should be remembered that by this

time the old Aerarium Saturni, the once prestigious treasure connected to the Temple of Saturn,

had lost most of its importance, being converted into a municipal arca quaestoria. Even the posi-

tion of praefectus Aerarium Saturni, that had commanded so much respect in previous centuries,

disappeared in this process.89 Another complicating factor is the reference, in the dedicatory in-

scription on the pediment of the temple, to the fact that the building had been destroyed by fire.

There is no record of a fire in the Roman Forum in the course of the fourth century, and the most

likely identification is the great conflagration of 283. If this dating is correct, the temple would

have remained damaged for almost 100 years, until the senate finally restored it. In other words,

works on this structure were not a simple response to physical damage, but an important initiative

85 CIL VI 937: Senatus Populusque Romanus incendio consumptum restituit.86 See P. pensaBene, Tempio di Saturno. Architettura e decorazione, Roma 1984, 152; more recently, P. pensaBene, ‘Monumenti di Roma tra continuità e perdita di funzione: trasformazione urbana e reimpiego in età tardoantica’, MedAnt 2 (1999) 749-76, esp. 768.87 See Bauer, cit. n. 2, and also F.A. Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike: Untersuchungen zur Ausstat-tung des öffentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos, Mainz 1996, 28f.88 A division alluded to by Ambr. epist. 17, 10. For the conversion of the aristocracy, see P. Brown, ‘Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman aristocracy’, JRS 51 (1961) 1-11, and also M.R. salzMan, The Making of a Christian Ar-istocracy, Cambridge, MA 2002.89 The last praefectus recorded is from 360, Flavius Attilius Theodatus, and in 384 the first reference to an arca quaestoria appears. These problems have been studied by M. corBier, L’Aerarium Saturni et l’Aerarium militare (CEFR 24), Roma 1974, 719f. See also pensaBene, cit. n. 86 (1984), 63.

348 CARLOS MACHADO

at a time when the complex was losing some of its secular functions, and when even the religious

identity of the Curia was changing. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?

It is a well-known fact that the cult of Saturn, and especially the December festival of the

Saturnalia, attracted great attention from late antique Romans. The festival was still recorded in the

calendar of 354,90 and was the subject of the much later work of Macrobius, the Saturnalia. More

importantly, as Alan Cameron showed, Macrobius was a Christian, writing to a Christian audience,

and yet his work is our best source of information for the origins, history, and decoration of the

Temple of Saturn.91 Citing Varro’s De sacris aedibus, Macrobius informs us that the temple was

dedicated by the dictator Titus Larcius in the early years of the Republic, linking it to the origins

of the city.92 The venerable antiquity of the temple was an attribute that even Christians could ap-

preciate – although associated with the city’s pagan past. For pagans, however, it was an important

structure because of its connection to a specific god, and its antiquity was proof of its sanctity. In

spite of being contemporary, these two perspectives (pagan and Christian) were fundamentally dif-

ferent, and it is the relationship between these contrasting world-views that we must now consider.

Managing the Pagan Past

Macrobius’s Saturnalia is a key text for the understanding of late Roman antiquarian culture. Al-

though the poem’s characters are pagan aristocrats from the last decades of the fourth century, de-

bating a variety of topics related to their religious tradition, it is striking to see how their discus-

sions are religiously neutral, whilst at the same time informed by antiquarian zeal.93 The past, in

Macrobius’s work, although associated to paganism, was an important element in the way the city,

its buildings, and even its official life were experienced by fifth century Christians. This attitude

is best expressed in the passage where Praetextatus reproaches the young Avienus’s impatience

with ancient wisdom: “…let us not scourge with insolence the reverence of antiquity, mother of

arts…”.94 Antiquity was venerable because of its old age (which led to wisdom), and not because

of its religious meaning. It could be studied, collected, verified, and presented for the education of

future (Christian) generations, such as Macrobius did for his son, Flavius Macrobius Plotinus Eus-

tathius, to whom the Saturnalia was dedicated. Crucially, the pagan past of Rome was linked to the

ideas of eternity and greatness of the once splendid capital of the Empire.

The idea of Roma Aeterna and its association with the history – and the future – of

the Empire was of great importance in the work of late antique writers, pagans and Christians

90 See InscrIt XIII 2, 275.91 See the considerations of A. caMeron, ‘The date and identity of Macrobius’, JRS 56 (1966) 25-38.92 Macr. Sat. 1, 8, 1.93 As argued by Alan Cameron, cit. n. 91, and especially in his forthcoming The Last Pagans of Rome, chapter 7: “Macrobius and the ‘pagan’ culture of his age”.94 Macr. Sat. 1, 5, 4: …nec insolenter parentis artium antiquitatis reverentiam verberemus….


alike.95 This was poignantly expressed in an inscription discovered near the Scala Santa in the Lat-

eran, and published by Silvio Panciera.96 The inscription reproduces verses of Virgil’s Aeneid:

…until Ilia shall bear to Mars her twin offspring. Then Romulus, proud in the tawny hide of the she-wolf, his nurse, shall take up the line, and found the walls of Mars and call the people Romans after his own name. For these I set no bounds in space or time (…).97

This passage, a promise made by Jupiter to Venus, connects the immortal greatness of

Rome to the gods and events that led to the foundation of the city. As Panciera observed, ele-

ments such as the lettering and the carving indicate that this is a very late document, probably

from the fourth or fifth century – and perhaps even later. This is particularly striking because this

is the only example of such a long citation of Virgil ever found, a good example of the extent of

late antique Romans’ interest in the mythical origins of their city. Unfortunately, the original

context of this inscription cannot be determined: Panciera suggested a pagan shrine, in which

the Virgilian verses would be accompanied by an image of the goddess Roma, but there is no

evidence for such an attribution.98 In spite of this difficulty, the intellectual milieu in which the

inscription was carved is clear: the same cultured circles to which Macrobius addressed his Sat-

urnalia. It is not a coincidence, in this sense, that in order to discuss the pagan past of Rome, the

poet considered it necessary to include the greatest authority on Virgil of his own age, the gram-

marian Servius.

It is beyond the scope of this article to analyse the process through which pagan myths

and rituals were made acceptable and appreciated by elements within the Christian community in

Rome.99 As Robert Markus has shown, the boundaries between what was deemed as ‘sacred’ and

‘profane’ were subject of intense debates in Late Antiquity. These concerns were present not only

in the literary and theological works of Augustine and Prudentius, but also in the sermons and

preaching of bishops like Leo I and Gelasius. In the meantime, the refusal (or perhaps we should

say impossibility) to discard Rome’s history and institutions led to the redefinition of what could

be considered ‘secular’: “this is the realm of what, in a religious perspective, is not so much, neu-

95 See the important study of F. paschoud, Roma Aeterna. Études sur le patriotisme romain dans l’Occident latin à l’époque des grandes invasions, Roma 1967. 96 See S. panciera, ‘His ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono. Virgilio in un’inedita iscrizione romana’, in Epigrafi, epigrafia, epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956-2005) con note complementari e indici, Roma 2006, 333-43 (origi-nally published in Studi Tardoantichi 2 [1986] 191-210).97 Verg. Aen. 1, 274-8 (transl. Fairclough); the inscription does not follow the division in verses of the poem, and only survives partially: Marte gravis gemin[am partu dabit Ilia] prolem. Inde lupae [fulvo nutricis tegmi]ne laetus Romulus [excipiet gentem et Ma]bortia [sic] condet moeni[a Romanosque suo de no]mine dicet. His ego [nec metas rerum] nec tempora [pono]. See panciera, cit. n. 96, 334.98 See the discussion in panciera, cit. n. 96, 341.99 See salzMan, cit. n. 79, and M. salzMan, ‘The Christianization of sacred time and sacred space’, in harris, cit. n. 9, 123-34, with bibliography.

350 CARLOS MACHADO

tral, but, rather, ambivalent: capable of being linked either with damnation or salvation, depending

on the ultimate purposes to which it is harnessed.”100

It is possible to follow the influence of this attitude, shared by Macrobius and some of his edu-

cated contemporaries, on the dedication of statues associated with the city’s pagan past. It is the poet’s

son, Eusthatius, who provides us with a good example of this practice. An inscribed statue-base found

in the Forum records a dedication made in his name, moving an unspecified statue from an ‘obscure

location’.101 The habit of moving statues to new, more prestigious places was already common during

the Early Empire in Rome and elsewhere, but acquired a new dimension in Late Antiquity.102 A large

number of late antique statue-bases attest to the importance of this practice. Statues were moved from

sordid places, restored, or simply re-dedicated. Most importantly, this practice was part of an official

policy: nearly all such dedications were carried out by urban prefects, who were directly responsible

for the preservation of the city’s monuments, mostly from the second half of the fourth century on-

wards. It should be remembered that pagan statues had populated the city of Rome for centuries, and

this was still true in Late Antiquity.103 Urban prefects had no difficulties in finding sculptures with

which to demonstrate their care for the city and to adorn public places, initiatives that could be ap-

preciated by pagans and Christians alike. In the course of the fourth century, urban prefects such as

Gabinius Vettius Probianus and Fabius Titianus dedicated statues in important places, most notably the

Roman Forum.104 Although in decline, this practice did not stop with the progress of Christianization,

and urban prefects were still moving and re-dedicating statues at the end of the fifth century105

Pagan statues had an ambiguous standing in late antique society.106 The rise of Christianity and

the development of new attitudes towards religious images inevitably led to occasional outbursts of vi-

100 As defined by R. Markus, ‘The sacred and the secular: from Augustine to Gregory the Great’, JThS 36 (1986) 84-96 (the passage cited iquotation froms in p. 85). See also R. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity, Cambridge 1990, esp. 1-17.101 CIL VI 41394: Fl(avius) Macrobius Pl[otinus E]usthatius v(ir) [c(larissimus) et inl(ustris) praef(ectus) urbi…] mes (?) ob[… ex ab]strusis loc[is…] paene […]. The inscription was published and discussed by S. panciera, in Tituli 4 (1982) 658-60. For Eusthatius, see caMeron, cit. n. 91, 37, and also caMeron, cit. n. 93.102 There is a growing bibliography on this subject. See, for example, H. BrandenBurg, ‘Die Umsetzung von Statuen in der Spätantike’, in H.-J. drexhage – J. sünskess (edd.), Migratio et Commutatio. Studien zur alten Geschichte und deren Nachleben, St. Katharinen 1989, 235-46; also C. lepelley, ‘Le musée des statues divines. La volonté de sauvegar-der le patrimoine artistique païen à l’époque théodosienne’, CArch 42 (1994) 5-15; for the case of Rome, see J. curran, ‘Moving statues in late antique Rome: problems of perspective’, Art History 17 (1994) 46-58.103 This paragraph and the following ones are based on the material collected for my doctoral thesis, in which I analysed the statue-habit in late antique Rome: C. Machado, Urban Space and Power in Late Antique Rome, Diss. Oxford 2006.104 For Titianus, see CIL VI 1653 (three bases), 1654, 31879, 31880, 37107, 37108, and 40783b = 41335a; for his ca-reer, see PLRE I Titianus 6; for Probianus, see CIL VI, VI 1658a-e, 3864a-b, 31883, 31884, 31886, 37105, 41337, and 41338; for the controversy regarding the date of his prefecture, see Machado, cit. n. 59, 170f.105 See, for example, CIL VI 1663, dedicated by Castalius Innocentius Audax in the Forum, datable to the mid-470s, and CIL VI 1220 = 1656c, 1166c = 1656b, 1656a, and 41391b, dedicated by Fabius Felix Passifilus Paulinus towards the end of the 5th c.106 See the important studies of C. Mango, ‘Antique statuary and the Byzantine beholder’, DOP 17 (1963) 54-75 and H. saradi-Mendelovici, ‘Christian attitudes towards pagan monuments in Late Antiquity and their legacy in later Byzan-tine centuries’, DOP 44 (1990) 47-61.


olence against idols in Rome and in other parts of the empire.107 Jerome mentions the actions of the ur-

ban prefect Gracchus, who destroyed a shrine of Mithras and all the statues it contained, and the much

later acts of martyrs constantly refer to the refusal to worship statues of deities and their destruction

as symbols of Christ’s victory.108 In general, however, there seems to have been a continuous effort to

preserve these statues, both on the imperial and the local level. A number of laws in the Theodosian

Code forbade the destruction, or even removal of statues from temples and other religious contexts,

and it has been suggested that pagan officials in Rome were involved in these efforts.109

The ambiguity with which pagan statues were regarded by late antique Christians was due,

in part, to the fact that these objects could be appreciated for their beauty. Emperors and writers

acknowledged this fact on a number of occasions, and even a pagan like Libanius could refer to

statues of deities as artistic objects.110 On the other hand, statues were also seen as powerful, in-

habited by demons, and therefore the object of (illegal) worship.111 Pagan statues were, in other

words, attractive for their beauty, but dangerous because of their power. They were also prestigious

for their antiquity, and this is the aspect that interests us here. Prudentius’s attack on pagan cults, in

his tenth book on the martyrs, is a striking illustration of the connection – even at a very late date –

between statues of deities, ancient myths, and rituals. The iconography of the statues of deities like

Jupiter, Ceres, and Priapus, among others, referred to the myths that explained the origins of their

cults (perist. 10, 231-46). More interestingly, the criticism of these objects was not restricted to

the bronze statues, but also to the fact that they were the creation of human artists: “Myron’s tongs

and Polykleitos’ hammer are the origin and nature of your gods”.112 As the Christian poet sarcasti-

cally observed, the Greek artists of old were “producers of gods, and fathers of deities”, and should

themselves have been deified by the superstitious pagans.113

Prudentius’s references to the prestigious sculptors of ancient times is particularly reveal-

ing, as it helps us understand another group of inscribed dedications also carved on statue-bases,

recording only the names of the sculptors. These refer to prestigious ‘artists’ of the classical Greek

past, such as Timarchos, Praxiteles, Pheidias, and Bryaxis.114 Scholars have usually taken these in-

107 See the evidence collected in P. stewart, ‘The destruction of statues in Late Antiquity’, in R. Miles (ed.), Con-structing Identities in Late Antiquity, London 1999, 159-89.108 Hier. epist. 107, 2; for the acts of martyrs, see, for example, Acta S. Calixti 1 (AASS Oct. IV, 439); Acta S. Martinae 9-10 (AASS Ian. I, 12); Passio SS. Olympiade et Maximo 9 (Ed. delehaye, Anal. Boll. 51 [(1933]) 79f.); Acta S. Xysti 12 (Ed. delehaye, AB 51 [(1933)] 81); and Acta S. Susanna 5 (AASS Aug. II, 632). 109 See, for example, Cod. Theod. 16, 10, 8, 15, and 18. For Rome, see Symm. epist. 1, 46, 2, and the analysis of lizzi testa, cit. n. 71, 373-4. saradi-Mendelovici, cit. n. 106, 50-2, collects a variety of examples of these efforts, from dif-ferent parts of the Empire.110 See Cod. Theod. 16, 10, 8 and 16, 10, 15; Prudentius was of the same opinion: c. Symm. 1, 533-7, and perist. 2, 473-84. For Libanius, see or. 30, 22.111 E.g., Cod. Theod. 16, 10, 6 and 16, 10, 9, 1; Prud. perist. 10, 281-90.112 Prud. perist. 10, 269-70: Forceps Myronis, malleus Polycliti natura vestrum est atque origo caelitum.113 perist. 10, 291-5: fabri deorum vel parentes numinum.114 Published as CIL VI 10038-42.

352 CARLOS MACHADO

scriptions as evidence for the continuous display and maintenance of extremely prestigious works

of art,115 but the fact that the works that were once supported by these bases do not survive advises

caution. A statue-base, found in the area of the porticus of Octavia, offers a good example of the

difficulties that such assumptions involve. The statue on this base was originally dedicated in 146

B.C. in honour of Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi and daughter of Scipio Aemilianus. The surviv-

ing base is of early imperial date, and records a re-dedication of the statue in the Augustan porticus

at the time of its inauguration.116 It is very likely that the statue itself, described by Pliny as being

in a sitting position (nat. 34, 31), was damaged by one of the fires that affected the area, probably

either in 80 or 191. Another inscription was added to the base at a much later date, either in the

third or fourth century, identifying it as an opus Tisicratis.117

The fact that a statue honouring a Roman aristocrat from the time of the Republic could be

attributed to a prestigious Greek sculptor from centuries earlier is a good example of how late Ro-

man antiquarianism worked. Antiquity added respectability to statues, myths, and rituals. This was

sometimes done at the expense of historical accuracy, but was effective all the same. The attribu-

tion of Cornelia’s statue also shows the importance of these objects as bearers of ‘the past’, and it

helps us understand the movement and re-dedication of statues in late antique Rome. On approxi-

mately the same date as Faustus’s dedication of the simulacrum of Minerva in the Roman Forum,

the urban prefect Rufius Valerius Messala dedicated a statue of Victoria on the vicus Patricius:

Rufius Valerius Messala, of the senatorial order, urban prefect, ordered the placement of the statue of Victoria on the vicus Patricius, to the greater public splendour, and took care that it was carried out and prepared.118

Victoria was a goddess connected to the glorious past of the city and the empire, as well

as to the eternity of Rome. Although the conception of ‘victory’ had changed considerably during

Late Antiquity,119 the image of the deity served as a powerful reminder of its pagan origins. For

educated Romans, including Christians, a representation of the goddess was an appropriate way of

115 See, for example, G.B. de rossi, ‘La base di una statua di Prassitele testè scoperta e la serie di simili basi alla quale essa appartiene’, BCAR 2 (1874) 174-81 and, more recently, E. la rocca, ‘La nuova immagine dei Fori Imperiali. Ap-punti in margine agli scavi’, MDAI(R) 108 (2001) 171-213, esp. 196-9.116 CIL VI 31610; on this inscription, see M. kaJava, ‘Cornelia Africani f. Gracchorum’, Arctos 23 (1989) 119-31 and, more recently, B. ruck, ‘Das Denkmal der Cornelia in Rom’, MDAI(R) 111 (2004) 477-94.117 kaJava, cit. n. 116, 125 and ruck, cit. n. 116, 491-3 believe it to be a Severan inscription, but degrassi (Inscr. It. XIII,3, 72) dated it to the 4th c. – a more likely date, as it would fit well with similar inscriptions. See also CIL VI, 8,3, p. 4722 for a discussion of the inscription, with bibliography.118 CIL VI 1775 = 41422: [Rufiu]s Val(erius) Messala v.c., praefectus Urbi, (ad omne?)m splendorem publicum in vico Patricio [simulacrum?] Victoriae [poni iussit?] et fieri et ornari procurabit. On this urban prefect, see orlandi, cit. n. 7, 495f. and S. orlandi – S. panciera – P. virgili, ‘Attività edilizia monumentale nel centro di Roma nel V sec. d.C. A proposito di una nuova iscrizione del prefetto urbano Rufius Valerius Messala’, in ghilardi – goddard – porena, cit. n. 84, 123-36.119 See, on this issue, M. MccorMick, Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Ear-ly Medieval West, Cambridge 1986, esp. 35-79.


celebrating and embellishing the city. In spite of all the ambiguities involved in the dedication of a

statue of a pagan deity in the fifth century, the antiquity of paganism was still an effective way of

reminding passers-by of the greatness that was Rome.

Conclusion

How effective were inscribed dedications in late antique Rome? To what extent did late antique

Romans believe in what they read on the pediments of temples, altars, and statue-bases? It is inter-

esting to see how Prudentius, whilst paying great attention to pagan statues, could be so dismissive

of pagan dedications:

“Every marvel that earth or ocean produces they held a god. Hills, seas, rivers, fire, all these elements, shaped into diverse figures, our sires set up for themselves, and inscribed names of persons on dumb statues, calling, for instance, the ocean Neptune, rivers in their beds Cyanean Nymphs, woodlands Dryads, sequestered spots Napaeas”.120

Not every late antique writer shared this view. Zosimus attributed the fall of Stilicho to his

impious act of sacking the temple on the Capitol (5, 38, 5). When the gold that decorated the doors

was removed, the workers discovered an ancient inscription: misero regi servantur. The inscribed

curse – or so we are expected to assume – was contemporary with the construction of the temple, and

its effectiveness was felt, centuries later, by the most powerful member of the Christian court. Pagan

dedications generated a variety of responses in late antique Rome. These ranged from Prudentius’s

derision of the mistakes of the ancients, to Constantius II’s interest in their religious constructions,

including the downfall of the barbarian general (or at least the legends related to it). The antiquity of

paganism had a fundamental role in shaping the reactions of pagans and Christians alike. It represent-

ed a value that could be shared and appreciated by members of different religious inclinations, even

if contested. This was an aspect of paganism that educated Christians frequently had to accept: only

this way could they understand the origins, meaning, and relevance of their city’s institutions and

ceremonies. Antiquity was, furthermore, one of the aspects that helped Christian aristocrats to define

what was acceptable or not in the traditions and customs of their city. It was, in other words, one of

the key elements in the redefinition of what was secular and what was profane in late antique Rome.

The way in which the antiquity of paganism was conceived changed between the end of

the third and the end of the fifth century. Religious antiquarianism was an essential component in

Festus’s dedication to Nortia, as we saw above, shaping his personal identity as well as the way in

which he presented his religious beliefs. Interest for the city’s pagan past had acquired a very dif-

120 Prud. c. Symm. 1, 297-303 (transl. Thomson): Quidquid humus, quidquid pelagus mirabile gignunt, id duxere deos. Colles, freta, flumina, flammas, haec sibi per varias formata elementa figuras constituere patres, hominumque vocabula mutis scripserunt statuis, vel Neptunum vocitantes oceanum, vel Cyaneas cava flumina Nymphas, vel silvas Dryadas, vel devia rura Napaeas.

354 CARLOS MACHADO

ferent meaning by the time of Macrobius and his son, however. Although still visible and culturally

relevant, paganism was no longer a religious issue, at least for most Roman aristocrats. They could

dedicate their intellectual efforts to the understanding of pagan myths and rituals, but the result

of their enterprises is striking for being religiously neutral. In this sense, the urban prefect could

dedicate a statue of Minerva in a space traditionally consecrated to this goddess, whilst at the same

time abstaining from expressing any kind of religious commitment. In the late fifth century, Faus-

tus’s restored simulacrum Minervae was venerable because its antiquity made it an important ele-

ment in the identity of the city and of its elite: it helped to define the porticus where it was set up,

as well as the equally ancient and venerable political institution, the Ssenate, to which it belonged.

Antiquarianism had changed: from a specific form of experiencing religion, it had been turned into

a form of celebrating the city and its traditions. Statues and temples could still be seen as inhabited

by demons, as in the acts of martyrs. Rather than indicating the power of ancient religious beliefs,

however, such ideas were completely independent from the city’s traditions. The antiquity of pa-

ganism could still attract the attention of a few educated Romans, but its material remains had be-

come alien and incomprehensible to those living in a Christian city.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank John Bodel and Mika Kajava for inviting me to give the paper on which this

article is based. I would like to thank also and especially Fabio Barry, Robert Coates-Stephens,

Lucy Grig, Rita Lizzi Testa, Silvia Orlandi, and Christopher Smith, for their comments and sug-

gestions, and for sending copies of their works. Elizabeth O’Keeffe read and greatly improved my

English. The research for this article was carried out while I was a Rome Scholar at the British

School at Rome, to which I am very grateful.

Date post:	14-Sep-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	carlosarmachado
View:	135 times
Download:	2 times

Religion as Antiquarianism

Documents