Stealing Gods

[Gaius Octavius]

The Romans are generally accused of stealing or borrowing their gods from the Greeks. A long time ago I read a book by a man with the glorious name of Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges titled 'The Ancient City'. If my memory serves, he held that each family had its own household gods and sundry genii(?). Genii to mark the bounds of their land holdings; a geni for the 'Thresh Hold', etc. This last is the reason why we today carry our brides over it, rather than let her step on it, and thus the geni. It signaled that she was leaving her family's gods and taking on her husband's family's gods. A ceremony was performed acknowledging this. Each family had a set of gods that may have been named Zeus or Jupiter but they were not the same persons although they did the same thing.

This also applied to cities. Perhaps that is why there is a Zeus or Jupiter of here and there. It was said that when the gods left the city, it would fall.

I believe that it was the same for barbarian gods. If this god could do the same as Jupiter, he could be called Jupiter.

I don't think that he held that the Romans stole or borrowed Greek gods, but simply identified their gods with those of the Greeks.

This also solves the problem about the Fall of Rome. It's simple; the gods fled the City.

Edited March 22, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Primus Pilus]

The Romans are generally accused of stealing or borrowing or identifying their gods with the Greeks. A long time ago I read a book by Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges titled 'The Ancient City'. If my memory serves, he held that each family had its own household gods and sundry genii(?). Genii to mark the bounds of their land holdings; a geni for the 'Thresh Hold', etc. This last is the reason why we today carry our brides over it, rather than let her step on it, and thus the geni. It signaled that she was leaving her family's gods and taking on her husband's family's gods. A ceremony was performed acknowledging this. Each family had a set of gods that may have been named Zeus or Jupiter but they were not the same persons although they did the same thing.

This also applied to cities. Perhaps that is why there is a Zeus or Jupiter of here and there. It was said that when the gods left the city, it would fall.

I believe that it was the same for barbarian gods. If this god could do the same as Jupiter, he could be called Jupiter.

I don't think that he held that the Romans stole or borrowed Greek gods, but simply identified their gods with those of the Greeks.

 

Stealing isn't quite accurate, but absorbing or adopting probably fits a bit better. I know it might seem to be semantics, but its actually a fairly significant difference.

 

Our own Ursus provides an excellent introduction here in The Roman Domestic Cult.

[Pertinax]

"conflation" is perhaps a useful principle to remember-as an example: Sulla Minerva , the Romans felt that the deity Sulla of the British tribes shared attributes with the lady Minerva of their own pantheon -as a practical people they felt it quite appropriate to celebrate the person of the Deity "as one" most notably at Aqua Sullis (Bath -fashionable healing centre of Empire wide repute).We have a sort of "identity branding " to bring locals into the orbit of approved deities (Boris Johnsons latest book is good on this topic-Dreams of Rome), and to take on board any neglected/previously unknown local deities it might be prudent to appease.The attributes might be quite close-Hermes and Lugh have some rich social/psychological history behind them ,or rather more tenuous via a Deities particular area of influence being similar-ish.

Edited March 23, 2006 by Pertinax

[Ursus]

I really don't know how one "steals" gods anyways. Perhaps trade them like any other commodity, but not steal.

 

But without rehashing my essay that PP posted, let me offer two points here

 

1) The Greeks and Romans were both heirs of an Indo-European civilization and already had some religious things in common - chiefly the figures of Zeus/Jupiter and Hestia/Vesta.

 

2) The Romans actually "stole" many of their gods from the Etruscans, who were themselves fairly Hellenized. The Hellenes in turn "stole" some of their gods from their Semitic neighbors. In other words, the Roman religion evolved within the context of a greater Mediterranean society where various cultures were influencing each other.

[M. Porcius Cato]

This also solves the problem about the Fall of Rome. It's simple; the gods fled the City.

 

Are you serious?

[Gaius Octavius]

Thank you Pertinax and Primus Pilus. Ursus' article is excellent. Yet, Fustel made the point, explicitly, that each family's and each city's Minerva was a separate 'person' from every other Minerva. The article may be saying it implicitly and I am missing it. I wonder if Ursus couldn't elaborate.

Pertinax seems to get at Fustel's point obliquely, a Minerva in Britain and one in Rome.

If the ancients didn't believe in this multiplicity, I don't see how they could accept another diety with the same attributes.

[Pantagathus]

I think this is a very fitting quote to add to this conversation:

 

"Verrius Flaccus cites authors whom he deems worthy of credit, to show that on the occasion of a siege, it was the usage, the first thing of all, for the Roman priests to summon forth the tutelary divinity of that particular town, and to promise him the same rites, or even a more extended worship, at Rome; and at the present day even, this ritual still forms part of the discipline of our pontiffs. Hence it is, no doubt, that the name of the tutelary deity of Rome has been so strictly kept concealed, lest any of our enemies should act in a similar manner." -Pliny the Elder

 

So, there is yet another vehicle for absorbing foreign tutelary deities like Minerva.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think this is a very fitting quote to add to this conversation:

 

"Verrius Flaccus cites authors whom he deems worthy of credit, to show that on the occasion of a siege, it was the usage, the first thing of all, for the Roman priests to summon forth the tutelary divinity of that particular town, and to promise him the same rites, or even a more extended worship, at Rome; and at the present day even, this ritual still forms part of the discipline of our pontiffs. Hence it is, no doubt, that the name of the tutelary deity of Rome has been so strictly kept concealed, lest any of our enemies should act in a similar manner." -Pliny the Elder

 

So, there is yet another vehicle for absorbing foreign tutelary deities like Minerva.

 

 

Great point. After all, what else is religion but psychological control. Sometimes psychological warefare as well. Leave it to the Romans to find a way to conquer at every level. We'll take your city, we'll take your spoil, we'll take your women and we'll even take your gods.

[Gaius Octavius]

This also solves the problem about the Fall of Rome. It's simple; the gods fled the City.

 

Are you serious?

 

 

Ave M.P. Cato:

Of couse I am. Oh, you of no faith! I will have a Strewing of Couches to clense you. :angel:

 

I think this is a very fitting quote to add to this conversation:

 

"Verrius Flaccus cites authors whom he deems worthy of credit, to show that on the occasion of a siege, it was the usage, the first thing of all, for the Roman priests to summon forth the tutelary divinity of that particular town, and to promise him the same rites, or even a more extended worship, at Rome; and at the present day even, this ritual still forms part of the discipline of our pontiffs. Hence it is, no doubt, that the name of the tutelary deity of Rome has been so strictly kept concealed, lest any of our enemies should act in a similar manner." -Pliny the Elder

 

So, there is yet another vehicle for absorbing foreign tutelary deities like Minerva.

 

 

Was 'AMOR' - the secret name of Rome, its secret diety also?