Roman Domestic Cult

[Ursus]

While Romans had always had major State festivals to gods like Jupiter and Mars, nearer and dearer to most Roman families were a simple household based religion based around local and familial spirits. These local and familial demons were the mainstay of Roman religion throughout all stages of its history, from archaic origins to the Christian era. The worship of these spirits is what truly defines Roman religion, and what really separates it from the sister religion of Greek paganism.

 

continue to the full article of the Roman Domestic Cult

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I like your section on the Lares, Manes, and Penates. I couldn't help but notice all the latin words you used.

Ursus, my dictionary also shows that Manes and Lemures also meant shades.

What made shades such an ominous thing that designated malevolent spirits, if there was such a connection?

Oh also, does your sources mention the Infernii, which also means shades but rather means the damned inhabitants of the underworld.

Edited November 25, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Favonius Cornelius]

The Manes also had a malignant sect, an evil version of the Lares, called either Lemures or Larvae. The Lemures were thought to be souls of the discontented who caused mischief and harm. There were throughout the course of the year several festivals (some rather bizarre in nature) designed to scare aware the Lemures and avert their wrath.

 

In Dungeons and Dragons mythology 'larvae' are mentioned as the afterlife formation of evil types in the dark planes. I guess I now know where that comes from!

[Ursus]

My expertise with Latin is elementary, so I really can't attest to the linguistic background of the terms. However, if Lemures means "shades" it's easy to see why. The Lemures were the souls of the discontented who haunted the deepest shadows and blackest night and came out on certain times of the year to cause harm.

 

The Inferi was a term for the gods of the underworld, not resident souls of the underworld. Yes, there was an underworld but it wasn't the underworld of the Greek myth. The Manes lived in graves and in tombs and in natural settings and were fundamentally attached to the world of the living.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I don't know. My dictionary states that the word infernus does mean inhabitants of the underworld. Manes is the one specifically meaning gods of the underworld. Oh well, thanks for your answer though

[Primus Pilus]

Keep in mind that your probably being taught medieval chuch Latin, Flavius. There are subtle differences between the ancient and medieval including variations on words and meanings.

[Viggen]

thanks Ursus for another fantastic contribution, now published as an article on the main site...

 

cheers

viggen

[Pertinax]

I particularly enjoyed this article, the idea of the sanctity of the Paterfamilias in physical proximity to the spirits of the Ancestors is noteworthy in the extreme, the notion of the appropriate dignity that this gives to "the place" is far more wholesome than a straightforward "right to privacy and property" . The omnipresence of spiritual considerations is a good antidote to the notion of the Romans as hard and bloody people.A person who contemplates the dignity of his or her ancestors has a strong moral anchor within the material world. Thank you-the article took me back to Pompeii in my head!

[M. Porcius Cato]

For what it's worth, my favorite part of Gladiator was Maximus' veneration of his penates. That was a nice touch (much better than the exploding chariots!).

[Ursus]

For what it's worth, my favorite part of Gladiator was Maximus' veneration of his penates. That was a nice touch (much better than the exploding chariots!).

 

It was indeed novel to see Hollywood treating an ancient religion with an ounce of respect. However, the exact manner of veneration performed by Maximus may be Hollywood invention, as I can't find much in the primary texts that attest to whatever he did on screen. "Great Mother, Great Father" ... ?

 

Still, we've come along way from the Roman movies made in the fifties and sixties.

[Pantagathus]

For what it's worth, my favorite part of Gladiator was Maximus' veneration of his penates. That was a nice touch (much better than the exploding chariots!).

 

Oh how I agree, no matter how accurate. It was a very noble touch

[Gaius Octavius]

A cogent piece of work, Ursus. Could you please explain what you mean by 'demons' in you article?

[Ursus]

Just a literary term for spirits, without any of the negative connotations of Biblical lore.

[Skarr]

Good article, Ursus.

 

One thing I would like to add is also the Roman concept of consulting the gods before any event, many of which, of course, related to the family and also mundane happenings.

 

The Romans looked for signs, ordinary signs that occur everyday in nature and used this as a means of determining whether a particular action should be undertaken on a given day or not.

 

For example, if a son was leaving the domus on a long journey, the paterfamilias, who was like the priest / king of the household, would consult an augurer, who would look for particular signs - either in the sacrificial remains of an animal (the famous Etruscan haruspicy) or something simpler. I don't think the Romans were practical in this matter and relied on a simple Yes or No answer. If the liver looked healthy and was not discolored, the signs were good [ Yes ]; if pale and covered with spots - not good [ No].

 

As Ursus points out, religion was a personal affair, as much as it was a state affair and some of the duties of the original priest / kings devolved on the paterfamilias, who ruled their households with absolute power and authority, something that could not be questioned by even the senate. Wives, sons, slaves, livestock, etc. etc. - they all belonged to the paterfamilias.

 

Although a father could put his own son to death, this was rarely done, except in extreme cases - like cowardice. I think Scaurus exercised this right over his son for running away in battle. I'm not sure whether he personally killed him though - if anyone knows the exact circumstances, please post.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Skarr

[Gaius Octavius]

There was an instance in the early history of Rome when a father commanding an army told his son not to engage in battle and yet the son did. The son won the battle or single contest and yet the father had him slain. Sorry about the lack of particulars.