More Than Superstition

[Faustus]

We tend to think of the ancients as backward, superstitious peoples accepting whatever their priests told them. We also tend to be cynical about the more educated folk who seemed to take advantage of the "ignorant" lesser folk.

 

A Roman priest examined the guts of a bird and gave some sort of opinion about the future.

 

But in some cases this method had real merit. When founding a new city, a priest would go the site were the new city was to he located and in a ceremony, examine the livers of a rabbit and a pheasant from the area where the city would be built. This was done to find out if it would be a healthy place in which to live. When the animals were found to be without fault and an investigation of the land turned up no stagnant pools, the

Edited February 11, 2008 by Faustus

[Nephele]

I think that it's more likely that these interpreted "signs" were manufactured by the ancient priesthoods to influence the common people in accordance with the wishes and desires of the ruling class. In Rome's case, at least until the year 254 BCE, the Pontifex Maximus was always a patrician.

 

I find it impossible to believe that the instances of sacrificed animals discovered to have had no heart within them (a sure potent of evil among the Romans) were, in fact, genuine and not manufactured.

 

I don't consider this so much evidence of superstitious backwardness, as I consider it evidence of sophisticated political savvy.

 

-- Nephele

[Northern Neil]

I think that it's more likely that these interpreted "signs" were manufactured by the ancient priesthoods to influence the common people in accordance with the wishes and desires of the ruling class.

 

...and hasn't all religion been the same, from ancient times to date? (Wooops - naughty naughty!) Seriously though, I thing Faustus has a point here, and certainly some religious traditions and conventions which were no doubt common sense and practical in the time and place they arose became tradition and doctrine in later ages. Maybe Pertinax or Andrew Dalby can shed some light on the subject of entrail reading and food intake?

Edited February 11, 2008 by Northern Neil

[Faustus]

I find it impossible to believe that the instances of sacrificed animals discovered to have had no heart within them (a sure potent of evil among the Romans) were, in fact, genuine and not manufactured.

 

-- Nephele

Thanks Nephele,

 

I don't think one rules out the other. And the difference between what my post described and what you describe may be found in the word

Edited February 11, 2008 by Faustus

[Nephele]

But let

[M. Porcius Cato]

Aristotle's observation, "A swallow does not make a spring," seems relevant here. Just change that to, "One swallow's clear liver doesn't make a clear spring."

 

There's an old tradition of attempting to interpret religious silliness (like avoiding pork) in terms of preserving health. In my view, that line of reasoning is no more kosher when applied to Romans than when applied to, well, kosher.

[Nephele]

There's an old tradition of attempting to interpret religious silliness (like avoiding pork) in terms of preserving health. In my view, that line of reasoning is no more kosher when applied to Romans than when applied to, well, kosher.

 

Yes, those who attempt to rationalize the religious practice of keeping kosher by explaining that the early Hebrews somehow knew about trichinosis and that's why pork was not sanctioned, seem to forget that chicken (a major ingredient in traditional Jewish cooking), can easily be contaminated with salmonella.

 

What I'd like to know (in connection with Faustus' premise here) is: Why would we assume that these sacrificial animals came from the wild? Wasn't domesticated livestock mostly used for the purpose?

 

-- Nephele

[Ursus]

What I'd like to know (in connection with Faustus' premise here) is: Why would we assume that these sacrificial animals came from the wild? Wasn't domesticated livestock mostly used for the purpose?

 

 

Yes. Oxen, rams, chicken, pigs. Even occasionally dogs.

[Faustus]

Aristotle's observation, "A swallow does not make a spring," seems relevant here. Just change that to, "One swallow's clear liver doesn't make a clear spring."

What I'd like to know (in connection with Faustus' premise here) is: Why would we assume that these sacrificial animals came from the wild? Wasn't domesticated livestock mostly used for the purpose?

-- Nephele

Yes. Oxen, rams, chicken, pigs. Even occasionally dogs.

Ursus - I notice you did not mention pheasants and rabbits

 

MPC - Quite right

Edited February 13, 2008 by Faustus

[Kosmo]

I really don't think that sacrifice had a forensic side. Roman medical science was not that evolved and priests received no special training.

[Lanista]

I think that it's more likely that these interpreted "signs" were manufactured by the ancient priesthoods to influence the common people in accordance with the wishes and desires of the ruling class.

 

Couldn't agree more. I'm pretty sure that Pausanius had some really awful omens at the battle of Platea, but insisted that the priests say the omens were good...largey because he saw that it was the right time to attack!

 

Cheers

 

Russ