The Roman Evocatio

von Giorgio Ferri
veröffentlicht am

Abstract

Die evocatio deorum war jener Ritus, mit dem die Römer die Schutzgottheit der eingeschlossenen feindlichen Stadt baten, auf ihre Seite überzutreten. Danach erhielt die Gottheit gemäß des durch Macrobius überlieferten votum im carmen evocationis einen Tempel und einen Kultus in Rom. Das carmen wurde von Priestern vorgetragen und enthielt die Präventivformel „sive deus sive dea“.

In der evocatio spielte die Kultstatue, durch welche der Gott seinen Willen mitteilte, eine sehr wichtige Rolle. Der Ritus gehört zu dem Problemkreis der Übertragung neuer Kulte nach Rom, in dem oft auch kulturelle und politische Faktoren eine Rolle spielen. Die evocatio steht in einer engen Beziehung mit der interpretatio Romana und ist nicht, wie häufig geschehen, mit der exauguratio zu verwechseln.

Belege für die Praktizierung der evocatio finden sich seit 396 v. Chr. (Eroberung von Veii) bis 75 v. Chr. (Eroberung von Isaura Vetus) und stehen fast immer im Zusammenhang mit kriegerischen Handlungen. Die eroberte Stadt konnte, nachdem sie von ihrer Schutzgottheit verlassen wurde, auch eine exsecratio erleiden. [1]

With the term evocatio we usually mean the rite [2] by which, shortly before the last attack on the besieged city, the Romans asked its tutelary deity to take her favour away from those whom she had granted it until then in order to give it to them. The fundamental reasons for this practice were: the search for the support of the city’s deity, without whose agreement conquering the city would have become extremely difficult, if not impossible [3]; the need to avoid a sacrilege; the effect of motivating the army, giving it the certainty of the success [4]; the appropriation of the essential nucleus of the enemy city, the one by which the city could have been renewed, using it to increase the divine presence in Rome and therefore its own power. This, of course, together with the more specific political purposes. After the city’s capture, the deity usually received a cult and/or a temple in Rome, where the cult statue was moved.

The evocationes that we know through literary or epigraphic evidence can be referred exclusively to the war context and to a period of time which goes from the fourth to the first century BC, that is from the evocatio of Iuno Regina from Veii (396 BC) to the one of the tutelary deity of Isaura Vetus (75 BC circa).

Through the centuries, thanks to the progressive enlargement of its borders, Rome came into contact with a large number of deities. Anyway, only a little part of them was officially recognized; the final decision was up to the Senate: ne quis templum aramve iniussu Senatus dedicaret[5].

The limits concerning the acceptance of foreign gods in Rome are clearly stated by Festus: «Foreign cults are the ones called, who either have been transferred after an evocation of the deities during the siege of cities, or have been fetched in times of peace because of certain religious reasons, like the Magna Mater from Phrygia, Ceres from Greece, Aesculapius from Epidauros: and these {{cults}} are celebrated in the same way by those whom they have been taken from» [6]. The expression peregrina sacra (in its turn a subgroup of the sacra publica) applies then to a precise category of foreign gods, which Festus divides into two groups according to the context in which the transfer has taken place: martial, through an evocatio, or pacific, ob quasdam religiones.

The evoked gods, although recognized in Rome as official deities, remained separated from the other foreign deities: only them, as regards Italy, were classified as peregrina sacra of the captured enemy cities. The cults of the cities conquered without an evocatio could remain on the spot [7], or, if carried to Rome, they were sometimes subject matter only of a private cult [8]. The evoked deities instead were usually moved to Rome [9] where they obtained, according to the solemn votum present in the carmen evocationis, a public cult and a temple, but outside the pomerium[10]. An alternative might be a cult in the temple of the deity which the evoked one had been assimilated to [11]. This doesn’t mean, however, that the cult of the deity disappeared from the place of origin or that the cult statues were all brought to Rome [12].

Festus doesn’t tell in which way this cult was bestowed. With regard to this, Plinius says only that the Romans with the evocatio promised the tutelary deities the same or a greater cult in Rome [13]. On the contrary, we know enough about the quae coluntur eorum more, a quibus sunt accepta of the other group: Valerius Maximus states, for example, that the Romans called from Elea a priestess of Ceres, even if that city wasn’t a civitas foederata yet, to worship the goddess in accordance with the original Greek rites [14]. However, it is sure that the cult lost in Rome, more or less substantially, its former features, and, moreover, the carmen wasn’t specific about this: the definition of the cult in Rome was decided anyway by the college of pontiffs; in addition, the evoked deities lost the importance they had in their place of origin [15].

Apart from Festus, there are a few other authors who mention the evocatiodeorum. Anyhow,it doesn’t seem very far from the truth the theory according to which exactly its frequence and “banality” are the causes of its scarce evidence: it could have been mentioned only in famous cases like those of Veii and Carthago and understood in all the others [16].

Plinius speaks, basing himself on Verrius Flaccus, about a rite which takes place on the occasion of sieges, officiated by priests and addressed to the god under whose protection the city stands, god whom a cult is vowed to, more magnificent than that of his place of origin [17]. It is important to notice that in Plinius’ times (first century AD), this sacrum was still alive and operative in the disciplina pontificalis and, the other side of the coin, it was still kept carefully secret the figure of Rome’s tutelary deity in order to avoid suffering an evocatio from the enemy.

In Macrobius’ times, on the other hand, evocatio and tutelary deity were two topics interesting only from an “antiquary” point of view: he can therefore cite, for example, the different hypotheses concerning the name of Rome’s secret tutelary divinity without any fear of revealing it. In the fourth century AD also Servius writes: in his commentary of the Aeneid he refers twice to the evocatio (vv. II 244 and 351; at XII 841 an exorataIuno is mentioned) [18]. The first passage deals with a certain disciplina of the carmen, which Virgilius refers to, with which the Romans used to call out the gods from the enemy cities; the second one asserts that the evocatio was needed propter vitanda sacrilegia, citing also the question relative to the god in cuius tutela Rome stood and the one of avoiding to invoke the gods by their real name.The third passage, in the end, refers to the exoratio and to the tranfer of IunoCaelestis from Carthago to Rome.

But let’s go back to Macrobius. He starts from the first passage of the Aeneid already considered by Servius: Aen. II 351 [19]. The evocatio is defined a vetustissimus mos of the Romans, included among the occultissima sacra, that is the sacra whose revelation could have put in danger the very existence of the city; among them revealing the secret name [20]. The conquest of an enemy city was possible only after having evoked certo carmine its tutelary deity: this because the Romans thought this was the only way to capture a city, otherwise because they considered a sacrilege to take prisoner the gods. In order to avoid suffering the same sort in their turn, the Romans kept scrupulously secret the name of their city’s tutelary deity [21], such as the nomen Latinum of the city itself. Then the author dwells on the various deities proposed in the tradition as Rome’s secret one: Iuppiter, Luna, Angerona and Ops Consiva, being in favour of the last one.

After the evocatio Macrobius writes about the “devotio” (better, an exsecratio), quoting the two formulas and adducing Sammonicus Serenus as his source, who would have got in his turn his information from a certain Furius [22]. The deity, si deus si dea, under whose protection stands Carthago, is begged [23] to: abandon the Carthaginian people and state and leave their loca, templa, and sacra; arouse in the enemy metus, formido and oblivio; prefer the Roman templa, loca and city; be favourable to the Roman people and army. In exchange of this temples and games are vowed to her. The pronunciation of the carmen comes with a sacrifice and entrails’ consultation.

After the gods have been evoked, the exsecratio of the city can be officiated. Only dictatores and imperatores could devote the city: this confirms Plinius’ information according to which the evocatio pertained to priests [24]. The distinction drawn by Macrobius in fact makes sense only if it is another person to pronounce the carmen evocationis[25]: if the general himself had done it, the scholar wouldn’t have needed to specify whom the pronunciation was due to; in addition, the uncertainty and the lack of the information about the two rituals are likely to have led later to the opinion that it was only the general to come into contact with the tutelary god of the besieged city: this already happens in Livius, where only Furius Camillus acts. After the formula of what Macrobius classifies as a devotio, he lists a number of cities which experienced this rite, but it isn’t correct to combine always evocatio and “devotio” [26].

The carmen evocationis involves many ritual and juridical elements: one of the most important is the sive deus sive dea formula. Si deus, si dea est, cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela…: so begins the carmen evocationis quoted by Macrobius. It is certain that the addressee was the tutelary god of the city, but how should we understand the periphrasis’ indeterminateness by which this deity is invoked? Doubt, scrupulousness and caution [27] are constant and omnipresent in Roman religious practice: to avoid inaccuracies and unintentional errors, Romans developed some formulas intended to dodge gods’ possible hostility. The Roman always pays great attention in speaking without imprudence, in not saying any word or using any formula, that could have as a result to irritate the gods .

We can see in Macrobius’ carmen evocationis a general denomination form of the city’s tutelary deity [28]; the carmen has gained more reliability after the discovery of the inscription of Isaura Vetus, which we will discuss later: that of the author of the Saturnalia should be regarded as the “standard” version of it, or at least the closer one to its original draft. We can also easily explain why in the formula given by Livius appears the proper name of Iuno Regina: he has replaced the sive deus sive dea with the name of the goddess who had received a cult in Rome and whose place of origin everyone knew [29].

The first documentary evidence of the evocatio dates back to a very important event of Roman history: the capture of Veii in 396 BC [30]. The beginning of the end for the Etruscan city is Furius Camillus’ election to the dictatorship [31]. After he had accomplished all the required preparations for war, he made a vow according to which, if he had succeeded in capturing Veii, he would have celebrated magnificent games and would have built a new temple to Mater Matuta [32] or dedicated again the old one [33]. Then Camillus went with the army to Veii and, after he had taken the auspices, he uttered at first a prayer to Pythian Apollo, promising him the tenth part of the plunder, then he turned to Iuno Regina, beseeching her to follow the victorious Romans to their city, which would have become also hers and where a temple would have been dedicated to her [34]. Having obviously received a positive answer, the attack was launched and the Etruscan city was captured. In Plutarch Camillus sacrificed and prayed Iuno Regina after Veii’s capture, and directly in front of the goddess’statue.

The following day the Romans began to remove modo colentium the sacred objects and the cult statues. The task of carrying the simulacrum of the tutelary goddess was given to young men, chosen among the equites[35], purified and dressed in white clothes [36]. They approached the statue with the highest reverence, because only the priests of a certain Etruscan [37]. One of them asked the goddess if she wanted to come to Rome: she consented to, saying it or nodding, giving thus a further confirmation after the first, communicated by means of the exta: for Rüpke this is an important distinction from the civil ritual (the exauguratio), in which there was no distinction between “evocatory” prayer and transfer of the divine being; in other words, whereas in Rome the god’s assent was confirmed by the auspices or by the positive result of the transfer, in the evocatio it proved itself from the success of the conquest [38]. Always according to Rüpke, exactly the chronological distance between prayer and verification of the fulfilment would explain why the evocatio of the enemy gods assumed the form of votum[39]. The goddess was then brought without mishap to Rome and placed on the Aventine, where a temple was dedicated to her in 392 (or 391) BC [40].

Just after Veii’s capture Falerii had been besieged for the help given to the Etruscan city. In 241 BC the city revolted, and for that reason was captured, plundered and its citizens tranferred to Falerii Novii. Some temples nevertheless continued to be used for the cult, among them probably that of Iuno Curitis. The hypotheses concerning the fate of Falerii’s cults after the distruction of the city vary considerably: Hülsen believes that Romans left the cult and the temple of the goddess on the spot and took the cults of Janus and Minerva to Rome [41]; in Wissowa’s opinion both Iuno Curitis and Minerva were brought to Rome, the first being also evoked in 241 [42]; as for Basanoff the temple of Iuno Curitis in Campo was dedicated by Camillus in 388 BC by means of an exoratio, with which the Romans imported the cult without evoking the goddess, while the evocatio would have taken place later, after the city’s capture [43].

Anyway, there are some difficulties as regards the evocatio of the goddess: we know that the epithet Curitis given to Juno was already used in Rome from ancient times [44] and that the cult of the goddess in Falerii will continue until the beginning of Christianity [45]. In this case we must remain necessarily in the field of hypotheses.

Like Falerii, the Etruscan city of Volsinii appears for the first time in Roman history in 396 BC, when its army invaded the Roman territory to bring help to Veii. In 265 BC the Romans, called by the local aristocratics, captured and destroyed the city, founding a new one, Volsinii Novi, near the Bolsena lake.

Propertius tells about the transfer of Vertumnus to Rome [46], specifying that the god did not receive any temple; only a statue was erected to him in the Vicus Tuscus. Some scholars believe that the aedes Vertumni on the Aventine [47], dedicated probably by M. Fulvius Flaccus, had been built in 264 BC following an evocatio[48]; however, Wissowa notes that Varro included the god among those brought to Rome by Titus Tatius [49]. Basanoff thinks that the god already had a cult in Rome before his evocatio, after which his altar was dedicated anew [50]. It’s obvious that also evocatio of Vortumnus remains only a hypothesis, even if likely.

During the Second Punic War, as Servius states, constat {{...}} exoratam Iunonem: the historical fact is put forward as comparison to the myhical moving of Juno from Carthago to Rome [51]. The goddess at issue is Tanit, in the interpretatio Romana Iuno Caelestis[52]. Little before the last assault the Romans beg the goddess, regarded as the tutelary deity of the Carthaginian state, to grant them her favour: they do it with a supplication, an exoratio[53]. The word passes into Christianity precisely with the meaning of «to beseech with prayers» [54].

An evocatio takes place without any doubt in 146 BC. We have already considered the testimony of Macrobius about it: the tutelary deity of Carthago is evoked, the city devoted to the infernal gods and destroyed. The only difficulty is the lack of evidence on the statue’s removal and on the dedication of a temple to the goddess [55]. Le Gall believes that the evoked deity could have been worshipped in the temple of the deity whom it had been assimilated to: in this case in the temple of Juno on the Aventine [56]. On the other hand, it could be not very far from the truth that, as Basanoff and Cumont think basing themselves on Plutarch [57], the statue had been temporarily kept in another place (maybe in Rome) on account of the foundation of Colonia Iunonia in 122 BC, and thereafter placed in the temple built in what had become in every respect Roman territory [58]. This solution seems likely and appropriate to the historical moment Rome was living. Many things in fact had changed from the first centuries of the Republic: Rome was by then an imperialistic power. It is very likely that evocatio wasn’t anymore the same as in the past centuries, and this for many reasons: 1) the growing rapidity of the conquests; 2) the way in which these had taken place: the Romans had come into contact with Greek cities, Hellenistic states, Celts, etc., with peoples and situations after all not referable to the old city-state category; 3) the great number of cities and states conquered made unthinkable the idea of taking every cult statue to Rome: it is likely that the evocatio became more similarto the Hittite one, that is without a physical moving of the god [59]. With regards to this, an example can be the evocatio praticed on the occasion of Isaura Vetus’ capture.

In 1970 A. Hall [60] discovered in Bözkir (Turkey) an inscription, which can be dated back approximatively to 75 BC, relative to the capture of Isaura Vetus by P. Servilius Vatia (for this deed he received the cognomen ex virtute of Isauricus) [61]. The text is the following: «Servilius, son of Caius, imperator, having defeated the enemies, having conquered the city of Isaura Vetus, having sold the prisoners, to that deity, be it a god or a goddess, under whose protection stood the city of Isaura Vetus (...) fulfils the vow».

This finding has a great importance for the study of evocatio: in the first place, it is the rite’s first epigraphic evidence; furthermore, it confirms essentially the reliability of the carmen handed down by Macrobius. There are in fact all the components inherent to the evocatory rite: 1) in place of the god’s name appears the usual formula sive deus sive dea; 2) the addressee is the oppidum’s tutelary deity; 3) there has been a votum of a temple or of a cult, and this votum has been fulfilled.

We can make other important remarks starting from this epigraph. P. Servilius Vatia was at the same time imperator and pontifex[62], so nothing forbids to think that the Roman general pronounced the carmen evocationis before the besieged city: this sacred formula was guarded for sure in the libri pontificales[63]. The deity «fuit» the one under whose protection stood the city: it is the perfect tense that makes us believe that the deity’s statue had been moved to Rome, where the god or the goddess had lost his or her prerogatives of tutelary deity, just like it had happened to all the other evoked ones, who received a cult and were welcome in the Roman pantheon. Otherwise the deity lost this function, even if she remained in her own place, or shared her office with other Roman gods. It is possible that the deity received a temple in its place of origin: Beard, North & Price{{ }}see in this case a “watering down” of the traditional religious obligations of the ritual [64].

With this evocatio evidence Wissowa’s certainty disappears, followed by Basanoff: both believe that this rite was reserved to the deities of the cities founded etrusco ritu, the only worthy to be qualified as urbes: Isaura Vetusis an Anatolic oppidum. The inscription fixes for the moment the terminus ante quem of the evocatio documentary evidence: the rite has probably turned by then to a simple votum[65].

The god statue can’t be identified with the god himself [66]. It often happens, however, that in ancient times the statue became the expression of the deity’s will, leading to the false opinion of an identity deity-image. Some authors write about moving or speaking statues [67]; questions were asked to gods’ images as well as to gods themselves [68]. Not seldom the statue answered through actions, gestures or words [69]. The speaking statues, at first sight a “folkloric” fact, played actually a fundamental politic role: Romans found in them a suitable way to hide their real expansionistic policy in the context of the official cult transfers. This idea was widespread in the Augustan age literature and in the theatre [70]: the gods themselves asked to be carried to Rome [71].

A famous example is that of Cybele, who was brought to Rome in 204 BC, for many reasons [72]: the competition between patricians and plebeians, the latter with their festivals of Ceres and Flora; the foreign policy of Rome which wanted to annex the Anatolian orient, the place from which the tradition put its origins [73]; a pledge of the alliance of the Pergamenian kingdom with Rome against Filippus V. When Attalus refused to hand over the goddess’ simulacrum, she herself said that she wanted to be brought to Rome [74], where she received a temple in 191 BC [75].

After the conquest of Italy and the Second Punic War, with the import of dozens of gods, the Roman pantheon had become so functional and geographically differentiated that, on one hand, it was possible an extremely wide interpretatio Romana and, on the other, that the gods of the most distant regions (above all in a cultural sense) were considered so “barbarian” that they could not be integrated [76]. Concerning the first point, the custom of comparing the foreign deities with the Roman ones on the occasion of every evocatio became most likely a pontifical tradition, fading and gradually indentifying itself with the interpretatioRomana.

A clear explanation of what intepretatio Romana is about is given by Georg Wissowa: «In der Überzeugung, daß die Gottheiten fremder Religionen nur im Namen sich von den römischen unterscheiden, innerlich aber mit ihnen wesengleich oder verwandt sind, wendet der Römer im fremden Lande überall die interpretatio Romana (Tac.Germ. 43) an, d. h. er erkennt mit größerem oder geringerem Rechte an einzelnen Ähnlichkeiten des Gottesdienstes oder der Auffassung in den fremden numina die eigenen Götter wieder und gibt ihnen deren Namen, die die Provinzialen sich in demselben Maße aneignen, in dem sie sich der höheren römischen Kultur erschließen; ob der einheimische Name des Gottes als Beiname neben dem römischen bewahrt bleibt oder verschwindet, macht für die Sache keinen wesentlichen Unterschied: wenn z. B. ein britannischer Gott bald als deus Cocidius, bald als deus Mars Cocidius, bald endlich schlechthin als Mars erscheint, so tritt uns darin dieselbe Gottheit in drei verschiedenen Stufen der Romanisierung entgegen» [77].

Writers used largely the interpretatio Romana, it was an everyday and widespread practice: here we find then Mercurius and Apollo in Gallia [78], Minerva in Britannia [79], Ceres and Saturnus [80] in Africa, etc. It was of primary importance in this the recognition and the comparison of the essence and/or the distinctive function of the divine being: a god of war will be identified with Mars, etc. Frequently it was more important an even superficial impression rather than the understanding of inner essence of a deity: the soldier believed that the god invoked during a battle was a god of war and in the same way merchants believed that the gods which protected local business were gods of the affairs [81]. Another important element to be considered is that the Roman in foreign countries doesn’t need to approach other religious concepts: he “brings” everywhere his gods with himself [82]. Of course there isn’t only an unilateral Roman influence on the provinces, but a true exchange [83]. Moreover, in the provinces it doesn’t exist de facto an official religion, outside the cult of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus and that of the emperor: the true religion of the state remains linked to the city of Rome.

The careful evaluation of foreign gods and cults, developed in the practice of the evocatio, will always remain a leading principle of Roman religious policy, even if more and more confused with the interpretatio Romana. The cult of Cybele, for example, was severely codified and purified of all the elements more distant from Roman religious sensibility [84]. The result will be: «foreign content and Roman form {{...}} merged into one thing» [85]; the same happened with the cults of Attis and Mâ, later assimilated to Bellona [86]. The cult of Sol invictus Elagabal was condemned to damnatio memoriae only because it had remained alien, while, on the contrary, Aurelianus’ deus Sol invictus (in fact a Syrian Baal) underwent the principles developed centuries before in the context of the pontifical practice of the evocatio, enjoying therefore a great fortune in Rome [87].

The last certain evocatio may be dated to 75 BC. Surely this rite was practised other times thereafter, but it is very likely that it had already passed through more or less considerable changes [88], also because, for example, cities were by then contested among Romans [89] and conquests were almost always the result of battles in open field rather than of sieges.

When did the last evocatio take place? We could answer in a way, audacious and fascinating at the same time: on October 28th, 312 AD [90]. The night before the battle of Pons Milvius Costantin had in a dream the famous vision that, according to the tradition, let him win against his rival Massentius [91]. It is likely that he evoked a deity whom he considered powerful, bearing in mind the unstoppable diffusion of his cult through the Empire: Costantin, still pontifex maximus and worshipper of Helios, acted with the traditionally Roman attitude of constant research, by all means, of the divine favour. The Christian god will obtained the following year something more than a temple: the lawfulness of his cult.

Literature

Alvar 1985
J. Alvar, Materiaux pour l’étude de la formule sive deus sive dea, Numen XXXII, 1985, 236-273.

Basanoff 1947
V. Basanoff, Evocatio: étude d’un rituel militaire romain, Paris 1947.

Beard, North & Price 1998
M. Beard, J. North & S. Price, Religions of Rome, Cambridge 1998.

Berti 1990
N. Berti, Scipione Emiliano, Caio Gracco e l’evocatio di «Giunone» da Cartagine, Aevum 1990, 69-75.

Blomart 1997
A. Blomart, Die evocatio und der Transfer «fremder» Götter von der Peripherie nach Rom, in H. Cancik - J. Rüpke (edd.), Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, Tübingen 1997, 99-111.

Bouché-Leclerq 1926
A. Bouché-Leclerq, Pontifices, in C. Daremberg - E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines 4, 1, Paris 1926, 567-578.

Brelich 1949
A. Brelich, Die geheime Schutzgottheit von Rom, Zürich 1949.

Dumézil 1977
G. Dumézil, La religione romana arcaica, Milano 1977.

Guittard 1998
C. Guittard, Auctoritas extorum: haruspicine et rituel d’evocatio, in Etrusca disciplina. I culti stranieri in Etruria. Atti del Convegno, Annali della Fondazione per il Museo “Claudio Farina” V, 1998, 55-67.

Gustafsson 2000
G. Gustafsson, Evocatio deorum: historical and mythical interpretations of ritualised conquests in the expansion of ancient Rome, Uppsala 2000.

Hall 1973
A. Hall, New light on the Capture of Isaura Vetus by P. Servilius Vatia, Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik, München 1973, 568-571.

Le Gall 1976
J. Le Gall, Evocatio, in L’Italie préromaine et la Rome républicaineI. Mélanges offerts à J. Heurgon, 1976, 519-524.

Palmer 1974
R. E. A. Palmer, Roman Religion and Roman Empire. Five Essays, Philadelphia 1974.

Radke 1987
G. Radke, Zur Entwicklung der Gottesvorstellung und der Gottesverehrung in Rom, Darmstadt 1987.

Rüpke 1990
J. Rüpke, Domi militiae. Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom, Stuttgart 1990.

Van Doren 1954
M. Van Doren, Peregrina sacra. Offizielle Kultübertragungen im alten Rom, in Historia III,1954, 488-497.

Wissowa 1912
G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer, München 1912[2].

Wissowa 1918
G. Wissowa, Interpretatio Romana, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft XIX, Leipzig-Berlin 1918, 1-49.

Wohleb 1927
L. Wohleb, Die altrömische und die hetithische evocatio,Archiv für Religionswissenschaft XXV, Leipzig-Berlin 1927, 206-209.

Footnotes

  1. This article is a resume of: G. Ferri, L’evocatio romana – i problemi, in Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 72 (n. s. XXX, 2), 2006, pp. 205-244. ↩

  2. Wissowa 1912, 383-384; cf. Rüpke 1990, 155. ↩

  3. Rüpke 1990, 162. ↩

  4. Van Doren 1954, 495. ↩

  5. Liv. IX 46; cf. Tert. Apol. 5; L. Preller, Römische Mythologie, New York, 1978, 138. ↩

  6. Fest. 268 L. Festus’ source is probably Verrius Flaccus’ De verborum significatu: cf. G. Rohde, Die Kultsatzungen der römischen Pontifices, RGVV XXV (1936), 22. ↩

  7. Always, for Bouché-Leclercq (1926, 573). ↩

  8. Arnob. III 38. ↩

  9. Always, for Van Doren (1954, 490). ↩

  10. Bouché-Leclercq 1926, 573. ↩

  11. Le Gall 1976, 523. ↩

  12. Blomart 1997, 103. Cf. Tac. Ann. III 71, 1; Fest. 146 L; Wissowa 1912, 48 and 520; M. Humbert, Municipium et civitas sine suffragio. L’organisation de la conquête jusq’à la guerre sociale, Paris 1978, 307. ↩

  13. N. H. XXVIII 18. ↩

  14. Val. Max. I 1, 1; Cic. Pro Balbo 55. ↩

  15. Rüpke 1990, 163. Cf. Min. Fel. 25, 6 f.; J. B. Carter, Die Etrusker und die römische Religion, in Röm. Mitt.1910, 74. ↩

  16. Cf. Le Gall 1976, 524. ↩

  17. Plin. N. H. XXVIII 18. ↩

  18. Cf. Basanoff 1947, 63-66. ↩

  19. Macr. Sat. III 9, 1-9.It is the famous case of Valerius Soranus’ death sentence: s. Plin. N. H. III 65; Plut. Q. R. 61; Solin. I, 4-6; Serv. Aen.I 277; cfr. Basanoff 1947, 26; Brelich 1949, 9-10; G. Ferri, Valerio Sorano e il nome segreto di Roma, Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 74 (n. s. XXXI, 2), 2007, pp. 271-303. ↩

  20. Brelich 1949, 37-49. ↩

  21. Cf. J. Bayet, Lit. Lat., 442, n. 2; Basanoff 1947, 30. ↩

  22. Cf.Liv. VIII 9, 6; Ennio Ann. 116; Plaut. Poen. 1215; Merc. 235; Asin. 477. ↩

  23. For the prayer’s “vocabulary” s. R. Schilling, La religion romaine de Vénus, Paris 1954, 54; E. Benveniste, Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, Paris, 1969, 2, 7; C. Guittard, L’expression du verbe de la priere dans le «carmen» latin archaïque, in R. Bloch (ed.), Recherches sur le religions de l’antiquité classique, Paris 1980, 397-403. ↩

  24. Rüpke 1990, 163. ↩

  25. Wohleb 1927, 207. ↩

  26. Blomart 1997, 101; Le Gall 1976, 524; Berti 1990, 69; H. S. Versnel, Two Types of Roman Devotio, Mnemosyne 29, 1976. ↩

  27. Cf. Dumézil 1977, 51. ↩

  28. On the opposite, cf. for example Berti 1990, 74. ↩

  29. Liv. V 21, 2. ↩

  30. Dion. XIII 3;Plut. Cam. 5-6; Liv. V 21-22; Val. Max. I 8, 3. ↩

  31. Liv. V 19, 3. ↩

  32. Liv. V 19, 6; cf. Wissowa 1912, 110 f.; Basanoff 1947, 49-50. ↩

  33. For Mater Matuta,s. Dumézil 1977, 59-64. S. G. Dumézil Camillus.A Study of Indo-European Religion as Roman History, Berkley & Los Angeles 1980; G. Radke, Zur Entwicklung der Gottesvorstellung und der Gottesverehrung in Rom, Darmstadt 1987. ↩

  34. Liv. V 21, 1-3. ↩

  35. Dion. loc. cit. ↩

  36. Cf. Basanoff 1947, 43-44; Rüpke 1990, 163. ↩

  37. Liv. V 22, 3-7. ↩

  38. Rüpke 1990, 163; Basanoff 1947, 37-40; Alvar 1985, 255; Le Gall 1976, 521; Guittard 1998, 64-65. ↩

  39. Rüpke 1990, 163; Wissowa 1912, 321. ↩

  40. Liv. V 31, 2-3. ↩

  41. Hülsen in RE,s. v. Falerii, col. 1970. ↩

  42. Wissowa 1912, 49 and 187. ↩

  43. Basanoff 1947, 52 f. ↩

  44. Palmer 1974, 5. ↩

  45. Palmer 1974, 43. ↩

  46. IV 2; cf. Varr. De l. L.5, 46; Basanoff 1947, 57 f.; W. Eisenhut, RE, s.
    v. Voltumna,col. 852; Radke 1987, 80; R. Pettazzoni, La divinità suprema della religione etrusca, in Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni IV, 1928 207-234;E. Montanari: Roma: momenti di una presa di coscienza culturale, Roma 1976, 149-151. ↩

  47. CIL I2 240. ↩

  48. Cf. L. Ross Taylor, Local Cults in Etruria, 152. ↩

  49. Roscher, Lex., s. v. Vertumnus; Varr. De l. L.5, 74. ↩

  50. Basanoff 1947, 56-63. ↩

  51. Aen. XII 838-42. Cf. Gustafsson 2000, 45. ↩

  52. Cf. Tertull. Ad nat. II 8 = apol.24; cf. Salvian. De gubern. dei VIII 9; Ambros. epist I 18, 30 = Migne, Patrl. lat., XVI, 980. Cf. J. Mundle, Dea Caelestis in der Religionspolitik des Septimius Severus und der Iulia Domna, in Historia X, 1961, 228-237 ↩

  53. Basanoff 1947, 63-65; cf. G. Gatti, Diss. d. Accad. Pontif.1896, 349, who asserts that Aracoeli<ARA CAELESTIS. ↩

  54. Tert. Hec. prol. alt. 2; Salv. Gub. D. 3, 9. Cfr. Basanoff 1947, 63-65. ↩

  55. But s. Hor., Carm. II 1, 25-28; Ov. Fasti VI, 37-46. ↩

  56. Le Gall 1976, 523. ↩

  57. Cfr. Basanoff 1947, 66; F. Cumont, RE, s. v. Caelestis, coll. 1247-1250. ↩

  58. Berti 1990, 74-75. ↩

  59. For the Hittite evocatio cf. Basanoff 1947, 141-152; Wohleb 1927, 206-09; V. Haas - G. Wilhelm, Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna, in Alter Orient und Altes Testament Sonderrehie 3, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1974; R. Lebrun, Hymnes et Prières Hittites, Louvain La-Neuve, 1980; G. Ferri, Evocatio romana ed evocatio ittita, Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni (in press in 2008). ↩

  60. Hall 1972, 568-571. ↩

  61. Cf. for example CIL I2 2, 741; Ov. Fasti I 593; Str. XII 6, 2. ↩

  62. S. T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II, NY 1951, 620. ↩

  63. Plin. N. H. XXVIII 18. ↩

  64. Beard, North & Price 1998, 133; Le Gall 1976, 523. ↩

  65. Rüpke 1990, 164. ↩

  66. Cfr. O. Weinrich, Antike Heilungswunder, RVV 8, 1, 1909, 145; V. Müller, Kultbild, RE Suppl. 5,1931, 473; H. Funke, Götterbild, in RAC 11, 1981, 659-828. ↩

  67. For example Atena: Il.Z 311, Artemis: Eur. Iph.Taur.1165 f., Vesta: Ov. Fasti III 46 and Apollo: C. Dio. fr. 84 2. ↩

  68. Tac. Ann. XII 22. ↩

  69. For example the Apollo’s statue in Delphi: Ov. Met. XV 635 f., and the Zeus’ one in Olimpia: Suet. Cal. 57. ↩

  70. Cf. Ov. Fasti IV 326; Liv. V 21, 8. ↩

  71. F. Altheim, Röm. Rel. I, 110. ↩

  72. Cfr. H. Graillot, Le culte de Cybèle Mère des dieux à Rome et dans l’Empire romain, Paris 1912, 32 and 38-40; P. Borgeaud, Le mythe dans l’histoire: esquisse romaine, in J. Waardenburg, Scholarly Approaches to Religion, Interreligious Perceptions and Islam, Bern 1995, 101-103. ↩

  73. Ov. Fasti IV 247-272; Erod. I 11, 3; G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani IV, 2,2, Firenze 1953, 269-270; J. Gérard, Legende et politique autour de la Mère des dieux, in Revue des études latines 58, 1980, 175; P. Lambrechts, Cybèle, divinité étrangère ou nationale?, in Bullet. Soc. royale belge Anthropol. et.Préhist., 1951, 44 f. ↩

  74. Cf. E. Schmidt, Kultübertragungen, RGVV VIII, 2 (1910), 5; Ov. Fasti 268 f. ↩

  75. For the relation between the arrival of Cybele and Rome’s future victory, s. Liv. XXIX 10, 5-8; Ov. Fasti IV, 255 sgg; Herod. I 11, 3; Lambrechts, op. cit., 45-48; E. S. Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy, Leyden-New York-Copenhagen 1990, 6 f. For Cybele’s dwelling in Rome, s. Liv. XXXVI, 36, 3-4; Inscr. it. 13, 2, 438. ↩

  76. Rüpke 1990, 164, 257-258; cf. J. A. North, Conservatism and Change in Roman Religion, in Papers of the British School at Rome 44, 1976, 11. ↩

  77. Wissowa 1912, 85. Cf. G. Wissowa, Interpretatio Romana, ARWXIX, Leipzig-Berlin 1918, 1-49; Cic. de nat. deor.I 84: ... at primum, quot hominum linguae, tot nomina deorum: non enim, ut tu Velleius, quocumque veneris, sic idem in Italia Vulcanus, idem in Africa, idem in Hispania; F. Richter, De deorum barbarorum interpretatione Romana quaestiones selectae, in Diss.Halis Sax., 1906 ↩

  78. For Mercurius s. Plin. N. H. XXXIV 45; Tert. apol. 9; scorp., 7; for Apollo, Eumen. paneg. VI 21, 7; 22, 1. ↩

  79. Cfr. Solin. 22, 10: quibus fontibus praesul est Minervae numen. ↩

  80. For Ceres Africana s. Tert. ad uxor. I 6; de exhort. cast. 13; for Ceres and Saturnus together s. Tert. de pallio 4; de testim. an. 2; Passio SS.Perpet. et Felic. 18, 4. ↩

  81. V. Pârvan, Die Nationalität der Kaufleute im röm. Kaiserreiche, Breslau 1909, 22 f. ↩

  82. Cf. for example CIL XIII: I(ovi) o(ptimo) m(aximo) dis patris et praesidibus huius loci Oceanique et Reno. ↩

  83. Pârvan, op. cit., 37 f. Cf. E. Thevenot, L’interpretation ‘gauloise’ des divinités romaines: ‘Mars’ gardien des calendriers celtiques, 1962. ↩

  84. Liv. XXIX; Ov., Fasti 297-328; cf. Graillot, op. cit., 75-77; Dumézil 1977, 420. ↩

  85. Altheim, op. cit., II, 1953, 52; cf. F. Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen im römischen Heidentum, 1931, 48-49. ↩

  86. Cf. M. Carcopino, Aspects mystiques de la Rome païenne, 1941; Basanoff 1947 212-213. ↩

  87. Basanoff 1947, 213. ↩

  88. Rüpke 1990, 164; Dumézil 1977, 461; Basanoff 1957, 190-193. ↩

  89. For example Massalia in 49 BC, Mutina in 43 BC, Perusia in 40 BC. ↩

  90. A. Bernardi, in Storia d’Italia, Novara 1979, vol. II, 78. ↩

  91. Lact. De m. p. 44; for the other vision of Apollo in his Augustodunum temple, s. Paneg.Const. VII 21. ↩