Roman Prayers

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

I have not been posting as much as I use to, primarily because I have been busy trying my hand at translating prayers to be found among Roman authors. Actually I have been doing quite a lot of translations lately. So I will begin posting them to the Collegium under the authors' names, and this thread I would like to reserve for a general discussion about Roman prayers and what they have to tell us about the Religio Romana

Dique Deaeque vos semper ament

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete omnes

The first comment I wish to make - to reiterate it once more - no one should trust in the translations I have provided; my Latin really is not all that good. The purpose of posting these is that you look up the prayers yourself. The best translation is your own. Also by looking them up you will better find the context in which they were made.

Secondly, the Latin version for most of these prayers can be found at sites like www.latinlibrary.com or the Persius Project at Tufts University.

Valete et habete fortunam bonam

[Lucius Tyrrhenus Garrulus]

Salve Marce!
Not to be a buttinsky, but I just got to say... These prayers are really good.
Hail M. Moravi Horati Piscine, for compiling & posting these prayers.
Vale bene!

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Luci Garrule

Gratias tibi magnas ago. Noster Stoicus ait, quis scribit bis discet.

I think there is a great deal to learn about the religio from reviewing the prayers. They give you an idea of what Romans prayed for, and in the manner that they address the Gods, the prayers tell us something about how the Romans thought about the Gods. Collecting Roman prayers has produced a good number of files just waiting to be posted to SVR. I am not quite finished yet in posting, nor in having gathered all of the prayers of which I am aware. Then writing them out, well, I do not think my Latin has improved much by it, but it is giving me some greater insights and opening new questions for me to consider.

Vale optime

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete sodales et comreligiones

I would like to begin discussing Roman prayers a bit more in our collegium. Below is something I posted elsewhere to begin just such a discussion.

First we should mention a couple of concepts related to Roman prayers. No prayer is made without offering a sacrifice, or the promise of a sacrifice. ?Moreover, in fact, a sacrifice is thought to be ineffective when made without prayer, and without prayer the Gods are thought not to have been properly consulted (Pliny Nat. Hist. 18.10)).? Centuries later Sallustius wrote, ?Prayers offered without sacrifices are only words, with sacrifices they are live words; the wording gives meaning to the life while the life animates the words.? A sacrificatio will always include oblationes, or the offering of incense, wine, foodstuffs, or such votives as vessels, statues, altars, or even a temple. In ancient times blood sacrifices, immolationes, were offered as well in some rites. Blood sacrifices were not used for taking the auspices, but as the Gods were being called to provide the auspices, oblationes were first offered. Servius even mentions (Ad Aen. 6.190) that in augury there were two kinds of signs considered. The auspicia were signs that one asked to receive from the Gods. The oblativa were signs that were not requested but resulted from offering oblationes. While we are familiar with the lituus as an emblem of an augur, the other augural emblem was a capis. This earth vessel was covered in pitch to hold a liquid, and had one looping handle and a spout. Probably it was used to offer a libation as part of the augur?s oblativa, although it could have served in a rite of drawing lots which was another form of augury. When immolationes were offered to one or more Gods, other Gods would first be called to witness the rite, and these were offered only oblationes. The Gods receiving a blood sacrifice would also receive oblationes both before and after the immolatio. At each stage of a rite then, prayers were being offered, along with sacrifices, but in a somewhat different manner depending on who was being called and why.

A second concept has to do with Roman pietus. It is often noted that Roman prayer had a contractual sense to them. Actually that is a little misleading, because only certain rites and their associated prayers would involve giving or fulfilling a vow, and vows were made as contracts with the Gods. In Livy we have an example of a simple vow. ?If today, Bellona, You grant us victory, a new temple I vow (10.19.17-18).? In the Odes of Horace there is a vow to Faunus for a single sacrifice if he is mild (3.18.1-8). At another point Horace fulfills a vow to Diana for Her assistance during the childbirth of his children by dedicating a new shrine to Her, and as part of that dedication he makes a new vow to offer annual sacrifices (3.22.1-8). That vow would not only be his obligation to fulfill each year, but would also become an obligation for his heir, the vow becoming part of the family?s cultus geniale. Roman pietatis, as Festus mentions and Cicero elaborated, revolves around fulfilling all the obligations one has to the Lares and to fulfilling such vows as were made to the Gods in the cultus geniale. Roman purification rites, made prior to participating in a formal ritual, entailed meeting such obligations in order to fulfil one?s pietus. A person might ritually bathe in a river and purify himself with fumigations, or spend a period of fast and abstinence as for the rites of Ceres, but the significant feature of Roman purification was the sacrifice of a pig to one?s Lares and to any Manes to whom an obligation was owed, whether knowingly or not. In some prayers then a worshipper will call on the Gods by referring to his pietus, or, as in the case of the Vestal Tuccia, ?if I have always brought pure hands to Your secret services ?(Valerius Maximus 8.1.5 absol.).? Because this notion of purity and piety revolved around fulfilling one?s obligations, an important phase in any Roman ritual is to call on Gods to act as your witnesses. The initial prayers of the praesidium, or main celebrant of a ritual, made during the praefatio was just such a plea, obtestari deos.

A third thing to remember is that Romans offered prayer with gestures. Recall how Decius Mus was instructed to offer his prayer for a devotio with one hand touching his chin as he stood on a spear (Livy 8.9). Appel lists 45 Latin terms that may be translated as ?to pray.? Each term, however, has a unique connotation. Sometimes one simply speaks with the Gods, adloqui deos. At other times one invokes the Gods through song and especially with dance, excantari deos. But certain Latin terms indicate specific gestures were used as the Gods were invoked. For example, when the Romans mention a prayer of adoration, adorare deos, it implies that the prayer is said with the adoratio gesture, ?moving his hand to his lips and kissing it (Minucius Felix, Octavius II.4).? The hand is then touched to the altar (Pliny N. H. 9.250, Virgil Aeneis 8.81-5; 12.201Apuleius Apologia 56). Frequently there is mention of Romans raising their hands to the Gods as they prayed. There are three gestures used when first calling the Gods. Depending on whether the Gods are being invoked or saluted, these are the vocatio and the salutatio, the latter made either supinus manus or pronus. To simply address the Gods, initially the right hand is held loosely with the index finger only slightly extended and bent. It is the familiar gesture of Roman orators addressing the crowds. But to invoke the Gods (invocare deos), to summon and plead to the Gods (advocare deos), to call Them away from a place (evocare deos) or from an action (devocare deos), and in similar situations where one is arguing his case to the Gods, the gesture of the vocatio is made with the index and middle finger extended and the thumb bent at a right angle at their base. The hand is held more loose than in the gesture used by the BSA when making a pledge, but firmer than the gesture of a Catholic bishop?s blessing, and the fingers are oriented towards the Gods being invoked. The salutatio generally refers to the hand held supinus manus. This gesture is specifically associated with a salutation of the celestial Gods, with the open palm having the fingers bent slightly back and raised toward the sky. One faces in whichever direction from which the Gods are being invoked. Often prayers were said at dawn and thus the eastern horizon is indicated as the direction one faces while praying. At night orientation would be made towards the moon or certain stars. In one instance the North Star is specified. Elsewhere the sacrifice to Robigo is made in the direction of Sirius. Other stars and the planets were associated with specific deities, and so addressing those Gods and Goddesses the palm is oriented in the star?s direction. Similarly, when addressing the Di inferi, especially when making a vow at the altar, the pronus gesture was used with the palm facing down, either to the earth or over the flame on the altar. Completing the pompa, coming to a halt at a distance from the altar, the vocatio or salutatio was given first, and then one moved towards the altar, circling it three times, using a different gesture for an affari deos. This is made with the arm bent at the waist, the forearm forward with the palm of the hand facing up. The gesture is made as though carrying an offering to the altar, whether actually holding an offering or not. Usually your oblatio offerings would be carried by others who assist in the rite. At certain stages of a rite, when oblationes are offered, prayers are made with the hand held in the liberalitas gesture. This is where the palm is held out facing up, holding incense, coins, raw ore or other items, loosely in the palm, or for a libation of wine using a patera, and then turning the wrist sideways to let the offering fall into the flame. The hand remains in the liberalitas as one continues through his prayer. It is the basic gesture of Roman prayer. Depictions of sacra show others who attend the praesidium around the altar, the slaughter made off to one side, using the liberalitas along with the praesidium. It is very similar to a gesture made by a waiter showing you to your table and was used by the Romans in much the same way, to indicate to the Gods, as they prayed, exactly what they were offering. Another gesture that is used during Roman rites, similar in appearance to the liberalitas, is found when the praesidium orders the minister sacrificii to perform the actual sacrifice of a victim. The assisting minister asks, ?Agone?? and the praesidium replies with a hand gesture and says, ?Hoc age.? All of these gestures of the right hand naturally flow from one to the other and yet are distinct. That is why when the Silius Italicus said that ?Scipio raised his hands to the heavens,? or Valerius Flaccus says ?raising palms heavenward,? or Virgil, or Livy speak of ?hands raised? in the plural, the reference is not to raising both hands at once, but of raising the right hand alone, in various gestures. An exception is where one pours libations to the Di Inferi. In that situation the left hand is specified by Statius and others as the one used to pour the libation, while the right hand would be held pronus.

Lastly, some prayers are spoken aloud, others intoned, and some are murmured, depending on when they are said in a ritual. In most cases Roman rites are to be performed outdoors, under the open sky where the Gods may view their performance. The payers are then said aloud in a clear voice as though addressing distant members in an audience. However Cicero speaks of some prayers being intoned, and Pliny, too, speaks about the power of words when intoned. Certain Roman prayers are carmina and are intended to be intoned as a charm. These are used when summoning, invoking or otherwise calling forth the Gods from a distant place to attend a rite. Once a sign is given of Their presence, then They would be addressed aloud. However at the point where the praesidium bends over the oblationes or the victims of an immolatio to devote them to the Gods, these prayers are murmured so as not to reveal the secret name of a God or Goddess. The names that are familiar to us from myth and poetry are really titles, used when addressing the Gods aloud. The use of secret names is mentioned at such places as Pliny Natural History 28.18, Servilius Ad Aeneis 2.251 and On the Georgics 1.498, Macrobius Saturnalia 3.9.2, and Plutarch Roman Questions 61. As one moves through a Roman ritual, therefore, the manner of addressing the Gods alters. Thus the terms used to mean ?to pray,? associated with certain gestures, can also connote whether a prayer is to be said aloud in a clear voice or intoned, or can imply that the prayer is murmured. Intoned prayers are those that arouse the Gods (ciere deos, excitare, profari, attestari, evocare, imprecari, obsecrare, sollicitare, et cetera). Most other terms indicate calling out aloud or speaking formally (appellare, petere, et cetera), with some terms indicating instead that one speaks in a more informal, normal form of speech (orare deos, adloqui, rogare, salutare). The term implorare deos means that the prayer is wailed aloud with tears. Generally when a prayer is to be murmured the Romans simply stated it as such, although terms based on venerari deos likely imply the same.

There is therefore a kind of flow through a Roman ritual, where the manner of addressing the Gods alters at each step, signaled by different gestures and motions. The pompa brings the praesidium and his or her ministeri to the altar along with the sacrificial offerings, sacred vessels and perhaps images. He intones the attestari deos and calls out aloud the salutatio. In formal tones he orders his assistants to perform their part of a ritual. They may carry offerings up to him to murmur a prayer over them, devoting the offering to a deity, and the assistant would then carry the offering three times around the altar before the praesidium or his assistant would offer it into the flames with prayers once more said aloud. At the end of the sacrifices the praesidium would then turn around, saying prayers aloud as he gives the gesture of liberalitas. It was at this final stage of the sacrifice that tradition said Camillus stumbled, an omen it was thought presaging his exile (Livy 5.21.16-17). The same is of course true with each step of a ritual potentially holding omens, or even requiring that omens be taken. Thus interspersed throughout a ritual the attendees may wait in silence for a sign to continue or vitiate the rite.

Di Deaeque vos semper ament

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

Then as a follow up I wrote something on archaic expressions in Roman prayer:

A feature of many Roman prayers is the use of archaic expressions and word forms that were drawn from the traditional Latin poetry known as versus Saturnus. The Romans of the Late Republic and Principate used versus Saturnus much like English-speaking peoples of today use an earlier manner of speech in prayer to convey a sense of the religious. At other times the Romans used an archaic manner of expression to convey a sense of the comical in the theater, just as today we might find it comical to see a character in a modern setting who spoke in the style of Shakespeare. With someone like Cattullus you find archaic expresses from the versus Saturnus used to convey a religious tone inside a poem, while at other times he converts to epic language to render a sarcastic tone. It is really a matter of context, as we will see. I will begin with some examples of archaic expressions used in Roman poetry and prose. Then I will move on to some examples of Roman prayers that were written using the poetic structure of versus Saturnus, and, finally, I will post on some Latin formulae. Combined together this is what we can call the language of Roman prayer.

In one instance Catullus uses the expression PERISSE PERDITUM, ?was lost, hopelessly lost? (Cat. 8.2; Plaut. Trin. 1026). This form of phrase, an asyndeton bimembre between two terms having a similar meaning, is a regular feature in what can only be described as ancient spells. A whole series of the asyndeton bimembre appears as formulae in a synanche used by Marcellus Empiricus for curing sore throat in a child (De Medicamentis 15.11):

HANC PESTEM, HANC PESTILENTIAM,
HUNC DOLOREM, HUNC TUMOREM, HUNC RUBOREM,
HAS TOLES, HAS TOSILLAS,
HUNC PANUM, HAS PANUCLAS,
HANC STRUMAM, HANC STRUMELLAM.

This sickness, this disease,
This pain, this swelling, this redness,
This goiter, these tonsils,
This tumor, these little tumors,
This swelling gland, these swelling little glands.

Another expression used by Catullus is closely related to Marcellus? charm. That is, HANC PESTEM PERNICIEMQUE, ?this plague, this death? (Cat. 76.20). This same alliterative combination occurs once in Caesar, but it is with Cicero that we find the expression repeated for its dramatic effect. In each case the argument offered by Cicero is related to a religious question. Thus by including such an expression he reminds his listeners of religious issues while still addressing other maters at Pro Rabirio 2, Catilina 1.33, and De Officiones 2.51. That he could do this, alter the tone of his speech by the inclusion of archaic phrasing, is similar to Lincoln?s style of speech-making where he spoke in the manner of the King James Bible without actually quoting from it. It offered his speeches, like that of the Gettysburg Address, a familiar sound to which his audience could relate, and charged them to think of loftier issues than his words would at first seem to address. Cicero would add to the dignity of his speeches by quoting from old poetry, or by adopting some of its language into his speech.

Three men ? Caesar, Catullus, and Cicero, contemporaries who were at times opponents, at other times allied with one another, and all using the same phrase like this, would argue for some common source. That is, this particular alliterative combination, PESTEM PERNICIEMQUE, was a formula, probably taken from a public prayer of the time. Alliterative combinations and asyndeton in phrasing is commonly found in defixiones, or curse prayers. One example is, EUM INTEREMATIS INTERFICIATIS, ?You may kill him, you may destroy him.? The use of such archaic literary devices imparts a kind of dignity that the Romans held as appropriate when addressing the Gods, no matter for what reason. This involves a style of speaking. But when the same combination of words is repeated, especially by different authors, it becomes a formula, and in particular, the kind of formulae that was used in prayers and religious rites. Another possible example of a religious formula is again found with Catullus (39.14; 76.19): PURITER LAVIT, or, ?He has washed purely (in running water).? Here Catullus uses an old form of wording, just as he employed the old form of MISERITER in his poem about Attis (63.49). The action being mentioned is ritual purification, and thus Catullus alters his phrasing into the appropriate language of religious rites even when his subject is not religious in nature.

Another way that Roman prayers can differ from the vernacular is with its use of epic vocabulary and the archaic genitive ?UM. The old genitive was retained in certain formal and official expressions. Thus in what can be the formal language of legal documents you find SOCIUM, TRIUMVIRUM, IUGERUM, MODIUM, NUMMUM, FABRUM, LIBERUM, and DEUM (Cic. Orat. 155-6). The archaic genitive was also used when referring to people of a particular region. SANTONUM found in Caesar, Livy?s CELTIBERUM and Pliny?s BRUCTERUM are are some examples. We might get an idea of how this archaic form lent a certain kind of dignity in phrasing by comparing its use in the poems of Catullus. The archaic genitive of DEUS is DEUM. It does not appear in Catullus? satiric carmen 63 concerning the self-castration of foreign Attis. In carmina 64, 66, and 76 the subjects are different, and Catullus is addressing Roman gods. Carmen 64 is about Ariadne, in which DEUM appears four times and there is also the word TROIUGENUM meaning descendants of Troy, applied here to the Romans. In another carmen in which Jupiter is addressed, DEUM appears once (66.69). It appears also in a poem calling on the Roman Gods (76. 4), at one point, too, asking the Gods to reward Catullus? piety. O DI REDDITE MI HOC PRO PIETATE MEA. Other examples of the archaic genitive form found in Catullus are VIRUM (61.192; 68.90) and CAELI COLUM (68.138).

Catullus also made use of an archaic reduplicated perfect form of the verb FERO/FERRE. Where the perfect form is TULI/TULISSE, the archaic reduplicate he uses is TETULIT (1.52; 64.47; 66.35; Lucretius 6.672). This leads us to what is called epic vocabulary. Catullus uses a number of such archaic words in carmen 63, perhaps to add to its sarcastic tone. There are RATIS for ?raft? (63.1), PELAGUS for ?sea? (63.16), SONIPES for ?steed? (63.41), STABULA for shelter (63.53), and MARMORA for the glistening surface of the sea (63.88). This last term is generally used to mean ?marble? or the sheen of a polished marble surface. Applied to the sea, as in MARMORA PELAGI (64.88) it becomes a metaphor for the gleam of the sun on the sea. It is a metaphor derived from Homer (Iliad 14.273) and passed on to the Romans by Ennius, MARE MARMORE FLAVO (Annales 377v). Elsewhere this same metaphor is used by Virgil, LENTO LUCTANTUR MARMORE TONSAE (Aen. 7.28), and by Lucretius, CANOS CANDENTI MARMORE FLUCTUS (2.767),

The Latin term STABULA generally means ?stables? or ?stalls? for animals. Catullus used this term instead to mean a simple kind of shelter that Romans identified with the time of Romulus and Remus. Such an ancient shepherd?s hut, found on the Palatine during the Late Republic, was turned into a memorial shrine on the assumption that it had once belonged to Romulus. Virgil likewise uses an older meaning for STABULA to convey that his story is set in a much earlier time. STABULA ALTA FERARUM (Aen. 6.179; 10.723). In both cases Virgil is referring to primeval forests as shelters for wild animals. That, too, conveys the antiquity of his story, to when such forests still existed in Italy. However, the time referred as ancient by Latin authors of the Late Republic was no more than a couple centuries earlier. In Livy we are told of the passage of Marcus Fabius through the Ciminian Forest in 310 BCE, a forest ?more impenetrable and fearful than the wooded ravines of Germany? (IX. 36). That places us within a generation of when Livius Andronicus (c. 240) and Naevius (c. 235) were writing for the Roman stage. While Livius Andronicus wrote in the versus Saturnus, Naevius has some of the earliest examples in Latin of poetic forms modeled after the Greeks. Ennius was born just a few years before Naevius? first play appeared at Rome, arriving in the City himself when brought by Cato in 204 BCE. Yet it is merely 150 years later that these authors are quoted by antiquarians of the Late Republic as sources of archaic Latin. It is comparable, in some respects, of viewing Shakespeare or seventeenth century English as archaic, and translating our prayers into the style of Byron and Shelley.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

Early in the twentieth century C. Thulin demonstrated that the devotio prayer of Decius Mus, found in Livy (8.9.6), was originally composed in versus Saturnus.

IANE IUPPITER /
MARS PATER QUIRINE / BELLONA LARES
DIVI NOVENSILES / DI INDIGETES
DIVI QUORUMST POTESTAS / NOSTRORUM HOSTIUMQUE
DIQUE MANES /

VOS PRECOR VENEROR / VENIAM PETO OROQUE
UTI POPULO ROMANO QUIRITIU / VIM VICTORIAM PROSPERETIS
HOSTESQUE POPULI / ROMANI QUIRITIUM
TERRORE FORMIDINE / MORTEQUE AFFICIATIS

SICUT VERBIS NUNCUPAVI,
ITA PRO RE PUBLICA / <POPULI ROMANI> QUIRITIUM
EXERCITU LEGIONIBUS AUXILIS / POPULI ROMANI QUIRITIUM
LEGIONES AUXILIAQUE HOSTIUM / MECUM DIIS MANIBUS
TELLURIQUE DEVOVEO.


Versus Saturnus is not a poetic form that used a metrical structure. Instead it relied on a rhythm posed by long and short vowels. It tended to use word play, of a type that is commonly found in Indo-European languages, to form small units of phrasing and through word play, too, tied these units together. Alliteration is one form of word play that was prominently featured, especially between synonyms and antonyms. In Cato?s De Agricultura we find <bonus preces precor> (134), <pastores pecuaque salva servassis> (141). Livy, above, has <vos precor veneror veniamque peto> (8.9), and then elesewhere <geruntur postque gerentur> (29.27), and <bonis auctibus auxitis> (ibid.). With Plautus we find <laetus lubens laudes ago> (Trin. 821), a phrasing that is found in many inscriptions as well. One of the results of having prayers in versus Saturnus was that by forming these tight units of phrasing it gave rise to commonly used expressions found among different Roman authors. A case in point mentioned earlier is <pestem perniciemque> used by Catullus, Cicero and Caesar.

In archaic Latin there are instances where the prefix of a compound verb is presumed to extend its force of meaning onto any repetition of that verb. In Cato there is even an instance where the meaning of a prefix extends back to previous use of a verb (De Agr. 156). At times a type of alliteration is formed by emphasizing this kind of relation between verbs, placing a prefix on a number of different verbs having similar meanings. Thus you find in some prayers <demando, devoveo desacrificio>, and <evoco, educo, excanto>. At times, too, an expansion of meaning is presented by the play of an expansion of sounds in a series of words; i.e. <do dico dedicoque> and <dabo dedicaboque>. This can also be done through the expansion of one term into another in order to create alliteration. This is an asyndeton bimembre where a word is placed along with its diminutive or other form, the two terms having different meanings, but when combined can convey a whole array of things. The structure of the phrasing can take precedence over proper Latin form, even creating words to meet that structure. Already we have seen one example of this in a series of the asyndeton bimembre appearing as formulae Marcellus Empiricus De Medicamentis 15.11. Related to this is the use of bicolon and tricolon. A bicolon is a pair of terms created by a rhythmical sense and where the second term is stronger in its sense of meaning. The tricolon does the same, with three terms, and can be rising or falling. In English we have the tricolon of Tom, Dick and Harry, and in American English, lock, stock and barrel. Or hook, line and sinker. In Latin a tricolon will have three terms, each longer than the preceding word (rising), or each shorter than the previous word (falling).

If we go back to Empiricus' synache we can see some of these methods joined with other common features of Archaic Latin. The use of demonstrative pronouns in a repeated fashion is much more common in Archaic Latin than was later used. The synache uses a demonstrative pronoun with each term. They break up the lines into compact units and helps along the carmin's rhythm: <HUNC DOLOREM, HUNC TUMOREM, HUNC RUBOREM.> The first line, <HANC PESTEM, HANC PESTILENTIAM,> has an asyndeton bimembre as do most of the other lines, and you can also see how an alliterative bicolon creates a sense of rhythm by following one term with a longer term.

In saying this chant aloud you can feel the rhythm and see how it begins to break the prayer down into units of phrasing. Alliteration, assonance, and some other forms of word play can form such units of phrasing as a distinct whole, and then it becomes a matter of tying these units together. One such method is parataxis, as is used in the familiar, "Seek, and you shall find." A Latin example of parataxis is <tacent, satis laudant>, "They are silent, they praise enough." Parataxis takes two grammatical units with different meanings and places them on the same level, without directly relating or subordinating one to the other. Thus with Sergius we have <cum docemus, discimus> expressing an idea using parataxis, unlike Seneca?s <docere, discere est>. But then there is Seneca?s <quis scribit bis discit.>

Cato is often very sparse in his manner of speaking. He can set out a number of ideas as a series of sentences, and never give expression as to how these ideas are logically related, but parataxis is not the only means by which he could bring them together. Instead early Latin used a chiastic form of thinking that at times links paired terms, or sentences, or whole ideas. This is quite different from English where we tend to line ideas up in a columnar fashion, linking them together respectively by keeping them in the same order. In Homeric convention on the other hand, when two questions are asked, they are answered in reversed order. In early Latin two sentences with two different thoughts may be linked stylistically using a chiasmus and nothing more. Thus in Cato there is found in one sentence <bubilia bona> and then the sentence is linked to another idea using <bonas praesepis>. The common term of <bona> used in reversed order chiastically links the "stalls that are good" with the "good stable."

Some other features found in Roman prayers are due to Archaic Latin, rather than the versus Saturnus or any stylistic conventions. The copulative <-que> is used exclusively. Sentences may be joined by <et,> where it means ?furthermore,? and may appear at the beginning of a sentence for emphasis, but never is it found as a copulative between two terms. Word order in Archaic Latin is more standardised than later Latin. An adjective invariably follows the noun. The word order of Subject, Object, and Verb, if not invariable, is the norm. Enclitics are placed in the second position in a phrase, or as near as possible, for greater emphasis. That can be true, too, when the normal word order is altered, and emphasis of importance is given to a term by placing it in the second position. This comes in play again in any series of terms. Janus may be prescribed as the first called upon among the Gods in any prayer, but the deity called upon in the second or third place is the one in the position of greatest importance. In the devotio prayer of Scipio Africanus we have ?Dis Pater, Veiovis, and Di Manes,? with Jupiter in His younger form as Veiovis. With the devotio of Decius Mus we have "Janus, Jupiter, Father Mars, Quirinus, Bellona, Lares." Jupiter commonly follows Janus as He is the greatest of the Gods, and the position of greatest importance in a prayer of this sort falls either between Janus and Jupiter, or in third place following Jupiter. Quite similar is where a prayer will begin with a collective address followed by a series of deities.

"By Jupiter and all the Gods, by Juno and Ceres, Minerva, Latona, Hope, and Ops, Virtue, Venus, Castor and Pollux, Mars, Mercurius, Hercules, Summanus, Sol and Saturnus, I swear she is not lying with him, walking hand-in-hand with him, kissing him full upon the lips, or in any other way, as they say, being familiar with him (Plautus Bacchides 892-95)."

In this oath, from one of Plautus? comedies, the matter of concern is the fidelity of a girl of marriageable age. Jupiter and the collective address to "all the Gods" become the first term. In the position of greatest importance is then placed Juno whose providence is marital fidelity. Plautus was writing comedies in verse form for the theater, much like Shakespeare did. As such he used a great deal of wordplay of his own invention, but of a kind that mirrors his contemporaries Naevius and Livius Andronicus. Plautus was in his early teens when Livius Andronicus and Naevius began writing at Rome, and he wrote until late in life. Plautus' death came in the year Ennius became a Roman citizen, 184 BCE, Ennius continuing until 170 BCE. In the Late Republic, a hundred years later, a Catullus or Cicero could recall the phrasing units of such earlier poets to add a greater dimension of meaning to their own words. By then, too, what had originated in the wordplay of versus Saturnus became conventions in prayer. In a dedication from Salonia, Dalmatia, dating to 9 Oct. 137 CE, we find the tricolon <do dico dedico> (ILS 4907). During the reign of Domitian, the dedication of an aedes at Furfo has <datum, donatum, dedicatum> (ILS 4906). Certain conventions became so common in the prayers of later years that they took on the aura of formulae. It is because of this that Pliny can call these very same conventions "formulae for obtaining favorable omens, others for averting evil, and still others for commendation." Next we will begin turning our attention to some of these formulae.

Valete optime

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete comreligiones et sodales omnes

Formulae: Avertere


Allow me to begin right where I left off in my last post. Modern historians commenting on the Religio Romana, primarily through a Christian perspective, have tried to assert that the Romans recited prayers in a superstitious manner as though fearful of making an error through a misspoken word in chanting a magical formulae. The whole basis of this falsehood is one quotation from Pliny, "There are formulae for obtaining favourable omens, others for warding off evil, and yet others for commendation (N. H. 28.11)." In the Aeneid of Virgil, there is one such formula for "warding off evil." "Ye Gods, avert their threats (3.265)." We know that this is a formula, and we know exactly where it comes from, because Servilius, commenting on this passage says, "<DI PROHIBETE MINAS> is a type of prayer drawn from the augurs, what they called an <invocatio,> and by some a <dictum>. Also an <invocatio> is a prayer used to avert evil, said by haruspices to whichever gods they made a sacrifice when they took the auspices, just as when the augurs conducted an augury, saying <DI PROHIBETE MINAS>." An example is offered by Lucan, where the haruspex Arruns is called to Rome and "first orders the destruction of monsters" as may be ill omens, before he has all of the Roman priests conduct the pompa of a lustratio of the City, and only later examines the viscera of the sacrifices. And after noticing the evil portents in the entrails he prays, "May the Gods give a favorable turn to what we have witnessed; may the entrails prove false" (Pharsalia 1584-638). The fact of the matter was that convention held that when the Gods were called upon to provide signs, <DA PATER AUGURIUM> (Servilius ad Aen. 3.89), one also asked that any evil portent, and the threats they foresaw, be averted. But the phrase used to do this, whatever it may have been, was not a set prayer or any prescribed magical formula. Instead there are various examples of phrases used for this purpose. Servilius recognized in Virgil one such prayer that he had heard others use before, and perhaps this was a conventional way of phrasing it, but a rigid formula for taking auspices it was not.

Many of you are already familiar with Cato?s lustratio where he prayed <prohibessis defendas averrunces -que> ( De Agr. 141). This is a kind of unit of phrasing of which I wrote earlier, "prohibit, defend against, avert from us." Ovid instead simply has, "Dear Gods, I pray, remove sinister omens from us" [Heriod. 13.49: DI PRECOR A NOBIS OMEN REMOVETE SINISTRUM]. More forceful in expression is a prayer from the Latin Anthology, "Forcefully pluck up from me, Invincible God, this evil, have pity on one of Your own" [ 1.15.59: ERIPE ME HIS, INVICTE, MALIS, MISERE TUORUM]. A similar phrasing is found with Virgil at Aeneid 6.365 and again with Catullus 76.20 <ERIPITE HANC PESTEM PERNICIEM -QUE MIHI>. And Catullus here also uses a bicolon as I mentioned earlier. There was a manner of addressing the Gods, a style of speech based in the versus Satrunus, but far less superstitious was this in practice than would be a Catholic priest reading prescribed prayers from a book at the altar, or any reenactor insisting that Roman prayers have to be recited exactly as provided by one single example.

Below are some other examples, provided by George Appel, the translations of which you can find in the files on Roman prayers. They show the variety in which this formula for averting evil could be made, and some give more examples of Saturnian wordplay (compare Festus to Silius Italicus).

Latin Anthology
1.17.7 <meritumque malis avertite numen>

Arnobius
Advers. Nat. 3.43 <haec mala, quibus uror torreor vexor, vestri numinis averruncate clementia>

Festus
[Pesestas] <avertas morbum mortem labem nebulam impetiginem>

Lucilius
Satires 26 fr. 654 <Di monerint meliora amentiam averruncassint tuam>

Ovid
Fasti 6.746 <pelle procul morbos>
Metamorph. 10.322 <hoc prohibete nefas scelerique resistite nostro>

Plautus
Aulul. 611 <verum id te quaeso, ut prohibessis Fides>

Silius Italicus, Punica
1.506 <avertas morbum mortem labem nebulam impetiginem>
2.373-74 < prohibete nefas nostrique solutas / ductoris servate manus!' >
3.126 <sed tu, bellorum genitor, miserere nefasque / averte et serva caput inviolabile Teucris.>

Tibullus
2.1.18 <vos mala de nostris pellite limitibus>
2.5.80 <prodigia indomitis merge sub aequoribus>

Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica
1.216 <nunc patrui nunc flectite minas>

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

Formulae: Si deus si Dea

Deus incertus

The next formula I wish to take up concerns <deus incertus>. Those who are most familiar with my ramblings will recognize that this is an old issue with me. From 1926 to 1961, H. J. Rose posed that the Religio Romana began with a primitive notion of divinity, knowing only of avatars that he identified with numina. In spite of the fact that Georges Dumezil incontrovertibly refuted Rose?s "numinism" more than forty years ago, reference to numinism still persists among some linguists and on the Internet. Along with this falsehood is another that has persisted, that the Romans had only a vague idea of their gods and goddesses, unable to identify Them or distinguish Their gender. As proof of this notion, reference is made to the same inscriptions and texts, over and over again, which use the formula similar to sive deus sive dea ("be you a god or be you a goddess"). A note by Edward Courtney (Archaic Latin Prose, 1999) has, "si deus, si dea est: A typical formulation in Roman cult intended to cover all bases as an acknowledgement of the limitations of human knowledge about divine powers." Courtney then offers the list of authorities who have perpetuated this notion: Appel, Wissowa, Latte, Dumezil, Alvar, and Oakley. In the case of Dumezil (Archaic Roman Religion) he refers to a text by Servius (ad Aen.2.451) which mentions "a buckler was preserved at the Capital, bearing the inscription Genio Romae, siue mas siue femina." Courtney refers to the same text but at Servius, Ad Aen. 2.351, genius urbis Romae siue mas siue femina. At one point Dumezil diverges from others by assuming that si deus... refers to 'all gods and goddesses who...' In any less scholarly book or web site such statements are simply taken at face value, little questioning the reasoning behind it. However I take strong exception to this argumenta de verecundiam that is based on preconceived notions rather than look at the evidence.

First, this buckler was sent as a gift to the protective deity of Rome by a foreign kingdom. The Romans made every effort to keep the identity and name of their protective goddess a secret. The Romans had evoked Veia from Her home in Veii, resettling Her on the Aventine with the title of Juno Regina. They had evoked Tanit from Carthage to resettle Her as Juno Caelistes. Two protective goddesses of cities in Greece had been evoked, only one being resettled in Rome as a Juno Regina in the Forum Holitorium, the other relocated to a city in Greece. The Romans were not about to reveal the name of their own Juno Regina lest the same would occur to them. So this foreign kingdom had no knowledge of the name or gender of the deity they sought to honor with the buckler.

Second, we can look at the example of the Roman evocation of a foreign deity. Macrobius (Saturnalia 3.9.6-11) recorded an inscription bearing the evocation used by Scipio Africanus Aemilianus before the walls of Carthage, inviting the gods and goddesses to leave the city which he was about to attack. There the general calls out <Si deus, si dea est cui populus ciuitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela, teque maxime, ill qui urbis huius populique tutelam recepisti, precor uenerorque ueniamque a uobis peto ut populique ciuitatemque Carthaginiensem deseratis...>. Aemilianus naturally would not know the proper names by which to evoke foreign deities from a foreign city, and so he used a formula of "If You are a god or if a goddess." Carthage was not in the habit of revealing the true names of its deities anymore than the Romans, as seen in the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia where the protective goddess is referred to as daimon Karkhedon.

A third case is where Valerius Corvus was assisted during his duel with a Gaul by a raven, sent by some god or goddess. Not knowing the source of this assistance, Valerius prayed aloud his thanks by saying <Si divus, si diva esset> (Livy 7.26.4). Oakley, commenting on the prayer of Valerius Corvus, refers to an inscription (CIL 6.2099=ILS 5047) where is found siue deo siue deae in cuius tutela hic lucus locusue est. Here again reference is being made to whatever unknown divinity oversees the locus in question. In tenor and formulation it is much like the evocation of Aemilianus. Similar, too, then is Cato's <si deus, si dea es> in.De Agricultura 139 where once again the address is made to unknown geni loci. The same occurs within the Acta Fratrum Arvalum where a rite is performed in propitiation for clearing the locus sacred to Dea Dia after a storm. In a series of sacrifices made to various deities, there is one performed for the geni loci who are identified as ?the deity, male or female,? along with two indigitamenta of the work carried out, Andolenda and Coinquenda (CIL vi.2107, lines 2-13; ILS 5048). Often the geni loci of a place are represented by a serpent, their identity and gender remaining unknown.

Other examples are a fragment of Laevius praying to the moon, <si femina, si mas est,> and a quote by Gellius of Varro using the formula <si deo si deae> (Noct Att. 2.28.2). Related too are examples of the phrase <quisquis es> (Plautus Rudens 256; Ovid Fasti 6.731; Metamorph. 3.613; Seneca Oed. 248; Virgil Aen. 6.577; Lucan Phars. 9.860). Lucan's example is yet another instance where an "unknown heavenly power" is come upon in a foreign land. Ovid's comment on Summanus has the same <quisquis est>, but putting it into the context of these other instances, it has less of a sarcastic tone than it is generally interpreted to have. In the dark of the night a god, or a goddess, vents Their anger by hurling a thunderbolt. Pliny said that the Romans only thought of two gods capable of using a thunderbolt, Jupiter and Summanus and thus it might be assumed that the deity responsible was male (N. H. 2.138). However, that is not quite true, since Minerva was also seen at times hurling thunderbolts, as a goddess in warfare, and thus Ovid's comment better expresses a general uncertainty, grown from piety, rather than a sarcasm.

In each case where we find an expression similar to <sive deus sive dea> the context is of a rite performed for a deity whose identity would not be known. It is a matter as occurs in Plautus' Rudens 257-8 where two foreigners washed ashore come upon a shrine to some deity in a strange land and pray, "Whoever this god is, I entreat that we be rescued from this wretchedness." The expression used here, <quisquis est deus> does not convey a general belief in an inability to know the nature of the Gods, but rather the situation dictated that they would not know specifically to whom they prayed. We can see that this type of formula was used under specific circumstances of uncertainty. To assume that a formula used in a specific context of uncertainty applies also to a context where certainty is established, and that the Romans therefore had no conception of the identity or gender of any of their deities, is an argument that is structurally fallacious. Dumezil's assertion, and that of others like him, who contend that in every case Romans held only ambiguous ideas about their deities, or that in Roman prayers there are remnants of a primitive stage in Roman conception of the Gods, is simply false. Granted, there is something to be learned of the Roman conception of their gods in the manner by which they addressed the Gods. Granted, too, the formulae used in Roman prayers best serve to reveal how Romans thought of their gods, as we shall see further. But we should be cautious of those who apply faulty reasoning, misusing the formulae in fallacious constructs that misconstrue Roman beliefs. Edward Courtney's assertion is only correct in its premises. Romans did use "typical formulations" in their prayers. The Roman did tend "to cover all the bases" through the use of inclusive formulae, but not through the use of the <si deus si dea> formulations. His conclusion therefore does not follow from his premises, and thus it is false. The "acknowledgement of the limitations of human knowledge about divine powers" might be seen with some other Roman formula. But with this particular formula it does not follow that Romans thought of the gods in ambiguous terms, or with primitive notions, or were in any way less sophisticated in their perception of the Gods than any other culture. This was a specific formula used under a specific circumstance and nothing more need be implied.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salvete

Let us see if I can better illustrate some of the things I have been posting on by using Cato?s lustratio prayer of De Agricultura 141 as an example.

The over-all structure of Cato's prayer can be divided into six segments, chiasmaticly related. That is, the six segments can be seen as formed into three pairs of segments, with the corresponding segments placed in reverse order. The scheme is A-B-C followed by C-B-A. Each member of the pairs is linked to the other member by various means. A segment of the carmen is composed of any number of lines, each line broken into a number of units. These units of phrasing contain stylistic devices, or a kind of word-play that over time formed common means of expression that became formulae. One purpose of the formulae, as they are found with Cato in this particular prayer, may be said to enumerate certain things in a legalistic fashion so that all possible conditions are met. The intent is clarification, as though in a contract, to distinguish what is offered, what is asked in return, and for what purpose. The A pair of segments names the two parties of a contract, calling on Mars by name to ask for His favor, and stating who are the beneficiaries ? Cato, his house and his household. In the scheme of Cato's lustratio one member of A that is at the beginning is complemented at the end of the carmen. The B pair then stipulates what is to be protected or furthered - fields, land and the family estate. The C pair at the middle of the carmen stipulates what is asked of Mars, and this is made in two parts. First is a negative statement of what Mars is asked to protect against, followed by a positive statement of what He is asked to provide.

A:
Mars pater, te precor quaesoque
uti sies uolens propitius
mihi domo familiaeque nostrae;

B:
quoius rei ergo
agrum terram fundumque meum
suouitaurilia circumagi iussi;

C:
uti tu <mortem> morbus uisos inuisoque
uiduertatem uastitudinemque calamitates intemperiasque
prohibessis defendas auerruncesque;

C:
utique tu fruges frumenta uineta uirgultaque
pastores pecuaque salua seruassis
duisque bonam salutem ualetudinemque
mihi domo familiaeque nostrae.

B:
harumce rerum ergo
fundi terrae agrique mei
lustrandi lustrique faciendi ergo,
sicuti dixi,
macte hisce suouitaurilibus lactentibus immolandis esto.

A:
Mars pater, eiusdem rei ergo
macte hisce suouitaurilibus lactentibus esto.

A: Father Mars, I pray and beseech You, to be willing and propitious to me, to our household and to our family,

B: for which I have ordered this suovitaurilia to be driven around my grainfields, my land, and my estate,

C: in order that You may prevent, repel, and avert, seen and unseen <decay and> disease, deprivation, desolation, calamities, and intemperate weather;

C: I pray You allow the fruits, the grain, the vines, and the bushes, to grow strong and well and be brought to the storage pit. May You also keep the shepherds and their flocks safe, and give good health and vigour to me, to the household, and to our family.

B: To this end it is, as I have said - namely, for the purification and lustration of my estate, my land, and my grainfields, cultivated and uncultivated - that I pray You may be honored and strengthened by this suovitaurilia, these suckling sacrificial victims.

A: O Father Mars, to this same end I pray that You may be honored by the sacrifice of these suckling victims.

Each line of a segment may be broken down further in units of phrasing. This conveys a sort of rhythm to the carmen. Some of these units of phrasing can be identified as formulae. Three types of [/i]formulae[/i] can be noted. An asyndon bimembre places together two words having a similar meaning. Thus in the first line we have precor quaesoque. This could be translated to mean, "I pray and I pray." However, the second term expands on the first. "I pray and beseech you, please." The expansion of one term by another is further demonstrated in Marcellus Empiricus' De Medicamentis 11.15:

HAS TOLES, HAS TOSILLAS,
HUNC PANUM, HAS PANUCLAS,
HANC STRUMAM, HANC STRUMELLAM,

Other examples of asyndon bimembre that are found in Cato's lustratio likewise clarify by expanding on the meaning of a term. With viduertatem vastitudinemque we have one term referring to the desolation caused by drought, and then an expansion on this by a term referring to the resulting deprivation a drought would cause. These paired terms are immediately followed by another asyndon bimembre having the very opposite meaning. Calamitates intemperiasque refers to storms that are more than usual and are thus intemperate, and this is expanded upon by reference to still worst storms bringing on calamities. C. Zander (1890) suggested that another asyndon bimembre coupled morbus with mortem, based on a passage from Festus where he quoted a prayer to explain prohibessis. The suggestion is also based on a common feature of an asyndon bimembre where both terms are linked by alliteration or some other means. An example of this in Cato is fruges frumenta. The fruges refer to the "fruit" of grain forming on the stalk, while frumenta refer to ripened grain, in order to indicate the entire crop in every stage of development. Vineta virgultaque then refers to grape vines and other fruit bearing vines, shrubs, or trees, conjoined to cover the various crops of the estate. This combination is used to represent the plantation in all its aspects, similar to Cicero's Vineta virgetaque (De Leg. 2.21). While the first two pairs indicate the estate by its agricultural produce, it is further defined by those products attained from animal husbandry; i. e. pastores pecuaque. Altogether these three pairs may define the estate by its commercial products, but in doing all other aspects of the estate and its activities are implied as well.

Also to consider is the formula volens propitius. This too is a form of the asyndon bimembre using two words of similar meaning to imply an entire range of benefits requested from the deity. Cato uses the same phrase in De Agricultura 134, Livy uses this phrase (I 16.3; VII 26.4; XXIV 21.10; XXIX 14.13), and it is found on inscriptions such as the Acta Saeculares (CIL VI 32328; VI 32329). Georges Appel (p. 122-3) elaborates further on the variations of this phrasing.

Another kind of formula pairs two terms of opposite meaning to cover an entirety of things. An example from Cato of this kind of polar expression is visos invisoque, or what are ?seen and unseen? dangers. Another example is pennatas impennatasque agnus found in the Carmen Salii (fr. 6), meaning grain that is ?bearded or unbearded? and everything in between.

The tricolon is yet another stylistic device used to form formulae. In this case three terms are used to describe an entirety of things. As already suggested above, part A contains the tricolon of mihi domo familiaeque. In De Agricultura 134, and at 139 in a slightly different form, there are prose examples of a similar meaning: mihi liberisque meis domo familaeque meae. The reduction of this prose phrase to a tricolon having the same meaning is one sign that Cato?s lustratio prayer has been transformed into a carmen. Part B concerns the family?s property. The complementary B parts have the same tricolon but with the terms reversed in order to further link both parts of the pair chiasmaticly. Thus we first see agrum terram fundumque mirrored by fundi terrae agrique. The sacrifice being offered may also be regarded as a kind of tricolon. Three animals are to be sacrificed and the term for this special kind of sacrifice combines the words for pig, sheep, and bull. At one time this may well have been a tricolon of three terms, that was so commonly used that it became contracted into a single word. By its name, and by the act of sacrifice it specifies, there again is implied an entire range of worship offered by the family over the course of the coming year.

[Horatius Piscinus]

oops! That got sent while I was still in the middle of editing and color coding, but I hope you get the idea.

The other prayers that you find in Cato's De Agricultura do not attain the level of being a carmen. But they share in a form of drop-by-drop manner of speeking that break them up into units of phrasing. Thereby you can substitute other phrases as you may need, and include some of the common formulae as came to be used in Roman prayers. It was like a lawyer, familiar with the legalese mode of expression, composing a contract on the spot to meet the needs of a given situation. Someone versed in the carmina could likewise compose his prayers impromptu, thinking in terms of such little units of phrasing, adding in common formulae as he went along, and coming up with just about any prayer he needed.

Well, I hope this has clarified some things.

Valete