Los mecanismos de integración en la etapa neoliberal

There is a further aspect to Scipio’s impropriety as a general: in Livy’s extant text he is almost unique in assigning the assistance he is claiming to one, and only one, specific god without a simultaneous vow of games or a temple. Scipio’s specificity is most uncharacteristic of Roman generals: normally gods are only picked out in connection with ritual but Scipio makes no dedication. Rather it is ‘the gods’ in a generic and virtually anonymous plural who are thanked and acknowledged for their support.334 There would appear to be factors inhibiting the naming of a specific deity by non-priests.335

When Scipio names Neptune, his reasoning seems transparent: it was the sea, the domain of Neptune, that appeared to be offering assistance. This would seem to be a common principle where individual gods are named: the Locrians are quite explicit about the domain of Proserpina in connection with her temple (29.18.1-20) and we find repeatedly that where a particular temple is concerned, the deity is easily specified.336 But proper understanding is more complex than this: in calling for proper remedies to be applied in response to the complaints of the Locrians, Fabius Maximus refers to the pontifices for analysis:

‘sacrum piaculare fieri ita ut prius ad collegium pontificum referretur,

I quod sacri thesauri moti aperti uiolati essent, quae piacula, quibus dis,

i

334 Livy himself attributes the discovery of a slave plot to capture the Capitol to Jupiter without any qualms, presumably because it would be obvious that it would be Jupiter who protected his domain (4.45.2) but such specificity is extremely rare and this example seems to be a unique venture for the historian.

335 We are repeatedly told that deities were specified by the various colleges, e.g. at 36.37.5: consul P. Cornelius, quibus diis quibusque hostiis edidissent decemuiri, sacrificaret. There is evidence that even priests were cautious about specifying deities (below n. 565). Of course Scipio may have been an interpretative priest; we know he was a Salius. But as has been argued already, it is his functional role that he exceeds. It is as a general that he exceeds normal bounds of public interpretation.

336 See e.g. the desire of the pontifices to know to which deity expiation should be offered in the case of a lightning strike at 27.25.8-9: interestingly they add that it is possible to offer joint sacrifice to certain deities, possibly referring to the temple of Liber, Libera and Ceres.

quibus hostiis fieri placeret. ’ (29.19.8)

Livy typically does not give us any details of this province of the experts, and only brings the scruple to our attention as part of his casting Fabius Maximus as an

exem plum, in some kind of meticulous opposition to the unrestrained Scipio or sacrilegious Pleminius. The care that he urges would seem to indicate that expiation is more complex than simply restoring the property of Proserpina, whose temple it was: there was also the question of addressing the proper jurisdiction of other deities.337

There is a similar exemplary care in diagnosis when the gods intervene to assist Corvus in single combat with a Gaul. Livy informs us that the gods took an unexpected hand when a crow appeared unexpectedly and settled on the Roman’s helmet, whereupon Corvus delightedly accepted the omen and prayed for the help of whichever god it is that had sent the omen:

m inus in sign e certam en hum anum num ine in te rp o sito d eo ru m fa c tu m ;

n am que co n seren ti iam m anum R om an o coru u s re p e n te in g a le a

con sedit, in h ostem uersus. q u o d p r im o ut au gu riu m c a e lo m issu m

la etu s a c c e p it tribunus, p re c a tu s dein de, si diuus, si d iu a e s s e t q u i sib i

p ra e p e te m m isisset, uolens p ro p itiu s a d e sse t. d ictu m ira b ile, te n u it non

solum a le s ca p ta m se m e l sedem sed, q u o tien scu m q u e c erta m e n initum

est, leu an s se a lis o s o cu lo sq u e h o stis r o stro e t un gu ibu s a p p etit, d o n ee

territu m p r o d ig ii ta lis uisu o cu lisq u e sim u l a c m en te tu rbatu m V alerius

o btru n cat; coruus ex c o n sp ectu ela tu s o rien te m p e tit. ( 7 .2 6 .3 -5 )

337 Professor John Scheid gave a paper in November 1996 at the Institute o f Classical Studies in London postulating precisely this process in the annual or singular vows of the Arval Brethren, whereby deities were propitiated according to a structure and specific roles: thus on the departure of an emperor to war, gods of departure, victory and return would feature prominently, along with proper respect to the deities o f the temples in which the vows were offered. This discussion does not seem to have been published as yet. Thus jurisdiction could overlap even in a space nominated to a particular deity.

The indefinite formula used in Corvus’ careful negotiation of the possible specific identity of the god sending him aid is a well-known phenomenon338 and the formula is often taken to represent hesitancy in the face of possible error.339 However, as we shall see, there may be other factors at play.

At the other extreme of prudence come a number of agents who are all too ready to name deities: apart from Scipio, the younger T. Manlius is confident that Jupiter will attend the Roman cause (8.7.5-7) but since the incident is symptomatic of his fero x animus (8.7.8), it would seem that his outspokenness is misjudged.340 He follows his father’s

exemplum wrongly here as well as in other respects.341 His father was also disposed to call on Jupiter by name: when T. Manlius Torquatus sees Annius, the leader of the Latins, lying unconscious after falling on the steps of the temple of Jupiter, he declares without hesitation that Jupiter is present and has shown his ill-will:

‘bene habet; di pium mouere bellum. est caeleste numen; es, magne luppiter; haud frustra te patrem deum hominum hac sede sacrauimus. '

( 8 .6 .5 - 6 )

This follows his outburst earlier, in indignation at A nnius’ threats:

338 For further examples, see Alvar (1985); Livy 22.10.

339 Contributing here to this is the fact that, as far as we know, crows were not necessarily associated with any particular deity but this may not be the only factor at play: here it might as well be a god of victory as any patron o f crows.

340 We might even go so far as to say that to be so bold as to specify a god’s role so precisely is the prerogative of the virtual amateur, or the most enlightened expert, but not a more average serious contender for respectable reputation. Of course Jupiter was in support o f Rome, but to say so was crass. 341 Kraus (1998) 270; Feldherr (1998) 105-111.

183 ‘audi, lu p p ite r, h a ec s c e le r a ’ inquit; ‘a u d ite, lu s F asqu e. p e r e g r in o s

co n su les e t p e re g rin u m sen a tu m in tuo, lu p p ite r, a u g u ra to te m p lo

ca p tu s a tq u e ip se o p p re ssu s u isu ru s e s ? ’ (8 .5 .8 -1 0 )

Torquatus’ confident diagnosis that Jupiter has taken a hand in events is not simply based on the visible evidence of Annius’ incapacitation: he sees the fulfilment of his appeal, an appeal which was based on proper practice - the protection of a treaty by the patron deity of Rome. The reader will not be particularly surprised: before his departure for the city, Annius announced a challenge almost to Jupiter himself:

‘en e g o ip se a u d ie n te non p o p u lo R o m a n o m o d o se n a tu q u e s e d lo u e

ipso, q u i C a p ito liu m in colit, p r o fite o r m e dictu ru m , ut, s i n o s in f o e d e r e

a c s o c ie ta te e sse uelint, co n su lem a lte ru m a b n o b is se n a tu sq u e p a r te m

a c c ip ia n t.’ ( 8 .4 .1 1 )

Torquatus relies for his diagnosis not just on Jupiter’s jurisdiction in respect of treaties but also on his own direct appeal, made just before, and presumably also on the location of A nnius’ accident. Livy also seems to be adding material in support of the Roman when he mentions Annius’ apparently insolent warning to Jupiter in his speech to the Latins. Torquatus was correct in his diagnosis but Livy has hinted that he was far from tactful; even if the historian finds that the consul’s outspoken specificity and confidence was acceptable, his manner was not necessarily to be emulated. It should not be forgotten how unconventional - yet ultimately acceptable - was Torquatus in most of his dealings: apart from being par ferociae to Annius (8.5.7), the tribune who wished to prosecute his father Lucius for his disgraceful treatment of his son found himself threatened by that very son and forced to break off the prosecution. His father had cut

him off from public life because his son lacked any eloquence (lingua impromptus,

7.4.6) and was dull-witted (tarditatem ingenii, 7.4.7). Thus, in addressing Jupiter so, he was characteristically devoid of tact and propriety in his mode of presentation, yet retained an essential ‘rightness’.342 When Scipio, in a similar manner, assigns his easy access to an undefended New Carthage to Neptune, he may be interpretatively ‘accurate’, but his boldness is not necessarily appropriate.

This emphasis on caution is not to say that only the priests had any opinions as to the identity of a god engaged in active intervention: even if Torquatus’ outburst was sanctioned as an exception then we should be wary of deciding that a failure to name a deity reflects any general inability to discern the respective realms of the gods. Rather we should be aware of a nexus of considerations that are embedded in an avoidance of competition and a demarcation of proper authority. Discussion and assignation of roles to gods was the stuff of experts and demanded serious and dignified consideration. To appropriate the authority of a priest, to represent oneself as distinctive with regard to religion is a dangerous, unrepublican venture.343 The vast majority of instances where the divine is mentioned refer to the gods in the plural. Even when a particular deity is thought to be relevant, the other gods might be mentioned.344 This is not just an avoidance of error but also an act of political tact.

342 The action against the tribune (7.5.If), like Torquatus’ execution o f his son (8.7.20-8.8.1), is approved by Livy despite its extreme nature.

343 Livy claims that such a zeal was the driving force behind Flaccus’ despoliation of the temple o f Juno Laciniae: enixo studio, ne ullum Romae amplius aut magnificentius templum esset (42.3.1).

344 Q. Fabius Maximus in speaking o f the breaking o f a treaty (i.e. the province o f Jupiter), still takes care to acknowledge the other gods (26.8.5).

(iv) A cknow ledgem ent o f the Gods

Caution was not, however, an unproblematic solution to the difficulties of interpretation. Any religious statement was subject to manifold considerations: speaker and audience alike placed religious matters in a complex web; a veritable array of checks and balances came into play, and the educated Roman would have been expected to master this. However men were not the only audiences: the gods were listening too, and far from indifferently.

We know that failure to acknowledge the gods is traditionally a dangerous error: triumphs, for instance, are repeatedly introduced in Livy’s text as both a thanksgiving to the gods and a glorification of the commander concerned.345 Acknowledgement was not, however, limited to the context of rite: C. Claudius’ triumph, held for his success over the Ligurians at 41.13.6-14.1 is unusual for the failure to mention thanksgiving to the gods. This is normally carefully placed, if not over-emphasised, in the documentation of the requests for, and granting of, triumphs.346 It is therefore telling that the Ligurians, not realising why the Romans have left, immediately organise an uprising. Livy makes little of this explicitly, but since we have become accustomed to the significant juxtaposition of events, we can reasonably assume that he is making a point. The senate orders Claudius to return to the province after overseeing the elections: Livy pointedly includes in their instructions to return as allies the Histrians whom he had brought from their province for the triumph so that they did not copy the example of the Ligurians (41.14.6). The uprising is swiftly crushed, only for Claudius to repeat the same mistake:

345 Note that Manlius admits this as a plausible scenario: ‘si graue ac superbum existimarem uirtute glo ria ri... ’ and goes on to emphasise that the triumph is intended to honour the gods (38.48.14-15). See also the speech of Marcus Servilius which culminates rhetorically (and unfortunately, also fragmentally)

‘quidem+ illae epulae senatus...utrum hominum uoluptatis causa an deorum+ honorumqueV (45.39.13): whatever the original text he seems to be placing the gods in the centre. Versnel (1970) is a thorough study of the practices and probable origins o f the triumph.

346 Phillips (1974) includes useful tables on the reporting of triumphs in Livy, but she is unfortunately too brief about this particular aspect to go further with this point: she does however demonstrate that Livy is sufficiently consistent to make any omission look deliberate.

he writes in characteristic haste to the senate, not only giving an account of the situation, but also boasting that by his valour and good fortune, there was no enemy on this side of the Alps:

litteraeque Romam extemplo scriptae quibus non modo rem exponeret, sed etiam gloriaretur sua uirtute ac felicitate neminem iam cis Alpes esse hostem populi Romani. ( 4 1 .1 6 .8 )

The implication of gloriaretur seems to be that the gods were given insufficient mention in the letter.347 The next uprising is more damaging to the Romans, and costs Petilius his

life, after his mistake in ritual rather than the sort of error of judgement that Claudius made. The arrogance, and the consequences of it, are underlined by the successful subjugation, probably with divine aid (Livy mentions a miraculum at 41.11.4), of the Histrians and the supplicatio accordingly decreed by the senate (41.12.4): proper religious protocol was applied at that point, and the Histrians, unlike the Ligurians, remained quiet.348 It is well known that neglect of the gods leads to the loss of their

347 Though felicitas is used o f a Tun o f luck’ which implied the special favour o f the gods (Erkell (1952) 53f), it is a word that, even more than others, is subject to political correctness: essentially it is not a word that one uses of oneself. So, e.g., Hannibal speaks humbly o f Scipio’s felicitas at 30.30.11, though the mention of his adversary’s adulescentia implies that one day’s felicitas is the next’s fortuna\

Cn. Manlius offers that to speak o f his own felicitas is arrogant (above, n. 345); Aemilius Paullus is one of only two Romans to speak o f his own felicitas, but he is contrasting his successful administration of the res publica (qua felicitate rempublicam administrauerim, 45.41.1) with his private losses. Later in the same speech he refers to uestra felicitas (i.e. of the populus Romanus) 45.41.12. Manlius is also cautious in assimilating his own felicitas with that o f the Roman people (experimini modo et uestram felicitatem et me, ut spero, feliciter expertum, 6.18.13). The combination with uirtus has a particular

potency, being highly honorific or critical: thus Sophonisba honours and appeals to Masinissa with such a phrase (30.12.12) and Livy uses it judiciously of Camillus (consilio et uirtute in Volsco bello, felicitate in Tusculana expeditione, 6.27.1); L. Aemilius Regillus is thus honoured in a dedication to the

Lares Permarini (auspicio imperio felicitate ductuque, 40.52.5). Decius prays to Jupiter Optimus Maximus for it for both himself and colleague (10.24.16) and Scipio (typically hyperbolically) speaks of his troops’ uirtus tanta et felicitas perdomita (28.32.11). Hannibal is hasty, acting as if the war is over and waits ut suae in uicem simul felicitati et uirtuti cedatur (22.58.4). Most emphatically, Hannibal, in wiser mood, speaks to Scipio o f the pauca felicitatis uirtutisque exempla (30.30.23), invoking the

exemplum o f M. Atilius to underline the dangers of arrogance. Claudius would therefore seem to have rather exaggerated his position in the scheme o f things.

348 It seems worthwhile to speculate that in fact the reasoning behind L ivy’s account is that the Ligurians continued to fight despite the triumph, thus implying some error that squandered divine support; his suggestion that Claudius did not properly recommend the assistance of the gods to the senate might well be his explanation for this. It is worth noting also that the allies were disgruntled at the

support, but Claudius’ neglect was in speech and interpretation rather than in rite.

The care with which the Roman priests propitiated individual deities, and the unusual circumstances that surround most instances where a particular god is named makes it most plausible that, even when there is the clearest of evidence that one particular god is active in a given situation, there may be other gods working for the benefit of the Romans, and that the better men of the senate will be careful to allow for this. The dissatisfaction of just one god would seem to be dangerous: all the gods but Salus were in support of Petilius and Cn. Cornelius.349