Dedicatio

In this section, my main aim is to show how the reference to Romulus setting up the templum is not just related to an augural practice, but could also refer to a real, effective subdivision of the surrounding territory just conquered by Rome. For our purposes, the apex of the Livian narrative is reached in Romulus’ concise words, spoken at the moment of the dedication. Once Romulus marked off the limits of a sacred precinct and bestowed the epithet of Feretrius to Jupiter (designavit templo Iovis fines cognomenque addidit deo), in a sacral language633 he announced:

633

Ogilvie 1965:72.

“Iuppiter Feretri” inquit, “haec tibi victor Romulus rex regia arma fero, templumque his regionibus quas modo animo metatus sum dedico, sedem opimis spoliis quae regibus ducibusque hostium caesis me auctorem sequentes posteri ferent”.634

“Jupiter Feretrius, he said, to thee, I, the victorious Romulus king bring (fero these royal weapons, and I dedicate this templum, whose boundaries I have just measured off with my mind’s intention, as the seat of these supreme spoils (spolia

opima), which coming descendants will bring from the slayed enemy leaders and

kings following my example”.635

They represent the meaningful characteristics of the templum, which Romulus was about to set up as the direct outcome of a vow he made before the battle with Acron. In case of victory, he vowed to dedicate a templum636 to Jupiter.637 Livy follows this origin story of the building, which was the first templum to be consecrated in Rome (Haec templi est origo quod primum omnium Romae

sacratum est).638 Thus the earliest Roman Jupiter had his oldest cult in the most ancient temple in Rome on the northern/north-western summit of the Capitoline Hill.639 However, despite his ancestral worship and its connection with the ancient priesthood of the fetiales, Feretrius never rose to the greatest heights.640 His cult and his temple were quite distinct from his more famous ‘Etruscan’ successor, Jupiter Optimus Maximus, who supplanted the Feretrius and shared with Iuno and Minerva the great temple on the southern peak, destined to become supreme.641 The arx was already sacred – before Romulus set up the templum – as Livy establishes that the oak was already worshipped by shepherds. Thus the delimitation of this sacred enclosure on the sacred ground of the Capitoline Hill may be deemed as the first possible evidence of a boundary practice. Primarily, I shall consider the evidence of the terms used within the Romulean bordering practices (fines and regiones) and the theoretical concepts connected to them. Secondly, following Livy and Varro, I 634

Liv. 1.10.6.

635

Aicher 2004:1.61.

636

Schnusenberg (2010:188) gives to the temple of Jupiter Feretrius the definition of templum-

theatrum.

637

More references are present also in: Liv. 1.33; Prop. 4.1.0.15: Iuppiter, haec hodie tibi

uictima corruet Acron.

638

Cf. Wissowa 1909:6.2210.

639

Paul. Fest. 92.1, 115.4L; August. Civ. Dei 2.29.

640

Dumézil 1974:147-8, 184, for the nature of this divinity and of a possible pre-Capitoline ‘triad’.

641

Wissowa 1909:2209-10. Samter 1909:6.2259-65. Bailey 1932:169. The two goddesses fell into the background and luppiter Optimus Maximus, the greatest and best not only of all Jupiters, but no doubt of all gods, surveys the life of Rome in a more and more exalted position to Romulus. Cf. Bonfante Warren 1970:54

shall explore which kind of ritual Romulus is undertaking, focussing on the fact that it is related to the templum. Finally, I will analyse the Livian semiology; those symbols used in his account and how they relate to bordering practice and the fetial ritual.

Such a cryptic passage is open to different interpretations about the terms finis and regiones, as they could be ascribed to de-limiting, spatial and structural elements.642 According to Livy’s narrative,643 Romulus decided (designavit)644 the boundaries of the templum of Jupiter (templo Iovis finis) Feretrius while saying: “Jupiter Feretrius, I, the victorious king Romulus, […] dedicate the

templum here by these regiones, which I am measuring off in my mind”.645 At first glance, the entire sentence seems to be quite obscure,646 as it is not made explicit what kind of regions he is talking about. Was Livy referring to a real subdivision of the newly conquered areas/territory, or was Romulus performing a theoretical subdivision of the sky? Scholars themselves seem confused about the application and relation of both the term finis and regio to so simple a structure as a templum.647 Nevertheless, it is also undeniable in Livy’s text that the evident use of these terms is related to bordering practices – the question is, what exactly is it bordering? Romulus, then, in his dedication speech, defined the inner boundaries and the outer limit (finis) of the templum. By drawing these lines, he established and divided the space into those regions he had in his mind’s eye (his regionibus quas modo animo metatus sum dedico),648 through the appropriate words and probably also employing the proper gestures. Varro, 642

Linderski (1986:2286) found the passage unusual, citing Regell (1878) and Magdelain (1962), showing that Valeton (1889; 1890) interpreted Livy’s passage as a reference to the

partes caeli rather than pars templi.

643

Liv. 1.10.5-6

644

One meaning of the verb designare is “to point out” and this interpretation is strengthened by the use of the demonstrative “these regions”. Cf. Gargola 1995:35.

645

Operating in conjunction with a colonial pontiff, the magistrate who dedicated the temple at Salona announced publicly before reading out the words of the law: “I will give and dedicate by these rules and by these regimes, which I will say here publicly today”. ILS 112: … his legibus

hisque regionibus dabo dedicaboque, quas his hodie palam dixero …. See also CIL III.1933:

…ollis legib(us) ollisque regionibus dabo dedicaboque, qua hic hodie palam dixero …; CIL IX.3513 (58 B.C.): … olleis legibus illeis regionibus …. Gargola 1995:36.

646

Linderski (1986:2287) considers the formula ‘tralatician’. Cf. the leges vici Furfensis, area

Narbonensis and Sanotinae, ILS 4906.112.4907.

647

In the translations there is a dichotomy between fines and regiones. Cf. Linderski (1986:2287) does not make a distinction, stating that the augurs “delimit and separate different

loca by drawing the fines or regiones”.

648

Liv. 4.20.5.

as Frothingham points out, provides perhaps a more convincing explanation of what modo animo metatus means.649 The boundaries were determined not merely by sight (conspicione), but also by memory or mental vision (cortumione), determining the regions of the templum itself which, temporary and immaterial, was not marked out.650 Fines are related to the foundation of the same templum, where, in this case, they represent the ‘limits’ of the physical

templum (terrestris).[3.4; 3.5]

Regiones, on the other hand, is a word used by Romulus when he actually

applies a sub-division to the temple. The term regiones does not refer to the lines of the foundation of the temple; otherwise Livy would have once again used the term fines. In the context of augury, it should be noted that the word

regiones means, primarily, the lines that both subdivide a space and separate it

from the external world and, secondarily, the parts of a space that these dividing lines create.651 Acting as an augur, Romulus seems to perform the ritual of creating a templum, not in the sense of a structure (aedes), but instead following some ancestral augural procedure.652 Successively, magistrates seeking to use a templum to create within it an aedes or altar also identified the lines that were to define the place in their mind, by words and by gestures, as Romulus did.653

Livy and Cicero’s naratives can be compared, where the latter provides a more definitive explanation of this question. It represents the best comparison with the Livian passage, displaying the use of similar related bordering terms. Cicero compares himself to Pompey,654 possibly reporting the same words as found in Livy and adding some more. Cicero is even more explicit, both in terminology and in connecting concepts, explaining that:

649

Frothingham (1917:195) considers metatus used in the same context of Varro (L.L. 7.8): cf. Norden 1939:88, n.1; Ogilvie 1965:72.

650

Varro L.L. 7.8-9: Contempla et conspicare idem esse apparet, ideo dicere tum, cum templum facit, augurem conspicione, qua oculorum conspectum finiat. Quod cum dicunt conspicionem, addunt cortumionem, dicitur a cordis visu: cor enim cortumionis origo. Cf. Torelli 1966; Gargola

1995:38.

651

Gargola 2004:130.

652

Beard, North & Price 1998:22.

653

Gargola 1995:36.

654

See Dyck 2008:204. Cicero refers to himself probably to his consulship in 63 B.C.

…unoque tempore in hac re publica duos civis exstitisse quorum alter finis vestri

imperi non terrae sed caeli regionibus terminaret, alter huius imperi domicilium sedisque servaret.655

…in Rome there were, at the same time, two citizens (Pompey and Cicero himself), one of whom limited the finis of your (Roman) empire only by the regions of heaven, not by those of the earth, while the other preserved the abode and home of that same empire.

Cicero uses different terms in the same sentence – terms which can be found in Livy as well. By comparing the two authors’ sentences, considerations can be drawn: some from the terminological richness of Cicero’s passage and some others by mutual integration with Livy’s passage. Cicero explains that there are two kinds of bordering practice related to the subdivision of the ‘empire’: the boundary (finis) of the Empire (vestri imperi), which can be on the earth (terra) and in the sky (caelus), and which, in both instances, can be bordered (terminaret) by the regions (regionibus). Considering Cicero, the Livian regiones might fit with the regions of the sky, which reflect the regions on the earth. It becomes evident that Cicero used augural terminology in order to compare the special relationship between heaven and earth: the augural interpretation of signs is strictly linked to the demarcation of religious space through boundaries. This ‘operating mode’ has been considered as a way to categorise space both within the city and between Rome itself and the outside world.656 Through comparison of the two passages above, it is possible to surmise that Livy also considered the fact that Romulus applied this process of subdivision to regions of the conquered territories.657 In this way, the Livian account might be considered a manifesto of Rome’s future foreign policy toward conquered cities and states.658 Those might be the areas in which, in his mind, Romulus had already divided his planned Empire. In this sense, might Romulus’ acting as an

655

Cic. In Cat. 3.26.6-7. See Dyck 2008:204. To be bounded by heaven has been a hyperbolic description of human achievement since Odysseus claimed that his fame went up to heaven (Od. 9.20, imitated by Virg. Aen. 1.379). Regio alone or regio caeli is often used a regions of the sky; Cf. similarly Cic. In Cat. 4.21.8-9: “Pompeius, cuius res gestae atque virtutes isdem quibus

solis cursus regionibus ac terminis continentur”.

656

Beard, North & Price 1998:23.

657

Cf. Att. Nav. Div. 1.17.31: Multis annis post Romulum Prisco regnante Tarquinio quis

veterum scriptorum non loquitur quae sit ab Atto Navio per lituum regionum [i.e. urbis Romae] facta descriptio.

658

Cf. Liv. 1.18.7: Inde ubi, prospectu in urbem agrosque capto, deos precatus regiones ab

oriente ad occasum determinavit (dextras ad meridiem partes, laevas ad septentrionem esse dixit), signum contra, quoad longissime conspectum oculi ferebant, animo finivit.

augur assume a meaningful significance, in dividing probably not just the sky, but also the territory? The temple of Jupiter Feretrius without doubt gives credence to interpretations of its final meaning; might it be a sort of symbolic act in order to bring or carry the conquered city into Rome herself?