SCHULTZ 2018 - Sacrum Reddere Sacrifice, Consecration, and Dedication in Roman Religion PDF

Celia E.
 Schultz
Sacrum Reddere: Sacrifice, Consecration,

and Dedication in Roman Religion
Abstract
This paper argues that the close connections among sacrifice, consecration, and ded-
ication in modern thought are not matched by similar connections among Roman
sacrificium, consecratio, and dedicatio. Although these three Roman rituals have
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
sometimes been grouped together in recent scholarship on the basis that they all
appear to do the same work – namely, they endow an everyday object with a sacred
status – the Romans do not seem to have connected sacrificium to the other two.
Copyright Mohr Siebeck
Delivered by Ingenta
Keywords: sacrificium, consecratio, dedicatio, sacrifice, consecration, dedication,

sacred, sacer, sacrality
1 Introduction
In the Roman ritual repertoire was a range of rites – such as supplicatio, obse-
cratio, lectisternium, sacrificium – that are as easily distinguishable from one
another for the modern observer as they were for the Romans themselves.
These rituals took very different visible forms and served a wide range of
purposes, leaving little room for doubt over their distinctions. In other cases,
the differences are harder to see. There are instances where the Romans over
time seem to have lost sight of the distinction between what were originally
two distinct rituals, as in the case of consecratio and dedicatio discussed
below. More commonly, however, distinctions among rituals that seem to
have been fairly clear to the Romans are not at all clear to modern observ-
ers. This often happens when rituals share formal elements. For example,
modern scholars sometimes treat every Roman ritual involving a human
death as varieties of human sacrifice,1 but the Romans saw no connection
among them and even exhibit a wide range of conflicting responses to them.
Romans abhorred the rite of sacrificium when it was performed, whether by
1 E. g., Champion 2017, 163–174.
RRE 4 (2018), 187–206 DOI 10.1628/rre-2018-0016

ISSN 2199-4463 © 2018 Mohr Siebeck
188 Celia E. Schultz RRE
foreign groups or by themselves, on human victims.2 Yet they talked about

other forms of ritual killing – the live interment of unchaste Vestal Virgins,
the drowning of hermaphroditic children, and the devotio of a Roman gen-
eral – in either neutral or even positive terms.3 Even stronger formal simi-
larities between the more common form of sacrifice (sacrificium with animal
or vegetal offerings) and two other rituals, polluctum and magmentum, that
were also performed on foodstuffs at an altar seem to have been insufficient,
to the Roman mind, to justify grouping them all into a single category.4
The present study looks at sacrificium alongside another pair of rituals,
consecratio and dedicatio, with which it is sometimes associated, despite the
lack of any explicit ancient connection in the ancient sources.5 In this case,
the basis for grouping these rituals together is not a shared formal compo-
nent; indeed, the rituals vary greatly in the actions they consist in and the
objects on which they are performed. Instead, the basis for their association
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
seems to be that they all do the same work of making something sacred, by
which I mean that they move the item on which they are performed from
everyday use to a new status recognised by the Romans as being more closely
linked to the gods. This is a more expansive understanding of sacrality than

is allowed by the common scholarly focus on the distinctions among the

ancient juridical categories of res sanctae, res sacrae, and res religiosae.6 This
less rigid approach to sacrality goes beyond the juristic definition of sacer
(the most easily trackable index of sacrality) as the proper designation for
anything that belongs to the gods after it has been so declared by the populus
Romanus. It is, instead, able to accommodate the full range of a very elastic
Latin term.7
2 E. g., Liv. 22.57.2–6; Plin., Nat. 30.13.

3 Schultz 2010, Schultz 2012.
4 Schultz 2016.
5 E. g., Nisbet 1939, 210–211; Prescendi 2007, 26 and 95–121; Hunt 2016, 3 n. 5; Champion
2017, 108–120.
6 A persuasive case for moving beyond the strict legal definition is made by Hunt 2016,
3–9. There are several excellent, recent treatments of the legal technicalities surrounding
religious entities in Roman law. While covering the full range of Latin terminology, Tassi
Scandone 2013, esp. 1–68, focuses on res sanctae and Fiori 1996, esp. 25–72, focuses pri-
marily on sacer, sacrum, sacratio, and consecratio. See also the much briefer considerations
of Chirassi Colombo 2013 and Rives 2012.
7 The late republican jurist Trebatius asserted that sacrum est … quicquid est quod deorum
habetur (Macr., Sat. 3.3.2). On the role of the people in designating something as sacer,
see Gaius, Inst. 2.3–8. That most Romans did not observe the restricted legal definition
of sacer is exemplified by the contradiction between Gaius’ assertion in this same passage
sacrae quae diis superis consecratae sunt, religiosae quae diis Manibus relictae sunt and the
nearly ubiquitous epitaph D(is) M(anibus) S(acrum).
4 (2018) Sacrifice, Consecration, and Dedication 189
In English and other modern European languages, the concepts of sacri-

fice, consecration, and dedication are closely intertwined: it is very difficult
to discuss one without defining it in terms of the others. This is not the case
in Latin. No Roman source draws any kind of relationship between sacrifi-
cium and consecratio or dedicatio, although the latter two are often treated
together by our sources. To the extent they can be determined, the differ-
ences among these rituals are significant: their physical manifestation, the
results they affected, and whether they evolved over time. All were acces-
sible to worshippers of every social status but one seems to have been able
to accommodate worshippers of lesser financial means in a way that the
others could not.
2 Sacrifice
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
We begin with sacrificium, without question the best attested of the rites
under consideration and, one suspects but cannot prove, the most com-
monly performed. Although the Romans have not left us any extended
meditation on the meaning of sacrifice, nor even a satisfactorily detailed

account of a single performance, sacrificium appears so frequently in the
extant sources that we are able to piece together a picture of what it entailed.
The resulting composite is a ritual of considerable flexibility. At the most
basic level, Roman sacrificium was a rite that offered foodstuffs, both animal
and vegetal, to the gods. It opened a line of communication between the two
parties through which not only worshippers conveyed a message to the god,
but the god was invited to speak back immediately through the sending of
signs, most famously through the victim’s entrails but also through smoke
or other observable phenomena.8 Sacrificium was performed for many dif-
ferent reasons, among them expiation, the marking of anniversaries of major
events, purification, and to express gratitude and reverence.
We are better informed about the details of public sacrifice than private
and better informed about blood sacrifice than vegetal. Since part of my
argument is that sacrifice does not share much in the way of formal elements
8 Much recent work, especially by Jörg Rüpke across a number of publications, has stressed
that ‘religion is an important and growing field of public communication’ (Rüpke 2012,
24). While every religious action can be interpreted as an act of communication, the pri-
mary target audience for its message will vary. Sacrifice is directed, first and foremost, at
the gods and invites them to talk back to their worshippers. The consecration and dedica-
tion of a temple honours the god(s) but speaks more immediately to the human commu-
nity that will enjoy the use of the new building.
with consecratio and dedicatio, it will be useful to review what we can recon-
struct of it. According to John Scheid’s recent thorough treatment of public
sacrificium, the ritual had five parts.9 It began with a procession of people
and animals toward an altar. Once there, the presiding magistrate or priest
performed the praefatio, an initial offering of prayers, wine, and incense.
Then, with the help of professional assistants who did the actual killing (vic-
timarius, popa, cultrarius), he performed the immolatio. In this portion of
the ritual, the animal was sprinkled with a mixture of spelt and salt, called
mola salsa. It has been argued that this action – or a series of actions that it
initiated – made the animal sacred, moving it into the realm of the gods.10
After the mola salsa had been applied, a knife was run along the animal’s
back and it was then slaughtered near the altar. Before dismembering the
animal for cooking, a priest inspected its entrails for divinatory purposes
(litatio). The final element was the meal shared by the gods, whose portion
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
was burnt on the altar, and the mortals, who ate the rest.11
It is difficult to determine how variable the outward form of sacrificium
was: did it always include all of the steps in this reconstruction? This seems
unlikely. The longevity and widespread popularity of sacrifice across the

Roman Empire – sacrificium continued to be central to Roman religious life,

both public and private, for centuries, in the capital as well as throughout the
other citizen communities of the empire – makes it highly improbable that
the ritual escaped any sort of innovation or regional variation. Yet Scheid
has noted that we cannot detect any evolution of blood sacrifice across the
huge temporal span from the second century bce to the third century ce.12
We can see some development, however, if we take into account the fuller
range of sacrificial rituals that the Romans observed. Human sacrifice (but
not other forms of ritual killing) ceased to be part of the Roman ritual rep-
ertoire at the end of the second century bce.13 Furthermore, Elsner has
recently identified the increased presence of scenes of what he has termed
9 Scheid 2005, 44–57. Reconstructions of sacrificium vary widely in the details (compare, for
example, Ogilvie 1969, 45–51; Beard, North and Price 1998, 1.36–37; C. R. Phillips, BNP
12.851–852, s. v. sacrifice IV Rome; A. V. Siebert, BNP 6.744–746, s. v. immolatio) but gen-
erally agree on the core of the praefatio, immolatio, and litatio.
10 Schultz 2016, 61–62.
11 While in some instances the meal was a critical element in sacrifice (e. g., the acta of the
Arval Brethren include the phrase ad peragendum sacrificium … epulantes, see Scheid
1998, n. 44b.7, 48.8–9, and 49.24), in others the meal was not possible because the ritual
entailed the complete burning of the offering (holocaust; cf. Isid., Etym. 6.19.35). See
Scheid 2005, 99–102; Prescendi 2007, 22 n. 73. It is not clear on what basis Prescendi iden-
tifies the live interment of Gauls and Greeks as a holocaust.
12 Scheid 2005, 281.
13 Schultz 2010, 528–534.
‘vegetarian sacrifice’ in late antique art, and this also shows strong regional
variation. Elsner stops short, however, of linking this shift in representation
to a shift in actual praxis, leaving open the question as to whether this is due
‘to actual regional variation in the sacrifice of animals, to different provincial
ideologies of religious practice (whether based on the same set of practices
empire-wide or widely divergent ones), or is it again down to questions of
local whimsy and artistic choice among patrons and makers’.14
Sacrifice was variable in its form, even if we cannot fully recover the extent
to which that was the case. It is unfortunate that we cannot know more about
what, if any, were the formal differences between blood and vegetal sacrifi-
cium: the sources for vegetal sacrifice – public or private – are very meagre.
They do, however, suggest that in at least one case, the produce was sprin-
kled with mola salsa15 and in others, the sacrifice included divination.16 The
one instance where we can see the variability in sacrificial form is with the
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
sacrificium of human victims. Instead of the slaughter and burning one sees
in regular blood sacrifice, the preferred method for human sacrifice was live
interment. Our sources for this ritual make no mention of an altar, temple,
divination, or meal.17
Sacrifice had another, less obvious, element of flexibility in the varying

gifts that were offered to different gods. The Romans were aware that their
gods had preferences among the types of offerings they received. Cicero
mentions that the pontiffs and haruspices had established rules about which
gods should receive which types of animal victims.18 Arnobius, in an attack
on pagan practice written at the end of the third century ce, offers the most
detailed account of how sacrificial victims were selected.19 He says that the
gods preferred victims that reflected their own nature: female victims for
goddesses, male for gods; white victims for celestial deities, dark ones for the
gods below the earth. The rules are also preserved by Servius, writing about
a century later.20 Roman gods had negative preferences, as well. For example,
Varro tells us that Liber Pater and Minerva abhorred goats; Arnobius reports
that Liber and Mercury did not receive sacrifices of bulls.21
14 Elsner 2012, 161.

15 Ov., Fast. 1.127–128.
16 Fest. and Paul. ex Fest. 344L and 345L, s. v. refriva faba; Plin., Nat. 18.119.
17 The most extensive description is Liv. 22.57.2–6.
18 Cic., Leg. 2.29; cf. Liv. 1.20.5.
19 Adv. nat. 7.18–19.
20 Serv., ad Aen. 3.118 and 3.21.
21 Var., R. 1.2.19; Arn., Adv. nat. 7.21.
The strictures on sacrificial practice cited by Arnobius are in keeping

with the perception of Roman religion as rigidly orthopractic.22 How-
ever, there is good reason to think that what Arnobius has preserved are
guidelines rather than rules. There is no doubt that literary and epigraphic
accounts of sacrifice generally follow the principle that victims should
reflect the nature of the deity to whom they were offered,23 but there remain
several important instances where this is not the case. For example, Her-
cules received a sacrifice of a heifer at the Ara Maxima.24 He also shared
with Ceres a pregnant sow, but it is not entirely certain that this ritual was
a sacrificium.25 Even less rigid was the worship of Jupiter, who frequently
received male victims but also received an ewe-lamb at the Vinalia and on
the Ides of each month.26 There is also some confusion as to whether Jupi-
ter refused certain animals: numerous references to the sacrifice of bulls,
rams, and pigs to Jupiter27 cannot easily be reconciled with a reference to
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
an interdiction on those same animals from an authoritative source, the De

Iure Sacrificiorum of the early imperial jurist C. Ateius Capito.28 Perhaps
here, too, the rigidity and/or the universal applicability of the rule has been
overstated: it is possible that different cult sites or manifestations of Jupiter

had different requirements.

Roman sacrificium was flexible in another way, too: it allowed the substi-
tution of a less valuable offering for something more expensive. This was a
priority in Roman religion generally, at least as far as Cicero was concerned.
In his idealised portrait of Roman religion in De Legibus, Cicero enshrines
the principle that luxury be removed from ritual: Ad divos adeunto caste,
pietatem adhibento, opes amovento.29 In his commentary on this mandate
at 2.25, Cicero explains that nothing would be less pleasing to a god than
that worship of him not be open to all. We can see this in sacrificium when
worshippers offer relatively inexpensive gifts in place of more extravagant
offerings. For example, Horace favourably compares a simple offering of
22 It is, in fact, not entirely clear if Arnobius refers to Greek practice, Roman practice, or both.
23 As is borne out by the survey in Kadletz 1976, summarised in 274–315.
24 Var., L. 6.54 with Dion. Hal. 1.40.3.
25 Macr., Sat. 3.11.10.
26 Var., L. 6.16; Ov., Fast. 1.55–56.
27 As in the inscription recording the sacrifices at the Ludi Saeculares in Rome in 17 bce (CIL
6.32323.103–104 = ILS 5050.103–104 = Pighi 1965, 114). See also CIL 12.366 = 11.4766
= ILLRP 505 = ILS 4911 (from Spoletium). Literary sacrifices of interdicted animals are
found at Verg., Aen. 3.19–21 and 9.625–629; Ov., Fast. 1.579–580; Arn., Adv. nat. 21; Macr.,
Sat. 1.16.30 quoting the imperial historian Granius Licinianus.
28 Preserved in Macr., Sat. 3.10.3.
29 Leg. 2.19.1. This is in keeping with Cicero’s account of Numa’s establishment of rituals at
Rome in Rep. 2.27.
rosemary and myrtle with a victim who falls to the pontifex’s axe, conclud-
ing that the rite is not made more pleasing by a more costly offering (non
sumptuosa blandior hostia), and suggests that a sacrifice could happen with
far and salt alone if one has no proper offering to give.30 This is a slightly
different take on a poor man’s sacrifice from that offered by the elder Pliny
and Apuleius, both of whom suggest that those too destitute to provide
foodstuffs for the gods could offer miniature serving ware as sacrificium:31
so central is the edible nature of sacrificium’s proper object that when a wor-
shipper was not able to offer food, she might offer something that evoked
the idea of it instead. It has even been suggested that the miniature terracotta
animal figurines found in some sanctuaries might be substitutions for live
victims.32 The variety of species represented in bone deposits from religious
sites throughout the ancient Mediterranean world strongly suggests a high
level of variability in sacrificial ritual even at a single cult site: the impact of
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
economic concerns on the selection of animal victims for both public and
private sacrifices should not be underestimated.33
Having sketched what the ritual of sacrificium looks like, let us now turn
to the question of what kind of work it does. The Romans do not explicitly
tell us what they think about this issue, but it appears that they share our
widespread modern understanding of the ritual as offering a gift to a god.
The few sacrificial prayers that have come down to us ask the god to accept
and be pleased with the food offered,34 and our sources frequently draw an
equivalence between sacrifice and the presentation of gifts.35 It is clear, then,
30 Odes 3.23. Although it is sometimes asserted that vegetal offerings were a sort of lesser
sacrifice, a more meagre substitute for the meat offerings that were ‘the most effective’
(Ogilvie 1969, 44; see also Prescendi 2007, 22–23), it is clear from the sources that there
were numerous occasions on which produce was sacrificed because that is what the situ-
ation demanded. Examples include the sacrifice of milk to Rumina (Var., R. 2.11.5) and
the sacrifices of must to Liber and first fruits to Ceres (Paul. ex Fest. 423L, s. v. sacrima).
The inclusion of various cakes among the sacrifices made at the Secular Games in 17 bce
is a clear indication that vegetal sacrifices were not restricted to the lower classes nor to
private observances. See CIL 6.32323.139–40 = ILS 5050.139–40 = Pighi 1965, 117 (from
Rome).
31 Plin., Nat.16.185 and Apul., Apol. 18 with Schultz 2016, 64–66.
32 Bouma 1996, 1.238–241.
33 Ekroth 2014, esp. 335–337, is very clear on this point but it is worth noting that her analy-
sis does not entertain the possibility that the zooarchaeological material from sanctuaries
may, in fact, represent the remains of many different rituals – not just sacrificium or thusia.
It is, therefore, possible that, at least in some places, the variety in a bone deposit is due to
different rituals rather than to the presence of worshippers of different economic status.
34 See, for example, Cato, Ag. 134, 139, 141; CIL 6.32323.92–99 and 105–06 = ILS 5050.92–99
and 105–106 = Pighi 1965, 114–115 (from Rome).
35 E. g., Livy 8.33.20, 22.1.17, 27.37.7, 29.10.6, 36.35.12, 44.14.3; Lactantius, Div. Inst. 6.25.5–7.
that sacrificium renders its object sacred, even if it cannot be determined

with any certainty whether, as is sometimes asserted,36 it renders the object
sacer in a technical, legal sense.
The linguistic argument that the verb sacrificare, a compound of sacrum
facere, means ‘to make sacred’ does not hold up very well under scrutiny.
A search of the Brepolis Library of Latin Texts (A) reveals that the phrase
sacrum facere itself is not very common and, with a single exception, always
means ‘to perform a rite’ – often in cases where it is clear that the rite is sac-
rificium, but not always.37 This extends to epigraphic material as well as to
the prayers accompanying Augustus’ sacrifices at the ludi saeculares.38 To
my knowledge, the only factitive use of facere, ‘to render something into a
particular state’, with sacrum in extant Latin literature is Cicero, Ver. 2.4.127:
Quid? signum Paeanis ex aede Aesculapi praeclare factum sacrum ac religio-
sum non sustulisti?
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
3 Consecration and dedication

There is no question about whether consecratio and dedicatio render their

objects sacer: the extant ancient definitions of sacer explain it with respect to
these two rituals.39 Festus’ citation of the late Republican jurist Aelius Gal-
lus makes this explicit: sacrum esse quocumque modo atque instituto civitatis
consecratum sit, sive aedis, sive ara, sive signum, sive locus, sive pecunia, sive
quid aliud, quod dis dedicatum atque consecratum sit.40 Gallus’ explanation
presents consecratio as a ritual of even greater elasticity than sacrificium, in
that it can be performed on a huge range of items. His list proves to be a good
summary of the kinds of things that the Romans consecrated. Places and
spaces were the primary objects: temples,41 shrines,42 groves,43 the Campus
36 Including by the present author. See Schultz 2016, 71. Also F. Prescendi, ThesCRA 1.185.
s. v. Le sacrifices dans le monde romain; Ogilvie 1969, 41; Forcellini 1858, 4.186–187, s. v.
sacrifico.
37 Definitely sacrificium: Liv. 21.63.8 and 25.12.10. Probably not sacrificium: Liv. 29.14.4 and
35.9.5 with F. Prescendi, BNP 9.855, s. v. novendiale sacrum. The same argument can be
made for another, equally vague, expression, rem divinam facere.
38 See above, n. 34.
39 Fest. 424L s. v. sacer mons; Dig. 1.8.6.3 and 1.8.9.pr-1; Gaius, Inst. 2.3–5; Rives 2012, 166–
172.
40 Fest. 424L s. v. sacer mons. Cf. Fest. 348–50, s. v. religiosus.
41 Fest. 306L, s. v. Quinquatrus; Cic., Dom. 127–128; Val. Max. 1.1.8.
42 Liv. 31.30.6; Cic., Ver. 1.1.14.
43 Val. Max. 1.1.19; Tac., Ger. 9.2; Apul., Apol. 56.5.
Martius,44 the Curia,45 and the Palatine hill,46 to name just a few. The altars
and statues that adorned sacred sites could also be consecrated,47 as could
the property of certain types of criminals and those who ran afoul of a trib-
une of the plebs.48 The most important object of consecration missing from
Gallus’ list is people: consecratio is the rite by which humans, like Hercules
or Augustus, or abstractions, such as Mens, Pietas, Virtus, and Fides, were
entered among the number of the gods.49 The omission is understandable:
this form of consecratio would only have existed in the distant past or in dis-
tant lands for Gallus, who wrote in the last decades of the Republic.
As in the case of sacrificium, we are much better informed about the pub-
lic version of consecratio than its private counterpart, and we are largely in
the dark about the extent to which public and private performances may
have differed. The most detailed picture of an act of consecratio comes from
Cicero’s speech De Domo Sua, delivered on 29 September 57 bce50 to a jury
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
of pontiffs. He argued that the consecration of his property engineered by

his nemesis, Clodius, was invalid. Cicero is clearly talking about a public
consecratio and not the private act of an individual: part of his argument is
that Clodius violated the lex Papiria, a law mandating a vote of the people
before an act of consecration.51

Shortly after Cicero headed into exile in 58 bce, a mob destroyed his
house on the Palatine hill.52 Clodius eventually came to possess Cicero’s
property and three additional neighbouring plots as well, with the intent
of building a massive home in this prestigious neighbourhood. To ensure
that the property could never revert to secular use, Clodius had a portion
of the site consecrated as a shrine to the goddess, Libertas. Conflict arose
once Cicero returned home: the law authorising his return from exile had
44 Liv. 2.5.2.
45 Plin., Nat. 35.27.
46 Val. Max. 2.2.9.
47 Liv. 39.18.7; Fronto 1.3.8.
48 See p. 199 below.
49 Cic., Leg. 2.28. The Romans present the deification of animals (Cic., Nat. D. 3.39; Suet.,
Tit. 5.3) or the worship of a governor’s virtues by provincials (Cic., Ad Q. 1.1.31 = SBQ
1(1.1)31) as consecratio as well.
50 The date of the speech is confirmed by Cic., Att. 4.2.2 = SBA 74.2, which also reports that
the speech was successful: both the jury of pontiffs and, later, the full Senate voted that the
property should be returned to Cicero. Linsdorf 2005, 445 dates the speech to the spring
of 56 and identifies the audience as the Senate but offers no evidence to support the claim.
His assertion that no commentary has been provided for De Domo Sua overlooks several
commentaries, the most important of which is that by R. G. Nisbet (1939).
51 Dom. 127–128.
52 Nisbet 1939, 206–209 offers a concise summary of the sequence of events.
also stipulated that his property be returned to him. The problem was that
the consecrated property now belonged to Libertas. Cicero’s solution in De
Domo Sua is to demonstrate that the consecratio of the shrine was flawed
at every turn – that it was, in fact, no consecratio at all. To that end, Cicero
details how critical steps of the ritual process failed. It is probable that his
demolition is not comprehensive: Cicero claims to be unqualified to address
all the technicalities of the ritual because he was not himself a member of the
pontifical college and, therefore, did not have access to their secret store of
knowledge.53 Even so, from this partial picture of consecratio in the negative,
the positive can be reconstructed to a certain degree.
The first necessary step, mandated by a lex Papiria, is that the Roman
people had to approve the consecratio of any temple, land, or altar by those
with the power to perform the ritual.54 The consecration itself required the
presence of at least one pontifex with the technical knowledge (scientia) to
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
lead the presiding magistrate through the ritual – although Cicero claims
that the whole college really ought to be present.55 It is probable that this
element was critical only to consecrations carried out on behalf of the state.
Epigraphic evidence indicates that private individuals of all social statuses

could consecrate items to the gods without any priestly supervision, whether
from a pontifex or a Christian priest.56
It appears that the first critical moment of the consecration ritual itself
occurred when the pontiff placed his hands on the doorpost of the building
to be consecrated and uttered a set formula (sollemnibus verbis, veteribus et
traditis institutis, Dom. 122), which the magistrate in charge of the consecra-
tio should repeat (Dom. 133). As with other rituals, the presence of a special-
ist was intended to ensure that the formula be said without hesitation, error,
or omission.57 Cicero claims that, at the failed consecration of his house, the
pontifex Natta’s voice fell mute (Dom. 135) and that Clodius himself bungled
the formula: iste praeposteris verbis, ominibus obscenis, identidem se ipse rev-
ocans, dubitans, timens, haesitans omnia aliter ac vos in monumentis habetis
et pronuntiarit et fecerit (Dom. 140).
53 Dom. 121, cf. Dom. 39. Cf. Patzelt in this issue.

54 The relationship between this lex Papiria and a law cited by Liv. 9.46.6–7, under the year
304 is debated. See Tatum 1993, Ziolkowski 1992, 220–234 and Orlin 1997, 163–172 with
Tatum 1997.
55 Dom. 117–121.
56 E. g., CIL 6.19829 and 6.17477 (both from Rome); Mrozek 2004, 126–128.
57 Plin., Nat. 28.11. Cf. Liv. 9.46.6–7 with Oakley 2005, ad loc. for additional citations. The
most famous story of a botched formula was the omission of the Romans from the sacrifi-
cial formula pronounced by the representative from Lanuvium at the feriae Latinae in 176
(Liv. 41.16.1).
Like sacrificium but to a much greater extent, consecratio was a ritual of

variable form. Cicero describes a second type of consecration, a consecratio
bonorum (Dom. 123–125), in which the personal possessions of an individ-
ual were transferred to become possessions of the gods. The Romans rarely
tell us which gods received consecrated goods. The only deities explicitly
identified by Roman sources are Mars and Semo Sancus; it is probable that
the presentation of goods to Ceres reported by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in
his explanation of the sacrosanctity of the tribunes of the plebs is also a con-
secratio.58 The consecratio bonorum was a tool that, in the historical period,
the tribunes of the plebs sometimes wielded against those who disregarded
their authority.59
Cicero does not give us many details of the ritual but he tells us that a bra-
zier was set up on the rostra (presumably for the burning of incense or pour-
ing of libations), that a flute-player was present, the people had been sum-
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
moned, and that the person performing the ritual covered his head (Dom.
123–124). Nisbet identifies the consecratio bonorum as an expiatory sacri-
fice, presumably because several of the elements in Cicero’s list also play an
important, if not essential, role in the Roman sacrificial rite.60 Nisbet’s asser-
tion should not be pressed very far, however: there is no indication that the
Romans drew an equation between consecratio of any type and sacrificium.
It is also not clear that the consecratio bonorum was expiatory, meaning that
it was thought to assuage divine anger that had been provoked by human
misdeeds. More concrete objections can be raised: at least two of the items
in Cicero’s list, veiled heads and the presence of tibicines, had very broad rit-
ual applications for the Romans, so they are not secure signs of sacrifice. A
veiled head, among the Romans, could not only be a sign that a person was
interacting with the divine through sacrifice but also through augury61 or in
the fulfilment of a priestly duty or other obligation.62 The father of the future
emperor Vitellius is said to have had an exceptional talent for flattery (miri in
adulando ingenii) and, as evidence, Suetonius reports the story that he veiled
his head whenever he found himself in the presence of the emperor Caligula,
implying that he was in the presence of divinity.63 The flamines kept their
heads veiled as a sign of their sacred status.64 As for tibicines, members of the
58 Liv. 2.5.2 and 8.20.8. On tribunician sacrosanctitas, Dion. Hal. 6.89.3 and Liv. 3.55.7.
59 In addition to the instances mentioned by Cicero, see Plin., Nat. 7.143–144.
60 Nisbet 1939, 211.
61 Liv. 1.18.7.
62 E. g., Liv. 1.32.6; Liv. 23.19.18; Var., L. 6.21.
63 Suet., Vit. 2.5.
64 Var., L. 5.84.
college of flute-players performed not only at the consecratio bonorum and

sacrifices but whenever high-ranking magistrates offered prayers on behalf
of the state and at other rites as well.65
The exact relationship of the consecratio bonorum to another form of the
ritual, the consecratio capitis, is not clear. The consecratio capitis, in which an
individual was in some way consecrated to a god,66 seems initially to have
been performed together with the consecratio bonorum, but the consecratio
capitis disappeared early on.67 Explicit references to the consecratio capitis
itself are rare in Latin literature: almost all pertain to the very early years
of the Republic, and none reveals what the ritual entailed.68 Livy’s story
of Verginius’ murder of his own daughter to save her from the lecherous
decemvir, Appius Claudius, appears to preserve the necessary formula (te
tuumque caput sanguine hoc consecro) but it is possible that this is the his-
torian’s own creation.69 The punishments meted out to men accused of reg-
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
num – Cassius,70 Spurius Maelius,71 and Marcus Manlius72 – look very much
like consecratio capitis et bonorum. However, the sources are not explicit on
this issue and it is unwise to assume the identity of the ritual on the basis of
shared external forms.73 In the late second century, the tribune C. Atinius
Labeo Macerio seems to have tried to revive this old ritual by attempting to
throw the censor Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus off the Tarpeian cliff as
retribution for Metellus having removed Macerio from the senate.74 When
another tribune intervened, Macerio settled for the consecration of Metel-
lus’ property, leading the censor to spend the rest of his days living on the
generosity of others (alieno beneficio, Plin., Nat. 7.144).
65 Liv. 9.30.5; Val. Max. 2.5; Plin., Nat. 28. Flute players were essential to the proper obser-
vance of games (Cic., Har. Resp. 23). The collegium tibicinum qui sacris publicis praesto sunt
is known from several inscriptions from Rome, including CIL 6.2191 and 6.2193.
66 It seems that any god might receive a homo sacer: Macr., Sat. 3.7.5. Cf. Fest. 422L, s. v.
sacratae leges. Livy specifies consecratio capitis to Jupiter for anyone who harms a tribune,
an aedile, or a member of the decemviri iudicales (3.55.7).
67 Liv. 3.55.7 appears to treat the two rituals as a unit. Salerno 1990 sees an evolution from a
religious consecratio bonorum et capitis to a secular publicatio bonorum over the course of
the Republic.
68 In addition to the passages cited below, see also Cic., Balb. 33 and Plin., Pan. 64.3.
69 Liv. 3.48.5, but see Ogilvie 1965 ad loc. on the possibility that Livy is making up the formula.
70 Liv. 2.41.10–12; Dion. Hal. 8.78.5–79.4.
71 Liv. 4.14.4–16.1; Dion. Hal. 12.4.2–6.
72 Aul. Gel. 17.21.24, quoting Varro and Cornelius Nepos; Liv. 6.20.11–16; Plut., Cam. 36.6–7.
73 Fiori 1996, 325–479, however, treats accusations of regnum and declarations of an individ-
ual as hostis publicus as having emerged from the original consecratio bonorum and capitis.
74 The year is 131. Here, too, the sources are not explicit about identifying this as consecratio
capitis. They are only clear about the consecratio bonorum: Cic., Dom. 123; Liv., Per. 59;
Plin., Nat. 7.143–144.
The ritual of consecratio capitis is usually understood as a form of ritual

murder and is linked to the concept of the homo sacer, an individual con-
victed of certain serious crimes who can be killed with impunity but whose
death cannot be considered sacrificium or a parricide.75 Like the consecratio
capitis, the homo sacer belongs to the earliest period of Rome’s history: the
injunction sacer esto is preserved in several laws attributed to the kings of
Rome and the Twelve Tables, and it appears on the Lapis Niger inscription
from the Forum Romanum that dates to the archaic period.76
Despite the frequency with which it is asserted in the scholarship,77 a
sure link between consecration and the homo sacer cannot be established.
Although both the homo sacer and the consecratio aedis (but not the conse-
cratio capitis) are included in Festus’ explanation of the concept of sacer,78
he stops short of drawing an explicit connection between the homo sacer
and consecratio of any type. Likewise, the descriptions of the sacrosanctity
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
of plebeian tribunes in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Livy79 appear to link

the consecratio bonorum with the homo sacer – the man who runs afoul of
the tribunes will have his property given to Ceres and he can be killed with
impunity. However, the absence of explicit Latin terminology leaves open

the possibility that this is a complex of ritual actions that, while similar to
consecratio capitis, might have meant something different to a Roman audi-
ence. Other, less lethal, interpretations of consecratio capitis are also possi-
ble. Perhaps it means only exclusion from the citizen community.80 Caput,
in legal contexts, can refer to an individual’s status as a citizen. A man who
is deminutus capite is one who has been, among other things, reduced to
slavery or sent into exile.81
The only form of consecratio yet to be addressed is that by which some-
thing or someone becomes divine. Cicero and later writers talk of the con-
secratio of individuals such as Hercules and Liber but also of abstractions
like Mens, Fides, Virtus, and Concordia among the Romans,82 and of fish
75 Fest. 424L, s. v. sacer mons. J. Linderski, OCD5, s. v. consecratio; Berthelet 2017; Fiori 1996,
16–22; Agamben 1998, 71–86; Salerno 1990, 9–49.
76 Fest. 260L, s. v. plorare with Dion. Hal. 2.10.3; Fest. 505L, s. v. Termino with Dion. Hal.
2.74.3; Paul. ex Fest. 5L, s. v. aliuta; Serv., A. 6.609 (citing the Twelve Tables). CIL 12.1 =
ILLRP 3. For a more extended discussion of sacer esto, see ter Beek 2012.
77 E. g., Fiori 1996 and Berthelet 2017.
78 Fest. 422–424L, s. v. sacer mons.
79 Dion. Hal. 6.89.3; Liv. 3.55.7. Cf. Festus’ report of the first tribunician law: si quis eum, qui
eo plebei scito sacer sit, occiderit, parricida ne sit (424L, s. v. sacer mons).
80 Salerno 1990, 25–28.
81 Dig. 4.5.1–11; 50.16.103; cf. Paul. ex Fest. 61L, s. v. deminutus capite.
82 Cic., Leg. 2.27–28 and Nat. D. 2.62 and 79.
and other animals by foreign peoples.83 Hercules and Liber will have been
consecrated in the mythical past, but the abstractions became gods in the
historical period, some even during the late Republic.84 Unfortunately, we
have no details of how this kind of consecratio was performed. In the empire,
consecratio was performed by the sitting emperor for some deceased emper-
ors and other members of the imperial family after a formal declaration
of divine honours by the Senate.85 This imperial consecratio evolved over
time,86 eventually by the Antonine period (but perhaps earlier) requiring
the cremation of the emperor’s body as well as the more public spectacle of
the burning of a wax effigy of the emperor on a funeral pyre and the release
of an eagle as a symbol of apotheosis.87
In the case of members of the imperial family, there can be no question
that they were, through the performance of consecratio, transferred from a
mortal to a divine status. As for how the Romans thought about the places
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
and things that they consecrated to the gods, it seems that these became
the possessions of the gods. Consecratio is essential to the legal definition
of what is sacrum, and what is sacrum is anything thought to belong to the
gods.88 That consecratio is a presentation of a gift is underlined by the fact

that consecrare is often paired with verbs of giving, e. g., donare, dicare, and
especially dedicare, in formulaic lists in both literary and epigraphic con-
texts.89 Our sources do not preserve the details of what dedicatio entailed
but a survey of inscriptions spanning the period from the Republic to the
High Empire indicates that the ritual, whether performed by a magistrate
or a private individual, was often cause for celebration by the distribution of
money and food to members of the local community on the day the ritual
was celebrated.90 In some instances, this beneficence was repeated on the
anniversary of the rite.91
83 Cic., Nat. 1.101 and 3.39. Cf. Suet., Jul. 81.2.

84 Clark 2007, 29–72 with 283–286. Among those abstractions that became gods while Cicero
was alive is Libertas, who received the shrine built on the site of Cicero’s destroyed Palatine
townhouse.
85 The Senate’s action was a necessary precondition (Tertull., Apol. 5.1), rather like the vote
of the people for a republican consecratio aedis.
86 The development of the ritual is detailed in Chalupa 2006–7.
87 For descriptions of the symbolic pyre, see Dio Cass. 75.4–5 and Herodian 4.2.2–11 with
Arce 2010.
88 See n. 40 above. Macr., Sat. 3.3.2: sacrum est, ut Trebatius libro primo de religionibus refert,
quicquid est quod deorum habetur (cf. Macr., Sat. 3.7.3).
89 Catul. frag. 1; Cic., Ver. 2.4.67 and Nat. 2.61; Val. Max. 1.8.4; Fronto 1.3.8; CIL 6.9671 = ILS
7487 (from Rome); CIL 10.3867 = ILS 6310 (from Capua); CIL 11.4174 (from Terni).
90 E. g., CIL 10.4563 (from Treglia); CIL 14.4057 (from Fidenae).
91 CIL 11.3303 (from Bracciano).
With consecratio and dedicatio, we appear to be dealing with two differ-

ent rituals that were performed in concert but their exact relationship is not
entirely recoverable.92 One rite necessitated the other – they are so closely
linked that they become almost synonymous – but they were not, techni-
cally, the same thing. Thus, in De Domo Sua, Cicero can for the most part use
consecrare and dedicare interchangeably. However, at 125 he draws a distinc-
tion when he challenges Clodius on the point that Clodius, who reclaimed
his own property after it was subject to consecratio bonorum by Ninnius, was
trying to prevent Cicero from reclaiming his own land: an consecratio nul-
lum habet ius, dedicatio est religiosa?
In Nisbet’s discussion of the two rituals in this speech, he identifies dedi-
catio as the actual surrender of property, which is then followed by conse-
cratio, the transfer of that property from ‘the control of ius humanum into
that of ius divinum’.93 This is plausible but does present some difficulties.
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
At the very least, Nisbet sets dedicatio as the prelude to consecratio, and it is
only with the second ritual that the gods become involved. The epigraphic
evidence, however, indicates that for many centuries dedicatio was the more
significant ritual component. From the Republic onward, individuals and

groups sought to record dedicationes they had performed, sometimes setting

the rite alongside a consecratio but more frequently not. Most appearances
of consecratio in inscriptions come from the late antique period, when the
ritual expanded its range and some version of it came to be performed on
secular buildings and churches.94
4 Conclusion
When the rituals under investigation here are set alongside one another, the
similarities and differences are fairly clear to see. Sacrificium, consecratio,
and dedicatio are all elastic with regard to the range of objects on which
they can be performed and the social status of the worshippers who could
perform them. In the case of sacrificium in particular, our sources show us
a flexible ritual: if a worshipper could not afford the god’s preferred offer-
ing, she might substitute something that was within her means. There is
no hint of how a similar substitution might work in the case of consecratio
and dedicatio. We can trace the evolution of the sacrificial rite only in the
broadest of terms, even though logic dictates that there must have been
92 Isid., Etym. 6.19.30.
93 Nisbet 1939, 209.
94 Mrozek 2004, 126; Blaise 1954, 203, s. v. consecratio 4.
some more subtle changes over time. It appears that some forms of con-
secratio declined or grew in popularity as the centuries passed. Mrozek’s
survey of the epigraphic evidence for consecratio and dedicatio points to a
rather different shift in popularity, or perhaps relevance, for these two ritu-
als through the centuries.
All three rituals give something valuable to the gods, but they do so in
rather different ways. Sacrifice offers an ephemeral present – the meat and,
sometimes, the bones are burnt until nothing remains95 –, and the ritual
leaves a separate portion for worshippers. The object of sacrificium ceases
to exist in the mortal world as it had prior to the ritual at least in the case of
foodstuffs. Objects substituted for edible sacrificial offerings do not seem to
have suffered destruction; perhaps they were simply removed from daily use
once sacrificed and set on display in the temple. In contrast to the most com-
mon form of sacrificium, consecratio and dedicatio do not alter the physical
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
form of their objects. Instead these rituals alter the object’s state, moving
it from a secular to a sacred status. The object continues to exist as it had
before the ritual and, in most cases, continues to be accessible to worship-
pers. Worshippers could enter a consecrated temple and use the consecrated
altar that stood before it; they could address and attend to the consecrated
statue that stood inside. In the case of consecratio bonorum, the confiscated
property was no longer available to its original owner but it could be sold
and used for the benefit of both gods and men.96 For example, when Spurius
Cassius was accused of regnum, he was beaten to death and his property was
consecrated to Ceres. From the proceeds of the sale of those goods, a statue
was dedicated in her temple.97 Humans are the exception to the general rule
that consecratio does not change the physical form of its object. This is fairly
clear cut in the case of a consecrated emperor, whose death and subsequent
cremation (or the cremation of his effigy) is central to his elevation into the
company of the gods. Consecratio capitis may have required the death of the
person on whom it was performed.
Another difference between consecratio/dedicatio and sacrificium is that
the former primarily had the function of showing reverence to the god at
whom it was directed, whereas the latter did this same work and also opened
a line for immediate communication. During sacrifice, worshippers spoke
to the gods through the prayers that were part of the praefatio and perhaps
95 I leave aside the question of vegetal sacrifice or the sacrifice of fictile offerings: there is not
enough evidence to draw any broad conclusions.
96 Liv. 3.55.7. Rives points out, however, that ‘the normal legal transactions affecting prop-
erty’ did not apply to res sacrae (Rives 2012, 167).
97 See above, n. 79.
also at other times during the ritual. The gods responded through the exta,
the entrails examined for signs of divine (dis)approval after the animal had
been slaughtered. Admittedly, one of the few things we know about conse-
cratio is that prayer was an essential element of it, but there is no indication
in our sources that the gods were thought to respond to the prayer or to the
action of the ritual itself. Rituals often have multiple audiences. The primary
addressee of sacrificium was the god(s), either in the heavens or below the
earth; the primary addressee of consecratio/dedicatio seems to have been the
human community by which the consecrated object would continue to be
used or worshipped.
One last distinction between sacrificium and consecratio/dedicatio is that
sacrificium is used only in a literal sense in classical Latin but consecratio
and dedicatio develop metaphorical meanings fairly early on. In English, a
soldier can ‘pay the ultimate sacrifice’ for his country or a parent can sac-
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
rifice her time and energy for her children,98 but the Latin sacrificare does
not have this sense. It is not until Christian writers begin to use sacrificium
to describe internal thoughts and behaviours toward others, such as Augus-
tine’s assertion that vera sacrificia are instances of compassion towards our-
selves and those closest to us,99 that Latin sacrificium has a range beyond
the purely literal. In contrast, consecrare and dedicare are used fairly early on
in ways that clearly do not refer to any ritual action. The context is almost
always philosophical and they come to be equivalent to ‘devoted’ or ‘hal-
lowed’. Hence, Cicero can refer to dogmatic philosophers as qui certis quibus-
dam destinatisque sententiis quasi addicti et consecrati sunt and to Socrates’
method, range, and greatness as Platonis memoria et litteris consecrata.100
Seneca ranks kindness shown to another inter consecrata and identifies a
man’s past as the period of his life that is sacra ac dedicata.101
The Roman rituals of sacrificium and consecratio/dedicatio look, from
the outside, as if they do the same work: they render their objects sacred,
transferring them from the realm of men to the realm of gods. Even though
they do this work in very different ways, it is fair to talk about sacrifice as
the consecration of an animal and about consecration as the act of making
a dedication to a god. But caution is warranted. So far as our sources reveal,
the Romans themselves connected consecratio and dedicatio to one another,
yet they did not connect sacrificium to either of them. In fact, the differences
in the ways Romans conceived of these rituals come through more vividly
98 German ‘opfern’ has developed a similar range, as has French ‘sacrifier’.
99 Civ. D. 10.6.
100 Tusc. 2.5 and 5.11.
101 Ben. 7.29.1; Brev. Vit. 10.4.
than any similarities. The equivalence among them is one that we, not the
Romans, make.
Abbreviations
BNP Cancik, Hubert et al. (eds.) 2002. Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the
Ancient World. 16 vols. Leiden: Brill.
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 1863–. Berlin: de Gruyter
ILLRP Degrassi, Attilio 1957–63. Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. 2 vols.
Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice.
ILS Dessau, Hermann 1892–1916. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. 3 vols. Berlin:
Weidmann.
OCD5 Goldberg, Sander M. 2016. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 5th edn. http://
classics.oxfordre.com/. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SBA Shackleton Bailey, David R. 1965–70. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. 7 vols. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
SBQ Shackleton Bailey, David R. 1980. Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et

M. Brutum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum 2004–2014. 8 vols. Los Angeles:
J. Paul Getty Museum.
Bibliography
Agamben, Giorgio 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, transl. Daniel
Heller-Roazen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Arce, Javier 2010. ‘Roman Imperial Funerals in effigie.’ In The Emperor and Rome: Space,
Representation, and Ritual, ed. Björn C. Ewald, Carlos F. Noreña. Yale Classical Stud-
ies 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 309–334.
Beard, Mary; North, John; Price, Simon 1998. Religions of Rome. 2 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Berthelet, Yann 2017. ‘Homo sacer, consecratio et destinatio dis.’ In Autour de la notion de
sacer, ed. Thibaud Lanfranchi. CEFRA 541. Rome: École française de Rome.
Blaise, Albert 1954. Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens. Strasbourg: Le Latin
Chretien.
Bouma, Jelle W. 1996. Religio votiva: The Archaeology of Latial Votive Religion. 3 vols.
Groningen: University of Groningen.
Chalupa, Aleš 2006–7. ‘How Did the Roman Emperors Become Gods? Various Concepts
of Imperial Apotheosis’, Anodos 6–7. 201–207.
Champion, Craige B. 2017. The Peace of the Gods: Elite Religious Practices in the Middle
Roman Republic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chirassi Colombo, Ileana 2013. ‘Sacer, sacrum, sanctus, religiosus: valutazioni e contrad-
dizioni storico-semantiche,’ Sacrum facere 1. 11–21.
Clark, Anna J. 2007. Divine Qualities: Cult and Community in Republican Rome. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ekroth, Gunnel 2014. ‘Animal Sacrifice in Antiquity.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Ani-
mals in Classical Thought and Life, ed. Gordon L. Campbell. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. 324–354.
Elsner, Jas 2012. ‘Sacrifice in Late Roman Art.’ In Greek and Roman Animal Sacrifice, ed.
Christopher A. Faraone, Frank S. Naiden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
120–163.
Fiori, Roberto 1996. Homo sacer: dinamica politico-costituzionale di una sanzione giu-
ridico-religiosa. Naples: Jovene.
Forcellini, Egidio 1858. Lexicon Totius Latinitatis. 6 vols. Prati: Aldina Edente.
Hunt, Ailsa 2016. Reviving Roman Religion: Sacred Trees in the Roman World. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kadletz, Edward 1976. Animal Sacrifice in Greek and Roman Religion, PhD dissertation,
University of Washington. Xerox University Microfilms. Ann Arbor.
Linsdorf, Anders 2005. ‘The Conflict over Cicero’s House: An Analysis of the Ritual Ele-
ment in De Domo Sua’, Numen 4. 445–464.
Mrozek, Stanislaw 2004. ‘Sur la dedicatio, la consecratio et les dédicants dans les inscrip-
tions du haut-empire romain’, Epigraphica 66. 119–133.
Nisbet, Robin G. 1939. M. Tulli Ciceronis De Domo Sua ad Pontifices Oratio. London:
Oxford University Press.
Oakley, Stephen P. 2005. A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X, vol. 4. Oxford: Claren-
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21
don Press.
Ogilvie, Robert M. 1965. A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5. Oxford: Clarendon.
Ogilvie, Robert M. 1969. The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. New York:
Norton.
Orlin, Eric M. 1997. Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic. Leiden: Brill.
Pighi, Giovanni B. 1965. De Ludis Saecularibus. 2nd edition. Amsterdam.
Prescendi, Francesca 2007. Décrire et comprendre le sacrifice. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Rives, James 2012. ‘Control of the Sacred in Roman Law.’ In Law and Religion in the
Roman Republic, ed. Olga Tellegen-Couperus. Mnemosyne Supplement 336. Leiden:
Brill. 165–180.
Rüpke, Jörg 2012. Religion in Republican Rome: Rationalization and Ritual Change. Phil-
adelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Salerno, Francesco 1990. Dalla ‘consecratio’ alla ‘publicatio bonorum’. Naples: Jovene.
Scheid, John 1998. Commentarii fratrum arvalium qui supersunt. Roma Antica 4. Rome:
École française de Rome.
Scheid, John 2005. Quand faire, c’est croire: les rites sacrificiel des Romains. Paris: Flam-
marion.
Schultz, Celia 2010. ‘The Romans and Ritual Murder’, Journal of the American Academy
of Religion 78. 516–541.
Schultz, Celia 2012. ‘On the Burial of Unchaste Vestal Virgins.’ In Rome, Pollution and
Propriety: Dirt, Disease and Hygiene in the Eternal City from Antiquity to Modernity,
ed. Mark Bradley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 122–136.
Schultz, Celia 2016. ‘Roman Sacrifice, Inside and Out’, Journal of Roman Studies 106.
58–76.
Tassi Scandone, Elena 2013. Quodammodo divini iuris: per una storia giuridica delle res
sanctae. Naples: Jovene.
Tatum, Jeffrey 1993. ‘The Lex Papiria de Dedicationibus’, CP 88. 319–328.
Tatum, Jeffrey 1997. ‘The Lex Papiria de Dedicationibus: A Clarification’, AHB 11. 12.
ter Beek, Leon 2012. ‘Divine Law and the Penalty of Sacer Esto in Early Rome.’ In Law
and Religion in the Roman Republic, ed. Olga Tellegen-Couperus. Mnemosyne Sup-
plement 336. Leiden: Brill. 11–29.
Ziolkowski, Adam 1992. The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and Their Historical and
Topographical Context. Rome: Bretschneider.
Celia E. Schultz
Department of Classical Studies
University of Michigan
2160 Angell Hall
435 S. State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1003
USA
celiaes@umich.edu
? 185.223.164.206 Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:46:21

SCHULTZ 2018 - Sacrum Reddere Sacrifice, Consecration, and Dedication in Roman Religion PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SCHULTZ 2018 - Sacrum Reddere Sacrifice, Consecration, and Dedication in Roman Religion PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Celia E.

Sacrum Reddere: Sacrifice, Consecration,

Keywords: sacrificium, consecratio, dedicatio, sacrifice, consecration, dedication,

1 E. g., Champion 2017, 163–174.

RRE 4 (2018), 187–206 DOI 10.1628/rre-2018-0016

foreign groups or by themselves, on human victims.2 Yet they talked about

linked to the gods. This is a more expansive understanding of sacrality than

is allowed by the common scholarly focus on the distinctions among the

2 E. g., Liv. 22.57.2–6; Plin., Nat. 30.13.

In English and other modern European languages, the concepts of sacri-

meditation on the meaning of sacrifice, nor even a satisfactorily detailed

unlikely. The longevity and widespread popularity of sacrifice across the

Roman Empire – sacrificium continued to be central to Roman religious life,

Sacrifice had another, less obvious, element of flexibility in the varying

14 Elsner 2012, 161.

The strictures on sacrificial practice cited by Arnobius are in keeping

an interdiction on those same animals from an authoritative source, the De

overstated: it is possible that different cult sites or manifestations of Jupiter

had different requirements.

that sacrificium renders its object sacred, even if it cannot be determined

3 Consecration and dedication

There is no question about whether consecratio and dedicatio render their

of pontiffs. He argued that the consecration of his property engineered by

before an act of consecration.51

Epigraphic evidence indicates that private individuals of all social statuses

53 Dom. 121, cf. Dom. 39. Cf. Patzelt in this issue.

Like sacrificium but to a much greater extent, consecratio was a ritual of

college of flute-players performed not only at the consecratio bonorum and

The ritual of consecratio capitis is usually understood as a form of ritual

of plebeian tribunes in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Livy79 appear to link

impunity. However, the absence of explicit Latin terminology leaves open

gods.88 That consecratio is a presentation of a gift is underlined by the fact

83 Cic., Nat. 1.101 and 3.39. Cf. Suet., Jul. 81.2.

With consecratio and dedicatio, we appear to be dealing with two differ-

significant ritual component. From the Republic onward, individuals and

groups sought to record dedicationes they had performed, sometimes setting

SBQ Shackleton Bailey, David R. 1980. Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et

Вам также может понравиться