Devotio

vol. V p.277-280

Devotio

A particular kind of votum (see there), only known in its original form and in the individual characteristics of its ritual from the annalistic story of the devotio of the two Decii, <20> the father in the battle against the Latins near Vesuvius in 414 = 340 (vol. IV p.2280f.), and the son at Sentinum in 459 = 295 (ibid. p. 2283f., and beyond the Decii given, there is also the grandson in the battle at Ausculum in 475 = 279 ibid. 2285). The characteristic differences between devotio and the normal votum are the following: 1. the recipients of the vows are, as the name de-votio already suggests (the use of de-vovere meaning the same as vovere, which Pernice S.-Ber. Akad. Berl. 1885, 1156, 1 has gathered examples for, is secondary and not technical), the gods of the underworld (Liv. VIII 6, 10. 10, 9. X 28, 13. 29, 4 Tellus or Terra mater and the Di manes); 2. it is human lives which are pledged, and when those lives are destroyed, the devotio is complete; 3. the pledged action is not completed after the dedication requested by the god, but beforehand; <40> 4. this dedication consists of destroying another human life, which the person doing the devotio had already specified. The people allowed to undertake a devotio, which are exclusively during battles, are the magistrates cum imperio (consuli dictatorique et praetori Liv. VIII 10, 11, imperatores Cic. nat. deor. II 10; which then implies that the report in Liv. V 41, 3 as well as that of the old men who stayed behind during the invasion of the Gauls in the forum - sunt qui M. Folio pontifice maximo praefante carmen devovisse eos se pro patria Quiritibusque Romanis tradant - is apocryphal), <50> the dedication can consist of the person doing the devotio himself, or also any one of the Roman citizens he points out from the legion (quem velit ex legione Romana scripta civem, Liv. VIII 10, 11), the demand made of the underworld-deities is for the enemy’s army to be destroyed (cf. namely Liv. VIII 6, 10 ex una acie imperatorem, ex altera exercitum Dis manibus matrique Terrae deberi), and its fulfillment is secured as soon as the object of the devotio has fallen in battle (the idea that this could also happen via -------- or at the hands of a fellow soldier, as Plut. an vitios. ad infelic. suff. 3 and Zonar. VII 26 tell us, is the invention of a confused greek source), <page break 277/278> because when the gods allow the object of the devotio to die, they enter into the pact and are then obliged to carry out their agreed part of the deal; the fallen man brings the enemy army with him into defeat (iam ego mecum hostium legiones mactandas Telluri ac dis manibus dabo Liv. X 28, 13, cf. 29, 4 rapere ad se ac vocare Decium devotam secum aciem). But if the object of the devotio didn’t fall, <10> then, if he was a legionary, in his place an image at least 7 feet tall was buried in the earth and a piacular sacrifice was made; the place where the burial was made became a locus religiosus (ubi illud signum defossum erit, eo magistratum Romanum escendere fas non esse, Liv. VIII 10, 12); if it was the general himself, he remained impius and was excluded from all sacred acts, both public and private (neque suum neque publicum divinum pure faciet sive hostia sive quo alio volet, Liv. loc. cit. § 13), <20> because - although it wouldn’t have been his own fault - he hadn’t fulfilled his side of the deal and this trade-off which he himself had willingly offered couldn’t be done away with, while a legionary devoted by a general could be released using a piacular offering. The formula for devotio (carmen Liv. V 41, 3. Plin. n. h. XVIII 12; precatio Liv. X 28, 15; sollemnia verba Aur. Vict. de vir. ill. 27, 3, cf. Senec. epist. 67, 9; verbis certis Cic. n. d. II 10) <30> is given by Liv. VIII 9, 6-8 (on a few corruptions, see Wissowa De dis Roman. indiget. et novensid. p. VII 2) in the following way: Iane Iuppiter Marspater Quirine Bellona Lares, divi novensiles di indigetes, divi quorum est potestas nostrorum hostiumque, dique manes, vos precor veneror veniam peto oroque, uti populo Romani Quiritium vim victoriamque prosperetis hostesque populi Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. sicut verbis nuncupavi (<40> these words refer to the particular conditions which are added in every time the formula is used) ita pro republica exercitu legionibus auxiliis populi Romani Quiritium legiones auxiliaque hostium mecum dis manibus Tellurique devoveo. As was normal for state religious rituals, the formula was spoken on behalf of the general by the pontifex (Liv. V 41, 3. VIII 9, 4. X 28, 14). The general himself repeated after him, <50> standing on a javelin, wearing the praetexta (Zonar. VII 26), with the back of his head covered (Cic. n. d. II 10. Flor. I 14, 3), with his hand placed on his chin (Liv. VIII 9, 5, cf. X 7, 3. Aur. Vict. de vir. ill. 27, 3) underneath the toga girdled (Liv. X 7, 3, cf. VIII 9, 9. Zonar. VIII 5) in the cinctus Gabinus (see there); the javelin used in the ceremony was not allowed to fall into the hands of the enemy, but if it did happen, then a suovetaurilia sacrifice was owed to Mars (Liv. VIII 10, 14). <60> The dedication of the enemy legions to the gods of the underworld didn’t include their weapons: these could be dedicated to Volcan or another deity of that kind, quibus spolia hostium dicare ius fasque est (Liv. XL 33, 2), by the person doing the devotio (Liv. VIII 10, 13).

This Roman custom, which was definitely very ancient, is fundamentally different from what Macrob. S. III 9 says about it, <page break 278/279> according to Serenus Sammonicus in libro quinto rerum reconditarum (who had found what he shares in cuiusdam Furii vetustissimo libro on his part) - that urbes exercitusque devoventur iam numinibus evocatis. The carmen he brings up in § 10f. goes like this (an attempt to unearth fragments of old-Italian verse in it is in R. Peter Comment. in honorem Reifferscheidii 79ff.): Dispater Veiovis Manes sive quo alio nomine fas est nominare, ut omnes illam urbem Carthaginem exercitumque quem ego me sentio dicere fuga formidine terrore compleatis, quique adversum legiones exercitumque nostrum arma telaque ferent, uti vos eum exercitum eos hostes eosque homines urbes agrosque eorum et qui in his locis regionibusque agris urbibusve habitant abducatis lumine supero privetis exercitumque ; hostium urbes agrosque capita aetatesque eorum devotas consecratasque habeatis ollis legibus, quibus quandoque sunt maxime hostes devoti, eosque ego vicarios pro me fide magistratuque meo pro populo Romani exercitibus legionitibusque nostris do devoveo, ut me meamque fidem imperiumque legiones exercitumque nostrum, qui in his rebus gerundis sunt, bene salvos siritis esse. si haec ita faxitis, ut ego sciam sentiam intellegamque, tunc quisquis hoc votum faxit ubi faxit recte factum esto ovibus atris tribus. Tellus mater teque Iuppiter obtestor. <30> This formula, which has such a substantially later origin because it was used for the conquest of Carthage and mentions the Greek Dis pater which first entered Rome in 505 = 249, as well as the devotio given earlier, both share the fact that they call upon gods of the underworld and the Tellus mater, as well as the condition that this devotio could also only be spoken by generals (dictatores imperatoresque soli possunt devovere, Marc. § 9), but the situation is completely different, <40> because the goal isn’t the destruction of a warring enemy, but putting a price on a city they intended to conquer from which the gods would be readily evocated (see evocatio); however, the main thing that’s missing is the offering of a Roman life to the underworld, as well as the fulfillment of their side of the deal in advance; the sacrifice of three black sheep was only in store si haec ita faxitis, which implies that the request to the gods had to be fulfilled first, like in any usual votum, <50> before the mortals would make their promised payment. So, it’s lacking the characteristic traits of a devotio, and the words devotas consecratasque habeatis suggest that it was much rather a consecratio (see there) of enemy territory, which, as we know, did actually happen after the conquest of Carthage (Cic. de leg. agr. I 5. II 51), as well as a few other times (Cic. de domo 128. Suet. Caes. 20). <60> Such a trade with the gods, and particularly with the gods of the underworld (dis inferis sacer esto) is similar to a curse; for this reason, a devotio takes on the importance of a curse (see the article curse), and also has a particular magic formula, through which they highlighted one of their enemy to be taken by the gods of the underworld (carmina et devotiones et nomen Germanici plumbeis tabulis insculptum, Tac. ann. II 69; cf. III 13. Suet. Calig. 3; see article defixio), <page break 279/280> and on a lead tablet from Arretium CIL XI 1823 we read hunc ego aput vostrum numen demando devoveo desacrifico uti vos … eum interemates interficiates intra annum istum. In this use of the word, the devotio only has it in common with the ancient ritual of the same name that they aim for an enemy to be destroyed with the help of the gods of the underworld, <10> and over on the other side, self-sacrifice also appears - though not for the purpose of destroying an enemy at the same time, but rather for healing another person - especially in the devotio which often appears in th early empire, the devotio pro salute principis; Sex. Pacuvius Taurus was the first person to complete this ritual in the year 727 = 27, who devoted himself to Augustus and compelled others to καθιερῶσαί σρας τῷ Αὐγύστῳ (Cass. Dio LIII 20, 2f.). <20> However, this ritual, which seems to be connected to the customs of certain barbaric peoples of the west (τὸν τῶν Ἱβήρων τρόπον Cass. Dio loc. cit. § 2; Celtiberi nefas esse ducebant proelio superesse, cum is occidisset, pro cuius salute spiritum devoverant, Val. Max. II 6, 11, cf. also Caes. b. G. II 23, 1), primarily differs from the ancient Roman devotio because there is no payment in advance, and indeed the trade-off is never payed at all; <30> Caligula forcefully took those who had practiced this kind of flattery to a ridiculous end: he forced P. Afranius Potitus, who had dedicated his life to the princeps’ recovery when he was suffering from illness, to pay his side of the deal (Cass. Dio LIX 8, 3, cf. Suet. Calig. 27). From this point, only references to the whole custom are extant on inscriptions of common phrases of devotion devotus numini maiestatique eius with its variants (cf. Cass. Dio LIII 20, 4 ἀφ’ οὖπερ καὶ νῦν προστρεπόμενοι τὸν κρατοῦντα λέγειν εἰώθαμεν ὅτι σοι καθωσιώμεθα). <40> In general, cf. Marquardt St.-Verw. III 279f. A. Pernice S.-Ber. Akad. Berl. 1885, 1156f. A. Bouché-Leclercq in Daremberg-Saglio Dictionn. II 113ff.

[Wissowa.]