Thank you Joan K, I hope I can remember that long enough to use it, it looks good, anyway! hahaha
Several people here have commented on what appears to be Ovid's attitude toward the gods. I think that's a good avenue of interest. From the very first moment when he did not name the gods and did not invoke the Muses it appears something is UP. I think you're very astute to notice it, I continue to be amazed at our book discussions here.
When the old Greek gods came into Roman domination the Romans, being practical people, took what they wanted, renamed it (Zeus=Jupiter, etc.) and used it in their own way.
Quoting again from the Oxford Companion to Classical Literature (a good read):
"The Latin word religio is of uncertain derivation, and it is a word of wide application. It may denote people's recognition of an external power that exerts a "binding," (ligans) force upon them, the sense of awe or anxiety felt in a place , such as a grove or a spring, believed to be the abode of a numen (spirit) and therefore holy. King Evander in Virgil's Aeneid says of the primeval forest which clothed the Roman Capitol 'some god (we do not know what god)'....[sound familiar?....] has this grove for his dwelling.
People are intruders into this realm of the spirits and they must therefore propitiate them by suitable offerings and ritual. This sense of spiritual presences permeated daily life, especially the life of the home and the fields."
When Phrrha said she blanched at offending the spirit of her mother's shades, she is talking about the spirits of the dead who were thought to be unhappy and touchy at best and had to be propitiated by suitable obsequies when they died...and yearly celebrations of their lives were held with food at the grave site (compare Dia de les Muertos in Mexico and other Caribbean countries). The dead were thought to be vaguely unhappy, wandering as shades through the various levels of the Underworld...the Romans views of death are "obscure."
If you ever see a Roman tomb you will see it begins DM: or Dis Manibus: to the spirits of the dead, extremely touchy spirits who could make their own lives, but more particularly the lives of the deceased miserable if they failed to do the proper thing in burial.
There were healthy philosophic discussions on the nature of religion, Cicero wrote a book on it. He asked at one point where do you stop with assigning gods to things? Are nymphs gods? If so then are trees? Are satyrs? Where do you draw the line?
Cicero also wrote about a type of life after death and planets beyond our solar system. He died in 43 B.C.
1." The Romans had no sacred writings, except for formulae of prayer. They were free to think what they liked about the gods, what mattered were the religious acts they performed. It was the necessity for exact fulfillment of their religious duties which promoted discipline and obedience to the state. " They relied on ritual and traditions handed down. Every house had an altar and every family was scrupulous in their following of the rituals. Even a small disturbance would throw it off.
"The formula of invocation and ritual were handed down and later recorded by the colleges so in time the ancient words and actions were barely understood. More attention was paid to the ritual than to the personality and attributes of the deity: it not infrequently happened that the ritual survived with the deity itself was forgotten."
3. "The businesslike, contractual nature of the Roman religion is seen in the very frequent use of vows (vota) public and private. These were undertakings given in the name of the state to offer to the gods special sacrifices, games, a share of booty or temple, if some peril were averted, success achieved, or prosperity assured for a certain period. " These were put in writing on small things and many of them survive.
4. "With the development of Rome, the Romans attached to the gods their own developing sense of morality; a feeling that the gods were just served to sanction human law...The emphasis placed on particular virtues such as patriotism and duty led to these virtues, the more so as they were often seen embodied in a line of noble Romans...Thus the Roman religion is at the root of the sense of duty that marked so many Romans, duty to home, gods, and state. A national solidarity ensued, maintained by the annual state festivals of the various gods, so that religion became the sanctification of patriotism. "
The Eastern religions, also accepted into Roman culture like the goddess Isis, who did promote a type of resurrection, were more personal. And there were many of them, Magna Mater, Dionysus, Serapis, Osiris, and Mythras, all were tolerated. Julius Caesar was deified after his death as was Augustus.'
"The practice of regarding as a god, are at least god like , a person who had converted great benefits was common to both Greeks and Romans. The emperor Augustus, realizing the value of fostering such devotion, encouraged the spread of this idea in the West in a way that would not clash with Roman religious tradition....Augustus and subsequent emperors were deified after their death. "
5. "This cult of the emperors was the one general test of loyalty to the empire. Subjects might worship any divinity they pleased, but they also had to worship the emperor as a sign of loyalty. "
They also did auguries and auspices, and oracles, with very fine points between them. But not all Romans agreed with these, either.
In the battle of Drepanum between Rome and Carthage in 249 B.C., the sacred chickens were consulted by the augurs to tell whether or not, not as in Punxatawny Phil, the future would be told, but whether the undertaking had the support of the gods.
However the chickens would not eat, so their pattern of eating could not be discovered. Hours passed and the impatient Roman admiral grew tired of the delay. Throwing them overboard, he exclaimed, "then let them drink."
Of course the Romans were defeated and that is why that story has come down to us like a cautionary tale.
Are the myths we're about to read cautionary?
You'll be the judge.
