Chapter Three

Capita Deorum

Capita deorum, heads of gods, are distinctive as specifically for appeasing the gods, and the among ceremonial genres in being referred to in regular petitioning of gods as a supplicatio (van texts with a specific title but one which seems Ooteghem, 1964). The holding of regular lectister- to require some explanation. These texts also nia may also have been an element of imperial link this genre to a specific ceremony, the lectis- cult. An inscription from Gytheion in Lakonia ternium or divine banquet (Wissowa, 1923; van dictating details of the ceremonies for the impe- Ooteghem, 1964; Milani, 1976; Nouilhan, 1989). rial images has been persuasively interpreted as However, the texts are few in number, cover a describing a lectisternium in the theatre for the relatively brief period of time, and pose some dif- εἰκόνας (portraits) of , Livia and Tiberius ficulties of interpretation. Additionally, the visual (Rostovtzeff, 1930: 12–16; Eitrem, 1932: 43–48; Fish- evidence which can be brought to bear on the wick, 1991: 566; Gebhard 1996: 117–21; see Appen- identity and use of this sculptural genre has not dix, no. 3). A part of this argument points to the been fully explored. parody of a divine lectisternium recounted by Sue- Livius (v.13 & xxii.10; and Dionysios of Halikar- tonius (Augustus 76), where the young Augustus nassos, Romaîke arkhaiologia xii.9), among his and his friends played the parts of the gods, as in numerous references to lectisternia, reports with fact a stage in the development of the lectister- some detail lectisternia for appeasing the gods in nium in the imperial cult (Rostovtzeff, 1930: 15). 399 and 217 BCE in response to disasters, here In addition to these, privately funded lectisternia pestilence and military defeat. For each, the gods are also attested (CIL V.5272; Compostello, 1992; honoured are named, six and twelve respectively, D’Arms, 1998; Lindsay, 1998; Dunbabin, 2003 ). two to each couch, and usually, though notably Elsewhere, Livius (xl.59) directly links the use not always, one male and one female paired on of the genre of heads of gods with the lectister- each couch. The occasions Livius cites are early, nium in recounting a baleful portent in which but evidence that such occasional lectisternia con- the gods in this format, arranged on couches for tinued to be held is found in the report of Mar- the banquet, turned away. Also pertinent are two cus Aurelius holding a lectisternium in 167 CE in definitions in Festus which have been the source response to a plague (scriptores historiae augus- of some range in interpretation. One (Festus, 472) tae, Marcus Antoninus 13). Simultaneously with defines struppi as wreaths of verbena placed in these public arrangements, private banquets front of the heads of gods, and the second (Fes- were also held, though little detail is given about tus, 56) defines the heads of gods as themselves these except their broad inclusiveness across the made of the little bundles of verbena. From this society (Sheid, 1985). In her consideration of these it has been possible to assert that the heads of accounts, Taylor drew the distinction between gods are themselves simply the wreaths or bands these exceptional and occasional lectisternia and (struppi), the wreath as a decoration for the head the regularly held lectisternia, of which those for on these occasions standing in for it in a kind of , the epulum Iovis, and , the lectister- visual synecdoche (Hölscher, 2007: 37–40). This, nium Cereris, are only the best known (Taylor, however, seems to do violence to the sense of 1935: 123). Van Ooteghem further has sought to Livius’ description of the heads turning away. distinguish between the occasional lectisternium Alternatively, Festus’ and Livius’ accounts have 68 chapter three

Fig. 29. Fortunae statuette, Museo Archeologico Prenestino, Palestrina. Photo: author

Fig. 30. Fortunae coin, American Numismatic Society, NY. Photo: Brendel 1960 been taken to indicate that the heads of gods the early first century BCE, has already been cited were small scale images employed in the lectister- as a representation of statues on litters. All discus- nia (Wissowa, 1912: 422–23; Rüpke, 2001: 103–104). sions have agreed on the important point that the Taylor and Abaecherli put forward a reconcilia- group represents not the goddesses, but images of tion to these two poles of view in the observation the goddesses on litters which themselves rest on that the wreaths could at times have been substi- a couch. This point has been argued thoroughly tuted for the original images which were in the by Brendel comparing these figures with the god- form of heads (Taylor, 1935: 123; Abaecherli, 1935: desses as they appear on a coin (fig. 30) minted 134). This suggestion would account for how such by Q. Rustius late in the same century (Brendel, wreaths could come to be called heads of gods, as 1960; Champeaux, 1982: 150–155). On the coin the definition in Festus seems to indicate. the Fortunae appear with the same iconography, The visual evidence is here considered in again on litters and again truncated, although chronological order. Fortuitously, the earliest evi- in this case in the upper torso, rather than at dence is of Italian origin, allowing the establish- mid-thigh. About the significance of the couch ment of a Roman pattern before taking up the in this group there has been disagreement. Bren- later examples from elsewhere in the empire. del regarded the couch as temple furniture upon The statuette group of the twin Fortunae at which the images have been set; the litters cor- Praeneste (fig. 29), dated on formal evidence to respond to Macrobius’s description (