In ancient Rome during the consulship of Albinus and Philippus, a new religious movement came from the east and merged with Roman culture. This religious sect or cult worshiped the god Bacchus, who was the Romanized manifestation of the Greek god Dionysus. Bacchus was known as the Roman god of wine and excess, whose worship came in the form of large gatherings often accompanied by alcohol and celebration. As with any new religious movement, concern began to grow over the perceived moral debauchery of the Bacchanalia as well as the rumored political danger of their existence.
The growing concern, as the new cult spread from province to province throughout the republic, gained the attention of the senate who dealt with the matter firmly and politically. The actions of the senate were recorded in a formal decree which was then handed over to the consuls for implantation. The resolutions in the decree, much like resolutions or laws today, seeded further hostilities toward the Bacchanalia. Within the republic were those who sought to use to the decree as a means to justify their assumptions. In A History of Rome, Livy reveals himself to be one such man who held a strong prejudice towards the worshipers of Bacchus. Through Livy’s historical account we can observe his prejudice by examining the application of the decree and what sections he chose to alter or leave out of his account.
In his account Livy reveals to the reader that the religion stemmed from a Greek who held “none of those many skills which the highly educated Greeks” had given Roman society (Livy, 394). According to Livy, the presence of the Bacchanalia represented “an internal conspiracy” that threatened the stability of the republic (Livy, 394). Livy asserts that the religious practice swept “from Etruria to Rome like a contagion” plague, instigating acts of “debauchery [and] murder” as well as crimes of fraud (Livy, 395, 396). The use of wine and large feasts were, according to the text, employed in order to “attract the minds” of more people to the growing faith (Livy, 395).
While Livy presents the reader with only one specific example of such behavior, it should be noted that his evidence was presented after he condemned the practitioners as immoral. Indeed, Livy boldly asserts that the Bacchanalia are members of “the occult” who “taint the minds with fallacies” in nighttime rituals before any specific evidence was written in the account (Livy, 394). Specific evidence to support Livy’s account comes in the form of an interview between a consul and a freedwoman. The event the freedwoman described occurred during an unknown time before the current events while she was still a slave. It is stated that she accompanied her former mistress to an initiation where she witnessed “human sacrifice” and the “sexual abuse of boys” among other immoral activities (Livy, 395).
This example of criminal action committed by the practitioners is the only one offered by Livy in his writings. While other orators and writers of the republic such as Cicero offered much in the form of evidence and support, Livy omits much of what can be called specific and instead utilizes broad generalizations. In regards with the decree by the senate, Livy takes great liberty to mix the edict with sensationalized showmanship. Although Livy accurately describes key facets of the edict, the decree in its entirety displays a more lenient approach to the Bacchanalian crisis।
In the decree of the senate, consuls were ordered to “let no one plan to hold Bacchanalia” meetings in his home or in public unless gaining approval from the “praetor urbanus” (The Decree of the Senate, 397). In addition to holding rituals, the senate decreed that “no man…associate with Bacchant women” unless gaining approval from the praetor urbanus (The Decree of the Senate, 397). The decree goes on to place heavy restrictions on oaths, pledges and other matters of the Bacchanalia religion such as having priests or deacons. While initially all of these rites are prohibited by the decree, a practitioner may appeal to the praetor urbanus for an examination and approval of a specific act (The Decree of the Senate, 397). The senate makes known, however, that any attempt to perform these acts without consulting the praetor urbanus will result in “capital charges” being “brought against them” (The Decree of the Senate, 397).
According to Livy’s accounts, the senate granted the consuls authority and encouraged the “offer[ing] of rewards” to witnesses or providers of information about the cult (Livy, 395). In addition or offering rewards to informants, Livy writes that the consuls intended on summoning all named suspects including those “outside the boundaries of Italy” to criminal hearings (Livy, 396). Should those summoned not appear, they “would be condemned in absentia” and a punishment would be issued (Livy, 396).
Although harsh punishments including capital punishment were prescribed by the senate, the decree did not mention the investigative authority of the consul. In fact the decree does not give absolute authority to the consuls to administer the affair. According to the decree the consuls, after publicly reading the edict, were instructed to destroy all “those places of Bacchic worship” (The Decree of the Senate, 397). All other remaining authority, according to the decree, was “given [to] the praetor urbanus and the Senate” in regards to the administration of the edict (The Decree of the Senate, 397).
Of the legitimate authority the consuls held in Livy’s account, only the reading of the decree and the destruction of Bacchic places of worship were accurately recorded. In addition to these, the powers of the praetor urbanus and the senate are mentioned in the approval of a Bacchic rite. The decree of the senate makes no mention of holding large investigations with the promise of treason trials. While the decree itself acts as a defacto method of subduing the growing popularity of Bacchic worship, the edict does not outlaw the practice. The edict only prescribes punishment to those who fail to abide by the arbitrary rules laid down by the senate in order suffocate the religion.
Although Livy attempts to write from an unbiased and historical point of view, his prejudices are revealed. Through sensationalism and exaggeration of the facts, Livy depicts a desperate crisis between the moral and immoral. While Livy is correct in his noting the intervention of the senate and consuls, he provides accounts that are sensationalized and without proper support. The little mention of specific evidence and cases against suspected Bacchic practitioners serves as a testimony to Livy’s inaccurate depiction of the issue. In addition to providing little evidence, the early personal condemnation of Bacchic practitioners suggests a lack of scrutiny on the part of Livy to examine the evidence thoroughly and justly.
Works Cited
Livy. "Suppression of the Bacchanalia." Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did. 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 394-396.
"The Decree of the Senate." Shelton, Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did. 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 397.
Posts
