In Aeneid XI 81-82, we are shown Aeneas sacrificing some prisoners of war at the cremation of Pallas. Aeneas follows through on his taking of these two groups of four prisoners in X 517-520.[[1]] What are we to make of this?
Part of the answer is that Aeneas ~ Achilles, while Pallas ~ Patroclus (just as Turnus ~ Hector), at this stage of the Aeneid.
Let us begin with the Homeric passages, the latter of which was depicted in red-figure vase-painting (perhaps) of the Classical period.
Iliad XXI 26-33:
'Achilles, when the work of slaughtering them had tired his arms, selected twelve young men and took them alive from the river to pay the price for the lord Patroclus' death. He drove them, like fawns, onto the bank, and tied their hands behind them with the stout leather straps with which their own knitted tunics were equipped. Then he left them for his followers to take down to the hollow ships, and in his eagerness for slaughter threw himself at the enemy again.' (Rieu 1950: 380-381)
ὃ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ κάμε χεῖρας ἐναίρων,
ζωοὺς ἐκ ποταμοῖο δυώδεκα λέξατο κούρους
ποινὴν Πατρόκλοιο Μενοιτιάδαο θανόντος:
τοὺς ἐξῆγε θύραζε τεθηπότας ἠΰτε νεβρούς,
δῆσε δ᾽ ὀπίσσω χεῖρας ἐϋτμήτοισιν ἱμᾶσι,
τοὺς αὐτοὶ φορέεσκον ἐπὶ στρεπτοῖσι χιτῶσι,
δῶκε δ᾽ ἑταίροισιν κατάγειν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας.
αὐτὰρ ὃ ἂψ ἐπόρουσε δαϊζέμεναι μενεαίνων.
When the sacrifice of the twelve comes, Homer is explicit that it was evil.[[2]]
Iliad XXIII 175-177:
'Then he went on to do an evil thing - he put a dozen brave men, the sons of noble Trojans, to the sword, and set the pyre alight so that the pitiless flames might feed on them.' (Rieu 1950: 416-417)
δώδεκα δὲ Τρώων μεγαθύμων υἱέας ἐσθλοὺς
χαλκῷ δηϊόων: κακὰ δὲ φρεσὶ μήδετο ἔργα:
ἐν δὲ πυρὸς μένος ἧκε σιδήρεον ὄφρα νέμοιτο.[[3]]
The two Aeneid passages are enriched not only by their Homeric precursors, but also by the comments of authors from 'Virgil's century' (the first century BCE), the rest of the Augustan period, and Suetonius' Life of Augustus.
Let us start with Julius Caesar's comments on the Gauls and, in particular, the Druids -- Gallic Wars VI 16:
'The whole nation of the Gauls is greatly devoted to ritual observances, and for that reason those who are smitten with the more grievous maladies and who are engaged in the perils of battle either sacrifice human victims or vow to do so, employing the Druids as ministers for such sacrifices. They believe, in effect, that, unless for a man's life a man's life be paid, the majesty of the immortal gods may not be appeased; and in public, as in private, life they observe an ordinance of sacrifices of the same kind. Others use figures of immense size, whose limbs, woven out of twigs, they fill with living men and set on fire, and the men perish in a sheet of flame. They believe that the execution of those who have been caught in the act of theft or robbery or some crime is more pleasing to the immortal gods; but when the supply of such fails they resort to the execution even of the innocent.'
natio est omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus, atque ob eam causam, qui sunt adfecti gravioribus morbis quique in proeliis periculisque versantur, aut pro victimis homines immolant aut se immolaturos vovent administrisque ad ea sacrificia druidibus utuntur, quod, pro vita hominis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non posse deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur, publiceque eiusdem generis habent instituta sacrificia. alii immani magnitudine simulacra habent, quorum contexta viminibus membra vivis hominibus complent; quibus succensis circumventi flamma exanimantur homines. supplicia eorum qui in furto aut in latrocinio aut aliqua noxia sint comprehensi gratiora dis immortalibus esse arbitrantur; sed, cum eius generis copia defecit, etiam ad innocentium supplicia descendunt.
The key here is that human sacrifice is presented as a remarkable practice (not the norm) of peoples beyond the fringes of the Roman world and, thus, beyond civilised values.
Human sacrifice is a feature of 'the other' (non-Romans) and, really, a feature of a particular group of 'the other' (Gauls/Celts and Druids at that) in very specific situations. Practices vary and there is an association with execution of the perpetrators of particularly heinous crimes. Achilles' twelve and Aeneas' eight do not fit into that category (note the numerical discrepancy), but Hector and Turnus, respectively, would.
Cicero, the orator who lived to see the assassination of Julius Caesar and the killing of those assassins, cites the Gallic practice of human sacrifice to discredit the evidence of a Gallic chieftain, Indutiomarus (Pro Fonteio 31):
'Lastly, can anything appear holy or solemn in the eyes of those men [= the Gauls], who, if ever they are so much influenced by any fear as to think it necessary to propitiate the immortal gods, defile their altars and temples with human victims? So that they cannot pay proper honour to religion itself without first violating it with wickedness. For who is ignorant that, to this very day, they retain that savage and barbarous custom of sacrificing men? What, therefore, do you suppose is the good faith, what the piety of those men, who think that even the immortal gods can be most easily propitiated by the wickedness and murder of men? Will you connect your own religious ideas with these witnesses? Will you think that anything is said holily or moderately by these men?'
Postremo his quicquam sanctum ac religiosum videri potest qui, etiam si quando aliquo metu adducti deos placandos esse arbitrantur, humanis hostiis eorum aras ac templa funestant, ut ne religionem quidem colere possint, nisi eam ipsam prius scelere violarint? Quis enim ignorat eos usque ad hanc diem retinere illam immanem ac barbaram consuetudinem hominum immolandorum? Quam ob rem quali fide, quali pietate existimatis esse eos qui etiam deos immortalis arbitrentur hominum scelere et sanguine facillime posse placari? Cum his vos testibus vestram religionem coniungetis, ab <his> quicquam sancte aut moderate dictum putabitis?
Gallic practice, albeit only in certain circumstances, is just too 'out there' in the outlook of first-century BCE Romans.
Livy, a Roman historian contemporary with Augustus, also reported a human sacrifice, but also as entirely non-Roman (XXII 57.6):
'In the meantime, by the direction of the Books of Fate, some unusual sacrifices were offered; amongst others a Gaulish man and woman and a Greek man and woman were buried alive in the Cattle Market, in a place walled in with stone, which even before this time had been defiled with human victims, a sacrifice wholly alien to the Roman spirit.'
interim ex fatalibus libris sacrificia aliquot extraordinaria facta; inter quae Gallus et Galla, Graecus et Graeca in foro bovario sub terram vivi demissi sunt in locum saxo consaeptum, iam ante hostiis humanis, minime Romano sacro, inbutum.
[ The translator commented: Livy means that the sacrifice, prescribed by the Greek Sibylline Books, was a Greek and not a Roman rite. The earlier instance referred to in the text was in 228 B.C. (Zonaras VIII. xix.). ]
Note the involvement of Gauls once again.
The principal passage for consideration in relation to the Aeneid is Suetonius, Life of Augustus 15.
Perusia capta in plurimos animadvertit, orare veniam vel excusare se conantibus una voce occurrens, moriendum esse. Scribunt quidam, trecentos ex dediticiis electos, utriusque ordinis ad aram Divo Iulio extructam Idibus Martiis hostiarum more mactatos. extiterunt qui traderent, conpecto eum ad arma isse, ut occulti adversarii et quos metus magis quam voluntas contineret, facultate L. Antoni ducis praebita, detegerentur devictisque iis et confiscatis, promissa veteranis praemia perolverentur.
Octavian is said to have shown no clemency to those who surrendered at Perusia (41 BCE) and begged to be spared: orare veniam vel excusare (with the former, cf. oratores... veniamque rogantes, Aeneid XI 100-101). Suetonius reports, but does not deny or confirm or evaluate, the claim of some writers (scribunt quidam) that Octavian chose at Perusia 300 from the senators and the equestrians/knights to slaughter them at an altar to the Deified Julius Caesar as if they were sacrificial victims on the Ides of March. So much for clemency as a virtue! Here, it is all debellare superbos (not even that: debellare subjectos aut orantis veniam) and no parcere subjectis (cf. Anchises' enjoining charge to Aeneas -- as a Roman, tu..., Romane, memento -- in Aeneid VI 851-853: cf., too, 834 tuque prior, tu parce... 'you must be the first to show mercy...', an impassioned exhortation to show mercy, as shown by the repetition of tu and the address in 835 sanguis mea 'O blood of my blood!'). Or, is this all propaganda and fake news circulated by those hostile to Octavian or to Augustus, perhaps partisans of Antony (remember his brother Lucius at Perusia...)?
[[ Cassius Dio XLVIII 14, writing in the late second century CE, reports Perusia in similar, but perhaps more sensational terms: 'most were put to death'... There is still some distancing/lack of commitment to the veracity of 'the story' that 'goes':
'While they were thus engaged, Lucius <Antonius> (Mark Antony's brother) withdrew from Rome as I have stated and set out for Gaul; finding his way blocked, he turned aside to Perusia, an Etruscan city. There he was intercepted first by the lieutenants of Caesar (i.e. Octavian) and later by Caesar himself, and was besieged.
The investment proved a long operation; for the place is naturally a strong one and had been amply stocked with provisions; and horsemen sent by Lucius before he was entirely hemmed in greatly harassed the besieger, while many others besides came speedily to his defence from various quarters.
Many attacks were made upon these reinforcements separately and many engagements were fought close to the walls, until the followers of Lucius, even though they were generally successful, nevertheless were forced by hunger to capitulate.
The leader and some others obtained pardon, but most of the senators and knights were put to death.
And the story goes that they did not merely suffer death in an ordinary form, but were led to the altar consecrated to the former Caesar and were there sacrificed — three hundred knights and many senators, among them Tiberius Cannutius, who previously during his tribuneship had assembled the populace for Caesar Octavianus.
Of the people of Perusia and the others who were captured there the majority lost their lives, and the city itself, except the temple of Vulcan and the statue of Juno, was entirely destroyed by fire. This statue, which was preserved by some chance, was brought to Rome, in accordance with a vision that Caesar saw in a dream, and it secured for the city the privilege of being peopled again by any who desired to settle there, though they did not acquire anything of its territory beyond the first mile.' (Loeb translation)
This may be an elaboration of Suetonius or of the same source or of another tabloid account: cf. plural scribunt quidam. Note that the 300 hundred all-in have become 300 knights plus many senators. Dio does not mention the Ides of March. The inclusion of a senator's name lends an air of verisimilitude. ]]
Back to the Aeneid: To some extent, Aeneas throughout the Aeneid recalls Octavian (later Augustus). Human sacrifice is a profound taint on Aeneas because it puts him on a par with the monstrous Achilles and because it recalls a war crime alleged to have been perpetrated by Octavian. Vergil is not uniformly positive about Aeneas (remember Dido and consider Turnus) and here, at least, any Augustanism that Vergil might show elsewhere is called into question (cf. Servius' initial statements: intentio Vergilii haec est, Homerum imitari et Augustum laudare a parentibus 'The intention of Vergil is as follows -- to imitate Homer and to praise Augustus on the basis of his forefathers').
Lastly, on Perusia, let us consider Seneca, who wrote to Nero, the young emperor-to-be about clemency, or mercy, and reflected on Octavian at Perusia and subsequently as Augustus (de Clementia XI 1-4):
'Such was Augustus when an old man, or when growing old: in his youth he was hasty and passionate, and did many things upon which he looked back with regret. No one will venture to compare the rule of the blessed Augustus to the mildness of your own, even if your youth be compared with his more than ripe old age: he was gentle and placable, but it was after he had dyed the sea at Actium with Roman blood; after he had wrecked both the enemy's fleet and his own at Sicily; after the holocaust of Perusia [literally: 'Perusinan altars] and the proscriptions.
But I do not call it clemency to be wearied of cruelty; true clemency, Caesar, is that which you display, which has not begun from remorse at its past ferocity, on which there is no stain, which has never shed the blood of your countrymen: this, when combined with unlimited power, shows the truest self-control and all-embracing love of the human race as of one's self, not corrupted by any low desires, any extravagant ideas, or any of the bad examples of former emperors into trying, by actual experiment, how great a tyranny you would be allowed to exercise over his countrymen, but inclining rather to blunting your sword of empire.
You, Caesar, have granted us the boon of keeping our state free from bloodshed, and that of which you boast, that you have not caused one single drop of blood to flow in any part of the world, is all the more magnanimous and marvelous because no one ever had the power of the sword placed in his hands at an earlier age. Clemency, then, makes princes safer as well as more respected, and is a glory to empires besides being their most trustworthy means of preservation. Why have legitimate sovereigns grown old on the throne, and bequeathed their power to their children and grandchildren, while the sway of despotic usurpers is both hateful and shortlived? What is the difference between the tyrant and the king—for their outward symbols of authority and their powers are the same — except it be that tyrants take delight in cruelty, whereas kings are only cruel for good reasons and because they cannot help it.' (Loeb translation)
haec Augustus senex aut iam in senectutem annis vergentibus; in adulescentia caluit, arsit ira, multa fecit, ad quae invitus oculos retorquebat. comparare nemo mansuetudini tuae audebit divum Augustum, etiam si in certamen iuvenilium annorum deduxerit senectutem plus quam maturam; fuerit moderatus et clemens, nempe post mare Actiacum Romano cruore infectum, nempe post fractas in Sicilia classes et suas et alienas, nempe post Perusinas aras et proscriptiones.
ego vero clementiam non voco lassam crudelitatem; haec est, Caesar, clementia vera, quam tu praestas, quae non saevitiae paenitentia coepit, nullam habere maculam, numquam civilem sanguinem fudisse; haec est in maxima potestate verissima animi temperantia et humani generis comprendens ut sui amor non cupiditate aliqua, non temeritate ingenii, non priorum principum exemplis corruptum, quantum sibi cives suos liceat, experiendo temptare, sed hebetare aciem imperii sui.
praestitisti, Caesar, civitatem incruentam, et hoc, quod magno animo gloriatus es nullam te toto orbe stillam cruoris humani misisse, eo maius est mirabiliusque, quod nulli umquam citius gladius commissus est.
clementia ergo non tantum honestiores sed tutiores praestat ornamentumque imperiorum est simul et certissima salus. Quid enim est, cur reges consenuerint liberisque ac nepotibus tradiderint regna, tyrannorum exsecrabilis ac brevis potestas sit? Quid interest inter tyrannum ac regem (species enim ipsa fortunae ac licentia par est), nisi quod tyranni in voluptatem saeviunt, reges non nisi ex causa ac necessitate?
The rumours of human sacrifice by Octavian, albeit on just a single occasion, persisted to the time of Nero and into the second century when they were reported again by Suetonius and preserved by Cassius Dio with some degree of independence (or creativity). Aeneas is paralleled with Augustus and with Achilles. Neither comparison is flattering for Aeneas in this regard. The Aeneid here recalls an atrocity said to have been committed by Octavian rather than suppressing it for the sake of praising Augustus by on the basis of his forefathers.
Seneca challenges any counter argument of a progression form the youthful Octavian to the mature Augustus. However, one question remains: can the Aeneid praise Augustus while presenting a mon`strous Aeneas? If so, how and what was Servius thinking?
It will come as no surprise that Augustus himself does not mention the alleged human sacrifices in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Nor, for that matter, does he mention Perusia at all, although it would be relevant to chapters 3.1 and 4.1. In the former, Augustus trumpets his clemency: 'as victor I was merciful to all citizens who asked for pardon' victorque omnibus veniam petentibus civibus peperci. Remember, senators and equestrians were citizens...
Did Augustus not want to dignify rumours of whatever happened or did not happen at Perusia with a response or even any air-time? Was an atrocity tacitly omitted from the official version?
For more on Perusia, consider the 'survivor' in Propertius Book I poems 21 and 22...
[[1]] Aeneas 'sacrifices' his foes on two other occasions: X 541 (Haemonides) and XII 949 (Turnus -- attributed to Pallas). Although the verb immolare, used too in X 519 (in the subjunctive), is sacrificial, the contexts are not sacrificial. There is no altar or pyre as in X 517-520 and XI 81-82 and the only priest is the victim: Haemonides. The verb is never used in the Aeneid of regular animal sacrifices. Instead mactare is used for animal sacrifices, as in XI 197 (and 3x in VIII, all outside the Latin set text). For mactare to refer to killing in a battle, consider X 413.
[[2]] There is another tale of human sacrifice on the edges of the Homeric traditions. When the Greek fleet had gathered at Aulis before setting sail for Troy, the whether was unfavourable - in some versions, there were storms, in others, a dead calm. Agamemnon was told -- by Chalcas (as in Iliad I!) to sacrifice his daughter. Iphigeneia, to Artemis to secure favourable conditions for sailing. Artemis' upset may have had something to do with a stag being killed (#Iulus...). Agamemnon did as he was told. (Euripides' Iphigeneia at Aulis and Iphigeneia among the Taurians). Homer knows this daughter as Iphianassa (Iliad IX 145 // 287; maybe as Iphigeneia at Odyssey XI 305).
His wife, Clytemestra, was -- understandably -- upset and murdered Agamemnon in his bath on his return from the Trojan War. Agamemnon's warbride/booty, Cassandra, was another reason for the murder, as was Clytemestra's own lover, Aegisthus (Aeschylus' Agamemnon). Agamemnon's human sacrifice did not, then, end well and the pollution (miasma) on the family continued. Agamemnon's son, Orestes, killed his mother and her lover [Aeschylus' Choephoroe, the Electra plays by each of Euripides and Sophocles]. He was pursued to Athens by the Eumenides/Furies, where he stood trial (Aeschylus' Eumenides [Billy will tell you his joke...] and Euripides' Orestes).
The murder of Agamemnon was the continuation of the curse on the house of Atreus, Agamemnon's father. Atreus was one of two sons of Pelops (the son of Tantalus, as in 'tantalising' -- in reference to his punishment in the Underworld: Odyssey XI 582). The other son was Thyestes. A king with two sons is never a good start in Greek mythology or Ancient History. The complexities of a disputed kingship culminate in Atreus sacrificing Thyestes sons and serving them up at a welcome-home dinner for Thyestes (Seneca's Thyestes).
[[3]] The Homeric poems as we have them are the snow balls that grew as they rolled through centuries (and perhaps millennia) of oral tradition. Do Iliad XXI and XXIII present as abhorrent to Homer's contemporaries, to Classical audiences, and to us a practice that was once normal? It is entirely possible for there to be echoes of the dim and distant past in Homer, even amid relatively recent accretions to our snow ball. The boars' tusk helmet in Iliad X is the prime example, the locus classicus. The likelihood that Iliad XXIII and XXIV reflect the softening out of the epic during a (slightly) kinder and (slightly) gentler age in comparison with the brutal ending set out in Iliad XXII together with the linguistic evidence (also in the case of Iliad XXI) suggests that Achilles' human sacrifice comes amid 'late' passages.
Is there evidence of human sacrifice among Indo-European peoples? I cannot comment. The only suggestion of this practice in mainstream Greek culture is highly doubtful. That evidence comes from thirteenth-century Pylos (Homer's home of Nestor...) and is a clay tablet inscribed in Linear B, the earliest attested form of the Greek language (not alphabetic): PY Tn 316.
Several lines on the 'rev(erse)' (or: verso, the image on the right) end with ideograms for 'man' or 'woman', likewise lines 3 and 4 of the obv(erse)' (or: recto, the image on the left). These men and women are listed among gold dishes, gold cups, and gold goblets (some two-handled) as 'gifts' or 'offerings' do-ra(-qe) to various deities ( cf. δῶρον (e.g. at Iliad VI 293+) + connective enclitic -qe seen in Latin as -que and in Greek as τε).
Much is uncertain here. A person as a gift to serve a deity is one thing (think of the boy Samuel in 1 Samuel in the Hebrew Bible), but is something else entirely as an offering. Words like 'dedicated' or 'consecrated' are disturbingly ambiguous. To my mind, that these people are listed among objects, not animals, makes me think that even here we have dedications for cultic practice of vessels and servitors. You cannot make a sacrificial offering of a cup in the same way that you can offer a cow.
Even if we are convinced that bloody human sacrifice was practised at Pylos in the 13th c. BCE, the Homeric example is remarkable in that it is to a deceased person, while its literary successor in the Aeneid is still more shocking in an age less primitive than the times envisaged by Homer and not least against historical allegations against the young Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.
Part of the answer is that Aeneas ~ Achilles, while Pallas ~ Patroclus (just as Turnus ~ Hector), at this stage of the Aeneid.
Let us begin with the Homeric passages, the latter of which was depicted in red-figure vase-painting (perhaps) of the Classical period.
Iliad XXI 26-33:
'Achilles, when the work of slaughtering them had tired his arms, selected twelve young men and took them alive from the river to pay the price for the lord Patroclus' death. He drove them, like fawns, onto the bank, and tied their hands behind them with the stout leather straps with which their own knitted tunics were equipped. Then he left them for his followers to take down to the hollow ships, and in his eagerness for slaughter threw himself at the enemy again.' (Rieu 1950: 380-381)
ὃ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ κάμε χεῖρας ἐναίρων,
ζωοὺς ἐκ ποταμοῖο δυώδεκα λέξατο κούρους
ποινὴν Πατρόκλοιο Μενοιτιάδαο θανόντος:
τοὺς ἐξῆγε θύραζε τεθηπότας ἠΰτε νεβρούς,
δῆσε δ᾽ ὀπίσσω χεῖρας ἐϋτμήτοισιν ἱμᾶσι,
τοὺς αὐτοὶ φορέεσκον ἐπὶ στρεπτοῖσι χιτῶσι,
δῶκε δ᾽ ἑταίροισιν κατάγειν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας.
αὐτὰρ ὃ ἂψ ἐπόρουσε δαϊζέμεναι μενεαίνων.
When the sacrifice of the twelve comes, Homer is explicit that it was evil.[[2]]
Iliad XXIII 175-177:
'Then he went on to do an evil thing - he put a dozen brave men, the sons of noble Trojans, to the sword, and set the pyre alight so that the pitiless flames might feed on them.' (Rieu 1950: 416-417)
δώδεκα δὲ Τρώων μεγαθύμων υἱέας ἐσθλοὺς
χαλκῷ δηϊόων: κακὰ δὲ φρεσὶ μήδετο ἔργα:
ἐν δὲ πυρὸς μένος ἧκε σιδήρεον ὄφρα νέμοιτο.[[3]]
The two Aeneid passages are enriched not only by their Homeric precursors, but also by the comments of authors from 'Virgil's century' (the first century BCE), the rest of the Augustan period, and Suetonius' Life of Augustus.
Let us start with Julius Caesar's comments on the Gauls and, in particular, the Druids -- Gallic Wars VI 16:
'The whole nation of the Gauls is greatly devoted to ritual observances, and for that reason those who are smitten with the more grievous maladies and who are engaged in the perils of battle either sacrifice human victims or vow to do so, employing the Druids as ministers for such sacrifices. They believe, in effect, that, unless for a man's life a man's life be paid, the majesty of the immortal gods may not be appeased; and in public, as in private, life they observe an ordinance of sacrifices of the same kind. Others use figures of immense size, whose limbs, woven out of twigs, they fill with living men and set on fire, and the men perish in a sheet of flame. They believe that the execution of those who have been caught in the act of theft or robbery or some crime is more pleasing to the immortal gods; but when the supply of such fails they resort to the execution even of the innocent.'
natio est omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus, atque ob eam causam, qui sunt adfecti gravioribus morbis quique in proeliis periculisque versantur, aut pro victimis homines immolant aut se immolaturos vovent administrisque ad ea sacrificia druidibus utuntur, quod, pro vita hominis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non posse deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur, publiceque eiusdem generis habent instituta sacrificia. alii immani magnitudine simulacra habent, quorum contexta viminibus membra vivis hominibus complent; quibus succensis circumventi flamma exanimantur homines. supplicia eorum qui in furto aut in latrocinio aut aliqua noxia sint comprehensi gratiora dis immortalibus esse arbitrantur; sed, cum eius generis copia defecit, etiam ad innocentium supplicia descendunt.
The key here is that human sacrifice is presented as a remarkable practice (not the norm) of peoples beyond the fringes of the Roman world and, thus, beyond civilised values.
Human sacrifice is a feature of 'the other' (non-Romans) and, really, a feature of a particular group of 'the other' (Gauls/Celts and Druids at that) in very specific situations. Practices vary and there is an association with execution of the perpetrators of particularly heinous crimes. Achilles' twelve and Aeneas' eight do not fit into that category (note the numerical discrepancy), but Hector and Turnus, respectively, would.
Cicero, the orator who lived to see the assassination of Julius Caesar and the killing of those assassins, cites the Gallic practice of human sacrifice to discredit the evidence of a Gallic chieftain, Indutiomarus (Pro Fonteio 31):
'Lastly, can anything appear holy or solemn in the eyes of those men [= the Gauls], who, if ever they are so much influenced by any fear as to think it necessary to propitiate the immortal gods, defile their altars and temples with human victims? So that they cannot pay proper honour to religion itself without first violating it with wickedness. For who is ignorant that, to this very day, they retain that savage and barbarous custom of sacrificing men? What, therefore, do you suppose is the good faith, what the piety of those men, who think that even the immortal gods can be most easily propitiated by the wickedness and murder of men? Will you connect your own religious ideas with these witnesses? Will you think that anything is said holily or moderately by these men?'
Postremo his quicquam sanctum ac religiosum videri potest qui, etiam si quando aliquo metu adducti deos placandos esse arbitrantur, humanis hostiis eorum aras ac templa funestant, ut ne religionem quidem colere possint, nisi eam ipsam prius scelere violarint? Quis enim ignorat eos usque ad hanc diem retinere illam immanem ac barbaram consuetudinem hominum immolandorum? Quam ob rem quali fide, quali pietate existimatis esse eos qui etiam deos immortalis arbitrentur hominum scelere et sanguine facillime posse placari? Cum his vos testibus vestram religionem coniungetis, ab <his> quicquam sancte aut moderate dictum putabitis?
Gallic practice, albeit only in certain circumstances, is just too 'out there' in the outlook of first-century BCE Romans.
Livy, a Roman historian contemporary with Augustus, also reported a human sacrifice, but also as entirely non-Roman (XXII 57.6):
'In the meantime, by the direction of the Books of Fate, some unusual sacrifices were offered; amongst others a Gaulish man and woman and a Greek man and woman were buried alive in the Cattle Market, in a place walled in with stone, which even before this time had been defiled with human victims, a sacrifice wholly alien to the Roman spirit.'
interim ex fatalibus libris sacrificia aliquot extraordinaria facta; inter quae Gallus et Galla, Graecus et Graeca in foro bovario sub terram vivi demissi sunt in locum saxo consaeptum, iam ante hostiis humanis, minime Romano sacro, inbutum.
[ The translator commented: Livy means that the sacrifice, prescribed by the Greek Sibylline Books, was a Greek and not a Roman rite. The earlier instance referred to in the text was in 228 B.C. (Zonaras VIII. xix.). ]
Note the involvement of Gauls once again.
The principal passage for consideration in relation to the Aeneid is Suetonius, Life of Augustus 15.
Perusia capta in plurimos animadvertit, orare veniam vel excusare se conantibus una voce occurrens, moriendum esse. Scribunt quidam, trecentos ex dediticiis electos, utriusque ordinis ad aram Divo Iulio extructam Idibus Martiis hostiarum more mactatos. extiterunt qui traderent, conpecto eum ad arma isse, ut occulti adversarii et quos metus magis quam voluntas contineret, facultate L. Antoni ducis praebita, detegerentur devictisque iis et confiscatis, promissa veteranis praemia perolverentur.
Octavian is said to have shown no clemency to those who surrendered at Perusia (41 BCE) and begged to be spared: orare veniam vel excusare (with the former, cf. oratores... veniamque rogantes, Aeneid XI 100-101). Suetonius reports, but does not deny or confirm or evaluate, the claim of some writers (scribunt quidam) that Octavian chose at Perusia 300 from the senators and the equestrians/knights to slaughter them at an altar to the Deified Julius Caesar as if they were sacrificial victims on the Ides of March. So much for clemency as a virtue! Here, it is all debellare superbos (not even that: debellare subjectos aut orantis veniam) and no parcere subjectis (cf. Anchises' enjoining charge to Aeneas -- as a Roman, tu..., Romane, memento -- in Aeneid VI 851-853: cf., too, 834 tuque prior, tu parce... 'you must be the first to show mercy...', an impassioned exhortation to show mercy, as shown by the repetition of tu and the address in 835 sanguis mea 'O blood of my blood!'). Or, is this all propaganda and fake news circulated by those hostile to Octavian or to Augustus, perhaps partisans of Antony (remember his brother Lucius at Perusia...)?
[[ Cassius Dio XLVIII 14, writing in the late second century CE, reports Perusia in similar, but perhaps more sensational terms: 'most were put to death'... There is still some distancing/lack of commitment to the veracity of 'the story' that 'goes':
'While they were thus engaged, Lucius <Antonius> (Mark Antony's brother) withdrew from Rome as I have stated and set out for Gaul; finding his way blocked, he turned aside to Perusia, an Etruscan city. There he was intercepted first by the lieutenants of Caesar (i.e. Octavian) and later by Caesar himself, and was besieged.
The investment proved a long operation; for the place is naturally a strong one and had been amply stocked with provisions; and horsemen sent by Lucius before he was entirely hemmed in greatly harassed the besieger, while many others besides came speedily to his defence from various quarters.
Many attacks were made upon these reinforcements separately and many engagements were fought close to the walls, until the followers of Lucius, even though they were generally successful, nevertheless were forced by hunger to capitulate.
The leader and some others obtained pardon, but most of the senators and knights were put to death.
And the story goes that they did not merely suffer death in an ordinary form, but were led to the altar consecrated to the former Caesar and were there sacrificed — three hundred knights and many senators, among them Tiberius Cannutius, who previously during his tribuneship had assembled the populace for Caesar Octavianus.
Of the people of Perusia and the others who were captured there the majority lost their lives, and the city itself, except the temple of Vulcan and the statue of Juno, was entirely destroyed by fire. This statue, which was preserved by some chance, was brought to Rome, in accordance with a vision that Caesar saw in a dream, and it secured for the city the privilege of being peopled again by any who desired to settle there, though they did not acquire anything of its territory beyond the first mile.' (Loeb translation)
This may be an elaboration of Suetonius or of the same source or of another tabloid account: cf. plural scribunt quidam. Note that the 300 hundred all-in have become 300 knights plus many senators. Dio does not mention the Ides of March. The inclusion of a senator's name lends an air of verisimilitude. ]]
Back to the Aeneid: To some extent, Aeneas throughout the Aeneid recalls Octavian (later Augustus). Human sacrifice is a profound taint on Aeneas because it puts him on a par with the monstrous Achilles and because it recalls a war crime alleged to have been perpetrated by Octavian. Vergil is not uniformly positive about Aeneas (remember Dido and consider Turnus) and here, at least, any Augustanism that Vergil might show elsewhere is called into question (cf. Servius' initial statements: intentio Vergilii haec est, Homerum imitari et Augustum laudare a parentibus 'The intention of Vergil is as follows -- to imitate Homer and to praise Augustus on the basis of his forefathers').
Lastly, on Perusia, let us consider Seneca, who wrote to Nero, the young emperor-to-be about clemency, or mercy, and reflected on Octavian at Perusia and subsequently as Augustus (de Clementia XI 1-4):
'Such was Augustus when an old man, or when growing old: in his youth he was hasty and passionate, and did many things upon which he looked back with regret. No one will venture to compare the rule of the blessed Augustus to the mildness of your own, even if your youth be compared with his more than ripe old age: he was gentle and placable, but it was after he had dyed the sea at Actium with Roman blood; after he had wrecked both the enemy's fleet and his own at Sicily; after the holocaust of Perusia [literally: 'Perusinan altars] and the proscriptions.
But I do not call it clemency to be wearied of cruelty; true clemency, Caesar, is that which you display, which has not begun from remorse at its past ferocity, on which there is no stain, which has never shed the blood of your countrymen: this, when combined with unlimited power, shows the truest self-control and all-embracing love of the human race as of one's self, not corrupted by any low desires, any extravagant ideas, or any of the bad examples of former emperors into trying, by actual experiment, how great a tyranny you would be allowed to exercise over his countrymen, but inclining rather to blunting your sword of empire.
You, Caesar, have granted us the boon of keeping our state free from bloodshed, and that of which you boast, that you have not caused one single drop of blood to flow in any part of the world, is all the more magnanimous and marvelous because no one ever had the power of the sword placed in his hands at an earlier age. Clemency, then, makes princes safer as well as more respected, and is a glory to empires besides being their most trustworthy means of preservation. Why have legitimate sovereigns grown old on the throne, and bequeathed their power to their children and grandchildren, while the sway of despotic usurpers is both hateful and shortlived? What is the difference between the tyrant and the king—for their outward symbols of authority and their powers are the same — except it be that tyrants take delight in cruelty, whereas kings are only cruel for good reasons and because they cannot help it.' (Loeb translation)
haec Augustus senex aut iam in senectutem annis vergentibus; in adulescentia caluit, arsit ira, multa fecit, ad quae invitus oculos retorquebat. comparare nemo mansuetudini tuae audebit divum Augustum, etiam si in certamen iuvenilium annorum deduxerit senectutem plus quam maturam; fuerit moderatus et clemens, nempe post mare Actiacum Romano cruore infectum, nempe post fractas in Sicilia classes et suas et alienas, nempe post Perusinas aras et proscriptiones.
ego vero clementiam non voco lassam crudelitatem; haec est, Caesar, clementia vera, quam tu praestas, quae non saevitiae paenitentia coepit, nullam habere maculam, numquam civilem sanguinem fudisse; haec est in maxima potestate verissima animi temperantia et humani generis comprendens ut sui amor non cupiditate aliqua, non temeritate ingenii, non priorum principum exemplis corruptum, quantum sibi cives suos liceat, experiendo temptare, sed hebetare aciem imperii sui.
praestitisti, Caesar, civitatem incruentam, et hoc, quod magno animo gloriatus es nullam te toto orbe stillam cruoris humani misisse, eo maius est mirabiliusque, quod nulli umquam citius gladius commissus est.
clementia ergo non tantum honestiores sed tutiores praestat ornamentumque imperiorum est simul et certissima salus. Quid enim est, cur reges consenuerint liberisque ac nepotibus tradiderint regna, tyrannorum exsecrabilis ac brevis potestas sit? Quid interest inter tyrannum ac regem (species enim ipsa fortunae ac licentia par est), nisi quod tyranni in voluptatem saeviunt, reges non nisi ex causa ac necessitate?
The rumours of human sacrifice by Octavian, albeit on just a single occasion, persisted to the time of Nero and into the second century when they were reported again by Suetonius and preserved by Cassius Dio with some degree of independence (or creativity). Aeneas is paralleled with Augustus and with Achilles. Neither comparison is flattering for Aeneas in this regard. The Aeneid here recalls an atrocity said to have been committed by Octavian rather than suppressing it for the sake of praising Augustus by on the basis of his forefathers.
Seneca challenges any counter argument of a progression form the youthful Octavian to the mature Augustus. However, one question remains: can the Aeneid praise Augustus while presenting a mon`strous Aeneas? If so, how and what was Servius thinking?
It will come as no surprise that Augustus himself does not mention the alleged human sacrifices in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Nor, for that matter, does he mention Perusia at all, although it would be relevant to chapters 3.1 and 4.1. In the former, Augustus trumpets his clemency: 'as victor I was merciful to all citizens who asked for pardon' victorque omnibus veniam petentibus civibus peperci. Remember, senators and equestrians were citizens...
Did Augustus not want to dignify rumours of whatever happened or did not happen at Perusia with a response or even any air-time? Was an atrocity tacitly omitted from the official version?
For more on Perusia, consider the 'survivor' in Propertius Book I poems 21 and 22...
[[1]] Aeneas 'sacrifices' his foes on two other occasions: X 541 (Haemonides) and XII 949 (Turnus -- attributed to Pallas). Although the verb immolare, used too in X 519 (in the subjunctive), is sacrificial, the contexts are not sacrificial. There is no altar or pyre as in X 517-520 and XI 81-82 and the only priest is the victim: Haemonides. The verb is never used in the Aeneid of regular animal sacrifices. Instead mactare is used for animal sacrifices, as in XI 197 (and 3x in VIII, all outside the Latin set text). For mactare to refer to killing in a battle, consider X 413.
[[2]] There is another tale of human sacrifice on the edges of the Homeric traditions. When the Greek fleet had gathered at Aulis before setting sail for Troy, the whether was unfavourable - in some versions, there were storms, in others, a dead calm. Agamemnon was told -- by Chalcas (as in Iliad I!) to sacrifice his daughter. Iphigeneia, to Artemis to secure favourable conditions for sailing. Artemis' upset may have had something to do with a stag being killed (#Iulus...). Agamemnon did as he was told. (Euripides' Iphigeneia at Aulis and Iphigeneia among the Taurians). Homer knows this daughter as Iphianassa (Iliad IX 145 // 287; maybe as Iphigeneia at Odyssey XI 305).
His wife, Clytemestra, was -- understandably -- upset and murdered Agamemnon in his bath on his return from the Trojan War. Agamemnon's warbride/booty, Cassandra, was another reason for the murder, as was Clytemestra's own lover, Aegisthus (Aeschylus' Agamemnon). Agamemnon's human sacrifice did not, then, end well and the pollution (miasma) on the family continued. Agamemnon's son, Orestes, killed his mother and her lover [Aeschylus' Choephoroe, the Electra plays by each of Euripides and Sophocles]. He was pursued to Athens by the Eumenides/Furies, where he stood trial (Aeschylus' Eumenides [Billy will tell you his joke...] and Euripides' Orestes).
The murder of Agamemnon was the continuation of the curse on the house of Atreus, Agamemnon's father. Atreus was one of two sons of Pelops (the son of Tantalus, as in 'tantalising' -- in reference to his punishment in the Underworld: Odyssey XI 582). The other son was Thyestes. A king with two sons is never a good start in Greek mythology or Ancient History. The complexities of a disputed kingship culminate in Atreus sacrificing Thyestes sons and serving them up at a welcome-home dinner for Thyestes (Seneca's Thyestes).
[[3]] The Homeric poems as we have them are the snow balls that grew as they rolled through centuries (and perhaps millennia) of oral tradition. Do Iliad XXI and XXIII present as abhorrent to Homer's contemporaries, to Classical audiences, and to us a practice that was once normal? It is entirely possible for there to be echoes of the dim and distant past in Homer, even amid relatively recent accretions to our snow ball. The boars' tusk helmet in Iliad X is the prime example, the locus classicus. The likelihood that Iliad XXIII and XXIV reflect the softening out of the epic during a (slightly) kinder and (slightly) gentler age in comparison with the brutal ending set out in Iliad XXII together with the linguistic evidence (also in the case of Iliad XXI) suggests that Achilles' human sacrifice comes amid 'late' passages.
Is there evidence of human sacrifice among Indo-European peoples? I cannot comment. The only suggestion of this practice in mainstream Greek culture is highly doubtful. That evidence comes from thirteenth-century Pylos (Homer's home of Nestor...) and is a clay tablet inscribed in Linear B, the earliest attested form of the Greek language (not alphabetic): PY Tn 316.
Much is uncertain here. A person as a gift to serve a deity is one thing (think of the boy Samuel in 1 Samuel in the Hebrew Bible), but is something else entirely as an offering. Words like 'dedicated' or 'consecrated' are disturbingly ambiguous. To my mind, that these people are listed among objects, not animals, makes me think that even here we have dedications for cultic practice of vessels and servitors. You cannot make a sacrificial offering of a cup in the same way that you can offer a cow.
Even if we are convinced that bloody human sacrifice was practised at Pylos in the 13th c. BCE, the Homeric example is remarkable in that it is to a deceased person, while its literary successor in the Aeneid is still more shocking in an age less primitive than the times envisaged by Homer and not least against historical allegations against the young Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.
Comments
Post a Comment