Calendar for May

The first day of the month is the Kalends, sacred to Juno. The Nones falls on the 7th. The Ides, sacred to Jupiter, falls on the 15th.

The 2nd, 8th and 16th are unlucky (ater).

Festivals this month include:

• Festival of the Bona Dea and Vinalia: 1st.
• Lemuralia: 9th, 11th, 13th.
• Mercuralia: 15th.
• Agonalia: 21st.

My notes this month will focus on the Lemuralia.


While the month of April celebrates the generative power of Nature, an important theme in May is "safe continuity", keeping order in the world.

The Kalends of May saw an altar dedicated
To the Guardian Lares, with small statues of the gods.
Curius vowed them: but time destroys many things,
And the long ages wear away the stone.
The reason for their epithet of Guardian,
Is that they keep safe watch over everything.
They support us, and protect the City walls,
And they’re propitious, and bring us aid. (Ovid, Fasti, Book V, Kline trans.)

Romans were aware that they had a history; that important changes had happened since their origin-time. But they also found a thread of continuity through all the change.

The year was once shorter, the pious rites of purification, februa,
Were unknown, nor were you, two-faced Janus, leader of the months:
Yet they still brought gifts owed to the ashes of the dead,
The grandson paid respects to his buried grandfather’s tomb.
It was May month, named for our ancestors (maiores),
And a relic of the old custom still continues.

The Roman honor paid the ancestors in May reminds some of the American tradition of tending the graves of ancestors on Memorial Day, now a movable holiday at the end of May.



Kalends of May and the Lares:

The Kalends of May saw an altar dedicated
To the Guardian Lares, with small statues of the gods.
Curius vowed them: but time destroys many things,
And the long ages wear away the stone.

Lemuralia: The festival of the Lemuralia (or Lemuria) is among the most mysterious of the Roman festivals, but also one of the most resonant. Ovid, our major source for this festival, admits to confusion on several points. The month of May (says Ovid) might have been so-called after the ancestors (maiores). The name “Lemuria” was also a mystery, so the poet calls on Mercurius for an explanation. The story that is given is that the day was once called “Remuria” and it was an expiation for the death of Romulus' brother Remus. The story is not convincing, but it serves to re-enforce the notion, mentioned by Ovid elsewhere, that the festival of the Lemuria was an ancient one. The relationship of the Lemuria to the ancestor festivals of February worried Ovid. His solution was that the Lemuria predated them:

The year was once shorter, the pious rites of purification, februa,
Were unknown, nor were you, two-faced Janus, leader of the months:
Yet they still brought gifts owed to the ashes of the dead,
The grandson paid respects to his buried grandfather’s tomb. 

Romans of Ovid's day may have been confused about the origin and meaning of the Lemuria, but Ovid, at least, was clear about one central ritual. The paterfamilias would rise at midnight and go barefoot, making an apotropaic sign (perhaps that of the “fig”), cleanse himself (Ovid says “in clear spring water”) and perform the ritual. He would throw black beans “with averted face”, repeating a ritual formula nine times: “haec ego mitto redimo meque meosque fabis” (with these beans I throw I redeem me and mine). This was done while walking through the house “without looking back”. Then he touched water and beat a bronze gong (“sounds the Temesan bronze”), saying “manes exite paterni” (paternal spirits, depart), this too repeated nine times.

The number nine (the potent number three, multiplied by itself), the connection of beans and the color black with the “underworld”, the appearance of water in a liminal context all suggest that Ovid's attribution of antiquity is correct. These are common features shared by many cultures.

The article in “Smith's Dictionary” (s.v. “Lemuralia”) unfortunately truncates the ritual and so garbles the meaning. The paterfamilias rises at the liminal time of midnight, and protects himself apotropaically while making connection with the home (walking bare footed). The cleansing is the normal Roman concern for ritual purity, but it also marks the start of the ritual proper. The black beans themselves are not apotropaic (as Smith's Dictionary seems to suggest) but simply serve to attract any cthonic spirits. The formula is made potent by repetition and it detaches the spirits from any connection that may exist with any member of the familia (note that the paterfamilias also avoids “eye contact”). Having freed the spirits from any connections and having led them to the symbolic boundary of the water, they are discharged, again using a repeated formula. The expulsion is given additional force by using the noise of “clashing bronze”. The final formula does not necessarily refer to “ancestral” spirits. The word paternus (paternal) may simply be a euphemism, that is, calling potentially hostile spirits “paternal”, meaning “friendly”, as a way of suggesting (or controlling) their behavior.

The purpose of this ritual, then, is to enforce the boundary that is implicit in the Roman world-view; that humans and the Gods each have their own proper sphere of activity. This enforcement is explicitly confined to a class of spirits, the Dii Manes, and as is well known, these are the spirits of the dead. Perhaps we can imagine that to the Romans these were the Gods most likely to transgress the human/divine boundary and because of their origin as humans it was appropriate for humans to have a hand in their “management”. It should be noted that Dii Manes would include not only the Dii Parentes, but also others, for example, deceased children, members of the familia who were not blood relations and those whom had not been given a proper burial. In these ways, the Lemuria is distinguished from the Parentalia (February 13th).

If this interpretation is correct, it suggests that the Lemures are Dii Manes who are not malevolent, necessarily, but simply transgressive, for whatever reason.

The Lemuria is resonant for us today in part because it was on an early 7th century C.E. Lemuria that Boniface IV misappropriated the Pantheon in Rome by burying a large number of Christian bones inside the building. Although the Pantheon remains standing in good condition today, its use as a burial ground continues and so it remains unfit to use for ritual purposes. According to some authors, this misappropriation of the building also marks the Christianization of the Lemuria as “All Saints Day”, although the date was later changed.

Another resonance is the world-wide prevalence of similar festivals. In Japan, for example, bean-throwing as part of an exorcism ritual is the central part of the spring “Setsubun” festival and the conclusion of “Obon” involves sending ancestral spirits off on the journey to the other world by floating paper lanterns down the rivers. Floating lanterns are also part of the similar Yu Lan observance in China.

Ideas for the Cultus Deorum in May

Because Ovid gives us such a clear description of the central ritual of the Lemuria, and because this is confined to the household, this is an ideal event to introduce into each private cultus. It requires no elaborate preparation and the Latin, for those who prefer to use it, is quite simple. In spite of the simplicity, the meaning is profound: keeping order in the world, at least, the part of the world constituted by the household. The foundation of a temple to the Guardian Lares on the Kalends is probably just a coincidence, but it does suggest that, weather permitting, this may be a good time to establish an out-door compitum.

Reconstructionism Methods: Community Practice

OK, so I have Blogger envy. Our friend, Helio, has been making some impressive series of posts on his blog, and I want to try to do the same. I've been thinking for a while about "method", and so I will start what I hope will be a series of posts on this topic.

When I say that I am a Cultor, I mean that I have some attitudes in mind, and they are specific to the Roman tradition. When I say that I am a reconstructionist, I mean that I have some specific methods in mind, and these methods are common to many reconstructionist traditions.

In a metaphorical way, reconstructionism is the process of trying to recover the best likeness of the photo that was on the cover of the now-lost box of a 1000 piece picture puzzle, while having just 100 pieces. The 100 pieces are scattered all over, and many of them are found embedded in other things. We have to collect those pieces and try to fit them together. We may be able to assemble some parts of the picture, but we still have many gaps. We can extrapolate around the edges of the bits we have, giving us pretty good confidence equaling maybe another 50 pieces.  The pieces that we have also give us information about the topic and the style of the picture, letting us make some fair guesses about more, maybe another 100 pieces. For the final 750, we can make sure that our educated guesses do not clash with the parts that we have. Can we get the whole original picture with perfect confidence? Obviously not. Can we come close enough that an ancient Roman, seeing our reconstruction, would recognize the original in the reconstruction? I think so.

Even if we do our best to reconstruct every possible aspect of the ancient traditions, another problem remains. What do we do in situations that never faced ancient Romans? How can we know the correct way to respond to a novel situation?

This is a recent thread from our Facebook group, and I copy it here with permission of the participants, because it is an example of exactly what I think we should be doing, in the most general sense:

• solving modern problems by
• reference to Roman practice and
• comparing modern parallel traditions, combined with
• personal experience.

It all started when a tongue-in-cheek article, "Goddess Caffeina, Roman Goddess of Coffee", made a member think of a serious issue:

René: I find this hilarious, However it brings me to a serious question, we now sacrifice "new" things that the ancient romans didn't like chocolate or chiles or stuff like that so I was wondering, Since coffee is an intoxicant, is it under the sphere of Divine Bacchus or to what god does this drink belongs to? Would he accept libations and offerings of coffee? 

Agricola: Personally, I stick to things that were known to the Romans. Not because I think new things are wrong, but because doing so puts me in the right frame of mind. It reminds me that I have to adjust my way of thinking and not stick with the familiar old habits of thought. 

Bert: The Romans offered what was important to them, and precious. This would naturally have been relative to one's ability. The aristocrats, and other rich folks, are known to have sacrificed peacocks. Peacocks are from India, though somewhere along the line they also got attributed to Iuno. The original dirt farmer, cattle stealing Romans would not have had peacocks. 

Bert: While on a walk about the neighborhood I went into a Hindi Indian gift shop. In the back is an altar to Ganesha. Large statue with offerings before and on it: flowers, fruit, dollar bills, a bottle of Gatoraid and a small container of Hershey's chocolate drink. The Hindi pagans obviously don't have any problem with offering their immortals new and exotic things. (from a November post of mine on the Roman Recon wall) 

René: I think the same as the Hindu pagans, while it does matter what you offer it think that it is not more important than how pious you are, how you offer it and the fact that you even want to offer something, all of this makes those Above us, Around us and Beneath us happy and pleased 

Agricola: We didn't really answer the coffee/Dionysios question. I don't think that there can be a clear answer. I say, go ahead and try it, and then watch for signs that it is accepted or rejected. After a number of people do that we can compare experiences and decide. 

Anna: I know of Germanic heathens who offer tobacco and coffee to the wights and gods, but it is considered UPG [Unverified Personal Gnosis] and isn't taken as lore. I believe that if it lasts the test of time, it will be considered lore. 

Agricola: That's what I'm sayin'. 

Damian: Coffee is upper, Alcohol is downer so I don't see Bacchus there. Maybe Mercury (speed/trade/office work)? 

Livia: I think the American products like chocolate, maize, peppers, tomatoes all have their own deities. I wouldn't offer them to our deities, just like I wouldn't offer olives to some South-American deity. Coffee is a more complex matter. Apparently its use was started by Sufi Muslims, so it has no deities associated. I would be cautious in associating it with Bacchus, though. According to Francesco Redi (in his "Bacco in Toscana", written in 1685) Bacchus definitely despises such barbarian beverages as beer, or the newly introduced coffee, and likes Tuscan wine best. A different matter are offerings to the Manes. I offer coffee to my deceased aunt, as it was her favourite drink. Cigarettes are also common as offerings to deceased smokers in Italian cemeteries. 

Marco: Depends on why I am making an offering. I use copal, rather than laurel or frankincense, when offering incense for the spirits of the land in the Americas. And for Roman deities I usually offer what Romans would have offered. However, if I am just outdoors, speaking with Jupiter, and I happen to be drinking coffee, then I offer to share with Him what I have. In each case it is a matter of thought behind the sacrifice, and not so much what is sacrificed. If Romans had known about chocolate, they would have offered it, just as they offered other rare and precious goods to the Gods. They shared what they had. 

Helio: Two thumbs up, Marco Orazio! You took the words right out of my mouth!

I'm very proud of this group's ability to look at problems from different angles without going into conflict mode. Of course, there can be no definitive answer, but this kind of discussion moves us forward, deepening our understanding of Roman thinking and building our modern traditions on a sound basis.


Helio blogs at: http://goldentrail.wordpress.com/

Marco blogs at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religioromana/

Anna is host of the Roman Recon forum.

Damian blogs at http://notawiccan.blogspot.com/



There is a long tradition of "Caffeina" posts, as this Witchvox article attests.

Why You Should Not "Worship The Gods"

I have been uncomfortable for quite a while regarding the frequency with which I see phrases like "I worship the Gods of Rome". Of course I am happy to see the Cultus Deorum expanding. The problem is that the word "worship" is one of those tricky, culturally-determined words, and I do not believe that it conveys the correct meaning for us. Now of course I am aware that different people may have different ideas in their minds when they use this word, and I fully expect some readers to object to this post on the grounds that their meaning is something other than what I am talking about here. That is all well and good, but when we say things in public like "I worship the Gods of Rome" we should think about how others are likely to understand it.

Priesthoods and the Cultus Deorum

Our friends at Neos Alexandria have an interesting post on the reconstruction of priesthoods. They suggest an important reason for us to be interested in this:

"...to create religions that provide for the spiritual needs of the people who follow it, and help cement the chances of our survival as a faith in the modern world. Many of the successful and still surviving ancient religions have such divisions, and it is one reason why they still exist, despite pressures from Western Monotheisms." (1)

Neos Alexandria is a multicultural group, and they mention the case of Roman reconstructionism:

"The Romans had similar divisions [of society] particularly with the Pontifices who oversaw the priesthoods, the Flamines who carried the rituals out, and the Augurs who served as diviners." (1)

I agree that our survival and growth depends in great measure on our ability to speak to people's spiritual needs. More than that, we need to agree upon and promote a set of core values and procedures that we can keep in common. I don't mean that we need to have a "Spanish Inquisition" type obsession with orthodoxy, but if we are to be anything we have to be something. This is the reason, for example, that we carry the "Basic Principles" statement at the bottom of every page of this blog. (That statement came out of both scholarly research and discussions with a fairly large group of self-identified followers of the Cultus Deorum.)

What I disagree with, though, is the suggestion that the best way to do this is through establishment of formal priesthoods such as the College of Pontifices. There are several reasons for this.

Rise of the Romano-Celts!

I spend a lot of time looking at cultus-related websites, and for some reason I've been running into Romano-Celtic sites quite a bit lately. Of course, interest in Romano-Celtic religion is nothing new; it has been studied for a long time. There is a lot of new activity, though, and I suppose that is part of the new look being taken recently at all of the pre-Christian religions of Eurasia. Just the other day, our friend Ursus posted on Romano-British deities. Here is more of the recent activity I've found:

• Roman Hearth: Neopagan Revival of Ancient Roman Religion (October 2010)
• Shrine of the Irish Oak (2011)
• Dragonfly House (started September 2010)

I don't speak for any of these folks, but what I have found is that many Romano-Celtic pagans are in agreement with the "Basic Principles" statement (the one about religio, pietas and superstitio) and keep a household shrine. To my mind, this means that we are all part of the same community, the same cultural group.

Prepare for the monthly Kalends and Ides rituals.

"The worship of Juno claims our Italy's Kalends
While a larger white ewe-lamb falls to Jupiter on the Ides." - Ovid, Fasti I

Cato the Elder gives instructions for the vilica, the wife of the overseer of the farm. These instructions probably reflect the duties that fell upon the materfamilias of every family: "On the Kalends, Ides and Nones, and any holy day, place a garland over the hearth and pray to the household gods as opportunity offers" (Cato, De Re Agricultura 143).

The Kalends and Ides rituals are a great way to start being active in the sacra privata of the Cultus Deorum.

Our Community

I sent this little statement around recently. I think of it as defining a point on the map of all religions. What I wanted to know is how many of us are near to that point. I do not mean that that point is the center of anything - just reasonably close to a lot of people. Here is is:

The gods exist and are essentially benevolent. A natural relationship unites people with the gods. Human relationship with the gods requires human action. The gods can communicate their will. We promote "religio" and "pietas" and we abhor "superstitio".

"Religio" is the attitude that the gods are the benevolent partners of mortals in the management of the world, and that the prescribed rituals are the proper return for the help that is provided by the gods.

"Pietas" is sincere diligence in fulfilling the requirements of the partnership with the gods and in honoring all obligations.

"Superstitio" is the belief that the gods are vengeful or jealous, and any excessive and slavish behavior that is intended to placate them, and the desire to extract knowledge or power from the relationship with them.

Here are some comments that came back:

• "It's short, sweet and to the point. I like it."
• "I dislike hard definitions, it absolutely smacks of Christianity."
• "I think this description is concise and covers the important core concepts without closing various people out."
• "I agree with your statements. I would, of course, capitalize "Gods" and include "Goddesses". I would expand on the first paragraph, but then I am usually wordy. Under the part on superstitio, I might replace "behavior" with "misuse of ritual""
• "Well said, I agree."
• "I find this very well written, and it can probably do as a generic introduction. I can't think of anything to add at this point."
• "I agree with every point but the last. Gods can be cruel if they feel to be."
• "Seems reasonable enough. I might suggest a few alterations..."

So the "ayes" have it. It is safe to say that "the majority of cultores deorum Romanorum tend to agree with this statement". Based on feedback, I have tweaked the form somewhat, but the meaning is still the same:

The gods exist and are essentially benevolent. A natural relationship unites people with the gods. Human relationship with the gods requires human action. The gods can communicate their will. We promote "religio" and "pietas" and we avoid "superstitio".

"Religio" is the attitude that the gods are the benevolent partners of mortals in the management of the world, and that the prescribed rituals are the proper return for the help that is provided by the gods.

"Pietas" is sincere diligence in fulfilling the requirements of the partnership with the gods and in honoring all obligations. In contrast, "Superstitio" is any excessive and slavish behavior that is intended to placate the anger of the gods, or the desire to extract knowledge or power from the gods.

I want to thank everyone who participated in this survey. I hope that this description will help us to build our communities.