Quare Venit, Magna Mater?
An Inquiry into the question why the Romans summoned the Magna
Mater
Lucas Neijmeijer (nr. 10632522)
Inhoudsopgave
Introduction...3
Sources...4
And She Came From Yonder...6
Pessinus...6
Mount Ida...8
Pergamon...9
A Greek Diplomacy?...11
Roman Policy and Aims towards Philip V...14
An Italian Fatality?...18
A Bonding Matter...21
A Mother for All...23
Venus...24 Juno...27 Magna Mater...28 A Trojan Legacy?...31 Conclusion...35 Bibliography...37
Introduction
In 205/4 B.C., near the end of the second Punic war, the Romans summoned a strange Anatolian goddess to Rome. This goddess was known by many names, like Cybele, Meter and Matar, but the Romans called her Magna Mater. She is generally considered a mother goddess.1 What was so special
about this goddess was the fact that she was welcomed within the pomerium (and thus within the religious, political and cultural center of Rome), but that her cult was also limited (Roman citizens were not allowed to be priest(esses) within the cult).2 Regardless the goddess ended up as one of the
most important goddesses of the empire. It is therefore interesting to uncover what reasons the Romans had for summoning this strange goddess to Rome.
Generally it is agreed that the Punic wars played an important role in the summoning of this goddess, but historians discuss about which parts of the war have had an actual influence on this episode of Roman history. Within the discussion surrounding the summoning of the Magna Mater one major and two minor discussions can be discovered. The major discussion revolves around the reasons the Romans had for summoning the Magna Mater. On one hand you have the majorly accepted side that believes that the goddess was summoned in a time of dire need. First proposed by Graillot it has gotten many adherents like Burton.3 On the other side of the ring we have the main challenger to this
thesis. Proposed by Gruen,4 this side is more optimistic. The Romans were not in a time of dire need
when they summoned the goddess, but instead on the throes of victory and preparing to finish the war in a fortnight.
Though both positions differ in regards to the situation in which the goddess was summoned they do agree that the mythical Trojan ancestry of the Romans played a major role in the episode. This is our first minor discussion, though it be treated last. This discussion concerns itself with the role the Trojan myths played in the choice for and the summoning of the Magna Mater. Though the main focus of this thesis will be on the reasons for the summoning of the Magna Mater this minor discussion will focus on the other part of the question: what reasons did the Romans have for choosing the Magna Mater. I will argue here that the Trojan myths served only a marginal role in the entire episode.
The second minor discussion features the place of origin of the Magna Mater. The Romans had to fetch the goddess from somewhere, but this place from whence she came is uncertain. In this discussion there are two major adversaries. On one side the, by the majority accepted, location of Pessinus and on the other Mount Ida (again proposed by Gruen).5 In between them is a third
alternative proposed by Roller which is Pergamon.6 This discussion will be treated first, because it
contains some valuable insights for the rest of our discussion and thus provides a nice take-off platform.
1 See Roller (1999) for a complete overview of the history of the Magna Mater/Cybele. 2 Dion. Hal. 2.19.3-5.
3 Graillot (1912); Burton (1996). 4 Gruen (1990).
5 Ibid.
Thus to give an overview of the structure of this thesis we shall start by treating the written sources after which we shall turn to the place of origin of the Magna Mater. After treating the location of origin we shall turn to our major discussion which, in the case of this thesis, will revolve around three major events that happened around 205 B.C. and have their role to play in the episode. The first of these is the end of the first Macedonian war in 205 B.C. with the peace of Phoenice. The second that we shall look at is Scipio's preparation for an invasion of Africa. This preparation took place on Sicily. The third is the landing of Mago on the Ligurian coast. These three events shall be treated in this order, thus we start with the first Macedonian war. Here we shall look at a general history of the war itself and discover why the peace of Phoenice was important for the summoning of the Magna Mater. After that we shall treat Scipio and his preparation of the invasion of Africa followed by the landing of Mago. After this we can understand why the Romans summoned the Magna Mater and why she played such an important role. Finally we shall take a look at the Trojan myth and concern ourselves with the other minor discussion.
Sources
There are multiple sources for the coming of Magna Mater, this shows that it was an important event in Roman history. The most extensive one is the narrative of Livy. Therefore his narrative is believed to be one of the, if not the, most important, despite him having written his narrative almost two centuries after the actual events. Another important source is Dionysus of Halicarnassus. The earliest sources are from the first century B.C. and come from Cicero and Diodorus Siculus. Also an important source is Ovid, who wrote a poem about the goddess in his fast. Many different sources make mention of the arrival of Magna Mater or the events and people surrounding it, in fact, there are too many to treat them all in detail. However, some sources must be treated in some detail and we shall start with Livy.
As mentioned above Livy's narrative starts in about 205 B.C. with the reporting of an abnormal high amount of stone rains.7 To expediate these prodigies the Roman senate consulted the Sibylline books.
The answer the book gave was that the Romans should search for the Idaean Mother and bring her (back8) to Rome from Pessinus. The Sibylline verses were supported by reports brought back by a
delegation that had been send to bring offerings to Delphi. The Delphic delegation had been sent shortly after the victory at the Metaurus, bearing spoils from that battle as gifts for the Delphic sanctuary of Apollo.9
Pessinus is located in Phrygia, Asia Minor, but the Romans did not have many friends, let alone allies there. But because of the First Macedonian war (214-205 B.C.) they had an alliance with the
Pergamene king Attalus against Philip V of Macedon. Pergamon was located at the West coast of Asia Minor so the Romans sent an embassy consisting of some major senators to Pergamon in order to acquire the Idaean Mother. On the way to Pergamon the embassy stopped in Delphi to get some more details before continuing on. In Delphi they learned about the way the Goddess should be received in Rome; by the most virtuous and noblest man, the vir optmus. When they got to
7 I don't know if this is related to any natural phenomena like meteor rains. But it might be possible that the stone rains are significant in that the actual holy symbol of the Magna Mater that was eventually transported back to Rome was a stone. And presumably a stone from outer space.
8 The Romans trace their lineage back to the mythical Aeneas, a survivor from Troy. The Idaean Mother was a Goddess that helped Aeneas on his journey away from Troy and to Italy. See Vergil IX.77-106.
Pergamon king Attalus conducted them to Pessinus, where they received a stone which was declared to be the Mater Deorum. The inhabitants bade to Romans to carry the stone home. M. Valerius Falto was send on ahead with news of the impending arrival of the Goddess as well as the news that the most noblest and virtuous man should be chosen to receive her.
Livy's story continues in the next year, where he mentions that the arrival of the Goddess was
anxiously debated, because of the arrival of Falto with his news. Shortly afterwards a fresh messenger came with news that the Goddess was already at Tarracina. The discussion was focused on finding out who the most virtuous man of the state was. Eventually the choice fell on P. Scipio (Nasica), the son of Cnaeus Scipio who had fallen in Spain. The reasons for this choice are, according to Livy, forever lost in time and Livy does not wish to discuss it further. Scipio was ordered to welcome the Goddess at Ostia, accompanied by the matrons. Among the matrons Claudia Quinta stood out, her reputation had been doubtful, but she successfully appealed to the Goddess to prove her chastity. Scipio boarded the ship that had brought the image, received it from her priestesses and brought her on land. There he gave the image to the matrons who, taking turns carrying the image, brought her to the temple of victory on the Palatine.
The importance of Scipio and Claudia Quinta as examples of Roman piety, chastity and excellence are clear, especially because they are referred to again and again in later sources.10 Despite Livy's
unwillingness to give the reasons for the choice of both Scipio and Claudia, posteriority has most definitely made them the most excellent man and woman of Rome. This can be seen in the way the story of Claudia has changed over time. For Cicero she is the most chaste matron and for Livy she was a matron with a stained reputation, but her role in the ceremony of 204 confirmed her chastity.11
Ovid's version is a bit more spectacular: The ship carrying the stone from Ostia to Rome got stuck in the Tiber river and no one could get it to move. Claudia stepped forward from the line of matrons, washed herself and pleaded to the Goddess to clear her name and show that she was chaste. She then grabbed the rope attached to the ship and pulling lightly she pulled the ship loose, thus the Goddess showed her power by confirming Claudia's chastity.12 For these writers Claudia was a
matron, a married upper-class woman, but in later versions of the story Claudia becomes a Vestal Virgin, the ultimate example of Roman chastity.13
Dionysus of Halicarnassus does not really concern himself with the arrival of the Magna Mater. Instead he remarks on the incorporation of the cult into Roman Religion. Dionysus emphasizes the Un-Roman Phrygian aspects of the cult. These include the feminine dress and the castration of the priests of Magna Mater, as well as the loud music. The Romans would have none of this clap-trap and forbade their citizens to become priests of the Magna Mater and participate in her festivities. To celebrate the Goddess the Romans introduced their own festivities, which included games on the day of her arrival, the Megalensia, and the organization of feasts by the elite.14
10 Augustine mentions Scipio Nasica in his Civitate Dei, this is most likely the latest reference to him, but this one is more than 500 years after the event; Aug. Civ. D. 1.30.
11 Cic. De Har. Resp. 27; Livy 29.14. 12 Ovid. Fast 4.305-30.
13 Sil. It. 17.33-47; Stat. Silvae 1.2.245; See also Roller (1999) p. 265-8.
14 Dion. Hal. 2.19.3-5.; The Fasti Praeneste remarks on the meals and the games which are called the Megalensian games; Inscr. Ital. 13.2.17 [April] F.
Now that we have a good idea about the story behind the arrival it is time to give the answers to the question(s) that remain unanswered still. What triggered this series of events that led to the
summoning of the Magna Mater? We have seen that the summoning was, according to Livy caused by a prodigy, the stone rains mentioned above. However, We still do not know the reasons why the Romans choose the Magna Mater above other goddesses. We also don't know if something triggered the prodigies, as prodigies are often caused by religious anxiety. It is these questions that we will try to explore in this thesis. But before we can address these questions we must first take a look at another important discussion. From where was the Magna Mater actually summoned?
And She Came From Yonder
The discussion surrounding the location of origin of the Magna Mater is important because it can provide us with some insights that are useful for the questions raised in this paper. The discussion takes place between two locations that are presumed to be the most likely candidates for the location from which the Magna Mater originated. The third location that we treat is somewhat different, because its importance is not necessarily as the location of origin bu as a 'negotiator' between the Romans and the (place of origin of the) Magna Mater.
The locations are as follows: Pessinus (Burton, Livy and many others), Mount Ida (Gruen, Ovid) or Pergamon (Roller, Varro). and we shall treat them in this order as well. The first location is Pessinus, a small temple state located in Phrygia, which was located in Asia Minor. The second one is Mount Ida, located in the Troad, near the ancient location of Troy. The third is Pergamon, an important city state at the Western coast of Asia Minor that served as the destination of the embassy that was sent to seek out the Magna Mater.
Pessinus
The first location, the temple state of Pessinus, is the location mentioned by the majority of the sources.15 It is also the generally accepted location from whence the Magna Mater was summoned.
Because it is the generally accepted view it has attracted some criticism. We shall start by looking at this criticism.
The main critic of Pessinus as the location of origin is Gruen. The first major argument made by Gruen is that the influence of Attalus I of Pergamon, who was used to summon the Mater, did not extent that far inland. This argument is made in light of recent military events. Attalus had to pull out of the First Macedonian war when his lands were invaded by Prusias I of Bithynia (208 B.C.). In 204 B.C. a city by the name of Teos had fallen under Seleucid authority and Eumenes II, Attalus' successor, inherited a shrunken realm.16 Thus Gruen concludes that the Attalids did not have the influence to
pressure Pessinus into giving up the stone. Gruen's line of argumentation is augmented by Roller, who adds that Pessinus lay deep in Phrygia, which was controlled by the Galatian tribes.17
Besides the military situation Gruen points to the fact that the sanctuary at Pessinus remained an important cult site for Romans almost up to the introduction of Christianity as the official cult. Gruen
15 Livy 29.10.5, 11.7; Cic. De Har. Resp. 27-8; Strabo 12.5.3; App. Hann. 56; Dio Fr. 57.61; Diod. 34/5.33.2; Vir.
Ill. 46.1; Amm. 22.9.5; Val. Max. 8.15.3. See also Burton (1996) p. 44 n. 41.
16 Gruen (1990) p. 16-7 (n. 58).
17 Roller (1999) p. 194 and 268. Roller also believes that the location for the shrine is rather odd as it foregoes mountain tops (traditionally identified with the Magna Mater) for a valley; p. 192-3.
thinks it rather strange that a cult site would remain so active even after it had to abandon her sacred image (the stone). Thus if the stone really came from Pessinus the sanctuary would not have been working fifteen years later, when Cn. Manlius Vulso and his army were met by priest from Pessinus who predicted a great victory over the Galatians.18 Because the text does not prove a prior
connection to Rome, the Romans must have gotten the stone elsewhere.19
Burton disagrees with Gruen and denies the evidence given by Ovid, calling it Augustan propaganda. Instead he beliefs that the stone came from Pessinus as the main body of sources refers to this location. Burton also gives an explanation why the Idaean Mother and the Magna Mater are the same. He argues that this is a case of syncretism with the Magna Mater attaining a number of
toponyms thus resulting in the Mater being both the Idaean Mother as well as the Magna Mater from Pessinus.20
He also points out that a shrine did not have to stop working if they gave a sacred image away. An example is the snake taken from Asclepius' sanctuary at Epidaurus in 293. It was taken to Rome in order to help combat a plague that was ravaging Rome.21 But Epidaurus did not stop functioning,
even when this sacred snake was taken away. Epidaurus continued to flourish until Sulla plundered it in 88 B.C.22 Thus why could this not have been the case in Pessinus? The same is true for the pressure
that the Attilids supposedly needed to fetch to stone from Pessinus. Burton argues that this did not have to be the case, especially because the Attalids had a special relationship with Pessinus. Strabo wrote that the Attalids had built the sacred precinct of the sanctuary.23 Finally Burton emphasizes that
the relationship between Pessinus and Pergamon was not based on hegemonic principles but on diplomatic friendship, because Pessinus was not merely a cult site but a temple state.24 This is also
supported by Roller who describes that between 163 B.C. and 156 B.C. there was a large amount of correspondence between the Attalid rulers and the priests of Pessinus.25
An interesting suggestion perhaps is considering the act of giving away sacred cult items as a form of PR. If the snake from Epidaurus was successful in combating the plague the sanctuary of Epidaurus could boast about that. Subsequently it could cause a larger amount of visitors (perhaps even through pilgrimage) and thus generate larger income for the cult site. The same could be true for Pessinus, especially because Pessinus looms large in Roman historiography.
Burton also emphasizes that the Attalid realm was much more stable then Gruen makes believe. Burton uses a time gap in Gruen's argumentation to show that he is wrong. Gruen believed that the Attalid state was weakened in the First Macedonian war, because they had to retreat in the face of a Bithynian invasion. Gruen than assumes that this Bithynian invasion was rather successful, because the Bithynian king had to return large tracts of Phrygian land to Pergamon in the treaty of Apamaea.
18 Gruen (1990) p. 17; For the Pessinus incident with Manlius Vulso see: Poly. 21.37.4-7; Livy 38.18.8-10. 19 Ibid. p. 17. This conclusion seems highly doubtful to me though, as the source does not disprove an earlier contact between Rome and Pessinus.
20 Burton (1996) P. 54-8. 21 Livy 10.47.6-7.
22 Diod. 38.7; Plut. Sulla 12.3; Paus. 9.7.5.
23 Strabo 12.5.3; However, he does not mention which Attalid king build the colonnades; Roller (1999) p. 193. 24 Burton (1996) p. 51-3.
25 Though these letters are much later, they do indicate that there was an important relation between the two states. We cannot be sure, however, whether this relation was started by the Roman events or was already in place. Roller (1999) p. 193-4.
This makes for a twenty year gap however, assuming that the Bithynian invasion was in 208 B.C. and the treaty in 188. It seems weird that to settle something after twenty years, especially as there have been two other treaties that would have been better suited to deal with this question (the peace of Phoenice (205 B.C.) or the Isthmian peace (196 B.C.)).26
The continued argument of Burton focuses on later possibilities of a clash between Pergamon and Bithynia. The first possibility he finds is the invasion of Asia Minor by Philip V in 202-200. Because Philip was the father in law of Prusias, the Bithynian king, it is highly likely that Prusias was involved in the event. This seems even more likely because Prusias is mentioned in the Isthmian peace, however, land in Phrygia is not mentioned. This it seems unlikely that Bithynia conquered those lands before 196.27
The second possibility is that the Bithynian incursions are tied to the Seleucid invasion of Asia Minor. After Philip V's defeat at Cynoscephalae in 196 Antiochus III stormed into Asia Minor to take Philip's place. It is highly likely that Pergamon became a victim of this Seleucid attention (in the Treaty of Apamaea Antiochus had to pay a large war indemnity to Pergamon). Bithynia jumped on the band wagon and used the Pergamene weakness after the Seleucid invasion to take Phrygian territory for herself. Burton favors this final possibility.28
A final argument Burton makes is that Pergamon was still regarded as important and influential in 205 B.C. when Attalus assured the city of Magnesia on the Meander that he would give them his
benefaction and that he would demand contributions from his dependent cities for the Magnesian festival of Artemis.29 This leads Burton to conclude that Pergamon still had many dependent cities in
205 and he was able to get contributions from them. Besides that he was still rated highly enough to be solicited for his patronage by a far-off city.30
Another addition to the importance of Pessinus can be made. Pessinus is represented greatly in the work of Roman historians. Many a general went to Pessinus to pay his respects and it seems that there was an enduring relationship with Pessinus. According to Burton such a relation was only possible if the Magna Mater was summoned from the place.31 I disagree however, such a relation
could develop even if the goddess did not actually came from the place, what matters is whether the Romans thought and believed she came from there. But at this point we must again return to Gruen and investigate his alternative location.
Mount Ida
As the main critic of the generally accepted position Gruen introduced an alternative. Gruen believes that the Magna Mater stone was fetched from a sanctuary on Mount Ida. He bases this belief on Ovid. Ovid is the only source to mention Mount Ida as the location from whence the stone came.32
Other sources, among others Cicero and Livy, support Gruen's these by calling the Magna Mater: 'the
26 Gruen (1990) p. 16-7; Burton (1996) p. 48. 27 Burton (1996) p. 48-50.
28 Ibid. 48-51.
29 The letter is dated to 205 B.C.; Burton took this from: Welles (1974) #34. 30 Burton (1996) p. 45.
31 Gruen (1990) p. 19; Burton (1996) p. 53-4. 32 Ovid Fast 4.250-70.
Idaean Mother'.33 The main reason why Gruen favors this location over Pessinus is that Mount Ida
facilitates an easy connection to the Trojan Myth.34
Gruen defends his position in the face of the overwhelming evidence that not Ida but Pessinus seems the location from where the stone came by emphasizing that Pessinus was the principal cult site of the Magna Mater in Asia Minor. Because Pessinus was quite well known it seems logic that annalistic writers of the 2nd and 1st century B.C. would point to Pessinus as the location from whence she came. He also points out that the temple of the Magna Mater at Rome was located on the Palatine which linked the deity to the earliest Roman traditions, thus 'underscoring the symbolism of antiquity'.35 Another argument is that Mount Ida was located in the sphere of influence of the
Pergemene kings, whereas Pessinus was not. Therefore the Attalus could have easily procured the stone from Mount Ida to present it to the Roman envoys.
Of course people have also argued against the proposition of Mount Ida as the location from whence she came. The main argument here is that only Ovid actually mentions the site.36 No other source
mentions Mount Ida as the former seat of the Goddess. Burton also tries to explain, quite well in my opinion, how and why the Magna Mater was also known as the Idaean Mother. He attributes it to syncretism37. To summarize Burton's argumentation: the Goddess had collected some 5 centuries
worth of 'toponymical nicknames'38 by the time the Romans came and by then her epithets were not
geographically bound anymore. This had caused confusion in the area for ages.39 And in this
confusion let us turn to the third location.
Pergamon
Roller believes that the stone came from Pergamon.40 He bases himself on a passage from Varro's
Lingua Latna in which he mentions that the festival of the Megalensia, the main festival of Magna Mater, got her name from a holy site in Pergamon called the Megalesion.41 Though Burton calls
Varro's statement a mere 'etymological conjecture' I believe Varro should be taken into account.42
Dionysius of Halicarnassus called Varro 'the most learned man of his time', which leads me to believe that Varro would not just write anything down.43 Even if it is an etymological conjecture it is most
definitely based on something: the fact that Pergamon played a vital role in the summoning of the Mater.44 Based on this I believe that the only thing Varro knew for sure was that the sacred stone was
handed over to the Roman envoys in Pergamon. The most likely place for this was the Megalesion.
33Livy 29.10.5; Cic. De Sen. 45; Incr. Ital. 13.2.17 [April] F.
34 Gruen (1990) p. 15-19; We shall look at the Trojan myth in more detail below. 35 Ibid. 19.
36 Of course Ovid has to be handled with care considering his close connection to Augustan propaganda; Burton (1996) p. 54-5.
37 Syncretism is, simple put, translating a God from a different culture to your own. A clear example can be found in Ceasar's Gallic Wars where he describes which Gods the Celts worshipped most. In this description he uses Roman names and then emphasizes which fields of the Gods they worship most. This makes it easier for Roman readers to understand the Celtic religion.
38 This term is apparently coined by Gasparro; Gasparro (1985) p. 1.
39 I recommend reading Burton's argumentation in full, it is too complex to summarize in this way: Burton (1996) p. 55-8; See also Roller (1999) p. 189-92.
40 Beard, Simon and Price (1998; p. 96) casually wrote that the stone was shipped from Pergamon and Henkel (1979; p.149) writes dryly that the Goddess was not imported from Pessinus but from Pergamon.
41 Varro L.L. 6.15. 42 Burton (1996) p. 44.
This can be supported by Livy's way of writing: The Pergamene king presented the Roman envoys with a stone which the natives proclaimed to be the mother of the gods.45
Of course Roller has the same problem as Gruen when it comes to historical writers, only one supports the thesis. But Roller relies primarily on archeological sources, Varro is only an additional supporter. Roller has investigated the cult images found underneath the temple of the Magna Mater and he thus dates them to the first temple of the goddess. This temple was finished in 194/1 (a decade after the stone arrived (204)). The temple burnt down in 111 B.C. thus the votives that Roller investigates are dated between 194/1 and 111.46
The votives take on many different forms, but there are at least eleven representations of the goddess herself, ninety-four figurines of Attis. There are also a dozen representations of the glans penis, as well as figures of animals (specifically lions, but a variation of horses, pigs, goats, rams, dogs and cocks as well). There are some cistae of fruit, evergreen cones, dancing woman, theater masks, upper torso's with a plethora of breasts and two representations of a pair of lovers in embrace.47
The larger part of the representations of the goddess are rather common in the Hellenistic world, depicting her seated on a throne flanked by lions. However two figures stand out. The first is one where the goddess is depicted wearing a mural crown on her head. This type is not as common in the Hellenistic world as the first and is found especially at Pergamon. The second one that stands out depicts the goddess standing, wearing a high polos instead of a crown and holding an object across her chest. This image is reminiscent of representations found in Ionia. Both indicate that the Magna Mater cult in Rome had connections to the west coast of Asia Minor.48
What Roller thinks more interesting is the large number of Attis figurines that have been found. According to Roller it indicates that Attis played a big role in the Roman version of the cult. She even writes that Attis came with the Goddess to Rome.49 This enhances the theory that the goddess was
summoned from Pergamon as Attis played a major role in Greek/Pergamene practice. Combined with the absence of Attis in Phrygian practice until well after the Roman conquest of Asia Minor it makes the Pergamene case a strong one.50
Roller also emphasized that the Romans gave their own twist to the cult. Especially the emphasis on fertility and sexuality (the votives of the lovers, Attis, glans penis, fruit and animals can all indicate fertility and sexuality). This is enhanced by Pliny and Ovid who wrote that the coming of the Magna
44 It cannot be denied that Pergamon is an important actor in any version of the story. Ovid Fast 4.265-279; Livy 29.11.
45 Livy 29.11.7.
46 Beard, North and Price (1998) p. 97-8. In Roller the date of dedication is placed in 191; Roller (1999) p. 274-5.
47 Roller (1999) p. 275-6. See also fig. 64-7.
48 Ibid. p. 276-7. The images from Ionia seem to be connected to Troy, for Roller's discussion of this see p. 276 n. 62.
49 Perhaps one could suggest that Attis was actually the reason for the summoning of the Magna Mater. See also Köves (1963) for support of Attis accompanying the goddess to Rome. Köves believes that Scipio Nasica as the vir optmus was a reference to Attis.
Mater ensured good and bountiful harvests.51 This nature is directly at odds with the traditional
Matar/Meter who was more concerned with the wild landscapes and mountains.52
The reason why the Magna Mater came from Pergamon was, according to Roller, the result of the increasing Hellenisation of the Romans. She supports this by emphasizing that the cult was always considered un-Roman. This is of course based on the famous remark by Dionysus of Halicarnassus, but it is also based on Cicero's remarks that though she was a respected Roman goddess, she came from a far-off land and her festival was the only one with a non-Latin name.53 As shown above, the
non-Roman elements are primarily Hellenistic.
However, the source that favors Pergamon, Varro, does not exclude the possibility that the stone came from Pessinus and was handed over in Pergamon. This is what seems to be the case in Livy's version of the story. In Livy Attalus I conducts the Roman envoys to Pessinus where he presented them with the stone. He then bade the Roman envoys to carry her home and have her welcomed by the best man en woman of the state.54 The same has been said for Mount Ida.55
Thus I believe we can conclude that Pergamon played a central role in the summoning of the stone and it is highly likely that the stone was handed over in the city itself. Perhaps even at the important Pergamene temple: the Megalesion. Because it can be argued that the stone was taken from either location and brought to Pergamon to be handed over the the Roman envoys the importance of Pergamon is clear and it is time that we explored this further.
A Greek Diplomacy?
After discussing the place of origin of the Magna Mater it seems that Pergamon plays a vital role in the episode. But Pergamon did not only play a vital role in bringing the Magna Mater to Rome, she also played a role in the First Macedonian war. Perhaps her importance in the summoning of the Magna Mater can be explained by taking a closer look at this war. Incidentally Gruen has made an interesting point concerning this war as well. Namely: the improving of the relationship with the Greek city states after the debacle of the First Macedonian war. We shall start with a general history of the war and continue from there.
In 215 B.C., following the Roman defeat at Cannae (216 B.C.), the Macedonian king Philip V sent ambassadors to Hannibal seeking an alliance. According to Polybius the main goal of Philip was to extent his influence in Illyria. We are certain of this goal because Polybius wrote down the articles of the alliance. One clause mentions a number of cities that Rome had to give up to Philip in case of a Roman surrender. These cities were all located in the Illyrian area.56 The Romans however feared a
51 Ibid. p. 280; Pliny NH 18.4.16; Ovid Fast 4.299. 52 Ibid. p. 280.
53 Dion. Hal. 2.19.3-5; Cic. De Har. Resp. 12.24; Roller (1999) p. 282-4.
54 A personal thought on Livy 29.10-1: According to Livy the Sybilline books said that the Mater Idaea should be brought from Pessinus (29.10). However, in 29.11 Livy starts with a remark that the Roman people had no allies among the communities of Asia. Livy uses this to explain why the Romans turned to Pergamon for help, but still it seems a bit strange. This I believe that the Sybil wrote that the Mater Idaea should be fetched from Asia. Following 29.11 they turned to Pergamon which then provided them with the stone. Livy wrote down Pessinus as the location as in his time that was the location from which the stone was believed to originate.
55 Gruen (1990) p. 17-8.
Macedonian invasion of Italy, hard-pressed as they were by Hannibal, and they acted accordingly.57
The Roman fear was perhaps enhanced by the fleet that Philip had built earlier. Philip wished to use this fleet to invade Illyria, but was dissuaded by the arrival of Roman ships which had been pulled back from Lilybaeum. 58
Failing the coastal invasion of Illyria Philip decided to invade by land. The land based invasion began in 213 B.C. and was very successful, capturing Lissus and the surrounding area.59 For the next two
years Polybius remains silent, but one can assume that Philip slowly proceeded to extent his influence in Illyria. The Romans finally reacted in 211 when they made an alliance with the Aetolian league and King Attalus of Pergamon as well as an Illyrian and a Thracian king.60 It seems that also Aetolian allies
like Sparta, Elis and Messene joined the war.61 The choice for the Aetolians is an easy one. They had
been an enemy of Philip for ages. He even made peace with the league in order to facilitate his invasion of Illyria.62 The Illyrian king is also an easy inclusion, as Philip had invaded Illyria. The Thracian
king and Pergamon are additions that are less easily understood. That is because these have little to do with Illyria, but with the Bosporus. The area inhabited by the Thracians was located West of the Bosporus, the Pergamene area East. The strategic importance of the Bosporus has made it a target of both Greek, the Balkan Thracians and Eastern states for centuries. Since the advent of the
Macedonian state under Philip II the Macedonians joined the struggle for this place. Both the Thracians and the Pergemene wished to decrease Macedonian strength to push or keep them from the Bosporus (Pergamon also wished to keep Macedonian influence in the Aegean to a minimum). The inclusion of the latter two also forced the Macedonian to fight a two front war, which would, hopefully, prevent them from focusing their forces in Illyria and subsequently Rome.
After the Romans joined the war things remained rather silent for a few years. Livy mentions that a Roman legion prevented a Macedonian invasion of Aetolia in 210, but this seems strange, considering Rome's occupation with Hannibal.63 Polybius continues the war in 20864, when the alliance mentioned
above threatened to attack. However, it seems that this shocked the Greek states more than it did Philip, causing the Greeks to plead Philip for aid.65 Polybius remains silent on the situation on the
front, but Livy gives us some information. From Livy it seems that Philip was rather successful in the war, being able to defeat the Aetolian forces with her Roman and Pergamene allies multiple times. At the time of the first peace conference (208) Philip thought himself to be the victor. In the time after
57 I believe that the Roman behavior in the First Macedonian War can be described as 'a series of stalling moves', attempting to prevent the Macedonians from invading Italy and joining with Hannibal they tried to force their attention elsewhere, thus stalling the invasion. Livy 23.33 also mentions the treaty but here he adds that Philip V promised to built a fleet and invade Italy. This can be explained by the Roman anxiety for such an invasion. Walbank however has called this impending invasion an annalistic fabrication. Walbank (1940) p. 71. 58 In 217-6 Philip built a fleet of transport ships, for 'he had no hope of defeating the Romans at sea'. Pol. 5.109-10.
59 Poly. 8.15-6.
60 Balsdon explains this late alliance by remarking that 'you do not turn neutrals into allies in war until you give them some reason for thinking you may be going to win; and it was not untill after 212 that the Romans could offer such a hope, [...]' A most interesting remark to be sure; Balsdon (1954) p. 31.
61 Poly. 9.28-39; Eckstein (2002) p. 273. 62 Poly. 5.102.
63 Livy 26.28.1-2. Livy mentions that the fleet would be enough to keep the Macedonians in check. However I think that the Romans could only spare a fleet and that therefore this should be read as a form of proganda. 64 Poly. 10.41.
65 Polybius mentions that the Romans would join this attack with a fleet under Publius Sulpicius. This is perhaps the same fleet sent to the Adriatic in 211 and mentioned by Livy (26.28.2); Pol. 10.41.
the first conference the tug of war did not show a clear victor, as Philip was constrained by the surrounding of Macedon by the Roman and Attalid fleet in the Aegean and the Aetolians on the western side.66 However Attalus turned homewards when his domain was invaded by Prusias I of
Bythinia. Combined with the retreat of the Roman fleet to Aegina Philip was free to continue his offensive against the Aetolians.67 Abandoned by Pergamon and the Romans the Aetolians dragged out
the war for another year or two when they made peace with Macedon in 206 B.C. In the following spring (likely 205 B.C.) the Romans sent another expedition in order to incite unrest in the Illyrian areas and induce the Aetolians into breaking their peace with Philip, the expedition was, however, unsuccessful in this endeavor and the peace of Phoenice in 205 ended the first Macedonian war.68
Gruen believes that the abandonment of Aetolia after 208 hurt the Roman reputation. It also hurt the reputation of Pergamon, because Attalus' reputation did not match his achievements in the war.69
Also the fact that Roman forces suddenly show up after a peace was made between Macedon and Aetolia enhanced the idea that Rome wasn't really fighting the war, but instead had others fight it for her. The Roman troops showing up after the fact might have been seen as a sort of police force to get her 'allies' back in line. Eckstein explains this very well. For him the war is a distraction, keeping Philip away from Rome's doorstep while the Romans dealt with the Carthaginian forces.70
Other questions surround the participation of Pergamon in the whole affair. It seems quite likely that Pergamon's image suffered after the first Macedonian war, but would it improve if she tightened the bonds with Rome? It seems strange that Pergamon's king Attalus, a man who 'jealously guarded his reputation'71, would enhance his bonds with a country well known in the Greek world for its
brutality.72
For Gruen there are no doubts that Attalus' reputation suffered because of the war: 'His reputation was not matched by his accomplishments' he wrote. Thus like the Romans the Pergemene had to reestablish their credentials. And because things were not going too well in the East 'it was the appropriate time to reconfirm prestige in Greece'. And apparently the best way to achieve this was to work together with the Romans. 73
However, was Attalus' reputation actually damaged? Attalus I fought alongside the Greeks against Philip in 201. He was also welcomed heartily in Athens in the same year. According to Burton it is possible that this war restored 'a tarnished reputation', but maybe his reputation never suffered in the first place. Because Attalus' domain in Asia Minor was threatened the Greeks might have been sympathetic when he retreated.74 However, if we follow Eckstein's version of Attalus' retreat it was his
66 Livy 27.30-3. 67 Ibid. 28.7.
68 Ibid. 29.12; Walbank has some critique on this section; Walbank (1940) p. 102 n.2. 69 Gruen (1990) p. 28-30.
70 Eckstein (2010) p. 231-3. See also the fragments from Polybius 10.25 discussed by Eckstein (2002) p. 276. 71 Gruen (1990) p. 29.
72According to Eckstein Roman naval raids against Macedonian allies gave them an evil reputation for brutality. As the Aetolians were seen as brutal and even barbaric I use the word 'same'; Eckstein (2010) p. 233.
73 Ibid. 30; For the discussion of the situation regarding Pergamon and their influence in the East see above. See also Henkel (1979) p. 149.
74 the sympathy might have been enhanced by the fact that Prusias, the Bithynian king that invaded Attalus' domain was the son in law of Philip V. So it could have been seen as a diversionary tactic of the latter; Burton (1996) p. 60-1.
defeat by Philip V that led to his retreat.75 Perhaps, the Bithynian attack was then a propaganda stunt
in order to keep his reputation intact. Another possibility is that Livy was falsely informed on the matter and made some chronological mistakes.76 But regardless of Attalus' reputation it is without a
doubt that he played an important role in the episode surrounding the Magna Mater.77 This role
cannot be explained by solely trying to explain the Pergamene position in the whole affair.
The peace of Phoenice features heavily in Gruen's thesis, but this peace is not without its issues. In this peace Attalus was included in the adscript on the Roman side, in fact Livy places him second amongst them, after the Ilienses.78 According to Gruen the Ilienses are the people from Ilium (near
Troy) and their inclusion in the peace enhanced the idea of Rome's enhancement of her Trojan roots. However, Ilium did not participate in the first Macedonian war. Gruen counters this by emphasizing that it was Greek practice to include non-combatants in peace treaty's so that the protection of the treaty would extent to them as well. But even if the Peace of Phoenice was a koine eirene, did this mean that non-combatants were ranked higher than participating allies?79 Another interesting
question is why was Aetolia not part of the adscript?80
The first of these two questions can be explained by treating the peace of Phoenice as a treaty between Rome and Macedon only, the other combatants made a separate peace. However, even this formulation lacks, because with two exceptions, being Athens and Ilium, all Roman adscript were their allies. Larsen argues that the addition of Athens and Ilium are corruptions of the original text. He gives a lengthy explanation as to why Athens was not included at first, but added later. The gist of which is that Athenian behavior during the first Macedonian war does not warrent inclusion among the adscript.81 He does not, however, give such an explanation for Ilium. Comparing Ilium to Athens
he concludes that 'there is even less reason to believe that [Ilium] had any connection to the treaty and even easier to understand how its name later came to be inserted'.82 Larsen is, obviously,
referring to the connection Ilium had with Troy.
Roman Policy and Aims towards Philip V
To be able to understand the absence of Aetolia as an adscriptus of the Peace of Phoenice we need to investigate another area; what where the goals of the Romans in the first Macedonian war? The answer to this question will also help us to understand why Pergamon played such an important role in the Magna Mater episode. Naturally the first answer to this question is defense against a possible Macedonian invasion.83 But was this really the case? With the second Macedonian war in the back of
75 Eckstein (2002) p. 281.
76 Regarding the chronological mistakes I refer back to the discussion of Burton's position above n. 41, 45, 48-9 and 51.
77 Wether she came from mount Ida (Ovid gives an important role to Attalus) or from Pessinus (Livy too gives an important role to Attalus in his version of the tale).
78 Livy 29.12.
79 I could understand it if there was a separate peace between Macedon and Pergamon, but to our knowledge no such peace exists. Therefore I think it rather strange that a king who participated in the war would be ranked lower than a non-combatant. Gruen (1990) p. 31-3.
80 One could simply answer this question by arguing that Aetolia had a seperate peace with Macedon. This answer is, however, insufficient, because it does not explain why Aetolian allies like Messene were included in the adscript of the peace of Phoenice.
81 Larsen (1937) p. 18-25. Athens was among the states that tried to create peace between Aetolia and Macedon, regardless of a Roman wish for peace. Eckstein (2002) also supports this thesis.
82 Larsen (1937) p. 25.
their minds historians like Rich and Balsdon have argued that the Roman goals were more aggressive then defensive.84 We should keep in mind though that for Rich the goal of the Romans was defensive
-to keep Philip busy in Greece -, but the Romans pursued the war more aggressively than is generally agreed.
Balsdon mainly raised questions regarding the Roman conduct during the first Macedonian war and subsequent events. Mostly to point out defects in the argumentation of Holleaux (and his
supporters)85 regarding the second Macedonian war. According to Holleaux' thesis the Romans did
not have a thought out policy regarding the East until they got actively involved in the second Macedonian war.86
Balsdon's treatment of the First Macedonian war is short, but clear. Philip V was the aggressor in a war that Rome most certainly didn't want. However, Philip, like Hieronymus of Syracuse87, made the
alliance with Hannibal in the mistaken belief that the war was as good as over. The late alliance with Aetolia can be explained, because only after 212 could the Romans prove that they could still win the war.88 Regarding the retreat of Roman troops from Greece there is no evidence but a small sentence
in Livy that means that Galba did not receive any reinforcements in 207.89 And regardless of whether
troops were recalled, Galba remained in Greece and it cannot be imagined that he remained without his fleet. A large force under P. Sempronius Tuditanus arrived to relieve Galba at the end of 206, but by then the Aetolians had already made peace with the Macedonians and it suited the Romans best to make peace with Philip and concentrate their efforts on concluding the war with Carthage.90
In this light the peace of Phoenice is merely a ceasefire, meant to stop hostilities between Philip and Rome until Rome could focus her forces on Philip's punishment, because in no way the Romans had settled their difference with Philip. The damage done to the Roman reputation had not yet been paid for.91 There is a difference between Appian and Balsdon however. Balsdon claims that Philip thought
the treaty meant that the Romans had lost interest in the East, but Appian wrote that neither party believed that the treaty would last.92
Rich's argumentation is mainly based on the accounts of Polybius and Livy, and he elaborates on the theory set up by Balsdon. The Macedonian declaration of war was a slap in the face of the Roman reputation and had to be avenged. Therefore the Romans were much more aggressive in the First Macedonian war than was usually thought. This is proven by the treaty between Aetolia and Rome. Aetolia was to get any territorial gain whereas the Romans would receive the moveable booty. Besides that the Roman navy was highly active during the war and a long list of their activities can be distilled from Polybius and Livy. Contrary to the behavior of the Roman allies who were not nearly as
84 Rich (1984); Balsdon (1954). I think both can be considered followers (or precursors) of Harris' theory of aggressive Roman imperialism.
85 Holleaux (1920); Two notable supporters of Holleaux are Walbank (1940) and McDonald and Walbank (1937).
86 That is at least Balsdon's interpretation. Balsdon (1954) p. 30. 87 Poly. 7.3.2; Livy 24.6.4; Sallust BJ 14.5.
88 This is proven by Livy 26.24.2. 89 Livy 29.12.1.
90 Balsdon (1954) p. 31.
91 Balsdon calls the peace of Phoenice a 'makeshift peace, as our sources indicate.' He cites (n.15) Sallust Hist. 4.69.5; Livy 31.31.19 (I think Livy 31.31.18-20 gives a more complete picture though); Justin 29.4..11; Appian
Mac. 3.; Balsdon p. 32.
active and definitively less effective than the Roman fleet. Though the Roman fleet did get help from Pergamon, the Pergamene participation in the war was short-lived indeed.93
Between 211 and 208 the Roman fleet captured 8 settlements, but were only able to retain
Oeniadae, Nasus and Aegina. Their ally Sparta was able to capture Tegea, but this was also recaptured by the Achaean league. In this time Aetolian losses were mounting. In 208 the Pergamene fleet joined the fray and a successful, but short campaign followed. The allies captured Euboian Oreus and Opus and Cynus on the Greek mainland. But Philip responded with a lightning march, captured the pass of Thermopylae (another Aetolian loss) and almost caught the Pergamene king at Opus (which he was sacking at the time).94 Attalus then rejoined the Romans at Oreus, but there he heard that Bithynia
had invaded his kingdom and he returned home.95
From this I think we can conclude that the Romans fought the first Macedonian war wholeheartedly, because they fought for booty and to punish Macedonian behavior. However, despite successes of the Roman fleet, the fleet was unable to help out in the inland fighting between Macedon and Aetolia. Therefore the Aetolians bore the brunt of the war and with the Romans being of little help they started to feel like Rome had abandoned them. 96 These negative feelings were enhanced by
diplomats from smaller states like Rhodes and Athens that tried to make peace between Aetolia and Macedon. Besides these feelings the Romans also gained a reputation of brutality, because they massacred a town and sold two others into slavery (both also indicate an aggressive style of warfare). Eventually the Aetolians made peace with the Macedonians, but shortly afterwards Roman help arrived in the form of actual legions. That this legion was unable to come until then, was probably because of Hasdrubal who required the attention of the Roman military until he was defeated in 207 B.C. But having lost their major ally in the war the Romans were forced to create the Peace of Phoenice.
As can be imagined the peace of Phoenice left a bitter aftertaste and should be considered no more than a ceasefire. The peace allowed the Romans to turn their undivided attention to finishing the war with Carthage before returning to deal with Philip. If we treat the peace of Phoenice in this way it explains the questions raised above. The absence of the Aetolians can be understood, because the Romans felt abandoned by them.97 They had made peace at the moment that Roman troops arrived
to bolster their position. And these troops were not even required to participate according to the treaty with Aetolia.98 Besides that the Aetolians had failed to achieve anything major during the war.
The absence thus signifies that the Romans had broken their alliance with Aetolia. The other allies of Aetolia that were included, like Messene and Sparta, did deliver on the treaty and/or the Romans did not feel abandoned by them, thus they were allowed to join in the peace of Phoenice if they wished.
93 Rich (1984). 94 Livy 28.7.1-9. 95 Rich (1984) p. 130-3.
96 Macedon's army was more powerful than the Aetolian army, but the Roman (and Pergamene) fleet were to balance this, as this denied Macedon a naval superiority as well. However, this also meant that Philip was forced to fight on land, which caused Aetolia to bear the brunt of the attack; Rich (1984) p. 129.
97 A clause in the treaty between Aetolia and Rome forbade either to make a peace that would not include the other; Livy 26.24.12.
98 The treaty required the Romans to assist the Aetolians with a fleet consisting of at least 25 quinqueremes; Livy 26.24.9-10.
The importance of Pergamon can also be understood. If the Romans wished to continue the war against Philip on a later date it would have been important to retain a few allies in the neighborhood. The Roman and Pergamene fleet had worked together for a short period and were quite successful (capturing three cities in a short time). The cooperation between the two had been pleasant and hence the Romans (and Attalus probably too) wished to improve relations and retain the alliance between them. 99 This explains the important role that Pergamon had in the Magna Mater episode. It
also provides us with the first major reason for the summoning of the Magna Mater.
The Magna Mater, under the Greek/Phrygian name of Meter Megale (Great Mother), was an
important goddess at Pergamon.100 This is supported by the many statues and votives of the goddess
that have been found in the city. Among them a life-size sculpture of the seated goddess found among the foundations located near the gate that led to the upper city. Roller beliefs this to be the best candidate for the Megalesion. It also seems that Pergamon was an important cult center for the entire region, as statues based on Pergamene models have been found at Troy and Gordion, both also important cult sites for the goddess.101
Thus by importing this deity the relation between Pergamon and Rome would have certainly
improved. This could also provide insight in the addition of Ilium among the adscript of the peace of Phoenice. Ilium referred to Troy, the relation between Rome and the Magna Mater came from their Trojan past. Therefore the relation between Pergamon and Rome, who were connected through the Magna Mater, was made possible through Troy. Thus the reason why Ilium was first among the adscript is because she made the relation between Pergamon and Rome possible. Though this might be a bit farfetched.
However, even though this could explain Ilium's existence amongst the adscript it does not explain why the majority of the sources mention Pessinus as the location of origin of the Magna Mater. I believe this can be explained in a similar way as the reason why Pergamon had an important role in the summoning of the goddess. Ilium was located in an area that is considered under the control of Pergamon. Pessinus, however, was located in Galatian territory. What I wish to consider here is that the Pergamene king used the opportunity provided by the Romans to increase his control or improve his relation with an autonomic temple state located within enemy (Galatian) territory. The reasons for this can be multiple, but the strategic and military boons of allies in enemy territory are obvious. Thus to conclude this chapter, the Summoning of the Magna Mater was not meant to repair a broken reputation. The breach between the Aetolians and Romans was not healed, instead the relation between the two had broken down to the point of a break of alliance.102 Pergamon, on the other
hand, satisfied the Roman needs during the first Macedonian war. This leads me to believe that the summoning of the Magna Mater via Pergamon is a conscious attempt to deepen relations between the cities of Pergamon and Rome especially to ensure an alliance in the event of a Second
Macedonian war.
99 Livy writes on the matter (trans. rev. Canon Roberts): "... now that King Attalus had formed a friendly league
with them against their common enemy, Philip, they hoped that he would do what he could in the interest of Rome." Livy 29.11.2-3.
100 Roller (1999) p. 188. 101 Ibid. p. 206-9.
An Italian Fatality?
Having explained the importance of Pergamon in this episode let us turn our gaze to Rome. Here we must take a look at two other important events that might be reasons for the summoning of the Magna Mater. These events were Scipio's preparation for an invasion of Africa, which took place on Sicily, and the landing of Mago on the Ligurian coast. We shall treat these events in this order, partly because Gruen made an interesting point concerning the former, but ignores the latter.
Gruen believes that the Magna Mater was summoned in light of an optimistic mood in Rome. Not just any optimistic mood at that, but Rome was 'at the brink of victory'. Rome was being rather successful in recent years, defeating Hasdrubal at the Metaurus and forcing Hannibal to retreat to Bruttium. This was combined with continued Roman successes in Spain. Lucania allied herself with Rome again and in 206 land and property was restored to farmers.103 The timing is important too, in
205 there were two important events. The first was the end of the First Macedonian war. The second is a debate waged over the question whether the war ought to be carried over to Africa.104 The
Sybilline books were consulted in a state, not of despair, but instead of 'heady excitement and anxiety over the prospect of invading enemy shores'.105
The debate about the invasion was waged between two factions. Gruen conceives the leaders as being Scipio on the side that wished to fight the war abroad and on the other side Fabius who wished to keep the armies in Italy.106 Scipio was driven by his successful years in Spain and the recent victory
at the Metaurus. Fabius pleaded for caution doubting the Roman means to sustain multiple large armies and fleets and also pointed out the danger of Hannibal's presence in Italy. The debate was not resolved when the Sybilline books were consulted and ordered the summoning of the Magna Mater. Gruen thinks there is a connection here, especially because Livy's version of the oracle carries overtones of the debate; the expulsion of Hannibal would favor Fabius' position, but Scipio's party could interpret it to mean that Hannibal's expulsion would be caused by an invasion of Africa.107
The debate had been resolved by the time the Magna Mater arrived. This can be seen in the choice for the vir optmus that had to welcome the goddess. A Scipio, P. Scipio Nasica, had been chosen to welcome the goddess, a clear sign that the Scipionic faction had won the debate and that an invasion of Africa was imminent. This is the first support for Gruen's position, the second one is the consular election for the year 205-4 and the assignment of the consular provinces. The provinces that were chosen for the consuls were Bruttium (where Hannibal resided) and Sicily. The consuls that were elected for the year 205-4 where Cornelius Scipio (later Africanus) and Licinius Crassus. Gruen sees in this a clear sign that the Roman population rallied behind Scipio's position. Especially because Crassus was also Pontfex Maximus and was thus unable to leave Italy. As a result Crassus was assigned to Bruttium where he could not really interfere with Scipio's impending invasion and Scipio was assigned to Sicily, the ideal springboard for an invasion of Africa.108
103 Gruen (1990) p. 6-7.
104 Ibid. p. 21. It seems Eckstein agrees with these points; Eckstein (2002) p. 293-4. 105 Ibid. p. 24.
106 Lazenby investigates this in more detail, but comes to the same conclusion; Lazenby (1978) p. 193-5. 107 The interpretation of Scipio's party was given a bigger buff when the reply from Delphi arrived, predicting an even greater victory than the one at the Metaurus. It was immediately interpreted to mean a triumph for Scipio in Africa and an end to the war. Ibid. p. 21-5; Livy 29.10.5.
In one way the choice for Scipio Nasica as vir optmus is a strange one. He was a young man, too young to have held office. He was, thus, a man with no direct political influence, which made his choice weird. But according to Gruen this was not a liability, but a recommendation. This can be understood from the (political) reasons that the senate and the nobility had. The title of vir optmus was considered more honorable than any office and the title was highly coveted because of it.109
Nasica would, however, be unable to pressure his opponents because of his attained honor, because he was not able to participate in politics yet. Aside from Nasica's personal influence he was the cousin of Scipio (Africanus), so by choosing Nasica the senate honored Scipio as well. Finally Nasica did not receive the goddess alone, he got company from a woman of the opposing side, Claudia Quinta. According to Gruen this act 'exemplified the closing of the ranks, a show of unity in the leadership'. The debate had been resolved and the senate now backed Scipio's invasion of Africa.110
For Gruen the political implications of the coming of the Magna Mater are clear. She was summoned to grant the Romans divine support for their final push against Carthage. But was this positive mood really true? Gruen casually skips the two years between the battle at the Metaurus and the actual summoning of the Magna Mater. In these two years the war did not stop.
Henkel mentions a few important things that happened in these years. Though Henkel's
argumentation is largely equal to Gruen's he does differ in some ways.111 Henkel emphasizes the
importance of religious unrest that held Rome in its grip throughout the war. It can be easily
recognized in the many prodigies reported by Livy. After the victory at the Metaurus the euphoria in Rome would have stifled the larger part of the religious unrest, but in 205 Mago, the second brother of Hannibal, landed in Liguria with an army. Secondly there was a large, though short, revolt in Spain led by Ilergetes, a Celtic king. Finally Crassus and his men were struck by disease, which was seen as a bad omen. The Magna Mater was then summoned to settle the religious unrest, provide hope for the Romans and divine favor for the invasion of Africa. Because of the timing Henkel enlarges the role that Scipio played in the entire episode, something I am not entirely sure of.112
Another thing that Henkel mentions, but does not really explain is that Scipio was not allowed to recruit new troops (though he was allowed to take in volunteers as long as the state did not need to pay for their equipment and rations).113 Why was this the case? If the senate supported Scipio's
endeavor then he would have been allowed to use the state's treasury for it, or wasn't he? It can of course be explained by pointing out that Roman resources were stretched to the limit and most of it went to the army in Italy that kept Hannibal in check. The Roman state did not have the means to support an invasion of Africa. But if this was the case, why isn't this mentioned in any source? It also does not solve the problem of volunteers, because apparently Rome still had men left capable of bearing arms, but they flocked to Scipio.114 Through these doubts I think that the vir optmus and
Claudia were chosen as representatives of the political order in general and thus were a reflection of
109 Livy 29.14.7.
110 Gruen (1990) p. 25-6.
111 Equal to Gruen see: Henkel (1979) p. 145-8, 152. 112 Henkel (1979) p. 145-7.
113 Ibid. p. 146; Livy 28.45.14.
114 Scipio had the support of the masses which could explain the flocking of volunteers to his banner, but it does not explain where those volunteers came from; Livy 28.38.9-10; Lazenby argues that this was only meant to increase Scipio's reputation and aside from that he did not have that big of a manpower problem, because there was quite a significant force already in place on Sicily; Lazenby (1978) p. 195.
the distribution of power in the senate and not a means to show that the senate backed the plans of Scipio.115
A final interesting remark is that the Magna Mater was an important goddess in the area surrounding Syracuse. Evidence of the Magna Mater has been found in Syracuse in the form of statues of both Cybele and Attis. In nearby Akrea a sanctuary of either Magna Mater or Aphrodite has been uncovered. Many reliefs have been found at the sanctuary and multiple have been identified as referencing to the Magna Mater. Henkel concludes from this that the Magna Mater was well known in the area surrounding Syracuse.116 This might be something of importance, and could definitively
support Gruens thesis, because Scipio was gathering his army near Syracuse and even sacrificed to her in a location near Syracuse before he embarked for Africa. However, it seems strange that the Romans summoned the goddess from Asia Minor and not Syracuse. This also does not sit well with the arguments given above, about the doubts of the senate backing the plans of Scipio. Therefore I believe that this should be considered the least interesting reason for the summoning of the Magna Mater. It should, however, not be excluded entirely.
Burton has his doubts about the positive mood in Rome. He follows a line similar to Henkel, but he also emphasizes that the return of Lucania to alliance with Rome and the return of land to the farmers were not as good as they seem. His investigation of Livy's passage that concerns the return of farmers to their land yields less positive results than Gruen's view. Firstly the farmers could only be returned to lands around Rome and in Latium, apparently their safety could not be guaranteed beyond that. Besides that Livy's version says the farmers were forced to return to their land. Furthermore the return of Lucania to Roman allegiance was overshadowed by the unexpected landing of Mago in Liguria. Suddenly the Romans faced a second Carthaginian army in Italy. The presence of Mago would certainly have made the Romans a bit less anxious about an impending invasion of Africa, but concerned about the next time that Hannibal would stand at the gates of Rome. It would also explain why the senate did not favor Scipio's endeavor with anything else then volunteers, because they had to focus everything else on keeping both Mago and Hannibal at bay. Burton continues with the census results of 208/7, numbers that were so low that most historians have not been able to accept them. However, Burton thinks they are true, because the Roman population would have decreased by half during the war. Also, as Burton points out, right after the welcoming ceremony of the Magna Mater Livy turns to a manpower issue.117
For Burton the books were thus consulted in a state of uncertainty.118 He enhances this by mentioning
the many prodigies, the stone rains, that preceded the consultation of the sybilline books. This is supported by Eckstein who emphasized that consultation of the sybilline books were usually preceded by a string of prodigies of increasing religious intensity. Often they ended with the
discovery of unfaithful Vestal Virgins. He also connects the consultation to military disaster, especially the defeat of an army in the field. Mago's landing would have reminded the Romans almost directly
115 Burton seems to share these doubts about Gruen calling it 'the most speculative part' of his thesis; Burton (1996) p. 58.
116 Henkel (1979) refers to: Bernabò Brea (1956), Graillot (1912) and CCCA IV, nos. 152-165.
117 Burton (1996) p. 37-40. For the census results see: Livy 27.36.7; and for the manpower issue see: Livy 29.15.6.
of the military disasters at Trasimene and Cannae and thus it seems very likely that the landing caused the consultation of the books.119
However, Burton fails to explain what made Mago's landing so much more dangerous than Hasdrubal's crossing of the Alps. The presence of Hasdrubal created the treat of two Carthaginian armies on Roman soil, but his appearance did not cause the Romans to seek the aid of the Magna Mater. One could point to Hasdrubal's defeat in Spain at the hands of Scipio that made him leave Spain and cross the Alps. But he could have hired plenty of Gallic mercenaries to replenish his forces as he had moved through mostly Gallic territory on the way. But regardless of what his army strength was his appearance did not cause the Romans as much worry as Mago's landing did.
I believe that the main reason for the difference is that Mago was in command of a fleet. The Roman success in Italy had been because they had been able to successfully limit Hannibal's freedom of movement in recent years, making it unable for him to make any sudden moves. A fleet is much harder to control that way. But I do not think that that was the main cause for worry. What worried the Romans was that both Mago and Hannibal would start to operate together. In cooperation Hannibal could have tried to capture Rhegium (the only major town in Bruttium still under Roman control) and from there crossed over to Sicily (for the strategic importance of Sicily see below).120 In
this view the landing of Mago was a last Carthaginian effort to turn the war in their favor, much like the Roman invasion of Africa was the last big Roman effort to finish the war in their favor.
Of course we do have to keep in mind that Hannibal was confined in Bruttium in the 'toe' of Italy and Mago landed in Liguria in the Northwest of Italy (near Genoa), but this was most likely influenced by two reasons. The first is that Liguria contained a lot of Gallic tribes hostile to Rome and thus was easy recruitment ground for mercenaries. Secondly Mago wished to evade the Roman fleet based in Sicily. He himself sailed from the Balearic Islands (located of the eastern coast of Spain) thus it was a logic move to sail towards Northern Italy. From Northern Italy he would have meant to sail south to join up with Hannibal. The Romans however blocked him from reaching Hannibal and confined him in Northern Italy.
But what the Romans feared most what Mago's landing could foreshadow. The Carthaginian fleet had been lethargic this war. And now that Mago had landed in Italy with a fleet it seemed a good
possibility that the rest of the Carthaginian fleet would also stir into action. An active Carthaginian fleet could prove a whole new challenge to the Romans as it could very easily hamper an invasion of Africa. It could also provide a stable line of communications and supplies with both Hannibal and Mago which would have moved the war in Italy in an entirely new direction that was not very attractive for the Romans.121
Here we can conclude that the landing of Mago was the direct cause for the summoning of the Magna Mater as it set in motion a series of events leading up to that act. Also interesting is that the Magna Mater was an important goddess on Sicily. As I consider Mago's landing as a sort of last push of the Carthaginians and Scipio was preparing the last Roman push - the invasion of Africa - on Sicily I believe that the summoning of the Magna Mater is also connected to both. The Magna Mater then
119 Eckstein (1982).
120 Lazenby mentions that after the raid of Laelius Carthage send envoys to Hannibal and Mago that asked them to do all possible to keep Scipio confined to Sicily. Lazenby (1978) p. 197-8.
