a synchronic analysis of exodus 31: 12-17

A Synchronic Analysis of Exodus 31: 12-17

The text I plan to analyse in this essay is that of Exodus 31: 12-17. In this passage one can clearly see God addressing Israel, using Moses as an intermediatory. The passage discusses the observance of the Sabbath as a holy day for the Israelites.

I have chosen this particular text for three reasons; the first being that I wanted to look at a passage that was not especially well known in order to approach it without any preconceptions or prior exegesis of the text, which I feel may have hindered my investigation had I chosen a more familiar passage from Exodus. The second reason I have chosen this particular passage to study is that I have a personal interest in looking at the covenantal laws set out in the early books of the Old Testament, and their relevance to the cultures and traditions of Ancient Israel, both prior to, and after their impartation, be that divinely or otherwise. The third reason is that I am interesting in comparing a synchronic analysis of a text to a diachronic analysis to establish the advantages and disadvantages for each.

To place this passage in context, the Israelites have already been given the command to ‘keep the Sabbath holy’ previous to this particular passage, and from looking at the text, the Israelites seem to think that because they are building the tabernacle, i.e. working for God, this rule does not apply in their current situation. However the text tells us that God has a different perspective.
The method I plan to use in order to carry out this analysis of the chosen text is a structuralist approach and I intend to follow this with an assessment of the success achieved in the application of synchronic methods of analysis to the narrative of Exodus.

The first thing to note is the difference between a diachronic and a synchronic approach to a passage. A diachronic approach is one that seeks to take the text back to its original form(s) whereas a synchronic approach considers the text in its final form, and as a whole instead of seeking to break it down into its components.A structuralist approach to the text is one which will ‘investigate the arrangement of the constituent parts [of a text] rather than enquire how they originated and how they developed.’ Obviously as a part of this, a structuralist approach to a text will consider the relationship established between the author, the reader, and the text as well as the relationship of the constituent parts of the text itself.

When examining this particular passage, the first thing to note is that the content of this passage is a communication from the author to the reader. The verbal discourse taking place in this passage at first glance seems to be straightforward message to the Israelites from God, communicated via Moses, about the importance of keeping the Sabbath holy. Whilst this can be seen to be a self contained passage, it is actually important to note that it is actually considered to be taken in connection with the paragraph immediately preceding it which can be seen by the construction of the first sentence of the pericope – ‘And the Lord said to Moses’. The Word biblical Commentary actually takes this idea further and signifies this passage as being ‘intended as a conclusion to the whole series of instructions concerning the media of worship’ which has preceded this particular pericope.

When considering the structure of this, or any biblical passage, Shimon Bar-Efrat suggests that there are four levels of structure; the verbal level; the level of narrative technique; the level of the narrative world; and the level of the conceptual content. This is how I will approach this text in order to give a structured analysis of this pericope.
The first level to consider then is the verbal level. This, according to Bar-Erfat, is based upon words and phrases. Features such as repetition, stylistic features feature in this level of analysis.
When examining this pericope, Cassuto notes that repetition occurs for several words throughout the passage, these being the verb ‘keep’, expressions of ‘holiness’, and the term ‘to work’, each appear three times throughout the short pericope thus emphasising their importance in the passage. It is also interesting to note the number of words derived from the Hebrew stem sabhath- [abstain from work; desist] is seven . The use of repetition in this particular instance can be justified as this is the main content of the pericope, however, is it just an interesting coincidence that there are seven days in the week? An interesting stylistic feature of this pericope is the inclusion of a Genesis-like passage justifying the importance of observing the Sabbath. The structure of verse 17 is such that it seems to have been included as an attempt to indicate authority and supremacy. The final observation which I wish be included in this section is the use of the Sabbath as a symbol of the physical manifestation of the ‘perpetual covenant’ between Israel and God on the part of the Israelites, and it’s purpose as the way in which the ‘outside world’ will recognise the special relationship between God and Israel.

The second ‘level’ of structure to examine is the level of narrative technique; defined as being ‘based on variations in narrative method’ . Verse 12 is a direct address from the narrator to the reader explaining the next action which [verse 13] is direct speech from God to Moses. This direct address continues from verse 13 through to verse 17. In this long address the message intended to be communicated by ‘God’ – to keep the Sabbath holy- is presented, justified in terms of why it is in the interests of the Israelites to keep this law; ‘that you may know that I the Lord, sanctify you (verse 13).’ The message is then presented again, this time followed with the consequences of failure to comply with this; ‘everyone that profanes it shall be put to death (verse 14).’ This is then followed by a justification as to why it should be obeyed in verses 15 and 16 ( the Sabbath is holy to the Lord and a sign of the covenant between the Israelites and God) followed by a further justification from the use of the creation tradition in verse 17.

The third ‘level’ in a structuralist approach to the text is that of ‘the level of the narrative world’. This deals with the idea of character and plot . As this is a verbal discourse there is no easily defined plot, but there are several character interactions occurring within the text. The first is the interaction of the narrator with the reader. This is implicitly continuous throughout the entire pericope however, is explicit only in the first verse where a direct address takes place between the two. The second interaction is that of God with Moses. This is secondary however, and probably relates directly to the third interaction taking place in the pericope- that of ‘God’ with the Israelites (and by proxy the reader of the text). The use of Moses (or any other important figurehead in the bible as an intermediatory to the Israelites is a common convention used by the author to give authority to a text, so the inclusion of Moses as the messenger may be purely with the intent to cause the reader to heed what is being said in the passage.

The final ‘level’ to be considered is that of ‘the conceptual content’. This level examines the themes and ideas contained within the text being examined. Obviously the main theme of this passage is that of keeping the Sabbath holy, however, other themes and ideas included in the passage are those of covenant between God and Israel and also the idea of Israel’s identity as a nation ‘set apart by God’.

Taking everything that has been established by this analysis of this passage it is clear to see that a synchronic analysis of the text can yield a surprising amount of information about the text studied, indeed more than I, personally, was expecting to, however on its own it can only initiate a response from a critic that has no context of the intention of the author or the circumstances in which the text was written which can hinder a readers understanding of the text. A purely synchronic analysis, I feel, could also induce a reader to try to invent reasons for their findings when analysing a text in such a way that the findings do not necessarily make sense without a context and framework for them to be fit into. Ideally I feel that a combination of both synchronic and diachronic analyses will yield the most comprehensive exegesis of a biblical text, examining both the origins and sources of the text, the ideologies of the author, as well as the relationship of the text as a whole and within itself, and the interaction of the text as a whole with both the author’s intended audience and today’s critic. By combining both forms of analysis it will also allow the critic to place the findings of a more literary method of analysis back into the framework in which it was written allowing for a more in-depth understanding of how the text was intended to be read by the author in the context of the social and cultural traditions and events of the time and will prevent the reader from being caught up in very minor things.

A Diachronic Analyses of Exodus 31: 12-17 - feel free to comment!!!!


The text I plan to analyse in this essay is that of Exodus 31: 12-17. In this passage one can clearly see God addressing Israel, using Moses as an intermediatory. The passage discusses the observance of the Sabbath as a holy day for the Israelites.
I have chosen this particular text for two reasons; the first being that I wanted to look at a passage that was not especially well known in order to approach it without any preconceptions or prior exegesis of the text, which I feel may have hindered my investigation had I chosen a more familiar passage from Exodus. The second reason I have chosen this particular passage to study is that I have a personal interest in looking at the covenantal laws set out in the early books of the Old Testament, and their relevance to the cultures and traditions of Ancient Israel, both prior to, and after their impartation, be that divinely or otherwise.

To place this passage in context, the Israelites have already been given the command to ‘keep the Sabbath holy’ previous to this particular passage, and from looking at the text, the Israelites seem to think that because they are building the tabernacle, i.e. working for God, this rule does not apply in their current situation. However the text tells us that God has a different perspective.
The way in which I plan to analyse this text is not to concentrate on only one form of diachronic analysis, but to use a combination of source, form, and redaction criticism to help me to attempt to better understand the text. This will be followed by an evaluation as to whether approaching a text in a purely diachronic method is helpful to the scholar.

When examining this passage, the first thing to note is that the content of this passage also appears in other places in the book of Exodus; namely, Ex 20.8; 23.12; 35.2. This suggests that the authors of the book of Exodus as it appears in present-day form considered this to be an important thing to be considered by the Israelite people.
The genre of this passage could be defined as 'legal discourse', as it discusses a law- the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy (Ex 20:8-12) and the consequences of failure to adhere to that, as well as logical reason for the existence and justification of such a law. The passage as a whole can also be described as verbal discourse, as in it, the authors set out a commandment from God, communicated verbally to and through Moses, to the people of Israel.

Another indication that this passage was deemed to be of some importance is the opening verse. Noth, and Cassuto both note the variation in introduction to this legal discourse to others given throughout Exodus in their respective observations on this passage. Noth argues in favour of the difference being due to an intended direct connection with the text immediately preceding this passage, whereas Cassuto argues that this may be because the verb ‘speak’ immediately follows this first sentence. Regardless of the correct outcome it is a feature of this passage which sets it apart from other similar passages, and intentionally or not, the authors have succeeded in causing the reader to pay more close attention to this particular passage.
Verse 13 talks about Israel’s obedience of this commandment as a sign of the covenant between God and Israel, which Noth describes as ‘The peculiar relationship between God and his people'. The Word Biblical Commentary argues that keeping the Sabbath holy is a way of 'recognising that Yahweh is the one who has made them special' and in keeping the Sabbath holy Yahweh is honoured and that specialness is recognised.
Verse 14 is a more concise repetition of the information given in the previous verse and has the additional warning of the punishment for breaking the command. This verse could be seen as an indication of more than one source being used for the text in question, alternatively it could be seen as emphasis by the author upon this commandment. Noth is for the former argument for that verse and is insistent that verses 15-17 include a 'secondary addition, clear from the phrasing of the text and the use of Yahweh in both third and first persons. Verse 16 contains the only translational variation of the passage, with the Septuagint having the word Sabbaths in place of the first Sabbath, and them, in place of the second.

Stepping back to consider the passage as a whole once more, we can see input from two sources, which I would state as being most likely to be J and P, although one cannot claim to have any solid basis for that other than it is unlikely to be E as ‘Elohim’ is not used in this passage. Other than the aforementioned discrepancies in the text however, the redactor has managed to weave the texts together well, giving little indication of patching several sources together.

When considering the structure of the passage, we see that the overarching theme of this pericope is that of Yahweh's relationship with Israel, also with some evidence of divine revelation, which is another theme common throughout many pericopes of Exodus and both these themes involve Moses as the representative of the Israelites.
The passage contains words which stem from the Hebrew sabhath ['abstain from work'; desist] seven times. This is an interesting parallel to draw in this pericope and one has to wonder whether or not this was intentional on the author’s part, or purely coincidental. In the same way, the verb samar['keep'], expressions of holiness and the term 'to work' are all incorporated into the text three times, which is probably indicative of the importance the author places upon the information given within the text here. Verse 17 also has an interesting allusion back to Genesis, and the creation narrative, the purpose of which may have been to justify the command being given to the Israelites, or alternatively, a convenient way of ending the communication to the people of Israel in such a way that would be fitting for God.

The fact that the subject of the text has already appeared several times previously to this pericope causes one to wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such a trivial command. As aforementioned, it could be because of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and a spur to keep it, which in turn makes one consider as to whether or not the Israelites had once again stopped following the laws set by Moses, and were beginning to worship other deities, or to just become lawless in general. In context with the text surrounding this pericope it is quite clear that the Israelites were not obeying this law when it came to building the tabernacle and this causes doubt as to whether the Israelites were obeying this law at all, giving it less importance than the 'bigger' commandments. In context, to go back to something already mentioned, it is said that the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath holy so that they would show their special relationship with Yahweh, which by proxy was quite probably in direct contravention to the surrounding cultures of this time.

In sum, the methods used to evaluate this text have revealed a lot about the both the Israelite’s culture and position at that time, and the ways in which such texts have been put together, which in turn I feel helps the reader to better understand the text, however a purely diachronic analysis can leave the reader feeling bogged down in small sections of the text, and these methods are less useful for considering the text as a whole so I would suggest that diachronic analysis should be used in conjunction with alternative criticisms in order to gain the best possible understanding of the text and the context in which it was written

self assessment 2003-2004

The second year of Biblical Studies, has, for me been interesting. Whilst I have really enjoyed looking at the texts we have studied over the course of the past year in more depth, and also in relation to external factors, (for example in ‘The Bible and Archaeology’ I really enjoyed looking at how artefacts and sites discovered can help our understanding not only of Biblical texts, but also Biblical culture, and these things in relation to other cultures and traditions of that time) it has also been a struggle to engage fully due to illness. There have been several lectures I was very disappointed to have missed, and I honestly feel that my performance over the last year academically has suffered because of it. However I do not want or intend to use it as an excuse for absence or underachievement. One positive thing that has come out of this situation however, is my appreciation of good lecture notes. In particular Tamlin Lizius’ notes for ‘The Bible and the Liberation of the Oppressed (Exodus)’ and ‘The Bible and Archaeology’ were nothing less than spectacular and have been a great help in both catching up on work that I have missed and in gaining background information pertaining to the topics covered.
The first semester of this year was overall my least favourite. I enjoyed the module on ‘The Bible and the Fourfold Gospel’ especially the tutorials, as personally I found that the tutorials, particularly the ones taken by Rafael, were a good opportunity to discuss in depth our own interpretations of the evidence given forwards, as well as the module being a fresh approach to the study of the Gospels both as a whole and individually that I would not have necessarily considered otherwise.
‘The Bible and the Historical Imagination’ was the module which I found most demanding to engage with as I felt that the style of teaching was not especially conducive to learning. I did however particularly enjoy the lecture on ‘Maps and Atlases’ and really connected with the idea of bias within something that is solidly assumed to be completely objective.
‘The Bible and the Arts’ was taught in a well structured manner, and while several of the class felt that this module was a lot more demanding in terms of the work completed for the marks achieved, it was still a worthwhile module to undertake and I would heartily recommend this to anyone wondering about it.
I was not very confident leading into the exams of the first semester’s work. I felt under-prepared and health-wise was feeling quite run down, and as a result was expecting to gain around a mid 2.2 for the semester’s grade. When I received my results however, I was very pleased to discover that I had done better than I expected, which then boosted my confidence going into the second semester, which I was looking forwards to more than I had the first as I felt I had more interest in the topics to be covered.
‘The Bible and the Literary Imagination’ module has given me a valuable insight into Literary studies and their application within Biblical Studies as well as again, challenging my own, admittedly sometimes narrow-minded, approaches to the text, and bringing the ideas of different approaches I would not have otherwise considered into being. At the end of this module however, I am glad that ‘The Bible and the Post-modern’ is not a feature my syllabus for next year as I found the lectures on Post-modernism and Deconstructuralist Theory mind-boggling!
‘The Bible and the Liberation of the Oppressed’ module was somewhat different to what we had been expecting. The news that we would be looking at Liberation Theology was not met with great approval, as there had been no mention of this before beginning it (although with it’s inclusion in the syllabus as a core module it would have made little difference if it had, other than we would have been expecting it). Unfortunately due to illness and various medical appointments I missed more lectures of this module as I would have liked to, but as previously mentioned, the notes for this module have been nothing short of fantastic.
The final module I have studied this year is ‘The Bible and Archaeology’. This module was the most eagerly anticipated module of the entire course for me, as I have wanted to study it since I heard it was possible on the open day for the course at Sheffield. The only criticism that I would make of this module is that there was too much covered in too short a space of time. I would have rather studied less finds and sites, and spent more time on each, however this is only a minor point, and the examination being ‘seen’ means that this makes revision less of a problem than it might have been otherwise. I also liked the idea of splitting up several important finds into the group projects for this module, as it resulted in learning briefly of several things, but having in depth knowledge of one.
As I look towards this semester’s rapidly approaching exams, I am again unconfident. I feel slightly better about the exams themselves after last semester, but I do not want to take for granted the fact that I am possibly too critical of my own ability within the examinations. My worry lies in the essays that I have yet to write. One of the major effects of being ill has been that compared with before I have very little energy and no concentration so writing the essays has been proving very difficult. I do however hope to have them all finished by the end of the semester, even though this means that they will be late.
The highlight of this year was the last lecture of ‘The Bible and Archaeology’ which was a very interesting lecture to start with, all about tombs and burial rituals of Biblical Cultures, but at the end we were shown some artefacts which were found in Jerusalem and date to the time of Jesus, which I found fascinating, and I was then able to hold them myself and really examine them. This was an amazing experience for me.
As I look towards my final year I feel quite bittersweet. I am looking forwards with anticipation to the modules I have chosen to take next year, and writing my dissertation, for which the proposal is currently well underway. I am, however, upset that despite my efforts, my work has not been of the standard I know I can be capable of, although I fully intend to make every effort to do my best with the time I have left, and that this will potentially undermine my satisfaction when I finish next year. I will however give it my most sincere attempt of making the best of what has in some ways been a nightmarish year.

In this essay I intend to examine the Gospel according to Mark in several different ways. This will be achieved by examining four discrete sections, which look at different aspects of the Gospel, and each in each section I will examine several themes found within the context of that section. The first section I intend to deal with is the text of the Gospel, looking at the narrative as well as the context in which the Gospel was written, and the author’s motivations for writing the text. I will also examine the different aspects of the character of Jesus within the Gospel before going on to examine the other major characters groups and their functions within the text.
The second section of this essay will deal with the pretext of the Gospel, examining how the author has interacted with what has gone before– in this case the text is the Old Testament.
The third section of the essay will deal with the co-text, looking at how the Gospel interacts with other works on the same topic, as well as works from the same period of time, both biblical and non-canonical.
The final section of the essay will deal with the post-text, examining whether the author’s aims in writing the Gospel have been achieved, and also how the Gospel has been used in both sacred and secular environments up to the present day.
Before moving onto the first section, however, it is my intention to give some basic information appertaining to the subject of the essay, the gospel itself.

The Gospel According to Mark is the second of the four canonical Gospels found within the New Testament (the others being Matthew, Luke, and John respectively). Of these canonical Gospels, Mark is the shortest in length, as well as being the least detailed of the gospels.
Over time, the definition of the genre of a Gospel has changed somewhat. From soon after the Gospels were first written until quite recently, a Gospel’s genre was classified as a biography, after the gospels were referred to as ‘memoirs of the apostles’ , which at the time, was considered a direct comparison to Xenophon’s ‘biography’ of Socrates . This assumption is quite likely to be correct in that the first readers of the Gospel most likely did read it as a biography, as there are clear comparisons that can be drawn between the Gospels and early Graeco-Roman biographies from the same period. Soon into the nineteenth century, with the introduction of new methods of analysis of the gospels, scholars began to examine the texts for their value as historical sources, which led to a study into the differences found between the gospels, especially those within the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and thus for a way to resolve them.
Whilst the quest to define the genre of the Gospels as history was taking place, another way of defining their genre was developing, and the Gospels moved from being biographies to being ‘profoundly theological writings’ This was largely a result of the emergence of ‘Form criticism’, which led scholars to believe that the gospels, and their traditions could be analysed by their structure, and this was especially the case with the Gospel of Mark.
The current approach to defining the genre of the Gospels is a literary one, taking the Gospels as stories crafted by the author, to draw the reader into the plot and ally with some characters, and against others.
It is believed that the Gospel of Mark may have been written around 70CE, this date comes from what may be a veiled reference (Mk 13:14) by the author to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which took place in 70CE, as well as other allusions to events taking place in the years leading up to that one.


The Text of Mark.
Before the Gospels (both canonical and non-canonical) came into existence, their content existed as oral tradition, passed down from one generation to the next- different stories of the sayings and teaching of Jesus, the miracles performed, and the events of his life were spread by word of mouth between the people of the area and to other regions, and a good definition of the content of the text is a collection of these oral traditions, written down. However these gathered ‘anecdotes’ have been chosen, written, and ordered into a story detailing the events in the life of Jesus.

The Gospel Narrative.
Stanton, in his book ‘The Gospels and Jesus’ describes Mark’s Gospel as ‘a dramatic story with a Prologue followed by five sections’
At this point it is important to note that the Gospels, although written down, were intended to be read out, and as such, the above description is perfectly suited to the purpose of the Gospel.
The Prologue, which extends from Mark 1:1-13, sets out the major themes of Mark’s gospel, which can be summarised into: Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy, Jesus as the Messiah, and Jesus as a deliverer. This section contains John the Baptist’s heralding of Jesus’ coming,
Jesus’ baptism, and the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The first section begins immediately after the prologue with the proclamation of good news, followed by the calling of the disciples, and then Jesus teaching and healing, with opposition to Jesus building up to the end of the section and the first climax of the text, where the first reference to Jesus death can be found (Mk 3.6). The second and third section, follow a similar pattern to the first – building up to a climax and then the next section. The fourth section takes place in the area around Jerusalem, and ends with Jesus’ dramatic prophecy of the events to come (Mk 13.5-37). The final section deals with the Passion narrative- The Last Supper, Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion, and the empty tomb (It is thought that the gospel of Mark ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb and the final versions were added at a later time).

Portrayal of Jesus through the Gospel of Mark.
Throughout the Gospel, Mark defines the character of Jesus in four main ways which will be examined in more detail. The first is that of Jesus as the Hero.
According to Vladimir Propp: ‘…everyone is assigned a role in the narrative… One character is central, and around him and his actions are grouped other people, his opponents, his helpers, or those whom he saves.’ In the Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is depicted as the central character, and the story revolves around him and his actions. The author’s portrayal of Jesus as a Hero for this purpose is as a rescuer. Events which are included in this portrayal are healings (Mk 1:30-34; 1:40-43; 5:22-43 for example), deliverances (Mk 1:23-26; 5:2-13 etc), and other encounters with characters in the narrative which involve provision, protection, or the miraculous (Mk 4:37-41; 6:35-44 etc). In the majority of these encounters the author is attempting to show Jesus’ authority over all things – sickness, evil spirits, nature etc. It is also interesting to note, however, especially with the healing encounters, that the events included in the gospel seem to be drawing the marginalised towards Jesus- the lepers (Mk 1:40-43), outcasts from society- forced to live outside the city gates, paraletics, the deformed, the blind (Mk 2:3-12; 4:25-34, etc) - people were essentially abandoned by everyone and left to beg for alms or die in the streets. The author may have included these specific encounters to convey to his audience that Jesus does draw the destitute, the outcasts, and the outsiders to him, as an encouragement to his readers.
The second way in which the author of the Gospel of Mark portrays Jesus is that of a teacher.
Most of Jesus’ interactions that are not healings, or exorcisms, or miracles involve Jesus the teacher (some include both), for example in the case of the paraletic in Mk2.3-12). Whilst Jesus only explicitly refers to himself as a teacher once in the Gospel of Mark (Mk 14:14), one can see many instances throughout the Gospels where Jesus teaches. Several of these events are preceded by a question, or challenge from his opponents, which Jesus then responds to, either in the form of a parable (Mk 2:18-22 for example), or by quoting scripture from the Old Testament (Mk 2:23-28; 7:1-13).
The Kingdom of God is a central theme to the teachings of Jesus.
The fact that some of the first words of the Gospel were ‘the Kingdom of God has come near’ (Mk 1:14) seems to substantiate this theory. The parables that Jesus told were also a large part of the teachings of Jesus ‘he did not speak to them without a parable’ (Mk 4:34). The author of Mark includes six definitive parables in his account of the Jesus narrative (which should be noted is considerably less in number than the Gospels of Matthew and Luke). Three of these can be found in Mark chapter four, followed by a lengthy explanation made to the disciples in private, which is thought to be the authors own interpretation of these parables. Such parables generally fall into one of three categories: allegories, in which each detail is significant in itself. A good example of an allegory in Mark’s Gospel is in Mk 12:1-12, where Jesus is talking about a vineyard (symbolic of Israel), whose master (God) has gone away for a while and sends servants to check the vineyard, but the servants are treated badly and killed (these servants are symbolic of the Old Testament prophets), so the master sends his son (Jesus) in the hope that the occupants of the vineyard will respect him, however, he is also killed and cast out of the vineyard. Similitudes- an extended comparison referring to an everyday situation, for example, ‘The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed’ (Mk 4:31), and these similitudes often refer to an aspect of the Kingdom of God. Narrative parables can be compared to a metaphor, with their content a direct comparison, and to the point. The parable of the Sower (Mk 4:3-8) is a good example of this – leaving the recipient to reflect on the double meaning contained within. The important thing to note with these teachings, is that they were given in a context that the first recipients would understand: farming, fishing, sowing are all things which the people hearing these words would have been very familiar with, and debate in the past has argued that each parable made one point and the other aspects of it (symbolism within the context etc) were irrelevant, which has since been rejected, as have attempts to link specific parables with incidents in Jesus’ life.
In addition to these different forms of parable, and teaching around the kingdom of God, a significant amount of the teaching contained within the Gospel of Mark takes the form of Aphorisms – sayings which do not need a narrative context and are complete in themselves.
‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’ (Mk 2:17) is one such example of such a saying, others such as Mk 2:21; 2:22; 3:24-27, can be found throughout the Gospel.
The third way in which Jesus is presented by the author in this Gospel is as a prophet. Jesus the prophet is closely related to Jesus the teacher. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus’ status as a prophet is alluded to more than once (Mk 6:4; 6:15; and 8:28), and during the transfiguration narrative (Mk 9:2-8), Jesus is seen with, who were in Jewish culture considered to be the greatest prophets, Moses and Elijah. The afore-mentioned ‘parable of the Sower’, can be used as an example of Jesus the prophet. In this parable the author chooses to show Jesus hinting at what is to happen to him (rejection and death).
The most notable prophetic statement attributed to Jesus by the author in Mark’s Gospel is that of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. In verse two Jesus states ‘Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.’ (Mk 13:2) Jesus heralds this event as being the beginning of the ‘end times’, where ‘nation will rise against nation’ (Mk 13:8) and ‘the powers in the heaven will be shaken’ (Mk 13:25), climaxing with the triumphant return of the Son of man ‘with power and glory’ (Mk 13:26). In the time of Jesus, prophets also used actions as a visual demonstration of their prophecies, and this can also be seen in the portrayal of Jesus in this Gospel, the most notable events being the ‘cleansing of the Temple’ (Mk 11:15-17) with Jesus predicting the fall of the temple and Jerusalem as above, and the cursing of the fig tree (Mk 11:15-17; 20-25) which is widely accepted to be Jesus’ symbolic depiction of the impending judgement of God on Israel. Other symbolic inferences as to what is yet to come are often read into other passages within the Gospel of Mark, such as Jesus’ choice of 12 disciples (representative of the 12 tribes of Israel), sharing food with social outcasts (everyone can be included in the kingdom of God), and the Last Supper (symbolic of Jesus crucifixion and his atonement of sin), (Mk 2:16-17; 3:16-19; 14:22-25 respectively).
The author of Mark’s gospel combines some aspects of the above depictions of Jesus with other parts of the text to show Jesus as the Messiah. The most obvious reference here is when Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ (Mk 8:27-30). The author shows throughout the plot that Jesus’ identity as messiah is not what the expected view was – it was common belief that the messiah would arrive in a blaze of glory and deliver them from Roman oppression; this is particularly clear in the passage immediately following the above reference where Jesus seems to be addressing readers of the Gospel that being the messiah means enduring death and suffering, and those who follow the messiah may well endure a similar fate.

Other characters and their functions.
Whilst Jesus, is indeed the focus of the text, the events would not have happened without the other characters in the Gospel narrative, and according to Propp , each of these sets of characters have their own function in the narrative. The first group of people, probably the second most important people in the Gospel are the disciples – who can be described as Jesus’ followers and helpers. The disciples are not only people who feature in the story, but the authors intention is for the reader to be able to empathise with this group of people, who are
by no means portrayed as perfect, including tax collectors, some of the most hated people in the community at that time, in their number. The disciples are portrayed as having many flaws, and throughout the text, along with them learning and following Jesus, and helping him (Mk 6:7-13), we also see Jesus challenging them and correcting them, and in my opinion it is the intent of the author for the reader to side with the Disciples, and see their faults in their own lives and address them and choose to follow Jesus teachings for themselves .
The next group of people in the narrative are the donors and patrons. This includes the women in the Gospel and the friends of Jesus who did not number in the Disciples, for example, the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet (Mk 14:3-9), Joseph of Arimathea, and John the Baptist. The next significant group are Jesus’ opponents. These vary in name throughout the Gospel, being referred to as scribes (Mk 2:6; 3:22; 7:5; 11:18;27; 12:28; 14:1;43;53; 15:1), Pharisees (Mk 2:24; 3:6; 7:5; 8:11; 10:2; 12:13), people or crowd, (Mk 2:18; 14:43), Herodians (Mk 3:6; 12:13), King Herod and Herodias (Mk 6:14;17),chief priests (Mk 11:18; 27; 14:1;10;43;53;55; 15:11). Elders (Mk 11:27; 14:43;53; 15:1), high priest (Mk 14:47;53;60), the whole council (Mk 14:55; 15:1), Pilate (Mk 15:2), and soldiers (Mk 15;16).
Whilst these people were against Jesus’ purpose according to the author, they were often the people who provided the opportunity for Jesus’ teachings and message to be given. The final group the author includes in the narrative of the Gospel is the crowd. To some extent the crowd are also followers, however there are instances where the disciples are compared to the crowd, seeming to outline that those who follow Jesus are almost on a higher status, however the author’s inclusion of both groups together creates the unsaid idea that Jesus came for all people, not just those who he chose (the disciples), or those who he allowed to follow him and hear what he had to say (the crowd).


Pretext within the Gospel of Mark.
The author refers back to the Old Testament quite frequently throughout the Gospel, and the majority of these references are for one of two main reasons.
The first kind of references made are usually spoken by Jesus, in response to a question asked by someone, either as a challenge to Jesus’ authority, or by a genuine desire for knowledge.
For example, in Mk 2:24-5 the Pharisees question the disciples working on the Sabbath, and Jesus responds with a passage justifying the disciples’ right to continue (1Sam 21:1-6). Another example can be found in Mk 12:28-32. In this passage Jesus directly quotes scripture in response to the scribe’s question (Lev 19:18). Other examples of this, and Jesus using the Old Testament to explain a point can be found throughout the Gospel, including at Mk 3;23; 7:10; 10 7-8.
The second main use of Old Testament scripture in the Gospel of Mark is the author’s portrayal of Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy. The first use of this is in Mk 1:11, at Jesus’ baptism, and the words spoken by God at that point are taken from Ps 2:7. In Mk 7:6-7, Jesus claims that the people he is addressing are the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 29:13).
The words of the crowd in Mk 11:9 echo those of Ps 188:26. ‘Blessed is he who enters in the name of the Lord.’ Looking around those words in the psalm we see that immediately before this the psalmist writes ‘Save us, we beseech thee’ (Ps 118:25) for which the Hebrew word is Hosanna thus the crowd is claiming that Jesus is the answer to the psalmist’s prayer.
In the midst of Jesus’ eschatological prophecy in chapter 13, Jesus implies that he is ‘the Son of man’ (Mk 13:26) previously prophesied by Daniel (Dan 7:13.). Jesus repeats this claim in Mk 14:62 when he is asked ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ (Mk 14:61). Again we see the authors’ claim of fulfilment of prophecy in Mk 14:17-21, Judas betrayal of Jesus. ‘Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted his heel against me.’(Ps 41:9).
Jesus indicates in Mk 14.27 that he is the shepherd Zechariah prophesied about (Zech. 13:7), also again hinting at his impending death.
The crucifixion itself carries echoes of parts of Ps 22. Verse one contains the same words spoken by Jesus as he died- ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Mk 15:34), verse seven - ‘all who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads.’ (Mk 15:29), verse 16- ‘they have pierced my hands and feet’ describes the way in which Jesus died, and verse 18 –‘ they divide my garments among them, and for my raiment they cast lots.’ (Mk 15:24). The references to the Old Testament in both ways that the author uses them are given in different ways. Almost all of the references to the scriptures as response or instruction are intradigetic – told in character. In the author’s use of the Old Testament referring to prophecy however, the ways in which these are conveyed are a mix of intradigetic and extradigetic, where the narrator is the one quoting scripture, this is particularly applicable to the crucifixion narrative, where it is the narrator who tells us that the people mocked, and the soldiers cast lots. This skilled use of incorporating the Old Testament suggests that the author had considerable knowledge of the scriptures, and his use of these scriptures were deliberate to communicate a point to the reader.


Co-texts of the Gospel of Mark.
The obvious co-texts of the Gospel of Mark are the other synoptic gospels of the Bible. It is widely accepted that Mark is one of the main sources for both Matthew and Luke, and as such, both agree with the content of Mark, if embellishing it for their own purposes. Both Matthew and Luke however have a considerable amount of material which is not common to all three synoptic gospels, which leads scholars to believe that Matthew and Luke shared a common source, known as ‘Q’ , however it is assumed that the author of Mark’s gospel did not have access to this material at the time of writing. There are however, parts of the gospel which are unique, including the parable of the seed (Mk 4:26-9), and the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mk 8:22-6).
There is little evidence to suggest that any of the apocryphal gospels used the Gospel of Mark as a source, or were used by the author of Mark as a source.
It would also be fitting to see if there are any sources from the period which can substantiate any of the claims made by the author of the Gospel. Josephus, a Jewish historian (CE37-100) does make reference to Jesus within his writings, which along with scattered references in other Jewish literature from around the same time period does support Jesus’ actual existence. Outside of this there is practically no evidence to substantiate the authors claims as to what happened in the life of Jesus.

Post-text of the Gospel of Mark
The Gospel of Mark was probably first written for the general Christian community that was beginning to emerge at that time, who would have met in house-churches and would have been in communication with one another, and quite possibly the author of the Gospel, as Mark contains some references to people such as Simon of Cyrene being ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus’(Mk 15.21) which suggests that there was definitely some communication between the author and the first recipients of the Gospel. The Gospel was probably intended to be used as an encouragement to these early Christians and as a reminder of the teachings of Jesus, and their role as followers. This is most likely how the Gospel has been used, both in the past, by the first recipients of it, right through to the present day, within churches who, in combination with the other canonical writings, use it to teach Christians the way of living set out by these scriptures and books, and about the character of Jesus, and God.
The author of the Gospel of Mark will have also had desires for the Gospel to be used as an evangelical tool, to spread what he believes to be the good news to people who have not yet heard it. This aim has also doubtlessly been achieved, from the first readings of the Gospel to the small communities it was written for along with people who didn’t yet belong to one of those communities, through to today, with evangelical missions such as the ‘Alpha course using the Gospel of Mark, along with the other gospels to explore questions relating to Jesus’ life, and the lives of the people asking such questions.
Outside of a religious setting, narratives from the Gospel of Mark has been taken and expanded (much like the authors of Matthew and Luke carried out the same process) and dramatised into film, theatre, musicals, art, and opera which are not always completely true to their sources (for example, Jesus was most likely not present for Mary Magdalene’s supposed confession of love for him as in Jesus Christ Superstar) but instead attempt to fill in the gaps and answer the questions that the Gospel leaves us with. Even though these secular interpretations of the narrative may not be aware they are doing so, they are also helping to ensure that the author’s intentions are fulfilled – that the good news contained in the Gospel is made available to many.

In this essay I intend to examine the Gospel according to Mark in several different ways. This will be achieved by examining four discrete sections, which look at different aspects of the Gospel, and each in each section I will examine several themes found within the context of that section. The first section I intend to deal with is the text of the Gospel, looking at the story contained within the text as well as the context in which the Gospel was written, and the author’s motivations for writing the text. I will also examine the different aspects of the character of Jesus within the Gospel, and why he was portrayed in such a way, before going on to examine the other major characters and character functions (ALLUDE TO PROPP) in the text.
The second section of this essay will deal with the pretext of the Gospel, examining how the author has interacted with what has gone before and his reasons for doing so – in this case the text is the Old Testament.
The third section of the essay will deal with the co-text, looking at how the Gospel interacts with other works on the same topic, as well as works from the same period of time, both biblical and non-canonical.
The final section of my essay will deal with the post-text, examining whether the author’s aims in writing the Gospel have been achieved, and also how the Gospel has been used in both sacred and secular environments up to the present day.
Before moving onto the first section, however, it is my intention to give some basic information appertaining to the subject of the essay, the gospel itself.
The Gospel According to Mark is the second of the four canonical Gospels found within the New Testament (the others being Matthew, Luke, and John respectively). Of these canonical Gospels, Mark is the shortest in length, as well as being the least detailed of the gospels.
Over the centuries, the actual definition of the genre of a Gospel has changed somewhat. From soon after the Gospels were first written until quite recently, a Gospel’s genre was classified as a biography, after the gospels were referred to as ‘memoirs of the apostles’ , which at the time, was considered a direct comparison to Xenophon’s ‘biography’ of Socrates . This assumption was still in place in the nineteenth century, until the introduction of new methods to examine the gospels, however it is quite likely that the first readers of the Gospel did read it as a biography, and there are clear comparisons that can be drawn between the Gospels and early Graeco-Roman biographies from the same period. Soon after the introduction of these new methods of analysis of the gospels, scholars began to examine the texts for their value as historical sources, which led to a study into the differences found between the gospels, especially those within the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and thus for a way to resolve them.
Whilst the quest to define the genre of the Gospels as history was taking place, another way of defining their genre was developing, and the Gospels moved from being biographies to being ‘profoundly theological writings’ This was largely a result of the emergence of Form criticism, which led scholars to believe that the gospels, and their traditions could be analysed by their structure, and this was especially the case with the Gospel of Mark.
The current approach to defining the genre of the Gospels is a literary one, taking the Gospels as stories crafted by the author, to draw the reader into the plot and ally with some characters, and against others.
It is believed that the Gospel of Mark may have been written around 70CE, this date comes from what may be a veiled reference (Mk 13:14) by the author to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, which took place in 70CE, as well as other allusions to events taking place in the years leading up to that one.
The Text of Mark.
In order to better understand the text and content of the Gospel, it will be useful to note the context in which the text was first written:
The Gospel of Mark was probably originally written for the general Christian community that was beginning to emerge at that time, who would have met in house-churches and would have been in communication with one another, and quite possibly the author of the Gospel, as Mark contains some references to people such as Simon of Cyrene being ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus’(Mk 15.21) which suggests that there was definitely some communication between the author and the first recipients of the Gospel.
Before the Gospels (both canonical and non-canonical) came into existence, their content existed as oral tradition, passed down from one generation to the next- different stories of the sayings and teaching of Jesus, the miracles performed, and the events of his life were spread by word of mouth between the people of the area and to other regions, and a good definition of the content of the text is a collection of these oral traditions, written down. However these gathered ‘anecdotes’ have been written into a story detailing the events in the life of Jesus.
Stanton, in his book ‘The Gospels and Jesus’ describes Mark’s Gospel as ‘a dramatic story with a Prologue followed by five sections’
At this point it is important to note that the Gospels, although written down, were intended to be read out, and as such, this description is perfectly suited to the purpose of the Gospel.
The Prologue, which extends from Mark 1:1-13, sets out the major themes of Mark’s gospel, which can be summarised into: Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy, Jesus as the Messiah, and Jesus as a deliverer. This section contains John the Baptist’s heralding of Jesus’ coming,
Jesus’ baptism, and the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. The first section begins immediately after the prologue with the proclamation of good news, followed by the calling of the disciples, and then Jesus teaching and healing, with opposition to Jesus building up to the end of the section and the first climax of the text, where the first reference to Jesus death can be found (Mk 3.6). The second and third section, follow a similar pattern to the first – building up to a climax and then the next section. The fourth section takes place in the area around Jerusalem, and ends with Jesus’ dramatic prophecy of the events to come (Mk 13.5-37). The final section deals with the Passion narrative- The Last Supper, Jesus’ arrest, crucifixion, and the empty tomb (The gospel of Mark does ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb).

below is my roman world portfolio, finally landing on around the 7/8000 word mark with pics and headers/footers... the pics arent up here, but if you reeally wanna look at the pics, look at the sites in the bibliographies!!!
opinions appreciated.





Chapter One:
Roman religion
– Principal Gods and Goddesses and their origins.
The Romans as a people were highly polytheistic, and their religion was not based upon any beliefs of their own, ‘but on a mixture of fragmented rituals, taboos, superstitions, and traditions which they collected over the years from a number of sources.’ These sources included the Greeks (from which much of Roman culture can be linked to), the Etruscans, the Latium tribes and the Egyptians.
Because the Romans had so many gods and goddesses, there is not adequate time or space to consider all of them, so I am going to consider what is seen to be the Roman pantheon, which is the major gods and goddesses associated with ancient Rome.
Saturn is considered as being at the head of the genealogy of the religion of the Romans. Few details remain about him, except that he was the god of sowing and the father of Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto. He was the original king of the gods but was soon overthrown by Jupiter. Saturn was one of the oldest existing gods of the Romans and was celebrated each year with the festival ‘Saturnalia’ which was a week long and brought normal life to a standstill for the Roman people. The king of the Roman gods was Jupiter (also known as Jove), who can be closely identified with Zeus in Greek mythology. Jupiter was god of the heavens, and was greatly feared by the Romans as he was rumoured to throw thunderbolts down to earth in his anger. His wife was Juno (Greek name Hera) and she was Queen of the gods, and was also the goddess of women, marriage and childbirth. She was prayed to especially with regards to things such as safe birth of a child, or a happy and long lived marriage.
The next god worth noting in this section is Neptune, the god of the sea and earthquakes, and brother of Jupiter. Neptune was an important god to the Roman people as he had the power to ensure a ships safe passage and return, and would often be beseeched, as sea travel was dangerous in those times.
Pluto was the god of the dead and death. He is very closely associated with Hades, his greek predecessor and it is suggested that ‘the Romans had no god of the dead before they came into contact with Greek culture in the 700's B.C.’
Venus was the goddess of love, and beauty. She was also the goddess of fields. She was an important figure in Roman mythology, associated with the building of Rome and as a result some of the major Roman temples were dedicated to her. She was married to Vulcan, the god of fire and also referred to as the ‘blacksmith of the gods’ however, it was rumoured that she fell in love with Mars, and as a result of an affair, gave birth to a son Cupid, who is well renowned throughout history for his arrows of love.
Mars was the god of war. He was given special significance by the Romans, who believed that he was the father of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome. Prior to being the god of war, he was the god of farmland and fertility, and it was only after the Romans came into contact with Greek mythology that he took on the character with which he is best associated today.
Mercury, the son of Jupiter was seen as the ‘messenger’ of the gods. He was also the god of roads and travel and merchants in Roman mythology and as such would have been a regular person worshipped and prayed to by the Roman people, especially travellers and soldiers wanting safe passage down the roads. He was also considered a protector of criminals and some Romans regarded him as crafty and deceptive. He carried a winged staff with snakes curled round it, which is often associated with medicine today.
Apollo was the god of the arts, especially music and poetry, and was also regarded as a god of healing and prophecy, and as such would have been very important to the Romans. He was also deemed responsible for the daily passage of the sun across the sky. He was the twin sister of Diana, the goddess of light, especially the moon, and unity. She was also the goddess of the hunt and protector of children. In this respect she would have been an important figure to all Roman mothers.
Minerva was the goddess of crafts, industry, the arts and wisdom. She was also known as the goddess of war and the protector of heroes and as such would be an important figure to the Roman army on both a corporate and individual level. She would also have played an important part in the religious life of a craftsman.
Ceres was an important goddess to all Roman people. She was the goddess of agriculture, and as such would be worshipped so as to ensure a good harvest for the people, and thus enough food with which to live and trade. The ‘Cerealia’ was held in her honour, and ‘There was a women's 9-day fast and festival when women offered the first corn harvest to Ceres, originally celebrated every five years, but later - by the time of Augustus - held every October 4.’
Another intrinsically important goddess to the Roman people was Vesta, the goddess of the hearth and fire. She was worshipped daily, and was of particular importance to women ‘for the hearth was where the food was prepared and cooked, and beside it the meal was eaten.’
During the meals a portion of the food would be thrown into the fire as an offering to Vesta. Her temple was situated in Rome, and was attended by the Vestal Virgins, whose job was to keep the sacred eternal fire burning. The Vestal Virgins were ‘priestesses who were dedicated to the Goddess' service for thirty years, and who were headed by the Virgo Maxima, the eldest Vestal.’ Vesta was so well respected that if a condemned man were to find a Vestal, he would be pardoned of his crime, however, if a Vestal Virgin was found to have broken any of the laws given whilst in service, her punishment would be that of being buried alive.
The final god to be considered here is Janus, another god of the utmost importance to the household. Janus was the god of doorways. He had two faces, which looked in opposing directions, and there are many interpretations as to why this is: ‘that it represents opening and closing a door, going in and coming out, or viewing (and thus guarding) both the inside and outside of a house.’ Janus is also considered to be the god of beginnings, and it is therefore unsurprising to find that the first month of the Roman calendar is accredited to him. ‘He was invoked at the start of each new day and often referred to as the Porter of Heaven. He particularly presided over all that is double-edged in life and represented the transition between the primitive and civilisation.’



These are pictures of Roman deities.


Bibliography:
Books:
- Kamm, Antony ‘The Romans: An Introduction’ (London: Routledge 2003)
Websites:
- Gods and Goddesses, http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/deities.html

- Janus: Roman god of beginnings. http://www.novareinna.com/festive/janus.html

- Roman and Latin: Roman Gods: http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Fountain/5832/gods.htm

-Roman Mythology and Solar System. http://www.nashville.k12.tn.us/CurriculumAwards/Roman_Myth.html

-The Gods of Old http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Ring/5382/gods.html

chapter two

Chapter Two:
A Roman Soldier
I am going to focus on two main areas in this chapter. The first is the dress i.e. uniform and armour of a Roman soldier, and the second is the weaponry he would have.
Because there were several types of soldier within the Roman Army at its height, I am going to consider the generic Roman Infantry soldier.
The first and one of the most important pieces of uniform to consider is the footwear of the Roman soldier. He wore caligae, a type of sandal. A picture of what they would look like can be found at the end of this chapter. Whilst they look as if they would not offer much in the way of protection or tread, they were actually quite cleverly constructed. The tops were made from leather straps, and the shape of the shoes themselves, and the open design helped in the prevention of blisters forming on feet which were expected to walk up to 25 miles a day.
On the underside of the shoe were iron studs, which were not supplied by the Roman Army, and a soldier would have to buy these himself. These helped the soldier’s feet grip when walking over rough terrain, and were also useful for stamping on the enemy in the midst of battle.
The soldiers garments consisted of linen underclothes covered by a short sleeved tunic which was knee length. ‘Although the Romans had originally considered the wearing of trousers (bracae) a foreign and effeminate habit, legionaries in cold climates were allowed to wear trousers made of wool or leather which were skin tight and reached just below the knee.’
On top of the tunic came the breastplate, or the ‘lorica segmentata’ ‘(The expression 'lorica segmentata' is an expression created by scholars to describe the armour, rather than being the term necessarily used by the Romans themselves.)’ This consisted of several overlapping iron strips fastened together by leather straps, and offered good protection to the soldier whilst retaining freedom to move and yield weaponry. There were several different versions of this kind of armour ranging from very simple, to quite complex designs. Again a picture of this can be found at the end of the section.
Around the waste of a roman soldier you would find a belt. This was housing to the dagger carried and also the apron. The belt was made of leather, and the apron consisted of numerous leather strips with metal discs attached to them, almost a medal holder, as often the discs would represent the different battles the soldier had fought in. The apron was seen to be mainly decorative, although it would have offered some protection to the lower stomach and groin area, but this would be limited, and the soldier was much more likely to rely on his shield.
The shield, or scutum was carried on the left side by the soldier and was curved to enhance its protective qualities. The shield was constructed of small flat pieces of wood, quite similar to plywood to make the shield light enough to carry when on the march. This was edged in bronze or iron, and the outside covered in leather. The handle was situated on the inside of the shield. The shield could also be used offensively as well as defensively, as in the middle, was the umbo, an iron covering for the hand grip, which was a solid raised piece of iron or bronze, and could be used to hit an enemy in the face causing them quite substantial damage.
Often the soldier would wear a woollen scarf around his neck to prevent the breastplate or helmet rubbing against him. The helmet (cassis or galea) was constructed from bronze and shaped so that it touched the soldiers head only at the rim. This would make the soldier seem taller, thus intimidating his enemy, and offer protection against otherwise potentially fatal blows to the skull. On the picture at the end, it is possible to see a protrusion from the front of the helmet, which prevented a sword blow from splitting the helmet. On the back on the helmet was a section that covered the neck from both swords and rebounded or deflected objects from shields. On the sides of the helmet were two hinged sections, which protected the cheeks and jawbone of the soldier and fastened together with a leather tie at the bottom.
We now move on to examine the weapons of a Roman soldier.
The first of these weapons is the dagger, or pugio. This was carried on the left hand side of the body and attached to the belt. It consisted of an ergonomically designed handle and a pear-shaped blade, made from iron or bronze. The dagger was occasionally used in warfare, especially in close combat, but was also used as a general multi-purpose knife, just as a pen knife might be used today.
The next item of weaponry a soldier would possess would be the gladius or sword. It is described as a ‘a double-bladed weapon two feet long and two inches wide, often with a corrugated bone grip.’ This was located on the right hand side of the soldiers body, regardless of which hand he was naturally inclined to use. The soldier was trained to draw the sword with his right hand and use a thrusting motion, which could be repeated very quickly, and was tactically sound as the Romans fought battles in units of men stood with their sides touching, not individually, and thus using the sword in this way caused the least interference with the person at the side of them.
Each soldier also had in their weapon range ‘two javelins of different weights, each two metres long and with a metal head.’ These pilums were used primarily for disarming the enemy, and were thrown as soon as the enemy was in range. The heavier of the two were most likely reserved for defence against cavalry forces.
A soldier fighting in the light infantry section of the army would also carry missile weapons such as bows and arrows, javelins and slings, and these would be targeted at the oppositions light infantry section in an attempt to divert any fire upon their heavy (more close combat) infantry away towards another area.


These pictures were all taken from the same source- see the bibliography.

Bibliography:
Books:
- Kamm, Antony. ‘The Romans: An Introduction’ (London: Routledge, 2003)

Websites: Text references:

- Legionary Equipment: http://www.roman-empire.net/army/leg-equip.html
- Romans in Britain http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_dagger.htm
- Romans in Britain: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_footwear.htm

Websites: Pictures:
-Romans in Britain: [http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_belt.htm]
-Romans in Britain: [http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_breastplate.htm]
-Romans in Britain: [http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_dagger.htm]
-Romans in Britain: [http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_footwear.htm]
-Romans in Britain: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_helmet.htm
-Romans in Britain: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_shield.htm
-Romans in Britain: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/mil_roman_soldier_sword.htm

chapter three



Chapter Three:
Roman Women
In this chapter I intend to examine the what the life of a Roman woman might have been like as a Matrona which is defined as: ‘a legally married Roman woman of respectable background (not someone infamis, "disreputable")’. After this, I will go on to look at the subject of betrothal and marriage in a more in depth fashion.
To begin, it must be stated that in Roman times, the social status of the world was biased severely in favour of men. Women had few rights of their own, and were very much seen as being of a lower class than Roman men, and as such were often treated accordingly.
In general, the new-born Roman child had a battle for survival, but this dramatically increased if the baby was female in gender as a female was unable to continue the family line.
The life of a Roman girl began with an inspection by the midwife. The midwife made the first decision as to whether the child would live or die at this point as she checked the child for abnormalities and deformities. If the baby was deemed healthy, they then faced another life or death decision. Because a girl was seen as having little to contribute to the family, the father of the child made the decision as to whether they could afford to raise a girl, as continuity of the family line was deemed more important to the Romans. This was decided soon after the midwife’s decision that the girl was healthy. The baby was placed on the floor and if the father picked the child up this was a symbol of the father’s acceptance of the child into the household. Many girls however were not accepted, and they would be left to die by means of exposure. This was deemed a perfectly normal thing to do in Roman times, as it was simply a practical solution to a family’s problem of not having the money or food to keep them.
If the baby girl was accepted into the family, on the eighth day of her life, a ceremony called the ‘dies lustricus’ (day of purification) took place, at which the child would be named, and the family would celebrate.
As the girl grew, she would be taught basic reading writing and arithmetic skills, and also be instructed as to how to speak Latin correctly. The mother of the household would generally be in charge of this task. Whilst intellectual development was encouraged by the parents, the main emphasis on a child’s development would be moral. It was considered most important that a child should develop ‘reverence for the gods, respect for the law, unquestioning and instant obedience to authority, truthfulness, and self-reliance.’
At the age of 7 a girl would begin to learn the skills of housekeeping in preparation for marriage, which for a roman girl, took place at a young age, and this learning also took place at home.
A roman girl was generally married at around ages 12-14, and whilst marriages were arranged between parents around political and financial gain from funerary inscriptions we can see that many of these marriages tended to happy. (The subject of marriage will be examined in greater depth afterwards.)
Once married, the matron, or domina, as she was now known carried power in the household, and was also recognised on a social level, as she was in charge of the children and slaves. She also had influence in both family and state affairs, as can be seen in the repeal of the Oppain Law (195 BCE). After the end of the Punic War matrons demanded the return of their former luxuries quite forcibly:

‘Neither modesty nor the persuasion or authority of their husbands could keep the women indoors. They blocked all the streets and entrances to the forum, vociferously arguing that at a time of prosperity, when men’s personal fortunes were increasing daily, women too should be restored to their former splendours. The press of women increased day by day, as they came in from the towns and outlying districts. They even grew so bold as to waylay and interrogate the consuls, praetors and other officials.’ – History of Rome XXXIV. 1

The Roman matron did not involve going out to work. ‘The woman’s place was firmly in the home: even queuing for the little wooden token entitling a family to the monthly corn dole appears to have been a male prerogative.’
Women were able to wok as wet nurses, midwives, hairdressers, and seamstresses, however the main role of the Roman women was the upkeep of the house, overseeing the education of the children, and of course, producing an heir in order to continue the family line. This was a dangerous task, and it was reported that as many women died in childbirth as men died in war.
Women who survived these things generally had happy lives, and ‘had a place at public games, at theatres and at great religious ceremonies of state. She could testify in court and until late in the Republic, might even defend a case.’ Her birthday was sacredly observes, and every year the ‘matronalia’ was celebrated on the first day of March. When she died she would have been buried, and her respects may have been paid with a public eulogy.
I will now go on to look at a typical arranged marriage, which was the normal thing to happen in Roman times. As stated before, marriages were generally arranged for political and financial or status gain, but in spite of this, were generally contented and successful.
Once a girl was deemed to have reached womanhood, which was usually sometime between the ages of 12-14, she would be formally betrothed to her future husband. Whilst this was not a legal requirement for marriage, it was considered to be good form and practice to do so. During this time a dowry would be arranged between the two families, as this was a point of high honour to the Romans and the bride’s family would provide this. In return the groom would present his bride with a gift, generally that of a ring which ‘was worn on the third finger of the left hand because there was a belief in Roman times and for centuries later that a nerve or sinew ran directly from this finger to the heart.’
The next thing to consider was the choice of date. This was very important, as ‘The Kalends, Nones, and Ides of each months, and the day following each one, were unlucky. So were all of May and the first half of June, because of certain religious ceremonies observed in these months, the memorial days (February 13-21), and the days when the entrance to the lower world was supposed to be open (August 24, October 5, and November 8)’
These dates would have been avoided where possible. It was considered best to be married in the second half of June as Juno was considered the protectress of marriage.
On the night before her wedding, the girl would bring a dedication to the Lares, the household gods, and these included: her bulla (locket), and if she was young, her childish toys’
On the day of her wedding, she would be dressed in her wedding clothes, which generally consisted of a long white dress with a belt, and a flame coloured veil. Her hair would be parted into six locks, which were then coiled and held in place with ribbons, in the same style as the vestal virgins wore their hair.
The ceremony itself would vary between households but centred on the sharing of a wheaten cake. The matron of honour would join the right hands of the bride and groom and silent vows were undertaken. The cake would be blessed by a priest. A procession to the house of the groom then followed, during which the wedding hymn was sung, and upon arrival the bride was carried over the threshold by the groom and given fire and water as symbols of the life they were to live as a married couple, and to formally acknowledge her as domina or matron.. On following nights would be many frivolities and activities, including a feast, and the throwing of the wedding torch to the guests of the wedding.




Bibliography:
The following sources were used in quotes and references:
- Kamm,Antony. ‘The Romans: An Introduction’ (London: Routledge 2003)
- ‘Rome Exposed’ [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/marrcustwom.html]
- ‘Rome Exposed’:[http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/romechildren.html]
- ‘Diotima’: [http://www.stoa.org/diotima/syllabi/skinlecs10.shtml]
- Sheffield University: ‘Handout from lecture on Roman Women’ 2002/3
The following sources were used in research:
- Kamm, Antony. ‘The Romans: An Introduction’ (London: Routledge 2003)
- Carcopino, Jerome.’Daily Life in Ancient Rome’ (London: Penguin 1991)
- ‘Rome Exposed’ [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/marrcustwom.html]
- ‘Rome Exposed’:[http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/romechildren.html]
- ‘Diotima’: [http://www.stoa.org/diotima/syllabi/skinlecs10.shtml]
- Sheffield University: ‘Handout from lecture on Roman Women’ 2002/3
- ‘Feminae Romanae’ http://dominae.fws1.com/Forgotten/Index.html

chapter four


Chapter Four:
Roman Housing
In this chapter, I will be examining the interior layout of a typical roman villa and the furnishings and decoration of these rooms.
The influence of Greek architecture can clearly be seen on more wealthy Roman housing.
Below is a plan of a typical Roman residence, Each number refers to a different section of the house and I will in turn go through each of the areas denoted explaining them.
The classic roman residence was divided into two parts, each grouped around a different area. On the left of the plan one can see the area which is grouped around the atrium (denoted by number 1 on the plan). The atrium was a room that generally contained an opening in the roof, which allowed the circulation of fresh air and helped to regulate the temperature. The rectangle denoted by the number 5 on the plan indicates the impluvium which was a pool set in the floor of the atrium to catch the rainwater which fell into the room. Because the opening in the roof meant a weakening of the overall structure of the house, there needed to be some means of support for the roof. As a result, there are known to be at least five styles of atrium each employing a different means of support for the roof. These are:
‘atrium tuscanium: this type had no columns. The weight of the ceiling was carried by the rafters. though expensive to build, this seems to have been the most widespread type of atrium in the Roman house.
atrium tetrastylum: this type had one column at each corner of the impluvium.
atrium corinthium: this type was similar to the atrium tetrastylum but had a greater opening in the roof and a greater number of columns.
atrium displuviatum: the roof actually sloped towards the side walls, a large rainwater therefore ran off into other outlets than the impluvium.
atrium testudinatum: this atrium had no opening in the roof at all and was only seen in small, unimportant houses.’

The atrium was considered to be the centrepiece of the house and as such was the most decoratively furnished. The atrium also contained the lararium, which was the household chapel dedicated to the ancestral spirits and gods and goddesses of the roman family.
The second part of the house was centred around the peristylum (2) which was an open area in which plants would grow, and was sometimes home to a fountain in the middle. This was also an area open to the sky, and the natural rainfall would water the plants. The impluvium also contained an underground tank, which would store excess rainwater collected.
The house generally contained no windows, but gained its light and air circulation from these two areas. Each room was designed with a specific purpose and were generally all on floor level.
As the house was entered through the vestibulum(3) and fauces (4), on the immediate left and right were the Taberna (10). These were generally accessed from outside the house, and were probably used as shops. Access from the house enabled the tabernas to be used as other things, for example storage purposes if necessary. This wasn’t decorated in a grand manner, and sometimes split into two floors.Travelling in an anti clockwise direction around the atrium, we then arrive at a cubiculum (11). These were the bedrooms of the Roman houses. The Romans did not consider these to be important rooms in the house and were generally the smaller rooms in the house. The ceiling was low, and gave a cramped appearance. The floor was mosaiced and often a rectangular pattern would mark out the position of the bed on the floor.
The next kind of room reached is denoted by the number 6 on the plan and is entitled the Ala (pl. Alae). The function of this room is widely unknown, although in earlier houses where the atrium was covered, it is thought that these areas had windows which allowed in light and air, and later were included purely for traditional purposes.As we continue around the residence, you pass through the andron(12), which was simply a passage way between the atrium and peristylum. The pavimentum, or floor is made from concrete and richer houses would have mosaic on the surface.On the right as we continue the posticum (13)is passed. This was a back entrance used by servants, slaves, and people wishing to leave the house unnoticed. The next two rooms that are seen as we pass around the house are the bathroom (14), and the cucina,(15) or kitchen, both of which are situated on the right hand side as they are passed.
The next area noted on the plan is the exhedra/oecus (9). Both names seem to have been common names for this room. This was a large dining room or lounge, and before the intoroduction of the triclinium the family would have eaten their meals here, and the children would have learned how to read and write in here also. This room would have had a mosaic floor and sometimes columns lining the walls also, in which case it was referred to as the oecus corinthium.
As we circle the peristylum we then reach the tablinium (8). This is situated between the atrium and peristylum. It was the main reception area of the house, and it was here that the family would receive guests, it was separated from the atrium by a curtain, and from the peristylum by wooden screens or doors, which on hot days could be opened fully to increase ventilation in the house. This area was also used as a study for the paterfamilias. The family also ate here in the summer, as it was the coolest place in the house due to the air flow between the two ventilation openings. As we exit the tablinium and turn right, we arrive at the next room, the triclinium(7). This was a room specifically set aside for dining in, and the family would have entertained guests in this room. This room was introduced to the house as the Greek practice of reclining whilst eating became commonplace. Continuing around the atrium brings us back to the entrance of the house.
The ceilings of the roman house were painted bright colours and were vaulted. The doors were panelled and carved or plated with bronze. The floors were made from marble slabs , or in richer households mosaic flooring.
The Romans furnished their houses quite simply, with just what was seen to be the essentials: ‘Even wealthy homeowners had mostly essential articles: couches, chairs, tables and lamps. There was an occasional chest, wooden cabinet with doors, brazier for coals, and a water clock (seldom).’
A couch acted as both a sofa and a bed and mattresses and cushions were used. Tables were ornately designed and were made using stone or wooden tops, and on occasion, thin sheets of metal. The main storage device was the chest, which came in varying sizes and materials. They provided the house with heat using charcoal stoves and artificial light was brought into the house by the means of oil or melted fat lams. Torches were also another common method of providing light to the Roman home.



Bibliography:
Sources quoted in this chapter:
- Rome Exposed [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/intdecor.html]
- The Roman House [http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-house.html]

Sources consulted whilst researching:
- Kamm, Antony. ‘The Romans: An Introduction’ (London: Routledge 2003)
- Rome Exposed [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/intdecor.html]
- Rome Exposed [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/romehouse.html]
- The Roman House [http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-house.html]
- The Roman house(2) [http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/house.htm]

Chapter five-

Chapter Five:
Roman Entertainment
In this chapter I intend to examine three forms of entertainment which would have been widely available throughout roman times: the Races, the Theatre, and the Amphitheatre.
The Roman Calendar was full of holidays. ‘In the reign of Claudius, 159 days in the year were designated public holidays, on 93 of which shows were offered at public expense.’
Some of these shows were Ludi circenses. They took place in the purpose built circuses ,race tracks, and amphitheatres, the most famous of these being the Circus Maximus.
The main requirement for an ‘arena’ in which to hold a race was a long piece of ground.
‘The name arena is derived from the word harena meaning sand. All arenas where covered by sand, and had seats and barriers surrounding them.’
The seats were made from marble or wood and were raised in order to allow a clear view of the race itself. Located at the front of the seats were a marble platform, podium and boxes where senators, magistrates and the such like would be seated. Between the podium and the track was a large metal screen, which offered some protection against animals crashing into the seating.
The race itself generally consisted of seven laps, and the distance of a lap was determined by the particular venue in which the race was taking place.
A chariot race usually consisted of four horses, of different coloured teams, and there was fierce rivalry between both the teams themselves and the supporters of the teams. The aurigae or participants in the race were generally freedmen or slaves. This was one of the few occasions where low class citizens received very high pay. The participants wore a short tunic and cap in their respective teams colour, and carried a knife on their persons in case of emergency. The races were the oldest and most popular form of public entertainment for the Romans.
Another form of public entertainment which was on offer to the Romans was ludi scaenici or the theatre. The theatre was the least popular of the three main forms of public entertainment, but still drew large crowds. There were four main types of play performed at the theatre, and these were comedies, tragedies, farces, and pantomime. The average play lasted in the region of two hours and were always given in the daytime, as there was no lighting in place to allow performances in the dark.
As few people as possible were involved in the performance of a play. The actors were generally slaves (all male) and would often play more than one part. They were managed by a manager, who was often known to reward his troops after a successful performance.
In order to distinguish between the many characters and few actors playing them several conventions were used to differentiate, including the colour of the actor’s wig: ‘Gray wigs represented old men, Black wigs represented young men Red wigs represented slaves’.
‘The brown or white colour of the tragic and comic masks indicated the sex of the actor, while costumes draped in Greek or Roman fashion gave an immediate clue to the nationality and social status of the dramatis personae: white for an old man, multicoloured for a youth, yellow for a courtesan, purple for the rich, red for the poor, a short tunic for the slave, a chlamys for the soldier, a rolled pallium for the parasite, and a motley for the go-between.’ (ibid. III 4;9.)
The stage was always representative of a street with a temple nearby, and the theatre itself was generally located at the bottom of a hill.
Finally, we move onto the final of the three most popular forms of public entertainment in Roman times, and that is munera gladiatoria , or gladiatorial combat.
This took place in the amphitheatre, and looking back is the most well remembered form of public entertainment in Roman times. Gladiators were generally slaves or condemned criminals who were considered to be expendable by both the state and their owners. As the popularity of the gladiatorials grew throughout Rome, the demand for more gladiators increased dramatically.
‘From the time of Augustus all non citizen criminals were sentenced to combat fighting. Later on in the Empire, those found guilty of treason, arson, or murder were forced to fight with lions. Finally by the end years of the empire there were volunteer gladiators, known as auctorati. The Romans became so desperate that they forced men of petty offences into the arena to fight. The persecution of Christianity was mainly to supply gladiators.’

The rule of gladiatorial combat was that similarly armed men and contestants were not allowed to fight each other. This then meant that a weaker contestant or team would face a better armed, and stronger one. In some cases, the crowd was asked to decide whether a wounded fighter should be killed or released. Waving of handkerchiefs signalled a release while the thumbs down meant death for that individual. Often slaves would enter in order to compete for their freedom. The most famous amphitheater is the Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum in Rome which is described as follows;
‘The Colosseum covers nearly six acres of ground. Its interior and the arena are ellipses. The width of 166 ½ feet all around the arena was allotted to the spectators. Under the floor of the arena were chambers which were used as regiments for the gladiators, for dens of wild beasts, beast elevators. Above all these chambers allowed the arena to be flooded very quickly for mock naval battles. The wall that surrounded the arena was fifteen feet high. It was made of marble and had metal reinforcements. There were rollers hung on this wall to prevent the animals from climbing it.’

Above this was situated the seating. The Colosseum seated approximately 80,000 people who came to watch the various style of fighting displayed which included: man against man, man against animal, heavily armed man against lightly armed man, chariots against animals, and mock naval battles. Weapons and armour varied as to whether you were a Samnite, a Thracian or a net-fighter. ‘A Samnite wore a helmet with a visor, a thick sleeve on his right arm, a greave on his let leg, a belt, a short sword, and carried a long shield.’ A Thracian had a smaller shield and curved sword but was otherwise equipped the same as a samnite, but a net fighter had no protection, and his weapons were a net, dagger, and spear.
A gladiatorial would often begin with fights involving blunt instruments until the crowd became bored and the beginning of the more lethal fights were signalled by trumpeters. Any gladiator refusing to enter the arena would be whipped into obedience, or driven in with the use of red hot irons.

Bibliography:

Sources used in references:

- Kamm, Antony The Romans: An Introduction (London: Routledge 2003)
- Rome Exposed: [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/circusesandraces.html]
- Rome Exposed [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/theatres.html]
- Carcopino, Jerome.’Daily Life in Ancient Rome’ (London: Penguin 1991) pp245-246
- Antony Kamm, The Romans: An Introduction (London: Routledge 2003) p126
- Rome Exposed [ http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/amphiglad.html]

Sources used in research:


- Kamm, Antony The Romans: An Introduction (London: Routledge 2003)
- Rome Exposed: [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/circusesandraces.html]
- Rome Exposed [http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/theatres.html]
- Carcopino, Jerome.’Daily Life in Ancient Rome’ (London: Penguin 1991) pp245-246
- Antony Kamm, The Romans: An Introduction (London: Routledge 2003) p126
- Rome Exposed [ http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/amphiglad.html]
- Society: [http://www.roman-empire.net/society/society.html#holidays]
- RomanArt [http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/as/education/projects/webunits/greecerome/Romeart1.html]

Roman world essay comin up....


How did religion affect the lives of ordinary people?

For the Romans, religion was a very important part of their lives. It influenced everything they did, from whether they left their houses that day or not, to whether or not they went to war.
The beginnings of roman religion can be traced back to their belief in ‘numina’, spirits and powers that surrounded everything and everyone. As the Romans began to conquer and explore, they adopted the religious practices and deities they came across, leading to a vast number of gods and goddesses for every conceivable circumstance and a collation of many different cultures, practices and traditions, all with the common factor of having been adopted into the roman system of religion.

The roman view of religion was quite different to that of our own.
‘To the Romans, religion was less a spiritual experience than a contractual relationship between mankind and the forces which were believed to control people's existence and well-being.’ When engaging with a particular deity, the Romans viewed it much like we would a modern-day business pact, with give and take on both sides, and in giving prayers and sacrifices, the Romans reaped the benefits believed to be offered by that particular deity.
This was a typical expectation by the Romans, even though it sometimes caused problems, as the rituals used in the sacrifices were very specific, for example, in live sacrifices, the practice was to offer female animals to goddesses and male animals to gods, so if the gender of the deity was unknown this sometimes made it difficult to observe the ritual correctly, and doing it wrong meant that one would have to begin all over again. For this reason the prayer often included: 'whether you be god or goddess' and in this way correcting the ritual and pleasing the relevant deity. Not every prayer required a live sacrifice, this was fortunate as there was a prayer for almost every occasion, but prayers generally involved a sacrifice involving a symbol of life, which could be bread, milk, wine, or cheese. The sacrifice also depended upon the kind of ritual being practised, as two clear strands of religion were practised. There was a state religion, dealing mainly with political, military and countrywide festivals, and a private religion, which dealt with religion in the home, fields and family.

The state religion was very grand and demanded ceremony and was carried out by ‘pontifices’, and overseen by the ‘pontifex maximus’. Sacrifices were very elaborate and almost always animal sacrificed. The Romans were so superstitious about everything, that they checked the intestines of any animal which was offered to a state god or goddess (Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars, Minerva, Vesta, Diana, Hercules, Mercury, and Apollo) were checked to ensure that the animal was healthy and fit for sacrifice, and problems, and a new animal would be slaughtered and the ritual begun all over again. Whilst the priests were the perpetrators of the rituals of state religion, everybody attended and took part: parades were help, and people offered their own prayers to the gods.

Household religion was a much less grandiose affair, but just as complex and at least as important to the Romans. Household religion was overseen by the head of the household, or the ‘pater familias’, but he was assisted by the whole family. Each household had its own protecting spirit, or ‘Lars Familiaris’, which in agricultural families was also responsible for the fields. Also found in the household was the ‘genius’ which was representative of the manhood of the household, and was usually represented by a snake. This spirit was associated with the head of the household, and primarily his ability to father children. Each morning, the Roman family would gather at the ‘lararium’, which contained its own ‘lares’ and ‘penates’. Their substance would depend upon the wealth of the household. The lares were symbolic of the families dead ancestors, and the penates supposedly looked after the pantry and its contents. The family would then gather at the hearth, and they would pray and offer sacrifices to the household gods.
There were many, many household gods and goddesses, one of the most important of these was Janus, the god of doorways, who was said to have had two heads, one looking in each direction as he guarded the passageway of the door itself. This was, however, by no means the only god who was involved in a roman doorway, there was also Careda, the goddess of the hinges, Forculus, who was the god of the door leaves, and Limentinus, who was the god of the threshold. Just by knowing this information about the religion surrounding a typical family door, we can see that it is very complex.
Another important goddess was Vesta, goddess of the hearth. Prayers were said to Vesta every day and she was especially important to the women, as it was their job to tend to the hearth, and to ensure that a fire would always be burning in the hearth, just as the eternal flame burned in the temple of Vesta in Rome. As well as daily prayers to Vesta, a sacrificial portion of each meal would be offered to her.

Vesta also had significant importance in state religion, so much so that she had her own priesthood of priestesses. These six young women were known as the vestal virgins, and their duty was to maintain the eternal fire in the temple of Vesta. They were chosen between the ages of six and ten years of age and would serve ten years as novices, learning their duties, and the skills involved, followed by ten years of service in the temple, and finally ten years of teaching the next set of novices their duties. The vestal virgins were held as sacred people by the Romans. If you were to injure one of them, you would be put to death, if you were being put to death, however, and saw them, you were pardoned. The young women themselves were held as sacred, and thus were treated with the utmost respect and regard, but this came at a price. If a vestal virgin broke her vow of chastity she would be beaten and then buried alive, and whipped if she allowed the fire in the temple to go out.

The Romans’ lives revolved around religion and superstition, there were many different offices of priesthood, known as collages. Already mentioned are the pontifices, but there was also the college of Augurs, which had 15 priests who were responsible for interpreting omens of the lives of the powerful. It was their decisions which decided whether or not a person would leave their house that day, or if they would ride into battle. The ‘quindecemviri sacris faciundis’ were 15 priests whose main duty was to look after, interpret and guard the Sibylline Books. They also looked at any new gods which were introduced into roman religion. The college of ‘epulones’ was responsible for overseeing the numerous festivals held as part of Roman religion. Festivals held by the Romans included: the ‘liberalia’ (17th March- the roman calendar began on the 15th March), honouring the god of fertile crops, the ‘fordicia’, held on the 15th April, four days later on the 19th of April, a big festival was held to celebrate Ceres, a goddess associated with agriculture, this included a ritual march round fields to purify them. The biggest festival of all however was Saturnalia held on the 17th of December, which became a time of partying throughout the empire, and there is strong speculation that this is what eventually became the Christian celebration of Christmas.

To summarise, religion for the Romans was an integral part of everyday life for them. They did not have a separate religion to the rest of their lives, like today. For them everything had a spiritual side to it, even as minute a thing as opening a door, and their ‘side of the bargain’ meant that they must observe the practices, rituals and traditions of that particular action or that decision, otherwise running the risk of angering the gods, which would bring down all kinds of bad luck. Religion for the Romans was as much a private affair as it was a public one, and so much of their time was spent following and observing its rules, that it could conceivably be said that religion was the life of the Roman people. It affected everything they did, as a person and as an empire, and as far as they could see, their fate was quite literally ‘in the hands of the gods’.










Bibliography

Information was gathered from the following sources:

http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/religion.htm
http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/religion.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romrelig3.html
http://www.realm-of-shade.com/RomanaeAntiquae/religion.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/rel-fields.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/superstitions.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/rel-home.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/sacrifice.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/ceres.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/saturn.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/pics
http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/