or consistent (all the possible solutions, or almost all, have been considered: ethnic
awakening without displacement, movements of mercenaries, infiltrations of armed
gangs: Tagliamonte 1996: 17–21). The majority of authors refuse to consider the
uer sacrumas historic (Dench 1995: 183) and only admit that it “perhaps never
had another existence, but retrospective and legendary” (Heurgon 1957: 51). So it
wouldn’t be – but this is already much – more than a number of myths of origin
following a common pattern. I am not sure for my part that the uer sacrumis entirely
to be ascribed to legend and that it never had a ritual reality. In any case, it should
be admitted that this myth is still productive in historical time, since the conquest
of Messana by the Mamertine mercenaries of Agathocles toward 285 bcis presented
as a sacred spring. The uer sacrumis to be found even in Rome: after the catastrophe
of Trasimene, at the beginning of the Second Punic War (in 217), one is promised,
but it is carried out only approximately twenty years later (in 195–194). One offers
then – to Jupiter, not to Mars – only the newborn animals from March–April 194:
a singularly restrictive interpretation of the expression “sacred spring,” while the Italic
uer sacrumconcerned all animaliaof the year! Moreover, only the cattle are con-
cerned: it is not a question of expulsion of young people. The Roman sacred spring
illustrates perfectly the complex interplay of the similarities and differences between
neighboring religions. In the hour of the utmost danger of the invasion of Italy,
after the consultation of the Sibylline Books, Rome reaches for a tradition, an
Italic mos. But the complete rite is reinvented from Rome’s own perspective (Scheid
1998c: 418 –19).
Meaningful cultural gaps can also be observed on a quite different level:
the votive practices of private persons in sanctuaries, public or not (fig. 4.1).
The increase of Italic epigraphic documentation has made it possible to observe
that all the Oscan speakers, from Vestini to Lucanians, fulfill their vows using
the same formula: brateis datas, “for given favor” (Rix 2000). There are 14 occur-
rences of this formula so far identified, and the list is of course expected to
grow longer. The most recently published one was a limestone base of a statue
from the second century bcbearing a dedication to Hercules (Poccetti 2001): it
was found in the large sanctuary of Mefitis in Rossano di Vaglio (Lucania), but
a little apart from the paved court which constitutes the core of the place of
cult. We already know other instances of the same formula at Rossano. It is con-
siderably different from the Latin formula donom dat lubens merito, “he gave his
offering willingly and deservedly,” which appears in the first half of the third
century (Panciera 1990: 910). The Latin formula insists on the fact that the
carrying out of the vow is owed, since the one who has made it sees it as fulfilled.
The Oscan formula stresses the “favor” granted by the divinity, as in this Paelignian
inscription, which is still known to us by handwritten copies: “Ovia Pacia, to
Minerva, for the favor granted, because she gave the favor which she asked for
her and her children” (Rix 2002: 4). One can see how, starting from stereotyped
forms, one can draw the geographical and intellectual contour-lines between reli-
gious cultures, within which the conceptions of the relationship with the divinity
do not coincide exactly.Pre-Roman Italy, Before and Under the Romans 47ACTC04 25/04/2007 09:26 AM Page 47