In Latin, the word sacrificium means the performance of an act that renders something sacer, sacred. Sacrifice reinforced the powers and attributes of divine beings and inclined them to render benefits in return (the principle of do ut des).
Hierarchy of being Roman sacrificial rites were heavily associated with hierarchy; they reinforced both the social hierarchy of Roman society, and also the divine hierarchy between gods and mortals in Roman religion. The scholar of Roman religion John Scheid argues that the Romans viewed sacrifice as an expression pious submission towards the deities, as demonstrated by the origin myth of the Vinalia. According to Cato the Elder, a 3rd-2nd century BCE Roman politician and writer, the tyrant king Mezentius commanded the Rutuli to give unto him all the first fruits that were usually offered to the gods, prompting the Latins—who feared they would be subjected to the same demand—to sacrifice all their wine to Jupiter in exchange for divine favor. Macrobius, a 5th-century Roman author, explicitly describes the piety of this action in his commentary on the 1st-century BCE poet Virgil's rendition of this tale, writing that "He puts all piety in the sacrifices one has to present to the gods, to the point that for the contrary reason, he treats Mezentius as a despiser of the gods ("") because he claimed divine honors for himself."Macrobius. Saturnalia. 3.5.9.
The Roman sacrifice was, at its core, the act of sharing food between the gods and mortals. Following the sacrifice of an animal, if its entrails () were deemed auspicious by the haruspex, the animal was butchered, with some parts later dedicated to the gods and others eaten by the human suppliants. The differentiation between the food offered to the divine and the food available to the participants represented the division between these groups, which itself highlighted the superiority of the former and the inferiority of the latter. According to the archaeologist Candace Weddle, the Greeks and the Romans envisioned their gods not as physically digesting food the way a human must, bust instead as enjoying the smoke of burnt offerings through smell, or perhaps through an abstract divine sense comparable to human olfaction. Therefore, in Roman sacrifices, though a communal meal between gods and mortals, these groups remained separated through sensory experience, thereby emphasizing the barrier between the divine and humans.
The hierarchy of being was conveyed through the topography of religious rituals and sites. For instance, in the , a sacrificial banquet dedicated to Jupiter, the senatorial class was permitted to dine atop the Capitoline Hill, in contrast to the plebeians who dwelt below by the Forum. Similarly, the Temple of Dea Dia includes, at its highest point, a grove that contained the altar of Dea Dia herself, with altars dedicated to lesser divinities located at a lower elevation. The Caesareum, a temple for the deified emperors (), was situated even further down the hill. It was in this same Caesareum that the Arval brotherhood, who were forbidden from eating inside the grove, performed their sacrificial banquets. The record separate rules for animal sacrifices depending upon the status of the recipient. In one section of the Acts, sacrifices of two animals are offered to all the gods and goddesses, with the exception of the who only receive one. Furthermore, the appear at the end of the list, following all the other deities, including even minor entities such as or .Acta Arvalia. 186. Feb. 8. According to Scheid, these particular instructions for the sacrifice probably reflect a Roman belief that the were of a lower rank compared to the other gods.
According to the classicist J. B. Rives, animal sacrifices were likely confined to a small subset of the Roman population, as only the wealthy could either purchase the requisite animals or to own a large enough supply of livestock that some could be set aside for sacrifice. Thus, engagement in an animal sacrifice demonstrated not just the piety of the suppliant, but also their social standing and affluence. Even amongst those capable of affording animal sacrifice, there would have been a hierarchy based upon the choice of victim. Animals such as piglets or lambs were easily accessible, and consequently among the least prestigious victims, whereas bovines were much less widely available, and therefore more valuable as sacrificial victims. Uncastrated male bulls were the ideal sacrificial beast, with the 1st-century CE writer Pliny the Elder explicitly referring to the animals as "the choicest victims and the most sumptuous appeasement of the gods."Pliny the Elder. Natural History. 8.183. Their value was likely predicated upon their exclusivity: Bulls would only have been left uncastrated for the purpose of animal breeding, which was itself largely reserved for the upper-class in Rome. Otherwise, the majority of bulls were castrated so as to more easily facilitate their role as domestic farm animals. Ideally, sacrificial animals would be unblemished and in perfect condition, perhaps even satisfying further requirements regarding their sex, species, color, and fertility depending upon the ritual. It would have been far easier for the wealthy to satisfy these requirements, as besides having access to more animals in general—and therefore more rare or unusual animals—they were also more capable of setting aside some of their livestock to be raised specifically for sacrifice. The ritual of animal sacrifice itself involved numerous separate individuals belonging various different social strata. Upper-class individuals fulfilled tasks more tangential to the specific act of killing the animal, such as chanting or offering pieces of flesh or blood at the altar. The performance of the sacrifice itself was left to the , , and , all of whom were either slaves or other low-class persons. That low-class individuals were responsible for the sacrificial act may explain the relative paucity of detail in Roman sources regarding the specific procedures utilized to accomplish the killing of the animal. Rives argues that magistrates and religious officials, at least sometimes, chose to depict themselves as sacrificants so as to commemorate their role in public office, though the evidence is too scant to determine how widespread such a practice was. In support of his argument, Rives cites the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, which a sacrifice associated with either the establishment of a Roman colony or a lustration ritual following the completion of a census. In any case, the sacrificant is a public official, either one of the individuals responsible for the founding of the colony or one of the censors.
Motives A sacrifice might be made in thanksgiving or as an expiation of a sacrilege or potential sacrilege (piaculum); a might also be offered as a sort of advance payment; the Arval Brethren, for instance, offered a before entering their sacred grove with an iron implement, which was forbidden, as well as after.William Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London, 1922), p. 191. The pig was a common victim for a .Robert E.A. Palmer, "The Deconstruction of Mommsen on Festus 462/464 L, or the Hazards of Interpretation", in Imperium sine fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Franz Steiner, 1996), p. 99, note 129 online; Roger D. Woodard, Indo-European Sacred Space: Vedic and Roman Cult (University of Illinois Press, 2006), p. 122 online. The Augustan historian Livy (8.9.1–11) says P. Decius Mus is "like" a piaculum when he makes his vow to sacrifice himself in battle (devotio).
Extraordinary circumstances called for extraordinary sacrifice: in one of the many crises of the Second Punic War, Jupiter Capitolinus was promised every animal born that spring (see ver sacrum), to be rendered after five more years of protection from Hannibal and his allies. The "contract" with Jupiter is exceptionally detailed. All due care would be taken of the animals. If any died or were stolen before the scheduled sacrifice, they would count as already sacrificed, since they had already been consecrated. Normally, if the gods failed to keep their side of the bargain, the offered sacrifice would be withheld. In the imperial period, sacrifice was withheld following Trajan's death because the gods had not kept the emperor safe for the stipulated period.Gradel, 21: but this need not imply sacrifice as a mutual contract, breached in this instance. Evidently the gods had the greater power and freedom of choice in the matter. See Beard et al., 34: "The gods would accept as sufficient exactly what they were offered – no more, no less." Human error in the previous annual vows and sacrifice remains a possibility.
The same divine agencies who caused disease or harm also had the power to avert it, and so might be placated in advance. Divine consideration might be sought to avoid the inconvenient delays of a journey, or encounters with banditry, piracy and shipwreck, with due gratitude to be rendered on safe arrival or return. In times of great crisis, the Senate could decree collective public rites, in which Rome's citizens, including women and children, moved in procession from one temple to the next, supplicating the gods.Hahn, in Rüpke (ed.), 238.
Animal sacrifice
Characteristics of a sacrificial animal
Color It is traditionally thought that black animals were sacrificed to chthonic underworld gods, and white animals were offered to 'Olympian' gods associated with sky. However, the information concerning the required characteristics of a sacrificial animal in ancient Rome largely derives from authors of Late Antiquity, particularly Servius, a 4th or 5th century Roman grammarian, and Arnobius, a 3rd-century CE writer. The works of these later writers are not necessarily reliable: According to the classicist Gunnel Ekroth, the "lexicographers and grammarians of late antiquity" more likely provided "armchair speculations" rather than "the sacrificial reality of earlier periods." Servius, in his commentaries on the Georgics, claims that animals were sacrificed to the gods on account of their similarity ("") or their opposition ("") to the characteristics of the recipient god.Servius the Grammarian. Commentary on the Georgics of Vergil. 2.380. It is, according to Servius, on account of the former principle, that a sacrifice to Pluto of black cattle ("") is conducted. Furthermore, Arnobius writes that the "cheerfulness of white" ("") renders it "acceptable" ("") and "propitious" ("") for the "gods above" ("") and those who "give favorable omens" ("").Arnobius. Adversus Nationes. 7.19.3-4.
There is some evidence for sacrifices adhering to these color-based rules in Classical Antiquity: Lucretius, a 1st-century BCE Roman poet, describes the sacrifice of "black cattle" ("") alongside offerings to the spirits of the departed.Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. 3.52. Moreover, in the Aeneid, Virgil describes the hero Aeneas sacrificing heifers with dark backs ("") on the anniversary of the death of Anchises.Virgil. Aeneid. 5.97. Yet, as Ekroth notes, the majority of descriptions of ancient Roman sacrifices do not record the color of the sacrificial animal, and in the few cases where such information is documented, the impetus for the choice of color is sometimes unclear. Sacrifices of red animals are also known from ancient Roman religion: The dog sacrificed during the Robigalia was possibly red in color, and one inscription from Rome, dated between 84 and 96 CE, records the sacrifice of a red calf ("") as part of the Vulcanalia ceremony.