Brigitte Garofalo ♦
Greek and Roman accounts on the apotheoses of Hercules and Romulus – while having some similarities – broadly differ in the importance they attribute to physical power and social power. Each apotheosis arises from different beginnings: one immortal, the other mortal. Their pre-deification period highlights the varying ways of achieving deification. Finally, the justifications given for each apotheosis are different, and reward different virtues – one, physical superiority, the other, political and social superiority. However, though differences between accounts are evident, it is important also to note the similarities, highlighting the trends in mortal to immortal transformations.
In comparing accounts on the apotheoses of Hercules and of Romulus, the first striking difference is that they were each initiated by different sectors of ‘society’: the former, by the gods, the latter, by the people. In the account of Hercules’ deification, the gods have complete influence over his elevation. Ovid directly highlights the approval of the gods, when he states that ‘The gods agreed, and even royal Juno’ (Ovid, Metamorphoses 9.260). By contrast, Romulus’ induction was caused by the will of his people, and not as directly carried out. The disappearance of Romulus and the political controversy within the senate[1] influenced ‘a few voices [to] beg[i]n to proclaim Romulus’s divinity’ (Livy, Ab Vrbe Condita, 1.16). The decision of deification was in Hercules’ case generated by deities, while that of Romulus arose out of political and civilian initiative.
A further notable difference between the two accounts is in the events preceding the deification: while one emphasises the weakness of the demigod, the other emphasises his influence. Strength, however, defines Hercules, and the events before his deification contrast with this. Ovid’s description of Hercules – ‘like a bull bears a hunting-spear lodged in its body’ (Metamorphoses, 9.205–206) – depicts suffering, and additionally, associates Hercules with animal-like qualities: ‘that man, growling groans’ (Metamorphoses, 9.207), thus suggesting that Hercules has become vulnerable and wild. Conversely, the narrative leading to Romulus’ deification exposes more about his relationship with the populace. We hear that the senate issues[2]influenced Proculus to ‘declare that [Romulus] had been carried up on high by a whirlwind’ (Livy, Ab Vrbe Condita, 1.16), thus unifying Romans. In each case, it can be seen that the apotheoses arise out of differing events: one, accidental poisoning showing vulnerability, and the other, a sudden disappearance influencing a political manoeuvre.
Similarly, justifications for the apotheoses differ in both accounts: while Hercules is rewarded for his physical strength, Romulus is granted divine status due to his political strength and ties to the heritage of Rome. Hercules possesses physical superiority beyond human limits[3], and his deification acknowledges this: as Ovid writes, ‘he has earned that favour by his deeds’ (Ovid, Metamorphoses, 9.245). Conversely, Romulus receives divine status due to his founding of Rome and, evidently, his ruling of the city. Therefore, Romulus’ ties to Rome cause Livy to claim that upon his disappearance Romans ‘felt like children bereft of a father and for a long time stood in sorrowful silence’ (Livy, Ab Vrbe Condita, 1.16). Naturally, then, Romulus would become ‘the father’ (Livy, Ab Vrbe Condita, 1.16) of Rome. Though Hercules and Romulus ultimately achieve identical status, their journeys to divinity are different.
Despite these differences, however, there are certain similarities evident in the apotheoses. In both cases, Hercules and Romulus have divine connections pre-apotheosis. As the son of Jupiter, Hercules is pitied by his father. Jupiter decrees that ‘only his mother’s heritage, / His mortal part, will feel the fire; that part / Which comes from [Jupiter], no flames will ever master’ (Ovid, Metamorphoses, 9.250). Jupiter thus raises Hercules to divinity for protection. Similarly, Romulus, the son of Mars, has an ancestry tracing to the Trojan prince Aeneas, son of Venus. His apotheosis was foreshadowed in Aeneas’ journey to the underworld, as seen in a well-known passage in Virgil: ‘See Romulus the great…Born from a god, himself to godhead born’ (Virgil, Aeneid, 6.777 – 787). For Romans, this would have provided further explanation for Romulus’ deification. Hercules and Romulus share a common feature: both are connected to a deity. This connection, in both cases, gives validity to the apotheosis.
In conclusion, the apotheoses accounts of Hercules and Romulus show differing pathways to becoming divine. Firstly, Hercules’ apotheosis is an initiative of the gods, whereas Romulus’ is one of the people. Secondly, examining pre-deification events expose Hercules as defeated, while Romulus’ disappearance causes anxiety from his people and his senate. Thirdly, while the justification for Hercules’ apotheosis is his inhuman strength, Romulus’ is leadership. Nonetheless, both accounts share a divine connection, a feature fundamental to apotheosis. Overall, the accounts aim at appreciating and highlighting different features of man: human and social superiority.
[1] See: Plutarch, Life of Numa Pompilius, 2.2 – 3.
[2] See: Dio, Roman History, 1. Dio contends that without a king, the Romans felt unease and civil unrest arose. Similarly, he contends that the senators of Rome disapproved of Romulus’ power and after seeing the response to his disappearance decided to pronounce him a god, putting aside their anger to unite the Roman people they were now accountable for.
[3] The 12 Labors of Hercules, see: Pesudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheke, 2.5.1 – 2 and 2.5.12.
Bibliography
Dio, Roman History, trans. E. Cary (Suffolk, 1924), 1.
Ovid, Metamorphoses, trans. A. D. Melville (Oxford, 1986), 9.159 – 280.
Ovid, Metamorphoses II, trans. F. J. Miller (London, 1958), 9.204 – 210.
Livy, Ab Vrbe Condita, trans. A. De Selincourt (Harmondsworth, 1971), 1.16.
Plutarch, Life of Numa Pompilius, trans. J. Dryden (London, 1683), 2.2 – 3.
Virgil, Aeneid, trans. J. Dryden (London, 1997), 6.777 – 787.
MUCLASS 