This is an analysis of the myth of Romulus and Remus.

Domitian had a great impact in reshaping Rome after the fire of AD 80. He continued the building policy of his father and brother and created many more new complexes. This can be called a real domitianopolis (cf. Nero'idea of Neropolis).

In this paper, we would like to show how the concept of cultural memory (central to several ongoing research projects within Dutch classical studies) can contribute to the method of anchoring innovation. The 'soggy' and flexible nature of cultural memory, we argue, makes it particularly fertile ground for anchoring. Our hypothesis is that the tenacious aspect of Roman cultural memory can account for the longevity and success of an anchoring device, even if that device is applied to different ends or in conflicting contexts. The omnipresence of such tenacious anchors in Roman memory forces every potential heir to the Roman legacy to engage with them. Romulus is one of these tenacious anchors. His role in the foundation of Rome figures prominently in two crucial periods of transformation in Roman history. In the Augustan age, Romulus was recongifured to anchor the ‘Roman revolution’ that transformed an aristocratic republic into a monarchic empire. Late antiquity saw fundamental shifts in the religious and political focus of the empire, shifts which were again mediated through the figure of Romulus. When Rome developed from pagan to Christian capital, Peter and Paul were reconfigured as the new Romulus and Remus. In Constantinople, the new Rome at the Bosporus, different authors debated the moral legitimacy of the old capital of the empire through a close scrutiny of the questionable character of Romulus, who had founded Rome on the blood of his brother Remus. The tenacity of Romulus as an anchor is not impeded by the fundamental ambiguity inherent in his character. On the contrary, the multi-layeredness of Romulus proved highly potential for the anchoring of Roman identity throughout the vicissitudes of Roman history. The persistence of such a tenacious anchor may call for innovation in the use of the anchor itself – and that is exactly what this paper aims to study.

"The bond between the gods and the place was one of crucial importance in ancient religions. The Romans very often reflected upon this matter, especially when the very existence of the city was jeopardized. That happened, for example, after the plundering of the city by the Gauls, when Marcus Furius Camillus, in order to avoid the migration to Veii, reminded his fellow-citizens of the ties between Rome’s site and its gods. In this sense, two elements mentioned by the dictator are particularly representative: the Capitol and the so-called pignora imperii. Another reading key of the bond between Rome and its gods is the tradition concerning the city’s secret patron deity. According to some authors, the Romans hid its identity to avoid the risk of enabling their enemies to evoke it. Moreover, this tradition tells us much about the historical backgrounds within which the Romans discussed this topic, and about some particular features of Roman religious thought. Further information will be provided about that figure, beginning with the genii locorum category: the genius was the deity more tightly bound to the place, from which it received its characterization. Finally the figure of the Dea Roma will be considered. "

Roman Religion The Religion and Mythology of Ancient Rome and Roman Society

It is widely agreed that the tradition regarding the apotheosis of Romulus and his transformation into the god Quirinus had a paramount importance in the ideological and historical-religious process which led to the apotheosis of Caesar and of Augustus. As a matter of fact, differences should not be overlooked. Romulus became immortal only because he became Quirinus: Quirinus was a god, Romulus was a man. Romulus’ portrait paraded during the funerals of his descendants, the Iulii. What is more, it was told that Romulus had been killed and dismembered. Ancient authors radically contrast such a tradition to the tale about Romulus’ apotheosis: only modern historical-religious comparison provided a key for reconciliation. On the contrary, by assuming the title divus, divus Iulius and divus Augustus overtook and erased their mortality: it was forbidden to let their portrait parade during funerals. In this complicated picture, the oxymoron ossa Quirini which Horace used to hint at Romulus’ sacred tomb in the dramatic Epodon 16 (verses 11-14), represents a different way of immortalization: the Greek model of the cult of the founder is originally revisited through the Roman feature of the assumption of a new name. The cult of Aeneas-Pater (or Iuppiter) Indiges in Lavinium is an interesting analogous case.