Abstract

This essay is focused on a difficult passage in Varrò, rust. 2,5,3-4, which is quoted, explained and partially corrected by Columella. Both passages are for us a valuable source of information about the capital sentence inflicted, in a very early age, on the person who caused the death of the ploughing ox. However, a contradiction or apory can be observed in the attitude of the two authors. On the one hand - as admirers of the mos maiorum - they seem to praise the innocence and the restraint of the ancients, who showed so much respect for so beneficent an animal. On the other hand, in their roles as instructors of the most efficient farming techniques, they are keen on the profits assured by the raising of farm animals, and discuss without embarrassment the slaughter of oxen and the eating of beef. In Greece, the Attic Bouphonia, with all their functional ambiguities, marked the transition from the age of the bloodless sacrifice - praised and placed forever in the archives of history - to the "modern" age of slaughter; on the contrary, Roman culture lacked a similar rite that could somehow reconcile the two antithetical ideas, the ancient taboo about the slaying of domestic animals and the actual killing as performed in historical times.