Mutunus Tutunus

In ancient Roman religion, Mutunus Tutunus or Mutinus Titinus was a phallic marriage deity, in some respects equated with Priapus. His shrine was located on the Velian Hill, supposedly since the founding of Rome, until the 1st century BC.

During preliminary marriage rites, Roman brides are supposed to have straddled the phallus of Mutunus to prepare themselves for intercourse, according to Church Fathers who interpreted this act as an obscene loss of virginity.^[1] The Christian apologist Arnobius says that Roman matrons were taken for a ride (inequitare) on Tutunus's "awful phallus" with its "immense shameful parts",^[2] but other sources specify that it is brides who learned through the ritual not to be embarrassed by sex: "Tutinus, upon whose shameful lap sit brides, so that the god seems to sample their shame before the fact."^[3] The 2nd-century grammarian Festus is the only classical Latin source to take note of the god,^[4] and the characterization of the rite by Christian sources is likely to be hostile or biased.^[5]

^ H.J. Rose, The Roman Questions of Plutarch: A New Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, reprinted 1974), p. 84 online.
^ Arnobius, Adversus nationes 4.7 (see also 4.11): Tutunus, cuius immanibus pudendis horrentique fascino vestras inequitare matronas et auspicabile ducitis et optatis. Compare Tertullian, Ad nationes 2.11 and Apologeticus 25.3. On the translation of pudendis, see J.N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982, 1990), pp. 55–56.
^ Lactantius, Divinarum Institutionum 1.20.36: Tutinus in cuius sinu pudendo nubentes praesident ut illarum pudicitiam prior deus delibasse videatur. See also Augustine of Hippo (particularly De civitate Dei 4.11 and 6.9) who "several times refers with distaste to the practices associated with" the priapic gods; R.W. Dyson, The City of God Against the Pagans (Cambridge University Press, 1998, 2002), p. 1221 online.
^ Jean-Noël Robert, Eros romano: sexo y moral en la Roma antigua (Editorial Complutense, 1999), p. 58 online.
^ Ronald Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 6, note 37, marks "the mockery of the Christian writers"; see also Augustine's "distaste" for the phallic gods noted above. W.H. Parker, Priapea: Poems for a Phallic God (Routledge, 1988), p. 135 online, observes that the ritual of Mutunus was "condemned by early Church fathers"; Joseph Rykwert, The Idea of a Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy, and the Ancient World (MIT Press, 1988), p. 159 online, notes that they spoke "scathingly" of phallic rituals. Tertullian's bias in his assemblage of deities to deride (including Mutunus) pointed out by Mary Beard, John North et al., Religions of Rome: A Sourcebook (Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 359, note 1 online. The fascinum — identified by Arnobius with the phallus of Mutunus — "was used by Christian writers in their tirades against pagan customs," points out Enrique Montero Cartelle, El latín erótico: aspectos léxicos y literarios (University of Seville, 1991), p. 70 online. For a fuller discussion, see Carlos A. Contreras, "Christian Views of Paganism," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.23.1 (1980) 974–1022, p. 1013 online specifically in relation to Mutunus and in general asserting that "Arnobius commits the same mistake as other Fathers of applying Christian conceptions to pagan ideas in order to condemn them" (p. 1010). "Our knowledge of such things," that is, of rites such as those of Mutunus, "comes from Christian writers who are openly concerned to discredit all aspects of pagan idolatry," states Peter Stewart, Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 266, note 24 online.

[1] H.J. Rose, The Roman Questions of Plutarch: A New Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, reprinted 1974), p. 84 online.

[2] Arnobius, Adversus nationes 4.7 (see also 4.11): Tutunus, cuius immanibus pudendis horrentique fascino vestras inequitare matronas et auspicabile ducitis et optatis. Compare Tertullian, Ad nationes 2.11 and Apologeticus 25.3. On the translation of pudendis, see J.N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982, 1990), pp. 55–56.

[3] Lactantius, Divinarum Institutionum 1.20.36: Tutinus in cuius sinu pudendo nubentes praesident ut illarum pudicitiam prior deus delibasse videatur. See also Augustine of Hippo (particularly De civitate Dei 4.11 and 6.9) who "several times refers with distaste to the practices associated with" the priapic gods; R.W. Dyson, The City of God Against the Pagans (Cambridge University Press, 1998, 2002), p. 1221 online.

[4] Jean-Noël Robert, Eros romano: sexo y moral en la Roma antigua (Editorial Complutense, 1999), p. 58 online.

[5] Ronald Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 6, note 37, marks "the mockery of the Christian writers"; see also Augustine's "distaste" for the phallic gods noted above. W.H. Parker, Priapea: Poems for a Phallic God (Routledge, 1988), p. 135 online, observes that the ritual of Mutunus was "condemned by early Church fathers"; Joseph Rykwert, The Idea of a Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy, and the Ancient World (MIT Press, 1988), p. 159 online, notes that they spoke "scathingly" of phallic rituals. Tertullian's bias in his assemblage of deities to deride (including Mutunus) pointed out by Mary Beard, John North et al., Religions of Rome: A Sourcebook (Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 359, note 1 online. The fascinum — identified by Arnobius with the phallus of Mutunus — "was used by Christian writers in their tirades against pagan customs," points out Enrique Montero Cartelle, El latín erótico: aspectos léxicos y literarios (University of Seville, 1991), p. 70 online. For a fuller discussion, see Carlos A. Contreras, "Christian Views of Paganism," Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.23.1 (1980) 974–1022, p. 1013 online specifically in relation to Mutunus and in general asserting that "Arnobius commits the same mistake as other Fathers of applying Christian conceptions to pagan ideas in order to condemn them" (p. 1010). "Our knowledge of such things," that is, of rites such as those of Mutunus, "comes from Christian writers who are openly concerned to discredit all aspects of pagan idolatry," states Peter Stewart, Statues in Roman Society: Representation and Response (Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 266, note 24 online.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]