Sacerdos Mvliebri Ornatv

Apud Nahanarvalos antiquae religionis lucus ostenditur. Praesidet sacerdos muliebri ornatu, sed deos interpretatione Romana Castorem Pollucemque memorant. Ea vis numini, nomen Alcis. Nulla simulacra, nullum peregrinae superstitionis vestigium; ut fratres tamen, ut iuvenes venerantur.

Amongst the Naharvalians is shown a grove, sacred to devotion extremely ancient. Over it a Priest presides apparelled like a woman; but according to the explication of the Romans, 'tis Castor and Pollux who are here worshipped. This Divinity is named Alcis. There are indeed no images here, no traces of an extraneous superstition: yet their devotion is addressed to young men and to brothers.

Germania, Chapter XLIII - Cornelius Tacitus

This passage from Tacitus' Germania has intrigued me for many years, and more so since I have been focussing on the ancient priesthoods of the Germani and other Indo-European peoples. I have seen how some people have tried to make this a license for transgenderism and transvestitism in Germanic religion, often sighting Saxo's reference to the "unmanly clattering of bells" to further support their often liberal agendas, and to some how de-masculinize the priesthood. This way of thinking seems to have it's genesis in the Ring of Troth when Prudence Priest was its Steersman (and the subsequent influx of all sorts of liberal notions). Now mind you, I could care less what sexual identity a person subscribes to, in fact I find modern notions of "sexuality" just that... modern. I do have an objection when people try to use antiquity and sacral positions to validate their sexuality as something special or sacred. I am sure you can see why I find such notions rather annoying and completely without merit.

P. D. Chantepie De La Saussaye offers the suggestion that "muliebri ornatu"

"probably refers to the hairdress. Among the Lugii and the Vandals the royal family was called Hazdiggôs, i.e. men with the hairdress of a woman, like the Merovingi among the Franks. The priesthood therefore shared this characteristic with the nobility." - The Religion of the Teutons

Now, while this is certainly an interesting proposal, and Krappe does not discredit it in his article "The Bearded Venus" (Folklore, December 1945) but dosen't appear to be so on the idea of "long hair" equals "feminine adornment". I don't buy it either, and I will use Tacitus himself to discredit the notion.

Earlier in the Germania, Tacitus describes the dress of the Germanii as

Tegumen omnibus sagum fibula aut, si desit, spina consertum: cetera intecti totos dies iuxta focum atque ignem agunt. Locupletissimi veste distinguuntur, non fluitante, sicut Sarmatae ac Parthi, sed stricta et singulos artus exprimente. Gerunt et ferarum pelles, proximi ripae neglegenter, ulteriores exquisitius, ut quibus nullus per commercia cultus. Eligunt feras et detracta velamina spargunt maculis pellibusque beluarum, quas exterior Oceanus atque ignotum mare gignit. Nec alius feminis quam viris habitus, nisi quod feminae saepius lineis amictibus velantur eosque purpura variant, partemque vestitus superioris in manicas non extendunt, nudae brachia ac lacertos; sed et proxima pars pectoris patet.

They all wrap themselves in a cloak which is fastened with a clasp, or, if this is not forthcoming, with a thorn, leaving the rest of their persons bare. They pass whole days on the hearth by the fire. The wealthiest are distinguished by a dress which is not flowing like that of the Sarmatae and Parthi, but is tight, and exhibits each limb. They also wear the skins of wild beasts; the tribes on the Rhine and Danube in a careless fashion, those of the interior with more elegance, as not obtaining other clothing by commerce. These select certain animals, the hides of which they strip off and vary them with the spotted skins of beasts, the produce of the outer ocean, and of seas unknown to us. The women have the same dress as the men except that they generally wrap themselves in linen garments, which they embroider with purple, and do not lengthen out the upper part of their clothing into sleeves. The upper and lower arm is thus bare, and the nearest part of the bosom is also exposed.

Germania, Chapter XVII - Cornelius Tacitus

Now, when I read this quote it tells me that the vast majority of the Germanii were garbed in but the barest of clothing (a cloak with a fibula) and perhaps a basic tunic. The wealthy wore clothes as we understand them, conforming to the shape of the body. This is in direct contrast to the Roman way of dress where the wealthy wore flowing garments that did not conform to the legs (bifibrucation) or having sleeves. He then mentions that the women wore a basic tube skirt, sleevless, and with the cleavage showing. Women wore flowing garments of fine materials (we can assume he means wealthy women here) . Now, if Tacitus understood that wealthy men wore form fitting clothing (or at least pants and sleeves) and women wore flowing clothing, then why is it so hard to believe that these priests in muliebri ornatu were simply wearing a flowing robe of some variety? It seems perfectly logical to me, and takes the mans own words into account.

Our priests were not the castrati and transvesti of Cybele.