Ceres and Tellus were the deities concerned, and with this Lydus agrees.
We need not be too certain about the names[1320], considering the
‘fluidity’ and impersonality of early Roman _numina_ of this type; but
the type itself is obvious. There were offerings of cake, and a
sacrifice of a pregnant sow; the oxen which had served in the ploughing
were decorated with garlands; prayers were offered for the protection of
the seed from bird and beast and disease. If we may believe a note of
Probus’[1321], _oscilla_ were hung from the trees, as at the Latin
festival, &c., doubtless as a charm against evil influences.
VI KAL. FEB. (Jan. 27). C.
AEDIS [CASTORIS ET PO]LLUCIS DEDICA[TA EST ...]. (PRAEN.)
Mommsen’s restoration of this note in the Fasti of Praeneste is based on
Ov. _Fast._ 1. 705-8:
At quae venturas praecedet sexta Kalendas,
Hac sunt Ledaeis templa dicata deis.
Fratribus illa deis fratres de gente deorum
Circa Iuturnae composuere lacus.
But Livy[1322] gives the Ides of July as the day of dedication, and a
difference of learned opinion has arisen[1323]. July 15, B.C. 496, is
the traditional date of the battle of Lake Regillus, and the temple was
dedicated B.C. 484—the result of the Consul’s vow in that battle[1324].
Mommsen infers that Livy confused the date of the dedication with that
of the battle, and that Jan. 27 is right. Aust and others differ, and
refer the latter date to a restoration by Tiberius, probably in A.D.
6[1325]. The mistake in Livy is easy to explain, and Mommsen’s
explanation seems sufficient[1326]. Three beautiful columns of Tiberius’
temple are still to be seen at the south-eastern end of the Forum, near
the temple of Vesta, and close to the Iacus Juturnae, where the Twins
watered their steeds after the battle[1327].
The very early introduction of the Dioscuri into the Roman worship is
interesting as being capable of unusually distinct proof. They must have
been known long before the battle of the Regillus; and they took a
peculiarly firm hold on the Roman mind, as we see from the common oaths
Edepol, Mecastor, from their representation on the earliest
denarii[1328], from their connexion with the equites throughout Roman
history, and from the great popularity of their legend, which was
reproduced in connexion with later battles[1329]. The spread of the cult
through Southern Italy to Latium and Etruria (where it was also a
favourite) is the subject of a French monograph[1330].
Footnote 1223:
Livy, 31. 21; 34. 53. The MSS have ‘deo Iovi’ in the former passage,
and ‘Iovis’ in the second; but it is almost certain that Vediovis is
the deity referred to. See Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 2. 305 for the
confusion in these passages, and in Livy, 35. 41. (Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_,
i. 291-3.)
Footnote 1224:
Livy, _Epit._ 11, and 10. 47; Preller, ii. 241; Plut. _Q. R._ 94;
Jordan, in _Comm. in hon. Momms._ p. 349 foll.
Footnote 1225:
See under May 21. Deecke, _Falisker_, 96.
Footnote 1226:
Livy, 33. 42, 34. 53; Jordan, l. c.
Footnote 1227:
These and their later history are the subject of a most exhaustive
treatise by Martin Lipenius, in Graevius’ _Thesaurus_, vol. xii, p.
405. See also Marq. _Privatleben_, 1. 2, 245. For the sentiment
implied in the _strenae_ see Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 71 foll. and 175.
Footnote 1228:
Cp. Fest. 290.
Footnote 1229:
Symmachus, ep. 10. 35 ‘Ab exortu paene urbis Martiae strenarum usus
adolevit, auctoritate Tatii regis, qui verbenas felicis arboris ex
luco Strenuae anni novi auspices primus accepit.’
Footnote 1230:
Varro, _L. L._ 6. 25 ‘quotannis is dies concipitur’ (for the right
reading of the rest of the passage see Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 305).
Macrobius (1. 16. 6) reckons them as conceptivae, in the fourth
century; Philoc. and Silv. may be representing a _traditional_ date
for a feast which was _iure conceptivus_. So Momms. Cp. Gell. 10. 24.
3, where the formula for fixing the date is given; and Cic. _in Pis._
4. 8. It was the praetor (urbanus?) who in this case made the
announcement.
Footnote 1231:
Cp. Philargyrius, _Georg._ 2. 382 ‘[compita] ubi pagani agrestes
buccina convocati solent certa inire consilia’; no doubt discussion
about agricultural matters.
Footnote 1232:
Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 665, of the Paganalia: ‘Rusticus emeritum palo
suspendat aratrum.’ (Cp. Tibull. ii. 1. 5.) Such features were perhaps
common to all these rustic winter rejoicings.
Footnote 1233:
_Grom. Vet._ 302. 20 foll.
Footnote 1234:
For Greece see Farnell, _Cults_, ii. 561 and 598.
Footnote 1235:
_Folklore in Northern India_, i. 77.
Footnote 1236:
Marq. 203; Dion. Hal. 4. 14; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 615 and 5. 140. Wissowa
(_Myth. Lex._ s. v. Lares, p. 1874) would limit them in origin to the
pagi outside the septem montes, as the latter had their own sacra.
Footnote 1237:
Dion. Hal. 4. 14 οὐ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους ἀλλὰ τοὺς δούλους ἔταξε (i. e.
Serv. Tull.) παρεῖναί τε καὶ συνιερουργεῖν, ὡς κεχαρισμένης τοῖς ἥρωσι
τῆς τῶν θεραπόντων ὑπηρεσίας (Cic. _pro Sestio_, 15. 34).
Footnote 1238:
Marq. 204; Rushforth, _Latin Historical Inscriptions_, p. 59 foll.
Footnote 1239:
Pliny, _N. H._ 36. 204; Macrob. 1. 7. 34; Dion. l. c.
Footnote 1240:
Asconius, p. 6, K. Sch. Livy, 34. 7. 2.
Footnote 1241:
So Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xii note. Cp. his article ‘Agonium’ in the
new edition of Pauly’s _Real-Encycl._
Footnote 1242:
p. 10. Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 331 ‘Et pecus antiquus dicebat agonia
sermo.’
Footnote 1243:
He uses the plural: ‘Agonales (dies) per quos rex in regia arietem
immolat’ (_L. L._ 6. 12). But only Jan. 9 seems to be alluded to.
Footnote 1244:
_Fasti_, 1. 325; cf. Macrob. 1. 16. 5.
Footnote 1245:
_Civ. Dei_, 4. 11. 16. Ambrosch (_Studien_, 149) thinks it possible
that Agonius may have been a god of the Colline city.
Footnote 1246:
Bücheler, _Umbrica_, p. 30. B. apparently sees in the Umbrian ‘sakreu
perakneu’ an equivalent to ‘hostias agonales.’ The Iguvian ritual is
certainly the most likely document to be useful; it at least shows how
large was the store of sacrificial vocabulary.
Footnote 1247:
Fest. p. 10. For the Salii, Varro, _L. L._ 6. 14.
Footnote 1248:
Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xii.
Footnote 1249:
When Varro writes (_L. L._ 6. 12) that the dies agonales are those in
which the Rex sacrorum sacrifices a ram in the Regia, he may be
including all the four days, and not only Jan. 9. I think this is
likely; but we only know it of Jan. 9.
Footnote 1250:
_Fasti_, i. 333. Varro _L. L._ 6. 12 ‘Agonales (dies) per quos rex in
regia arietem immolat.’
Footnote 1251:
Cp. lines 318 and 333.
Footnote 1252:
Henzen, 144. An ‘agna’ is the only other animal sacrifice we know of
to Janus (Roscher, in _Lex._ 42).
Footnote 1253:
Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Ianus, 29 foll. (cp. for much interesting
kindred matter, De-Marchi, _Il Culto privato_, p. 20 foll.). Roscher’s
attempt to find an analogy between the Forum and the house is
interesting, but unluckily the positions ‘ad Forum’ of the ‘Ianus
geminus’ and the ‘aedes Vestae’ do not exactly answer to those of the
door and hearth of a Roman house.
Footnote 1254:
_Sat._ i. 9. 2; Procopius, _B. G._ 1. 25, who says that ‘Janus
belonged to the gods whom the Romans in their tongue called Penates,’
seems to be alluding to the same connexion of this god and the house.
Footnote 1255:
We owe this explanation of Janus chiefly to Roscher’s article, and
Roscher himself owed it to the fact that his study of Janus for the
article was a second and not a first attempt. In _Hermes der Windgott_
(Leipzig, 1878) he had arrived at a very different and a far less
rational conclusion. The influence of Mannhardt and the folk-lorists
set him on the right track.
Footnote 1256:
Nigidius Figulus in Macrob. i. 9. 8.
Footnote 1257:
See Roscher, _Lex._ 44.
Footnote 1258:
Macrob. 1. 9. 9; Lydus, _de Mensibus_, 4. 6 (who quotes Lutatius).
Footnote 1259:
Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 218 foll.; Preller, 1. 168 foll. The etymology
is weak; the god and goddess have nothing common in cult or myth; it
is not certain that Diana was originally the moon; and the great
Italian deities are not coupled together in this way.
Footnote 1260:
ii. 125 foll. Cf. Müller’s _Etrusker_ (ed. Deecke), ii. 58 foll.
Müller, with his usual good sense, concluded from the evidence that
the Latin Janus was a god of gates; but he thought that an Etruscan
deity of the vault or arch of heaven had been amalgamated with him.
This is not impossible, if there was really such an Etruscan god; and
Deecke finds him in Ani, who in Etruscan theology seems to have had
his seat in the northern part of the heaven (Mart. Capell. 1. 45)
where Janus was also represented in the templum of Piacenza (_Lex._ s.
v. Janus, p. 28). But this must remain a doubtful point, even though
Lydus (4. 2) tells us that Varro said that the god παρὰ θούσκοις
οὐρανὸν λέγεσθαι.
Footnote 1261:
Nissen, _Templum_, p. 228.
Footnote 1262:
Macrob. 1. 9. 16.
Footnote 1263:
p. 93 foll.; Caes. _B. G._ 6. 18.
Footnote 1264:
M. Mowat thought that this was Janus naturalized in Gaul; but with
Prof. Rhys (p. 81 note) I cannot but think this unlikely.
Footnote 1265:
See _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, ii. 465.
Footnote 1266:
Roscher, in _Lex._ 18; Rhys, 1. c. 88.
Footnote 1267:
Roscher, _Lex._ 17; Jordan, _Topogr._ 1. 2. 351.
Footnote 1268:
Cic. _De Nat. Deorum_, 2. 27. 67 ‘Transitiones perviae iani, foresque
in liminibus profanarum aedium ianuae nominantur.’ Cp. Macrob. 1. 9.
7.
Footnote 1269:
On the whole question see Jordan, _Topogr_. 1. 2. 215 foll. Ovid
(_Fasti_, 1.257) asks the god ‘Cum tot sint iani, cur stas sacratus in
uno?‘
Footnote 1270:
From Falerii came another janus, with a four-headed simulacrum, which
was set up in the Forum transitorium (Macr. 1. 9. 13; Jordan, _Top_.
1. 2. 348).
Footnote 1271:
Preller made an attempt, which Roscher approves, to identify Portunus
with Janus, Portunus being, according to Varro, ‘Deus portuum
portarumque praeses’ (Interpr. Veron. _Aen._ v. 241). But see on Aug.
17.
Footnote 1272:
The nearest approach to Janus is the Hermes θυραῖος or στροφαῖος
(single head only?) and Hermes with two, three, or four heads at the
meeting-points of streets. These are points which suggested to Roscher
in his older work an elaborate comparison of Hermes and Janus (p. 119
foll.).
Footnote 1273:
See Marq 25, 26 and notes.
Footnote 1274:
Cic. _N. D._ 2. 27; Preller, ii. 172.
Footnote 1275:
For the evidence of this position of Janus in the cults of the house
see Roscher, _Lex._ 32; it is indirect, but sufficiently convincing.
Footnote 1276:
See my article ‘Vestales’ in _Dict. of Antiquities_, ed. 2.
Footnote 1277:
Marq. 321 foll. Besides the sacrifice in the Regia on Jan. 9, the Rex
and his wife, the Regina sacrorum, sacrificed to Juno in the Regia on
the Kalends of every month, and apparently also to Janus (Junonius) to
whom there were twelve altars (in the Regia?) one for each month.
Macr. 1. 9. 16 and 1. 15. 19.
Footnote 1278:
For the father as the natural defender of the family, see Westermarck,
_Hist. of Human Marriage_, ch. 3.
Footnote 1279:
Festus, 185 ‘Maximus videtur Rex, dein Dialis, post hunc Martialis,
quarto loco Quirinalis, quinto pontifex maximus.’ For the
corresponding place of Janus, Liv. 8. 9. 6; Cato, _R. R._ 134; Marq.
26.
Footnote 1280:
_Lex._ 37 foll.; Preller, 1. 166 foll.; Mommsen, _R. H._ i. 173.
Footnote 1281:
Ἔφορος πάσης πράξεως, says Lydus, 4. 2, quoting Varro; cp. Ovid,
_Fasti_, 165 foll.
Footnote 1282:
Plut. _Q. R._ 22.
Footnote 1283:
Macrob. 1. 9. 16; Horace, _Sat._ ii. 6. 20 foll.
Footnote 1284:
Macrob. 1. 9. 14.
Footnote 1285:
Varro, _L. L._ 7. 26; Fest. 122.
Footnote 1286:
Macr. 1. 9. 16.
Footnote 1287:
Macr. l. c. Wissowa (_de Feriis_, vi) says the true form is
cons_e_vius; but the etymology holds.
Footnote 1288:
Roscher, _Lex._ 21, 26, 40.
Footnote 1289:
_C. I. L._ 1. 307, on the evidence of Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 629 and Varro,
_L. L._ 7. 84.
Footnote 1290:
Wissowa, _de Feriis_, viii.
Footnote 1291:
Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 1. 288.
Footnote 1292:
Fast. Praen. on Jan. 15 (mutilated). Cp. Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 619, and
Plut. _Q. R._ 56. Festus, 245.
Footnote 1293:
By Huschke, _Röm. Jahr_, 199. There was probably more than one
Carmenta (Gell. 16. 16. 4), if we consider Porrima and Postverta as
two forms of the goddess; and the two days may have some relation to
this duality. Perhaps there were two altars in the temple. Ovid,
_Fasti_, 1. 627.
Footnote 1294:
Plut. _Romulus_, 21.
Footnote 1295:
See Wissowa in _Lex. Myth._ i. 851; Ovid. _Fasti_, 1. 461 foll.; Virg.
_Aen._ 8. 336. The eighth Aeneid, it may be remarked, should be learnt
by heart by all investigators into Roman antiquity.
Footnote 1296:
Plut. _Q. R._ 56: cp. Dion. Hal. 1. 31. 1-9, from whom Plutarch may
have drawn his information, directly or perhaps through Juba. For the
temple they built cp. Gell. 18. 7. 2. If this temple be a different
one from that under the Capitol, it may suggest an explanation of the
double festival.
Footnote 1297:
_Studies in Latin Literature_, p. 48 foll.; _Journal of Philology_,
xi. 178.
Footnote 1298:
See on Fortuna, above, p. 167.
Footnote 1299:
Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 633; Varro in Gell. 16. 6. 4. Nettleship takes a
different view of these words. But see Wissowa in _Lex._ 1. 853;
Preller, i. 406.
Footnote 1300:
St. Augustine, _C. D._ 4. 11 ‘In illis deabus quae fata nascentibus
canunt et vocantur Carmentes.’
Footnote 1301:
_Asiatic Studies_, p. 20.
Footnote 1302:
Cic. _Brut._ 14. 56; _C. I. L._ vi. 3720; and _Eph. Ep._ iv. 759. The
rite of Jan. 11 is called ‘sacrum pontificale’ by Ovid (_Fast._ 1.
462), whence we infer that the pontifices had a part in it as well as
the flamen.
Footnote 1303:
Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 629. Cp. Varro, _L. L._ 7. 84. This passage of Varro
may possibly raise a doubt whether the taboo did not arise from a
mistaken interpretation of the words _scortum_ and _pellicula_, as
Carmenta was especially worshipped by matrons.
Footnote 1304:
The more so as we have no inscriptions relating to Carmenta. Though
her flaminium continued to exist under the Empire, she herself
practically disappeared. I am inclined to guess that her attributes
were to some extent usurped by the more popular and plebeian Fortuna.
Footnote 1305:
Solinus, 1. 13; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 336 and 337.
Footnote 1306:
See especially under April 1 and 28, the days of Fortuna virilis and
Flora.
Footnote 1307:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 223 foll.
Footnote 1308:
Juturnalia, Serv. _Aen._ 12. 139.
Footnote 1309:
Jordan, _Topogr._ 1. 2. 370; Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Iuturna.
Footnote 1310:
Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 45.
Footnote 1311:
Sementinae, according to Jordan in Prell. 2. 5, note 2.
Footnote 1312:
_Fasti_, 1. 658 foll.
Footnote 1313:
Paganicae (feriae), Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26. Varro seems to separate the
two: after mentioning the Sementinae, which he says was ‘sationis
causa susceptae,’ he goes on ‘Paganicae eiusdem agriculturae
susceptae, ut haberent in agris omnes pagi,’ &c. But the distinction
is perhaps only of place; or if of time also, yet not of object and
meaning.
Footnote 1314:
So Marq. 199, and Hartmann, _Röm. Kal._ 203. Preller thinks the
Sementinae were in September, before the autumn sowing; and it is
possible that there were two feasts of the name, one before the
autumn, another before the spring, sowing. Lydus (_de Mens._ 3. 3)
speaks of two days separated by seven others; on the former they
sacrificed to Tellus (Demeter), on the latter to Ceres (Κόρη); two
successive nundinae (market-days) are here meant.
Footnote 1315:
Cp. Scholiast on Persius, 4. 28; and see under Compitalia, Jan. 3-5.
Footnote 1316:
Ovid, 1. 661.
Footnote 1317:
_R. R._ 1. 34; Plin. _N. H._ 18. 204.
Footnote 1318:
Cp. Varro, _R. R._ 1. 29, 36. Cp. the Rustic Calendars for February.
Footnote 1319:
Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26 ‘sationis causa’; and Lydus says that the feast
could not be ‘stativae,’ because the ἀρχὴ σπόρου cannot be fixed to a
day. Lydus’ reason is not a good one, if the sowing did not begin till
Feb. 7; but it is plain that he understands the rites as
_prophylactic_. I may note that Columella seems to know little about
spring sowing (II. 2: cp. 2. 8). Mommsen, _R. H._ ii. 364, says that
spring sowing was exceptional.
Footnote 1320:
See under Cerialia, April 19.
Footnote 1321:
Ad Virg. _Georg._ 2. 385; Marq. 200 and 192, where the old explanation
(Macr. 1. 7. 34) seems to be adopted, that these were substitutes for
human or other victims (cp. Bötticher, _Baumkultus_, 80 foll.). We
have no clear evidence for this, and I am not disposed to accept it.
Footnote 1322:
2. 42. So Plut. _Coriol._ 3.
Footnote 1323:
Momms. _C. I. L._ 1. 308; Jordan, _Eph. Ep._ 1. 236; Aust, _de Aedibus
sacris_, 43.
Footnote 1324:
Dion. Hal. 6. 13; Liv. 2. 20.
Footnote 1325:
Suetonius, _Tib._ 20; Aust, op. cit. p. 6.
Footnote 1326:
Weight must, however, be given to the fact that the transvectio
equitum took place on July 15. Aust, 43, and Furtwängler in _Lex._ s.
v. Dioscuri.
Footnote 1327:
Middleton, _Ancient Rome_, p. 174; Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of
Ancient Rome_, p. 271 foll.
Footnote 1328:
Mommsen, _Münzwesen_, 301, 559.
Footnote 1329:
Pydna, Cic. _N. D._ 3. 5. II; Verona (101 B.C.), Plut. _Mar._ 26. The
most famous application of the story is in the accounts of the great
fight between Locri and Kroton at the river Sagra: this was probably
the origin of the Italian legends. See Preller, ii. 301.
Footnote 1330:
Albert, _le Culte de Castor et Pollux en Italie_, 1883. Cp.
Furtwängler, l. c.
MENSIS FEBRUARIUS
The name of the last month of the old Roman year is derived from
the word _februum_, usually understood as an instrument of
purification[1331]. This word, and its derivatives were, as we
shall see, best known in connexion with the Lupercalia, the most
prominent of the festivals of the month. Now the ritual of the
Lupercalia seems to suggest that our word ‘purification’ does not
cover all the ground occupied by the ‘religio’ of that festival;
nor does it precisely suit some of the other rites of February. We
are indeed here on difficult and dangerous ground. Certainly we
must not assume that there was any general lustration of the whole
people, or any period corresponding in religious intent to the
Christian Lent, which in time only is descended from the Roman
February. Assuredly there were no such ideas as penitence or
forgiveness of sins involved in the ritual of the month. Let so
much be said for the benefit of those who are only acquainted with
Jewish or Christian history.
What at least is certain is that at this time the character of the
festivals changes. Since the middle of December we have had a series of
joyful gatherings of an agricultural people in homestead, market-place,
cross-roads; now we find them fulfilling their duties to their dead
ancestors at the common necropolis, or engaged in a mysterious piacular
rite under the walls of the oldest Rome. The Parentalia and the
Lupercalia are the characteristic rites of February; we shall see later
on whether any of the others can be brought into the same category. If
pleasure is the object of the mid-winter festivals, the fulfilment of
duties towards the gods and the _manes_ would seem to be that of the
succeeding period.
From an agricultural point of view February was a somewhat busy month;
but in the time of Varro the work was chiefly the preparatory operations
in the culture of olives, vines and fruit-trees[1332]. The one great
operation in the oldest and simplest agricultural system was the spring
sowing. Spring was understood to begin on Feb. 7 (Favonius)[1333], and
it is precisely at this point that the rites change their character. We
are in fact close upon the new year, when the powers of vegetation awake
and put on strength; but the Romans approached it as it were with
hesitation, preparing for it carefully by steady devotion to work and
duty, the whole community endeavouring to place itself in a proper
position toward the _numina_ of the land’s fertility, and the dead
reposing in the land’s embrace.
Before taking the rites one by one, it will perhaps be as well to say a
word in general about the nature of Roman expiatory rites, in order to
determine in what sense we are to understand those of February.
The first point to notice is that these rites were applicable only to
_involuntary_ acts of commission or omission—an offence against the gods
(nefas) if wittingly committed, was inexpiable. In this case the
offender was _impius_, i. e. had wilfully failed in his duty; and him no
rites could absolve[1334]. But by ordinary offences against the gods we
are not to understand _sin_, in the Christian sense of the word; they
were rather mistakes in ritual, or involuntary omissions—in fact any
real or supposed or possible errors in any of a man’s relations to the
_numina_ around him. He might always be putting himself in the wrong in
regard to these relations, and he must as sedulously endeavour to right
himself. In the life of the ‘privatus’ these trespasses in sacred law
would chiefly be in matters of marriages and funerals and the regular
sacrifices of the household; in the life of the magistrate they would be
mistakes or omissions in his duties on behalf of the State[1335].
Whether in private or public life, they must be duly expiated. It is
needless to point out how powerful a factor this belief must have been
in the growth of a conscience and of the sense of duty; or how stringent
a ‘religio’ was that which, assuming that a man could hardly commit an
offence except unwittingly, made the possible exceptional case fatal to
his position as a member of a community which depended for its wholesome
existence on the good will of the gods.
Remembering that among the divine beings to whom it was most essential
for each family to fulfil its duties, were the _di manes_, or dead
ancestors and members of the family, we see at once that February with
its Parentalia was an important month in the matter of expiatory rites.
Ovid, though suggesting a fancy derivation for the name of the month,
expresses this idea clearly enough:
Aut quia _placatis_ sunt tempora pura sepulcris
Tum cum ferales praeteriere dies[1336].
But the other etymology given by the poet is, as we have seen, the right
one, and may bring us to another class of _piacula_, of which we find an
example this month in the Lupercalia.
Mensis ab his dictus, secta quia pelle Luperci
Omne solum lustrant, idque piamen habent[1337].
Not only was the Roman most careful to expiate involuntary offences, and
also to appease the wrath of the gods, if shown in any special active
way, e.g. by lightning and many other prodigia[1338], but he also sought
to avert evil influences _before-hand_, which might possibly emanate
from hostile or offended _numina_. This religious object is well
illustrated in the sacrifice of the _hostia praecidanea_, which was
offered beforehand to make up for any involuntary errors in the ritual
that followed[1339]. But it is also seen in numerous other rites of
which we have had many examples; all those, for instance, which included
a _lustratio_. We generally translate this word by ‘purification’; but
it also involves the ideas of intercession, and of the removal of unseen
hostile influences which may be likely to interfere with the health and
prosperity of man, beast, or crop. At such rites special victims were
sometimes offered, or the victim was treated in a peculiar manner; we
find, perhaps, some part of it used as a charm or potent spell, as the
strips of skin at the Lupercalia, or the ashes of the unborn calves at
the Fordicidia, or the tail and blood of the October horse[1340]. To the
first of these, at least, if not to the other two, the word _februum_
was applied, and we may assume it of the others: also to many other
objects which had some magical power, and carry us back to a very remote
religious antiquity. Ovid gives a catalogue of them[1341]: