Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Tapio Riikonen, Marc D'Hooghe
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
PUBLII OVIDII NASONIS FASTORUM
LIBRI VI.
OVID'S FASTI;
NOTES AND AN INTRODUCTION,
BY
THOMAS KEIGHTLEY,
Author of The Mythology of Ancient Greece and Italy, History of Greece,
History of Rome, etc.
Sex ego Fastorum scripsi, totidemque libellos;
Cumque suo finem mense volumen habet.
OVID. TRIST. II. 549.
PREFACE
No one, I should think, who has even done nothing more than look into
Ovid's Fasti, will refuse his assent to the following words of Hercules
Ciofanus, one of the earliest editors of this poem: _Ex omnibus_, says
he, _veterum poetarum monumentis nullum hodierno die exstat opus, quod,
aut eruditione aut rebus quae ad Romanam antiquitatem cognoscendam
pertineant, hos Ovidii Fastorum libros antecellat_. In effect we have
here ancient Roman history, religion, mythology, manners and customs, and
moreover much Grecian mythology, and that portion of the ancient
astronomy which regards the rising and setting of the different
constellations. These altogether form a wide field of knowledge; and in
my opinion there is not, in the whole compass of classical literature, a
work better calculated to be put into the hands of students.
Accordingly the Fasti are read at some of our great public schools and at
several of the private ones, and I have lately had the gratification of
seeing this very edition adopted at one of the most eminent of the great
schools. The name of the master of that school, did I feel myself at
liberty to mention it, would be a warrant for the goodness, at least the
relative goodness, of the present edition.
At the same time I will candidly confess that the work falls far short of
my own ideas of perfection in this department of literature. Circumstances,
which it is needless to mention, caused it to be executed in a very hurried
manner and without the necessary apparatus of books. It was in fact
undertaken, written, and printed in little more than two months. This is
mentioned in explanation of, not in excuse for, its defects--for no such
excuse should be admitted.
The text is that of Krebs, the latest German editor; from which however I
have occasionally departed, especially in the punctuation. In the notes
will be found the most important various readings of the fifty-eight MSS.
of this poem which have been collated. I have also adopted the Calendar
of Krebs' edition, as being on the whole the best, and as its copiousness
enables it to supply the place of arguments to the several books.
In the Introduction I have given such matter as the student should be
acquainted with previous to commencing the poem. The study of it will, I
trust, be found to be of advantage. My plan in writing the notes was, to
be as concise as was compatible with a full elucidation of the meaning of
the author. While therefore no difficult passage is left without at least
an attempt at explaining it, I have avoided swelling out my notes with
mythic or historic notices and narrations which may be found in the
Classical Dictionary. I suppose, for example, the student to know, or to
be able easily to discover, who Hercules and Romulus were, and where
Mount Haemus lies. Perhaps it would have been better if the notes on the
first two or three books had been more copious; those on the three last
are, I believe, sufficiently so.
Many references will be found to Niebuhr's History of Rome, and to my own
Mythology of Greece and Italy. For those to the former work I may perhaps
be entitled to thanks, as leading the attention to the noble discoveries
of the Bacon of history, as he is justly styled by Dr. Arnold. This last
eminent scholar is himself engaged on a History of Rome, of which apart
has appeared, and which promises to form a permanent portion of our
historic literature. In my own epitome of the Roman history sufficient
information on the portions of it alluded to will be found by those who
have not access to the work of Niebuhr. For the accuracy and fidelity of
the translation of Niebuhr's history by my friends Hare and Thirlwall, I
can pledge myself without any reservation. It may be useful here to add,
that the dates in the following notes are those of the Varronian
chronology, and not the Catonian as in my History of Rome.
With respect to my Mythology, I may boldly say it is the only work on the
subject in our language. Even the first edition (which is the one
referred to in the notes) received the approbation of the most competent
judges, and the second has been so much enlarged and improved as to form
in reality a new work. At the same time, I do not enjoin the study of it:
the references were merely intended for the use of those who desire
something more than the ordinary superficial acquaintance with mythology.
The _errata_, or typographical errors, are more numerous than they should
have been; but a complete list of them will be found on the page opposite
the commencement of the poem. There are, however, two or three errors of
a graver kind, which I may here rectify.
The reader will observe perhaps with surprise how completely I mistook
the sense of Lib. II. vv. 619, 620; though it is so obvious. The passage
might possibly bear the sense which I have given it; but it surely is not
what the poet meant. I was led into the error by v. 566. My interpretation
certainly gives the more poetical sense, and it is curious enough that I
have since met with the very same idea in one of the plays of our old
dramatist Ford:
"These holy rites perform'd, now take your times To spend the remnant of
the day in feasts. Such fit repasts are pleasing to the saints Who are
your guests, though not with mortal eyes To be beheld."
In the note on Lib. III. v. 845, the remark on _furta_ is trifling; for
that word is equivalent to _fures_, as _servitia_ is to _servi, operae_ to
_operarii_, etc., such being one of the peculiarities of the Latin
language. The time of the death of the Fabii is given incorrectly in the
note on Lib. II. v. 195: it should be "the Quinctilis of the year 277."
There is, I believe, no other error of any importance. Should another
edition be called for at any future time, I shall endeavour to make it
more complete,
T. K.
_Tunbridge Wells_, Aug. 30, 1839.
INTRODUCTION
§ 1. OF THE RISING AND SETTING OF THE STARS--§ 2. OF THE ROMAN YEAR
--§ 3. OF THE ROMAN MONTHS AND DAYS--§ 4. OF THE ROMAN FASTI--§ 5. OF
OVID'S POEM ON THE FASTI--§ 6. OF THE EDITIONS OF THIS POEM.
§ 1.
_Of the Rising and Setting of the Stars_.
The attention of a people who, like the ancient Greeks, dwelt in a region
where, during a great part of the year, the night might be passed in the
open air, and no mists or clouds obscured the heaven, must have been
early drawn to those luminous points which are scattered over it in such
profusion. They must have early learned to distinguish various clusters
of them, and thence to give them appropriate names. Accordingly, in the
most ancient portion of Grecian literature, the Homeric and Hesiodic
poems, we find various groupes of the stars designated by peculiar names.
Such are Orion, the Hyades, the Pleiades, the Bear or Wain, the Dog and
the Ploughman or Bear-ward (Boötes or Arcturus). The case was the same in
the East; we meet in the book of Job (c. ix. 9.) names for the Pleiades,
Hyades and Orion, and (xxvi. 14.) the constellation named the Great
Serpent. The people of ancient Italy appear to have done the same: the
Latin name of the Pleiades was _Vergiliae_, that of the Hyades _Suculae_,
the seven stars, which form the constellation of the Great Bear, were
named by them the _Septem Triones_, or Seven Oxen; for, as they go round
and round the pole without ever setting, the analogy between them and the
oxen, which trod out the corn by going round and round the _area_, or
threshing-floor, was an obvious one. Doubtless, the brilliant constellation
Orion, had a peculiar Latin name, which has not come down to us; of the
others, none but Greek appellations occur.
A very short acquaintance with the face of the stellar heaven sufficed to
shew, that it did not always remain the same. During a part of the year
Orion flamed in full magnificence on the sky, and, to the eye of the
Grecian herdsman and hunter, he and his Dog pursued the Bear, who kept
_watching_ him while the Pleiades (Peleiades, pigeons) were _flying_
before him; at another season the sky was destitute of this brilliant
scene. It was soon observed that the stars made 'their exits and their
entrances' at regular periods, corresponding with the changes which took
place in the course of nature on earth, and these coincidences were
marked and employed for agricultural purposes. A people who have no
regular scientific calendar, always contrives a natural one, taken from
celestial or terrestrial appearances. Thus the North American Aborigines
designate times and seasons by the flowering of certain plants; the
ancient Greeks appear to have done something of the same kind, for one of
Hesiod's designations of a particular season is, _when the thistle is in
blossom_; we ourselves call the first season of the year the Spring, (i.e.
of plants,) and our Transatlantic brethren term the autumn, the Fall
(of the leaves).
The Greeks, however, seem early to have seen the superior accuracy and
determinateness of the celestial phenomena. In the didactic poem of
Hesiod, this mode of marking the times of navigation and of rural labours
is frequently employed, and its use was retained by the countryfolk of
both Greece and Italy far into the time of the Roman empire. Those who
wrote on rural subjects or natural history, employed it; we meet it in
Aristotle, as well as in Pliny and Columella.
When intercourse with Egypt and Phoenicia had called the thoughts of the
Greeks to natural science, the rude astronomy of their rustic forefathers
became the subject of improvement. The name of Thales is, as was to be
expected, to be found at the head of the cultivators of this science. He
is said to have been the first who taught to distinguish between the real
and apparent rising and setting of a constellation; which implies a
knowledge of spheric astronomy. His example was followed and observation
extended by others, and as rain, wind, and other aërial phenomena were
held to be connected with the rising and setting of various signs, the
times of their risings and settings, both apparent and real, were
computed by Meton, Eudoxus, and other ancient astronomers. The tables
thus constructed were cut on brass or marble, and fixed up (whence they
were called [Greek: parapaegmata],) in the several cities of Greece, and
the peasant or sailor had only to look on one of these _parapegmata_, to
know what sign was about to rise or set, and what weather might be
expected. Without considering the difference of latitude and longitude,
the Romans borrowed the _parapegmata_, like every thing else, from the
Greeks. The countrymen, as we learn from Pliny (xviii. 60, 65,), ceased
to mark the stellar heaven, a _Kalendarium rusticum siderale_, (Colum.
ix. 14) taught him when the signs rose and set, and on what days he was
to expect sacrifices and festivals. When Virgil (G. I. 257.) says,
Nec frustra signorum obitus speculamur et ortus,
Temporibusque parem diversia quattuor annum.
it is, (as Voss observes,) more probable that it is one of these
calendars, and not the actual heaven that he means.
Before the time of Thales it was, of course only the visible and apparent
risings and settings of the signs that were the subject of observation.
But astronomers now learned to distinguish these phenomena into three
kinds. These they termed the cosmic, acronych, and heliac risings and
settings. The cosmic rising or setting ([Greek: kosmikos epitolae], or
[Greek: dusis],) was the true one in the morning; the acronych ([Greek:
akronychos][1]), _prima nox_, is evening, the beginning (one end) of the
night, the true one in the evening; the heliac, ([Greek: haeliakos]) the
apparent rising in the morning or setting in the evening. A star was said
to rise or set cosmically, when it rose or set at sun-rise; it rose or
set acronychally, when it rose or set at sun-set; it rose heliacally,
when in the morning it just emerged from the solar rays, it set in the
same manner, when in the evening it sank immediately after him. Two
general observations may be made here. 1. In the morning the true rising
precedes the apparent one, perhaps several days. 2. In the evening the
apparent setting precedes the real one. To illustrate this. Let us
suppose it 'spring time when the sun with Taurus rides,' the Hyades which
are in the head of Taurus will rise with the sun, but lost in his
effulgence they will elude our vision; at length when in his progress
through the Tauric portion of the ecliptic, he has left them a sufficient
distance behind him, their rising (as his motion in the ecliptic is
contrary to his apparent diurnal motion,) will precede his by a space of
time which will allow them to be seen. The real evening setting of a
star, is its sinking at the same moment with the sun below the horizon,
its heliac setting, is its becoming visible as he is setting and then
disappearing, that is ceasing to be visible after sun-set, in the western
part of the hemisphere. Thus the sun and the Hyades may actually set
together several days before they become sufficiently elongated from him,
to admit of their being seen before they set.
There are thus three risings, and three settings of a star, namely:--
The true morning rising, i. e. the cosmic.
The apparent morning rising, i. e. the heliac.
The true evening rising, i. e. the acronych.
The true morning setting, i. e. the cosmic.
The true evening setting, i. e. the acronych.
The apparent evening setting, i. e. the heliac.
Of these, the one which is most apt to engage the attention, is the
acronych or true evening rising, that is the rising of the star at the
eastern verge of the horizon, at the moment the sun is sinking on the
western side. It is of this I think, that Hesiod always speaks. The
attention of the constructors of parapegmata does not seem to have been
directed to the risings of the stars at different hours of the night.
§ 2.
_Of the Roman Year_.
Nothing is better established by competent authority, than that two kinds
of year were in use among the ancient Romans, the one of ten, the other
of twelve months. In the usual spirit of referring their ancient
institutions to those whom they regarded as their first kings, the
ten-month year was ascribed to Romulus, the improved one of twelve months
to Numa. This was the current opinion, such as we find it in the
following poem; some ancient writers, however, such as Licinius Macer and
Fenestella, to whom we may perhaps add Plutarch, rejected the ten-month
year as a mere fiction. Their opinion has been adopted by the great
Joseph Scaliger, who asserts that the Roman year always consisted of
twelve months. Both opinions may, I think, be maintained, the Romans may,
from the beginning of their state, have had a year of twelve months,
which I would call the Roman year, and yet have used along with it a year
of ten months, which, for reasons which will presently appear, I call the
Etruscan year. I will commence by showing that a year of ten months was
in use even in the time of the republic.
Ten months was the term for mourning; the fortunes of daughters, left by
will, were to be paid in three instalments of ten months each; on the
sale of olives, grapes on the vine, and wine in the vessels, ten month's
credit was given; the most ancient rate of interest also supposes a year
of ten months. It may further be noted, that even Scaliger, who rejected
this year, could not avoid remarking, how singular it was, that the
household festivals of the Saturnalia and the Matronalia should be the
one at the end of December, the other at the beginning of March. He did
not perceive that this would seem to indicate a time when, at the end of
a year of ten months, these two festivals were one, and male and female
slaves together enjoyed the liberty of the season.
These are mere presumptions; a nearer approach can be made to certainty.
There was nothing the ancient inhabitants of Italy more carefully
shunned, than drawing down the vengeance of the gods, by even an
involuntary breach of faith. It was also the custom, especially of the
Etruscans, to make peaces under the form of truces, for a certain number
of years. Now we find that, in the year 280, a peace was made with Veii
for 40 years. In 316 Fidenas revolted and joined Veii, which must then
have been at war with Rome, but 316-280, is only 36, yet the Romans,
though highly indignant, did not accuse the Veientines of breach of
faith. Suppose the truce made for 40 ten-month years, and it had expired
in the year 314. Again, in 329, a truce was made for twenty years, and
Livy says that it was expired in 347, but 347-329 is 18 not 20. Let the
year have been, of ten months, and the truce had ended in the year 346.
These are Etruscan cases, but we find the same mode of proceeding in
transactions with other nations; a truce for 8 years was made with the
Volscians in 323, and in 331 they were at war with Rome, without being
charged with perjury.
This ten-month year was that of the Etruscans who were the most learned
and cultivated people of the peninsula. As the civil years of the Latin
and other peoples were formed on various principles, and differed in
length, the Romans at least, if not the others, deemed it expedient to
use, in matters of importance, a common fixed measure of time. On all
points relating to science and religion they looked up to the Etruscans;
it was, therefore, a matter of course that their year should be the one
adopted.
This Etruscan year consisted of 304 days, divided into 38 weeks of eight
days each. It is not absolutely certain that it was also divided into
months, but all analogy is in favour of such a division. Macrobius and
Solinus say, that it contained six months of 31, and four of 30 days, but
this does not seem to agree with weeks of eight days; perhaps there were
nine months of four weeks and one of two, or more probably eight of four
weeks and two of three.[2] This year, which depended on neither the sun
nor the moon, was a purely scientific one, founded on astronomical
grounds and the accurate measurement of a long portion of time. It served
the Etruscans as a correction of their civil lunar year, the one which
was in common use, and, from the computations which have been made, it
appears that, by means of it, it may be ascertained that the Etruscans
had determined the exact length of the tropical or solar year, with a
greater degree of accuracy than is to be found in the Julian computation.
Like the Etruscans, the Romans employed for civil purposes a lunar year,
which they had probably borrowed also from that people. This year, which,
of course, like every year of the kind, must have consisted of twelve
months, fell short of the solar year by the space of 11 days and 6 hours,
and the mode adopted for bringing them into accordance was to
intercalate, as it was termed, a month in every other year, during
periods of 22 years, these intercalated months consisting alternately of
22 and 23 days. This month was named Mercedonius. In the last biennium of
the period no intercalation took place. As five years made a lustre, so
five of these periods made a secle, which thus consisted of 110 years or
22 lustres, and was the largest measure of time among the Romans.[3]
The care of intercalating lay with the pontiffs, and they lengthened and
shortened the year at their pleasure, in order to serve or injure the
consuls and farmers of the revenue, according as they were hostile or
friendly toward them. In consequence of this, Julius Caesar found the year
67 days in advance of the true time, when he undertook to correct it by
the aid of foreign science. From his time the civil year of the Romans
was a solar, not a lunar one,[4] and the Julian year continued in use
till the Gregorian reformation of the Calendar.
We thus see that the civil year of the Romans always consisted of twelve
months, and that a year of ten months was in use along with it in the
early centuries of the state, which served to correct it, and which was
used in matters of importance.[5]
§ 3.
_Of the Months and Days of the Roman Year_.
When it was believed that the year of 304 days was the original civil
year of the Romans, and evidence remained to prove that the commencement
of the year had, in former times, been regulated by the vernal equinox,
instead of the winter solstice, it seemed to follow, of course, that the
original year of Romulus had consisted of but ten months. The
inconvenience of this mode of dividing time must have been thought to
have appeared very early, since we find the introduction of the lunar
year of twelve months ascribed to Numa, who is said to have added two
months to the Romulian year, which, it would thus appear, was regarded
as having been a year of ten lunar months. This placing of the lunar
twelve-month year in the mythic age of Rome, I may observe, tends to
confirm the opinion of its having been in use from the origin of the
city.
The ancient Israelites had two kinds of year, a religious and a civil
one, which commenced at different seasons. Their months also originally,
we are told, proceeded numerically, but afterwards got proper names. As
the month Abib is mentioned by name in the book of Deuteronomy, I hazard
a conjecture, that the civil and religious years had coexisted from the
time of Moses, and that the months of the former had had proper names,
while those of the latter proceeded numerically. Is there any great
improbability in supposing the same to have been the case at Rome? The
religious year of ten months, as being least used, may have proceeded
with numerical appellations from its first month to December, while the
months of the civil year had each their peculiar appellation derived from
the name of a deity, or of a festival. It is remarkable that the first
six months of the year alone have proper names; but the remaining ones
may have had them also, though, from causes which we are unable to
explain, they have gone out of use, and those of the cyclic year have
been employed in their stead.[6]
The oriental division of time into weeks of seven days, though resulting
so naturally from the phases of the moon, was not known at Rome till the
time of the emperors. The Etruscan year, as we have seen, consisted of
weeks of eight days, and in the Roman custom of holding markets on the
_nundines_, or every ninth day, we see traces of its former use, but a
different mode of dividing the month seems to have early begun to
prevail.
In the Roman month there were three days with peculiar names, from their
places with relation to which the other days were denominated. These were
the Kalends (_Kalendae_ or _Calendae_,) the Nones, (_Nonae_) and the Ides
(_Idus_ or _Eidus_). The Kalends (from _calare_, to proclaim,) were the
first day of the month; the Nones (from _nonus_, ninth) were the ninth
day before the Ides reckoning inclusively; the Ides, (from iduare, to
divide,) fell about, not exactly on, the middle of the months. In March,
May, July and October, the Ides were the 15th, and, consequently, the
Nones the 7th day of the month; in the remaining months the Ides were the
13th, the Nones the 5th. The space, therefore, between the Nones and Ides
was always the same, those between the Kalends and Nones, and the Ides
and Kalends, were subject to variation. Originally, however, it would
appear, the latter space also was fixed, and there were in every month,
except February, 10 days from the Ides to the Kalends, The months,
therefore, consisted of 31 and 29 days, February having 28. In the Julian
Calendar, January, August and December were raised from 29 to 31 days,
while their Nones and Ides remained unchanged. It was only necessary then
to know how many days there were between the Kalends and Nones, as the
remaining portions were constant. Accordingly, on the day of new moon,
the pontiff cried aloud _Calo Jana novella_[7] five times or seven times,
and thus intimated the day of the Nones, which was quite sufficient for
the people.
We thus see that the Roman month was, like the Attic, divided into three
portions, but its division was of a more complex and embarrassing kind;
for while the Attic month consisted of three decades of days, and each
day was called the first, second, third, or so, of the decade, to which
it belonged; the days of the Roman month were counted with reference to
the one of the three great days which was before them. It is an error to
suppose that the Romans counted backwards. Thus, taking the month of
January for an example, the first day was the Kalends, the second was
then viewed with reference to the approaching Nones, and was denominated
the _fourth before the Nones_; the day after the Nones was the _eighth
before the Ides_; the day after the Ides, the _nineteenth before the
Kalends_ of February.
The technical phraseology of the Roman Calendar ran thus. The numeral was
usually put in the ablative case, and as the names of the months were
adjectives, they were made to agree with the Kalends etc. or followed in
the genitive, _mensis_ being understood. Thus, to say that an event
occurred on the Ides of March, the term would be _Idibus Martiis_, or
_Idibus Martii_ (_mensis_). So also of the Kalends and Nones, for any
other day the phrase would be, for example, _tertio Kalendas, i. e.
tertio (die ante) Kalendas_ or _tertio (die) Kalendarum_, The day before
any of the three principal days was _pridie (i. e. priore die) Kalendas_
or _Kalendarum, Nonas_ or _Nonarum, Idus_ or _Iduum_.
Another mode of expression, was to use a preposition, and an accusative
case. Thus, for _tertio Nonas_ they would say _ante diem tertium Nonas_,
which was written _a. d. III. Non_. This form is very much employed by
Livy and Cicero. It was even used objectively, and governed of the
prepositions _in_ and _ex_. We thus meet _in ante tertium Nonas_, and _ex
ante diem Nonas_, in these authors. Another preposition thus employed is
_ad_, we meet _ad pridie Nonas_.
As the Romans reckoned inclusively, we must be careful in assigning any
particular day to its place in the month, according to the modern mode of
reckoning. We must, therefore, always diminish the given number by one,
or we shall be a day behind. Thus, the 5th of June being the Nones, the
3d is III. Non. but if we subduct 3 from 5 we get the 2d instead of the
3d of the month. The rule then is, as we know the days on which the Nones
and Ides fall in each month, to subduct from that day the Roman number
_minus_ 1, and we have the day of the month. For days before the Kalends,
subduct in the same manner from the number of days in the month.
The days of the Roman year were farther divided into _fasti_, _nefasti_
and _endotercisi_,[8] or _intercisi_, which were marked in the Kalends by
the letters F. N. and EN. The _dies fasti_ were those on which courts
sat, and justice was administered; they were so named from _fari_ to
speak, because on them the Praetor gave judgement, that is _spoke_ the
three legal words, Do (_bonorum possessionem_), Dico (_jus_), Addico (_id
de quo quaeritur_); the _dies nefasti_, were festivals, and other days on
which the courts did not sit; the _dies intercisi_ were those days, on
only a part of which justice might be administered. Thus, we are told
that some holidays were _nefasti_, during the time of the killing of the
victim, but _fasti, inter caesa et porrecta (exta)_, again _nefasti_ while
the victim was being consumed on the altar.
Manutius, by merely counting up the number of the _dies fasti_ in the
Julian Calendar, found that they were exactly 38 in number. This strongly
confirms what has been said above, respecting the division of the cyclic
year into 38 weeks, and is one among numerous instances of the pertinacity
with which the Romans retained old forms and names, even when become no
longer applicable; for as 38 days were quite insufficient for the business
of the Forum, a much larger number of other days, under different
appellations, had been added to them long before. The making the market
days _fasti_ was, we are told,[9] the act of the consul Hortensius.
§ 4.
_Of the Roman Fasti_.
The Roman patricians derived from their Tuscan instructors, the practice,
common to sacerdotal castes, of maintaining power by keeping the people
in ignorance of matters which, though simple in themselves, were of
frequent use, and thence of importance. One of the things, which such
bodies are most desirous of enveloping in mystery and confining the
knowledge of to themselves, is the Calendar, by which religious rites and
legal proceedings are regulated. Accordingly, for a long time, the Roman
people had no means of learning with certainty what days were _fasti_ and
what not, but by applying to the pontiff, in whose house the tables of
the _fasti_ were kept, or by the proclamation which he used to make of
the festivals which were shortly to take place. As we have seen above,
the knowledge of the length of the ensuing month could only be obtained
in the same manner. This, and the power of intercalating, gave a highly
injurious degree of power to the pontiffs.
Accordingly, nothing could exceed the indignation of the senate when, in
the year 440, Flavius, the clerk or secretary of App. Claudius, as a most
effectual mode of gaining the popular favour, secretly made tables of the
Calendar and set them up about the Forum.[10] Henceforth the _dies fasti_
and _nefasti_, the _stative_ festivals, the anniversaries of the
dedications of temples, etc. were known to every one. The days of
remarkable actions, such as the successes and reverses of the arms of the
republic, were also noted. Copies for the use of the public and
individuals were multiplied; the _municipia_ and other towns of Italy, as
the fragments which have been discovered shew, followed the example of
Rome, and the colonies, in this as in every thing else, presented the
mother-city in little. The custom was transmitted to modern Europe, and,
in the Calendar part of our own Almanacks, we may see a copy of those
Fasti, which once formed a portion of the mysterious treasures of the
patricians of ancient Rome.
These were the Fasti Sacri or Kalendares, but the word Fasti was applied
to another kind of register, named the Fasti Historici or Consulares,
which contained the names of the magistrates of each year, especially the
consuls, and the chief events of the year were set down in them, so that
they formed a kind of annals of the state. When we read of the name of
any consul, as was the case with L. and M. Antonius, being erased from
the Fasti by a senatusconsult, it is always these Fasti that are meant.
§ 5.
_Of Ovid's Poem on the Fasti_.
Among the choir of poets who shed glory on the reign of Augustus, the
first place for originality may be claimed by P. Ovidius Naso. His Heroic
Epistles had no model in Grecian literature; his Art of Love, the most
perfect of his works, was equally his own, though didactic poetry had
been cultivated in Greece; his Metamorphoses bore perhaps a resemblance
to a lost poem of Nicander or Callimachus; but unless a work of this last
poet, presently to be noticed, was of the same kind with it, Grecian
literature contained nothing resembling his Fasti.
To a poet like Ovid, of various powers and great command of language, few
subjects could have appeared to possess more 'capabilities,' to use a
hackneyed but expressive term. He had here an opportunity of displaying
his power in the light, easy, and graceful style, when narrating the
adventures of the god of Grecian theology; while the real and legendary
history of his country afforded subjects which might have called forth
the highest powers of genius, and have awakened the sympathies of every
Roman reader. Here, however, I think he has failed; Ovid in fact very
much resembled a distinguished poet of our own days, who, like him,
excels in the light and amatory, and sportive style, but whose efforts in
the grave and dignified are not equally successful. In reading the poem,
I have sometimes asked myself if it would not have been better had the
Fasti of Rome been the theme of the Mantuan instead of the Pelignian
bard. Where Ovid fails Virgil would certainly have succeeded, and the
Regifugium and fall of the Fabii would have come down to us in strains
equal to those which celebrate the wars of ancient Italy. Whether the
reverse would have been the case, and that, in those lighter and more
familiar parts, where Ovid succeeds Virgil would have failed, I take not
on me to decide; but I should reckon much on the taste and judgement of
the author of the Georgics. Still, even in the higher parts, we know not
to what disadvantage even Virgil's verses might have competed with the
venerable Annals of Ennius, with whom he rather seemed to shun than to
seek collision. This is a question, however, which can never be decided,
and, much as I delight in the poetry of Virgil, I regard him as inferior
in genius to Ovid. Virgil depends on others, he always imitates; Ovid
borrows rarely, in composition he is always best when most independent.
I do not think that Ovid had any model for his Fasti; the idea might have
been suggested to him, as it is thought, by this verse of Propertius (iv.
1. 69):
Sacra, diesque canam et cognomina prisca locorum,
with which he concludes a poem, in which he feigns himself to be shewing
to a stranger the principal monuments of Rome. Callimachus, too, had
written a poem which, like all the poetry of the Alexandrian period, was
well known at Rome and was quoted by Varro, Martial, Servius and others.
Its title was [Greek: Aitia], and, from its name and the few fragments
and scanty accounts of it which remain, it appears that it treated of the
_causes_ of matters relating to the gods and ancient heroes of Greece.
From an epigram in the Anthology, we learn that he feigned that he was
transported in a dream to Mt. Helicon, and there received his information
from the Muses. The epigram ends thus:
[Greek:
Ai de hoi eiromeno, amph' Ogugion Haeroon
Aitia kai makaron eiron ameibomenai].
It is uncertain whether the poem was in heroic or elegiac measure. Ovid
appears to have been acquainted with it, for (Trist. v. 5. 33.) when
speaking of the dividing of the flame on the pyre of the Theban brothers
he adds--
Hoc, memini, quondam fieri non posse loquebar,
Et me Battiades judice falsus erat.
The difference, however, between this poem and the Fasti, must have been
considerable. A Greek poet, named Butas, according to Plutarch (Rom.
21.), wrote [Greek: aitias muthodeis en elegeiois ton Romaikon], from
which he quotes these two verses relating to the Luperci, and in
explanation of their custom of striking those whom they met--
[Greek:
Empodious tuptontas hopos tote phasgan' echontes
Ex Albaes etheon Romulos aede Remos].
This might appear to have been the model of Ovid's poem, but it is
unknown when Butas lived, and he may as well have written after as before
the Latin poet.
On the whole, I think Ovid's claim to originality in this poem cannot
justly be contested. Even though he may have taken the idea of it from
others his mode of treating the subject is his own.
When Ovid first conceived the idea of writing a poem on the Roman Fasti,
it is not likely that he was very well furnished with the requisite
knowledge. Any one, who is familiar with the internal history of
literature, knows how common it is for a writer, especially a poet, to
select a subject of which he is sufficiently ignorant, and then to go in
search of materials. Such appears to me to have been the case with Ovid,
and the errors into which he falls prove that though a diligent enquirer,
as I think he was, he never arrived at accuracy in history or science;
with Grecian mythology he was intimately acquainted, and here he is
superior to Virgil, whose knowledge of the history and institutions of
ancient Italy much exceeded his.
The Annals of Ennius, the historical works of Fabius Pictor and his
successors down to Livy, contained the history of Rome, and these works,
it is evident, Ovid had studied; for the institutions and their origins
his chief source must have been the writings of L. Cincius Alimentus, the
contemporary of Fabius Pictor, the most judicious investigator of
antiquities that Rome ever produced. The various Fasti, such as those of
his contemporary Verrius Flaccus, of which fragments have been discovered
and published,[11] contributed much information, and various passages of
the poem intimate that personal inquiry and oral communication aided in
augmenting his stores of antiquarian lore. His astronomical knowledge was
probably derived from the ordinary Calendars, and as they were not
strictly correct, and the poet, in all probability, did not apply himself
with much relish to what he must have viewed as a dry and uninviting
study, we are not to look in him for extreme accuracy on this head, and
must not be surprised to meet even gross blunders.
Two points are to be considered respecting this poem, namely, the time
when it was written and published, and whether, when published, it
contained any more than the six books which have come down to us.
The mysterious relegation of Ovid to Tomi, on the coast of the Euxine,
took place A.U.C. 762, in the fifty-second year of the poet's age. In the
long exculpatory epistle to Augustus, which forms the second book of his
Tristia, he mentions the Fasti as a work actually written, and dedicated
to that prince, but interrupted by his exile. The poem itself contains
many passages which were evidently addressed to him. On the other hand,
it is actually dedicated to Germanicus, the adoptive son of Tiberius, and
L. I. v. 285, he mentions the triumph of that prince over the Catti,
Cherusci and Angevarii, which, according to Tacitus (Ann. II. 41.), took
place in the year 770, which was the year of the poet's death. It would,
therefore, seem to follow at once that this is the true date of the
publication of the poem, were it not that Tacitus (II. 26.) tells us that
the triumph had been decreed by the senate in the year 768, so that the
poet's words may be proleptical. The other, however, is by far the most
natural and probable interpretation of his words. It is confirmed by a
passage (L. II. 55. _et seq_.) in which he praises Tiberius as the
builder and restorer of the temples of the gods, and in this very year
770, as we learn from Tacitus, the emperor repaired and dedicated the
temple of Liber, Libera and Ceres, that of Flora and that of Janus. We
may, therefore, venture to assert that the year 770 was that of the
publication of this poem. We are now to enquire whether any more appeared
then than what has come down to us.
In the epistle to Augustus, above alluded to, Ovid says,
Sex ego Fastorum scripsi totidemque libellos;
Cumque suo finem mense volumen habet.
Idque tuo nuper scriptum sub nomine, Caesar,
Et tibi sacratum sors mea rupit opus.
Hence it has become the prevalent opinion that he wrote twelve books, of
which the half has perished. This appears certainly to follow plainly
enough from the words of the poet, but the silence of the ancients
respecting the last six books is strong on the negative side, for of all
the quotations which we meet of this work, particularly in Lactantius,
there is not a single one that is not to be found in the books which we
possess. I, therefore, agree with Masson, in his life of the poet, that
the meaning of those verses is, that he had collected his materials for
the whole work, and digested them under the different months, and in part
versified them. This is applying no force to the verb _scribo_; we should
recollect that Racine, when he had his materials collected and his plot
arranged, used to say _Voilà ma tragédie faite!_ We cannot say whether
Ovid had versified the last six books, for he may have done so, and they
may have been lost at the time of his death. There is a curious
coincidence between the fate of Ovid's Fasti and Spenser's Faerie Queene;
of each we have but the one half, and it is a matter of controversy
respecting the remaining books of each, whether they were never written,
or, having been written, unhappily chanced to perish.
§ 6.
_Of the Editions of Ovid's Fasti_.
The earliest edition of this poem with notes was in the works of Ovid,
edited by A. Navagero, a Venetian nobleman, and printed by Aldus, in the
year 1502. An edition appeared at Basle, in 1550, edited by J. Micyllus,
with the commentaries of several men of learning. Hercules Ciofani, a
native of Sulmo, edited in 1578-1580, the works of his compatriote poet.
In the Fasti he used twelve of the best MSS. and he added a body of notes
on the whole of Ovid's works, which were afterwards printed separately,
by Plantin, at Antwerp. The next who devoted his labours to the Fasti was
a young Sicilian nobleman, named Carlo Neapolis, who wrote, at the age of
twenty one, a commentary on this poem, which was published at Antwerp, in
1639, under the title of _Anaptyxis ad Fastos Ovidianos_. The celebrated
N. Heinsius also undertook the task of elucidating this pleasing poet,
whose entire works, castigated by the aid of upwards of sixty MSS. and of
great learning and critical sagacity, he gave to the light, in 1658-1661,
at Amsterdam, in 3 Tom. 12. with brief notes. Finally, appeared at the
same place, in 1727, in 4 vols. 4. the works of Ovid, edited by Peter
Burmann; this editor gave a revision of the text of Heinsius, which he
occasionally altered, and he added, in whole or in part, the notes of the
preceding commentators.
These were the principal editions of this poem previous to the present
century. I should add that G. C. Taubner published an edition of it at
Leipzig, in 1747, with a selection of notes from preceding commentators,
to which he added his own observations; and that C. W. Mitscherlich
published at Göttingen, in 1796-98, in 2 vols. 8vo. the works of Ovid
with an amended text. But in the year 1812, G. E. Gierig, who had already
published an edition of the Metamorphoses with a commentary, gave out the
Fasti in a similar manner. He has revised the text, and his notes are
generally extremely good, though liable to the charge of needless
prolixity in some parts, and too great brevity in others. It is however,
a valuable edition on the whole, and the best for general use. In the
Oxford edition of the works of Ovid, published in the year 1825, the
entire notes of this critic have been given.
J. P. Krebs, who had thirty years before translated this poem into
German, gave an edition of it for the use of schools in 1826. His
attention was chiefly directed to the text, and he has most carefully
given all the various readings, to which he adds parallel and explanatory
passages from other writers, and the dates of the several events which
are mentioned in the poem. Beyond this his notes do not extend. His text
has been adopted for the present edition, but I have noticed only the
various readings of greatest importance.
NOTES:
[1] [Greek: Akronyx, akronychia, to akron taes nuktos].
[2] See the Cambridge Philological Museum, No. V. p, 474.
[3] Certus undenos decies per annos
Orbis ut cantus referatque ludos.
HORACE CAR. SEC. 21.
[4] It is for this reason that in my note on I. 1, I have called the Latin
year a solar one, for such it was when Ovid wrote.
[5] On the subjects treated of in this section, see Niebuhr on the Secular
Cycle, in his History of Rome, and Scaliger de Emendatione Temporum.
[6] That this is by no means improbable is evident from the circumstance,
that the name of the intercalary month, Mercedonius, is to be found in no
Latin writer. It would be unknown to us, if Plutarch had not chanced to
mention it.
[7] _Jana_ was the moon, and from _Dea Jana_ (pronounced _Yana_), was made
Diana.
[8] _Endo_ or _indu_, was an old form for _in_. It may still be seen in
the fragments of Ennius and in Lucretius.
[9] Macrob. Sat. I. 16.
[10] Liv. ix. 46.
[11] At Rome, in 1772, by Fogginius.
FASTI
KALENDARES ROMANI
Ex Ovidio.
JANUARIUS. LIB. I.
1. A. KAL. F. Novi consulatus initia, 75, Jani festum, 89.
Aesculapii et Jovis templa in insula Tiberina
consecrata, 290.
2. B. IV. NON. F.
3. C. III. NON. C. Cancer occidit, 311.
4. D. PR. NON. C.
5. E. NON. F. Lyra oritur, 315.
6. F. VIII.ID. F.
7. G. VII. ID. C.
8. H. VI. ID. C.
9. A. V. ID. Agonalia celebrata, 317. Delphini ortus, 457.
10. B. IV. ID. EN. Hiems media, 459.
11. C. III. ID. NP. Carmentalia, 461. Juturnae sedes in campo Martio
ad aquam Virginem dicata, 463.
12. D. PR. ID. C.
13. E. ID. NP. Jovi Statori ovis semimas immolabatur, 587.
Populo provinciae redditae. 589. Octaviano
Augusti nomen datum, 590.
14. F. XIX. KAL. FEBR. EN.
15. G. XVIII.KAL Carmentalia relata, 617. Porrimae et Postvertae
festus dies, 631.
16. H. XVII. KAL. C. Concordiae templum prope tedem Junonis Monetae
dedicatum, 637.
17. A. XVI. KAL. C. Sol Aquarium ingreditur relicto Capricorno, 651.
18. B. XV. KAL. C.
19. C. XIV. KAL. C.
20. D. XIII. KAL. C.
21. E. XII. KAL. C.
22. F. XI. KAL. C.
23. G. X. KAL. C. Lyra occidit, 653.
24. H. IX. KAL. C. Stella in medio Leonis pectore occidit, 655.
Sementivae feriae circa hoc tempus indictae,
657. Paganalia, 669.
25. A. VIII. KAL. C.
26. B. VII. KAL. C.
27. C. VI. KAL. C. Castori et Polluci templura ad Juturnae stagnum
dedicatum, 705.
28. D. V. KAL. C.
29. E. IV. KAL. F.
30. F. III. KAL. NP. Pacis ara dicata, 709.
31. G. PR. KAL. C.
FEBRUARIUS. LIB. II.
1. H. KAL. N. Templum Junoni Sospitae positum, 65. Lucus
Asyli celebratus, 67. Jovi in Capitolio
bidens mactata, 69.
2. A. IV. NON. N. Lyra occidit, 73. et Leo medius, 77.
3. B. III. NON. N. Delphinus occidit, 79.
4. C. PR. NON. N.
5. D. NON. (N.) Augustus Pater Patriae dictus, 119. Aquarius
medius oritur, 145.
6. E. VIII. ID. N.
7. F. VII. ID. N.
8. G. VI. ID. N.
9. H. V. ID. N. Veris initium, 149.
10. A. IV. ID. N.
11. B. III. ID. N. Arctophylax oritur, 153.
12. C. PR. ID. N.
13. D. ID. NP. Fauni sacra, 193. Fabianae cladis memoria, 195.
14. E. XVI. KAL. MART. N. (C.) Corvus, Anguis, Crater oriuntur, 243.
15. F. XV. KAL. NP. Lupercalia Fauno sacra, 267. Ventorum inconstantia
per sex dies, 453. Aquario relicto Sol
Pisces iugreditur, 457.
16. G. XIV. KAL. EN.
17. H. XIII.KAL. NP. Quirini sacra, 475. Stultorum festiis dies, 513.
Fornicalia, 527.
18. A. XII. KAL. C.
19. B. XI. KAL. C. Feralia, i. e. ultimus placandis Manibus dies.
567. Deae Mutae sacra facit anus, 571.
20. C. X. KAL. C.
21. D. IX. KAL. F.
22. E. VIII.KAL. C. Charistia, cognatorum sacra, 617.
23. F. VII. KAL. NP. Terminalia, 639.
24. G. VI. KAL. N. Regifugium, 685. Hirundo advenit, veris
praenuntia, 853.
25. H. V. KAL. C.
26. A. IV. KAL. EN.
27. B. III. KAL. NP. Equiria, 857.
28. C. PR. KAL. C.
MARTIUS. LIB. III.
1. D. KAL. NP. In flaminum domibus, regia, curia, Vestae aede
novae ponuntur laureae, ignis Vestae
reficitur, 137. Matronalia, 170. et
Salinorum dies festi, 259.
2. E. VI. NON. F.
3. F. V. NON. C. Alter c Piscibus occidit, 399.
4. G. IV. NON. C.
5. H. III. NON. C. Arctophylax occidit, 403. Vindemitor nondum
occidit, 407.
6. A. PR. NON. NP. Vestae sacrum, Caesar Augustus Pontifex Maximus
factus, 415.
7. B. NON. F. Vejovis templum consecratum, 429. Pegasi collum
oritur, 449.
8. C. VIII. ID. F. Corona Gnossis oritur, 459.
9. D. VII. ID. C.
10. E. VI. ID. C.
11. F. V. ID. C.
12. G. IV. ID. C.
13. H. III. ID. EN.
14. A. PR. ID. NP. Equiria altera in campo Martio, 517. vel monte
Coelio, 521.
15. B. ID. NP. Annae Perennae sacra, 523. Julii Caesaris
caedes, 697.
16. C. XVII. KAL. APR. F. Scorpius ex parte occidit, 711. Itum ad
Argeos hac et sequenti die, 791.
17. D. XVI. KAL. NP. Liberalia, Bacchi sacrum, 713. Toga libera
data, 771. Milvi ortus, 793.
18. E. XV. KAL. C.
19. F. XIV. KAL. N. Quinquatria Minervae sacra, 809. Minervae
natalis, 811. Minerval magistris solutum,
829. Delubra Minervae Captae dedicata, 835.
20. G. XIII. KAL. C. Alter Quinquatruum dies gladiatoriis
certaminibns cum tribus sequentibus
celebratus, 818.
21. H. XII. KAL. C.
22. A. XI. KAL. N. Sol ingreditur Arictem, 851.
23. B. X. KAL. NP. Quintus idemque ultimus Qumquatruum dies, et
Tubilustrium Minervae sacrum, 849.
24. C. IX. KAL. Q. R. C. F.
25. D. VIII. KAL. C.
26. E. VII. KAL. C. Aequinoctium vernum, 877.
27. F. VI. KAL. NP.
28. G. V. KAL. C.
29. H. IV. KAL. C.
30. A. III. KAL. C. Jani, Concordiae, Salutis, Pacis estus dies, 879
31. B. PR. KAL. C. Lunae sacra in monte Aventino, 833.
APRILIS. LIB. IV.