only an inference from the want of substantival names in
so many Roman deities; surely, it would be argued, the
pontifices must have had some reason for this. It is
contradicted by the fact that in such ancient formulae
as that of the _devotio_ (Livy viii. 9) the great gods
are called by their own names, though the army was in
the field and in presence of the enemy. There was,
however, an old idea that the name of the special
tutelary god of the city was never divulged, lest he
should become _captivus_, and that the true name of the
city itself was unknown; see Macrob. iii. 9. 2 foll. I
believe that these ideas were encouraged by the
pontifices, but were not founded on fact.
[227] For the Indigitamenta see below, p. 159; _R.F._ p.
341; R. Peter's able article in _Myth. Lex._, _s.v._
Scholars do not seem to me to have reckoned sufficiently
with the tendency of a legal priesthood, devoted to the
strict maintenance of religious minutiae, to elaborate
and organise the material for god-making which was
within their reach. To judge by the elaboration of the
ritual at Iguvium, the same tendency must have existed
in other kindred Italian communities, both to develop
ritualistic priesthoods, and through them to elaborate
the ritual. This is, I think, the weak point of Usener's
reasoning in his _Goetternamen_, and as applied to Roman
deities it is the weak point of an interesting article
by von Domaszewski, reprinted in his _Abhandlungen zur
roem. Religion_, p. 155 foll.
[228] The best account of Tellus is in Wissowa, _R.K._
p. 159 foll.
[229] _R.F._ p. 71; Ovid, _Fasti_, iv. 631 foll. This
was a festival of the populus as a whole, and also of
each Curia, like the Fornicalia in February. Both were
clearly agricultural in origin, though the Curia as we
know it was probably an institution of the city. I must
own that I am quite uncertain as to what the thing was
which was originally meant by the word Curia; my friend
Dr. J. B. Carter may have something to say on the
subject in his book on the Roman religion in the Jastrow
series.
[230] Dieterich, _Mutter Erde_, pp. 11 and 73 foll.
[231] Virg. _Aen._ iv. 166, "prima et Tellus et pronuba
Iuno Dant signum"; commenting on which Servius wrote,
"quidam sane etiam Tellurem praeesse nuptiis tradunt;
nam et in auspiciis nuptiarum invocatur: cui etiam
virgines, vel cum ire ad domum mariti coeperint, vel iam
ibi positae, diversis nominibus vel ritu sacrificant."
There is little doubt that Tellus is frequently
concealed under the names of Ceres, Dea Dia, etc. For
Ceres and Juno in marriage rites, see Marquardt,
_Privatleben_, p. 49.
[232] See below, p. 206 foll.; Macrob. iii. 9. 11;
Deubner in _Archiv_, 1905, p. 66 foll.
[233] See De Marchi, _La Religione_, _etc._, i. p. 188
and reff. (The reference to Gellius should be iv. 6. 7,
not iv. 67.) Like some other operations of the Roman
religion, this became a form, and was used as a kind of
insurance, whether or no there had been any omission;
Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 160.
[234] That Ceres represented the _fructus_ is shown by
the fact that in the XII. Tables the man who raided a
field of standing corn at night was made _sacer_ to her;
Pliny, _N.H._ xviii. 12.
[235] Cato, _R.R._ 134. De Marchi, _op. cit._ p. 135.
Janus, Jupiter, and Juno are concerned in this rite,
Ceres coming last. Varro has preserved the part of
Tellus for us: "quod humatus non sit, heredi porca
praecidanea suscipienda Telluri et Cereri, aliter
familia non pura est" (_ap. Nonium_, p. 163).
[236] The verses are quoted by Dieterich, _Mutter Erde_,
p. 75, among others from Buecheler's _Anthology of Roman
Epitaphs_, Nos. 1544 and 1476. The story is told in
Suetonius' _Life of Tib._ c. 75, and again of Gallienus
by Aurelius Victor (_Caes._ c. 33).
[237] Marquardt, p. 326, who notes that the Romans
themselves derived the word from _filum_, a fillet;
_e.g._ Varro, _L.L._ v. 84, "quod in Latio capite velato
erant semper, ac caput cinctum habebant _filo_." Modern
etymologists equate the word with _Brahman_.
[238] Thus the Flamen Quirinalis sacrificed at the
Robigalia, _R.F._ p. 89, and with the Pontifices and
Vestals took part in the Consualia, Marq. 335.
[239] We may note here that the most general Latin name
for a priest was _sacerdos_, which seems to have
excluded all magic, etc.; it means an office sanctioned
by the State. On the general question of the origin of
priesthood see Jevons, _Introduction_, _etc._, ch. xx.,
with whose explanations, however, I cannot entirely
agree. I should prefer to keep the word priest for an
official who sacrifices and prays to his god. In this
view I am at one with E. Meyer, _Geschichte des
Altertums_, i.^2 p. 121 foll. God and priest go together
as permanent, regular in function, and entrusted by a
community with certain duties.
[240] Marquardt, p. 180; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 427. The
popa or victimarius is seen in many artistic
representations of sacrifice, _e.g._ Schreiber, _Atlas
of Classical Antiquities_, plate xvii. figs. 1 and 3.
[241] Jevons, ch. xx.; Frazer, _G.B._ i. 245 foll., and
_Lectures on Early History of Kingship_, Lectures ii.
and v.
[242] Virg. _Aen._ viii. 352.
[243] In a valuable paper in his _Gesammelte
Abhandlungen_ (p. 284) Wissowa says that "personal
conception of deity is absolutely strange to the old
Roman religion of the _di indigetes_." I believe this to
be essentially true; but my point is that localisation
and ritual prepared the way for the reception of Greek
ideas of personality. The process had already begun in
the religion of the house; but it was not likely there
to come in contact with foreign germs. When Janus and
Vesta, who were in every house (Wissowa, p. 285), were
localised in certain points in a city, they would be far
more likely to acquire personality, if such an idea came
in their way, than in the worship of the family.
[244] Aug. _Civ. Dei_, vii. 28, "quem alii caelum, alii
dixerunt esse mundum." Dr. Frazer, citing this passage
(_Kingship_, p. 286) in support of his view that Janus
was a duplicate of Jupiter, has omitted to notice that
some theorisers fancied he was the _universe_, which by
itself is enough to betray the delusive nature of this
kind of theological speculation. Varro elsewhere gives
us a clue to the liability of Janus to be exalted in
this unnatural fashion, _L.L._ vii. 27, "divum deo" (in
the Salian hymn), if this be taken as referring to
Janus, as it may be, comparing Macrob. i. 9. 14. But
this is easily explained by the position of Janus in
prayers; cp. Cic. _Nat. Deor._ ii. 27. 67, "cum in
omnibus rebus vim haberent maximam prima et extrema,
principem in sacrificando Ianum esse voluerunt." The
phrase "Deorum" or "Divum deus" is indeed remarkable,
and unparalleled in Roman worship; but no one acquainted
with Roman or Italian ritual will for a moment suspect
it of meaning "God of gods" in either a Christian or
metaphysical sense. I shall have occasion to notice the
peculiar use of the genitive case and of genitival
adjectives in worship later on. See below, p. 153 foll.
[245] _Fasti_, i. 89 foll.; _R.F._ p. 281 foll.
[246] Frazer, _l.c._ (a page of which every line appears
to me to be written under a complete misapprehension of
the right methods of research into the nature of Roman
gods); A. B. Cook, _Classical Review_, vol. xviii. 367
foll.; Professor Ridgeway, _Who were the Romans?_ p. 12,
where, among other remarkable statements, Janus is
confidently said to have been introduced at Rome by the
Sabine Numa, and therefore to have been a Sabine deity,
an assumption quite irreconcilable with those of Dr.
Frazer and Mr. Cook. In striking contrast with such
speculations is a sensible paper on Janus in M.
Toutain's _Etudes de mythologie et d'histoire_, p. 195
foll. (Paris, 1909).
[247] Dr. Frazer is aware of this; see his _Kingship_,
p. 285, note 1. See also Roscher in _Myth. Lex._, _s.v._
"Janus," p. 45 foll.
[248] For the evidence for this and the following facts,
see Roscher's article just cited, or Wissowa, _R.K._ p.
91 foll.; cp. _R.F._ p. 280 foll. The cult epithets of
Janus are thus explained by von Domaszewski,
_Abhandlungen_, p. 223, note 1, "Bei Ianus tritt
regelmaessig der Begriff des Wesens hinzu, dessen Wirkung
er von Anfang an bestimmt, so I. Consevius der Anfang
der in Consus wirkenden Kraft, und in derselbe Weise I.
Iunonius, Matutinus," etc. This is reasonable, but it
does not suit with I. Patulcius-Clusius, and I cannot
accept it with confidence at present.
[249] Roscher, _op. cit._ p. 34.
[250] Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 284 foll.
[251] Festus, p. 185.
[252] It is due to the good sense and learning of Dr.
Roscher; he had previously, when working on the old
methods, tried to prove that Janus was a "wind-god"
(_Hermes der Windgott_, Leipzig, 1878); but a more
searching inquiry into the Roman evidence, when the
prepossessions had left him which the comparative method
is so likely to produce, brought him to the view I have
explained in outline, which has been adopted in the main
by Wissowa, Aust, and J. B. Carter, as well as by myself
in _R.F._ The last word about so puzzling a deity can of
course never be said; but if we indulge in speculations
about him we must use the Roman evidence with adequate
knowledge of the criticism it needs.
[253] This difference between Zeus and Jupiter has been
pointed out by Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 100; Jupiter stands
for the heaven even in classical Latin literature, as we
all know.
[254] See his papers in the _Classical Review_, vol.
xvii. 270 and xviii. 365 foll., and in _Folklore_, vol.
xv. 301; xvi. 260 foll.
[255] _Kingship_, p. 196 foll.
[256] Macrobius i. 15. 14. In historical times a white
victim, _ovis idulis_, was taken to the Capitol by the
_via sacra_ in procession (Ov. _Fasti_, i. 56. 588).
Festus says that some derived the term _via sacra_ from
this procession (p. 290); and to this Horace may be
alluding in _Ode_ iii. 30. 8, "dum Capitolium Scandet
cum tacita virgine pontifex."
[257] _R.F._ pp. 86, 204.
[258] _R.F._ p. 160.
[259] No doubt Jupiter was specially connected with the
oak, as Mr. Cook has shown with great learning in the
paper cited above, note 36; but at Rome he had an
ancient shrine among beeches, and was known as I.
Fagutalis: Varro, _L.L._ v. 152; Paulus 87. For I.
Viminalis, see _R.F._ p. 229.
[260] See Aust's article "Jupiter" in _Myth. Lex._ p.
673.
[261] Aust gives a cut of a coin of the consul Claudius
Marcellus (223 B.C.) dedicating _spolia opima_ in this
little temple, according to the ancient fashion,
supposed to be initiated by Romulus, Livy i. 10.
[262] Dionys. Hal. ii. 34.
[263] _R.F._ p. 230.
[264] See De Marchi's careful investigation, _La
Religione_, _etc._, i. p. 156 foll.; Gaius i. 112. The
cult-title should indicate that the god was believed to
be immanent in the cake of _far_, rather than that it
was offered to him (so I should also take I. Dapalis,
though in later times the idea had passed into that of
sacrifice, Cato, _R.R._ 132), and if so, the use of the
cake was sacramental; cp. the rite at the Latin
festival, _R.F._ p. 96.
[265] There are distinct traces of a practice of taking
oaths in the open air, _i.e._ under the sky; of Dius
Fidius, unquestionably a form of Jupiter, Varro says
(_L.L._ v. 66), "quidam negant sub tecto per hunc
deiurare oportere." Cp. Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 28;
_R.F._ p. 138. For the conception of a single great
deity as primitive, see Lang, _The Making of Religion_,
ch. xii.; Flinders Petrie, _Religion of Egypt_ (in
Constable's shilling series), ch. i.; Ross, _The
Original Religion of China_, p. 128 foll.; Warneck, _Die
Lebenskraefte des Evangeliums_, p. 20 (of the Indian
Archipelago). The last reference I owe to Professor
Paterson, of Edinburgh University.
[266] Serv. _Aen._ viii. 552, "more enim veteri sacrorum
neque Martialis flamen neque Quirinalis omnibus
caerimoniis tenebantur quibus flamen Dialis, neque
diurnis sacrificiis distinebatur." It is, however,
possible that under the word _caerimonia_ Servius is not
here including taboos, but active duties only.
[267] See my paper, "The Strange History of a Flamen
Dialis," in _Classical Review_, vol. vii. p. 193.
[268] Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 26.
[269] Cato, _R.R._ 141; Henzen, _op. cit._ p. 48.
[270] Frazer, _G.B._ iii. 123, note 3; _R.F._ p. 40, for
further examples. It may be worth while to point out
here that the coupling of all farm animals except goats
took place in spring or early summer; Varro, _R.R._ ii.
2 foll. Isidorus (_Orig._ v. 33), who embodies Varro and
Verrius to some extent, derived the name Mars from
_mares_, because in the month of March "cuncta animalia
ad mares aguntur."
[271] I prefer, with De Marchi, to take Silvanus here as
a cult-title, though we do not meet with it elsewhere;
see _La Religione_, _etc._, p. 130 note; but Wissowa,
who has a prejudice against the view that Mars was
connected with agriculture, insists on taking Marti
Silvano as a case of asyndeton, _i.e._ as two deities.
[272] See, _e.g._, Varro, _L.L._ v. 36, "quos agros non
colebant propter silvas aut id genus, ubi pecus possit
pasci, et possidebant, ab usu salvo saltus nominarunt."
[273] Cato, _R.R._ 141. Mars is there invoked as able to
keep off (_averruncare_) evil influences and to make the
crops grow, etc.; he has become in the second century
B.C. a powerful deity in the actual processes of
husbandry, just as he became in the city a powerful
deity of war. But as he was not localised either on the
farm or in the city, I prefer to think that he was
originally conceived as a Power outside the boundary in
each case, but for that very reason all the more to be
propitiated by the settlers within it.
[274] See below, p. 235.
[275] So Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 131. Cp. _R.F._ p. 39, note
4. Deubner in _Archiv_, 1905, p. 75.
[276] Servius, commenting on line 3 of _Aen._ viii.
(_utque impulit arma_) writes: "nam is qui belli
susceperat curam, sacrarium Martis ingressus, primo
ancilia commovebat, post hastam simulacri ipsius,
dicens, Mars vigila." The mention of a statue shows that
this account belongs to a late period. But Varro seems
to have stated that there was originally only a spear;
see a passage of Clement of Alexandria in the fragments
of the _Ant. rer. div._, Agahd, p. 210, to which Deubner
(_l.c._) adds Arnobius vi. 11. Deubner calls this spear
a fetish, which is not the right word if the deity were
immanent in it in the sense suggested by "Mars vigila."
See above, p. 116. If Servius correctly reports the
practice, it must be compared with the clashing of
shields and spears by the Salii, which may thus have had
a positive as well as negative object.
[277] Livy v. 52.
[278] Mr. A. B. Cook (_Classical Review_, 1904, p. 368)
has tried to connect both names with the Greek word
[Greek: prinos], and Professor Conway, quoted by him, is
inclined to lend the weight of his great authority to
the conjecture. Thus Quirinus would be an oak-god, and
Quirites oak-spearmen. We must, however, remember that
Mr. Cook is, so to speak, on an oak scent, and his
keenness as a hunter leads him sometimes astray. One is
a little perplexed to understand why Jupiter, Janus,
Mars, and Quirinus should all be oak-gods (and all in
origin identical as such!). On the other hand, it is
fair to note that the original spear was probably of
wood, with the point hardened in the fire, like the
_hasta praeusta_ of the Fetiales: Festus, p. 101. If
_quiris_ has really anything to do with oaks, it would
be more natural to explain the two words as springing
from an old place-name, Quirium, as Niebuhr did long
ago, and to derive that again from the oaks among which
it may have stood. But I am content to take _quiris_ as
simply a spear, as Buecheler did; see Deubner, _op.
cit._ p. 76. Since the above was written, the article
"Quirinus" by Wissowa in the _Myth. Lex._ has appeared.
Naturally it does not add anything to our knowledge; but
Wissowa holds to the opinion that the most probable
derivation of the name Quirinus is from Quirium,
possibly the name of the settlement on the Quirinal; and
compares _Q. pater_ (_e.g._ Livy v. 52. 7) with the
_Reatinus pater_ of _C.I.L._ ix. 4676.
[279] The Nonae Caprotinae (July 7), the day when women
sacrificed to Juno Caprotina under a wild fig-tree in
the Campus Martius, is not known to us except from
Varro. See _R.F._ p. 178, where (note 8) is a suggestion
that the festival had to do with the _caprificatio_, or
method of ripening the figs, which Dr. Frazer has
expanded in his _Lectures on Kingship_, p. 270,
believing the process to be that of fertilisation.
[280] _Classical Review_, vol. ix. p. 474 foll. The same
view has recently been taken independently by W. Otto in
_Philologus_, 1905, pp. 215 foll., 221. It is perfectly
clear that the monthly sacrifice to Juno was the duty of
the wife of the _rex sacrorum_; a pontifex minor is also
mentioned (Macrob. i. 15. 19).
[281] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 116.
[282] _Ib._ p. 114.
[283] See Ihm's article "Iunones" in _Myth. Lex._ vol.
ii. 615; Pliny, _N.H._ ii. 16.
[284] Dr. J. B. Carter tells me that he has abandoned
this explanation of the evolution of Juno. On the other
hand, von Domaszewski seems in some measure to accept it
(_Abhandlungen_, p. 169 foll.), when he says that
"similar functions, when exercised by different
_numina_, can eventually produce a god. _Auf diese Weise
ist Iuno geworden._" He means that the creative power is
called Juno in a woman, or in a people (Iuno Populonia),
or in the curiae (Iuno Curitis), and that an independent
deity, Juno _par excellence_, emerges from all these.
But so far I cannot follow him.
[285] There is no real evidence from purely Roman
sources of this fancied conjugal or other relation, if
we exclude that of the alleged cult of Juno by the
Flaminica Dialis. This has been well seen and expressed
by W. Otto, _l.c._ p. 215 foll.; see also _Classical
Review_ as quoted above. As we shall see in the next
lecture, Dr. Frazer is much concerned to show that
Jupiter and Juno are actually a married pair, and
consequently he will have nothing to do with my opinion
on this point: _Early History of Kingship_, p. 214
foll., and _Adonis_, _Attis,_ _Osiris_, ed. 2, p. 410,
note 1.
[286] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 141.
[287] Festus, p. 106; Macrob. i. 12. 6.
[288] I have discussed the Vestalia and the nature of
Vesta and her cult in _R.F._ p. 145 foll. See also
Marquardt, p. 336 foll., and Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 141
foll.
[289] Ovid, _Fasti_, vi. 296, says that he had been
stupid enough to believe that there was a statue in the
_aedes Vestae_, but found out his mistake:--
esse diu stultus Vestae simulacra putavi;
mox didici curvo nulla subesse tholo.
The passage is interesting as showing how natural it was
for a Roman of the Graeco-Roman period to suppose that
his deities must be capable of taking iconic form. For
anthropomorphic representations of Vesta in other places
and at Pompeii, see Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_,
p. 67 foll.
[290] See Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of Ancient
Rome_, p. 223 foll. The statues of the _virgines
vestales maximae_, discovered in the Atrium Vestae, all
belong to the period of the Empire. They are now in the
museum of the Baths of Diocletian.
LECTURE VII
THE DEITIES OF THE EARLIEST RELIGION: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
In the last lecture we interrogated the calendar as to the deities whose
festivals are recorded in it, with the aid of what we know of the most
ancient priesthoods attached to particular cults. The result may be
stated thus: we found a number of impersonal _numina_, with names of
adjectival form, such as Saturnus, Vertumnus, and so on; others with
substantival names, Tellus, Robigus, Terminus; the former apparently
functional deities, concerned in the operations of nature or man, and
the latter spirits immanent in objects--Mother Earth herself, a stone,
the mildew, or (like Janus and Vesta) the entrance and the hearth-fire
of human dwellings or cities. Lastly, we found from the evidence,
chiefly of the priesthoods, that certain more important divinities stand
out from the crowd of spirits, Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, and
Vesta; and we found some reason to think that these, and possibly a few
of the others, by becoming the objects of priestly _cura_ and
_caerimonia_ at particular spots in the city, were not unlikely to
become also in some sense personal deities, to acquire a quasi-human
personality, if they came by the chance. In the present lecture I must
go rather more closely into such evidence as we possess bearing on the
mental conception which these early Romans had formed of the divine
beings whom they had admitted within their city.
And, first, we must be quite clear that in those early ages there was
nothing in Rome which we can call a temple, as we understand the word;
nor was there any such representation of a deity as we can call an image
or _eidolon_. The deities were settled in particular spots of ground,
which were made _loca sacra_, _i.e._ handed over to the deity by the
process of _consecratio_ authorised by the _ius divinum_.[291] It was
matter of no moment what might be erected on this bit of ground; there
might be a rude house like that of Vesta, round in shape like the oldest
Italian huts; there might be a gateway like that of Janus; or the spot
might be a grove, or a clearing within it (_lucus_), as in the case of
Robigus or the Dea Dia of the Arval Brethren. All such places might be
called by the general name _fanum_; and as a rule no doubt each _fanum_
contained a _sacellum_, _i.e._ a small enclosure without a roof,
containing a little altar (_ara_). These "altars" may at first have been
nothing more than temporary erections of turf and sods; permanent stone
altars were probably a later development. Servius tells us that in later
times it was the custom to place a sod (_caespes_) on the top of such a
stone altar, which must be one of the many survivals in cult of the
usages of a simpler age.[292]
With such spots as these we cannot associate anything in the nature of
an image of the deity established there; and we have every reason to
believe that no such thing was known at Rome until the Etruscan temple
of the Capitoline trias was built near the end of the regal period.
Varro expressly declared that the Romans remained for more than 170
years without any images of their gods, and added that those who first
introduced such images "civitatibus suis et metum dempsisse et errorem
addidisse."[293] What he had in his mind is clear; he had indeed no
direct knowledge of those early times, but he is thinking of a definite
traditional date in the kingly period--the last year of the reign of
Tarquinius Priscus, who, according to Varro's own account, built the
temple on the Capitol and placed in it a statue of Jupiter.[294] That
was the oldest image of which he knew anything; and, as Wissowa has
remarked, his belief is entirely corroborated by the fact that in every
single case in which the image of a god has any part in his cult, it is
always either this Capitoline Jupiter or some deity of later
introduction and non-Roman origin. It is also borne out by another
significant and interesting fact--that the next image to be introduced,
that of Diana in the temple on the Aventine, was a copy of the [Greek:
xoanon] of Artemis at Massilia, itself a copy of the famous one at
Ephesus.[295] Let us note that these two earliest statues were placed in
roofed temples which were the dwelling-places of gods in an entirely new
sense; so far no Roman deity of the city had been so housed, because he
could not be thought of in terms of human life, as visible in human form
and needing shelter. But this later and foreign notion of divinity so
completely took possession of the minds of the Romans of the
cosmopolitan city that Varro is the only writer who has preserved the
tradition of the older way of thinking. In the religion of the family
Ovid indeed has charmingly expressed it, perhaps on the authority of
some lost passage of Varro[296]:--
ante focos olim scamnis considere longis
mos erat, et mensae credere adesse deos.
Tibullus in one passage has mentioned what seems to be some rude attempt
to give outward shape and form to an ancient pastoral deity[297]:--
lacte madens illic suberat Pan ilicis umbrae
et facta agresti lignea falce Pales.
And Propertius hints at a like representation of Vertumnus, the garden
deity. But without some corroborative evidence it is hardly safe to take
these as genuine examples of early iconic worship.