so far as we know, invariably accompanied the sacrifice. It is not
absolutely certain at what moment of the rite it was said at Rome; in
the ritual of Iguvium we find it occurring immediately before the
placing of the exta on the altar;[379] but as that ritual is a
processional one, concerned with sacrifices at several spots, the two
chief parts of the rite, the slaughter and the _porrectio_, probably
followed closely on one another. We may perhaps guess that where these
two parts were separated by a considerable interval, as in the majority
of Roman festivals, the prayer was said by the priest also at the moment
of _porrectio_. The prayer is so important a detail as to need separate
handling--important because it helps us to interpret the ideas of the
Romans about their sacrifices, and the attitude in which they conceived
themselves as standing towards the deities whom they thus approached. I
propose to occupy the rest of this lecture in considering this most
interesting topic. I wish first to draw attention to a particular
feature, or rather expression, which occurs in the authentic wording of
certain prayers which we are lucky enough to possess, because I think it
throws some light on the meaning which the Romans attached to the
sacrifice it accompanied; and secondly, to consider the character of
Roman prayers generally, in view of a question now being largely
discussed, _i.e._ whether prayer is a development from spell or charm,
belonging in its origin to the region of magic.
We have various forms of prayer surviving in Roman literature: some of
them are versified by the poets, and therefore give us a general
impression of the contents without the actual and genuine wording; we
have also two fragments of ancient _carmina_ which have the form of
prayers, those of the Salii and the Fratres Arvales; and we have certain
forms used on special occasions, such as the _evocatio_ of the gods of a
hostile community, or the formulae of vows (_vota_) which I must
postpone to the next lecture. But the only unquestionably genuine old
Roman prayers used at sacrifice, taken from the books of the pontifices
and preserved word for word, are those which Cato embodied in his
treatise on agriculture in the second century B.C., as proper to be used
with sacrifice on certain occasions in the agricultural year.[380] It is
here that we meet with the phrase, familiar in another form to all Latin
scholars, on which I wish to lay stress now. It occurs in all the four
forms of prayer which Cato copied down. The first is at the time of the
flowering of the pear-trees, on behalf of the oxen: "Iuppiter dapalis,
quod tibi fieri oportet in domo familia mea culignam vini dapi eius
rei[381] ergo, _macte hac illace dape polucenda esto_." And again, when
the wine is offered: "Iuppiter dapalis, _macte istace dape polucenda
esto. Macte vino inferio esto_." So in the piacular sacrifice when a
clearing is made, the unknown deity is addressed in the last words of
the prayer thus: "harum rerum ergo _macte hoc porco piaculo immolando
esto_." We find this _macte esto_ again in the prayer for the ceremony
of lustratio, at the end of the formula: "_macte hisce suovetaurilibus
lactentibus immolandis esto_." In the rite of the _porca praecidanea_,
to which I have already referred, the instruction for the invocation of
Jupiter runs: "_Fertum_ (_i.e._ a kind of cake) _Iovi obmoveto et
mactato sic, Iuppiter, te hoc ferto_ obmovendo bonas preces precor, uti
sies volens propitius mihi liberisque meis domo familiaeque meae _mactus
hoc ferto_." Janus gets another kind of cake (_strues_) and a
wine-offering, and is addressed in the same way. Then we read, "Iovi
fertum obmoveto _mactatoque item_, ut prius feceris."
What is the real meaning of this phrase _macte esto_, which must surely
have been in universal use at sacrifices, not only at private rites like
those of Cato, since it came to be used in common speech of
congratulation or felicitation, e.g. _macte virtute esto_?[382] Servius
in commenting on Virgil has made it sufficiently clear. He explains it
as _magis aucte_, and connects it with _magmentum_, increase-offering,
_quasi magis augmentum_, and adds that when the victims had been slain
and their exta placed on the altar, they were said to be _mactatae_. So,
too, in another comment he seems to connect the word with the victim
rather than with the deity. But he is quite clear as to the meaning of
the word, as signifying an increase or addition of some kind; and though
his etymology is wrong, we may be sure that he was right in this
respect, for it is beyond doubt built on a base, _mac_ or _mag_, which
produced _magnus_, _maius_, _maiestas_, and so on. "Macte nova virtute
puer" means "Be thou increased, strengthened in _virtus_"; a fragment of
Lucilius (quoted by Servius) brings this out well, "_Macte inquam
virtute simulque his viribus esto_," and another from Ennius, "Livius
inde redit magno _mactatus_ triumpho."[383] We might almost translate it
in these passages by "glorified"; but it most certainly includes the
meaning of "strengthened" or "increased in might."
Now in the formulae of Cato we have seen that it is applied to the
deity and not to the victim; this naturally did not occur to Servius,
whose mind was occupied rather with Virgil and the literary use of the
word than with the original use and meaning of the language of prayer.
Undoubtedly he has made a mistake here, which Cato's piety has enabled
us to detect. It was, in fact, the deity whose strength was to be
increased by the offerings; so much at least seems to me to be beyond
doubt. There is, indeed, no certain trace in the ritual, or in Roman
literature, that the gods were supposed to consume the exta, or the
cakes and wine offered them; that primitive notion must have been
excluded from the _ius divinum_. But instead of it we find the more
spiritual idea that by placing on the altar the organs of the life of
the victim, with ancient forms of sacred cake and offerings of wine, the
vitality of the deity, his power to help his worshippers, to make the
corn grow and the cattle bring forth young, to aid the State against
enemies, or what not, was really increased in this semi-mystic way. Let
us remember that the Roman numina were powers constantly at work in
their own sphere; they are the various manifestations of the one Power
as conceived in immediate relation to man and his wants; they are
sometimes addressed in prayer, as we have seen, by additional titles
which suggest their strength and vitality: Virites Quirini, Nerio
Martis, Moles Martis, Maia or Maiestas Volcani. What, then, could be
more natural than that the Roman should call upon his divine
fellow-citizen to accept that which, according to ancient tradition and
practice, will keep up his strength, and at the same time increase his
glory and his goodwill towards his worshippers? This is, then, the idea
which I believe to have been at the root of Roman sacrificial ritual,
and it seems to confirm the dynamic theory of sacrifice recently
propounded by some French anthropologists, _i.e._ that a mystic current
of _religious force_ passed through the victim, from priest to deity,
and perhaps back again.[384] I believe that we have here a transitional
idea of the virtue of sacrifice--an idea that bridges over the gulf
between the crude notion that the gods actually partake of the offering,
and the later more spiritual view that the offering is an honorary gift
"to the glory of God." It seems also to be found in the Vedic religion.
Dr. Farnell writes: "In the Vedic ritual we find a pure and spiritual
form of prayer; yet a certain spell-power may attach even to the highest
types, for we find not infrequently the conception that not only the
power of the worshipper, but the power of the deity also is nourished
and strengthened by prayer, and the prayer itself is usually accompanied
by a potent act (such as that of sacrifice). "May our prayers increase
Agni": "The prayers fill thee with power and strengthen thee, like great
rivers the Sindhu."[385]
I must now turn to the form and manner of Roman prayers, in order to
gain further light on the question as to the mental attitude of the
worshipper towards the deity invoked. Of late years there has been a
strong tendency to find the origin of prayer in spell; or, in other
words, to discover a bridge between that mental attitude which believes
that a deity can be forced into a certain course of action by magical
formulae, and the humble attitude of the petitioner in prayer, which
assumes that the power of the deity altogether transcends that of his
worshipper. The evidence of Roman prayers is, I think, of considerable
value in dealing with this question; but it needs to be carefully
studied and handled. The general impression conveyed by those who have
written on the subject is that Roman prayers were dull, dry formulae,
which were believed to have a constraining influence on the deity simply
as formulae, if they were repeated with perfect precision the right
number of times. Dr. Westermarck, for example, has no shadow of a doubt
about this; quoting Renan, he says that "in the Roman, as in the
majority of the old Italian cults, prayer is a magic formula, producing
its effect by its own inherent quality." And again, he writes that the
Romans were much more addicted to magic than to religion; "they wanted
to compel the gods rather than to be compelled by them. Their _religio_
was probably near akin to the Greek [Greek: katadesmos], which meant not
only an ordinary tie, but also a magic tie or knot or a bewitching
thereby."[386] I need not stop to point out the misconception of the
word _religio_ which suggested the whole of this passage; the supposed
derivation from _ligare_ was quite enough to suggest magic to those who
are on the trail of it.[387] Let us go on to examine the prayers
themselves; I think we shall find that though there is much truth in the
common view of them, it is not quite the whole truth.
The oldest Roman prayers we possess are usually called hymns, because
the Latin word for them was _carmen_, viz. the _Carmen Saliare_, which
is too obscure and fragmentary to be of use to us, and the _Carmen_ of
the Arval Brethren, which is preserved on stone and is quite
intelligible.[388] The word _carmen_, let us notice, was used by the old
Romans for any kind of metrical formula, whether hymn, prayer, or spell.
Pliny, when writing of magic and incantations, plainly includes prayer
among them;[389] and Dr. Jevons has recently pointed out that singing,
and especially singing in a low voice or muttered tones, is a
characteristic of magic not only in Greece and Rome, but in many parts
of the world at the present day.[390] The evidence of the word is thus
strongly in favour of the view that these ancient _carmina_ of Roman
worship were really spells; and the _Carmen Arvalium_ itself does not
contradict it. After an elaborate sacrificial ceremonial the priests,
using a written copy of the _carmen_ (_libellis acceptis_), danced in
triple rhythm (_tripodaverunt_) while they sang it; it consisted of six
clauses, each repeated three times. "_Enos Lases iuvate! Neve luerve
Marmar sins incurrere in pleores! Satur fu fere Mars, limen sali, sta
berber! Semunes alternei advocapit cunctos! Enos Marmar iuvato!
Triumpe!_" With the precise interpretation of these words I am not now
concerned; but they obviously contain invocations to the Lares and Mars,
which may be either petitions or commands, and which perhaps are really
on the borderland between the two; and as thrice repeated, and
accompanied with dancing and gesticulation, they seem certainly to
belong rather to the region of magic than of religion proper.
It is interesting to compare with this _carmen_ the prayers of the guild
of brethren (_Attiedii_) at Iguvium; these are the best preserved of all
old Italian prayers, and though not Roman, are the product of the same
race. In the lustratio of the _arx_ (_Ocris Fisius_) of Iguvium we find
three several deities invoked, with elaborate sacrificial ritual, at
three gates, and a long prayer addressed to each deity, thrice repeated,
as in the _Carmen Arvale_. It is to be said under the breath (_tacitus
precator totum_, vi. A. 55), which was a common practice also at Rome,
and is believed to be characteristic of the magical spell;[391] and
except in the case of the first prayer, which is addressed to the chief
deity Jupiter Grabovius, it is accompanied by some kind of dancing or
rhythmical movement (_tripodatio_).[392] Thus in outward form this
ritual seems to show but little advance on the Roman prayer of the
Arvales, and indeed it may in substance go back to a time as remote as
that in which the latter had its origin. But when we examine the matter
of the prayer, we find that it is cast in the language of petition
beyond all doubt--if it be rightly interpreted, as we may believe it
is:--
"Te invocavi invoco divum Grabovium pro arce Fisia, pro urbe Iguvina,
pro arcis nomine, pro urbis nomine: _volens sis, propitius sis_ arci
Fisiae, urbi Iguvinae, arcis nomini, urbis nomini. Sancte, te invocavi
invoco divum Grabovium. Sancti fiducia te invocavi invoco divum
Grabovium. Dive Grabovie te hoc bove opimo piaculo pro arce Fisia, etc.
Dive Grabovi, illius anni quiquomque in arce Fisia ignis ortus est, in
urbe Iguvina ritus debiti omissi sunt, pro nihilo ducito. Dive Grabovi,
quicquid tui sacrificii vitiatum est, peccatum est, peremptum est,
fraudatum est, demptum est, tui sacrificii visum invisum vitium est,
dive Grabovi, quicquid ius sit, hoc bove opimo piaculo piando.... Dive
Grabovi, piato arcem Fisiam, piato urbem Iguvinam. Dive Grabovi, piato
arcis Fisiae, urbis Iguvinae, nomen, magistratus, ritus, viros, pecora,
fundos, fruges: piato, _esto volens propitius pace tua_ arci Fisiae,
etc. Dive Grabovi, salvam servato arcem Fisiam salvam servato urbem
Iguvinam .... Dive Grabovi, te hoc bove opimo piaculo pro arce Fisia,
pro urbe Iguvina, pro arcis nomine, pro urbis nomine, Dive Grabovi, te
invocavi."[393]
That in this prayer, and the others which accompany it, exactness of
wording was believed to be essential, as in the ritual which preceded it
exactness of performance, there is no doubt; for at the end of the whole
document (vi. B. 48) we find that if there had been any slip in the
ritual, the Brethren had to go back to the first gate and begin all over
again. There is plainly present the idea, surviving from an age of
magic, that the deities had strong feelings about the right way of
invocation, and would not respond to the performance unless those
feelings were understood and appealed to; that they would miss something
and decline to do their part. Yet are we justified in going on to assume
that they were bound, as by a solemn contract, to perform their part, if
there were no slip in the ritual? I confess it is difficult for me to
take this further step, in view of the language of the prayers, which is
so clearly that of petition, nay, of humble petition. We are not dealing
here with _vota_, to which I shall come in the next lecture, and in
which there is a kind of legal contract between the man and the god--the
former undertaking to do something pleasing to the deity, if the latter
shall have faithfully performed what is asked of him. These _vota_, so
abundant in historical times, are really responsible for the idea that
Roman prayer is simply a binding formula--a magical spell, let us say,
which in the hands of a city priesthood has become a quasi-legal
formula. But these prayers are not _vota_; they do not contain any
language which betrays the notion of binding the deity. They seem to me
to mark a process of transition between the age of spell and magic and
the age of prayer and religion; they retain some of the outward
characteristics of spell, but internally, _i.e._ in the spirit in which
they were intended, they have the real characteristics of prayer.[394]
The numina to whom they were addressed were powerful spirits, unknown,
unfamiliar, until their wishes were discovered by the organised
priesthood which handed down these forms of petition.
To return to Rome, and to the prayers in Cato's book, to which I
referred just now when discussing the word _macte_. Attempts have been
made to prove that these were originally written in metre;[395] and this
is quite possible. If so, it only means that they retained the outward
form of the primitive spell; it must not lead us on to fancy that the
sacrifice which accompanied the prayer was a magical act, or that the
whole process was believed to compel the deity. No doubt there was
believed to be efficacy in the exact repetition, as is shown by the
directions for piacular sacrifices in case of error of any kind.[396]
But the language is the language of prayer, not of compulsion, nor even
of bargaining: "Eius rei ergo te hoc porco piaculo immolando bonas
preces precor, ut sies volens propitius mihi, domo familiaeque
meis."[397] "Mars pater, te precor quaesoque uti sies volens propitius
mihi, domo," etc.[398] No amount of vain repetition or scruple can
deprive this language of its natural meaning. The god is powerful in his
own sphere of action, and man has no control over him; man is fully
recognised as liable to misfortune unless the god helps him; but he can
worship in full assurance of faith that his prayer will be answered, if
it be such as the authorities of the State have laid down as the right
wording, and if the ritual accompanying it is equally in order. The
faith is, indeed, thus founded upon man's devices rather than the god's
good-will as such; it is a belief in the State and its authorities and
_ius divinum_, which is conceived, not indeed as constraining the deity,
but as calling upon him (_invocare_) to perform his part, in formulae
which he cannot well neglect, simply because it would be unreasonable
to do so, contrary to his nature as a deity of the Roman State and its
_ager_.
It is obvious in all this sacrificial ritual that the officiating person
or persons were expected to observe the traditional forms with the
utmost care and exactness. Any slip or omission was, in fact, a
_piaculum_, or _sacrum commissum_--terms of the _ius divinum_ which seem
to suggest, if I may use the expression, the obverse side of holiness.
It is now well known that cleanness and uncleanness, holiness and its
opposite, can be expressed in religious vocabulary by the same terms,
for in both cases there is something beyond the ordinary, something
dangerous, uncanny; thus we are not surprised to find that such words as
I have just mentioned can be used to express some kind of impurity
caused by a breach of ritual as well as that ritual itself. If we accept
the latest theory of sacrifice, _i.e._ the dynamic theory, as it is
called, we explain this intense nervousness about a ritualistic flaw as
occasioned by the consciousness of a breach in the current of "religious
force" (the expression is that of Messrs. Hubert and Mauss[399]), which
must pass in regular sequence from the sacrificer through the victim to
the deity, or vice versa. If this is the true explanation--and at
present it may be said to hold the field--then the extreme exactness of
the Roman ritual was a survival from an age when this strange feeling
was a reality; but no more than a survival, for, so far as I can
discover, the Roman idea was rather that the deity to whom the ritual
was addressed was in some way offended by the omission.[400] The dynamic
notion is lost, if it ever were there, and its place has been taken by
one that we may perhaps call theological. But however that may be, the
culprit was regarded as in a state of sin or impurity, "un etre sacre,"
and had to get rid of this sin or impurity by another sacrifice before
the whole ritual could be started afresh (_instaurare_).
According to the "dynamic" theory of sacrifice, we might naturally
expect that the victim, as being destined to carry away the unholiness
(or whatever we choose to call it) of the culprit, would be burnt whole,
not offered to the deity in the form of exta, or eaten by the
sacrificers.[401] But this does not seem to have been the case in the
Roman practice; in all the examples of _piacula_ of which we have
details, the exta are laid on the altar as in the typical
sacrifice.[402] The inference seems to be that the theological idea of
sacrifice had established itself completely ever since the formation of
the _ius divinum_; the victim is not a scapegoat in any sense, but
really an expiatory offering; and not only does the sacrificer yield up
something of value, but he offers it to increase the strength of the
deity as well as to appease his anger.
A curious point may be noticed in the last place. The practical Roman
mind seems to have invented a kind of sacrificial insurance, by which a
piacular sacrifice might be offered beforehand to atone for any omission
in the ritual which was to follow. Thus the Fratres Arvales, if they had
to take an iron implement into their sacred grove, offered a piaculum
before as well as after this breach of religious rule.[403] Again, the
_porca praecidanea_, which I have already mentioned as offered before
harvest, was an example of the same system of insurance; for the first
cutting of the corn was a sacred rite, and one in which it was easy to
take a false step. Writing of this, Gellius says in general terms that
_hostiae praecidaneae_ are those which are offered the day before
_sacrificia solennia_.[404]
The term "piacular sacrifice" (_piaculum_) had a wide range of meaning,
apart from the examples here given. With one important form of it I
shall deal in the next lecture:[405] others we shall come across later
on.
NOTES TO LECTURE VIII
[340] See Appendix C.
[341] Cato, _R.R._ 139, where the language suggests that
as the deity was unknown, the _ius_ of the religious act
was also uncertain, _i.e._ the ritual was not laid down.
De Marchi translates (_La Religione_ _nella vita
domestica_, i. 132) "sia a te fatto il debito
sacrificio," etc., which sufficiently expresses the
anxiety of the situation. Keil reads here "ut tibi ius
_est_," and gives no variant in his critical note; but
the words just below, "uti id recte factum siet," seem
to me to suggest the subjunctive. In any case there is
no doubt about _ius._ In _Tab. Iguv._ vi. A. 28
(_Umbrica_, p. 58) Buecheler translates the Umbrian
_persei mersei_ by "quicquid ius sit," and compares this
passage of Cato, together with Gellius i. 12. 14, where
the phrase is used of the duties of a Vestal under the
_ius divinum_ in the formula used by the Pontifex
Maximus, _cum virginem capiat_: "Sacerdotem Vestalem,
quae sacra faciat, quae ius siet sacerdotem Vestalem
facere pro pop. Rom." etc.
[342] _e.g._ _Aen._ iv. 56, x. 31 ("si sine pace tua
atque invito numine," etc.). Cp. _Tab. Iguv._ vi. 30,
33, etc. (_Umbrica_, p. 59), "esto volens propitiusque
pace tua arci Fisiae."
[343] Livy vi. 41 _ad fin._
[344] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 318, and p. 319 for the
illustrations that follow. Cp. Cicero, _Part. Or._ xxii.
78, where _religio_ is explained as "iustitia erga
deos."
[345] _Lex Coloniae Genetivae_, cap. 64; _C.I.L._ ii.,
supplement No. 5439.
[346] Livy i. 20. 5.
[347] This follows from the definition in Festus, p.
321, and in Macrobius iii. 3. 2. This last is quoted
from Trebatius _de religionibus_: "sacrum est quicquid
est quod deorum habetur." In common use _sacrificium_
seems to be reserved for animal sacrifice, but the verb
_sacrificare_ is not so limited. Festus, p. 319: "mustum
quod Libero sacrificabant pro vineis ... sicut
praemetium de spicis, quas primum messuissent,
sacrificabant Cereri." It has been suggested to me by
Mr. Marett that the termination of the word
_sacrificium_ may have reference to the use of _facere_
for animal sacrifice, as in Greek [Greek: rhezein,
erdein, dran]; but on the whole I doubt this. _Facere_
and _fieri_ are in that sense, I think, euphemisms,
occasioned by the mystic character of the act (examples
are collected in Brissonius _de formulis_, p. 9). _Rem
divinam facere_ seems to be the general expression, as
in Cato, _R.R._ 83; or the particular victim is in the
ablative, _e.g. agna Iovi facit_ (Flamen Dialis) in
Varro, _L.L._ vi. 16; cp. Virg. _Ecl._ iii. 77.