the nature of a bargain--covenant would be a more graceful word--with a
deity in the name of the State. Even here, however, the impression is
rather produced by the use of legal terms and the formularisation of the
process, than by any assumed attitude of contempt towards, or even of
equality with, the deity concerned. There is no trace in early Roman
religious history of any tendency to abuse or degrade the divine beings
if they did not perform their part, such as is well known in China,[411]
or even, strange to say, occasionally met with in the southern Italy of
to-day; the attitude towards the deity in cult (though not invariably in
the later Graeco-Roman literature) was ever respectful, as it was
towards the magistrates of the State. The farthest the Romans ever went
in condemning their gods was when misfortune persuaded them that they
were become indifferent or useless; then they began to neglect them, and
to turn to other gods, as we shall see in subsequent lectures.
The public _vota_ were of two kinds: the ordinary, or regularly
recurring, and the extraordinary, which were occasioned by some
particular event. Of the ordinary, the most familiar is that undertaken
by the consul, and no doubt in some form by the Rex in the days of the
kingship, for the benefit of the State on the first day of the official
year. Accompanied by the Senate and a crowd of people, the consuls went
up to the Capitoline temple, and performed the sacrifice which had been
vowed by their predecessors of a year before; after which they undertook
a new _votum_, "_pro reipublicae salute_."[412] We have not the formula
of this vow, and cannot tell what resemblance it bore to a bargain; but
the ceremony itself must have been most impressive, and calculated to
remind all who were present of the greatness and goodwill of the supreme
deity who watched over the interests of the State. So too at the
_lustrum_ of the censors, which took place in the Campus Martius every
five years, it is almost certain that the _votum_ of the predecessors in
office was fulfilled by a sacrifice, and a new one undertaken. Here
again we are without the formula, but that there was one we know from a
very interesting passage of Valerius Maximus. He tells us that Scipio
Aemilianus, when as censor he was conducting this sacrifice, and the
_scriba_ (on behalf of the pontifex?) was dictating to him the _solemne
precationis carmen ex publicis tabulis_, in which the immortal gods were
besought to make the prosperity of the Roman State "better and
greater," had the audacity to interrupt him, saying that the condition
of the State was sufficiently good and great: "itaque precor ut eas
(res) perpetuo incolumes servent." This change, Valerius says, was
accepted, and the formula altered accordingly in the _tabulae_.[413]
This story, which is probably genuine and is quite characteristic of
Scipio, must convince an impartial mind that in this votive ceremony
there was enough truth and dignity to suggest a real advance in
religious thought, so far at least as the State was concerned.
The extraordinary _vota_ were innumerable. They were occasioned by
dangers or misfortunes of various kinds, the magistrate undertaking to
dedicate something to the god concerned if the State should have come
safely through the peril. Many temples had their origin in this
practice;[414] we meet also with _ludi_, special sacrifices, or a tithe
of the booty taken in war. In two or three cases Livy has copied the
formula from the _tabulae_ of the pontifices; thus before the war with
Antiochus in 191 B.C., the consul recited the following words after the
pontifex maximus: "Si duellum quod cum Antiocho rege sumi populus
iussit, id ex sententia senatus populique Romani confectum erit; tum
tibi Iuppiter populus Romanus ludos magnos dies decem continuos faciet
... quisquis magistratus eos ludos quando ubique faxit, hi ludi recte
facti, donaque data recte sunto."[415] This document dates from the days
of the decay of the Roman religion, and is, of course, modernised by
Livy; but it may give an idea of what is meant by writers who speak of
an element of bargain or covenant in these _vota_. Still more elaborate,
and probably more antique, is the famous formula of the vow of the _ver
sacrum_ in the darkest hour of the war with Hannibal.[416] This very
curious rite, which proves beyond question the devotion of the Italian
stocks to the principle of the _votum_, consisted of a promise to
dedicate to Mars or Jupiter all the valuable products of a single
spring, including the male children born at that time; to this the
Romans had recourse for the last time in 217 B.C., and Livy has
fortunately preserved the words of the vow. These, with the exception of
the dedication of the children, which is judiciously omitted, probably
stand much as they had come down from a remote antiquity. The _votum_ is
put in the form of a _rogatio_ to the people, without whose sanction it
could not be put in force; are they willing to dedicate to Jupiter all
the young of oxen, sheep, or pigs born in the spring five years after
date, if the State shall have been preserved during those years from all
its enemies? The curious feature of the document is, not that it binds
the deity to any course of action, but that it secures the individual
Roman against his anger in case of any chance slip in his part of the
process, and the people against any evil consequences arising from such
a slip or from misdoing on the part of an individual. "Si quis clepsit,
ne populo scelus esto neve cui cleptum erit: si atro die faxit insciens,
probe factum esto."[417] Of this formula a recent writer of great
learning and ability has written thus: "The well-known liturgical
archive containing Rome's address to Jupiter in the critical days of the
Hannibalic war is a wary and cleverly drawn legal document, intended to
bind the god as well as the State."[418] He is no exception to the rule
that those who have not habitually occupied themselves with the Roman
religion are liable to misinterpret its details. This is not an address
to Jupiter, nor is there any sign in it that the god was considered as
bound to perform his part as in a contract; the covenant is a one-sided
one, the people undertaking an act of self-renunciation if the god be
gracious to them, and thereby going far to assure themselves that he
will so be gracious. And the legal cast of the language, which seems so
apt to mislead the unwary,[419] is only to be found in the clauses which
guarantee the people against the contingency of the whole vow being
ruined by the inadvertence or the rascality of an individual; surely a
very natural and inevitable _caveat_, where for once the whole people,
and not only their priests or magistrates, were concerned in the
transaction.
A curious form of the _votum_, which, however, I can only mention in
passing, is that addressed to the gods of a hostile city, with a view to
induce them to desert their temples and take up their abode at Rome;
this is the process called _evocatio_, which was successfully applied at
the siege of Veii, when Juno Regina consented to betray her city.[420]
Macrobius, commenting on Virgil's lines (_Aen._ ii. 351),
excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis
di quibus imperium hoc steterat,
has preserved the _carmen_ used at the siege of Carthage.[421] It is
cast in the language of prayer: "Si deus si dea est cui populus
civitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela ... precor venerorque veniamque
a vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque Carthaginiensem deseratis,"
etc.; but it ends with a vow to build temples and establish _ludi_ in
honour of these deities if they should comply with the petition. It is
worth noting here that it was, of course, impossible to make a bargain
with strange or hostile gods, or in any way to force their hand; the
promise is entirely one-sided; and I am inclined to think that in
dealing with his own gods the mental attitude of the Roman was much the
same, though his faith in them was undoubtedly greater.
This is the proper place to mention another very curious rite, closely
allied to the _votum_, but differing from it in one or two important
points, which is almost peculiar to the Romans and most characteristic
of them; I mean the _devotio_ of himself on the field of battle by a
magistrate _cum imperio_.[422] The famous example, familiar to us all,
is that of Decius Mus at the battle of Vesuvius in the great Latin
war[423] (340 B.C.): the same story is told of his son in a war with
Gauls and Samnites, and of his grandson in the war with Pyrrhus.[424]
The historical difficulties of these accounts do not concern us now; by
common consent of scholars the method and formula of the _devotio_ are
authentic, and the rite must have had its origin in remote antiquity.
The story runs[425] that Decius, at whose preliminary sacrifice before
the battle with the Latins the liver of the victim had been found
imperfect, while that of his colleague was normal, perceived that his
wing of the army was giving way. He therefore resolved to sacrifice
himself by _devotio_, and called on the pontifex maximus, who was
present, to dictate for him the correct formula. He was directed to put
on the toga praetexta, to wear it with the cinctus Gabinus, to veil his
head with it, to touch his chin with his hand under the folds of the
robe, and to stand upon a spear. He then repeated after the pontifex the
following formula: "Iane, Iuppiter, Mars pater, Quirine, Bellona, Lares,
divi Novensiles, di Indigetes, divi quorum est potestas nostrorum
hostiumque, diique Manes, vos precor, veneror, veniam peto feroque, uti
populo Romano Quiritium vim victoriamque prosperetis, hostesque populi
Romani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. Sicut verbis
nuncupavi, ita pro re publica Quiritium, exercitu legionibus auxiliis
populi Romani Quiritium, legiones auxiliaque hostium _mecum_ deis
Manibus Tellurique devoveo" (Livy ix. 9). He then mounted his horse and
rode into the midst of the enemy to meet his death. The Latins were
seized with panic and the Romans were victorious.
Here the vow is made and fulfilled almost at the same moment,--_the
fulfilment takes place before the gods have done their part_. Here too
the offering made is the life of a human being which brings the act
within the domain of sacrifice. Its sacrificial nature is obvious in all
the details.[426] The dress is that of the sacrificing priest or
magistrate;[427] Decius was therefore priest and victim at the same
time, and the two characters seem to be combined in the symbolic
touching of the chin, which has been rightly explained,[428] I think, as
analogous to the laying on of hands in the consecratio of the Rex, as we
saw it in the case of Numa, and perhaps to the _immolatio_ of a victim
by sprinkling the _mola salsa_ on its head; where the object of
consecration is made holy by contact with holy things.[429] The
standing on the spear is difficult to explain; it may have been a
symbolic dedication to Mars, whose spear or spears, as we have seen,
were kept in the Regia.[430]
The formula contains certain points of great interest. Firstly, it is
not only the Roman gods of all sorts and conditions who are invoked, but
those of the enemy also, or, in vague language, those who have power
over both Romans and Latins.[431] Secondly, it begins with a prayer
combined with a curse upon the enemy: in which respect it resembles the
prayer at the _lustratio populi_ at Iguvium[432] (which I shall mention
again directly) and to a later type of _devotio_ used at the siege of
Carthage and preserved by Macrobius.[433] Thirdly, in spite of this
religious aspect of the formula, it ends with what can only be called a
magical spell. By the act of self-sacrifice, which is the potent element
in the spell, Decius exercises magical power over the legions of the
enemy, and devotes them with himself to death,--to the Manes and Mother
Earth.[434]
The story suggests to me that the rite had been at one time well known;
the pontifex maximus was ready with the instructions and formula. It was
a survival from an age of magic, but the priests have given it a
religious turn, and the language of the first part is quite as much that
of prayer as is the language of the collect to be said in time of war
which still disfigures the Anglican prayer-book.[435] What is still more
remarkable is that it has not only a religious but an ethical character.
The idea of service to the State is here seen at its highest point. The
sacrifice is a vicarious one.[436] Livy significantly adds that a
private soldier might be chosen by the commander to represent him, and
that if this man were not killed by the enemy an image seven feet long
must be buried in the earth and a piacular sacrifice offered.[437] Later
on it would seem that instead of sacrificing himself, the consul might
implore the gods to accept the hostile army or city as his substitutes:
"eos _vicarios_ pro me fide magistratuque meo pro populi Romani
exercitibus do devoveo, ut me exercitumque nostrum ... bene salvos
siritis esse."[438] The idea here, and indeed in the _devotio_ of
Decius, bears some analogy to that which lies at the root of the old
Roman practice, of making a criminal _sacer_ to the deity chiefly
concerned in his crime; when this was done, any man might kill him, and
he was practically a victim offered as _vicarius_ for the Roman people,
who had been contaminated by his deed.[439]
But I must now pass on the last kind of ritual to be explained in these
lectures, and far the most impressive of all, that of _lustratio_, or
the purification, as it is commonly called, of land, city, human beings,
or even inanimate objects, by means of a solemn procession accompanied
with sacrifice.
So important a part did these processional rites play in the public life
of the Roman people,--so characteristic are they too of the old Roman
habit of thought and action, that they have given a wonderful word to
the Latin language. _Lustrare_ has many meanings; but the one which is
immediately derived from the rites I speak of, that of slow processional
movement, is the most beautiful and impressive of them all. When Aeneas
first sees Dido in all her stately beauty, he says:[440]
in freta dum fluvii current, _dum montibus umbrae
lustrabunt convexa_, polus dum sidera pascet,
semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt,
quae me cunque vocant terrae.
"So long as the cloud-shadows move slowly over the hollows of the
hills." Here in Scotland you must have all seen this procession of the
shadows, as I have watched it when fishing in Wales; let us always
associate it with the magic of a poet of nature as well as with the
religious processions of his people.
_Lustrare_, _lustratio_, are words which, as I think, belong to an age
of religion, that is, according to our formula, of effective desire to
be in right relation with the Power manifesting itself in the Universe.
In other processes which are usually called purificatory, magic seems to
survive: the word _februum_, from which comes the name of our second
month, meant an object with magical potency, such as water, fire,
sulphur, laurel, wool, or the strips of the victims sacrificed at the
Lupercalia, and the verb _februare_ meant to get rid of certain
unwholesome or miasmatic influences by means of these objects.[441] What
was the really primitive idea attached to these words need not concern
us now; but Varro, and Ovid following him, explicitly explain them as
meaning _purifying_ agents and processes,[442] from which we may infer
that they had a magical power to produce certain desired conditions, or
to protect from evil influences, like charms and amulets. But _lustrare_
and _lustratio_ seem to belong to an age when the thing to be driven or
kept away is rather spiritual mischief, and when the means used are
sacrifices and prayers, with processional movement.
What is the original meaning of the word _lustrare_? It seems to be a
strong form of _luere_; and _luere_ is explained by Varro as equivalent
to _solvere_.[443] The word _lustrum_, he says, _i.e._ the solemn
five-yearly ceremony in the Campus Martius, is derived from _luere_ in
the sense of _solvere_, to pay; because every fifth year the
contract-moneys for the collection of taxes and for public undertakings
were paid into the treasury through the censors. Servius,[444] doubtless
following him, explains such expressions as _peccata luere_, _supplicium
luere_, on the same principle--in the sense of payment, just as we speak
of paying the penalty. We might thus be tempted to fancy that the
root-idea of _lustrare_ is to perform a duty and so get rid of it, as we
do in paying for anything we buy; but this would be to misapprehend the
original meaning of the word as completely as Varro did when he
explained _luere_ by reference to the payments of contractors. Varro
and Servius do, however, suggest the right clue; they see that the idea
lurking in the word is that of getting rid of something, but they
understand that something in the light, not of primitive man's
intelligence, but of the duty of man in a civilised State. What exactly
it was that was to be got rid of is a more difficult question; but all
that we have so far learnt about the early religious ideas of the Romans
strongly suggests that they were in what we may call an advanced
_animistic_ stage of religious ideas, and that whatever may have been
the notion of their primitive ancestors, they themselves, in these rites
as we know them, saw the means of getting rid of and so keeping away
hostile spirits. A French sociologist, M. van Gennep, whose book _Les
Rites de passage_ I have read with great interest, has kindly written me
a long letter in which he insists that this animistic interpretation of
_lustratio_ is really superfluous, and that the idea of separation
alone, _i.e._ of separation between sacred and profane, without any
reference to spirits or _dei_, is a fully sufficient explanation. So no
doubt it may be among many savage peoples; but he would probably allow
that as a people advances from one stage of superstition to another,
while it retains in outline the scheme of its rites, it will apply new
meanings to them in keeping with the changes in its mental attitude.
This is one of the most interesting processes with which modern research
has been occupied; we are now familiar with the adoption of
pre-Christian ceremonies, with a complete change of meaning, in the
ritual of the Christian Church. These very processions of _lustratio_,
which had already been once metamorphosed in an animistic period, were
seized upon by the Roman Church with characteristic adroitness, adapted
to its ritual, and given a new meaning; and the Catholic priest still
leads his flock round the fields with the prayers of the _Litania maior_
in Rogation week, begging a blessing on the flocks and herds, and
deprecating the anger of the Almighty.[445]
But let us now pass briefly in review the more important of these rites
of lustration and compare them with each other; we shall find the
essential features the same in all of them.
The first permanent difficulty of new settlers in Latium was to mark off
their cultivated land from the forest or waste land beyond it, and so,
as M. van Gennep would phrase it,[446] to make a margin of separation
between the sacred and the profane, within which the sacred processes of
domestic life and husbandry might go forward, undisturbed by
dangers--human, spiritual, or what not--coming from the profane world
without. The boundary was marked out in some material way, perhaps by
stones (_cippi_) or posts, placed at intervals;[447] and thus "a fixed
piece of ground is appropriated by a particular social group, so that if
any stranger penetrated it he would be committing a sacrilege as
complete as he would if he trespassed in a sacred grove or a temple."
This boundary-line was made sacred itself by the passage round it
(_lustratio_) at some fixed time of the year, usually in May, when crops
were ripening and especially liable to be attacked by hostile
influences, of a procession occupied with sacrifice and prayer. The two
main features of the rite, as formulated by Cato in his treatise on
agriculture, are--1, the procession of the victims, ox, sheep, and pig
(_suovetaurilia_), the farmer's most valuable property; 2, the prayer to
Mars pater, after libations to Janus and Jupiter, asking for his kindly
protection of the whole _familia_ of the farm, together with the crops
of all kinds and the cattle within the boundary-line.[448] We are not
expressly told that this procession followed the boundary throughout,
but the analogy of other lustrations forbids us to doubt it; and thus
the rite served the practical purpose of keeping it clear in the
memory,--a matter of the utmost importance, especially for the practical
Roman. In Cato's formula the farmer's object is to ward off disease,
calamity, dearth, and infertility; and it is Mars who is invoked, _i.e._
a great god who has long ago emerged from the crowd of impersonal
spirits; but we may safely believe that the primitive farmer used other
language, addressing the spirits of disease and dearth themselves; and
we may guess, if we will, that again before that there was no invocation
or sacrifice at all, but that the object was only to mark the boundary
between land civilised and sacred and land uncivilised and profane.
As we have seen, the farms and homesteads of the early Latins were
grouped together in associations called _pagi_; and we can hardly doubt
that these were subjected to the same process of _lustratio_ as the
farms themselves. We have no explicit account of a circumambulation in
this case, but we have in the later poets several charming allusions to
a _lustratio pagi_, and it is of a rite of this kind that Virgil must
have been thinking when he wrote the beautiful passage in the first
Georgic beginning "In primis venerare deos";[449] and the lines
terque novas circum felix eat hostia fruges,
omnis quam chorus et socii comitentur ovantes, etc.,
clearly imply a procession with the object of keeping away harmful
influences from the crops at a critical time. And when the city-state
came into being we may be equally sure that its _ager_, so long at least
as it was small enough to admit of such a processional ritual, was
lustrated in the same way. In historical times this _ager_ had become
too extensive, and there is no procession to be found among the duties
of the Fratres Arvales as we know them when they were revived by
Augustus; but we have not, of course, the whole of the "acta" of the
Brethren, and even if we had, it would not be likely that we should find
any trace of a practice which must have been dropped in course of time
as the Roman territory increased. Let us go on to the beginnings of the
city, where we shall find the same principle and practice applied in
striking fashion.