Chapter 45

1359.Comp. Ovid, l. c. with Fest. 254; Paul. 316; Varro,L. L.6. 13; Plut.Q. R.89.

1360.H. N.18. 8; Lange,Röm. Alt.1. 2. 245.

1361.Fasti, 2. 527 foll.

1362.That it was so is proved by Fest. 254, and Varro,L. L.6. 13. It must have been a custom fairly well fixed.

1363.ii. 9.

1364.2. 23, Ἐγὼ γοῦν ἐθεασάμην ἐν ἱεραῖς οἰκάις δεῖπνα προκείμενα θεοῖς ἐπὶ τραπέζαις ξυλίναις ἀρχαικαῖς, ἐν κάνησι καὶ πινακίσκοις κεραμέοις ἀλφίτων μάζας καὶ πόπανα καὶ ζέας καὶ καρπῶν τινων ἐπαρχάς &c.

1365.Fasti, 2. 525. What does Ovid mean byfruges?

1366.Paul. 93, quoted above; Ovid, l. c. 525. Fornax as a spirit may be at least as old as those of other parts of the house, Janus, Vesta, Limentinus, &c.

1367.Mommsen,Röm. Forschungen, i. 149 foll.

1368.Lydus,de Mens.4. 24. Lydus gives the 22nd as the final day; Ovid,Fasti, 2. 569, gives the 21st (Feralia).

1369.Dion. Hal. 2. 40.

1370.C. I. L.I². 309: cf. 297 (Introduction, p. 9). The Lupercalia (15th) is an exception; but for reasons connected with that festival. The 21st (Feralia) is F P (Caer.) F (Maff.). See Introduction, p. 10. F P, according to Mommsen, = fastus principio.

1371.If Ovid reflects it rightly inFasti, 5. 419 foll. Cp. Porph. on Hor.Ep.2. 2. 209. See on Lemuria, above, p.107.

1372.On the vast subject of the jus Manium and the worship of the dead, the following are some of the works that may be consulted: Marq. 307 foll., and vii. 350 foll.; De-Marchi,Il Culto Privato, p. 180 foll.; Roscher,Lex.articles Manes and Inferi; Bouché-Leclereq,Pontifes, 147 foll.; Rohde,Psyche, p. 630 foll. Two old treatises still form the basis of our knowledge: Gutherius,de iure Manium, in Graevius’Thesaurus, vol. xii.; and Kirchmann,de Funeribus(1605). Valuable matter has still to be collected (for later times) from theCorpus Inscriptionum.

1373.This was the universal practice in Italy from the earliest times, so far as we have as yet learnt from excavations. For the question whether burial in or close to the house, or within the city walls, preceded burial in necropoleis, seeClassical Review, for February, 1897, p. 32 foll. Servius (AdAen.5. 64; 6. 152; cp. Isidorus, 15. ii. 1) tells us that they once buried in the house, and there were facts that might suggest this in the cult of the Lares, and in the private ghost-driving of the Lemuria; but we cannot prove it, and it is not true of the Romans at any period. Not even the well-known law of the XII Tables can prove that burial ever regularly took place within theexistingwalls of a city.

1374.Cic.De Legg.2. 48. Cp. Virg.Aen.5. 49:Iamque dies, ni fallor, adest, quern semper acerbum,Semper honoratum—sic di voluistis—habebo.

1374.Cic.De Legg.2. 48. Cp. Virg.Aen.5. 49:

Iamque dies, ni fallor, adest, quern semper acerbum,Semper honoratum—sic di voluistis—habebo.

Iamque dies, ni fallor, adest, quern semper acerbum,

Semper honoratum—sic di voluistis—habebo.

1375.Marq. 311 foll.

1376.Purpureosque iacit flores, Virg.Aen.5. 79. Cp. Cic.pro Flacco, 38. 95.

1377.Aeneidea, 3. 15. He well compares Lucan, 9. 990. Tylor,Prim. Cult.ii. 332. Aeneas is here, as always, the true type of the practical Roman.

1378.Marq. 311 and reff.

1379.Fasti, 2. 617 foll. Among the calendars it is only mentioned in those of Philocalus and Silvius, and in the rustic calendars. Valerius Maximus is the next writer after Ovid who mentions it: 2. 1. 8. Cp.C. I. L.vi. 10234. Martial calls it ‘lux propinquorum’ (9. 55, cp. 54). For an interesting conjecture as to the special meaning ofcarus, see Lattes quoted in De-Marchi, op. cit. 214, note 2.

1380.Val. Max. l. c. and Silvius’Calendar.

1381.Ovid,Fasti, 2. 623,Innocui veniant: procul hinc, procul impius estoFrater, et in partus mater acerba suos.

1381.Ovid,Fasti, 2. 623,

Innocui veniant: procul hinc, procul impius estoFrater, et in partus mater acerba suos.

Innocui veniant: procul hinc, procul impius esto

Frater, et in partus mater acerba suos.

1382.Ovid,Fasti, 2. 633-634. On such occasions the Lares were clothed in tunics girt at the loins; see a figure of a Lar on an altar from Caere in Baumeister,Denkmäler, vol. i. p. 77.

1383.Fasti, 2. 571 foll.

1384.Line 583. See Wissowa inLex.s. v. Dea Muta.

1385.See e. g. Crooke,Folklore of Northern India, ch. 5 (the Black Art), and especially pp. 264 foll.

1386.See e. g. Leland,Etruscan Roman remains in popular legend, pp. 3 and 195 foll.

1387.The chief attempts are those of Unger, inRhein. Mus., 1881, p. 50, and Mannhardt in hisMythologische Forschungen, pp. 72-155. The former is ingenious, but unsatisfactory in many ways; the latter conscientious, and valuable as a study in folk-lore, whether its immediate conclusions be right or wrong. See also Schwegler,R. G.i. 356 foll.; Preller, i. 387 foll.; and article s. v. inDict. of Antiquities(2nd edition); Marq. 442 foll. The ancient authorities are Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5, 79, 80; Ovid,Fasti, 2. 267 foll.; Plutarch,Caes.61,Rom.21; Val. Max. 2. 2. 9; Propert. 5. (4.) 1. 26; and many other passages which will be referred to when necessary.

1388.Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5.

1389.Jordan,Kritische Beiträge, 164 foll. Unger’s attempt, after Serv.Aen.8. 343. to derive the word fromluo(‘to purify’) is generally rejected.

1390.Wissowa,Lex.(s. v. Lupercus) takes the latter view, but rightly, as I think, rejects the deity.

1391.Virg.Aen.8. 630 ‘Mavortis in antro.’ Roscher, inLex.s. v. Mars, 2388; Preller, i. 334.

1392.Plut.Rom. 21. After mentioning the goats, he says, ἴδιον δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τὸ καὶ κύνα θύειν τοὺς Δουπέρκους (cp.Q. R.iii).

1393.Marq. 165. See above, p.110.

1394.So Val. Max. l.c. From Ovid’s version of the aetiological story of Romulus and Remus (Fasti, 2. 371 foll.) we might infer that the feasting took place after the running.

1395.‘Cornipedi Fauno caesa de more capella’ (Fasti, 2. 361). Cp. 5. 101. So Plut.Rom.l. c.

1396.Livy, 1. 5. Unger (p. 71 foll.) has much to say about Inuus in the worst style of German pseudo-research. SeeLex.s. v. (Steuding).

1397.Schwegler, i. 351 foll.; Justin, 43. 1. I had long ago arrived at this conclusion, and was glad to see it sanctioned by Wissowa inLex.s. v. Lupercus.

1398.Aen.8. 343: the only reason given is that the goat was Liber’s victim.

1399.Arnobius, 2. 23. See Mannhardt, 85; Huschke,Röm. Jahr, 12.

1400.Schwegler, i. 354 foll.: the general result is given inLex.s. v. Evander, vol. 1. 1395. Evander himself = Faunus. It is possible that there may be some basis of truth in the Arcadian legend: we await further archaeological inquiry.

1401.See onDec. 5; andLex.s. v. Faunus, p. 1458.

1402.Serv.Aen.2. 351. The whole passage is very interesting. See on Dec. 21; and Bouché-Leclercq,Pontifes, 28 and 49.

1403.Fasti, 2. 282; Marq. 443.

1404.Plut.Q. R.111; Gell. 10. 15; Arnob. 7. 21.

1405.Rom.21: quoted above, p.311. Val. Max. l. c. seems also to imply it: ‘Facto sacrificio caesisque capris, epularum hilaritate ac vino largiore provecti, divisa pastorali turba, cincti pellibus immolatarum hostiarum, iocantes obvios petiverunt.’

1406.Even this point is not quite certain; but see Hartung,Rel. der Römer, ii. 178, and Mannhardt, 78.

1407.Ox, sheep and pig were the usual victims; the dog was only offered to Robigus (see onApril 25), to the Lares Praestites and to Mana Geneta; the goat only to Bacchus and Aesculapius, foreign deities (Marq. 172). The goat-skin of Juno Sospita is certainly Greek:Lex.s. v. Iuno, 595. The goat was a special Hebrewpiaculum(Robertson Smith, 448; cf. 453).

1408.Robertson Smith, 379.

1409.Ib. 381.

1410.Rom.21 οἱ μὲν ᾐμαγμένῃ μαχαίρᾳ τοῦ μετώπου θιγγάνουσιν, ἕτεροι δ’ ἀπομάττουσιν εὐθὺς ἔριον βεβρεγμένον γάλακτι προσφέροντες. Γελᾶν δὲ δεῖ τὰ μειρόκια μετὰ τὴν ἀπόμαξιν.

1411.So Schwegler. l. c. and reff. in Marq. 443 notes 11-13. Dion. Hal. (1. 32) compared the human sacrifice in the cult of Zeus Lycaeus in Arcadia. See Farnell,Cults, i. 40 foll.

1412.We ought to have the wholehistoryof the Lupercalia if we are to explain it rightly; it is impossible to guess through what stages and changes it may have passed.

1413.4. 478 (quoted in a valuable section (23) of Hermann’sGottesdienstliche Alterthümer der Griechen).

1414.For examples of this idea see under Feb. 24 (Regifugium); Robertson Smith, 286; Mannhardt,Myth. Forsch.58 foll.

1415.It may indeed be misrepresented by Plutarch (who is the only writer who mentions it), and may have been originally an ἀλολυγή. For the confusion of mournful and joyful cries at a sacrifice see Robertson Smith, 411.

1416.Robertson Smith notes (p. 396) that young men, or rather lads, occur as sacrificers in Exodus xxiv. 5.

1417.p. 91 foll.

1418.Mannhardt is not lucid on this point; he was evidently in difficulties (pp. 97-99). He seems clear that the application of the blood produces anidentitybetween victim and youths; but in similar cases it is not through death that victim, god, and priest become identical, but through the life-giving virtue of the blood. The blood-application must surely mean the acquisition of new life; but he makes it symbolic of death.

1419.Frazer,G. B.ii. 242.

1420.Mannhardt seems to have felt this difficulty (p. 86), and to have tried to overcome it, but without success.

1421.I here omit the feasting, as it is by no means certain at what point of time it took place. If the victims themselves were eaten, it would be part of the sacrificial act and would precede the running; but this is not common in the case of suchpiacula, and one victim, we must remember, was a dog. It is more likely that Val. Max. is here wrong (see above, p.311, note 6).

1422.See Mannhardt,Antike Wald- und Feldkulte, 318 foll., and for other examples, Frazer,G. B.ii. 1 foll.; Preller-Robert,Griech. Myth.i. 144 (Zeus-festival on Pelion).

1423.After Schwegler, i. 361; rejected by Marq. (439, note 4).

1424.p. 101. The ‘wolves’ represent of course the Palatine city.

1425.See his eminently modest and sensible remarks at the end of his 5th section, p. 113.

1426.Robertson Smith,Religion of the Semites, 416 foll.;Encycl. Brit.art. ‘Sacrifice’; and for the Lupercalia,Academy, Feb. 11, 1888, where a totemistic origin is suggested.

1427.See also Lobeck,Aglaoph.pp. 183-6; Lang,Myth, Ritual and Religion, vol. ii. 177 (cp. 106) and reff., 213;Dict. of Antiquities, art. ‘Sacrificium,’ p. 584.

1428.Festus, p. 57 ‘Creppos, id est lupercos, dicebant a crepitu pellicularum,’ &c.

1429.Preller, i. 389. On this Jordan has added no comment.

1430.Ann.12. 24; Jordan,Topogr.i. 163 foll., has examined Tacitus’s account with great care. Tacitus starts the pomoerium from the Forum boarium, while Dionysius and Plutarch start the runners from the Lupercal; but the two are close together.

1431.The reading is not quite certain; the MSS. have ‘Larum de forumque.’

1432.The Sacellum Larum has generally been supposed to be that in summa sacra via (Jordan, op. cit. ii. 269). Kiepert and Huelsen make it the sacellum or ara Larum praestitum at the head of the Vicus Tuscus.

1433.L. L.6. 34. Mommsen proposed ‘a regibus Romanis moenibus cinctum.’ But it is safer to keep to the MS. reading and make the best of it. Jordan sees in the words a ‘scurrilous’ allusion to theluperci.

1434.For modern practices of the kind in England see Brand,Popular Antiquities, ch. 36; and for Oxford, p. 209. As Brand puts it, the beaters (i. e. ministers, churchwardens, &c.), ‘beg a blessing on the fruits of the earth, and preserve the rights and boundaries of their parish.’ The analogy with the old Italian processions is very close.

1435.SoC. I. L.6. 1933 ‘lupercus Quinctialis vetus.’ See Mommsen,Forsch.i. 117. Unger, however (p. 56 foll.), argues for the form Quintilianus, as it appears in Fest. 87, and Ovid,Fasti, 2. 378; and also denies that the names indicate gentile priesthoods. But his arguments depend on a doubtful etymology. See Marq. 440, note.

1436.Liv. 5. 46. Mommsen connects the nameKaeso, which is found in both gentes, with the cutting of the strips at the Lupercalia. The Fabii in Ovid’s story (361 foll.) are led by Remus, and the Quintilii by Romulus.

1437.See under March 1, p.41.

1438.So Mannhardt, 101, who tries to explain it as we have seen.

1439.Gilbert,Gesch. und Topogr.i. 86, note, tries to make out that the Fabii belonged to the Palatine proper; and the other guild, not to the Quirinal, but to the Cermalus, and thus also to account for the fact that in Ovid’s story the Fabii come first to the feast; but all this is pure guesswork.

1440.Plut.Rom.21 andCaes.61; Ovid,Fasti, 2. 425 foll.; Paul. 57; Liv. fragm. 12 (Madvig); Serv.Aen.8. 343. All these passages make it clear that the object was to procure fertility in women. Nic. Damasc.,Vita Caesaris21, does not specify women (cp. Dion. Hal. 1. 80).

1441.Liv. l. c. and Serv. l. c. are explicit on this point.

1442.Op. cit. 113 foll. and hisBaumkultus, p. 251 foll. (see also Frazer,G. B.ii. 214 and 232 foll.). An example of the same kind of practice in India is in Crooke,Religion and Folklore, vol. i. p. 100. See under May 1 (Bona Dea), p.104.

1443.They were also called ‘amiculum Iunonis’ (Fest. 85: cp. Ovid,Fasti, 2. 427 foll.); Juno here, as so often, representing the female principle. Farnell (Cults, i. 100) aptly compares with this the Athenian custom of carrying Athena’saegisround Athens, and taking it into the houses of married women.

1444.Lactantius,Inst.1. 21. 45, describes them as ‘nudi, uncti, coronati, personati, aut luto obliti currunt’; but we have no certain confirmation from earlier sources except as to the nakedness (Ovid,Fasti, 2. 267).

1445.‘Iocantesobvios petiverunt’ (Val. Max.). Mannhardt,Myth. Forsch.140 foll.

1446.Mon. Ancyr. iv. 2; Marq. 446.

1447.Baronius,Annal. Eccles.viii. 60 foll.

1448.Aust,de Aedibus sacris, p. 11; Jordan,Eph. Epigr.iii. 238.

1449.e. g. Cic.ad Quint. Fratr.2. 3. 2.

1450.See other references in Preller, i. 374, note. Ambrosch (Studien, 169, note 50) observes that Cicero (de Off.3. 10) writes with a trace of scepticism: ‘Romulus fratre interempto sine controversia peccavit, pace vel Quirini vel Romuli dixerim.’

1451.See Jordan on Preller, i. 369. The article ‘Quirinus’ inMyth. Lex.has not yet appeared as I write.

1452.Studien, 169.

1453.C. I. L.i. 41 = vi. 475 and i. 630 = vi. 565. The older one is attributed by Mommsen to the consul P. Cornelius ofB.C.236: ‘P. Corn[elios] L. f. coso[l] prob[avit] Mar[te sacrom].’ The other, ‘Quirino L. Aimilius L. f. praitor,’ must be set down to an Aemilius praetor in 204, 191, or 190. The inference is that Mars became known as Quirinus in that spot at the end of the third centuryB.C.It is worth noting that the legendary smith, Mamurius, had a statue on the Quirinal (Jord.Top.ii. 125).

1454.This is much what Dion. Hal. 2. 48 says was one view held in his time: οὐκ ἔχοντας εἰπεῖν τὸ ἀκριβὲς εἴτε Ἄρης ἐστὶν εἴτε ἕτερός τις ὁμοίας Ἄρει τιμὰς ἔχων.

1455.See onJan. 9. Fest. 254.

1456.Gilbert, i. 283, points out that in the Argean itinerary (Jord.Top.ii. 237 foll.) one of thedivisionsof the Quirinal bears the name, and infers the gradual spread of the cult of Quirinus over the whole hill; but he insists that it was introduced from the Palatine. The general result of his wild but ingenious combinations is to infer a religious conquest of the Quirinal from the Palatine.

1457.Aust, op. cit. pp. 11 and 33. Mommsen,C. I. L.i. 310, takes the one of unknown date as the older.

1458.Aust, op. cit. 51, where for Liv. 4. 21 read Liv. 5. 40.

1459.Preller, i. 356.

1460.Q. R.46; Ennius ap. Nonium 120; Gell. 13. 23.

1461.Plin.H. N.15. 120.

1462.i. 373.

1463.See underApril 25,Aug. 21,Dec. 23. Marq. 335; Schwegler, i. 334.

1464.Liv. 5. 40, 7 and 8.

1465.L. L.6. 13. According to Macrob. (1. 13. 15) the five last days of February were added after the intercalation, in order that March might follow on Feb., and not on the intercalated days.

1466.H. N.18. 8. See above, p.304.

1467.Fasti, 2. 643 foll.

1468.Te duo diversa domini pro parte coronant,Binaque serta tibi binaque liba ferunt.

1468.

Te duo diversa domini pro parte coronant,Binaque serta tibi binaque liba ferunt.

Te duo diversa domini pro parte coronant,

Binaque serta tibi binaque liba ferunt.

1469.This must be a son of the family. We have, therefore, in this charming picture the predecessors of the Rex, the Regina sacrorum, the flamines, and the Vestal Virgins.Stat puer et manibus lata canistra tenet.Inde ubi ter fruges medios immisit in ignes,Porrigit incisos filia parva favos.De-Marchi, p. 231, gives a cut of a painting at Herculaneum which may represent a scene of this kind.

1469.This must be a son of the family. We have, therefore, in this charming picture the predecessors of the Rex, the Regina sacrorum, the flamines, and the Vestal Virgins.

Stat puer et manibus lata canistra tenet.Inde ubi ter fruges medios immisit in ignes,Porrigit incisos filia parva favos.

Stat puer et manibus lata canistra tenet.

Inde ubi ter fruges medios immisit in ignes,

Porrigit incisos filia parva favos.

De-Marchi, p. 231, gives a cut of a painting at Herculaneum which may represent a scene of this kind.

1470.Gromatici veteres, i. 141. See Rudorff in vol. ii. 236 for an interesting discussion of the religio terminorum and its ethical and legal results.

1471.Rudorff, l. c. 237.

1472.Jevons,Introduction to the History of Religion, 149.

1473.Robertson Smith,Religion of the Semites, 187 foll.

1474.See under September, p.229foll. I may here notice the very curious ‘oraculum’ inGrom. Vet.p. 350 (ex libris Vegoiae) which connects Jupiter with the introduction of termini in Etruria.

1475.Ζεὺς ὅπιος he is called by Dion. Hal. (2. 74), where the cult is ascribed to Numa. Farnell,Cults of the Greek Statesi. 159.

1476.Aust, inMyth. Lex.s. v. Iuppiter, 668.

1477.Fasti, 2. 667; Liv. 1. 55; Serv.Aen.9. 448. Augustine,C. D.4. 23, adds Mars, and Dion. Hal. 3. 69 Iuventus to Terminus, who could not be ‘exauguratus.’

1478.Serv.Aen.9. 448 ‘Unde in Capitolio prona pars tecti patet, quae lapidem ipsum Termini spectat.’ This is the ‘Capitoli immobile saxum’ of Virgil; see above, p.230.

1479.Ovid, l. c. 671.

1480.See above, p.140. Varro,L. L.5. 66.

1481.Plut.Q. R.28.

1482.Ambrosch,Studien, 199 foll.

1483.It would exactly correspond to the spot of sacred ground on which the terminus-stone stood between two properties (Rudorff, l. c). In the latter case, it is worth noting, the sacrifices and sacrificers are doubles, as with the Salii, Luperci, &c, of the two Roman settlements. Mr. Granger (Worship of the Romans, 163) suggests that this stone was ‘a relic from the original dwellers by the Tiber,’ i.e. pre-Roman. But the question is, How did the Romans come to associate it with Terminus?

Back to Index Next