{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_23349/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_23349","id":"gutenberg_23349","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/23349","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Cults -- Rome","Rome -- Religion"],"text":"Produced by Turgut Dincer, Ted Garvin and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\nRELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE\nOF THE\nROMAN PEOPLE\n\nFROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE\nAGE OF AUGUSTUS\n\nTHE GIFFORD LECTURES FOR 1909-10\nDELIVERED IN EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY\n\nBY\n\nW. WARDE FOWLER, M.A.\n\nFELLOW AND LATE SUB-RECTOR OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD\nHON. D.LITT. UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER\nAUTHOR OF 'THE ROMAN FESTIVALS OF THE PERIOD OF THE REPUBLIC,' ETC.\n\n\n\"Sanctos ausus recludere fontes\"\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\nST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON\n1911\n\nTO\nPROFESSOR W.R. HARDIE\nAND\nMY MANY OTHER KIND FRIENDS AND FRIENDLY HEARERS\nIN EDINBURGH\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nLord Gifford in founding his lectureship directed that the lectures\nshould be public and popular, _i.e._ not restricted to members of a\nUniversity. Accordingly in lecturing I endeavoured to make myself\nintelligible to a general audience by avoiding much technical discussion\nand controversial matter, and by keeping to the plan of describing in\noutline the development and decay of the religion of the Roman\nCity-state. And on the whole I have thought it better to keep to this\nprinciple in publishing the lectures; they are printed for the most part\nmuch as they were delivered, and without footnotes, but at the end of\neach lecture students of the subject will find the notes referred to by\nthe numbers in the text, containing such further information or\ndiscussion as has seemed desirable. My model in this method has been the\nadmirable lectures of Prof. Cumont on \"les Religions Orientales dans le\nPaganisme Romain.\"\n\nI wish to make two remarks about the subject-matter of the lectures.\nFirst, the idea running through them is that the primitive religious (or\nmagico-religious) instinct, which was the germ of the religion of the\nhistorical Romans, was gradually atrophied by over-elaboration of\nritual, but showed itself again in strange forms from the period of the\nPunic wars onwards. For this religious instinct I have used the Latin\nword _religio_, as I have explained in the _Transactions of the Third\nInternational Congress for the History of Religions_, vol. ii. p. 169\nfoll. I am, however, well aware that some scholars take a different view\nof the original meaning of this famous word, which has been much\ndiscussed since I formed my plan of lecturing. But I do not think that\nthose who differ from me on this point will find that my general\nargument is seriously affected one way or another by my use of the word.\n\nSecondly, while I have been at work on the lectures, the idea seems to\nhave been slowly gaining ground that the patrician religion of the early\nCity-state, which became so highly formalised, so clean and austere, and\neventually so political, was really the religion of an invading race,\nlike that of the Achaeans in Greece, engrafted on the religion of a\nprimitive and less civilised population. I have not definitely adopted\nthis idea; but I am inclined to think that a good deal of what I have\nsaid in the earlier lectures may be found to support it. Once only, in\nLecture XVII., I have used it myself to support a hypothesis there\nadvanced.\n\nI have retained the familiar English spelling of certain divine names,\n_e.g._ Jupiter (instead of Iuppiter), as less startling to British\nreaders.\n\nI wish to express my very deep obligations to the works of Prof. Wissowa\nand Dr. J. G. Frazer, and also to Mr. R. R. Marett, who gave me useful\npersonal help in my second and third lectures. From Prof. Wissowa and\nDr. Frazer I have had the misfortune to differ on one or two points; but\n\"difference of opinion is the salt of life,\" as a great scholar said to\nme not long ago. In reading the proofs I have had much kind and valuable\nhelp from my Oxford friends Mr. Cyril Bailey and Mr. A. S. L.\nFarquharson, who have read certain parts of the work, and to whose\nsuggestions I am greatly indebted. The whole has been read through by my\nold pupil Mr. Hugh Parr, now of Clifton College, to whom my best thanks\nare due for his timely discovery of many misprints and awkward\nexpressions. The loyalty and goodwill of my old Oxford pupils never seem\nto fail me.\n\n\nW. W. F.\n\nKingham, Oxon,\n_3rd March 1911_.\n\n\n\n                        CONTENTS\n\n\n\n    LECTURE I\n\n\n    INTRODUCTORY\n                                                           PAGE\n\n    Accounts of the Roman religion in recent standard works;\n    a hard and highly formalised system. Its interest lies\n    partly in this fact. How did it come to be so? This the\n    main question of the first epoch of Roman religious\n    experience. Roman religion and Roman law compared. Roman\n    religion a technical subject. What we mean by religion.\n    A useful definition applied to the plan of Lectures\n    I.-X.; including (1) survivals of primitive or\n    quasi-magical religion; (2) the religion of the\n    agricultural family; (3) that of the City-state, in its\n    simplest form, and in its first period of expansion.\n    Difficulties of the subject; present position of\n    knowledge and criticism. Help obtainable from (1)\n    archaeology, (2) anthropology                                  1-23\n\n\n    LECTURE II\n\n    ON THE THRESHOLD OF RELIGION: SURVIVALS\n\n    Survivals at Rome of previous eras of quasi-religious\n    experience. Totemism not discernible. Taboo, and the\n    means adopted of escaping from it; both survived at Rome\n    into an age of real religion. Examples: impurity (or\n    holiness) of new-born infants; of a corpse; of women in\n    certain worships; of strangers; of criminals. Almost\n    complete absence of blood-taboo. Iron. Strange taboos on\n    the priest of Jupiter and his wife. Holy or tabooed\n    places; holy or tabooed days; the word _religiosus_ as\n    applied to both of these                                      24-46\n\n\n\n    LECTURE III\n\n    ON THE THRESHOLD OF RELIGION: MAGIC\n\n    Magic; distinction between magic and religion. Religious\n    authorities seek to exclude magic, and did so at Rome.\n    Few survivals of magic in the State religion. The\n    _aquaelicium_. Vestals and runaway slaves. The magical\n    whipping at the Lupercalia. The throwing of puppets from\n    the _pons sublicius_. Magical processes surviving in\n    religious ritual with their meaning lost. Private magic:\n    _excantatio_ in the XII. Tables; other spells or\n    _carmina_. Amulets: the _bulla_; _oscilla_                    47-67\n\n\n    LECTURE IV\n\n    THE RELIGION OF THE FAMILY\n\n    Continuity of the religion of the Latin agricultural\n    family. What the family was; its relation to the _gens_.\n    The _familia_ as settled on the land, an economic unit,\n    embodied in a _pagus_. The house as the religious centre\n    of the _familia_; its holy places. Vesta, Penates,\n    Genius, and the spirit of the doorway. The _Lar\n    familiaris_ on the land. Festival of the Lar belongs to\n    the religion of the _pagus_: other festivals of the\n    _pagus_. _Religio terminorum._ Religion of the\n    household: marriage, childbirth, burial and cult of the\n    dead                                                          68-91\n\n\n    LECTURE V\n\n    THE CALENDAR OF NUMA\n\n    Beginnings of the City-state: the _oppidum_. The\n    earliest historical Rome, the city of the four regions;\n    to this belongs the surviving religious calendar. This\n    calendar described; the basis of our knowledge of early\n    Roman religion. It expresses a life agricultural,\n    political, and military. Days of gods distinguished from\n    days of man. Agricultural life the real basis of the\n    calendar; gradual effacement of it. Results of a fixed\n    routine in calendar; discipline, religious confidence.\n    Exclusion from it of the barbarous and grotesque.\n    Decency and order under an organising priestly authority\n                                                                 92-113\n\n    LECTURE VI\n\n    THE DIVINE OBJECTS OF WORSHIP\n\n    Sources of knowledge about Roman deities. What did the\n    Romans themselves know about them? No personal deity in\n    the religion of the family. Those of the City-state are\n    _numina_, marking a transition from animism to\n    polytheism. Meaning of _numen_. Importance of names,\n    which are chiefly adjectival, marking functional\n    activity. Tellus an exception. Importance of priests in\n    development of _dei_. The four great Roman gods and\n    their priests: Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus.\n    Characteristics of each of these in earliest Rome. Juno\n    and the difficulties she presents. Vesta 114-144\n\n\n    LECTURE VII\n\n    THE DEITIES OF THE EARLIEST RELIGION:\n    GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS\n\n    No temples in the earliest Rome; meaning of _fanum, ara,\n    lucus, sacellum_. No images of gods in these places,\n    until end of regal period. Thus deities not conceived as\n    persons. Though masculine and feminine they were not\n    married pairs; Dr. Frazer's opinion on this point.\n    Examination of his evidence derived from the _libri\n    sacerdotum_; meaning of Nerio Martis. Such combinations\n    of names suggest forms or manifestations of a deity's\n    activity, not likely to grow into personal deities\n    without Greek help. Meaning of _pater_ and _mater_\n    applied to deities; procreation not indicated by them.\n    The deities of the _Indigitamenta_; priestly inventions\n    of a later age. Usener's theory of Sondergoetter\n    criticised so far as it applies to Rome                     145-168\n\n\n    LECTURE VIII\n\n    RITUAL OF THE IUS DIVINUM\n\n    Main object of _ius divinum_ to keep up the _pax\n    deorum_; meaning of _pax_ in this phrase. Means towards\n    the maintenance of the _pax_: sacrifice and prayer,\n    fulfilment of vows, lustratio, divination. Meaning of\n    _sacrificium_. Little trace of sacramental sacrifice.\n    Typical sacrifice of _ius divinum_: both priest and\n    victim must be acceptable to the deity; means taken to\n    secure this. Ritual of slaughter: examination and\n    _porrectio_ of entrails. Prayer; the phrase _Macte esto_\n    and its importance in explaining Roman sacrifice.\n    Magical survivals in Roman and Italian prayers; yet they\n    are essentially religious                                   169-199\n\n\n    LECTURE IX\n\n    RITUAL (continued)\n\n    _Vota_ (vows) have suggested the idea that Roman worship\n    was bargaining. Examination of private vows, which do\n    not prove this; of public vows, which in some degree do\n    so. Moral elements in both these. Other forms of vow:\n    _evocatio_ and _devotio_.\n\n    _Lustratio_: meaning of _lustrare_ in successive stages\n    of Roman experience. _Lustratio_ of the farm and\n    _pagus_; of the city; of the people (at Rome and\n    Iguvium); of the army; of the arms and trumpets of the\n    army: meaning of _lustratio_ in these last cases, both\n    before and after a campaign                                 200-222\n\n\n    LECTURE X\n\n    THE FIRST ARRIVAL OF NEW CULTS IN ROME\n\n    Recapitulation of foregoing lectures. Weak point of the\n    organised State religion: it discouraged individual\n    development. Its moral influence mainly a disciplinary\n    one; and it hypnotised the religious instinct.\n\n    Growth of a new population at end of regal period, also\n    of trade and industry. New deities from abroad represent\n    these changes: Hercules of Ara Maxima; Castor and\n    Pollux; Minerva. Diana of the Aventine reflects a new\n    relation with Latium. Question as to the real religious\n    influence of these deities. The Capitoline temple of\n    Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, of Etruscan origin. Meaning\n    of cult-titles Optimus Maximus, and significance of this\n    great Jupiter in Roman religious experience                 223-247\n\n\n    LECTURE XI\n\n    CONTACT OF THE OLD AND NEW IN RELIGION\n\n    Plan of this and following lectures. The formalised\n    Roman religion meets with perils, material and moral,\n    and ultimately proves inadequate. Subject of this\n    lecture, the introduction of Greek deities and rites;\n    but first a proof that the Romans were a really\n    religious people; evidence from literature, from\n    worship, from the practice of public life, and from\n    Latin religious vocabulary.\n\n    Temple of Ceres, Liber, Libera (Demeter, Dionysus,\n    Persephone); its importance for the date of Sibylline\n    influence at Rome. Nature of this influence; how and\n    when it reached Rome. The keepers of the \"Sibylline\n    books\"; new cults introduced by them. New rites:\n    lectisternia and supplicationes, their meaning and\n    historical importance                                       248-269\n\n\n    LECTURE XII\n\n    THE PONTIFICES AND THE SECULARISATION OF RELIGION\n\n    Historical facts about the Pontifices in this period; a\n    powerful exclusive \"collegium\" taking charge of the _ius\n    divinum_. The legal side of their work; they\n    administered the oldest rules of law, which belonged to\n    that _ius_. New ideas of law after Etruscan period;\n    increasing social complexity and its effect on legal\n    matters; result, publication of rules of law, civil and\n    religious, in XII. Tables, and abolition of legal\n    monopoly of Pontifices. But they keep control of (1)\n    procedure, (2) interpretation, till end of fourth\n    century B.C. Publication of Fasti and _Legis actiones_;\n    the college opened to Plebeians. Work of Pontifices in\n    third century: (1) admission of new deities, (2)\n    compilation of annals, (3) collection of religious\n    formulae. General result; formalisation of religion; and\n    secularisation of pontifical influence                      270-291\n\n\n    LECTURE XIII\n\n    THE AUGURS AND THE ART OF DIVINATION\n\n    Divination a universal practice: its relation to magic.\n    Want of a comprehensive treatment of it. Its object at\n    Rome: to assure oneself of the _pax deorum_; but it was\n    the most futile method used. Private divination; limited\n    and discouraged by the State, except in the form of\n    family _auspicia_. Public divination; _auspicia_ needed\n    in all State operations; close connection with\n    _imperium_. The augurs were skilled advisers of the\n    magistrates, but could not themselves take the auspices.\n    Probable result of this: Rome escaped subjection to a\n    hierarchy. Augurs and _auspicia_ become politically\n    important, but cease to belong to religion. State\n    divination a clog on political progress. Sinister\n    influence on Rome of Etruscan divination; history of the\n    _haruspices_                                                292-313\n\n\n    LECTURE XIV\n\n    THE HANNIBALIC WAR\n\n    Tendency towards contempt of religious forms in third\n    century B.C.; disappears during this war. _Religio_ in\n    the old sense takes its place, _i.e._ fear and anxiety.\n    This takes the form of reporting _prodigia_; account of\n    these in 218 B.C., and of the prescriptions supplied by\n    Sibylline books. Fresh outbreak of _religio_ after\n    battle of Trasimene; _lectisternium_ of 216, without\n    distinction of Greek and Roman deities; importance of\n    this. Religious panic after battle of Cannae;\n    extraordinary religious measures, including human\n    sacrifice. Embassy to Delphi and its result; symptoms of\n    renewed confidence. But fresh and alarming outbreak in\n    213; met with remarkable skill. Institution of Apolline\n    games. Summary of religious history in last years of the\n    war; gratitude to the gods after battle of Metaurus.\n    Arrival of the Great Mother of Phrygia at Rome. Hannibal\n    leaves Italy 314-334\n\n\n    LECTURE XV\n\n    AFTER THE HANNIBALIC WAR\n\n    Religion used to support Senatorial policy in declaring\n    war (1) with Philip of Macedon, (2) with Antiochus of\n    Syria; but this is not the old religion. Use of\n    _prodigia_ and Sibylline oracles to secure political and\n    personal objects; mischief caused in this way. Growth of\n    individualism; rebellion of the individual against the\n    _ius divinum_. Examples of this from the history of the\n    priesthoods; strange story of a Flamen Dialis. The\n    story of the introduction of Bacchic rites in 186 B.C.;\n    interference of the Senate and Magistrates, and\n    significance of this. Strange attempt to propagate\n    Pythagoreanism; this also dealt with by the government.\n    Influence of Ennius and Plautus, and of translations\n    from Greek comedy, on the dying Roman religion              335-356\n\n\n    LECTURE XVI\n\n    GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND ROMAN RELIGION\n\n    Religious destitution of the Roman in second century\n    B.C. in regard to (1) his idea of God, (2) his sense of\n    Duty. No help from Epicurism, which provided no\n    religious sanction for conduct; Lucretius, and Epicurean\n    idea of the Divine. Arrival of Stoicism at Rome;\n    Panaetius and the Scipionic circle. Character of Scipio.\n    The religious side of Stoicism; it teaches a new\n    doctrine of the relation of man to God. Stoic idea of\n    God as Reason, and as pervading the universe; adjustment\n    of this to Roman idea of _numina_. Stoic idea of Man as\n    possessing Reason, and so partaking the Divine nature.\n    Influence of these two ideas on the best type of Roman;\n    they appeal to his idea of Duty, and ennoble his idea of\n    Law. Weak points in Roman Stoicism: (1) doctrine of\n    Will, (2) neglect of emotions and sympathy. It failed to\n    rouse an \"enthusiasm of humanity\"                           357-379\n\n\n\n    LECTURE XVII\n\n    MYSTICISM--IDEAS OF A FUTURE LIFE\n\n\n    Early Pythagoreanism in S. Italy; its reappearance in\n    last century B.C. under the influence of Posidonius, who\n    combined Stoicism with Platonic Pythagoreanism. Cicero\n    affected by this revival; his Somnium Scipionis and\n    other later works. His mysticism takes practical form on\n    the death of his daughter; letters to Atticus about a\n    _fanum_. Individualisation of the Manes; freedom of\n    belief on such questions. Further evidence of Cicero's\n    tendency to mysticism at this time (45 B.C.), and his\n    belief in a future life. But did the ordinary Roman so\n    believe? Question whether he really believed in the\n    torments of Hades. Probability of this: explanation to\n    be found in the influence of Etruscan art and Greek\n    plays on primitive Roman ideas of the dead. Mysticism in\n    the form of astrology; Nigidius Figulus                     380-402\n\n\n    LECTURE XVIII\n\n    RELIGIOUS FEELING IN THE POEMS OF VIRGIL\n\n    Virgil sums up Roman religious experience, and combines\n    it with hope for the future. Sense of depression in his\n    day; want of sympathy and goodwill towards men. Virgil's\n    sympathetic outlook; shown in his treatment of animals,\n    Italian scenery, man's labour, and man's worship. His\n    idea of _pietas_. The theme of the Aeneid; Rome's\n    mission in the world, and the _pietas_ needed to carry\n    it out. Development of the character of Aeneas; his\n    _pietas_ imperfect in the first six books, perfected in\n    the last six, resulting in a balance between the ideas\n    of the Individual and the State. Illustration of this\n    from the poem. Importance of Book vi., which describes\n    the ordeal destined to perfect the _pietas_ of the hero.\n    The sense of Duty never afterwards deserts him; his\n    _pietas_ enlarged in a religious sense                      403-427\n\n\n    LECTURE XIX\n\n    THE AUGUSTAN REVIVAL\n\n    Connection of Augustus and Virgil. Augustus aims at\n    re-establishing the national _pietas_, and securing the\n    _pax deorum_ by means of the _ius divinum_. How this\n    formed part of his political plans. Temple restoration\n    and its practical result. Revival of the ancient ritual;\n    illustrated from the records of the Arval Brethren. The\n    new element in it; Caesar-worship; but Augustus was\n    content with the honour of re-establishing the _pax\n    deorum_. Celebration of this in the Ludi saeculares, 17\n    B.C. Our detailed knowledge of this festival; meaning of\n    _saeculum_; description of the _ludi_, and illustration\n    of their meaning from the _Carmen saeculare_ of Horace.\n    Discussion of the performance of this hymn by the choirs\n    of boys and girls                                           428-451\n\n\n    LECTURE XX\n\n    CONCLUSION\n\n    Religious ingredients in Roman soil likely to be\n    utilised by Christianity. The Stoic ingredient;\n    revelation of the Universal, and ennobling of\n    Individual. The contribution of Mysticism; preparation\n    for Christian eschatology. The contribution of Virgil;\n    sympathy and sense of Duty. The contribution of Roman\n    religion proper: (1) sane and orderly character of\n    ritual, (2) practical character of Latin Christianity\n    visible in early Christian writings, (3) a religious\n    vocabulary, _e.g. religio, pietas, sanctus,\n    sacramentum_. But all this is but a slight contribution;\n    essential difference between Christianity and all that\n    preceded it in Italy; illustration from the language of\n    St. Paul 452-472\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nI. ON THE USE OF HUTS OR BOOTHS IN RELIGIOUS RITUAL                 473\n\nII. PROF. DEUBNER'S THEORY OF THE LUPERCALIA                        478\n\nIII. THE PAIRS OF DEITIES IN GELLIUS xiii. 23                       481\n\nIV. THE EARLY USAGE OF THE WORDS IUS AND FAS                        486\n\nV. THE WORSHIP OF SACRED UTENSILS                                   489\n\n\nINDEX                                                               491\n\n\nLECTURE I\n\nINTRODUCTORY\n\n\nI was invited to prepare these lectures, on Lord Gifford's foundation,\nas one who has made a special study of the religious ideas and practice\nof the Roman people. So far as I know, the subject has not been touched\nupon as yet by any Gifford lecturer. We are in these days interested in\nevery form of religion, from the most rudimentary to the most highly\ndeveloped; from the ideas of the aborigines of Australia, which have now\nbecome the common property of anthropologists, to the ethical and\nspiritual religions of civilised man. Yet it is remarkable how few\nstudents of the history of religion, apart from one or two specialists,\nhave been able to find anything instructive in the religion of the\nRomans--of the Romans, I mean, as distinguished from that vast\ncollection of races and nationalities which eventually came to be called\nby the name of Rome. At the Congress for the History of Religions held\nat Oxford in 1908, out of scores of papers read and offered, not more\nthan one or two even touched on the early religious ideas of the most\npractical and powerful people that the world has ever known.\n\nThis is due, in part at least, to the fact that just when Roman history\nbegins to be of absorbing interest, and fairly well substantiated by\nevidence, the Roman religion, as religion, has already begun to lose its\nvitality, its purity, its efficacy. It has become overlaid with foreign\nrites and ideas, and it has also become a religious monopoly of the\nState; of which the essential characteristic, as Mommsen has well put\nit, and as we shall see later on, was \"the conscious retention of the\nprinciples of the popular belief, which were recognised as irrational,\nfor reasons of outward convenience.\"[1] It was not unlike the religion\nof the Jews in the period immediately before the Captivity, and it was\nnever to profit by the refining and chastening influence of such lengthy\nsuffering. In this later condition it has not been attractive to\nstudents of religious history; and to penetrate farther back into the\nreal religious ideas of the genuine Roman people is a task very far from\neasy, of which indeed the difficulties only seem to increase as we\nbecome more familiar with it.\n\nIt must be remarked, too, that as a consequence of this\nunattractiveness, the accounts given in standard works of the general\nfeatures of this religion are rather chilling and repellent. More than\nfifty years ago, in the first book of his _Roman History_, Mommsen so\ntreated of it--not indeed without some reservation,--and in this matter,\nas in so many others, his view remained for many years the dominant one.\nHe looked at this religion, as was natural to him, from the point of\nview of law; in religion as such he had no particular interest. If I am\nnot mistaken, it was for him, except in so far as it is connected with\nRoman law, the least interesting part of all his far-reaching Roman\nstudies. More recent writers of credit and ability have followed his\nlead, and stress has been laid on the legal side of religion at Rome; it\nhas been described over and over again as merely a system of contracts\nbetween gods and worshippers, secured by hard and literal formalism, and\nwithout ethical value or any native principle of growth. Quite recently,\nfor example, so great an authority as Professor Cumont has written of it\nthus:--\n\n\"Il n'a peut etre jamais existe aucune religion aussi froide, aussi\nprosaique que celle des Romains. Subordonnee a la politique, elle\ncherche avant tout, par la stricte execution de pratiques appropriees, a\nassurer a l'Etat la protection des dieux ou a detourner les effets de\nleur malveillance. Elle a conclu avec les puissances celestes un contrat\nsynallagmatique d'ou decoulent des obligations reciproques: sacrifices\nd'une part, faveurs de l'autre.... Sa liturgie rappelle par la minutie\nde ses prescriptions l'ancien droit civil. Cette religion se defie des\nabandons de l'ame et des elans de la devotion.\" And he finishes his\ndescription by quoting a few words of the late M. Jean Reville: \"The\nlegalism of the Pharisees, in spite of the dryness of their ritualistic\nminutiae, could make the heart vibrate more than the formalism of the\nRomans.\"[2]\n\nNow it is not for me to deny the truth of such statements as this,\nthough I might be disposed to say that it is rather approximate than\ncomplete truth as here expressed, does not sum up the whole story, and\nonly holds good for a single epoch of this religious history. But\nsurely, for anyone interested in the history of religion, a religious\nsystem of such an unusual kind, with characteristics so well marked,\nmust, one would suppose, be itself an attractive subject. A religion\nthat becomes highly formalised claims attention by this very\ncharacteristic. At one time, however far back, it must have accurately\nexpressed the needs and the aspirations of the Roman people in their\nstruggle for existence. It is obviously, as described by the writers I\nhave quoted, a very mature growth, a highly developed system; and the\nstory, if we could recover it, of the way in which it came to be thus\nformalised, should be one of the deepest interest for students of the\nhistory of religion. Another story, too, that of the gradual discovery\nof the _inadequacy_ of this system, and of the engrafting upon it, or\nsubstitution for it, of foreign rites and beliefs, is assuredly not less\ninstructive; and here, fortunately, our records make the task of telling\nit an easier one.\n\nNow these two stories, taken together, sum up what we may call the\n_religious experience of the Roman people_; and as it is upon these that\nI wish to concentrate your attention during this and the following\ncourse, I have called these lectures by that name. My plan is not to\nprovide an exhaustive account of the details of the Roman worship or of\nthe nature of the Roman gods: that can be found in the works of\ncarefully trained specialists, of whom I shall have something to say\npresently. More in accordance with the intentions of the Founder of\nthese lectures, I think, will be an attempt to follow out, with such\ndetailed comment as may be necessary, the religious experience of the\nRomans, as an important part of their history. And this happens to\ncoincide with my own inclination and training; for I have been all my\nacademic life occupied in learning and teaching Roman history, and the\nfascination which the study of the Roman religion has long had for me is\nsimply due to this fact. Whatever may be the case with other religions,\nit is impossible to think of that of the Romans as detached from their\nhistory as a whole; it is an integral part of the life and growth of the\npeople. An adequate knowledge of Roman history, with all its\ndifficulties and doubts, is the only scientific basis for the study of\nRoman religion, just as an adequate knowledge of Jewish history is the\nonly scientific basis for a study of Jewish religion. The same rule must\nhold good in a greater or less degree with all other forms of religion\nof the higher type, and even when we are dealing with the religious\nideas of savage peoples it is well to bear it steadfastly in mind. I may\nbe excused for suggesting that in works on comparative religion and\nmorals this principle is not always sufficiently realised, and that the\npanorama of religious or quasi-religious practice from all parts of the\nworld, and found among peoples of very different stages of development,\nwith which we are now so familiar, needs constant testing by increased\nknowledge of those peoples in all their relations of life. At any rate,\nin dealing with Roman evidence the investigator of religious history\nshould also be a student of Roman history generally, for the facts of\nRoman life, public and private, are all closely concatenated together,\nand spring with an organic growth from the same root. The branches tend\nto separate, but the tree is of regular growth, compact in all its\nparts, and you cannot safely concentrate your attention on one of these\nparts to the comparative neglect of the rest. Conversely, too, the great\nstory of the rise and decay of the Roman dominion cannot be properly\nunderstood without following out the religious history of this\npeople--their religious experience, as I prefer to call it. To take an\nexample of this, let me remind you of two leading facts in Roman\nhistory: first, the strength and tenacity of the family as a group under\nthe absolute government of the paterfamilias; secondly, the strength and\ntenacity of the idea of the State as represented by the _imperium_ of\nits magistrates. How different in these respects are the Romans from the\nCelts, the Scandinavians, even from the Greeks! But these two facts are\nin great measure the result of the religious ideas of the people, and,\non the other hand, they themselves react with astonishing force on the\nfortunes of that religion.\n\nI do not indeed wish to be understood as maintaining that the religion\nof the Roman was the most important element in his mental or civic\ndevelopment: far from it. I should be the first to concede that the\nreligious element in the Roman mind was not that part of it which has\nleft the deepest impress on history, or contributed much, except in\nexternals, to our modern ideas of the Divine and of worship. It is not,\nas Roman law was, the one great contribution of the Roman genius to the\nevolution of humanity. But Roman law and Roman religion sprang from the\nsame root; they were indeed in origin _one and the same thing_.\nReligious law was a part of the _ius civile_, and both were originally\nadministered by the same authority, the Rex. Following the course of the\ntwo side by side for a few centuries, we come upon an astonishing\nphenomenon, which I will mention now (it will meet us again) as showing\nhow far more interest can be aroused in our subject if we are fully\nequipped as Roman historians than if we were to study the religion\nalone, torn from the living body of the State, and placed on the\ndissecting-board by itself. As the State grew in population and\nimportance, and came into contact, friendly or hostile, with other\npeoples, both the religion and the law of the State were called upon to\nexpand, and they did so. But they did so in different ways; Roman law\nexpanded _organically_ and intensively, absorbing into its own body the\nexperience and practice of other peoples, while Roman religion expanded\n_mechanically_ and extensively, by taking on the deities and worship of\nothers _without any organic change of its own being_. Just as the\nEnglish language has been able to absorb words of Latin origin, through\nits early contact with French, into the very tissue and fibre of its\nbeing, while German has for certain reasons never been able to do this,\nbut has adopted them as strangers only, without making them its very\nown: so Roman law contrived to take into its own being the rules and\npractices of strangers, while Roman religion, though it eventually\nadmitted the ideas and cults of Greeks and others, did so without taking\nthem by a digestive process into its own system. Had the law of Rome\nremained as inelastic as the religion, the Roman people would have\nadvanced as little in civilisation as those races which embraced the\nfaith of Islam, with its law and religion alike impermeable to any\nchange.[3] Here is a phenomenon that at once attracts attention and\nsuggests questions not easy to answer. Why is it that the Roman religion\ncan never have the same interest and value for mankind as Roman law? I\nhope that we shall find an answer to this question in the course of our\nstudies: at this moment I only propose it as an example of the advantage\ngained for the study of one department of Roman life and thought by a\npretty complete equipment in the knowledge of others.\n\nAt the same time we must remember that the religion of the Romans is a\nhighly technical subject, like Roman law, the Roman constitution, and\nalmost everything else Roman; it calls for special knowledge as well as\na sufficient training in Roman institutions generally. Each of these\nRoman subjects is like a language with a delicate accidence, which is\nalways presenting the unwary with pitfalls into which they are sure to\nblunder unless they have a thorough mastery of it. I could mention a\nbook full of valuable thoughts about the relation to Paganism of the\nearly Christian Church, by a scholar at once learned and sympathetic;[4]\nwho when he happens to deal for a moment with the old Roman religion, is\ninaccurate and misleading at every point. He knew, for example, that\nthis religion is built on the foundation of the worship of the family,\nbut he yielded to the temptation to assume that the family in heaven was\na counterpart of the family on earth, \"as it might be seen in any palace\nof the Roman nobility.\" \"Jupiter and Juno,\" he says, \"were the lord and\nlady, and beneath them was an army of officers, attendants, ministers,\nof every rank and degree.\" Such a description of the pantheon of his\nreligion would have utterly puzzled a Roman, even in the later days of\ntheological syncretism. Again he says that this religion was strongly\nmoral; that \"the gods gave every man his duty, and expected him to\nperform it.\" Here again no Roman of historical times, or indeed of any\nage, could have allowed this to be his creed. Had it really been so, not\nonly the history of the Roman religion, but that of the Roman state,\nwould have been very different from what it actually was.\n\nThe principles then on which I wish to proceed in these lectures\nare--(1) to keep the subject in continual touch with Roman history and\nthe development of the Roman state; (2) to exercise all possible care\nand accuracy in dealing with the technical matters of the religion\nitself. I may now go on to explain more exactly the plan I propose to\nfollow.\n\nIt will greatly assist me in this explanation if I begin by making clear\nwhat I understand, for our present purposes, by the word _religion_.\nThere have been many definitions propounded--more in recent years than\never before, owing to the recognition of the study of religion as a\ndepartment of anthropology. Controversies are going on which call for\nnew definitions, and it is only by slow degrees that we are arriving at\nany common understanding as to the real essential thing or fact for\nwhich we should reserve this famous word, and other words closely\nconnected with it, _e.g._ the supernatural. We are still disputing, for\nexample, as to the relation of religion to magic, and therefore as to\nthe exact meaning to be attributed to each of these terms.\n\nAmong the many definitions of religion which I have met with, there is\none which seems to me to be particularly helpful for our present\npurposes; it is contributed by an American investigator. \"_Religion is\nthe effective desire to be in right relation to the Power manifesting\nitself in the universe._\"[5] Dr. Frazer's definition is not different in\nessentials: \"By religion I understand a propitiation or conciliation of\npowers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the\ncourse of nature and of human life;\"[6] only that here the word is used\nof acts of worship rather than of the feeling or desire that prompts\nthem. The definition of the late M. Jean Reville, in a chapter on\n\"Religious Experience,\" written near the end of his valuable life, is in\nmy view nearer the mark, and more comprehensive. \"Religion,\" he says,\n\"is essentially a principle of life, the feeling of a living relation\nbetween the human individual and the powers or power of which the\nuniverse is the manifestation. What characterises each religion is its\nway of looking upon this relation and its method of applying it.\"[7] And\na little further on he writes: \"It is generally admitted that this\nfeeling of dependence upon the universe is the root of all religion.\"\nBut this is not so succinct as the definition which I quoted first, and\nit introduces at least one term, _the individual_, which, for certain\ngood reasons, I think it will be better for us to avoid in studying the\nearly Roman religious ideas.\n\n\"_Religion is the effective desire to be in right relations with the\nPower manifesting itself in the universe._\" This has the advantage of\ntreating religion as primarily and essentially a _feeling_, an\ninstinctive desire, and the word \"effective,\" skilfully introduced,\nsuggests that this feeling manifests itself in certain actions\nundertaken in order to secure a desired end. Again, the phrase \"right\nrelations\" seems to me well chosen, and better than the \"living\nrelation\" of M. Reville, which if applied to the religions of antiquity\ncan only be understood in a sacramental sense, and is not obviously so\nintended. \"Right relation\" will cover all religious feeling, from the\nmost material to the most spiritual. Think for a moment of the 119th\nPsalm, the high-water mark of the religious feeling of the most\nreligious people of antiquity; it is a magnificent declaration of\nconformity to the will of God, _i.e._ of the desire to be in right\nrelation to Him, to His statutes, judgments, laws, commands,\ntestimonies, righteousness. This is religion in a high state of\ndevelopment; but our definition is so skilfully worded as to adapt\nitself readily to much earlier and simpler forms. The \"Power manifesting\nitself in the universe\" may be taken as including all the workings of\nnature, which even now we most imperfectly understand, and which\nprimitive man so little understood that he misinterpreted them in a\nhundred different ways. The effective desire to be in right relation\nwith these mysterious powers, so that they might not interfere with his\nmaterial well-being--with his flocks and herds, with his crops, too, if\nhe were in the agricultural stage, with his dwelling and his land, or\nwith his city if he had got so far in social development--this is what\nwe may call the religious instinct, the origin of what the Romans called\n_religio_.[8] The effective desire to have your own will brought into\nconformity to the will of a heavenly Father is a later development of\nthe same feeling; to this the genuine Roman never attained, and the\nGreek very imperfectly.\n\nIf we keep this definition steadily in mind, I think we shall find it a\nvaluable guide in following out what I call the religious experience of\nthe Roman people; and at the present moment it will help me to explain\nmy plan in drawing up these lectures. To begin with, in the prehistoric\nage of Rome, so far as we can discern from survivals of a later age, the\nfeeling or desire must have taken shape, ineffectively indeed, in many\nquaint acts, some of them magical or quasi-magical, and possibly taken\nover from an earlier and ruder population among whom the Latins settled.\nMany of these continued, doubtless, to exist among the common folk,\nunauthorised by any constituted power, while some few were absorbed into\nthe religious practice of the State, probably with the speedy loss of\ntheir original significance. Such survivals of ineffective religion are\nof course to be found in the lowest stratum of the religious ideas of\nevery people, ancient and modern; even among the Israelites,[9] and in\nthe rites of Islam or Christianity. They form, as it were, _a kind of\nprotoplasm of religious vitality_, from which an organic growth was\ngradually developed. But though they are necessarily a matter of\ninvestigation as survivals which have a story to tell, they do not carry\nus very far when we are tracing the religious experience of a people,\nand in any case the process of investigating them is one of groping in\nthe dark. I shall deal with these survivals in my next two lectures, and\nthen leave them for good.\n\nI am more immediately concerned with the desire expressed in our\ndefinition _when it has become more effective_; and this we find in the\nLatins when they have attained to a complete settlement on the land, and\nare well on in the agricultural stage of social development. This stage\nwe can dimly see reflected in the life of the home and farm of later\ntimes; we have, I need hardly say, no contemporary evidence of it,\nthough archaeology may yet yield us something. But the conservatism of\nrural life is a familiar fact, and comes home to me when I reflect that\nin my own English village the main features of work and worship remained\nthe same through many centuries, until we were revolutionised by the\nenclosure of the parish and the coming of the railroad in the middle of\nthe nineteenth century. The intense conservatism of rural Italy, up to\nthe present day, has always been an acknowledged fact, and admits of\neasy explanation. We may be sure that the Latin farmer, before the\nCity-state was developed, was like his descendants of historical times,\nthe religious head of a family, whose household deities were\n_effectively_ worshipped by a regular and orderly procedure, whose dead\nwere cared for in like manner, and whose land and stock were protected\nfrom malignant spirits by a boundary made sacred by yearly rites of\nsacrifice and prayer. Doubtless these wild spirits beyond his boundaries\nwere a constant source of anxiety to him; doubtless charms and spells\nand other survivals from the earlier stage were in use to keep them from\nmischief; but these tend to become exceptions in an orderly life of\nagricultural routine which we may call _religious_. Spirits may accept\ndomicile within the limits of the farm, and tend, as always in this\nagricultural stage, to become fixed to the soil and to take more\ndefinite shape as in some sense deities. This stage--that of the\nagricultural family--is the foundation of Roman civilised life, in\nreligious as in all other aspects, and it will form the subject of my\nfourth lecture.\n\nThe growing effectiveness of the desire, as seen in the family and in\nthe agricultural stage, prepares us for still greater effectiveness in\nthe higher form of civilisation which we know as that of the City-state.\nThat desire, let me say once more, is to be in right relations with the\nPower manifesting itself in the universe. It is only in the higher\nstages of civilisation that this desire can really become effective;\nsocial organisation, as I shall show, produces an increased knowledge of\nthe nature of the Power, and with it a systematisation of the means\ndeemed necessary to secure the right relations. The City-state, the\npeculiar form in which Greek and Italian social and political life\neventually blossomed and fructified, was admirably fitted to secure this\neffectiveness. It was, of course, an intensely _local_ system; and the\nresult was, first, that the Power is localised in certain spots and\npropitiated by certain forms of cult within the city wall, thus bringing\nthe divine into closest touch with the human population and its\ninterests; and secondly, that the concentration of intelligence and\nwill-power within a small space might, and did at Rome, develop a very\nelaborate system for securing the right relations--in other words, it\nproduced a religious system as highly ritualistic as that of the Jews.\n\nWith the several aspects of this system my fifth and succeeding lectures\nwill be occupied. I shall deal first with the religious calendar of the\nearliest historical form of the City-state, which most fortunately has\ncome down to us entire. I shall devote two lectures to the early Roman\nideas of divinity, and the character of their deities as reflected in\nthe calendar, and as further explained by Roman and Greek writers of the\nliterary age. Two other lectures will discuss the ritual of sacrifice\nand prayer, with the priests in charge of these ceremonies, and the\nritual of vows and of \"purification.\" In each of these I shall try to\npoint out wherein the weakness of this religious system lay--viz. in\nattempts at effectiveness so elaborate that they overshot their mark, in\na misconception of the means necessary to secure the right relations,\nand in a failure to grow in knowledge of the Power itself.\n\nLastly, as the City-state advances socially and politically, in trade\nand commerce, in alliance and conquest, we shall find that the ideas of\nother peoples about the Power, and their methods of propitiation, begin\nto be adopted in addition to the native stock. The first stages of this\nrevolution will bring us to the conclusion of my present course; but we\nshall be then well prepared for what follows. For later on we shall find\nthe Romans feeling afresh the desire to be in right relation with the\nPower, discovering that their own highly formalised system is no longer\nequal to the work demanded of it, and pitiably mistaking their true\ncourse in seeking a remedy. Their knowledge of the Divine, always narrow\nand limited, becomes by degrees blurred and obscured, and their sight\nbegins to fail them. I hope in due course to explain this, and to give\nyou some idea of the sadness of their religious experience before the\nadvent of an age of philosophy, of theological syncretism, and of the\nworship of the rulers of the state.\n\nLet us now turn for a few minutes to the special difficulties of our\nsubject. These are serious enough; but they have been wonderfully and\nhappily reduced since I began to be interested in the Roman religion\nsome twenty-five years ago. There were then only two really valuable\nbooks which dealt with the whole subject. Though I could avail myself of\nmany treatises, good and bad, on particular aspects of it, some few of\nwhich still survive, the only two comprehensive and illuminating books\nwere Preller's _Roemische Mythologie_, and Marquardt's volume on the cult\nin his _Staatsverwaltung_. Both of these were then already many years\nold, but they had just been re-edited by two eminent scholars\nthoroughly well equipped for the task--Preller's work by H. Jordan, and\nMarquardt's by Georg Wissowa. They were written from different points of\nview; Preller dealt with the deities and the ideas about them rather\nthan with the cults and the priests concerned with them; while Marquardt\ntreated the subject as a part of the administration of government,\ndealing with the worship and the _ius divinum_, and claiming that this\nwas the only safe and true way of arriving at the ideas underlying that\nlaw and worship.[10] Both books are still indispensable for the student;\nbut Marquardt's is the safer guide, as dealing with facts to the\nexclusion of fancies. The two taken together had collected and sifted\nthe evidence so far as it was then available.\n\nThe _Corpus Inscriptionum_ had not at that time got very far, but its\nfirst volume, edited by Mommsen, contained the ancient Fasti, which\nsupply us with the religious calendar of early Rome, and with other\nmatter throwing light upon it. This first volume was an invaluable help,\nand formed the basis (in a second edition) of the book I was eventually\nable to write on the _Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic_. At\nthat time, too, in the 'eighties, Roscher's _Lexicon of Greek and Roman\nMythology_ began to appear, which aimed at summing up all that was then\nknown about the deities of both peoples; this is not even yet completed,\nand many of the earlier articles seem now almost antiquated, as\npropounding theories which have not met with general acceptance. All\nthese earlier articles are now being superseded by those in the new\nedition of Pauly's _Real-Encyclopaedie_, edited by Wissowa. Lastly,\nWissowa himself in 1902 published a large volume entitled _Die Religion\nund Kultus der Roemer_, which will probably be for many years the best\nand safest guide for all students of our subject. Thoroughly trained in\nthe methods of dealing with evidence both literary and archaeological,\nWissowa produced a work which, though it has certain limitations, has\nthe great merit of not being likely to lead anyone astray. More\nskilfully and successfully than any of his predecessors, he avoided the\nchief danger and difficulty that beset all who meddle with Roman\nreligious antiquities, and invariably lead the unwary to their\ndestruction; he declined to accept as evidence what in nine cases out of\nten is no true evidence at all--the statements of ancient authors\ninfluenced by Greek ideas and Greek fancy. He holds in the main to the\nprinciple laid down by Marquardt, that we may use, as evidence for their\nreligious ideas, what we are told that the Romans _did_ in practising\ntheir worship, but must regard with suspicion, and subject to severe\ncriticism, what either they themselves or the Greeks wrote about those\nreligious ideas--that is, about divine beings and their doings.\n\nIt is indeed true that the one great difficulty of our subject lies in\nthe nature of the evidence; and it is one which we can never hope\nentirely to overcome. We have always to bear in mind that the Romans\nproduced no literature till the third century B.C.; and the documentary\nevidence that survives from an earlier age in the form of inscriptions,\nor fragments of hymns or of ancient law (such as the calendar of which I\nspoke just now), is of the most meagre character, and usually most\ndifficult to interpret. Thus the Roman religion stands alone among the\nreligions of ancient civilisations in that we are almost entirely\nwithout surviving texts of its forms of prayer, of its hymns or its\nlegends;[11] even in Greece the Homeric poems, with all the earliest\nGreek literature and art, make up to some extent for the want of that\ndocumentary evidence which throws a flood of light on the religions of\nBabylon, Egypt, the Hindus, and the Jewish people. We know in fact as\nlittle about the religion of the old Italian populations as we do about\nthat of our own Teutonic ancestors, less perhaps than we do about that\nof the Celtic peoples. The Romans were a rude and warlike folk, and\nmeddled neither with literature nor philosophy until they came into\nimmediate contact with the Greeks; thus it was that, unfortunately for\nour purposes, the literary spirit, when at last it was born in Italy,\nwas rather Greek than Roman. When that birth took place Rome had spread\nher influence over Italy,--perhaps the greatest work she ever\naccomplished; and thus the latest historian of Latin literature can\nventure to write that \"the greatest time in Roman history was already\npast when real historical evidence becomes available.\"[12]\n\nWe have thus to face two formidable facts: (1) that the period covered\nby my earlier lectures must in honesty be called prehistoric; and (2)\nthat when the Romans themselves began to write about it they did so\nunder the overwhelming influence of Greek culture. With few exceptions,\nall that we can learn of the early Roman religion from Roman or Greek\nwriters comes to us, not in a pure Roman form, clearly conceived as all\nthings truly Roman were, but seen dimly through the mist of the\nHellenistic age. The Roman gods, for example, are made the sport of\nfancy and the subject of Hellenistic love-stories, by Greek poets and\ntheir Roman imitators,[13] or are more seriously treated by Graeco-Roman\nphilosophy after a fashion which would have been absolutely\nincomprehensible to the primitive men in whose minds they first had\ntheir being. The process of disentangling the Roman element from the\nGreek in the literary evidence is one which can never be satisfactorily\naccomplished; and on the whole it is better, with Wissowa and Marquardt,\nto hold fast by the facts of the cult, where the distinction between the\ntwo is usually obvious, than to flounder about in a slough of what I can\nonly call pseudo-evidence. If all that English people knew about their\nAnglo-Saxon forefathers were derived from Norman-French chroniclers, how\nmuch should we really know about government or religion in the centuries\nbefore the Conquest! And yet this comparison gives but a faint idea of\nthe treacherous nature of the literary evidence I am speaking of. It is\ntrue indeed that in the last age of the Republic a few Romans began to\ntake something like a scientific interest in their own religious\nantiquities; and to Varro, by far the most learned of these, and to\nVerrius Flaccus, who succeeded him in the Augustan age, we owe directly\nor indirectly almost all the solid facts on which our knowledge of the\nRoman worship rests. But their works have come down to us in a most\nimperfect and fragmentary state, and what we have of them we owe mainly\nto the erudition of later grammarians and commentators, and the learning\nof the early Christian fathers, who drew upon them freely for\nillustrations of the absurdities of paganism. And it must be added that\nwhen Varro himself deals with the Roman gods and the old ideas about\nthem, he is by no means free from the inevitable influence of Greek\nthought.\n\nApart from the literary material and the few surviving fragments of\nreligious law and ritual, there are two other sources of light of which\nwe can now avail ourselves, archaeology and anthropology; but it must be\nconfessed that as yet their illuminating power is somewhat uncertain. It\nreminds the scrupulous investigator of those early days of the electric\nlight, when its flickering tremulousness made it often painful to read\nby, and when, too, it might suddenly go out and leave the reader in\ndarkness. It is well to remember that both sciences are young, and have\nmuch of the self-confidence of youth; and that Italian archaeology, now\nfast becoming well organised within Italy, has also to be co-ordinated\nwith the archaeology of the whole Mediterranean basin, before we can\nexpect from it clear and unmistakable answers to hard questions about\nrace and religion. This work, which cannot possibly be done by an\nindividual without _co-operation_--the secret of sound work which the\nGermans have long ago discovered--is in course of being carried out, so\nfar as is at present possible, by a syndicate of competent\ninvestigators.[14]\n\nIn order to indicate the uncertain nature of the light which for a long\ntime to come is all we can expect from Italian archaeology, I have only\nto remind you that one of the chief questions we have to ask of it is\nthe relation of the mysterious Etruscan people to the other Italian\nstocks, in respect of language, religion, and art. Whether the Etruscans\nwere the same people whom the Greeks called Pelasgians, as many\ninvestigators now hold: whether the earliest Roman city was in any true\nsense an Etruscan one: these are questions on the answers to which it is\nnot as yet safe to build further hypotheses. In regard to religion, too,\nwe are still very much in the dark. For example, there are many Etruscan\nworks of art in which Roman deities are portrayed, as is certain from\nthe fact that their names accompany the figures; but it is as yet almost\nimpossible to determine how far we can use these for the interpretation\nof Roman religious ideas or legends. Many years ago a most attractive\nhypothesis was raised on the evidence of certain of these works of art,\nwhere Hercules and Juno appear together in a manner which strongly\nsuggests that they are meant to represent the male and female principles\nof human life; this hypothesis was taken up by early writers in the\n_Mythological Lexicon_, and relying upon them I adopted it in my _Roman\nFestivals_,[15] and further applied it to the interpretation of an\nunsolved problem in the fourth _Eclogue_ of Virgil.[16] But since then\ndoubt has been thrown on it by Wissowa, who had formerly accepted it. As\nbeing of Etruscan origin, and found in places very distant from each\nother and from Rome, we have, he says, no good right to use these works\nof art as evidence for the Roman religion.[17] The question remains open\nas to these and many other works of art, but the fact that the man of\ncoolest judgment and most absolute honesty is doubtful, suggests that we\nhad best wait patiently for more certain light.\n\nIn Rome itself, where archaeological study is concentrated and admirably\nstaffed, great progress has been made, and much light thrown on the\nlater periods of religious history. But for the religion of the ancient\nRoman state, with which we are at present concerned, it must be\nconfessed that very little has been gleaned. The most famous discovery\nis that recently made in the Forum of an archaic inscription which\nalmost certainly relates to some religious act; but as yet no scholar\nhas been able to interpret it with anything approaching to\ncertainty.[18] More recently excavations on the further bank of the\nTiber threw a glint of light on the nature of an ancient deity, Furrina,\nabout whom till then we practically knew nothing at all; but the\nevidence thus obtained was late and in Greek characters. We must in fact\nentertain no great hopes of illumination from excavations, but accept\nthankfully what little may be vouchsafed to us. On the other hand, from\nthe gradual development of Italian archaeology as a whole, and, I must\nhere add, from the study of the several old Italian languages, much may\nbe expected in the future.\n\nThe other chief contributory science is anthropology, _i.e._ the study\nof the working of the mind of primitive man, as it is seen in the ideas\nand practices of uncivilised peoples at the present day, and also as it\ncan be traced in survivals among more civilised races. For the history\nof the religion of the Roman City-state its contribution must of\nnecessity be a limited one; that is a part of Roman history in general,\nand its material is purely Roman, or perhaps I should say, Graeco-Roman;\nand Wissowa in all his work has consistently declined to admit the value\nof anthropological researches for the elucidation of Roman problems.\nPerhaps it is for this very reason that his book is the safest guide we\npossess for the study of what the Romans did and thought in the matter\nof religion; but if we wish to try and get to the original significance\nof those acts and thoughts, it is absolutely impossible in these days to\ndispense with the works of a long series of anthropologists, many of\nthem fortunately British, who have gradually been collecting and\nclassifying the material which in the long run will fructify in definite\nresults. If we consider the writings of eminent scholars who wrote about\nGreek and Roman religion and mythology before the appearance of Dr.\nTylor's _Primitive Culture_--Klausen, Preuner, Preller, Kuhn, and many\nothers, who worked on the comparative method but with slender material\nfor the use of it--we see at once what an immense advance has been\neffected by that monumental work, and by the stimulus that it gave to\nothers to follow the same track. Now we have in this country the works\nof Lang, Robertson Smith, Farnell, Frazer, Hartland, Jevons, and others,\nwhile a host of students on the Continent are writing in all languages\non anthropological subjects. Some of these I shall quote incidentally in\nthe course of these lectures; at present I will content myself with\nmaking one or two suggestions as to the care needed in using the\ncollections and theories of anthropologists, as an aid in Roman\nreligious studies.\n\nFirst, let us bear in mind that anthropologists are apt to have their\nfavourite theories--conclusions, that is, which are the legitimate\nresult of reasoning inductively on the class of facts which they have\nmore particularly studied. Thus Mannhardt had his theory of the\nVegetation-spirit, Robertson Smith that of the sacramental meal, Usener\nthat of the Sondergoetter, Dr. Frazer that of divine Kingship; all of\nwhich are perfectly sound conclusions based on facts which no one\ndisputes. They have been of the greatest value to anthropological\nresearch; but when they are applied to the explanation of Roman\npractices we should be instantly on our guard, ready indeed to welcome\nany glint of light that we may get from them, but most carefully\ncritical and even suspicious of their application to other phenomena\nthan those which originally suggested them. It is in the nature of man\nas a researcher, when he has found a key, to hasten to apply it to all\nthe doors he can find, and sometimes, it must be said, to use violence\nin the application; and though the greatest masters of the science will\nrarely try to force the lock, they will use so much gentle persuasion as\nsometimes to make us fancy that they have unfastened it. All such\nattempts have their value, but it behoves us to be cautious in accepting\nthem. The application by Mannhardt of the theory of the\nVegetation-spirit to certain Roman problems, _e.g._ to that of the\nLupercalia,[19] and the October horse,[20] must be allowed, fascinating\nas it was, to have failed in the main. The application by Dr. Frazer of\nthe theory of divine Kingship to the early religious history of Rome, is\nstill _sub judice_, and calls for most careful and discriminating\ncriticism.[21]\n\nSecondly, as I have already said, Roman evidence is peculiarly difficult\nto handle, except in so far as it deals with the simple facts of\nworship; when we use it for traditions, myths, ideas about the nature of\ndivine beings, we need a training not only in the use of evidence in\ngeneral, but in the use of Roman evidence in particular.\nAnthropologists, as a rule, have not been through such a training, and\nthey are apt to handle the evidence of Roman writers with a light heart\nand rather a rough hand. The result is that bits of evidence are put\ntogether, each needing conscientious criticism, to support hypotheses\noften of the flimsiest kind, which again are used to support further\nhypotheses, and so on, until the sober inquirer begins to feel his brain\nreeling and his footing giving way beneath him. I shall have occasion to\nnotice one or two examples of this uncritical use of evidence later on,\nand will say no more of it now. No one can feel more grateful than I do\nto the many leading anthropologists who have touched in one way or\nanother on Roman evidence; but for myself I try never to forget the\nwords of Columella, with which a great German scholar began one of his\nmost difficult investigations: \"In universa vita pretiosissimum est\nintellegere quemque nescire se quod nesciat.\"[22]\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE I\n\n    [1] Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_ (_E.T._), vol. ii. p. 433.\n\n    [2] Cumont, _Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme\n    romain_, p. 36. Cp. Dill, _Roman Society in the Last\n    Century of the Western Empire_, p. 63. Gwatkin, _The\n    Knowledge of God_, vol. ii. p. 133.\n\n    [3] See some valuable remarks in Lord Cromer's _Modern\n    Egypt_, vol. ii. p. 135.\n\n    [4] Since this lecture was written this scholar has\n    passed away, to the great grief of his many friends; and\n    I refrain from mentioning his name.\n\n    [5] Ira W. Howerth, in _International Journal of\n    Ethics_, 1903, p. 205. I owe the reference to R.\n    Karsten, _The Origin of Worship_, Wasa, 1905, p. 2,\n    note. Cp. E. Caird, _Gifford Lectures_ (\"Evolution of\n    Theology in the Greek Philosophers\"), vol. i. p. 32.\n    \"That which underlies all forms of religion, from the\n    highest to the lowest, is the idea of God as an absolute\n    power or principle.\" To this need only be added the\n    desire to be in right relation to it. Mr. Marett's word\n    \"supernaturalism\" seems to mean the same thing; \"There\n    arises in the region of human thought a powerful impulse\n    to objectify, and even to personify, the mysterious or\n    supernatural something felt; and in the region of will a\n    corresponding impulse to render it innocuous, or, better\n    still, propitious, by force of constraint (_i.e._\n    magic), communion, or conciliation.\" See his _Threshold\n    of Religion_, p. 11. Prof. Haddon, commenting on this\n    (_Magic and Fetishism_, p. 93), adds that \"there are\n    thus produced the two fundamental factors of religion,\n    the belief in some mysterious power, and the desire to\n    enter into communication with the power by means of\n    worship.\" Our succinct definition seems thus to be\n    adequate.\n\n    [6] _The Golden Bough_, ed. 2, vol. i. p. 62.\n\n    [7] _Liberal Protestantism_, p. 64.\n\n    [8] For _religio_ as a feeling essentially, see Wissowa,\n    _Religion und Kultus der Roemer_, p. 318 (henceforward to\n    be cited as _R.K._). For further development of the\n    meaning of the word in Latin literature, see the\n    author's paper in _Proceedings of the Congress for the\n    History of Religions_ (Oxford, 1908), vol. ii. p. 169\n    foll. A different view of the original meaning of the\n    word is put forward by W. Otto in _Archiv fuer\n    Religionswissenschaft_, vol. xii., 1909, p. 533\n    (henceforward to be cited as _Archiv_ simply). See also\n    below, p. 459 foll.\n\n    [9] See, _e.g._, Frazer in _Anthropological Essays\n    presented to E. B. Tylor_, p. 101 foll.\n\n    [10] _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. p. 2. This will\n    henceforward be cited as _Marquardt_ simply. It forms\n    part of the great _Handbuch der roemischen Alterthuemer_\n    of Mommsen and Marquardt, and is translated into French,\n    but unfortunately not into English. I may add here that\n    I have only recently become acquainted with what was, at\n    the time it was written, a remarkably good account of\n    the Roman religion, full of insight as well as learning,\n    viz. Doellinger's _The Gentile and the Jew_, Book VII.\n    (vol. ii. of the English translation, 1906).\n\n    [11] Two fragments of ancient carmina, _i.e._ formulae\n    which are partly spells and partly hymns, survive--those\n    of the Fratres Arvales and the Salii or dancing priests\n    of Mars. For surviving formulae of prayer see below, p.\n    185 foll. Our chief authority on the ritual of prayer\n    and sacrifice comes from Iguvium in Umbria, and is in\n    the Umbrian dialect; it will be referred to in\n    Buecheler's _Umbrica_ (1883), where a Latin translation\n    will be found. The Umbrian text revised by Prof. Conway\n    forms an important part of that eminent scholar's work\n    on the Italian dialects.\n\n    [12] F. Leo, in _Die griechische und lateinische\n    Literatur und Sprache_, p. 328. Cp. Schanz, _Geschichte\n    der roem. Literatur_, vol. i. p. 54 foll.\n\n    [13] Among Roman poets Ovid is the worst offender,\n    Propertius and Tibullus mislead in a less degree; but\n    they all make up for it to some extent by preserving for\n    us features of the worship as it existed in their own\n    day. The confusion that has been caused in Roman\n    religious history by mixing up Greek and Roman evidence\n    is incalculable, and has recently been increased by Pais\n    (_Storia di Roma_, and _Ancient Legends of Roman\n    History_), and by Dr. Frazer in his lectures on the\n    early history of Kingship--writers to whom in some ways\n    we owe valuable hints for the elucidation of Roman\n    problems. See also Soltau, _Die Anfaenge der roemischen\n    Geschichtsschreibung_, 1909, p. 3.\n\n    [14] Most welcome to English readers has been Mr. T. E.\n    Peet's recently published volume on _The Stone and\n    Bronze Ages in Italy_, and still more valuable for our\n    purposes will be its sequel, when it appears, on the\n    Iron Age.\n\n    [15] _Roman Festivals_, p. 142 foll.; henceforward to be\n    cited as _R.F._\n\n    [16] See Virgil's _Messianic Eclogue_, by Mayor, Fowler,\n    and Conway, p. 75 foll.\n\n    [17] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 227.\n\n    [18] An account of this in English, with photographs,\n    will be found in Pais's _Ancient Legends of Roman\n    History_, p. 21 foll., and notes.\n\n    [19] Mannhardt, _Mythologische Forschungen_, p. 72 foll.\n\n    [20] _Ibid._, p. 156 foll.\n\n    [21] _Lectures on the Early History of Kingship_,\n    lectures 7-9.\n\n    [22] Not long after these last sentences were written, a\n    large work appeared by Dr. Binder, a German professor of\n    law, entitled _Die Plebs_, which deals freely with the\n    oldest Roman religion, and well illustrates the\n    difficulties under which we have to work while\n    archaeologists, ethnologists, and philologists are still\n    constantly in disagreement as to almost every important\n    question in the history of early Italian culture. Dr.\n    Binder's main thesis is that the earliest Rome was\n    composed of two distinct communities, each with its own\n    religion, _i.e._ deities, priests, and sacra; the one\n    settled on the Palatine, a pastoral folk of primitive\n    culture, and of pure Latin race; the other settled on\n    the Quirinal, Sabine in origin and language, and of more\n    advanced development in social and religious matters. So\n    far this sounds more or less familiar to us, but when\n    Dr. Binder goes on to identify the Latin folk with the\n    Plebs and the Sabine settlement with the Patricians, and\n    calls in religion to help him with the proof of this, it\n    is necessary to look very carefully into the religious\n    evidence he adduces. So far as I can see, the limitation\n    of the word _patrician_ to the Quirinal settlement is\n    very far from being proved by this evidence (see _The\n    Year's Work in Classical Studies_, 1909, p. 69). Yet the\n    hypothesis is an extremely interesting one, and were it\n    generally accepted, would compel us to modify in some\n    important points our ideas of Roman religious history,\n    and also of Roman legal history, with which Dr. Binder\n    is mainly concerned.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE II\n\nON THE THRESHOLD OF RELIGION: SURVIVALS\n\n\nMy subject proper is the religion of an organised State: the religious\nexperience of a comparatively civilised people. But I wish, in the first\nplace, to do what has never yet been done by those who have written on\nthe Roman religion--I wish to take a survey of the relics, surviving in\nlater Roman practice and belief, of earlier stages of rudimentary\nreligious experience. In these days of anthropological and sociological\nresearch, it is possible to do this without great difficulty; and if I\nleft it undone, our story of the development of religion at Rome would\nbe mutilated at the beginning. Also we should be at a disadvantage in\ntrying to realise the wonderful work done by the early authorities of\nthe State in eliminating from their rule of worship (_ius divinum_)\nalmost all that was magical, barbarous, or, as later Romans would have\ncalled it, superstitious. This is a point on which I wish to lay\nespecial stress in the next few lectures, and it entails a somewhat\ntiresome account of the ideas and practices of which, as I believe, they\nsought to get rid. These, I may as well say at once, are to be found for\nthe most part surviving, as we might expect, _outside_ of the religion\nof the State; where they survive within its limits, they will be found\nto have almost entirely lost their original force and meaning.\n\nEvery student of religious history knows that a religious system is a\ncomplex growth, far more complex than would appear at first sight; that\nit is sure to contain relics of previous eras of human experience,\nembedded in the social strata as lifeless fossils. These only indeed\nsurvive because human nature is intensely conservative, especially in\nreligious matters; and of this conservative instinct the Romans afford\nas striking an example as we can readily find. They clung with\nextraordinary tenacity, all through their history, to old forms; they\nseem to have had a kind of superstitious feeling that these dead forms\nhad still a value as such, though all the life was gone out of them. It\nwould be easy to illustrate this curious feature of the Roman mind from\nthe history of its religion; it never disappeared; and to this day the\nCatholic church in Italy retains in a thinly-disguised form many of the\nreligious practices of the Roman people.\n\nStage after stage must have been passed by the Latins long before our\nstory rightly begins; how many revolutions of thought they underwent,\nhow much they learnt and took over from earlier inhabitants of the\ncountry in which they finally settled, we cannot even guess. As I said\nin the last lecture, we have no really ancient history of the Romans, as\nwe have, for example, of the Egyptians or Babylonians; to us it is all\ndarkness, save where a little light has been thrown on the buried strata\nby archaeology and anthropology. That little light, which may be\nexpected to increase in power, shows survivals here and there of\nprimitive modes of thought; and these I propose to deal with now in the\nfollowing order. _Totemism_ I shall mention merely to clear it out of\nthe way; but _taboo_ will take us some little time, and so will _magic_\nin its various forms.\n\nAbout totemism all I have to say is this. As I write, Dr. Frazer's great\nwork on this subject has just appeared; it is entirely occupied with\ntotemism among modern savages, true totemic peoples, with the object of\ngetting at the real principles of that curious stratum of human thought,\nand he leaves to others the discussion of possible survivals of it among\nAryans, Semites, and Egyptians. He himself is sceptical about all the\nevidence that has been adduced to prove its existence in classical\nantiquity (see vol. i. p. 86 and vol. iv. p. 13). Under these\ncircumstances, and seeing that Dr. Frazer has always been the accepted\nexponent of totemism in this country since the epoch-making works\nappeared of Tylor and Robertson Smith, it is obviously unnecessary for\nme either to attempt to explain what it is, or to examine the attempts\nto find survivals of it in ancient Italy. When it first became matter of\ninterest to anthropologists it was only natural that they should be apt\nto find it everywhere. Dr. Jevons, for example, following in the steps\nof Robertson Smith, found plenty of totemistic survivals both in Greece\nand Italy in writing his valuable _Introduction to the History of\nReligion_; but he is now aware that he went too far in this direction.\nQuite recently there has been a run after the same scent in France; not\nlong ago a French scholar published a book on the ensigns of the Roman\narmy,[23] which originally represented certain animals, and using Dr.\nFrazer's early work on totemism with a very imperfect knowledge of the\nsubject, tried to prove that these were originally totem signs. Roman\nnames of families and old Italian tribe-names are still often quoted as\ntotemistic; but the Fabii and Caepiones, named after cultivated plants,\nand the Picentes and Hirpini, after woodpecker and wolf, though tempting\nto the totemist, have not persuaded Dr. Frazer to accept them as\ntotemistic, and may be left out of account here; there may be many\nreasons for the adoption of such names besides the totemistic one. In\nthe course of the last Congress of religious history, a sober French\nscholar, M. Toutain, made an emphatic protest against the prevailing\ntendency in France, of which the leading representative is M. Salomon\nReinach.[24] Let us pass on at once to the second primitive mode of\nthought which I mentioned just now, and which is not nearly so\nremote--speaking anthropologically--from classical times as totemism.\nTotemism belongs to a form of society, that of tribe or clan, in which\nfamily life is unknown in our sense of the word, and it is therefore\nwholly remote from the life of the ancient Italian stocks, in whose\nsocial organisation the family was a leading fact; but _taboo_ seems\nrather to be a mode of thought common to primitive peoples up to a\ncomparatively advanced stage of development, and has left its traces in\nall systems of religion, including those of the present day.\n\nBy this famous word _taboo_, of Polynesian origin, is to be understood a\nvery important part of what I have called the protoplasm of primitive\nreligion, and one closely allied both to magic and fetishism. For our\npresent purposes we may define it as a mysterious influence believed to\nexist in objects both animate and inanimate, which makes them\n_dangerous_, _infectious_, _unclean_, _or holy_, which two last\nqualities are often almost identical in primitive thought, as Robertson\nSmith originally taught us.[25] What exactly the savage or\nsemi-civilised mind thought about this influence we hardly yet know; we\nhave another Polynesian word, _mana_, which expresses conveniently its\npositive aspect, and may in time help us towards a better understanding\nof it.[26] It is in origin pre-animistic, _i.e._ it is not so much\nbelieved to emanate from a _spirit_ residing in the object, as from some\noccult miasmatic quality. All human beings in contact with other men or\nthings possessing this quality are believed to suffer in some way, and\nto communicate the infection which they themselves receive. As Dr.\nFarnell says in his chapter on the ritual of purification,[27] \"The\nsense-instinct that suggests all this was probably some primeval terror\nor aversion evoked by certain objects, as we see animals shrink with\ndisgust at the sight or smell of blood. The nerves of savage man are\nstrangely excited by certain stimuli of touch, smell, taste, sight; the\nspecially exciting object is something that we should call mysterious,\nweird, or uncanny.\"\n\nBased on this notion of constant danger from infection, there arose a\ncode of unwritten custom as rigid as that enforced by a careful\nphysician in infectious cases at the present day; and thus, too, in\ncourse of time there was developed the idea of the possibility of\n_disinfection_, an idea as salutary as the discovery in medical science\nof effective methods for the disinfection of disease. The code of taboo\nhad an obvious ethical value, as Dr. Jevons pointed out long ago;[28]\nlike all discipline carried out with a social end in view, it helped men\nto realise that they were under obligations to the community of which\nthey were a part, and that they would be visited by severe penalties if\nthey neglected these duties. But it inevitably tended to forge a set of\nfetters binding and cramping the minds of its captives with a countless\nnumber of terrors; life was full of constant anxiety, of that feeling\nexpressed by the later Romans in the word _religio_,[29] which, as we\nshall see, probably had its origin in this period of primitive\nsuperstition. The only remedy is the _discovery of the means of\ndisinfection_, or, as we commonly call it, of _purification_: a\ndiscovery which must have been going on for ages, and only finds its\ncompletion at Rome in the era of the City-state. We shall return to this\npart of the subject when we deal with the ritual of purification; at\npresent we must attend to certain survivals in that ritual which suggest\nthat at one time the ancestors of the Roman people lived under this\nunwritten code of taboo.\n\nLet us see, in the first place, how human beings were supposed to be\naffected by this mysterious influence under certain circumstances and at\nparticular periods of their existence. As universally in primitive life,\nthe new-born infant must originally have been taboo; for every Roman\nchild needed purification or disinfection, boys on the ninth, girls on\nthe eighth day after birth. This day was called the _dies lustricus_,\nthe day of a purificatory rite; \"est lustricus dies,\" says Macrobius,\n\"_quo infantes lustrantur_ et nomen accipiunt.\"[30] In historical times\nthe naming of the child was doubtless the more practically important\npart of the ceremony; though we may note in passing that the mystic\nvalue attaching to names, of which there are traces in Roman usage, may\nhave even originally given that part a greater significance than we\nshould naturally attribute to it.[31] Again, when the child reaches the\nage of puberty, it is all the world over believed to be in a critical or\ndangerous condition, needing disinfection; of this idea, so far as I\nknow, the later Romans show hardly a trace, but we may suppose that the\nceremony of laying aside the _toga_ of childhood, which was accompanied\nby a sacrifice, was a faint survival of some process of\npurification.[32] Once more, after a death the whole family had to be\npurified with particular care from the contagion of the corpse,[33]\nwhich was here as everywhere taboo; a cypress bough was stuck over the\ndoor of the house of a noble family to give warning to any passing\npontifex that he was not to enter it;[34] and those who followed the\nfuneral cortege were purified by being sprinkled with water and by\nstepping over fire.[35] _Society had effectually protected itself\nagainst the miasma in all these cases by the discovery of the means of\ndisinfection._\n\nOne of the commonest forms of taboo is that on women, who, especially at\ncertain periods, were apparently believed to be \"infectious.\"[36] Of\nthis belief we have very distinct survivals in Roman ritual, which I\nmust here be content to mention only, leaving details to trained\nanthropologists to explain. We find them both in _sacra privata_ and\n_sacra publica_. Cato has preserved the formula for the propitiation of\nMars Silvanus in the private rites of the farm; it is to take place _in\nsilva_, and its object is the protection of the cattle, doubtless those\nwhich have been turned out to pasture in the forest, and are therefore\nin danger from evil beasts and evil spirits. Now this _res divina_ may\nbe performed either by a free man or a slave, _but no woman may be\npresent_, nor see what is going on.[37] In _sacra publica_ women were\nexcluded from the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima, and were not\nallowed to swear by the name of that god; facts which are usually\nconnected with the doubtful identification of Hercules with Genius, or\nthe male principle of life.[38] More conclusive evidence of taboo in the\ncase of women is the fact that at certain sacrifices they were ordered\nto withdraw, both _mulieres_ and _virgines_, together with other persons\nto be mentioned directly.[39] Unfortunately we are not told what those\nsacrifices were; but it seems clear enough that there had been at one\ntime a scruple (_religio_) about admitting women of any age to certain\nsacred rites. If so, it is remarkable how the good sense of the Roman\npeople overcame any serious disabilities which might have been produced\nby such ideas; the Roman woman gained for herself a position of dignity,\nand even of authority, in her household, which had very important\nresults on the formation of the character of the people.[40] Traces of\nthe old superstition doubtless continued to survive in folklore; an\nexample, interesting because it seems to illustrate the positive aspect\nof taboo (_mana_), may be found by the curious in Pliny's _Natural\nHistory_, xxviii. 78.\n\nAnother widely-spread example of the class of ideas we are discussing is\nthe belief that _strangers_ are dangerous. Dr. Frazer tells us that \"to\nguard against the baneful influence exerted voluntarily or involuntarily\nby strangers is an elementary dictate of savage prudence.\" You have to\ndisarm them of their magical powers, to counteract \"the baneful\ninfluence which is believed to emanate from them.\"[41] Of this feeling\nhe has collected a great number of convincing illustrations. We find it\nalso surviving in Roman ritual. A note, referred to above, which has\ncome down to us from the learned Verrius Flaccus, informs us that at\ncertain sacrifices the lictor proclaimed \"_hostis vinctus mulier virgo\nexesto_,\" where _hostis_ has its old meaning of stranger.[42] This is,\nof course, merely the old feeling of taboo surviving in the religious\nritual of the City-state, and is also no doubt connected with the belief\nthat the recognised deities of a community could not be approached by\nany but the members of that community; but its taproot is probably to be\nfound in the ideas described by Dr. Frazer. We can illustrate it well\nfrom the ritual of another Italian city, Iguvium in Umbria, which, as I\nmentioned in a note to my last lecture, has come down to us in a very\nelaborate form. In the ordinance for the _lustratio populi_ of that city\nthe magistrate is directed to expel all members of certain neighbouring\ncommunities by a thrice-repeated proclamation.[43] Such fear of\nstrangers is not even yet extinct in Italy. Professor von Duhn told me\nthat once when approaching an Italian village in search of inscriptions\nhe was taken for the devil, being unluckily mounted on a black horse and\ndressed in black, and was met by a priest with a crucifix, who was at\nlast persuaded to \"disinfect\" him with holy water as a condition of his\nbeing admitted to the village. But the Romans of historical times, in\nthis as in so many other ways, discovered easy methods of overcoming\nthese fears and scruples: we find a good example of this in the\norganised college of Fetiales, who, on entering as envoys a foreign\nterritory, were fully protected by their sacred herbs, carried by a\n_verbenarius_, against all hostile contamination.[44]\n\nA remark seems here necessary about the apparent inconsistency between\nthis feeling of anxiety about strangers and the well-known ancient\nItalian practice of _hospitium_, by which two communities, or two\nindividuals, or an individual and a community, entered into relations\nwhich bound them to mutual hospitality and kindness in case of need:[45]\na practice so widely spread and so highly developed that it may be\nconsidered one of the most valuable civilising agents in the early\nhistory of Italy. There is, however, no real inconsistency here. In the\nfirst place, the stranger who was removed on the occasion of solemn\npublic religious rites may be assumed not to have been in possession of\nthe _ius hospitii_ with the Roman state, and in any case it must be\ndoubtful whether that _ius_ would give him the right of being present at\nall sacrificial rites. Secondly, the researches of Dr. Westermarck have\nrecently, for the first time, made it clear that both the taboo on\nstrangers and the very widely-spread practice of hospitality can\nultimately be traced down to the same root. The stranger is dangerous;\nbut for that very reason it is desirable to secure his good-will at\nonce. He may have the evil eye; but if so, it is as well to disarm him\nby offering him food and drink, and, when he has partaken of these, by\nentering into communion with him in the act of partaking also yourself.\nExpediency would obviously suggest some such remedy for the danger of\nhis presence, and this would in course of time, in accordance with the\ninstinct of Romans and Italians, grow into a set of rules sanctioned by\nlaw as well as custom--the _ius hospitii_.[46]\n\n_Hostis vinctus mulier virgo exesto._ We have noticed traces of taboo on\nwomen and strangers: what of the _vinctus_? This is, so far as I know,\nthe only proof we have that a man in chains was thought to be\nreligiously dangerous. I am not sure how his expulsion from religious\nrites is to be explained. It is, however, as well to note that criminals\nwere in primitive societies thought to be uncanny, probably because the\ncommonest of all crimes, if not the only one affecting society as a\nwhole, was the breaking of taboo, which made the individual an\noutcast.[47] And we may put this together with the fact that in the\nearly City-state such outcasts were probably not kept shut up in a\nprison, but allowed to wander about secured with chains; this seems a\nfair inference from the power which the priest of Jupiter (_Flamen\nDialis_) possessed of releasing from his chains any prisoner who entered\nhis house, _i.e._ who had taken refuge there as in an asylum.[48] Thus\nthe fettered criminal, who was certainly not a citizen, might find his\nway to the place where a sacrifice was going on, and have to submit to\nexpulsion together with the strangers. It is, however, also possible\nthat the iron of the chains, if they were of iron, made him doubly\ndangerous; for, as we shall see directly, iron was taboo, and the chains\nof the prisoner who took refuge with the Flamen had to be thrown out of\nthe house, no doubt for this reason, by the _impluvium_.[49]\n\nTurning to inanimate objects, which are supposed by primitive man to be\ndangerous or taboo, we are met by a fact which will astonish\nanthropologists, and which I cannot satisfactorily explain. Blood is\neverywhere in the savage world regarded with suspicion and anxiety;\nthere is something mysterious about it as containing (so they thought)\nthe life, and its colour and smell are also uncanny; horses cannot\nendure it, and there are still strong men who faint at the sight of it.\nYet at Rome, so far as I can discover, there was in historical times\nhardly a trace left of this anxiety in its original form of taboo; the\nreligious law had effectually eliminated the various chances that might\narouse it. No student of Roman religious antiquities seems to have\nnoticed this singular fact. No anthropologist, as far as I know, has\nobserved that among the many taboos to which the Flamen Dialis was\nsubject, blood does not appear. The reason no doubt is that\nanthropologists are not as a rule Roman historians; their curiosity is\nnot excited by a fact which must have some explanation in Roman\nreligious history. From a single passage of Festus (p. 117) we learn\nthat soldiers following the triumphal car carried laurel \"ut quasi\npurgati a caede humana intrarent urbem\"; and this is the only distinct\nrelic of the idea that I can find. Pliny's _Natural History_, that\nwonderful thesaurus of odds and ends, affords no help; the mystic\nqualities of blood are hardly alluded to there, and the same can be said\nof Servius' commentary on the _Aeneid_. The word blood is not to be\nfound in the index to Wissowa's great work, of which the supreme value\nis its accurate record of the religious law and all the ceremonies of\nthe State. I am constrained to believe that the priests or priest-kings\nwho developed the _ius divinum_ of the Roman City-state deliberately\nsuppressed the superstition, for reasons which it is impossible to\nconjecture with certainty. And this guess, which I put forward with\nhesitation, is indeed in keeping with certain other facts of Roman life.\nIt is doubtful whether human sacrifice ever existed among this\npeople;[50] it is certain that the execution of citizens in civil life\nby beheading was abandoned at a very early period.[51] The shedding of\nblood, except when a victim was sacrificed under the rules of sacred\nlaw, was carefully avoided; thus the horror of blood had a social and\nethical result of value, instead of remaining a mere _religio_ (taboo).\nIt is true that in one or two rites, such as that of the October horse,\nthe blood of a sacrifice seems to have been thought to possess peculiar\npowers;[52] but it is at the same time noticeable that this rite is not\nincluded in the old calendar, a fact of which a wholly satisfactory\nexplanation has not yet been offered. In the Lupercalia there is a trace\nof the mystic use of blood in sacrifice, but a very faint one: to this\nwe shall return later on. The two Luperci had their foreheads smeared\nwith the knife bloody from the slaughter of the victims, but the blood\nwas at once wiped off with wool dipped in milk.[53] This rite is of\ncourse in the old calendar; it stands almost alone in its mystical\ncharacter, and may have been taken over by the Romans from previous\ninhabitants of the site of Rome. Lastly, in the Terminalia, or\nboundary-festival of arable land in country districts, the\nboundary-stone was sprinkled with the blood of the victims, showing that\na spirit, or _numen_, was believed to reside in it;[54] but I cannot\nfind that this practice survived in the public sacrifices of the city.\nIt is found only in the sacrifices (_Graeco ritu_) supervised by the _XV\nviri sacris faciundis_ in that part of the Ludi Saeculares of Augustus\nwhich was concerned with Greek chthonic deities in the Campus\nMartius.[55]\n\nYet unquestionably there had been a time when many inanimate objects\nwere supposed to have a mystic or dangerous influence; this is\nsufficiently proved by the long list of taboos to which the unfortunate\nFlamen Dialis was even in historical times subject. He was forbidden to\ntouch a goat, a dog, raw meat, beans, ivy, wheat, leavened bread; he\nmight not walk under a vine, and his hair and nails might not be cut\nwith an iron knife; and he might not have any knot or unbroken ring\nabout his person. Dr. Frazer has the merit of being the first to point\nout the real meaning of this strange list of disabilities, and to\nexplain the mystic or miasmatic origin of some of them.[56] They need\nnot detain us now, as they are survivals only, and survivals of ideas\nwhich must have been long extinct before Roman history can be said to\nbegin. Almost the only one among them of which we have other traces is\nthe taboo on iron, which must have been of comparatively late date, as\nthe use of iron in Italy seems only to have begun about the eighth\ncentury B.C.[57] This is found also in the ritual of the Arval\nBrotherhood, the ancient agricultural priesthood revived by Augustus,\nand better known to us than any other owing to the discovery of its\n_Acta_ in the site of the sacred grove between Rome and Ostia. These\nBrethren had originally suffered from the taboo on iron; but in\ncharacteristic fashion they had discovered that a piacular or\ndisinfecting sacrifice would sufficiently atone for its use whenever it\nwas necessary to take a pruning-hook within the limits of the grove.[58]\nWe may here also recall the fact that no iron might be used in the\nbuilding or repairing of the ancient _pons sublicius_, the oldest of all\nthe bridges of the Tiber.[59]\n\nEvery one who wishes to get an idea of the nature of taboo in primitive\nRome, and of the way in which it was got rid of, should study the\ndisabilities of the Flamen Dialis, and satisfy himself of their absence,\nwith the exception just mentioned, and possibly one or two more, in the\nritual of historical Rome. Nothing is more likely to convince him of the\nway in which Roman civilisation contrived to leave these superstitions\nas mere fossils, incapable any longer of doing mischief by cramping the\nconscience and inducing constant anxiety. If he is disposed to ask why\nsuch a large number of these fossils should be found attached to the\npriesthood of Jupiter, I must ask him to let me postpone that question,\nwhich would at this moment lead us too far afield.\n\nI may, however, mention here that the Flaminica Dialis, who was not\npriestess of Juno as is commonly supposed, but assisted her husband in\nthe cult of Jupiter, was also subject to certain taboos. On three\noccasions in the religious year she might not appear in public with her\nhair \"done up,\" viz. the moving of the _ancilia_ in March, the festival\nof the Argei in March and May, and during the cleansing of the _penus\nVestae_ in June. Also she might not wear shoes made from the skin of a\nbeast that had died a natural death, but only from that of a sacrificial\nvictim. There are traces of a _religio_ about shoe-leather, I may\nremark, both in the Roman and in other religious systems. Varro tells us\nthat \"in aliquot sacris et sacellis scriptum habemus, Ne quid scorteum\nadhibeatur: ideo _ne morticinum_ quid adsit.\" Leather was taboo in the\nworship of the almost unknown deity Carmenta. Petronius describes women\nin the cult of Jupiter Elicius walking barefoot; and we are reminded of\nthe well-known rule which still survives in Mahommedan mosques.[60] The\noriginal idea may have been that the skin of an animal not made sacred\nby sacrifice might destroy the efficacy of the worship contemplated. On\nthe other hand, the skin of a duly sacrificed animal had potency of a\nuseful kind--a fact or belief so widespread as to need no illustration\nhere; but we shall come upon an example of it in my next lecture.\n\nCertain _places_ were also affected by the idea of taboo. In the later\nreligious law of the City-state the sites of all temples, _i.e._ all\nplaces in which deities had consented to take up their abode, were of\ncourse holy; but this is a much more mature development, though it\nunquestionably had its root in the same idea that we are now discussing.\nSuch sites, as we shall see in a later lecture, were _loca sacra_, and\n_sacer_ is a word of legal ritual, meaning that the place has been made\nover to the deity by certain formulae, accompanied with favourable\nauspices, under the authority of the State.[61] But there were other\nholy places which were not _sacra_ but _religiosa_; and the word\n_religiosum_ here might almost be translated \"affected by taboo.\"\nWissowa provides us with a list of these places, and this and the\nquotations he supplies with it are of the utmost value for my present\nsubject.[62] They comprised, of course, all holy places which the State\nhad not duly consecrated, and therefore some which hardly concern us\nhere, such as shrines belonging to families and gentes, and temple-sites\nin the provinces of a later age. More to our purpose at this moment are\nthe spots where thunderbolts were supposed to have fallen. Such spots\nwere encircled with a low wall and called _puteal_ from their\nresemblance to a well, or _bidental_ from the sacrifice there of a lamb\nas a _piaculum_; the bolt was supposed to be thus buried, and the place\nbecame _religiosum_.[63] So, too, all burial-grounds were not _loca\nsacra_ but _loca religiosa_, technically because they were not the\nproperty of the state or consecrated by it; in reality, I venture to\nsay, because the place where a corpse was deposited was of necessity\ntaboo. Such places were _extra commercium_, and their sanctity might not\nbe violated: \"religiosum est,\" wrote the learned Roman Masurius Sabinus,\n\"quod propter sanctitatem aliquam _remotum et sepositum est_ a\nnobis.\"[64] So, too, the great lawyer of Cicero's time, Servius\nSulpicius, defines _religio_ as \"quae propter sanctitatem aliquam remota\nac seposita a nobis sit,\" where he is using _religio_ in the sense of a\nthing or place to which a taboo attaches.[65] And again, another\nauthority, Aelius Gallus, said that _religiosum_ was properly applied to\nan object in regard to which there were things which a man might not do:\n\"quod si faciat,\" he goes on, \"adversus deorum voluntatem videatur\nfacere.\"[66] These last words are in the language of the City-state; if\nwe would go behind it to that of an earlier age, we should substitute\nwords which would express the feeling or scruple, the _religio_, without\nreference to any special deity. Virgil has pictured admirably this\nfeeling as applied to places, in describing the visit of Aeneas to the\nsite of the future Rome under the guidance of his host Evander (_Aen._\nviii. 347):--\n\n  hinc ad Tarpeiam sedem et Capitolia ducit,\n  aurea nunc, olim silvestribus horrida dumis.\n  _iam tum religio pavidos terrebat agrestis_\n  _dira loci_: iam tum silvam saxumque tremebant.\n  \"hoc nemus, hunc,\" inquit, \"frondoso vertice collem,\n  (quis deus, incertum est) habitat deus.\"\n\n\nThis is a passage on which I shall have to comment again: at present I\nwill content myself with noting how accurately the poet, who of all\nothers best understood the instincts of the less civilised Italians of\nhis own day, has used his knowledge to express the antique feeling that\nthere were places which man must shrink from entering--a feeling far\nolder than the invention of legal _consecratio_ by the authorities of a\nCity-state.\n\nLastly, the principle of taboo, or _religio_, if we use the Latin word,\naffected certain times as well as places. Just as under the _ius\ndivinum_ of the fully-developed State certain spots were made over to\nthe deities for their habitation and rendered inviolable by\n_consecratio_, so certain days were also appointed as theirs which the\nhuman inhabitants might not violate by the transaction of profane\nbusiness. But I have just pointed out that the consecration of holy\nplaces in this legal fashion was a late development of a primitive\nfeeling or _religio_; exactly the same, if I am not mistaken, was the\ncase with regard to the holy days. These were called _nefasti_, and\nbelong to the life of the State; but there were others, called\n_religiosi_, which I believe to have been tabooed days long before the\nState arose.\n\nWhen we come to examine the ancient religious calendar, it will be found\nthat I shall not then be called upon to deal with _dies religiosi_, for\nthe very good reason that they are not indicated in that calendar--there\nis no mark for them as _religiosi_, and some of them are not even _dies\nnefasti_, as we might naturally have expected.[67] What, then, is the\nhistory of them? We may be able to make a fair guess at this by noting\nexactly what these days were; Dr. Wissowa has put them together for us\nin a very succinct passage.[68] He begins the list with the 18th of\nQuinctilis (July), on which two great disasters had happened to Roman\narmies, the defeats on the Cremera and the Allia; and also the 16th, the\nday after the Ides, because, according to the legend, the Roman\ncommander had sacrificed on that day with a view to gaining the favour\nof the gods in the battle. We may regard the story about the 18th as\nhistorical; but then we are told that _all_ days following on Kalends,\nNones, and Ides were likewise made _religiosi_ (or _atri_, _vitiosi_,\nwhich have the same meaning) as being henceforward deemed unlucky by\npronouncement of senate and pontifices;[69] thus all _dies postriduani_,\nas they were called, were put out of use, or at any rate declared\nunlucky, for many purposes, both public and private, _e.g._ marriages,\nlevies, battles, and sacred rites,[70] simply because on one occasion\ndisaster had followed the offering of a sacrifice on the 16th of\nQuinctilis. It is difficult to believe that thirty-six days in the year\nwere thus tabooed, by a Roman senate and Roman magistrates, in a period\nwhen the practical wisdom of the government was beginning to be a marked\ncharacteristic of the State. Some people, we are told, went so far as to\ntreat the _fourth day before_ Kalends, Nones, and Ides in the same way;\nbut Gellius declares that he could find no tradition about this except a\nsingle passage of Claudius Quadrigarius, in which he said that the\nfourth day before the Nones of Sextilis was that on which the battle of\nCannae was fought.[71]\n\nI am strongly inclined to suggest that the traditional explanation of\nthe tabooing of these thirty-six, or possibly seventy-two days was\nneither more nor less than an aetiological myth, like hundreds of others\nwhich were invented to account for Roman practices, religious and other;\nand this supposition seems to be confirmed as we go on with the list of\n_dies religiosi_ as given by Wissowa. The three days--Sextilis 24,\nOctober 5, November 8--on which the Manes were believed to come up from\nthe underworld through the _mundus_ (to which I shall return later on)\nwere _religiosi_;[72] so were those when the temple of Vesta remained\nopen (June 7 to 15),[73] those on which the Salii performed their\ndances in March and October,[74] two days following the _feriae Latinae_\n(a movable festival),[75] and the days of the Parentalia in February and\nthe Lemuria in May, which were concerned with the cult and the memory of\nthe dead.[76] Now the _religio_ or taboo on these days obviously springs\neither from a feeling of anxiety suggested by very primitive notions of\nthe dead and of departed spirits; or in the case of the temple of Vesta,\nby some mystical purification or disinfection preparatory to the\ningathering of the crops, which I noticed in my _Roman Festivals_ (p.\n152 foll.); or again in the case of the Salii, by some danger to the\ncrops from evil spirits, etc., which might be averted by their peculiar\nperformances. In fact, all these _dies religiosi_ date as such, we may\nbe pretty sure, from a very primitive period before the genesis of the\nCity-state, and were not recognised--for what reason we will not at\npresent attempt to guess--as _religiosi_ by the authorities who drew up\nthe Calendar. Some of them appear in that calendar as _dies nefasti_,\nbut not all; and I am entirely at one with Wissowa, whose knowledge of\nthe Roman religious law is unparalleled for exactness, in believing that\na _religio_ affecting a day had nothing whatever to do with its\ncharacter as _fastus_ or _nefastus_.[77]\n\nIf all these last-mentioned _dies religiosi_ are such because ancient\npopular feeling attached the _religio_ to them, we may infer, I think,\nthat the same was really the case also with the _dies postriduani_. The\nfact that the authorities of the State had made one or two days\n_religiosi_ as anniversaries of disasters, supplied a handy explanation\nfor a number of other _dies religiosi_ of which the true explanation had\nbeen entirely lost; but that there was such a true explanation, resting\non very primitive beliefs, I have very little doubt. Lucky and unlucky\ndays are found in the unwritten calendars of primitive peoples in many\nparts of the world. An old pupil, now a civil servant in the province\nof Madras, has sent me an elaborate account of the notions of this kind\nexisting in the minds of the Tamil-speaking people of his district of\nsouthern India. The Celtic calendar recently discovered at Coligny in\nFrance contains a number of mysterious marks, some of which may have had\na meaning of this kind.[78] Dr. Jevons has collected some other examples\nfrom various parts of the world, _e.g._ Mexico.[79] The old Roman\nsuperstition about the luckiness of odd days and the unluckiness of even\nones, which appears, as we shall see, in the arrangement of the\ncalendar, was probably at one time a popular Italian notion, not\nderived, as used to be thought, from Pythagoras and his school.\n\nI therefore conclude that we may add times and seasons to the list of\nthose objects, animate and inanimate, which were affected by the\npractice of taboo in primitive Rome; and I hold that the word\n_religiosus_, as applied both to times and places, exactly expresses the\nfeeling on which that practice is based. The word _religiosus_ came to\nhave another meaning (though it retained the old one as well) in\nhistorical times, and the Romans could be called _religiosissimi\nmortalium_ in the sense of paying close attention to worship and all its\ndetails. But the original meaning of _religio_ and _religiosus_ may\nafter all have been that nervous anxiety which is a special\ncharacteristic of an age of taboo.[80] To discover the best methods of\nsoothing that anxiety, or, in other words, the methods of disinfection,\nwas the work of the organised religious life of family and State which\nwe are going to study. But I must first devote a lecture to another\nclass of primitive survivals.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE II\n\n    [23] Renel, _Les Enseignes_, p. 43 foll. For the\n    contrary view, Deubner in _Archiv_, 1910, p. 490.\n\n    [24] On taboo in general, Jevons, _Introduction to the\n    History of Religion_, ch. vi.; Robertson Smith,\n    _Religion of the Semites_, p. 142 foll.; Frazer, _Golden\n    Bough_ (ed. 2), i. 343; Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_,\n    _passim_. On the relation of taboo to magic, Marett,\n    _Threshold of Religion_, p. 85 foll. Lately M. van\n    Gennep in his _Rites de passage_ has attempted to\n    classify and explain the various rites resulting from\n    taboo.\n\n    [25] See the _Transactions of the Congress_ (Oxford\n    University Press), vol. i. p. 121 foll. M. Reinach had\n    alleged that the gens Fabia was originally a totem clan,\n    _Mythes et cultes_, i. p. 47.\n\n    [26] Marett, _On the Threshold of Religion_, p. 137\n    foll. \"In _taboo_ the mystic thing is not to be lightly\n    approached (negative aspect); _qua mana_, it is instinct\n    with mystic power (positive aspect)\": so Mr. Marett\n    states the distinction in a private letter.\n\n    [27] _Evolution of Religion_, p. 94.\n\n    [28] _Introduction_, ch. viii.; Westermarck, _Origin and\n    Development of Ethical Ideas_, i. 233 foll.\n\n    [29] See a paper by the author in the _Transactions of\n    the Congress of the History of Religions_, 1908, ii. 169\n    foll.\n\n    [30] Macrobius, _Sat._ i. 16. 36; De Marchi, _La\n    Religione nella vita domestica_, i. p. 169 foll.;\n    Samter, _Familienfeste der Griechen und Roemer,_ p. 62\n    foll., where the _dies lustricus_ is compared with the\n    Greek [Greek: amphidromia]. Unfortunately the details of\n    the Roman rite are unknown to us, which seems to\n    indicate that the primitive or magical character of it\n    had disappeared. Van Gennep, _op. cit._ ch. v., reviews\n    and classifies our present knowledge of this kind of\n    rite. See also Crawley, _Mystic Rose_, p. 435 foll.\n\n    [31] Crawley, _op. cit._ p. 436; Frazer, _G.B._ i. 403\n    foll. From this point of view Roman names need a closer\n    examination than they have yet received. See, however,\n    Marquardt, _Privatleben der Roemer_, pp. 10 and 81, and\n    Mommsen, _Roem. Forschungen_, i. 1 foll. Marquardt must\n    be wrong in stating (p. 10) that only the _praenomen_\n    was given on the _dies lustricus_; children dying before\n    that day usually, as he says on p. 82 note, have no name\n    in inscriptions, and that ceremony must surely have\n    introduced the child to the gens of its parents.\n    Certainly that introduction had not to wait till the\n    _toga virilis_ was taken; though Tertull. _de Idol._ 16\n    looks at first a little like it. The same statement is\n    made in the _Dict. of Antiq., s.v._ \"nomen.\" Macr.\n    _Sat._ i. 16. 36, and Fest. 120, simply speak of\n    _nomen_.\n\n    [32] Fowler, _R.F._ p. 56; De Marchi, _op. cit._ p. 176.\n    For the primitive ideas about puberty, Crawley, _Mystic\n    Rose_, ch. xiii. The idea of the Romans seems to have\n    been simply that the child, who had so far needed\n    special protection from evil influences (of what kind in\n    particular it is impossible to say) by purple-striped\n    toga and amulet (see below, p. 60), was now entering a\n    stage when these were no longer needed. All notions of\n    taboo seem to have vanished.\n\n    [33] Marquardt, _Privataltertuemer_, p. 337 foll.\n\n    [34] Serv. _Aen._ ii. 714, and especially iii. 64. Other\n    references in Marq. _op. cit._ p. 338, note 5, and De\n    Marchi, _La Religione nella_ _vita domestica_, p. 190.\n    For similar usages of prohibition see van Gennep, _op.\n    cit._ ch. ii.\n\n    [35] Festus, p. 3, \"itaque funus prosecuti redeuntes\n    ignem supragradiebantur aqua aspersi, quod purgationis\n    genus vocabant suffitionem.\" For the possibly magic\n    influence of these elements, see Jevons, _op. cit._ p.\n    70.\n\n    [36] Frazer, _G.B._ i. 325, iii. 222 foll.; Jevons, p.\n    59.\n\n    [37] Cato, _R.R._ 83, \"mulier ad eam rem divinam ne\n    adsit neve videat quomodo fiat.\"\n\n    [38] Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 60. Dogs were also\n    excluded (_ib._ 90); Gellius xi. 6. 2; Wissowa, _R.K._\n    p. 227; Fowler, _R.F._ p. 194, where the private and\n    public taboos are compared.\n\n    [39] Festus, _s.v._ \"exesto.\" For similar taboos in\n    Greece, Farnell in _Archiv_ for 1904, p. 76.\n\n    [40] Fowler, _Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero_,\n    p. 143 foll. Cp. Westermarck, _Origin, etc._, vol. i.\n    ch. xxvi., especially p. 652 foll.\n\n    [41] _G.B._ i. 298 foll.\n\n    [42] Festus, _s.v._ \"exesto.\"\n\n    [43] Buecheler, _Umbrica_, p. 94 foll. Cp. Livy v. 50,\n    where it is said that, after the Gauls had left Rome,\n    all the temples, _quod ea hostis possedisset_, were to\n    be restored, to have their bounds laid down afresh\n    (_terminarentur_) and to be disinfected (_expiarentur_).\n    _Digest_, xi. 7. 36, \"cum loca capta sunt ab hostibus,\n    omnia desinunt religiosa vel sacra esse, sicut homines\n    liberi in servitutem perveniunt; quod si ab hac\n    calamitate fuerint liberata, quasi quodam postliminio\n    reversa pristino statui restituerentur.\" Cp. Plutarch,\n    _Aristides_, 20. A friend reminds me that Bishop\n    Berkeley, when in Italy, had his bedroom sprinkled with\n    holy water by his landlady.\n\n    [44] See Marquardt, p. 420, notes 5 and 6. The\n    _verbenarius_ is mentioned in Serv. _Aen._ xii. 120, and\n    Pliny _N.H._ xxii. 5. For the disinfecting power of\n    verbena (_myrtea verbena_) see Pliny xv. 119, where it\n    is said to have been used by Romans and Sabines after\n    the rape of the Sabine virgins.\n\n    [45] See Marquardt, _Privatleben_, p. 192 foll., based\n    on the famous essay of Mommsen in his _Roemische\n    Forschungen_, i. 319 foll. The passages quoted from Livy\n    for the practice in early times (i. 45, v. 50) are not,\n    of course, historical evidence; but we may fairly argue\n    back from the more explicit evidence of later times,\n    _e.g._ the Senatusconsultum de Asclepiade of 78 B.C.\n    (_C.I. Graec._ 5879).\n\n    There is a good example of the feeling in modern Italy\n    in a book called _In the Abruzzi_, by Anne Macdonell, p.\n    275. I have experienced it in remote parts of South\n    Wales long ago. Moritz, the German pastor who travelled\n    on foot in England towards the end of the eighteenth\n    century, noted that even the innkeepers were constantly\n    unwilling to take him in. His book was reprinted in\n    Cassell's National Library some years ago.\n\n    [46] See the very interesting chapter in _The Origin\n    and Development of Moral Ideas_, vol. i. p. 570 foll.,\n    especially p. 590 foll. Dr. Westermarck aptly points out\n    that hospitality is almost universal among \"rude\"\n    peoples, and loses its hold as they become more\n    civilised. M. van Gennep in his recently published work,\n    _Les Rites de Passage_, has attempted to classify the\n    various rites relating to taboo of strangers; see ch.\n    iii., especially p. 38 foll.\n\n    [47] Jevons, _Introduction_, p. 70.\n\n    [48] Gellius x. 15. 8, \"vinctum, si aedes eius\n    introierit, solui necessum est.\" (In hot countries\n    chains still usually, or in some degree, take the place\n    of bolts and bars, _e.g._ in the Soudan, as I am told by\n    an old pupil now in the Soudan civil service.) The\n    regular Latin phrase for imprisonment is \"in vincula\n    conicere\": Pauly-Wissowa, _s.v._ \"carcer.\"\n\n    [49] Gellius, _l.c._; Serv. _Aen._ ii. 57, a curious\n    passage, in which the release of Sinon from his bonds by\n    King Priam is compared with that of the prisoner who\n    enters the flaminia (house of the Flamen Dialis). That\n    there was something in the iron which interfered with\n    the religious efficacy of the Flamen seems likely; cp.\n    the rule that he might wear no ring unless it were\n    broken, and have no knot about his dress. But the latter\n    restriction suggests that binding may have been\n    originally the object of the taboo (cp. Ovid, _Fasti_,\n    v. 432), and that the iron taboo came in with the iron\n    age. Appel, _de Romanorum precationibus_, p. 82, note 2,\n    seems so to understand it. Cp. Eurip. _Iph. Taur._ 468,\n    where Orestes and Pylades are unbound before entering\n    the temple.\n\n    [50] There has been much discussion of this question; I\n    entirely agree with Wissowa (_R.K._ p. 354, where\n    references are given for the opposite opinion) that\n    there is no evidence for human sacrifice in the old\n    Roman religion or law, except in the rule that a\n    condemned criminal was made over to a deity (_sacer_),\n    which may have been a legal survival of an original form\n    of actual sacrifice. The alleged sacrifice by Julius\n    Caesar of two mutinous soldiers in the Campus Martius\n    (Dio Cass. xliii. 24) is of the same nature as the\n    sacrifice of captives to Orcus in _Aen._ xi. 81, _i.e._\n    it is outside of the civil life and religious law; this\n    is shown in the latter case by the mention of blood in\n    the ritual (_caeso sparsurus sanguine flammas_), and in\n    the former by the beheading of the mutineers.\n\n    [51] Mommsen, _Strafrecht_, p. 917 foll.; Livy x. 9;\n    Cic. _de Rep._ ii. 31. 65. All other methods of\n    execution were bloodless. _Decollatio_ remained in use\n    in the army (as in the case just mentioned), but the axe\n    disappeared from the fasces in the city with the\n    abolition of kingship. As further illustration of the\n    dislike of all bloodshed, cp. the rule of XII. Tables,\n    \"mulieres genas ne radunto,\" _i.e._ at funerals, Cic.\n    _de Legibus_, ii. 59, and Serv. _Aen._ iii. 67 from\n    Varro, and v. 78. The gladiatorial _ludi_ may have been\n    a revival of an old custom akin to human sacrifice of\n    captives in the field. See _Social Life at Rome in the\n    Age of Cicero_, p. 304, note 3.\n\n    We may also note in this connection that there is no\n    distinct trace of the blood-feud in old Roman law; see\n    _Zum aeltesten Strafrecht der Kulturvoelker_, p. 38\n    (questions of comparative law suggested by Mommsen and\n    answered by various specialists). Doubtless it once\n    existed, but vanished at an early date.\n\n    [52] Fowler, _R.F._ p. 242. The tail of the sacrificed\n    horse was carried to the Regia, where the blood was\n    allowed to drip on the sacred hearth (_participandae rei\n    divinae gratia_), Festus, p. 178.\n\n    [53] _R.F._ p. 311 foll., from Plutarch, _Rom._ 21.\n\n    [54] For this practice in many ancient religions, and\n    its substitute, the smearing of the stone with turmeric\n    or other red stain, see Jevons, _Introduction_, p. 139\n    foll.; Robertson Smith, _Semites_, p. 415.\n\n    [55] This is found in Zosimus ii. 1. 5; Diels,\n    _Sibyllinische Blaetter_, 132, and 73 note. Cp. Virg.\n    _Aen._ viii. 106; also a Greek rite.\n\n    [56] _G.B._ ed. 2, i. 241 foll.\n\n    [57] The bronze and iron ages, of course, overlap; see\n    Helbig, _Italiker in der Poebene_, p. 78 foll.\n\n    [58] Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ pp. 22 and 128 foll.\n    Other examples are collected by Helbig, _op. cit._ p.\n    80.\n\n    [59] Dion. Hal. iii. 45; Mommsen in _C.I.L._ i. p. 177.\n    It may be as well to point out that iron, like wheat in\n    the taboos of the Flamen, was considered dangerous, as\n    being a novelty. The old Italian grain was not true\n    wheat but _far_, which continued to be used in religious\n    rites; _R.F._ p. 304, and Marquardt, _Privatleben der\n    Roemer_, p. 399 foll.\n\n    [60] Varro, _L.L._ vii. 84; Ovid, _Fasti_, i. 629;\n    Petronius, _Sat._ 44. There are many parallels in Greek\n    ritual.\n\n    [61] See below, p. 146. Mr. Marett suggests to me a\n    comparison with the _rongo_ (sacred) of the Melanesians,\n    and _tapu_ as used of a place by them, _i.e._ set apart\n    by a human authority; Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 77.\n\n    [62] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 408 foll.; cp. 323 and notes.\n\n    [63] The fullest account of this will be found in\n    Marquardt, p. 262 foll. For the case of a man killed by\n    lightning, see note 4 on p. 263; the body was not burnt\n    but buried, and the grave became a _bidental_, and\n    _religiosum_.\n\n    [64] For the intricate pontifical law of burial-places\n    see Wissowa, p. 409. The quotation from Masurius is in\n    Gellius iv. 9. 8, \"M. Sabinus in commentariis quos de\n    indigenis composuit.\" The word _sanctitas_ is here used\n    merely by way of explanation and not in a technical\n    sense; for which see Marq. p. 145 and references; but it\n    seems to have had a special use in the cult of the dead.\n    (See below, p. 470.)\n\n    [65] Quoted by Macrobius, _Sat._ iii. 3. 8. For\n    Sulpicius see _Social Life at Rome in the Age of\n    Cicero_, p. 118 foll.\n\n    [66] Festus, p. 278. This Aelius lived at the end of the\n    Republican period, and belonged to the school of\n    Sulpicius; Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Lit._ i. pt. 2, p.\n    486.\n\n    [67] _e.g._ the three days on which the _mundus_ was\n    open were all _comitiales_, though at the same time\n    _religiosi_.\n\n    [68] _R.K._ pp. 376, 377.\n\n    [69] The authorities for the story are Verrius Flaccus,\n    _ap._ Gell. v. 17, and Macrobius, _Sat._ i. 16. 21.\n\n    [70] For the extent of the taboo see Gell. iv. 9. 5;\n    Macr. i. 16. 18.\n\n    [71] Gell. v. 17. 3 foll. (_annalium quinto_).\n\n    [72] Festus, p. 278.\n\n    [73] _R.F._ p. 151.\n\n    [74] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 377, note 6.\n\n    [75] Cic. _ad Qu. Fratr._ ii. 4. 2.\n\n    [76] Wissowa, _R.K._ pp. 187, 189.\n\n    [77] _R.K._ p. 377. Gell. iv. 9. 5 says that the\n    _multitudo imperitorum_ confused the _dies religiosi_\n    and _dies nefasti_. The distinction is most clearly seen\n    in the fact that on _dies religiosi_ the temples were\n    (or ought to be) shut, and \"res divinas facere\" was\n    ill-omened (Gell., _ib._), while on _dies nefasti_ the\n    latter was regular, such days being made over to the\n    gods. No wonder that Gellius brands the popular\n    ignorance with such words as _prave_ and _perperam_.\n\n    [78] See Prof. Rhys's paper read before the British\n    Academy, \"Notes on the Coligny Calendar,\" p. 33 and\n    elsewhere.\n\n    [79] _Introduction_, p. 65 foll.\n\n    [80] Since writing this sentence I have read the paper\n    by W. Otto on \"Religio and Superstitio\" in _Archiv fuer\n    Religionswissenschaft_, 1909, p. 533 foll.; in which at\n    p. 544 he hints at a connection of _religio_ with the\n    practice of taboo. With some of his conclusions,\n    however, I cannot agree. The same explanation of the\n    origin of _religio_, _i.e._ in an age of taboo, has also\n    been suggested since my lecture was written by\n    Maximilianus Kobbert, _De verborum \"religio atque\n    religiosus\" usu apud Romanos_, p. 31 (Koenigsberg,\n    1910).\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE III\n\nON THE THRESHOLD OF RELIGION: MAGIC\n\n\nTaboo, the traces of which at Rome we examined in the last lecture, is,\nas we saw, closely allied to magic, even if it be not, as Dr. Frazer\nthinks, magic in a negative form. We have now to see what traces are to\nbe found of magic in the proper or usual sense of the word--active or\npositive magic, as we may call it. By this we are to understand the\nexercise of a mysterious mechanical power by an individual on man,\nspirit, or deity, to enforce a certain result. In magic there is no\npropitiation, no prayer. \"He who performs a purely magical act,\" says\nDr. Westermarck,[81] \"utilises such mechanical power without making any\nappeal at all to the will of a supernatural being.\" Religion, on the\nother hand, is an attitude of regard and dependence; in a religious\nstage man feels himself in the hands of a supernatural power with whom\nhe desires to be in right relation.\n\nIf we accept this distinction, as I think we may (though one school of\nanthropologists is hardly disposed to do so), it is plain that magical\npractices are of a totally different kind from religious practices, as\nbeing the result of a different mental attitude towards the\nsupernatural; they belong to a ruder and more rudimentary idea of the\nrelation of Man to the Power manifesting itself in the universe. True,\nthey have their origin in the same kind of human experience, in the\ndifficulties man meets with in his struggle for existence, and his\ndesire to overcome these; but unlike religion, magic is a wholly\ninadequate attempt to overcome them. This inadequacy was long ago well\nexplained by Dr. Jevons.[82] He showed that man in that early stage of\nhis experience did not understand the true relation of cause and effect;\nthat, \"turned loose as it were among innumerable possible causes (of a\ngiven effect), with nothing to guide his choice, the chances against his\nmaking the right choice were considerable.\" As a matter of fact he\nusually made the wrong one, and is still apt to do so. There is probably\nmore magic going on behind the scenes even in civilised countries, and\nmore especially both in Greece and Italy, than either men of science or\nmen of religion have any idea of. In its various forms as they are now\nclassified,[83] _e.g._ contagious magic, and homoeopathic magic, the\nexercise of the mysterious will-power, real or imaginary, is to be found\nall the world over, accompanied usually with a spell or incantation\nwhich is believed to enforce and increase that power--a kind of\ntelepathy, which seems to be the psychological basis, so far as there is\none, of the whole system. In these rites the virtue resides in some\naction, which, together with the spell or incantation, enforces the\ndesired result by calling out the will-power, or _mana_, if we adopt the\nconvenient Melanesian word lately brought into use. Whatever percentage\nof psychological truth may lie at the root of such performances, it is\nobvious that they must in the main be wholly inadequate, and must\nconstantly tend to pass into mere quackery and become discredited; and\nit was the special function of the religious organisation of early\nsociety to eliminate and discredit them.\n\nBut it was a long stage in the evolution of society before man arrived\nat a better knowledge of his relation to the Power manifesting itself in\nthe universe; before he reached the idea of a god or spirit realisable\nand nameable, and thus capable of being addressed, placated, worshipped.\nWhen this stage is reached, there supervenes almost always a strong\ntendency to regulate and systematise the methods of address, placation,\nand worship; and among some peoples, _e.g._ the Romans, for reasons\nwhich it is by no means easy to explain, this tendency is much stronger\nthan among others. Wherever it has been strong, wherever these methods\nof putting oneself in right relation with the Power have been\nsystematised by a central authority or priesthood, and thus made into\nreligious law, there, as we might naturally expect, the performances and\nperformers of magic have been most vigorously discountenanced and\noutlawed. The interests of religion and its officials are wholly\nantagonistic to those of magic and magicians. In civilised communities\nand in historical times magic is in the main individualistic, not\nsocial; magical ceremonies for the good of the community seem to be\nconfined to races in a very early stage of development. The examples on\nwhich Dr. Frazer relies for his theory of the development of the public\nmagician into a king[84] are of this primitive kind, or are mere\nsurvivals of magic in a higher stage of civilisation--such survivals as\nthere will always be among forms and ceremonies, of which it is man's\nnature to be tenacious. But religion, once firmly established,\ninvariably seeks to exclude magic; and the priest does his best to\ndiscredit the magician, as claiming to exercise mysterious powers\noutside the pale of the legally recognised methods of propitiation and\nworship. As Dr. Tylor observed long ago, the more civilised the race,\nthe more apt it is to associate magic with men of inferior\ncivilisation.[85] In the Jewish law, though magic was well known to the\nJews and privately practised, there is no recognition of it; the magical\nbooks attributed to Solomon were suppressed, according to tradition, by\nthe pious king Hezekiah.[86] So too at Rome, where the outward forms of\nreligion were also very highly systematised, magic, as it seems to me,\nwas rigorously excluded from the State ritual, though it continued in\nuse in private life under certain precautions taken by the State; in the\nfew genuine examples of it in the rites belonging to the _ius divinum_\n(_i.e._ those used and sanctioned for the purposes of the community),\nit is nothing more than a survival of which the magical meaning was\nunknown to the writers from whom we hear of it.\n\nA good example of such survivals is the curious ceremony of\nthe _aquaelicium_, without doubt a genuine case of magical\n\"rain-making\"--one of the many inadequate and blundering attempts on the\npart of primitive man to obtain what he needs. Probably it may be\nclassed under the head of \"sympathetic magic,\" but the evidence as to\nwhat was done in the ceremony is not quite explicit enough to allow us\nto do this confidently.[87] It was, of course, not included in the\nreligious calendar, as it would be only occasionally called for, and\ncould not be fixed to a day; but there is clear evidence that it was\nsanctioned by the State, for the pontifices took part in it, and the\nmagistrates without the _toga praetexta_, and the lictors carrying the\nfasces reversed.[88] A stone, which lay outside the walls near the Porta\nCapena, was brought into the city by the pontifices, so far as we can\nmake out the details, and it has been conjectured that it was taken to\nan altar of Jupiter Elicius on the Aventine hard by, this cult-title of\nthe god of the sky having possibly some relation to the technical name\nof the ceremony. What was done with the stone we unluckily do not know;\nbut it has been reasonably conjectured that it was a hollow one, and\nthat it was filled with water which was allowed to run over the edge, as\na means of inducing the rain-god to suffer the heavens to overflow.[89]\nIt was called _lapis manalis_; and the epithet here can have nothing to\ndo with the Manes, as in the case of another _lapis manalis_, of which I\nshall have a word to say later on, but must mean \"pouring\" or\n\"overflowing.\" One or two other fragments of evidence point in the same\ndirection, and I think we may fairly conclude that the rite was\noriginally one of sympathetic magic--that as the stone overflowed, so\nthe sky would pour down rain. In my _Roman Festivals_ I have pointed out\na remarkable parallel to this in the collections of the _Golden Bough_;\nin a Samoan village a stone represented the god of rain, and in a\ndrought his priests carried it in procession and dipped it in a stream.\n\nThis parallel I owe to Dr. Frazer's wide knowledge of all such practices\namong savage peoples. But this ever helpful and friendly guide, in\ntreating of the Jupiter Elicius concerned in this ceremony, has gone\nbeyond the evidence, and attributed to the Romans another kind of magic\nof which I believe they were quite innocent. He has been led to this by\nhis theory that kings were developed out of successful magicians. In his\nlectures on the early history of the Kingship[90] he maintains that the\nRoman kings practised the magical art of bringing down lightning from\nheaven. \"The priestly king Numa passed for an adept in the art of\ndrawing down lightning from the sky.... Tullus Hostilius is reported to\nhave met with the same end (as Salmoneus, king of Elis) in an attempt to\ndraw down Jupiter in the form of lightning from the clouds.\" To support\nthese statements Dr. Frazer quotes Pliny, Livy, Ovid, Plutarch,\nArnobius, Aurelius Victor, and Zonaras--truly a formidable list of\nauthorities; but without any attempt to discover where any of these late\nwriters found the stories. Yet he had but to read Aust's admirable\narticle \"Jupiter\" in the _Mythological Lexicon_[91] to assure himself\nthat legends which cannot be traced farther back than the middle of the\nsecond century B.C. cannot seriously be assumed to be genuinely Roman.\nPliny happens to mention Calpurnius Piso as his authority; this was the\nman who is well known in Roman history as the author of the first _lex\nde repetundis_ of the year 149 B.C., a good statesman, but as an\nannalist much given to indulging a mythological fancy.[92] We happen to\nknow that he wrote with happy confidence about the life and habits of\nRomulus, and a story about wine-drinking which he attributes to that\nking is obviously transferred to him from some more historical\npersonage. Romulus would not drink wine one day because he was going to\nbe very busy on the next. Then they said to him, \"If we all did so,\nRomulus, wine would be cheap.\" \"Nay, dear,\" he replied, \"if every one\ndrank as much as he wished; and that is exactly what I am doing.\"[93] I\nquote the story simply as a good example of the way in which Roman\nhistorians could deal with their kings, and of the absolute necessity of\nacquainting oneself with their methods before building hypotheses upon\ntheir statements. I hardly need to add that another of Dr. Frazer's\nauthorities, Arnobius, informs us that he took the story from the second\nbook of Valerius Antias, a later writer than Piso, whose name is a\nbyword even with the uncritical Livy for shameless exaggeration and\nmis-statement.[94]\n\nBut how did these writers come by such legends, which, as Dr. Frazer\nshows, are to be found also in Greece and in other parts of the world?\nWhy should they have wished to make Roman kings into magicians?\nRain-making we can understand at Rome,--it had a practical end in view,\nthe procuring of rain for the crops,--but why lightning and thunder,\nwhich were so much dreaded that every bit of damage done by a\nthunderstorm had to be carefully expiated by a religious process? Rome\nis not in the tropics, where rain and thunder so often come together,\nand where an attempt to produce rain by magic might naturally include\nthunder, as in some of Dr. Frazer's examples from tropical lands. I\nentirely agree with the latest and most sober investigators of Roman\nritual that this kind of magic is quite foreign to Roman ideas and\npractice;[95] there is no vestige of it in the Roman cult; these stories\nmust have come from outside. And there is every probability that they\ncame from Etruria, where the lore of lightning had become a\npseudo-science, a waste of human ingenuity, for the origin of which we\nmust look, as we are now beginning to understand, to Babylonia and the\nEastern magic.[96] The Jupiter Elicius of the Aventine had nothing to do\nwith lightning; he took his cult-title from the rite of _aquaelicium_;\nbut as soon as the Romans began to interest themselves in the Etruscan\nlightning-lore, of which this electrical magic was only a part,[97] they\nperverted the meaning of the epithet to suit their new studies, and\nbegan to attribute to their legendary kings powers which properly\nbelonged to Etruscan or Oriental magicians. The second century B.C.,\nwhen Piso wrote his _Annals_, is exactly the period when we should\nnaturally expect such studies to come into fashion, and with such\nperversions of \"history\" as their consequence.[98]\n\nI go on to note one or two more examples of real magic in the State\nreligion; but they are hard to find. Pliny tells that even in his day\npeople believed that a runaway slave who had not escaped out of the city\nmight be arrested by a spell uttered by the Vestal virgins.[99] I take\nthis to mean that any one who had lost his slave might get the Vestals\nto use the spell as a means of keeping the runaway within the city. The\nword for spell is here _precatio_, _i.e._ a prayer, not _carmen_, which\nis the usual word for a spell; and Pliny evidently thinks of it as\naddressed to some god. But no doubt it was originally at least a genuine\nspell, of the same kind as others used in private life, which we shall\nnotice directly; and it implies a belief in some magical power inherent\nin the Vestals, of whom we are told that if they accidentally met a\ncriminal being led to punishment they might secure his release.[100] As\nthe spell in this case seems to be telepathic, _i.e._ an exercise of\nwill-power projected from a distance, it may perhaps be paralleled with\ncertain mystical powers exercised by women, especially when their\nhusbands are at war, among some savage peoples;[101] but we have no\ninformation about it beyond the passage in Pliny, and further guessing\nwould be useless.\n\nThis last is a case of genuine magic, but it is outside the ritual of\nthe State, though exercised by a State priesthood. Within that ritual\nthere is one other very curious case of what must be classed as a\nmagical process, and one that has accidentally become famous. At the\nLupercalia on February 15, the two young men called Luperci, or, more\nstrictly, belonging respectively as leaders to the two collegia of\nLuperci, girt themselves with the skins of the slaughtered victims,\nwhich were goats, and then ran round the base of the Palatine hill,\nstriking at all the women who came near them or offered themselves to\ntheir blows, with strips of skin cut from the hides of these same\nvictims. The object was to produce fertility; on this point our\nauthorities are explicit.[102] Thus this particular feature of the whole\nextraordinary ritual of the Lupercalia is unmistakably within the region\nof magic rather than of religion. Some potency was believed to work in\nthe act of striking, though apparently without a spoken spell or\n_carmen_, such as usually accompanies acts of this kind; and this part\nof the rite, grotesque though it was, was allowed to survive by the\ngrave religious authorities who drew up the calendar of religious\nfestivals. It was probably a superstition too deeply rooted in the minds\nof the people to admit of being excluded; and, strange to say, it\nsurvived, in outward form at least, until Rome had become cosmopolitan\nand even Christian. The Lupercalia has always been a puzzle to students\nof early religion, and as each new theory is advanced, this strange\nfestival is seized on for fresh interpretation;[103] but for our present\npurposes it must suffice to point out that we clearly find embedded in\nit a piece of genuine magic, dating beyond doubt from a very primitive\nstage of thought.\n\nThere is one other very curious performance, occurring each year on the\nides of May, which in my view is rather magical than religious, though\nthe ancients themselves looked upon it as a kind of purification: I mean\nthe casting into the Tiber from the _pons sublicius_ of twenty-four or\ntwenty-seven straw puppets by the Vestal virgins, in the presence of the\nmagistrates and pontifices. Recently an attempt has been made by Wissowa\nto prove that this strange ceremony was not primitive, but simply a case\nof the substitution of puppets for real human victims as late as the age\nof the Punic wars.[104] These puppets were called Argei, which word\nnaturally suggests Greeks; and Wissowa has contrived to persuade himself\nnot only that a number of Greeks were actually put to death by drowning\nin an age when everything Greek was beginning to be reverenced at Rome,\nbut (still more extraordinary to an anthropologist) that the primitive\ndevice of substitution was had in requisition at that late date in order\nto carry on the memory of the ghastly deed. And the world of German\nlearning has silently followed their leader, without taking the trouble\nto test his conclusions by a careful and independent examination of the\nevidence. It happens that this fascinating puzzle of the Argei was the\nfirst curiosity that enticed me into the study of the Roman religion,\nand for some thirty years I have been familiar with every scrap of\nevidence bearing on it; and after going over that evidence once more I\ncan emphatically state my conviction that Wissowa's theory will not hold\nwater for a moment. I shall return to the subject in a later lecture\ndealing with the religious history of the second Punic war; at present I\nmerely express a belief that, whatever be the history of the accessories\nof the rite,--and they are various and puzzling,--the actual immersion\nof the puppets is the survival of a primitive piece of sympathetic\nmagic, the object being possibly to procure rain. It is, in my opinion,\nquite impossible to resist the anthropological evidence for this\nconclusion, though we cannot really be certain about the object; for\nthis evidence I must refer you to my _Roman Festivals_, and to the\nreferences there given.[105]\n\nThis rite of the Argei, then, was a case of genuine magic, and exercised\nby a State priesthood, virgins to whom certain magical powers were\nsupposed to be attached; it was, I think, a popular performance, like\none or two others which are also outside the limit of the Fasti,[106]\nand was embodied in a more complicated ceremonial long after that\ncalendar had been drawn up. In the ritual authorised by the State, with\npublic objects in view, _i.e._ for the benefit of society as a whole,\nthere is hardly a trace of anything that we can call genuine magic\napart from the examples I have just been explaining. There were, I need\nnot say, many survivals of magical processes of which the true magical\nintent had long been lost--ancient magical deposits in a social stratum\nof religion, which I shall notice in their proper place. This is not\npeculiar to the religion of the Romans; it is a phenomenon to be found\nin all religions, even in those of the most highly developed type, and\nit is one apt to cause some confusion as to the true distinction between\nmagic and religion.[107] It is easy to find magical processes even in\nChristian worship, if we have the will to do so; but if we steadily bear\nin mind that the true test of magic is not the nature of an act, but the\nintent or volition which accompanies it, the search will not be an easy\none.\n\nThe modern French school of sociologists, which now has to be reckoned\nwith in investigating the early history of religion, claims that magic\nwas not originally, as we now see it, a matter of individual skill, but\na sociological fact, _i.e._ it was used for the benefit of the\ncommunity, as religion came to be in a later age. If this be true, as it\nvery possibly is, we see at once how the dead bones of magical processes\nmight survive, with their original meaning entirely lost, into an age in\nwhich higher and more reasonable ideas had been developed about the\nrelation of Man to the Power manifesting itself in the universe. To take\na single example from Rome, divination by the examination of a victim's\nentrails was originally a magical process, according to the opinion of\nmost modern authorities;[108] but it ceases to be magic when it is used\nsimply to determine in the State ritual whether in a religious process\nthe victim is perfect and agreeable to the deity. In fact magical\nformulae, magical instruments, unless they are used in the true spirit\nof magic, to compel, not to propitiate a deity, are no longer magic, and\nmay be passed over here. When we come to discuss the ritual of sacrifice\nand prayer, of _lustratio_, of vows, of divination, we may find it\nnecessary to recall what has here been said. On the whole, we may\nconclude that organised religious cult, from its very nature and object,\neverywhere excluded magic in the true sense of the word; it implies\nprayer and propitiation, both of which are absolutely inconsistent with\nthe object and methods of magic. Religion is the product of a higher\nstage of social development; it is the expression of a real advance of\nhuman thought; and in telling the story of the religious experience of\nthe Roman people we are but indirectly concerned with those more rude\nand rudimentary ideas which it displaced.\n\nBut in private life, outside of the organised cult of the State and the\nfamily, magic was all through Roman history abundant, even\nover-abundant, and in this form I cannot pass it over entirely. Though\nthe State authorities seem to have taken pains to exclude it rigidly\nfrom the public rites, and though there is little trace of it in the\nreligious life of family and gens, yet there is evidence that it was\ndeeply rooted in the nature of the people, and that they must have\npassed through an age in which it was an important factor in their\nsocial life. This fact, taken together with its almost complete\nelimination from the public religion, throws into relief the persistent\nefforts of the State authorities, from the framing of the old religious\ncalendar to the time of the Augustan revival, to keep their relations\nwith the Power clear of all that they believed to be unworthy or\ninjurious. No better example can be found of the inherent antagonism\nbetween religion and magic.\n\nPrivate magic may be divided into two kinds, according as it was used to\ndamage another, or only to benefit oneself. In the former case the State\ninterfered to protect the person threatened with damage, and treated\nthis kind of magic as a crime. The commonest form of it was that of the\nspell, or _carmen_, no doubt often sung, and accompanied by some action\nwhich would bring it under the head of sympathetic magic; but the spell\nalone is taken cognisance of by the State. Pliny has preserved three\nwords from the XII. Tables which tell their own tale: \"qui fruges\nexcantassit.\"[109] Servius, commenting on the line of Virgil's 8th\n_Eclogue_, \"atque satas alio vidi traducere messes,\" writes, \"magicis\nquibusdam artibus hoc fiebat, unde est in XII. Tabb. 'Neve alienam\nsegetem pellexeris.'\" These last words, with the verb in the second\nperson, are probably not quoted exactly from the ancient text,[110] but\nthey help to show us the nature of this hostile spell. There must have\nbeen a belief that the spirit, or life, or fructifying power of your\nneighbour's crops could be enticed away and transferred to your own.\nThis is confirmed by a remark of St. Augustine in the _de Civitate\nDei_;[111] after quoting the same line from Virgil, he adds, \"eo quod\nhac pestifera scelerataque doctrina fructus alieni in alias terras\ntransferri perhibentur, nonne in XII. Tabulis, id est Romanorum\nantiquissimis legibus, Cicero commemorat esse conscriptum et ei qui hoc\nfecerit supplicium constitutum?\" Given the belief, the temptation can be\nwell understood if we reflect that the arable land of the old Romans was\ndivided in sections of a square, and that each man's allotment would\nhave that of a neighbour on two sides at least.[112] If one man's corn\nwere found to be more flourishing than that of his neighbours, what more\nlikely than that he should have enticed away the spirit of their crops?\nThe process reminds us, as it reminded Pliny, of the _evocatio_ of the\ngods of foreign communities, a rite which belongs to religion and not to\nmagic, though it doubtless had its origin in the same class of ideas as\nthe _excantatio_.\n\nIn more general terms the old Roman law (_i.e._ originally the _ius\ndivinum_) forbade the use of evil spells, as we see in another fragment\nof the Tables, \"qui malum carmen incantassit.\" In later times this was\nusually taken as referring to libel and slander, but there can be no\ndoubt that the carmina here alluded to were originally magical, and\nbecame _carmina famosa_ in the course of legal interpretation. Cicero\nseems to combine the two meanings in the _de Rep._ (iv. 10. 2) when he\nsays that the Tables made it a capital offence \"si quis occentavisset,\nsive carmen condidisset quod infamiam faceret flagitiumve alteri\" (to\nbring shame or criminal reproach on another). In the later sense these\ncarmina have a curious history, into which I cannot enter now.[113] In\nthe earlier sense they existed and flourished without doubt, in spite of\nthe law; or it may be that, as the words of the Tables were interpreted\nin the new sense, the old form of offence was tolerated in private. \"We\nare all afraid,\" says Pliny, \"of being 'nailed' (_defigi_) by spells and\ncurses\" (_diris precationibus_).[114] These _dirae_, and all the various\nforms of love-charms, _defixiones_, accompanied by the symbolic actions\nwhich are found all the world over, lie outside my present subject, and\nare so familiar to us all in Roman literature that I do not need to\ndwell on them.[115]\n\nNor of the common harmless kind of magic need I say much now. It\nsurvived, of course, alongside of the religion of the family and State,\nfrom the earliest times to the latest, as it survives at the present day\nin all countries civilised and uncivilised; and being harmless the State\ntook no heed of it. Some assortment of charms and spells for the cure of\ndiseases will be found in Cato's book on agriculture, and one or two\nincidentally occur in that of Varro.[116] They performed the work of\ninsurance against both fire and accident, and even such a man as Julius\nCaesar was not independent of such arts. Pliny tells us that after\nexperiencing a carriage accident he used to repeat a certain spell three\ntimes as soon as he had taken his seat in a vehicle, and adds\nsignificantly, \"id quod plerosque nunc facere scimus.\"[117] Such carmina\nwere written on the walls of houses to insure them against fire.[118]\nPliny has a large collection of small magical delusions and\nsuperstitions, many of which have an interest for anthropologists, in\nthe 28th book of his _Natural History_.\n\nAnother kind of harmless magic, to which the Romans, like all Italians\nancient and modern, were peculiarly addicted, is the use of amulets.\nHere there is no spell, or obvious and expressed exercise of will-power\non the part of the individual, but the potent influence, _mana_, or\nwhatever we choose to call it, resides in a material object which brings\ngood luck, like the cast horse-shoe of our own times, or protects\nagainst hostile will-power, and especially against the evil eye. This\ncurious and widely-spread superstition was probably the _raison d'etre_\nof most of the amulets worn or carried by Romans. A modern Italian, even\nif he be a complete sceptic and materialist, will probably be found to\nhave some amulet about him against the evil eye, \"just to be on the\nsafe side.\"[119] A list of amulets, both Greek and Roman, will be\nfound in the _Dictionary of Antiquities_, and in Pauly-Wissowa,\n_Real-Encyclopaedie, s.v._ \"amulet,\" and it is not necessary here to\nexplain the various kinds in use in Italy; but I must dwell for a moment\non one type, which had been taken up into the life of the family, and in\none sense into that of the State, viz. the _bulla_ worn by children,\nboth boys and girls.\n\nThe bulla was a small object, enclosed in historical times in a capsule,\nand suspended round the child's neck. It was popularly believed to have\nbeen originally an Etruscan custom,[120] and borrowed by the Romans,\nlike so many other ornaments. It is, however, much more probable that\nthe custom was old Italian (as indeed the \"medicine-bag\" is world-wide),\nand that the Etruscan contribution to it was merely the case or capsule,\nwhich was of gold where the family could afford it--gold itself being\nsupposed to have some potency as a charm.[121] The object within the\ncase was, as Pliny tells us, a _res turpicula_ as a rule,[122] and this\nmay remind us that a _fascinum_ was carried in the car of the\ntriumphator as _medicus invidiae_, to use Pliny's pregnant expression.\nThe triumphing general needed special protection; he appeared in the\nguise of Jupiter himself, and was for the moment lifted above the\nordinary rank of humanity. Some feeling of the same kind must have\noriginally suggested similar means for the protection of children under\nthe age of puberty. They also wore the _toga praetexta_, which, though\nassociated by us with secular magistrates, had undoubtedly a religious\norigin. There are distinct signs that children were in some sense\nsacred, and at the same time that they needed special protection against\nthe all-abounding evil influences to be met with in daily life.[123]\nThus this particular form of amulet became a recognised institution of\nfamily life, and in due time little more than a mark of childhood.\n\nYet another kind of charm must be mentioned here which was used at\ncertain festivals, though apparently not at any of those belonging to\nthe authorised calendar. At the Compitalia, Paganalia, and _feriae\nLatinae_ we are told that small images of the human figure, or masks, or\nsimply round balls (_pilae_), were hung up on trees or doorways, and\nleft to swing in the wind.[124] At the Compitalia the images had a\nspecial name, _maniae_, of which the meaning is lost; but inasmuch as\nthe charms were hung up at cross-roads on that occasion, where the Lares\ncompitales of the various properties had their shrine, it was not\ndifficult to manufacture out of them a goddess, Mania, mother of the\nLares.[125] The common word for these figures was _oscilla_, and the\nfact of their swinging in the wind suggested a verb _oscillare_, which\nsurvives in our own tongue with the same meaning. Until lately it used\nto be believed that they were substitutes for original human sacrifices:\na view for which there is not a particle of evidence, though it was\noriginated by Roman scholars.[126] Modern anthropology has found another\nexplanation, which is by no means improbable. Dr. Frazer, in an appendix\nto the 2nd volume of the _Golden Bough_, has collected a number of\nexamples of the practice of swinging _by human beings_ as a magical\nrite; they come from many parts of the world, including ancient Athens,\nand even modern Calabria. He also points out that at the _feriae\nLatinae_ the swingers seem to have been human beings, if we accept the\nevidence of Festus, _s.v._ \"oscillantes\"; thus we are left with the\npossibility that the oscilla were really imitations of men and women,\nthough not of human sacrificial victims.\n\nDr. Frazer is obviously hard put to it to explain the original meaning\nand object of this curious custom. In the Paganalia, as described by\nVirgil in the second _Georgic_,[127] the object would seem to be the\nprosperity of the vine-crop.\n\n                                coloni\n  versibus incomptis ludunt risuque soluto,\n  oraque corticibus sumunt horrenda cavatis,\n  et te Bacche vocant per carmina laeta, tibique\n  oscilla ex alta suspendunt mollia pinu.\n  hinc omnis largo pubescit vinea fetu, etc.[128]\n\nBut here we must leave a question which is still unsolved. All we can\nsay is that the old idea of substitutes for human sacrifice must be\nfinally given up, and that the _oscilla_, whether or not they were\nsubstitutes for human swingers, were probably charms intended to ward\noff evil influences from the crops. I am not disposed to put any\nconfidence in what Servius tells us, that this was a purification by\nmeans of air, just as fire and water were also purifying agents; this\nlooks like the ingenious explanation of a later and a religious\nage.[129]\n\nSo much, then, for magical charms and spells, and the survivals of them\nin the fully developed Roman religion.[130] It might seem hardly worth\nwhile to spend even so much time on them as I have done, and I cannot\ndeny that I am glad now to be able to leave them. My object has simply\nbeen to show how little of this kind of practice, which meets us on the\nthreshold of religion, was allowed to survive by the religious\nauthorities of the State; in other words, I wished to make clear that in\nour inquiries into the nature of the Roman religion it is really\nreligion and not magic that we have to do with.\n\nIt is really religion; it is desire, beginning already to be effective,\nto be in right relation to the Power manifesting itself in the universe.\nThe Romans, as I hope to show in the next lecture, when we can begin to\nknow and feel an interest in them, had not only begun to recognise this\nPower in various forms and functions as one that must be propitiated,\nbecause they were dependent on it for their daily needs, but to regulate\nand make permanent the methods of propitiation. What was the relation\nbetween this simple religion and morality--between ritual and\nconduct--is a very difficult question, to which I shall return later on.\nDr. Westermarck has recently come to the conclusion that the religion of\nprimitive man has no true relation to morality, that it is not apt to\ngive a sanction to good action, or to develop the germs of a conscience.\nBut so far as I can discern, the idea of active duty, and therefore the\ngerm of conscience, must have been so intimately connected with the\nreligious practice of the old Latin family that it is to me impossible\nto think of the one apart from the other. Surely it is in that life that\nthe famous word \"_pius_\" must have originated, which throughout Roman\nhistory meant the sense of duty towards family, State, and gods, as\nevery reader of the _Aeneid_ knows. That the formalised religion of\nlater times had become almost entirely divorced from morality there is\nindeed no doubt; but in the earliest times, in the old Roman family and\nthen in the budding State, the whole life of the Roman seems to me so\ninextricably bound up with his religion that I cannot possibly see how\nthat religion can have been distinguishable from his simple idea of duty\nand discipline.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE III\n\n    [81] Westermarck, _Origin etc. of Moral Ideas_, ii. 584.\n\n    [82] Jevons, _Introduction_, p. 33.\n\n    [83] A useful summary of the whole subject, embodying\n    the results and terminology of Tylor, Frazer, and other\n    anthropologists, is Dr. Haddon's _Magic and Fetishism_,\n    in Messrs. Constable's series, _Religions Ancient and\n    Modern_. See also Marett, _On the Threshold of\n    Religion_, passim.\n\n    [84] _Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship_, p.\n    89 foll. For an example not mentioned in the text\n    (_devotio_) see below, p. 206 foll. This may have been\n    originally practised by the Latin kings. I may here\n    draw attention to the almost dogmatic conclusions of the\n    modern French sociological school of research; _e.g._ M.\n    Huvelin, in _L'Annee sociologique_ for 1907, begins by\n    asserting as a fundamental law, proved by MM. Hubert et\n    Mauss, that magic is just as much a social fact as\n    religion: \"Les uns et les autres sont des produits de\n    l'activite collective\" (_Magie et droit individuel_, p.\n    1). But M. Huvelin's paper is to some extent a\n    modification of this dogma. He seeks to explain the fact\n    that magic is both secret and private, not public and\n    social, in historical times; and in the domain of law,\n    with which he is specially concerned, he concludes that\n    \"a magical rite is only a religious rite twisted from\n    its proper social end, and employed to realise the will\n    or belief of an individual\" (p. 46). This is the only\n    form in which we shall find magic at Rome, except in so\n    far as a few of its forms survive in the ritual of\n    religion with their meaning changed. In early Roman law,\n    as a quasi-religious body of rules and practices, there\n    are a few magical survivals which will be found\n    mentioned by M. Huvelin in this article; but they are of\n    no importance for our present subject.\n\n    [85] _Primitive Culture_, vol. i. ch. iv. See also\n    Jevons, _Introduction_, p. 36 foll.\n\n    [86] See Schuerer, _Jewish People in the Time of Christ_\n    (Eng. trans.), Division II. vol. iii. p. 151 foll.\n\n    [87] Fowler, _R.F._ p. 232; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 106. The\n    most careful examination of the rite and the evidence\n    for it is that of Aust in _Mythological Lexicon_, _s.v._\n    \"Iuppiter,\" p. 656 foll. See also M.H. Morgan in vol.\n    xxxii. of _Transactions of the American Philological\n    Association_, p. 104.\n\n    [88] Tertullian, _de Jejun_. 16. Petronius, _Sat._ 44,\n    adds that the matrons went in the procession with bare\n    feet and streaming hair (cp. Pliny xvii. 266); but this\n    seems rather Greek than Roman in character, and\n    Petronius is plainly thinking of the town (_colonia_ he\n    calls it) in southern Italy where the scene of\n    Trimalchio's supper is laid; probably a Greek city by\n    origin, Croton or Cumae. A translation of this passage\n    will be found in Dill's _Roman Society from Nero to\n    Marcus Aurelius_, p. 133. The most useful words in it\n    for our purpose are \"Jovem aquam exorabant.\"\n\n    [89] This suggestion was originally made by O. Gilbert,\n    _Roem. Topographie_, ii. 184.\n\n    [90] p. 204 foll.\n\n    [91] p. 657. The story is mixed up with Greek fables,\n    _e.g._ that of Proteus, as Wissowa has pointed out,\n    _R.K._ p. 106, note 10.\n\n    [92] See Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_, vol. i.\n    (ed. 3) p. 270 foll.\n\n    [93] This fragment of Piso is preserved by Gellius, xi.\n    14. 1.\n\n    [94] See, _e.g._, Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_,\n    vol. ii. p. 106.\n\n    [95] Wissowa, _l.c._ Aust in Roscher's _Lexicon_, _s.v._\n    \"Iuppiter,\" p. 657.\n\n    [96] Cumont, _Religions Orientales dans le paganisme\n    romain_, ch. 5. I shall return to this subject in my\n    second course of lectures.\n\n    [97] Mueller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. ch. vii., especially\n    p. 176 foll.\n\n    [98] Cp. below, Lecture XV.\n\n    [99] Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 13: \"Vestales nostras hodie\n    credimus nondum egressa urbe mancipia fugitiva retinere\n    in loco precationibus.\"\n\n    [100] Plutarch, _Numa_, 10. Virginity would increase the\n    power of the spell; see Fehrle, _Die kultische\n    Keuschheit im Altertum_, p. 54 foll.\n\n    [101] See, _e.g._, Frazer, _G.B._ i. 360 foll.\n\n    [102] See _R.F._ p. 320, notes 6 and 7.\n\n    [103] Within the last thirty years or so the Lupercalia\n    has been discussed (apart from writers on classical\n    subjects exclusively) by Mannhardt in his _Mythologische\n    Studien_, p. 72 foll.; Robertson Smith, _Semites_, p.\n    459; Deubner in _Archiv_, 1910, p. 481 foll.; and at the\n    moment of writing by E. S. Hartland, _Primitive\n    Paternity_, i. ch. ii. _R.F._ p. 310 foll. See Appendix\n    D.\n\n    [104] This view was originally stated in Pauly-Wissowa,\n    _s.v._ \"Argei.\" I endeavoured to confute it in the\n    _Classical Review_, 1902, p. 115 foll., and Wissowa\n    replied in _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 211 foll. Since\n    then my conviction has become stronger that this great\n    scholar is for once wrong. Ennius alluded to the Argei\n    as an institution of Numa, _i.e._ as primitive (frag.\n    121, Vahlen, from Festus p. 355, and Varro, _L.L._ vii.\n    44), yet Ennius was a youth at the very time when\n    Wissowa insists that the rite originated. Wissowa makes\n    no attempt to explain this. See below, p. 321 foll.\n\n    [105] _R.F._ p. 111 foll.\n\n    [106] _e.g._ the October horse, which also occurred on\n    the Ides; see _R.F._ p. 241 foll.; and the festival of\n    Anna Perenna, also on Ides (March 15), _R.F._ p. 50\n    foll. It is just possible that all the three festivals\n    were originally in the old calendar, and dropped out\n    because the mark of the Ides had to be affixed to the\n    day in the first place. See Wissowa, _Gesammelte\n    Abhandlungen_, p. 164 foll.; _R.F._ p. 241.\n\n    [107] Thus Messrs. Hubert et Mauss (_Melanges d'histoire\n    des religions_, Preface, p. xxiv.) maintain that there\n    is no real antinomy between \"les faits du systeme\n    magique et les faits du systeme religieux.\" There is in\n    every rite, they insist, a magical as well as a\n    religious element. Yet on the same page we find that\n    they exclude magic from all organised cult, because it\n    is not obligatory, and cannot (if I understand them\n    rightly) be laid down in a code, like religious\n    practice. I think it would have been simpler to consider\n    the magical element in religious rites as surviving,\n    with its original meaning lost, from an earlier stage of\n    thought. M. van Gennep, in his interesting work _Les\n    Rites de passage_, p. 17, goes so far as to call all\n    religious _ceremonies_ magical, as distinguished from\n    the _theories_ (_e.g._ animism) which constitute\n    religion. This seems to me apt to bring confusion into\n    the discussion; for all rites are the outward expression\n    of thought, and it is by the thought (or, as he calls\n    it, theories) that we must trace the sociological\n    development of mankind, the rites being used as indexes\n    only. I cannot but think that (as indeed in these days\n    is quite natural) this French school lays too much\n    stress upon the outward acts, and that this tendency has\n    led them to find real living magic where it is present\n    only in a fossil state.\n\n    [108] _e.g._ Tylor, article \"Magic\" in _Encycl. Brit._,\n    and _Primitive Culture_, 1. ch. iv.; Marett, _Threshold\n    of Religion_, 83. See below, p. 180.\n\n    [109] Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 17 and 18. For the singing\n    or murmuring of spells in many countries, see Jevons,\n    _Anthropology and the Classics_, p. 93 foll.\n\n    [110] Bruns, _Fontes Iuris Romani_, note on this\n    passage.\n\n    [111] _Civ. Dei_, viii. 19.\n\n    [112] See, _e.g._, Wordsworth, _Fragments and Specimens\n    of Early Latin_, p. 446, for an account of simple land\n    measurement which will suffice to illustrate the point\n    made here.\n\n    [113] The _carmina famosa_ sung at a triumph by the\n    soldiers had the same origin, but were used to avert\n    evil from the triumphator. The best exposition of this\n    is in H. A. J. Munro's _Elucidations of Catullus_, p. 76\n    foll.\n\n    [114] Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 19. For the technical sense\n    of _defigere_, _defixio_, see Jevons in _Anthropology\n    and the Classics_, p. 108 foll.\n\n    [115] The most familiar examples are Virgil's eighth\n    _Eclogue_, 95 foll.; Ovid, _Met._ vii. 167, and\n    elsewhere; _Fasti_, iv. 551; Horace, _Epode_ v. 72; cp.\n    article \"Magia\" in Daremberg-Saglio; Falz, _De poet.\n    Rom. doctrina magica_, Giessen, 1903. There is a\n    collection of Roman magical spells in Appel's _De\n    Romanorum precationibus_, p. 43 foll. Many modern\n    Italian examples and survivals will be found in Leland's\n    _Etruscan Roman Remains in Popular Tradition_, pt. ii.\n\n    [116] Cato, _R.R._ 160; Varro, _R.R._ i. 3.\n\n    [117] Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 21.\n\n    [118] _Ib._ xxviii. 20. The following sections of this\n    book are the _locus classicus_ for these popular\n    superstitions.\n\n    [119] See, _e.g._, _Italian Home Life_, by Lina Duff\n    Gordon, p. 230 foll.\n\n    [120] Juvenal v. 164. The idea probably arose, as a\n    passage of Plutarch suggests (_Rom._ 25), from the fact\n    that the triumphator, whose garb was no doubt of\n    Etruscan origin, wore the bulla.\n\n    [121] Frazer, _G.B._ i. 345, note 2, where we learn that\n    gold was taboo in some Greek worships, _e.g._ at the\n    mysteries of Andania, which sufficiently proves that it\n    possessed potency. Pliny, xxxiii. 84, mentions cases of\n    such potency as medicine, and among them its application\n    to children who have been poisoned.\n\n    [122] Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 39.\n\n    [123] See an article by the author on the original\n    meaning of the _toga praetexta_ in _Classical Review_,\n    vol. x. (1896) p. 317.\n\n    [124] For the Compitalia, Macrob. i. 7. 34; Festus p.\n    238. For the Paganalia, Probus, _ad Georg._ ii. 385,\n    assuming the _feriae Sementinae_ there mentioned to be\n    the Paganalia (see _R.F._ p. 294). For the _feriae\n    Latinae_, Festus, _s.v._ \"oscillantes.\"\n\n    [125] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 193, with whose view I entirely\n    agree. We learn of the imaginary goddess from Varro,\n    _L.L._ ix. 61. Pais, I may remark in passing, is certain\n    that Acca Larentia was the mater Larum; see his\n    _Lectures on Ancient Legends of Roman History_, p. 60\n    foll.\n\n    [126] 46. Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 354, note 5.\n\n    [127] _Georg._ ii. 380 foll. It is not certain that\n    Virgil is describing the festival generally known as\n    Paganalia, which took place early in January; but it\n    seems probable from line 382 that he is thinking of some\n    festival of the pagus. The _oscilla_ may have been used\n    at more than one.\n\n    [128] Note that Virgil writes of masks used in rude\n    play-acting, as well as of _oscilla_ hung on trees, and\n    conjoins the two as though they had something in common.\n    The evidence of an engraved onyx cup in the Louvre, of\n    which a cut is given in the article \"Oscilla\" in the\n    _Dict. of Antiquities_, seems to make it probable that\n    masks worn by rustics on these occasions were afterwards\n    hung by them on trees as _oscilla_. Some of these masks\n    on the cup are adorned with horns, which may explain an\n    interesting passage of Apuleius (_Florida_, i. 1):\n    \"neque enim iustius religiosam moram viatori obiecerit\n    aut ara floribus redimita ... aut quercus cornibus\n    onerata, aut fagus pellibus coronata,\" etc. See also\n    _Gromatici veteres_, ii. 241.\n\n    [129] See, however, Dr. Frazer's remarks in _G.B._ ii.\n    p. 454. He thinks that the air might in this way be\n    purged of vagrant spirits or baleful ghosts, as the\n    Malay medicine man swings in front of the patient's\n    house in order to chase away the disease. Cp. _G.B._ ii.\n    343, where a rather different explanation is attempted\n    of the _maniae_ and _pilae_.\n\n    [130] Magic in the old forms, or many of them, has\n    survived not only into the old Roman religion, but to\n    the present day, in many parts of Italy. \"The peasants\n    have recourse to the priests and the saints on great\n    occasions, but they use magic all the time for\n    everything,\" was said by a woman of the Romagna Toscana\n    to the late C.G. Leland (_Etruscan Roman Remains_,\n    Introduction, p. 9). This enterprising American's\n    remarkable book, though dealing only with a small region\n    of northern Italy, deserves more consideration than it\n    has received. The author may have been uncritical, but\n    beyond doubt he had the gift of extracting secrets from\n    the peasantry. He claims to have proved that \"la vecchia\n    religione\" contains much that has come down direct from\n    pre-Christian times; and the appearance of Mr. Lawson's\n    remarkable book on _Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient\n    Greek Religion_ may tempt some really qualified\n    investigator to undertake a similar work in Italy before\n    it is too late.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IV\n\nTHE RELIGION OF THE FAMILY\n\n\nSome of the survivals mentioned in the last two lectures seem to carry\nus back to a condition of culture anterior to the family and to the\nfinal settlement on the land. Some attempt has recently been made to\ndiscover traces of descent by the mother in early Latium;[131] if this\ncould be proved, it would mean that the Latins were already in Latium\nbefore they had fully developed the patriarchal system on which the\nfamily is based. However this may be, the first real fact that meets us\nin the religious experience of the Romans is the attitude towards the\nsupernatural, or \"the Power that manifests itself in the Universe,\" of\nthe family as settled down upon the land. The study of religion in the\nfamily, as we know it in historical times, is also that of the earliest\norganisation of religion, and of the most permanent type of ancient\nItalian religious thought. Aust, whose book on the Roman religion is the\nmost masterly sketch of the subject as yet published, writes thus of\nthis religion of the family:[132] \"Here the limits of religion and\nsuperstition vanish ... and in vain we seek here for the boundary marks\nof various epochs.\" By the first of these propositions he means that the\nState has not here been at work, framing a _ius divinum_, including\nreligion and excluding magic; in the family, magic of all kinds would be\nadmissible alongside of the daily worship of the family deities, and\nthus the family would represent a kind of half-way house between the age\nof magic and all such superstitions, and the age of the rigid\nregulation of worship by the law of a City-state. By the second\nproposition he means that the religious experience of the family is far\nsimpler, and therefore far less liable to change than that of the State.\nGreek forms and ideas of religion, for example, hardly penetrated into\nits worship:[133] new deities do not find their way in--the family\nexperience did not call for them as did that of the State. It may be\nsaid without going beyond the truth that the religion of the family\nremained the same in all essentials throughout Roman history, and the\ngreat priesthoods of the State never interfered with it in any such\ndegree as to affect its vitality.[134]\n\nBut in order to understand the religion of the family, we must have some\nidea of what the family originally was. When a stock or tribe\n(_populus_) after migration took possession of a district, it was beyond\ndoubt divided into clans, _gentes_, which were the oldest kinship\ndivisions in Italian society. All members of a clan had the same name,\nand were believed to descend from a common ancestor.[135] According to\nthe later juristic way of putting it, all would be in the _patria\npotestas_ of that ancestor supposing that no deaths had ever occurred in\nthe gens; and, indeed, the idea that the gens is immortal in spite of\nthe deaths of individuals is one which constitutes it as a permanent\nentity, and gives it a quasi-religious sanction. For primitive religion,\nas has been well said, disbelieves in death; most of the lower races\nbelieve both in a qualified immortality and in the non-reality or\nunnaturalness of death.[136] In regard to the kinship of a clan, death\nat any rate has no effect: the bond of union never breaks.\n\nNow a little reflection will show that a clan or gens of this kind might\nbe maintained intact in a nomadic state, or during any number of\nmigrations; it is, in fact, manifestly appropriate to such a mobile\ncondition of society, and expresses its natural need of union; and when\nthe final settlement occurs, this body of kin will hold together in the\nprocess, whether or no it has smaller divisions within it. We may be\ncertain that this was the one essential kin-division of the Latin stock\nwhen it settled in Latium, and all through Roman history it continues\nso, a permanent entity though families may die.[137] Every Roman lawyer\nwill recognise this fact as true, and I need not dwell on it now.\n\nIt is when the gens has settled upon the land that the family begins to\nappear as a fact of importance for our purpose. Such operations as the\nbuilding of a permanent house, the clearing and cultivation of a piece\nof land, can best be carried out by a smaller union than the gens, and\nthis smaller union is ready to hand in the shape of a section of the\ngens comprising the living descendants of a _living_ ancestor, whether\nof two, three, or even four generations.[138] This union, clearly\nvisible to mortal eye, and realisable in every-day work, settles\ntogether in one house, tends its own cattle and sheep, cultivates its\nown land with the help of such dependants as it owns, slave or other,\nand is known by the word _familia_. This famous word, so far as we know,\ndoes not contain the idea of kinship, at any rate as its leading\nconnotation; it is inseparable from the idea of land-settlement,[139]\nand is therefore essentially _das Hauswesen_, the house itself, with the\npersons living in it, free or servile, and with their land and other\nproperty, all governed and administered by the paterfamilias, the master\nof the household, who is always the oldest living male ancestor. The\nfamilia is thus an economic unit, developed out of the gens, which is a\nunit of kin and little more. And thus the religion of the familia will\nbe a religion of practical utility, of daily work, of struggle with\nperils to which the shepherd and the tiller of the soil are liable; it\nis not the worship of an idea of kinship expressed in some dimly\nconceived common ancestor; the familia, as I hope to show, had no common\nancestor who could be the object of worship, except that of the gens\nfrom which it had sprung. The life of the familia was a realisation of\nthe present and its needs and perils, without the stimulus to take much\nthought about the past, or indeed about the future; for it, sufficient\nfor the day was the evil thereof; for what had been and what was to come\nit could look to the gens to which it owed its existence. But in\npractical life the gens was not of much avail; and instead of it,\nexactly as we might expect, we find an artificial union of familiae, a\nunion of which the essential thing is not the idea of kin, but that of\nthe land occupied, and known all over Italy by the word _pagus_.[140]\nBefore I go on to describe the religion of the family, it is necessary\nto put the familia into its proper relation with this territorial union.\n\nThe pagus is the earliest Italian administrative unit of which we know\nanything; a territory, of which the essential feature was the boundary,\nnot any central point within the boundary. In all probability it was\noriginally the land on which a gens had settled, though settlement\nproduces changes, and the land of gens and pagus was not identical in\nlater times. But within this boundary line, of which we shall hear\nsomething more presently, how were the component parts, the familiae of\nthe gens, settled down on the land? Of the village community so familiar\nto us in Teutonic countries, there is no certain trace in Latium.\n_Vicus_, the only word which might suggest it, is identical with the\nGreek [Greek: oikos], a house; later it is used for houses standing\ntogether, or for a street in a town. But the vicus in the country has\nleft no trace of itself as a distinct administrative union like our\nvillage community; the vico-magistri of the Roman city were urban\nofficers; and what is more important, we know of no religious festivals\nof the vicus, like those of the pagus, of which there are well-attested\nrecords. The probability then is that the unit within the pagus was not\nthe village but the homestead, and that these stood at a distance from\neach other, as they do in Celtic countries, not united together in a\nvillage, and each housing a family group working its own land and owning\nits own cattle.[141] The question of the amount and the tenure of the\nland of this group is a very difficult one, into which it is not\nnecessary to enter closely here. There can, however, be no doubt that it\npossessed in its own right a small piece of garden ground (_heredium_),\nand also an allotment of land in the arable laid out by the settlers in\ncommon--_centuriatus ager_; whether the ownership of this was vested in\nthe individual paterfamilias or in the gens as a whole, does not greatly\nmatter for our purposes.[142] Lastly, as it is certain that the familia\nowned cattle and sheep, we may be sure that it enjoyed the right of\ncommon pasture on the land not divided up for tillage.\n\nWe see all this through a mist, and a mist that is not likely ever to\nlift; but yet the outlines of the picture are clear enough to give us\nthe necessary basis for a study of the religion of the familia. The\nreligious points, if I may use the expression--those points, that is,\nwhich are the object of special anxiety (_religio_)--lie in the\nboundaries, both of the pagus as a whole, and of the arable land of the\nfamilia, in the house itself and its free inhabitants, and in the family\nburying-place; and to these three may no doubt be added the spring which\nsupplied the household with water. Boundaries, house, burying-place,\nspring,--all these are in a special sense sacred, and need constant and\nregular religious care.\n\nLet us begin with the house, the central point of the economic and\nreligious unit. The earliest Italian house was little more than a\nwigwam, more or less round, constructed of upright posts connected with\nwattles, and with a closed roof of straw or branches.[143] This would\nseem to have been the type of house of the immigrating people who\nsettled on the tops of hills and lived a pastoral life; when they\ndescended into the plains and became a settled agricultural people, they\nadopted a more roomy and convenient style of building, suitable for\nstoring their grain or other products, and for the maintenance of a fire\nfor cooking these. Whether the rectangular house, with which alone we\nare here concerned, was developed under Greek or Etruscan influence, or\nsuggested independently by motives of practical convenience, is matter\nof dispute, and must be left to archaeologists to decide.[144]\n\nThis is the house in which the Latin family lived throughout historical\ntimes, the house which we know as the sacred local habitation of divine\nand human beings. It consisted in its simplest form, as we all know, of\na single room or hall, the atrium, with a roof open in the middle and\nsloping inwards to let the rain fall into a basin (_compluvium_). Here\nthe life of the family went on, and here was the hearth (_focus_), the\n\"natural altar of the dwelling-room of man,\"[145] and the seat of Vesta,\nthe spirit of the fire, whose aid in the cooking of the food was\nindispensable in the daily life of the settlers. This sacred hearth was\nthe centre of the family worship of later times, until under Greek\ninfluence the arrangement of the house was modified;[146] and we may be\ncertain that it was so in the simple farm life of early Latium. In front\nof it was the table at which the family took their meals, and on this\nwas placed the salt-cellar (_salinum_), and the sacred salt-cake, baked\neven in historical times in primitive fashion by the daughters of the\nfamily, as in all periods for the State by the Vestal virgins. After the\nfirst and chief course of the mid-day meal, silence was enjoined, and an\noffering of a part of the cake was thrown on to the fire from a small\nsacrificial plate or dish (_patella_).[147] This alone is enough to\nprove that Vesta, the spirit of the fire, was the central point of the\nwhole worship, the spiritual embodiment of the physical welfare of the\nfamily.\n\nBehind the hearth, _i.e._ farther at the back of the _atrium_, was the\n_penus_, or storing-place of the household. _Penus_ was explained by the\nlearned Scaevola[148] as meaning anything that can be eaten or drunk,\nbut not so much that which is each day set out on the table, as that\nwhich is kept in store for daily consumption; it is therefore in origin\nthe food itself, though in later times it became also the receptacle in\nwhich that food was stored. This store was inhabited or guarded by\nspirits, the _di penates_, who together with Vesta represent the\nmaterial vitality of the family; these spirits, always conceived and\nexpressed in the plural, form a group in a way which is characteristic\nof the Latins, and their plurality is perhaps due to the variety and\nfrequent change of the material of the store. The religious character of\nthe store is also well shown by the fact, if such it be, that no impure\nperson was allowed to meddle with it; the duty was especially that of\nthe children of the family,[149] whose purity and religious capability\nwas symbolised throughout Roman history by the purple-striped toga which\nthey wore, and secured also by the amulet, within its capsule the\n_bulla_, of which I spoke in the last lecture.\n\nVesta and the Penates represent the spiritual side of the material needs\nof the household; but there was another divine inhabitant of the house,\nthe Genius of the paterfamilias, who was more immediately concerned with\nthe continuity of the family. Analogy with the world-wide belief in the\nspiritual double of a man, his \"other-soul,\" compels us to think of this\nGenius, who accompanied the Latin from the cradle to the grave, as\noriginally a conception of this kind. The Latins had indeed, in common\nwith other races, what we may call the breath-idea of the soul, as we\nsee from the words _animus_ and _anima_, and also the shadow-idea, as is\nproved by the word _umbra_ for a departed spirit. But the Genius was one\nof those guardian spirits, treated by Professor Tylor as a different\nspecies of the same genus, which accompany a man all his life and help\nhim through its many changes and chances;[150] and the peculiarity of\nthis Latin guardian is that he was specially helpful in continuing the\nlife of the family. The soul of a man is often conceived as the cause of\nlife, but not often as the procreative power itself; and that this\nlatter was the Latin idea is certain, both from the etymology of the\nword and from the fact that the marriage-bed was called _lectus\ngenialis_. I am inclined to think that this peculiarity of the Latin\nconception of Genius was the result of the unusually strong idea that\nthe Latins must have had, even when they first passed into Italy, of\nkinship as determined not by the mother but by the father.[151] It is\npossible, I think, that the Genius was a soul of later origin than those\nI have just mentioned, and developed in the period when the gens arose\nas the main group of kinsmen real or imaginary. I would suggest that we\nmay see in it the connecting link between that group and the individual\nadult males within it; in that case the Genius would be that soul of a\nman which enables him to fulfil the work of continuing the life of the\ngens. We can easily imagine how it might eventually come to be his\nguardian spirit, and to acquire all the other senses with which we are\nfamiliar in Roman literature. With the development of the idea of\nindividuality, the individuality of a man as apart from the kin group,\nthe idea of the individuality of the Genius also became emphasised,\nuntil it became possible to think of it as even living on after the\ndeath of its companion;[152] in this way, in course of time, the Genius\ncame to exercise a curious influence on the idea of the Manes. The\nhistory of the idea of Genius, and its application to places, cities,\netc., is indeed a curious one, and of no small interest in the study of\nreligion; but we must return to the primitive house and its divine\ninhabitants. There is one more of these who calls for a word before I\npass to the land and the boundaries; we meet him on the threshold as we\nleave the dwelling.\n\nIt is, of course, well known to anthropologists that the door of a house\nis a dangerous point, because evil spirits or the ghosts of the dead may\ngain access to the house through it. Among the innumerable customs which\nattest this belief there are one or two Roman ones, _e.g._ the practice\nof making a man, who has returned home after his supposed death in a\nforeign country, enter the house by the roof instead of the door; for\nthe door must be kept barred against ghosts, and this man may be after\nall a ghost, or at least he may have evil spirits or miasma about\nhim.[153] It was at the doorway that a curious ceremony took place (to\nwhich I shall ask your attention again) immediately after the birth of a\nchild, in order to prevent Silvanus, who may stand for the dangerous\nspirits of the forest, from entering in and vexing the baby.[154] Again,\na dead man, as among so many other peoples, was carried out of the\ndoorway with his feet foremost, so that he should not find his way back;\nand the old Roman practice of burial by night probably had the same\nobject.[155] Exactly the same anxiety (_religio_) is seen in regard to\nthe gates of a city; the wall was in some sense holy (_sanctus_), but\nthe gates, through which was destined to pass much that might be\ndangerous, could not be thus sanctified. Was there, then, no protecting\nspirit of these doors and gates?\n\nSt. Augustine, writing with Varro before him, finds no less than three\nspirits of the entrance to a house: Forculus, of the door itself;\nLimentinus, of the threshold; and Cardea, of the hinges of the door; and\nthese Varro seems to have found in the books of the pontifices.[156] I\nmust postpone the question as to what these pontifical books really\nrepresented; but the passage will at least serve to show us the popular\nanxiety about the point of entrance to a house, and its association with\nthe spirit world. Of late sober research has reached the conclusion that\nthe original door-spirit was Janus, whom we know in Roman history as\nresiding in the symbolic gate of the Forum, and as the god of\nbeginnings, the first deity to be invoked in prayer, as Vesta was the\nlast.[157] But Janus is also wanted for far higher purposes by some\neminent Cambridge scholars; they have their own reasons for wanting him\nas a god of the sky, as a double of Jupiter, as the mate of Diana, and a\ndeity of the oak.[158] So, too, he was wanted by the philosophical\nspeculators of the last century B.C., who tried to interpret their own\nhumble deities in terms of Greek philosophy and Greek polytheism. The\npoets too, who, as Augustine says, found Forculus and his companions\nbeneath their notice, played strange tricks with this hoary old god, as\nany one may read in the first book of Ovid's _Fasti_. I myself believe\nthat the main features of the theology (if we may use the word) of the\nearliest Rome were derived from the house and the land as an economic\nand religious unit, and I am strongly inclined to see in Janus bifrons\nof the Forum a developed form of the spirit of the house-door; but the\nquestion is a difficult one, and I shall return to it in a lecture on\nthe deities of early Rome.\n\nSo far I have said nothing of the Lar familiaris who has become a\nhousehold word as a household deity; and yet we are on the point of\nleaving the house of the old Latin settler to look for the spirits whom\nhe worships on his land. The reason is simply that after repeated\nexamination of the evidence available, I find myself forced to believe\nthat at the period of which I am speaking the Lar was not one of the\ndivine inhabitants of the house. When Fustel de Coulanges wrote his\nbrilliant book _La Cite antique_, which popularised the importance of\nthe worship of ancestors as a factor in Aryan civilisation, he found in\nthe Lar, who in historical times was a familiar figure in the house, the\nreputed founder of the family; and until lately this view has been\nundisputed. But if my account of the relation of the family to the gens\nis correct, the family would stand in no need of a reputed founder; that\nsymbol of the bond of kinship was to be found in the gens of which the\nfamily was an offshoot, a cutting, as it were, planted on the land.\nStill more convincing is the fact that when we first meet with the Lar\nas an object of worship he is not in the house but on the land. The\noldest Lar of whom we know anything was one of a characteristic Roman\ngroup of which the individuals lived in the _compita_, _i.e._ the spots\nwhere the land belonging to various households met, and where there were\nchapels with as many faces as there were properties, each face\ncontaining an altar to a Lar,--the presiding spirit of that allotment,\nor rather perhaps of the whole of the land of the familia, including\nthat on which the house stood.[159] Thus the Lar fills a place in the\nprivate worship which would otherwise be vacant, that of the holding and\nits productive power. In this sense, too, we find the Lares in the hymn\nof the Arval Brethren, one of the oldest fragments of Latin we possess;\nfor the spirits of the land would naturally be invoked in the lustration\nof the _ager Romanus_ by this ancient religious gild.[160]\n\nBut how, it may be asked, did the Lar find his way into the house, to\nbecome the characteristic deity of the later Roman private worship\nthere? I believe that he gained admittance through the slaves of the\nfamilia, who had no part in the worship of the dwelling, but were\nadmitted to the Compitalia, or yearly festival of which the Lares of the\ncompita were the central object. Cato tells us that the vilicus, the\nhead of the familia of slaves, might not \"facere rem divinam nisi\nCompitalibus in compito aut in foco\";[161] which I take to mean that he\nmight sacrifice for his fellow-slaves to the Lar at the compitum, or to\nthe Lar in the house, if the Lar were already transferred from the\ncompitum to the house. In the constant absence of the owner, the\npaterfamilias of Rome's stirring days, the worship of the Lar at the\ncompitum or in the house came to be more and more distinctly the right\nof the vilicus and his wife as representing the slaves, and thus too the\nLar came to be called by the epithet _familiaris_, which plainly\nindicates that in his cult the slaves were included. And as it was the\nold custom that the slaves should sit at the meals of the family on\nbenches below the free members (_subsellia_),[162] what more natural\nthan that they should claim to see there the Lar whom alone of the\ndeities of the farm they were permitted to worship, and that they should\nbring the Lar or his double from the compitum to the house, in the\nfrequent absence of the master?[163]\n\nThe festival of the Lar was celebrated at the compitum, and known as\nCompitalia or Laralia; it took place soon after the winter solstice, on\na day fixed by the paterfamilias, in concert, no doubt, with the other\nheads of families in the pagus. Like most rejoicings at this time of\nyear, it was free and jovial in character, and the whole familia took\npart in it, both bond and free. Each familia sacrificed on its own\naltar, which was placed fifteen feet in front of the compitum, so that\nthe worshippers might be on their own land; but if, as we may suppose,\nthe whole pagus celebrated this rite on the same day, there was in this\nfestival, as in others to be mentioned directly, a social value, a means\nof widening the outlook of the familia and associating it with the needs\nof others in its religious duties. This is the _religio Larium_ of which\nCicero speaks in the second book of his _de Legibus_, which was \"posita\nin fundi villaeque conspectu,\" and handed down for the benefit both of\nmasters and men from remote antiquity.[164]\n\nThere were other festivals in which all the familiae of a pagus took\npart. Of these we know little, and what we do know is almost entirely\ndue to the love of the Augustan poets for the country and its life and\ncustoms; \"Fortunatus et ille deos qui novit agrestes,\" wrote Virgil,\ncontrasting himself with the philosopher poet whom he revered. Varro, in\nhis list of Roman festivals,[165] just mentions a festival called\nSementivae, associated with the sowing of the seed, and celebrated by\nall pagi, if we interpret him rightly; but Ovid has given us a charming\npicture of what must be this same rite, and places it clearly in winter,\nafter the autumn sowing[166]:--\n\n  state coronati plenum ad praesaepe iuvenci:\n    cum tepido vestrum vere redibit opus.\n  rusticus emeritum palo suspendit aratrum:\n    omne reformidat frigida volnus humus.\n  vilice, da requiem terrae, semente peracta:\n    da requiem terram qui coluere viris.\n  pagus agat festum: pagum lustrate, coloni,\n    et date paganis annua liba focis.\n  placentur frugum matres Tellusque Ceresque,\n    farre suo gravidae visceribusque suis.\n\nOvid may here be writing of his own home at Sulmo, and what took place\nthere in the Augustan age; but we may read his description into the\nlife of old Latium, for rustic life is tenacious of old custom,\nespecially where the economic conditions remain always the same. We may\ndo the same with another beautiful picture left us by Tibullus, also a\npoet of the country, which I have recently examined at length in the\n_Classical Review_.[167] The festival he describes has often been\nidentified with Ovid's, but I am rather disposed to see in it a\nlustratio of the _ager paganus_ in the spring, of the same kind as the\nfamous one in Virgil's first _Georgic_, to be mentioned directly; for\nTibullus, after describing the scene, which he introduces with the words\n\"fruges lustramus et agros,\" puts into perfect verse a prayer for the\nwelfare of the crops and flocks, and looks forward to a time when (if\nthe prayer succeeds) the land shall be full of corn, and the peasant\nshall heap wood upon a bonfire--perhaps one of the midsummer fires that\nstill survive in the Abruzzi. Virgil's lines are no less\npicturesque;[168] and though he does not mention the pagus, he is\nclearly thinking of a lustratio in which more than one familia takes\npart--\n\n  cuncta tibi Cererem pubes agrestis adoret.\n\nThis is a spring festival \"extremae sub casum hiemis, iam vere sereno\";\nand I shall return to it when we come to deal with the processional\nlustratio of the farm. Like the descriptions of Ovid and Tibullus, it is\nmore valuable to us for the idea it gives us of the spirit of old\nItalian agricultural religion than for exact knowledge about dates and\ndetails. There was, of course, endless variety in Italy in both these;\nand it is waste of time to try and make the descriptions of the rural\npoets fit in with the fixed festivals of the Roman city calendar.\n\nNor is it quite safe to argue back from that calendar to the life of the\nfamilia and the pagus, except in general terms. As we shall see, the\ncalendar is based on the life and work of an agricultural folk, and we\nmay by all means guess that its many agricultural rites existed\nbeforehand in the earlier social life; but into detail we may not\nventure. As Varro, however, has mentioned the Saturnalia in the same\nsentence with the Compitalia, we may guess that that famous jovial\nfestival was a part of the rustic winter rejoicing. And here, too, I may\nmention another _festa_ of that month, of which a glimpse is given us by\nHorace, another country-loving poet, who specially mentions the pagus as\ntaking part in it. Faunus and Silvanus were deities or spirits of the\nwoodland among which these pagi lay, and in which the farmers ran their\ncattle in the summer;[169] by Horace's time Faunus had been more or less\ntarred with a Greek brush, but in the beautiful little ode I am alluding\nto he is still a deity of the Italian farmer,[170] who on the Nones of\nDecember besought him to be gracious to the cattle now feeding\npeacefully on the winter pasture:--\n\n  ludit herboso pecus omne campo\n  cum tibi Nonae redeunt Decembres:\n  festus in _pratis_ vacat otioso\n      cum bove pagus.\n\nThere is one more rite of familia or pagus, or both, of which I must say\na word before I return for a while to the house and its inhabitants. One\nof the most important matters for the pagus, as for the landholding\nhousehold, was the fixing of the boundaries of their land, whether as\nagainst other pagi or households, or as separating that land from\nunreclaimed forest. This was of course, like all these other operations\nof the farm, a matter of religious care and anxiety--a matter in which\nthe feeling of anxiety and awe (_religio_) brought with it, to use an\nexpression of Cicero's, both _cura_ and _caerimonia_.[171] The _religio\nterminorum_ is known to us in some detail, as it existed in historical\ntimes, from the Roman writers on _agrimetatio_; and with their help the\nwhole subject has been made intelligible by Rudorff in the second volume\nof the _Gromatici_.[172] We know that many different objects might serve\nas boundary marks, according to the nature of the land, especially trees\nand stones; and in the case of the latter, which would be the usual\n_termini_ in agricultural land at some distance from forest, we have the\nreligious character of the stone and its fixing most instructively\nbrought out. \"Fruits of the earth, and the bones, ashes, and blood of a\nvictim were put into a hole in the ground by the landholders whose lands\nconverged at the point, and the stone was rammed down on the top and\ncarefully fixed.\"[173] This had the practical effect--for all Latin\nreligion has a practical side--of enabling the stone to be identified in\nthe future. But Ovid[174] gives us a picture of the yearly commemorative\nrite of the same nature, from which we see still better the force of the\n_religio terminorum_. The boundary-stone is garlanded, and an altar is\nbuilt; the fire is carried from the hearth of the homestead by a\nmaterfamilias, the priestess of the family; a young son of the family\nholds a basket full of fruits of the earth, and a little daughter shakes\nthese into the fire and offers honey-cakes. Others stand by with wine,\nor look on in silence, clothed in white. The victims are lamb and\nsucking-pig, and the stone is sprinkled with their blood, an act which\nall the world over shows that an object is holy and tenanted by a\nspirit.[175] And the ceremony ends with a feast and hymns in honour of\nholy Terminus, who in Ovid's time in the rural districts, and long\nbefore on the Capitolium of Rome, had risen from the spirit sanctifying\nthe stone to become a deity, closely connected with Jupiter himself, and\nto give his name to a yearly city festival on February 23.\n\nThese festivals on the land were, some of them at least, scenes of\nrevelry, accompanied with dancing and singing, as the poets describe\nthem, the faces of the peasants painted red with minium,[176] according\nto an old Italian custom which survived in the case of the triumphator\nof the glorious days of the City-state. But if we may now return for a\nmoment to the homestead, there were events of great importance to the\nfamily which were celebrated there in more serious and sober fashion,\nwith rites that were in part truly religious, yet not without some\nfeatures that show the prevailing anxiety, rooted in the age of taboo,\nwhich we learnt to recognise under the word _religio_. Marriage was a\nreligious ceremony, for we can hardly doubt that the patrician\n_confarreatio_, in which a cake made of the anciently used grain called\n_far_ was offered to Jupiter, and perhaps partaken of sacramentally by\nbride and bridegroom, was the oldest form of marriage, and had its\norigin in an age before the State came into being. We must remember that\nthe house was a sacred place, with religious duties carried on within\nit, and the abode of household spirits; and when a bride from another\nfamily or gens was to be brought into it, it was essential that such\nintroduction should be carried out in a manner that would not disturb\nthe happy relations of the human and divine inhabitants of the house. It\nwas essential, too, that the children expected of her should be such as\nshould be able to discharge their duties in the household without\nhurting the feelings of these spirits. Some of the quaint customs of the\n_deductio_ of later times strongly suggest an original anxiety about\nmatters of such vital interest; the torch, carried by a boy whose\nparents were both living, was of whitethorn (_Spina alba_), which was a\npowerful protective against hostile magic, and about which there were\ncurious superstitions.[177] Arrived at the house, the bride smeared the\ndoorposts with wolf's fat and oil, and wound fillets of wool around\nthem--so dangerous was the moment of entrance, so sacred the doorway;\nand finally, she was carried over the threshold, and then, and then\nonly, was received by her husband into communion of fire and water,\nsymbolic of her acceptance as materfamilias both by man and deity.[178]\n\nWhen the new materfamilias presented her husband with a child, there was\nanother perilous moment; the infant, if accepted by the father\n(_sublatus_, _i.e._ raised from the earth on which it had been\nplaced),[179] did not immediately become a member of the family in the\nreligious sense, and was liable to be vexed by evil or mischievous\nspirits from the wild woodland, or, as they phrased it in later days,\nby Silvanus. I have already alluded to the curious bit of mummery which\nwas meant to keep them off. Three men at night came to the threshold and\nstruck it with an axe, a pestle, and a besom, so that \"by these signs of\nagriculture Silvanus might be prevented from entering.\" The hostile\nspirits were thus denied entrance to a dwelling in which friendly\nspirits of household life and of settled agricultural pursuits had taken\nup their abode. Nothing can better show the anxiety of life in those\nprimitive times, especially in a country like Italy, full of forest and\nmountain, where dwelt mischievous Brownies who would tease the settler\nif they could. But on the ninth day after the birth (or the eighth in\nthe case of a girl) the child was \"purified\" and adopted into the family\nand its sacra, and into the gens to which the family belonged, and\nreceived its name--the latter a matter of more importance than we can\neasily realise.[180] From this time till it arrived at the age of\npuberty it was protected by amulet and _praetexta_; the tender age of\nchildhood being then passed, and youth and maiden endued with new\npowers, the peculiar defensive armour of childhood might be dispensed\nwith.[181]\n\nLastly, the death of a member of the family was an occasion of extreme\nanxiety, which might, however, be allayed by the exact performance of\ncertain rites (_iusta facere_). The funeral ceremonies of the City-state\nwere of a complicated character, and the details are not all of them\neasy to interpret. But the principle must have been always the\nsame--that the dead would \"walk\" unless they had been deposited with due\nceremony in the bosom of Mother Earth, and that their natural tendency\nin \"walking\" was to find their way back to the house which had been\ntheir home in life. Whether buried or burnt, the idea was the same: if\nburnt, as seems to have been common Roman practice from very early\ntimes, at least one bone had to be buried as representing the whole\nbody. We have seen that certain precautions were taken to prevent the\ndead man from finding his way back, such as carrying him out of the\nhouse feet foremost; and if he were properly buried and the house duly\npurified afterwards, the process of prevention was fairly complete. His\nghost, shade, or double then passed beneath the earth to join the whole\nbody of Manes in the underworld,[182] and could only return at certain\nfixed times--such at least was the idea expressed in the customs of\nlater ages. But if a paterfamilias or his representative had omitted\n_iusta facere_, or if the dead man had never been buried at all, carried\noff by an enemy or some wild beast, he could never have descended to\nthat underworld, and was roaming the earth disconsolately, and with an\nevil will. The primitive idea of anxiety is well expressed in the Roman\nfestival of the Lemuria in May, when the head of a household could get\nrid of the ghosts by spitting out black beans[183] from his mouth and\nsaying, \"With these I redeem me and mine.\" Nine times he says this\nwithout looking round: then come the ghosts behind him and gather up the\nbeans unseen. After other quaint performances he nine times repeats the\nformula, \"Manes exite paterni,\" then at last looks round, and the ghosts\nare gone.[184] This is plainly a survival from the private life of the\nprimitive household, and well illustrates its fears and anxieties; but\nthe State provided, as we shall see, another and more religious\nceremony, put limitations on the mischievous freedom of the ghosts, and\nordained the means of expiation for those who had made a slip in the\nfuneral ceremonies, or whose dead had been buried at sea or had died in\na far country.\n\nI have thus tried to sketch the life of the early Latin family in its\nrelations with the various manifestations of the Power in the universe.\nWe have seen enough, I think, to conclude that it had a strong desire to\nbe in right relations with that Power, and to understand its will; but\nwe may doubt whether that desire had as yet become very effective. The\ncircumstances of the life of the Latin farmer were hardly such as to rid\nhim of much of the _religio_ that he had inherited from his wilder\nancestors, or had found springing up afresh within him as he contended\nwith the soil, the elements, and the hostile beings surrounding him,\nanimal, human, and spiritual. He is living in an age of transition; he\nis half-way between the age of magic and a new age of religion and duty.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE IV\n\n    [131] Frazer, _Lectures on the Early History of the\n    Kingship_, lect. viii. Dr. Frazer finds traces of\n    Mutterrecht only in the succession to the kingship of\n    Alba and Rome, of which the evidence is of course purely\n    legendary. If the legends represent fact in any sense,\n    they point, if I understand him rightly, to a kingship\n    held by a non-Latin race, or, as he calls it, plebeian.\n    Binder, _Die Plebs_, p. 403 foll., believes that the\n    original Latin population, _i.e._ the plebs of later\n    times, lived under Mutterrecht.\n\n    [132] Aust, _Religion der Roemer_, p. 212.\n\n    [133] In historical times the household deities were\n    often represented by images of Greek type: _e.g._ the\n    Penates by those of the Dioscuri. Wissowa, _Rel. und\n    Kult._ p. 147, and _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 95\n    foll., and 289. See also De Marchi, _La Religione nella\n    vita privata_, i. p. 41 foll. and p. 90 foll.\n\n    [134] De Marchi, _op. cit._ i. 13 foll. In the ordinary\n    and regular religion of the family the State, _i.e._ the\n    pontifices, did not interfere; but they might do so in\n    matters such as the succession of _sacra_, the care of\n    graves, or the fulfilment of vows undertaken by private\n    persons. See Cicero, _de Legibus_, ii. 19. 47.\n\n    [135] Mucius Scaevola, the great lawyer, defined\n    _gentiles_ as those \"qui eodem nomine sunt, qui ab\n    ingenuis oriundi sunt, quorum maiorum nemo servitutem\n    servivit, qui capite non sunt deminuti,\" Cic. _Topica_,\n    vi. 29. This is the practical view of a lawyer of the\n    last century B.C., and does not take account of the\n    _sacra gentilicia_, which had by that time decayed or\n    passed into the care of _sodalitates_: Marquardt, p. 132\n    foll.; De Marchi, ii. p. 3 foll. The notion of descent\n    from a common ancestor is of course ideal, but none the\n    less a factor in the life of the gens; it crops up,\n    _e.g._, in Virgil, _Aen._ v. 117, 121, and Servius _ad\n    loc._\n\n    [136] Crawley, _The Tree of Life_, p. 47.\n\n    [137] For the alleged extinction of the gens Potitia,\n    and the legend connected with it, Livy i. 7, Festus 237.\n\n    [138] See Marquardt, _Privataltertuemer_, p. 56, and note\n    6.\n\n    [139] There is, I believe, no doubt that the\n    etymological affinities of the word _familia_ point to\n    the idea of settlement and not that of kin; _e.g._ Oscan\n    _Faama_, a house, and Sanscrit _dha_, to settle.\n\n    [140] The exact meaning and origin of the word has been\n    much discussed. It is tempting to connect it with _pax_,\n    _paciscor_, and make it a territory within whose bounds\n    there is _pax_; see Rudorff, _Gromatici veteres_, ii.\n    239, and Nissen, _Italische Landeskunde_, ii. 8 foll.\n\n    [141] See Rudorff, _Grom. vet._ ii. 236 foll.; Mommsen,\n    _Staatsrecht_, iii. 116 foll.; Kornemann in _Klio_, vol.\n    v. (1905) p. 80 foll.; Greenidge, _Roman Public Life_,\n    p. 1 foll.\n\n    [142] Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 22 foll.; Kornemann,\n    _l.c._; Roby in _Dict. of Antiquities_, _s.v._\n    \"Agrimetatio,\" p. 85. The view that there was freehold\n    garden land attached to the homestead gains strength\n    from a statement of Pliny (_N.H._ xix. 50) that the word\n    used in the XII. Tables for villa, which was the word in\n    classical times for the homestead, was _hortus_, a\n    garden, and that this was _heredium_, private property.\n    See Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 23. It would indeed be\n    strange if the house had no land immediately attached to\n    it; we know that in the Anglo-Saxon village community\n    the villani, bordarii and cotagii, had their garden\n    croft attached to their dwellings, apart from such\n    strips as they might hold from the lord of the manor in\n    the open fields. See Vinogradoff, _Villainage in\n    England_, p. 148. For the _centuriatus ager_, Roby\n    _l.c._ We have no direct knowledge of the system in the\n    earliest times, but it is almost certain that it was\n    old-Italian in outline, and not introduced by the\n    Etruscans, as stated, _e.g._, by Deecke-Mueller,\n    _Etrusker_, ii. 128.\n\n    [143] For Latium this is proved by the sepulchral\n    hut-urns found at Alba and also on the Esquiline. One of\n    these in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford shows the\n    construction well. See article \"Domus\" in Pauly-Wissowa,\n    _Real-Encyclopaedie_; Helbig, _Die Italiker in der\n    Poebene_, p. 50 foll. Later there was an opening in the\n    roof.\n\n    [144] Von Duhn in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1896,\n    p. 125 foll., and article \"Domus\" in Pauly-Wissowa.\n\n    [145] This is Aust's admirable expression, _Religion der\n    Roemer_, p. 214.\n\n    [146] See the author's _Social Life at Rome in the Age\n    of Cicero_, p. 242.\n\n    [147] Serv. _Aen._ i. 270; Marquardt, p. 126.\n\n    [148] _Ap. Gellium_, iv. 1. 17. For the sacredness of\n    food and meals, see below (Lect. VIII. p. 172).\n\n    [149] See a paper by the author in _Classical Rev._ vol.\n    x. (1896) p. 317, and references there given. Cp. the\n    passage of Servius quoted above (_Aen._ i. 730), where a\n    boy is described as announcing at the daily meal that\n    the gods were propitious. For the purity necessary I may\n    refer to Hor. _Odes_, iii. 23 _ad fin._, \"Immunis aram\n    si tetigit manus,\" etc.\n\n    [150] _Primitive Culture_, i. 393.\n\n    [151] The feminine counterpart of Genius was Juno, of\n    which more will be said later on. Each woman had her\n    Juno; but this \"other-soul\" has little importance as\n    compared with Genius.\n\n    [152] See J. B. Carter in Hastings' _Dict. of Religion\n    and Ethics_, i. 462 foll. For Genius in general, Birt in\n    _Myth. Lex._ s.v.; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 154 foll.;\n    Stewart, _Myths of Plato_, p. 450, for the connexion of\n    souls with ancestry.\n\n    [153] See the fifth of Plutarch's _Quaestiones Romanae_,\n    and Dr. Jevons' interesting comments in his edition of\n    Phil. Holland's translation, pp. xxii. and xxxv. foll.\n    Cp. the throwing the fetters of a criminal out by the\n    roof of the Flamen's house.\n\n    [154] _Civ. Dei_, vi. 9. These are deities of the\n    Indigitamenta; see below, p. 84.\n\n    [155] De Marchi, _La Religione_, etc. i. 188 foll.;\n    Marquardt, _Privatleben der Roemer_, p. 336, \"la porte\n    est la limite entre le monde etranger et le monde\n    domestique\" (A. van Gennep, _Rites de passage_, p. 26,\n    where other illustrations are given).\n\n    [156] See below, Lect. XII. p. 281.\n\n    [157] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 96; Aust, _Rel. der Roemer_, p.\n    117; Roscher in _Myth. Lex._ s.v. \"Janus\"; J. B. Carter,\n    _Religion of Numa_, p. 13. Cp. Von Domaszewski in\n    _Archiv_, 1907, p. 337.\n\n    [158] Frazer, _Lectures on the Early History of\n    Kingship_, p. 286 foll.; A. B. Cook in _Classical\n    Review_, 1904, p. 367 foll.\n\n    [159] _Gromat. vet._ i. 302, line 20 foll., describes\n    the chapels, but without mentioning the Lares. Varro\n    (_L.L._ vi. 25) supplies the name: \"Compitalia dies\n    attributus Laribus Compitalibus; ideo ubi viae competunt\n    tum in competis sacrificatur.\" Cp. Wissowa, _R.K._ p.\n    148. But the nature of the land thus marked off is not\n    clear to me, nor explained (for primitive times) by\n    Wissowa in _Real-Encycl._, _s.vv._ \"Compitum\" and\n    \"Compitalia.\"\n\n    [160] \"Enos Lases juvate.\" See Henzen, _Acta Fratr.\n    Arv._ p. 26 foll.\n\n    [161] Cato, _R.R._ 5. Cp. Dion. Hal. iv. 13. 2. In Cato\n    143 the vilica is to put a wreath on the focus on\n    Kalends, Nones and Ides, and to pray to the Lar\n    familiaris pro copia (at the compita?).\n\n    [162] Marquardt, _Privatleben_, p. 172.\n\n    [163] The controversy about the Lar may be read in the\n    _Archiv fuer Religionswissenschaft_, 1904, p. 42 foll.\n    (Wissowa), and 1907, p. 368 foll. (Samter in reply). De\n    Marchi (_La Religione_, etc. i. 28 foll.) takes the same\n    view as Samter, who originally stated it in his\n    _Familienfesten_, p. 105 foll., in criticism of\n    Wissowa's view. See also a note by the author in the\n    _Archiv_, 1906, p. 529.\n\n    [164] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 148; the details as to the\n    altar occur in _Gromatici vet._ i. 302. It was on this\n    occasion that _maniae_ and _pilae_ were hung on the\n    house and compitum (\"pro foribus,\" Macr. i. 7. 35); see\n    above, p. 61. For the _religio Larium_, Cic. _de Legg._,\n    ii. 19 and 27. That the Compitalia was an old Latin\n    festival is undoubted; but as we are uncertain about the\n    exact nature of the earliest form of landholding, we\n    cannot be sure about the nature of the compita in remote\n    antiquity. The passage from the _Gromatici_ (Dolabella),\n    quoted above, refers to the _fines templares_ of\n    _possessiones_, _i.e._ the boundaries marked by these\n    chapels in estates of later times. See Rudorff in vol.\n    ii. p. 263; Wissowa in Pauly-Wissowa, _s.v._ \"Compitum.\"\n\n    [165] Varro, _L.L._ vi. 26. I have discussed this\n    passage in _R.F._ p. 294; it is still not clear to me\n    whether Varro is identifying his Paganicae with the\n    Sementivae, but on the whole I think he uses the latter\n    word of a city rite (_dies a pontificibus dictus_), and\n    the former of the country festivals of the same kind.\n\n    [166] _Fasti_, i. 663.\n\n    [167] _Cl. Rev._, 1908, p. 36 foll.\n\n    [168] _Georg._ i. 338 foll.\n\n    [169] See my discussion of Faunus in _R.F._ p. 258 foll.\n    I am still unable to agree with Wissowa in his view of\n    Faunus (_R.K._ p. 172 foll.). I may here mention a\n    passage of the gromatic writer Dolabella (_Gromatici_,\n    i. 302), in which he says that there were three Silvani\n    to each _possessio_ or large estate of later times: \"S.\n    domesticus, possessioni consecratus: alter agrestis,\n    pastoribus consecratus: tertius orientalis, cui est in\n    confinio lucus positus, a quo inter duo pluresque fines\n    oriuntur.\" Faunus never became domesticated, but he\n    belongs to the same type as Silvanus. Von Domaszewski,\n    in his recently published _Abhandlungen zur roem.\n    Religion_, p. 61, discredits the passage about the three\n    Silvani, following a paper of Mommsen. But his whole\n    interesting discussion of Silvanus shows well how many\n    different forms that curious semi-deity could take.\n\n    [170] _Odes_, iii. 18.\n\n    [171] Cic. _de Inventione_, ii. 161.\n\n    [172] pp. 236-284.\n\n    [173] _R.F._ 325, condensed from Siculus Flaccus\n    (_Gromatici_, i. 141).\n\n    [174] _Fasti_, ii. 641 foll.\n\n    [175] See, _e.g._, Jevons, _Introduction_, etc., p. 138;\n    Robertson Smith, _Semites_, p. 321.\n\n    [176] See, _e.g._, Tibullus ii. 1. 55; Virg. _Ecl._ vi.\n    22, x. 27, and Servius on both these passages. Pliny,\n    _N.H._ xxxiii. 111; and cp. below, p. 177. For primitive\n    ideas about the colour red see Jevons, _Introd._ pp. 67\n    and 138; Samter, _Familienfeste_, p. 47 foll. Cp. also\n    the very interesting paper of von Duhn in _Archiv_,\n    1906, p. 1 foll., esp. p. 20: \"Es soll eben wirklich\n    pulsierendes kraftvolles Leben zum Ausdruck gebracht\n    werden.\" His conclusions are based on the widespread\n    custom of using red in funerals, coffins, and for\n    colouring the dead man himself: the idea being to give\n    him a chance of new life--which is what he wants--red\n    standing for blood.\n\n    [177] I am not sure that I am right in calling this\n    whitethorn. For the qualities of the _Spina alba_ see\n    Ovid, _Fasti_, vi. 129 and 165, \"Sic fatus spinam, quae\n    tristes pellere posset A foribus nexas, haec erat alba,\n    dedit.\" In line 165 he calls it _Virga Janalis_. See\n    also Festus, p. 289, and Serv. _ad Ecl._ viii. 29;\n    Buecheler, _Umbrica_, p. 136.\n\n    [178] The details are fully set forth in Marquardt,\n    _Roem. Privataltertuemer_, p. 52 foll. The religious\n    character of _confarreatio_ and its antiquity are fully\n    recognised by Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_,\n    p. 427. Some interesting parallels to the smearing of\n    the doorposts from modern Europe will be found collected\n    in Samter, _Familienfeste_, p. 81 foll. The authority\n    for the wolf's fat was Masurius Sabinus, quoted by\n    Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 142 (cp. 157), who adds from the\n    same author, \"ideo novas nuptas illo perungere postes\n    solitas, ne quid mali medicamenti inferretur.\" The real\n    reason was, no doubt, that it was a charm against evil\n    _spirits_, not against poison; but it is worth while to\n    quote here another passage of Pliny (xx. 101), where he\n    says that a squill hung _in limine ianuae_ had the same\n    power, according to Pythagoras. Some may see a\n    reminiscence of totemism in the wolf's fat: in any case\n    the mention of the animal as obtainable is interesting.\n\n    [179] Dieterich, _Mutter Erde_, p. 6 foll. The idea is\n    that the child comes from mother earth, and will\n    eventually return to her.\n\n    [180] For Roman names Marquardt, _Privatleben_, p. 7\n    foll., and Mommsen, _Forschungen_, i. I foll., are still\n    the most complete authorities. For the importance of the\n    name among wild and semi-civilised peoples, Frazer,\n    _G.B._ i. 403 foll.; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 430\n    foll. All these ceremonies of birth, naming, and\n    initiation (puberty) have recently been included by M.\n    van Gennep in what he calls _Rites de passage_ (see his\n    book with that title, which appeared after these\n    lectures were prepared, especially chapters v. and vi.).\n    In all these ceremonies he traces more or less\n    successfully a sequence of rites of separation (_i.e._\n    from a previous condition), of margin, where the ground\n    is, so to speak, neutral, and of \"aggregation,\" when the\n    subject is introduced to a new state or condition of\n    existence. If I understand him rightly, he looks on this\n    as the proper and primitive explanation of all such\n    rites, and denies that they need to be accounted for\n    animistically, _i.e._ by assuming that riddance of evil\n    spirits, or purification of any kind, is the leading\n    idea in them. They are, in fact, quasi-dramatic\n    celebrations of a process of going over from one status\n    to another, and may be found in connection with all the\n    experiences of man in a social state. But the Roman\n    society, of which I am describing the religious aspect,\n    had beyond doubt reached the animistic stage of thought,\n    and was in process of developing it into the theological\n    stage; hence these ceremonies are marked by sacrifices,\n    as marriage, the _dies lustricus_ (see De Marchi, p.\n    169, and Tertull. _de Idol._ 16) most probably, and\n    puberty (_R.F._ p. 56). I do not fully understand how\n    far van Gennep considers sacrifice as marking a later\n    stage in the development of the ideas of a society on\n    these matters (see his note in criticism of Oldenburg,\n    p. 78); but I see no good reason to abandon the words\n    purification and lustration, believing that even if he\n    is right in his explanation of the original\n    performances, these ideas had been in course of time\n    engrafted on them.\n\n    [181] In historical times the _toga pura_ was assumed\n    when the parents thought fit; earlier there may have\n    been a fixed day (_R.F._ p. 56, \"Liberalia\"). In any\n    case there was, of course, no necessary correspondence\n    between \"social and physical puberty\"; van Gennep, p. 93\n    foll.\n\n    [182] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 191; J. B. Carter in Hastings'\n    _Dict. of Religion and Ethics_, i. 462 foll.; Dieterich,\n    _Mutter Erde_, p. 77. The whole question of the\n    so-called cult of the dead at Rome calls for fresh\n    investigation in the light of ethnological and\n    archaeological research. The recent work of Mr. J. C.\n    Lawson, _Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek\n    Religion_, seems to throw grave doubt on some of the\n    most important conclusions of Rohde's _Psyche_, the work\n    which most writers on the ideas of the Greeks and Romans\n    have been content to follow. Mr. Lawson seems to me to\n    have proved that the object of both burial and cremation\n    (which in both peninsulas are found together) was to\n    secure dissolution for the substance of the body, so\n    that the soul might not be able to inhabit the body\n    again, and the two together return to annoy the living\n    (see especially chapters v. and vi.). But his answer to\n    the inevitable question, why in that case sustenance\n    should be offered to the dead at the grave, is less\n    satisfactory (see pp. 531, 538), and I do not at present\n    see how to co-ordinate it with Roman usage. But I find\n    hardly a trace of the belief that the dead had to be\n    placated like the gods by sacrifice and prayer, except\n    in _Aen._ iii. 63 foll. and v. 73 foll. In the first of\n    these passages Polydorus had not been properly buried,\n    as Servius observes _ad loc._ to explain the nature of\n    the offerings; the second presents far more difficulties\n    than have as yet been fairly faced.\n\n    [183] For recent researches about beans as tabooed by\n    the Pythagoreans and believed to be the food of ghosts,\n    see Gruppe, _Mythologische Literatur_, p. 370 (Samter\n    and Wuensch). Cp. _R.F._, p. 110.\n\n    [184] Ov. _Fasti_, v. 421 foll.; _R.F._ p. 107.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE V\n\nTHE CALENDAR OF NUMA\n\n\nThe religion of the household had two main characteristics. First, it\nwas a perfectly natural and organic growth, the result of the Roman\nfarmer's effective desire to put himself and his in right relations with\nthe spiritual powers at work for good or ill around him. His conception\nof these powers I shall deal with more fully in the next lecture; but I\nhave said enough to prove that it was not a degrading one. The spirits\nof his house and his land and his own Genius were friendly powers, all\nof them of the greatest importance for his life and his work, and their\nclaims were attended to with regularity and devotion. From Vesta and the\nPenates, the Lar, the Genius, the Manes, and the spirits of the doorway\nand the spring, there was nothing to fear if they were carefully\npropitiated; and as his daily life and comfort depended on this\npropitiation, they were really divine members of the _familia_, and\nmight become, and perhaps did become, the objects of real affection as\nwell as worship. In this well-regulated practical life of the early\nagricultural settlers, with its careful attention to the claims of its\ndivine protectors, we may perhaps see the germs of a real religious\nexpression of human life.\n\nSecondly, there was doubtless at the same time constant cause for\nanxiety. Beyond the house and the land there were unreclaimed spirits of\nthe woodland which might force an entrance into the sacred limits of the\nhouse; the ghosts of the dead members were constantly wishing to\nreturn; the crops might be attacked by strange diseases, by storms or\ndrought, and man himself was liable to seasonal disease or sudden\npestilence. The cattle and sheep might stray into the remote forest and\nbecome the prey of evil beasts, if not of evil spirits. How was the\nfarmer to meet all these troubles, caused, as he supposed, by spirits\nwhose ways he did not understand? How were they to be propitiated as\nthey themselves would wish? How were the omens to be interpreted from\nwhich their will might be guessed? How were the proper times and seasons\nfor each religious operation to be discovered? If my imagination is not\nat fault, I seem to see that the Latin farmer must have had to shift for\nhimself in most of his dealings with the supernatural powers about him;\n_religio_, the sense of awe and of dependence, must have been constantly\nwith him. But even here we may see, I think, a possible germ of\nreligious development; for without this feeling of awe religious forms\ntend to become meaningless: lull _religio_ to sleep, and the forms cease\nto represent effectively man's experience of life. We have to see later\non how this paralysis of the religious instinct did actually take place\nin early Roman history.\n\nFor we now have to leave the religion of the household, and to study\nthat of the earliest form of the City-state. We have enjoyed a glint of\nlight reflected from later times on the religion of the early Roman\nfamily, and are about to enjoy another glint--nay, a gleam of real\nlight, and not merely a reflected one--which the earliest religious\ndocument we possess casts on the religion of the City-state of Rome.\nBetween the two there is a long period of almost complete darkness. We\nknow hardly anything as yet, and it is not likely that we shall ever\nknow anything definite, about the stages of development which must have\nbeen passed before Rome became the so-called city of the Four Regions,\nwhen her history may be said really to begin. The pagus hardly helps us\nhere; it was not an essential advance on the family, and its religion\nwas comprehensive, not intensive. Each pagus, however, seems to have\nhad within its bounds an _oppidum_, or stronghold on a hill; and such\noppida were the seven _montes_ of early Rome, which, with the pagi\nbelonging to them, survived in name to the end of the Republic, with\nsome kind of a religious festival uniting them together, about which we\nhave hardly any knowledge.[185] This looks like a stage in the process\nof change from farm to city, and it has generally been believed to mark\none. Unfortunately nothing to our purpose can be founded on it. We must\nbe content with the undoubted fact that about the eighth or seventh\ncentury B.C. the site of Rome was occupied and strengthened as a bulwark\nagainst the Etruscan people who were pressing down from the north upon\nthe valley of the Tiber;[186] we may take it that the old central\nfortress of Latium, on the Alban hill, was not in the right position for\ndefence, and that it was seen to be absolutely necessary to make a\nstronghold of the position offered by the hills which abut on the river\ntwenty miles above its mouth--the only real position of defence for the\nLatin settlements in its rear. Here an _urbs_ was made with _murus_ and\n_pomoerium_, _i.e._ material and spiritual boundaries, taking in a space\nsufficient to hold the threatened rural population with their flocks and\nherds, with the river in the front and a common citadel on the\nCapitoline hill, and including the Palatine, Quirinal, Esquiline,\nCaelian and Aventine hills, though the last named remained technically\noutside the pomoerium.[187]\n\nIt is to this city that our earliest religious document, the so-called\nCalendar of Numa, belongs. That calendar includes the cult of Quirinus\non the hill which still bears his name, and that hill was an integral\npart of the city as just described. On the other hand, it tells us\nnothing of the great cult of the _trias_ on the Capitoline--Jupiter,\nJuno, Minerva--which by universal tradition was instituted much later by\nthe second Tarquinius, _i.e._ under an Etruscan dynasty; nor does Diana\nappear in it, the goddess who was brought from Latium and settled on the\nAventine before the end of the kingly period. We have, then, a\n_terminus ex quo_ for the date of the calendar in the inclusion in the\ncity of the Quirinal hill, and a _terminus ad quem_ in the foundation of\nthe Diana temple on the Aventine.[188] We cannot date these events\nprecisely; but it is sufficient for our purpose if it be taken as proved\nthat the Fasti belong to the fully developed city, and yet were drawn up\nbefore that conquest by the Etruscans which we may regard as a\ncertainty, and which is marked by the foundations of Etruscan masonry\nwhich served to support the great Capitoline temple. And this is also\nborne out by the undoubted fact that the calendar itself shows no trace\nof Etruscan influence. But I must now go on to explain exactly what this\ncalendar is.\n\nThe _Fasti anni Romani_ exist chiefly on stone as inscriptions, and date\nfrom the Early Empire, between 31 B.C. and A.D. 51. They give us, in\nfact, the calendar as revised by Caesar; but no one now doubts that\nMommsen was right in detecting in these inscriptions the skeleton of the\noriginal calendar which the Romans ascribed to Numa.[189] This is\ndistinguished from later additions by the large capital letters in which\nit is written or inscribed in all the fragments we possess; it gives us\nthe days of the month with their religious characteristics as affecting\nstate business, the names of the religious festivals which concern the\nwhole state, and the Kalends, Nones, and Ides in each month. Excluding\nthese last, we have the names, in a shortened form, of forty-five\nfestivals; and these festivals, thus placed by an absolutely certain\nrecord in their right place in each month and in the year, must be the\nfoundation of all scientific study of the religious practice of the\nRoman state, taken together with certain additions in smaller capitals,\nand with such information about them as we can obtain from literary\nsources.[190]\n\nThe smaller capitals give us such entries as _feriae Iovi_, _feriae\nSaturno_, _i.e._ the name of a deity to whom a festival was sacred, the\nfoundation days of temples, generally with the name of the deity in the\ndative and the position of the temple in the city, and certain _ludi_\nand memorial days, which belong to a much later age than the original\nfestivals. But the names of those which are inscribed in large letters\nbear witness beyond all question to their own antiquity; for among them\nthere is not one which has anything to do, so far as we know, with a\nnon-Roman deity, and we know that foreign deities began to arrive in\nRome before the end of the kingly period. Here, then, we have genuine\ninformation about the oldest religious doings of the City-state, in what\nindeed is, as Mommsen said, the most ancient source of our knowledge\nabout Roman antiquity generally.\n\nThe first point we notice in studying this calendar (putting aside for\nthe present the question as to the agency by which it was drawn up) is\nthis: it exactly reflects a transition from the life of a rural\npopulation engaged in agriculture, to the highly-organised political and\nmilitary life of a City-state. In other words, the State, whose\nreligious needs and experience it reflects, was one whose economic basis\nwas agriculture, whose life included legal and political business, and\nwhose activity in the season of arms was war.\n\nThis last characteristic is discernible chiefly, if not entirely, in the\nmonths of March and October; and the former of these bears the name of\nthe great deity, who, whatever may have been his origin or the earliest\nconception of him, was throughout Roman history the god of war. All\nthrough March up to the 23rd the Salii, the warlike priests of Mars,\nwere active, dancing and singing those hymns of which an obscure\nfragment has come down to us, and clashing and brandishing the sacred\nspears and shields of the god (_ancilia_).[191] On the 19th these\nancilia were lustrated--a process to which I shall recur in another\nlecture; and on the 23rd we find in the calendar the festival\nTubilustrium, which suggests the lustration of the trumpets of the host\nbefore it took the field. On the 14th of March,[192] and also on the\n27th of February, we find Equirria in the calendar, which must be\nunderstood as lustrations of the horses of the host, accompanied with\nraces. If we may take the ancilia as symbolising the arms of the host,\nwe see in the festivals of this month a complete religious process\npreparing the material of war for the perils inevitably to be met with\nbeyond the _ager Romanus_, whether from human or spiritual enemies; and\nthat the warriors themselves were subjected to a process of the same\nkind we know from the historical evidence of later times.[193] Now in\nOctober, when the season of arms was over, we find indications of a\nparallel process, which Wissowa was the first to point out clearly, but\nwithout fully recognising its religious import.[194] It was not so much\nthanksgiving (_Dankfest_) after a campaign that was necessary on the\nreturn of the army, as purification (or disinfection) from the taint of\nbloodshed, and from contact with strange beings human and\nspiritual.[195] On October 15, the Ides, there was a horse-race in the\nCampus Martius, with a sacrifice of the winning horse to Mars with\npeculiar primitive ritual; this, however, for some reason which I shall\npresently try to discover, was not embodied in the calendar under any\nspecial name. On the 19th, however, we find the entry ARMILUSTRIUM,\nwhich tells its own tale. The Salii, too, were active again in these\ndays of October, and on the day of the Armilustrium, as it would seem,\nput their shields away (_condere_) in their _sacrarium_ until the March\nfollowing. As Wissowa says, the ritual of the Salii is thus a symbolic\ncopy of the procedure of war.[196] From these indications in the\ncalendar, helped out by information drawn from the later entries and\nfrom literary evidence, we see quite plainly that we are dealing with\nthe religion of a state which for half the year is liable to be engaged\nin war. Rome was, in fact, a frontier fortress on the Tiber against\nEtruscan enemies; she is destined henceforward to be continually in\narms, and she has already expressed this great fact in her religious\ncalendar.\n\nThe legal and political significance of the calendar consists in the\ndivision of the days of the year into two great groups, _dies fasti_\nand _nefasti_: the former are those on which it is _fas_, _i.e._\nreligiously permissible, to transact civil business, the latter those on\nwhich it would be _nefas_ to do so, _i.e._ sacrilege, because they are\ngiven over to the gods. We need not, indeed, assume that these marks F\nand N descend in every case from the very earliest times into the\npre-Julian calendar, or that the few days which have other marks stood\noriginally as we find them; but of the primitive character of the main\ndivision we can have no doubt. In the calendar as we have it 109 days\nbelong to the divine, 235 to the human inhabitants of the city. All but\ntwo of the former are days of odd numbers in the month, and it is\nreasonable to suppose that these two exceptions were later alterations.\nThe belief that odd numbers are lucky is a very widely-spread\nsuperstition, and we do not need to have recourse to Pythagoras to\nexplain it; in this rule, as in others, _e.g._ their taboo on eating\nbeans, the Pythagoreans were only following a native prejudice of\nsouthern Italy. \"The idea of luck in odd numbers,\" says Mr. Crooke,[197]\nwriting of the Hindus, \"is universal.\" Thus the simpler odd numbers,\nthree, five, seven, and nine, all recur constantly in folklore; and the\nresult is visible in this calendar. Where a festival occupies more than\none day in a month, there is an interval between the two of one or three\ndays, making the whole number three or five. Thus Carmentalia occur on\n11th and 15th January, and the Lemuria in May are on the 9th, 11th, and\n13th; the Lucaria in July on 19th and 21st. In some months, too, _e.g._\nAugust and December, perhaps also July and February, there seem to be\ntraces of an arrangement by which festivals which probably had some\nconnection with each other are thus arranged; _e.g._ in August six\nfestivals, all concerned in some way with the fruits of the earth and\nthe harvest, occur on the 17th, 19th, 21st, 23rd, 25th, and 27th. It has\nrecently been suggested[198] that these are arranged round one central\nfestival, which gives a kind of colouring to the others, as the\nVolcanalia in August, the Saturnalia in December. But the reasons von\nDomaszewski gives for the arrangement, and the further speculation that\nwhere it does not occur we may find traces of an older system, as yet\nunaffected by the so-called Pythagorean prejudice, do not seem to me\nsatisfactory. We may be content with the general principle as I have\nstated it, and note that while religious duties _must_ be performed on\ndays of odd number, civil duties were not so restricted: the days\nbelonging to the gods, which were, so to speak, taboo days, were more\nimportant than those belonging to men. There are, as I have said, but\ntwo days marked in the large letters as festivals, which are on days of\neven number, 24th February and 14th March, the Regifugium and the second\nEquirria; and about these we know so little that it is almost useless to\nspeculate as to the reason for their exception from the rule. Two\nothers, 24th March and 24th May, were partly the property of the gods\nand partly of men, and are marked QRCF (_quando rex comitiavit fas_);\nbut the sense in which they partially belonged to the gods is not the\nsame as in the case of sacrificial festivals.\n\nThis calendar thus shows obvious signs of both military and political\ndevelopment; in other words, its witness to the religious experience of\nthe Romans proves that they had successfully adjusted the forms and\nseasons of their worship to the processes of government at home and of\nmilitary service in the field. But the most conspicuous feature in it is\nthe testimony it bears to the agricultural habits of the people--to the\nfact that agriculture and not trade, of which there is hardly a trace,\nwas the economic basis of their life. At the time when it was drawn up,\nthe Romans must have been able to subsist upon the _ager Romanus_,\nthough, as we shall see later on, it was probably not long before they\nbegan commercial relations with other peoples; for their food, which was\nalmost entirely vegetarian, and their clothing, which was entirely of\nwool and leather,[199] they depended on their crops, flocks, and herds;\nand the perils to which these were liable remain for the State, as for\nthe farming household, the main subject of the propitiation of the gods,\nthe main object of their endeavours to keep themselves in right relation\nwith the Power manifest in the universe.\n\nWe can trace the series of agricultural operations in the calendar\nwithout much difficulty all through the year. The Roman year, we must\nremember, began with March, and March, as we have seen, had under the\nmilitary necessities of the State become peculiarly appropriated to the\nreligious preparation of the burgher host for warlike activity. But the\nfestivals of April, when crops were growing, cattle bringing forth young\nor seeking summer pasture, all have direct reference to the work of\nagriculture.[200] At the Fordicidia, on the 15th, pregnant cows were\nsacrificed to the Earth-goddess, and their unborn calves burnt,\napparently with the object of procuring the fertility of the corn; and\nthe Cerealia on the 19th, to judge by the name, must have had an object\nof the same kind, though the supersession of Ceres by the Greek Demeter\nhad obscured this in historical times. The Parilia on the 19th, recently\nilluminated by Dr. Frazer,[201] was a lustration of the cattle and sheep\nbefore they left their winter pasture to encounter the dangers of wilder\nhill or woodland, and may be compared with the lustratio of the host\nbefore a campaign. On the 23rd the Vinalia tells its own tale, and shows\nthat the cultivation of the vine was already a part of the agricultural\nwork. On the 25th the spirit of the red mildew, Robigus, was the object\nof propitiation, at the time when the ear was beginning to be formed in\nthe corn, and was particularly liable to attack from this pest.\n\nThe religious precautions thus taken in April were not renewed in May;\nbut at the end of that month of ripening the whole of the _ager Romanus_\nwas lustrated by the Fratres Arvales. This important rite, for some\nreason which we cannot be sure of, was a movable feast, left to the\ndiscretion of the brethren, and therefore does not appear in the\ncalendar. In June the sacred character of the new crops, now approaching\ntheir harvest, becomes apparent; the _penus Vestae_, the symbolic\nreceptacle of the grain-store of the State, after remaining open from\nthe 7th to the 15th, was closed on that day for the rest of the year,\nafter being carefully cleansed: the refuse was religiously deposited in\na particular spot. Thus all was made ready for the reception of the new\ngrain, which, as is now well known, has a sacred character among\nprimitive peoples, and must be stored and eaten with precaution.[202]\nThis was the chief religious work of June; in July, the month when the\nharvest was actually going on, the festivals are too obscure to delay\nus; they seem to have some reference to water, rain, storms, but it is\nnot clear to me whether the object was to avert stormy weather during\nthe cutting of the crops, or, on the other hand, to avert a drought in\nthe hottest time of the year. The true harvest festivals begin in\nAugust; the Consualia on 21st and Opiconsiva on 25th both seem to\nsuggest the operation of storing up (_condere_) the grain, and between\nthem we find the Volcanalia, of which the object was perhaps to\npropitiate the fire-spirit at a time when the heat of the sun might be\ndangerous to the freshly-gathered crops.\n\nAfter the crops were once harvested, ploughing and sowing chiefly\noccupied the farming community until December; and as these operations\nwere not accompanied by the same perils which beset the agriculturist in\nspring and summer, they have left no trace in the calendar. Special\nreligious action was not necessary on their behalf. It is not till the\nautumn sowing was over, and the workers could rest from their labours,\nthat we find another set of festivals, of which the centre-point is the\nSaturnalia on the 17th, Saturnus being the deity, I think, both of the\noperation of sowing and of the sown seed, now reposing in the bosom of\nmother earth.[203] A second Consualia on the 15th, and the Opalia on the\n19th, like the corresponding August festivals, seem to be concerned with\nthe housed grain harvested in the previous August; I am disposed to\nthink that in all three we should see not only the natural rejoicing\nafter the labours of the autumn, but the opening of the granaries and,\nperhaps, the first eating of the grain. For on the Saturnalia there was\na sacrifice at Saturnus' altar, followed by a feast, which was\nafterwards Graecised, but doubtless originally represented the primitive\nfeasting of the farm, in which the whole familia took part. This brings\nus practically to the end of the agricultural year as represented in the\ncalendar; for spring sowing was exceptional, the joyful feasts of pagus\nand compitum are not to be found in our document, and the month of\nFebruary is specially occupied with the care and cult of the dead\n(_Manes_).\n\nAt this point I wish to notice one or two results of the adoption of a\nreligious calendar such as I have been describing, which are more to the\npurpose of these lectures than some of the details I have had to point\nout. First, let us remember that agricultural operations necessarily\nvary in date according to the season, and that most of the rural\nfestivals of ancient Italy were not fixed to a particular day, but were\n_feriae conceptivae_, settled perhaps according to the decision of some\nmeeting of heads of families or officers of a pagus. That this was so we\nmay conjecture from the fact that those which survived into historical\ntimes, _e.g._ Compitalia and Paganalia, and were celebrated in the city,\nthough not as _sacra pro populo_,[204] were of varying date. But all the\nfestivals of the calendar were necessarily fixed, and the days on which\nthey were held were made over to the gods. Now by being thus fixed they\nwould soon begin to get out of relation to agricultural life; just as,\nif the harvest festivals of our churches were fixed to one day\nthroughout the country, the meaning of the religious service would\nsooner or later begin to lose something of its force. And how much the\nmore would this be so if the calendar itself, from ignorance or\nmismanagement, began to get out of relation with the true season, as in\ncourse of time was frequently the case? When once under such\ncircumstances the meaning of a religious rite is lost, where is its\npsychological efficacy? In the life of the old Latin farmer, as we saw,\nhis religion was a reality, an organic growth, coincident at every point\nwith the perils he encountered in his daily toil; here, in the\nCity-state, it must from the beginning have had a tendency to become an\nunreality, and it ended by becoming one entirely. Some of the old rites\nmay have attached new meanings to themselves; it is possible, for\nexample, that beneath the military rites of March there was an original\nagricultural significance; the Saturnalia became a merry mid-winter\nfestival for a town population. But a great number wholly lost meaning,\nand were so forgotten or neglected in course of time that even learned\nmen like Varro do not seem to have been able to explain them. The only\npractical question about them for the later Romans was whether their\ndays were _dies fasti_ or _nefasti_ or _comitiales_,--what work might or\nmight not be done on them.\n\nAnother point, closely connected with the last, and tending in the same\ndirection, is that such a calendar as this implies rigidity and routine\nin religious duties. A well-ordered city life under a strong government\nmust, of course, be subject to routine; law, religious or civil, written\nor unwritten, forces the individual into certain stereotyped ways of\nlife, subjects him to a certain amount of wholesome discipline. The\nvalue of such routine to an undisciplined people has been well pointed\nout by Bishop Stubbs, in writing of the effect of the rule of the Norman\nand Angevin kings on the English people,[205] where it was also a\nreligious as well as a legal discipline that was at work. In neither\ncase was it the ignorant and superstitious routine of savage life, which\nof late years we have had to substitute for old fancies about the\nfreedom of the savage; it is the willing obedience of civilised man for\nhis own benefit. But if it means a routine of religious rites which are\nbeginning to lose their meaning; if the relation between them and man's\nlife and work is lost; and lastly, if, as was probably the case, the\nFasti were not published, but remained in the hands of a priesthood or\nan aristocracy,[206]--then there is serious loss as well as gain. You\nbegin sooner or later to cease to feel your dependence on the divine\nbeings around you for your daily bread, to get out of right relation\nwith the Power manifesting itself in the universe.\n\nBut, in the third place, we must believe that at first, and indeed\nperhaps for ages, this very routine had an important psychological\nresult in producing increased comfort, convenience, and confidence in\nthe Roman's relations with the divine inhabitants of his city. A certain\nnumber of deities have taken up their abode within the walls of the\ncity, and are as much its inhabitants, its citizens, as the human beings\nwho live there; and all the relations between the divine and human\ncitizens are regulated now by law, by a _ius divinum_, of which the\ncalendar is a very important part. _Religio_, the old feeling of doubt\nand scruple, arising from want of knowledge in the individual, is still\nthere; it is, in fact, the feeling which has given rise to all this\norganisation and routine, the _cura_ and _caerimonia_, as Cicero phrases\nit. But it must be already losing its strength, its life; it was, so to\nspeak, a constitutional weakness, and the _ius divinum_ is already\nbeginning to act on it as a tonic. Doubt has passed into fixed usage,\ntradition has given place to organisation. Time, place, procedure in all\nreligious matters, are guaranteed by those skilled in the _ius divinum_;\nthey know what to do as the festival of each deity comes round, and at\nthe right time and place they do it with scrupulous attention to every\ndetail. Thus the organisation of which the calendar is our best example\nwould have as its first result the destruction of fear and doubt in the\nmind of the ordinary Roman; it would tend to kill, or at least to put to\nsleep, the _religio_ which was the original motive cause of this very\norganisation. As the State in our own day has a tendency to relieve\nfamilies of such duties as the care and education of children, so the\nState at Rome relieved the family of constant anxiety about matters in\nwhich they were ever in danger from the spirit-world. The State and its\nauthorities have taken the whole responsibility of adjusting the\nrelations of the human and divine citizens.[207]\n\nEntirely in keeping with this psychological result of the calendar is\nthe fact, to which I have already alluded, that it supplies us with\nhardly any evidence of the existence of magic, or of those \"beastly\ndevices of the heathen\" which may roughly be included under that word;\nto use the language of Mr. Lang, we find none of those \"distressing\nvestiges of savagery and barbarism which meet us in the society of\nancient Greece.\" It is true enough that we do not know much about what\nwas done at the various festivals of the calendar, but what we do know,\nwith one or two exceptions, suggests an idea of worship as clean and\nrational as that of the Homeric poems, which stands in such striking\ncontrast to that reflected in later Greek literature.[208] When we do\nread of any kind of grossness in worship or the accompanying\nfestivities, it is almost always in the case of some rite which is _not_\namong those in the Fasti. Such was the old festival of Anna Perenna in\nMarch, where the plebs in Ovid's time spent the day in revelry and\ndrinking, and prayed for as many years of life as they could drink cups\nof wine. Such again was that of the October horse, when after a\nchariot-race in the Campus the near horse of the winning team was\nsacrificed, and his tail carried in hot haste to the Regia, where the\nblood was allowed to drip on the sacred hearth; while the head was the\nobject of a fight between the men of the Via Sacra and those of the\nSubura.[209] We may perhaps include in the list the ritual of the Argei,\nif it was indeed, as I believe, of great antiquity;[210] on May 15, as\nwe have seen, twenty-seven puppets of reeds or straw were thrown into\nthe Tiber from the _pons sublicius_, possibly with the object of\nprocuring rain for the growing crops. Let us also note that _dies\nreligiosi_ were not marked in the Fasti, _i.e._ days on which some\nuncomfortable feeling prevailed, such as the three days on which the\n_mundus_ was open to allow the Manes to come up from their shadowy abode\nbelow the earth; with the character of such days as \"uncanny\" the\ncalendar has simply nothing to do. It is a document of religious law,\nnot of _superstitio_, a word which in Roman usage almost invariably\nmeans what is outside that religious law, outside the _ius divinum_; and\nit is a document of _religio_ only so far as it is meant to organise and\ncarry out the _cura_ and _caerimonia_, the natural results of that\nfeeling which the Romans called _religio_. It stands on exactly the same\nfooting as the Law of the Israelites, which supplied them in full detail\nwith the _cura_ and _caerimonia_, and rigidly excluded all foreign and\nbarbarous rites and superstitions.\n\nI do not, of course, mean to say that the State did not recognise or\nallow the festivals which are not marked in the calendar; the pontifices\nand Vestals were present at the ceremony of the Argei, and the Regia was\nthe scene of a part of that of the October horse. But those who drew up\nthe calendar as the fundamental charter of the _ius divinum_ must have\nhad their reasons for the selection of forty-five days as made over to\nthe deities who were specially concerned with the State's welfare. And\non these days, so far as we know, there was a regular ordered routine of\nsacrifice and prayer, with but little trace of the barbarous or\ngrotesque. The ritual of the Lupercalia is almost a solitary exception.\nThe Luperci had their foreheads smeared with the blood of the victims,\nwhich were goats, and then this was wiped off with wool dipped in milk;\nafter this they were obliged to laugh, probably as a sign that the god\n(whoever he was) was in them, or that they were identified with\nhim.[211] They then girt themselves with the skins of the victims and\nran round the ancient pomoerium, striking at any women they met with\nstrips of the same victims in order to produce fertility. This was\nperhaps a rite taken over from aboriginal settlers on the Palatine, and\nso intimately connected with that hill that it could not be omitted from\nthe calendar. The ritual of the three days of Lemuria in May, when\nghosts were expelled from the house, as Ovid describes the process, by\nmeans of beans,[212] seems also to have been a reminiscence of ideas\nabout the dead more primitive than those which took effect in the more\ncheerful Parentalia of February: here again we may perhaps see a\nconcession to the popular tradition and prejudice of a primitive\npopulation. On the other hand, the revelry of the Saturnalia in\nDecember, of which Dr. Frazer has made so much in the second edition of\nthe _Golden Bough_,[213] is nothing more than the licence of the\npopulation of a great cosmopolitan city, an out-growth, under Greek\ninfluence, from the rude winter rejoicings of the farmer and his\n_familia_; and for his conjecture that a human victim was sacrificed on\nthis occasion in ancient Rome there is simply no evidence whatever.\nThere is, indeed, not a trace of human sacrifice at Rome so long as the\n_ius divinum_ was the supreme religious law of the State; in the whole\nRoman literature of the Republic hardly anything of the kind is alluded\nto;[214] it is only when we come to an age when the taste for bloodshed\nwas encouraged by the shows of the amphitheatre, and when the\nblood-loving religions of the East were pressing in, that we hear of\nhuman sacrifice, and then only from Christian writers, who would\nnaturally seize on anything that came to hand to hold up paganism to\nderision, without inquiring into the truth or the history of the alleged\npractice.[215]\n\nThus we may take it as highly probable that those who drew up the\ncalendar had the deliberate intention of excluding from the State\nritual, as far as was possible, everything in the nature of barbarism\nand magic. For the religious purposes of a people occupied in\nagriculture and war, and already beginning to develop some idea of law\nand order, there was no need of any religious rites except such as would\nserve, in decency and order, to propitiate the deities concerned with\nthe fertilisation of man, beast, and crop, and with the safety and\nefficacy of the host in its struggle with the enemies of the city. The\nRoman people grew up, in their city life as in the life of the family,\nin self-restraint, dignity, and good order, confident in the course of\n_cura_ and _caerimonia_, itself decent and stately, if soulless, which\nthe religious authorities had drawn up for them.\n\nWe should naturally like to know something about those authorities, who\nthus placed the religion of the State on a comparatively high level of\nritualistic decency, if not of theological subtlety. The Romans\nthemselves attributed the work to a priest-king, Numa Pompilius, and\nprobably their instinct was a right one. Names matter little in such\nmatters; but there is surely something in the universal Roman tradition\nof a great religious legislator, something too, it may be, in the\ntradition that he was a Sabine, a representative of the community on the\nQuirinal which had been embodied in the Roman city before the calendar\nwas drawn up, and of the sturdy, serious stock of central Italy, which\nretained its _virtus_ longer than any other Italian people.[216] We are\nquite in the dark as to all this, unless we can put any kind of\nconfidence in the traditional belief of the Romans themselves. But there\nis one point on which I should like to make a suggestion--a new one so\nfar as I know. Numa was said to have been the first Flamen Dialis; but\nthat is absolutely impossible, for the ancient taboos on that priesthood\nwould have made it impossible for him to become supreme legislator.\nEvidently this Flamen, who could hardly leave his own house, might never\nleave the city, and was at every turn hedged in by restrictions on his\nactivity, was a survival of those magician-kings who make rain and do\nother useful things, but would lose their power if they were exposed to\ncertain contingencies; the number of possible contingencies increases\ntill the unfortunate owner of the powers becomes powerless by virtue of\nthe care so painfully taken of him.[217] The priest of Jupiter and his\ntaboos carry us back, beyond a doubt, into the far-away dim history of\nprimitive Latium. By the time the eternal city was founded on the Tiber,\nhe must have been already practically obsolete. My suggestion is that he\nis the representative in the Roman religious system of another and more\nprimitive system which existed in Latium, probably at Alba, where\nJupiter was worshipped on the mountain from time immemorial. When the\nstrength of Latium was concentrated at the best strategical point on the\nTiber, the priest of Jupiter was transferred to the new city, because he\nwas too \"precious\" to be left behind, though even then a relic of\nantiquity. There he became what he was throughout Roman history, a\npractically useless personage, about whom certain sacred traditions had\ngathered, but placed in complete subjection to the new legal and\nreligious king, and afterwards to the Pontifex maximus.[218]\n\nIf there be any truth in this--and I believe it to be a legitimate\ninference from the legal position of this Flamen, and his permanent\nstate of taboo--then I think we may see a great religious change in the\nera of the \"calendar of Numa.\" Inspired with new ideas of the duty and\ndestiny of the new city of the four regions, a priest-king, doubtless\nwith the help and advice of a council, according to the true Roman\nfashion, put an end for ever to the reign of the old magician-kingship,\nbut preserved the magician-king as a being still capable of\nwonder-working in the eyes of the people. As religious law displaced\nmagic in the State ritual, so the new kings, with their collegia of\nlegal priests, pontifices and augurs, neutralised and gradually\ndestroyed the prestige of the effete survivor of an age of barbarism.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE V.\n\n    [185] Kornemann, _op. cit._ p. 87; Wissowa, _Gesammelte\n    Abhandlungen_, p. 230 foll.; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_,\n    iii. p. 790, note 1. For the festival of the\n    Septimontium, Varro, _L.L._ vi. 24; Plutarch, _Quaest.\n    Rom._ 69; Fowler, _R.F._ p. 265 foll. This festival does\n    not appear in the calendar, as not being \"feriae populi,\n    sed montanorum modo\" (Varro, _l.c._). There are some\n    interesting remarks on the relation between agricultural\n    life and the origin of towns in von Jhering's _Evolution\n    of the Aryan_ (Eng. trans.), p. 86 foll., with special\n    reference to Rome.\n\n    [186] Von Duhn in _J.H.S._ xvi. 126 foll. The latest\n    research (Korte in Pauly-Wissowa, _s.v._ \"Etrusker,\" p.\n    747) concludes that the arrival of the Etruscans on the\n    west coast of Italy cannot be safely put earlier than\n    the eighth century.\n\n    [187] Huelsen-Jordan, _Rom. Topogr._ iii. 153. In a brief\n    but masterly paper in the publications of the _American\n    School at Rome_, 1908, p. 173 foll., J. B. Carter deals\n    with the whole problem of the pomoerium and the\n    pre-Servian city.\n\n    [188] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 27.\n\n    [189] In _C.I.L._ i.^2, p. 297 foll. See _R.F._ p. 14\n    foll.\n\n    [190] See the Fasti in _R.F._ p. 21 foll.; or in\n    Wissowa, _R.K._, at end of the book.\n\n    [191] _R.F._ p. 38 foll. Marindin's article \"Salii,\"\n    _Dict. of Antiqq._, is very useful and sensible. There\n    is little doubt that the dress and armour of the Salii\n    represented that of the primitive Latin warrior,\n    calculated to frighten away evil spirits as well as\n    enemies, and that their dances in procession had some\n    object of this kind. It is noticeable that there were\n    two gilds or collegia of them belonging to the Palatine\n    and Quirinal cities respectively; and they are also\n    found at Tibur, Alba, Lanuvium, and other Latin cities.\n\n    [192] Or 15th (Ides), according to the conjecture of\n    Wissowa; see _R.F._ p. 44 and _R.K._ p. 131. It is\n    almost incredible that this should originally have been\n    on a day of even number, contrary to the universal rule\n    of the Fasti.\n\n    [193] See below, p. 212 foll., for further consideration\n    of this so-called purification.\n\n    [194] _R.K._ p. 131.\n\n    [195] See below, p. 217.\n\n    [196] _R.K._ p. 131.\n\n    [197] _Popular Religion and Folklore of India_, ii. 51.\n    For the sacredness of the number three and its\n    multiples, see Diels, _Sibyllinische Blaetter_, p. 40\n    foll.; but he limits it too much to chthonic religious\n    ritual. See also H. Usener, \"Dreizahl,\" in _Rheinisches\n    Museum_, vol. 58, pp. 1 foll., 161 foll., and 321 foll.\n    There is a summary of the results of these papers in\n    Gruppe's _Mythologische Literatur_, 1898-1905, p. 360\n    foll. I may also refer to my friend Prof. Goudy's very\n    interesting _Trichotomy in Roman Law_ (Oxford, 1910), p.\n    8 foll.\n\n    [198] By von Domaszewski in _Archiv_ for 1907, p. 333\n    foll. The learned author's reasoning is often based on\n    mere hypotheses as to the meaning of the festivals or\n    the gods concerned in them, and his ideas as to the\n    agricultural features of the months July, August,\n    December seem to me doubtful; but the paper is one that\n    all students of the calendar must reckon with.\n\n    [199] Marquardt, _Privatleben_, pp. 459 and 569 foll.\n\n    [200] For the festivals mentioned in the following\n    paragraphs see _R.F._, _s.v._, and Wissowa, _R.K._,\n    section 63.\n\n    [201] \"St. George and the Parilia,\" in _Revue des etudes\n    ethnographiques et sociologiques_ for Jan. 1908. I owe\n    my knowledge of this admirable study to the kindness of\n    its author.\n\n    [202] Frazer, _G.B._ ii. 318 foll.\n\n    [203] Varro, _L.L._ v. 64, says, \"Ab _satu_ dictus\n    Saturnus.\" And in Augustine (_Civ. Dei_, vi. 8) he is\n    quoted as holding the opinion \"quod pertineat Saturnus\n    ad semina, quae in terram de qua oriuntur iterum\n    recidunt.\" He was probably the _numen_ of the\n    seed-sowing (Saeturnus), and as his festival comes\n    after the end of sowing, we may presume that he was the\n    _numen_ of the sown as well as of the unsown seed. In\n    the article \"Saturnus\" in Roscher's _Lexicon_, which has\n    appeared since the above note was written, Wissowa\n    provisionally accepts Varro's etymology.\n\n    [204] Festus, p. 245a, \"Publica sacra quae publico\n    sumptu pro populo fiunt, quaeque pro montibus, pagis,\n    curiis, sacellis.\" See article \"Sacra\" in _Dict. of\n    Antiqq._ ii. 577.\n\n    [205] \"Routine is the only safeguard of a people under a\n    perfect autocracy\" (_Select Charters_, Introduction, p.\n    19).\n\n    [206] The annalists believed that the publication first\n    took place in the year 304 B.C.: Livy ix. 46. Mommsen\n    (_Chronologie_, p. 31) thought it possible that it had\n    already been done by the Decemvirs in one of the two\n    last of the XII. Tables, but again withdrawn. The object\n    of keeping the Fasti secret was, of course, to control\n    the times available for legal and political business.\n\n    [207] This paragraph is abridged from a passage in the\n    author's paper in the _Hibbert Journal_ for 1907, p.\n    848.\n\n    [208] See _Anthropology and the Classics_ (Oxford,\n    1908), p. 44.\n\n    [209] _R.F._ p. 241 foll.\n\n    [210] Wissowa holds that it dates from the third century\n    B.C.: Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._, _s.v._ \"Argei.\" I\n    endeavoured to refute this view in the _Classical\n    Review_ for 1902, p. 115 foll., and Dr. Wissowa\n    criticised my criticism in his _Gesammelte\n    Abhandlungen_, p. 222. It is dealt with at length in\n    _R.F._ p. 111 foll. See below, p. 321 foll.\n\n    [211] This is not exactly the view expressed in _R.F._\n    p. 315 foll., where I was inclined to adopt that of\n    Mannhardt that the laughing symbolised the return to\n    life after sacrificial death. I am now disposed to think\n    of it as parallel with the ecstasy of the Pythoness and\n    other inspired priests, or the shivering and convulsive\n    movements which denote that a human being is \"possessed\"\n    by a god or spirit. See Jevons, _Introduction_, p. 174.\n    Mannhardt's view seems, however, to gain support from\n    Pausanias' description of the ordeal he underwent\n    himself at the cave of Trophonius, after which he could\n    laugh again: Paus. ix. 39. See also Miss Harrison,\n    _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, p. 580.\n    Deubner in _Archiv_, 1910, p. 501.\n\n    [212] _R.F._ p. 109; Ov. _Fasti_, v. 421 foll. Ovid's\n    account is of a private rite in the house, as elsewhere\n    he tells us of things done by private persons on\n    festival days. We do not know whether there was any\n    public ritual for these days. For further discussion of\n    the contrast between the two festivals of the dead, see\n    below, Lect. XVII. p. 393.\n\n    [213] _G.B._ iii. 138 foll. The attempt to connect the\n    so-called Saturnalia of the army of the Danube in the\n    third century A.D. with the early practice of Roman\n    Saturnalia seems to me to fail entirely, even after\n    reading Prof. Cumont's paper in the _Revue de\n    philologie_, 1897, p. 133 foll. I should imagine that\n    Cumont would now admit that the Saturn who was\n    sacrificed on the Danube as described in the _Martyrdom\n    of St. Dasius_ must have been of Oriental origin, and\n    that the soldiers concerned were in no sense Roman or\n    Italian. For the hellenisation of the Saturnalia, see\n    Wissowa in Roscher's _Lexicon_, _s.v._ \"Saturnus,\" p.\n    432. Wissowa, I may note, does not believe in the\n    accuracy of the account of the \"Martyrdom.\"\n\n    [214] Nothing, that is, in the regular ritual of the\n    Roman State--except in so far as the killing of a\n    criminal who was _sacer_ to a god can be so regarded;\n    and the only instance of any kind that can be quoted is\n    that of the two pairs of Gaulish and Greek men and women\n    who in the stress of the second Punic war and afterwards\n    were buried alive, as it was said, in the Forum Boarium.\n    Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 355 and notes. I shall return to this\n    in Lecture XIV.\n\n    [215] The earliest mention of the slaying of a victim\n    (_bestiarius_) to Jupiter is in Minucius Felix, _Octav._\n    22 and 30, _i.e._ towards the end of the second century\n    A.D. or even later. Cp. Tertull. _Apol._ 9, Lactantius\n    i. 21. I do not go so far as to say with Wissowa (p.\n    109, note 3) that this story is \"ganz gewiss apokryph,\"\n    but I take it as simply a case of degeneracy under the\n    influence of the amphitheatre and of Orientalism.\n\n    [216] For Numa see Schwegler, _Rom. Gesch._ i. 551 foll.\n\n    [217] See Dr. Frazer's most recent account of this\n    subject, in his _Lectures on the Early History of the\n    Kingship_, chaps, iii.-v. Prof. Ridgeway's idea that the\n    Flamen Dialis was really a Numan institution is of\n    course simply impossible, and the arguments he founds on\n    it fall to the ground. Ovid, probably reflecting Varro,\n    speaks of the Flamen Dialis as belonging to the\n    Pelasgian religion, which at least means that he was\n    aware of the extreme antiquity of the office; _Fasti_,\n    ii. 281. Dr. Doellinger (_The Gentile and the Jew_, vol.\n    ii. p. 72) with his usual insight was inclined to see\n    in this Flamen the \"ruins of an older system of\n    ceremonial ordinances.\"\n\n    [218] He was _sui iuris_ (Gaius i. 130), as soon as he\n    was chosen or taken (_captus_) by the Pontifex maximus;\n    but he was subject to the authority of the P.M., like\n    all the other flamines and the Vestals. See Wissowa,\n    _R.K._ p. 438; Tac. _Ann._ iv. 16.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VI\n\nTHE DIVINE OBJECTS OF WORSHIP\n\n\nWe must now turn our attention to what is the most difficult part of our\nsubject, the ideas of the early Romans about \"the Power manifesting\nitself in the universe.\" In my first lecture I indicated in outline what\nthe difficulties are which beset us all through our studies; they are in\nno part of it so insurmountable as in this. Material fails us, because\nthere was no contemporary literature; because the Romans were not a\nthinking people, and probably thought very little about the divine\nbeings whom they propitiated; and again, because comparative religion,\nas it is called, is of scant value in such a study. We have to try and\nget rid of our own ideas about God or gods, to keep our minds free of\nGreek ideas and mythology, and, in fact, to abstain from bringing the\nideas of any other peoples to bear upon the question until we are pretty\nsure that we have some sort of understanding of those Roman ideas with\nwhich we are tempted to compare them. The first duty of the student of\nany system of religion is to study that religion in and by itself. As M.\nS. Reinach observed in an address at the Congress for the History of\nReligions at Oxford, it is time that we began to attend to differences\nas well as similarities; and this can only be done by the conscientious\nuse of such materials as are available for the study of each particular\nreligion.\n\nThe only materials available in the case of the earliest Rome are (1)\nthe calendar which I was explaining in the last lecture, which gives us\nthe names of the festivals of the religious year; (2) the names of the\ndeities concerned in these festivals, so far as we know them from later\nadditions to the calendar, from Roman literature, and from evidence,\nchiefly epigraphical, of the names of deities among kindred Italian\npeoples; (3) the fragments of information, now most carefully collected\nand sifted, about what the Romans did in the worship of their deities.\nThe names and order of the festivals, the names of the deities\nthemselves, the cult, or detail of worship, including priesthoods and\nholy places,--these are the only real materials we possess, and our only\nsafe guides. To trust to legends is fatal, because such legends as there\nwere in Italy were never written down until the Greeks turned their\nattention to them, colouring them with their own fancy and with\nreminiscences of their own mythology. For example, no sane investigator\nwould now make use of the famous story told by Ovid and Plutarch about\nNuma's interview with Jupiter, and the astute way in which he deceived\nthe god, as an illustration of the Roman's ideas of the divine; we know\nthat it can be traced back to the greatest liar among all Roman\nannalists,[219] that it was in part derived from a Greek story, and in\npart invented to explain a certain piece of ritual, the _procuratio\nfulminis_. Even what was done in the cult must be handled with knowledge\nand discretion. Dr. Frazer has a theory that the Roman kings personated\nJupiter, and uses as evidence of this the fact that in the triumph the\ntriumphator was dressed after the fashion of the statue of the god in\nthe Capitoline temple, with his face reddened with _minium_: forgetting\nthat the temple, its cult and its statue, all date from the very end of\nthe period of the kingship, and were the work of an Etruscan monarch,\nalmost beyond doubt. There may be truth in his theory, but this is not\nthe way to prove it; this is not the way to arrive at a true\nunderstanding of Roman religious ideas.\n\nWhat did the old Romans know about the nature of the objects of their\nworship? All religion is in its development a process of gaining such\nknowledge: if it makes no progress it is doomed. It is because the Jews\nmade such wonderful progress in this path, in spite of formalism and\nbacksliding, that they were chosen to produce a Teacher whose life and\ndoctrine revealed the will and the nature of His Father for the eternal\nbenefit of mankind. The fear of the Lord is imperfect knowledge, it is\nbut the beginning of wisdom; but it could become, in a Jew like St.\nPaul, the perfect knowledge of His will. It may seem absurd to think of\ntwo such religions as the Jewish and the Roman side by side; but the\nabsurdity vanishes when we begin to understand the humble beginnings of\nthe Jewish religion as scientific research has already laid it bare.\nKnowledge of the Power manifesting itself in the universe is open to all\npeoples alike, and some few have made much progress in it beside the\nJews. The Romans were not among these, at any rate in all the later\nstages of their history; but we have to ask how far they got in the\nprocess, and later on again to ask also why they could go no\nfarther.[220]\n\nWe have seen how one great forward step in the attainment of this\nknowledge was made in the religion of the household, when the house had\nbecome a kind of temple, being the dwelling of divine as well as human\nbeings, and when the cultivated land had been separated by a sacred\nboundary from the mountain or forest beyond, with their wild and unknown\nspiritual inhabitants. We met, however, with nothing in the house or on\nthe land that we can properly call a god, if we may use that word for\nthe moment in the sense of a personality as well as a name, and a\npersonality perfectly distinct from the object in which it resides.\nVesta seems to be the fire, Penates the store, or at least spirits\nundistinguishable from the substance composing the store. But inasmuch\nas the farmer knew how to serve these spirits and address them, looking\nupon them as friends and co-habitants of his own dwelling, we may go so\nfar as to guess that they were somewhat advanced in their career as\nspirits, and might possibly develop into powers of a more definite kind,\nif not into gods, real _dei_ conceived as persons.[221] In other\nwords--for it is better to keep as far as we can to the subjective or\npsychological aspect of them--the Roman might realise the Power better\nby getting to think of his nameless spirits as _dei_ at work for his\nbenefit if rightly propitiated. There are some signs in the calendar and\nthe other sources I mentioned just now that such a process had been\ngoing on before the State arose; and it is certain that the whole field\nof divine operation had been greatly widened by that time, as we might\nexpect from the enlarged sphere of man's experience and activity.\n\nThe deities originally belonging to the city of the four regions, _i.e._\nto the city of the calendar of Numa, were known to Roman antiquarians as\n_di indigetes_, in contra-distinction from the _di novensiles_ or\nimported deities, with which at present we have nothing to do. On the\nbasis of the calendar, and of the names of the most ancient priesthoods\nattached to particular cults, the Rex and the Flamines, Wissowa (_R.K._\np. 16) has constructed a list of these _di indigetes_ which may be\naccepted without any further reservation than he himself applies to it.\nThey are thirty-three in number, but in two cases we have groups instead\nof individuals, viz. the Lares and the Lemures: the plurality of the\nLares (_compitales_) we have already explained, and the Lemures, the\nghosts of departed ancestors, we may also for the present leave out of\naccount. Others are too obscure to help us, _e.g._ Carna, Angerona,\nFurrina, Neptunus, Volturnus,[222] except in so far as their very\nobscurity, and the neglect into which they and their cults fell in later\ntimes, is proof that they were not thought of as lively personal\ndeities. Then, again, there are others whose names are suggested by\ncertain festivals, Terminus, Fons, Robigus, who seem to be simply\nsurvivals from the animistic period--spirits inherent in the\nboundary-stone, the spring, or the mildew, and incapable of further\ndevelopment in the new conditions of city life. Faunus, the rural\nsemi-deity, perhaps representing a group of such beings, appears in the\nlist as the deity of the Lupercalia; but this is a point in which I\ncannot agree with Wissowa and the majority of modern authorities.[223]\n\nWe are struck, as we examine the list further, by the adjectival\ncharacter of many of the names--Neptunus, Portunus, Quirinus, Saturnus,\nVolcanus, Volturnus: these are not proper names, but clearly express\nsome character or function exercised by the power or _numen_ to whom the\nname is given. Saturnus is the most familiar example; the word suggests\nno personality, but rather a sphere of operations (whether we take the\nname as referring to sowing or to seed maturing in the soil) in which a\ncertain _numen_ is helpful. Saturnus, Volcanus, Neptunus were indeed\nidentified later on with Greek gods of a ripe polytheistic system, and\nhave thus become quite familiar to us, far too familiar for a right\nunderstanding of early Roman ideas. We might naturally expect that the\nidentification of Saturnus with Kronos, of Neptunus with Poseidon, would\ngive us some clue to the original Roman conception of the _numen_ thus\nGraecised, but it is not so. Neptunus may have had some connection with\nwater, rain, or springs, but we have no real proof of it, and it is\nimpossible to say why Saturnus became Kronos.[224] The only certain\nresult that we can win from the study of these adjectival titles is that\nthey represent a transition between animism and polytheism, a transition\nexactly expressed by the one word _numen_.\n\n_Numen_ is so important a word in the Roman religion that it is\nnecessary to be perfectly clear as to what was meant by it. It must be\nformed from _nuere_ as _flumen_ from _fluere_, with a sense of activity\ninherent in the verb. As _flumen_ is that which actively flows, so\n_numen_ is that which actively does whatever we understand by the word\n_nuere_; and so far as we can determine, that was a manifestation of\nwill. _Adnuere_ is to consent, to give your good will to some act\nproposed or completed, and is often so used of Jupiter in the _Aeneid_.\n_Nuere_ should therefore express a simple exercise of will-power, and\n_numen_ is the being exercising it. In time it came to be used for the\nwill of a god as distinct from himself, as in the fourth _Aeneid_\n(269)--\n\n  ipse deum tibi me claro demittit Olympo\n  regnator, caelum ac terras qui numine torquet.\n\nOr in the fourth _Eclogue_ (47)--\n\n  concordes stabili fatorum numine Parcae,\n\nwhere Servius explains it as \"potestate, divinatione, ac maiestate.\" But\nbeyond doubt this use is a product of the literary age, and the word\noriginally indicated the being himself who exercised the will--a sense\nfamiliar to us in the opening lines of the _Aeneid_ (\"quo numine laeso\")\nand in innumerable other passages. Thus von Domaszewski in his collected\npapers (p. 157) is undoubtedly right in defining a _numen_ as a being\nwith a will--\"ein wollendes Wesen\"; though his account of its evolution,\nand of the way in which in its turn it may produce a _deus_, may be open\nto criticism.\n\nThe word thus suggests that the Roman divine beings were functional\nspirits with will-power, their functions being indicated by their\nadjectival names. Proper names they had not as a rule, but they are\ngetting cult-titles under the influence of a priesthood, which titles\nmay in time perhaps attain to something of the definiteness of\nsubstantival names. This indeed could hardly have been so in the mind of\nthe ordinary Roman even at a later age; and it is quite possible that if\nan intelligent Greek traveller of the sixth century B.C. had given an\naccount of the gods of Rome,[225] he would have said, as Strabo said of\nan Iberian people in the time of Augustus, that they were without gods,\nor worshipped gods without names. But the name, even as a cult-title, is\nof immense importance in the development of a spirit into a deity, and\nin most cases, at any rate at Rome, it was the work of officials, of a\nstate priesthood, not of the people. To address a deity rightly was\nmatter of no small difficulty: how were you to know how he would wish\nto be addressed? Servius tells us that the pontifices addressed even\nJupiter himself thus: \"Iupiter optime maxime, _sive quo alio nomine te\nappellari volueris_.\" On the other hand, in the same comment he tells us\nthat \"iure pontificio cautum est, ne suis nominibus di Romani\nappellarentur, ne exaugurari possent,\" _i.e._ lest they should be\nenticed away from the city by enemies. This last statement seems indeed\nto me to be a doubtful one,[226] but it will serve to illustrate the\nnervousness about divine names, of which there is no doubt whatever. We\nknow for certain that those religious lawyers the pontifices were\ngreatly occupied with the task of drawing up lists of names by which\n_numina_ should be invoked,--formularising the ritual of prayer, as we\nshall see in another lecture; and this must have become at one time\nalmost a craze with them, to judge by the lists of Indigitamenta\npreserved in their books, to which Varro had access, and which were\ncopied from him by St. Augustine.[227] But after all it needed the\nstimulus given by actual contact with a polytheistic system to turn a\nRoman numen into a full-fledged personal deity: the pontifices might\ncarry the process some way, but they never could have completed it\nthemselves without the help of the Greeks.\n\nOne deity seems to stand alone in the list--Tellus or Terra Mater,\nMother Earth.[228] We are coming directly to the great deity of the\nheaven, and we might naturally expect that an agricultural folk would be\nmuch concerned with her who is his counterpart among so many peoples.\nShe does not give her name to any of the festivals of the calendar; but\nat one of them, the Fordicidia in April, at a time when the earth is\nteeming with mysterious power, and when the festivals are of a\npeculiarly agricultural character, she has her own special sacrifice--a\npregnant cow, whose young are torn from her womb, burnt by the _Virgo\nvestalis maxima_, and their ashes used in certain mystic rites, _e.g._\nat the Parilia which followed on the 21st.[229] She seems to have had\nher function in human life as well; but about this we are much in the\ndark in spite of Dieterich's attempts to elucidate it in his _Mutter\nErde_.[230] Whether she played a part at the birth of a child we cannot\nbe sure; but at marriage there is little doubt that she was originally\nan object of worship, though in later days she gave way before Ceres and\nJuno.[231] And as at death the body was laid in her embrace, we are not\nsurprised to find her prominent here also: she was the home of the dead\nwhether buried or burnt, and of the whole mass of the Manes. We shall\npresently see how a Roman commander might devote himself and the whole\narmy of the enemy to Tellus and the Manes; and it is interesting to find\nthat a similar formula of _devotio_, of later date, combines Tellus with\nJupiter, the speaker touching the ground when he mentions her name, and\nholding his hands upwards to heaven when he names the god.[232] Very\ncurious, too, is the rite of the _porca praecidanea_, which in\nhistorical times was offered to Ceres as well as Tellus immediately\nbefore harvest; in case a man had wittingly or unwittingly omitted to\npay the proper rites (_iusta facere_) to his own dead, it was his duty\nto make this offering, lest as a result of the neglect the earth-power\nshould not yield him a good harvest.[233] Originally, we need hardly\ndoubt, Tellus was alone concerned in this; but Ceres, who at all times\nrepresented rather the ripening and ripened corn than the seed in the\nbosom of the earth, gradually took her place beside her, and the idea\ngained ground that the offering was more immediately concerned with the\nharvest than with the Manes.[234] When Cato wrote his book on\nagriculture, he included in it the proper formula for this sacrifice,\nwithout any indication that Tellus or the Manes had any part in the\nbusiness.[235] Tellus was not a deity whose life would be vigorous in a\nbusy City-state destined gradually to lose its agricultural outlook;\nthere the supply of grain, from whatever quarter it might come, was a\nfar more important matter than the process of producing it, and it was\nnatural that Ceres and her April festival should become more popular\nthan Tellus and her Fordicidia, and that the Cerealia should eventually\ndevelop into _ludi_ of no less than eight days' duration. Yet Tellus\nsurvived in such forms as that of the _devotio_; and even under the\nEmpire we find her as Terra on sepulchral monuments, _e.g._--\n\n  ereptam viro et matri mater me Terra recepit,\n\nor\n\n  terra mater rerum quod dedit ipsa teget.\n\nAnd there is a curious story, noticed by Wissowa and by Dieterich after\nhim, that on the death of Tiberius the plebs shouted not only \"Tiberius\nin Tiberim,\" but \"Terram matrem deosque Manes,\" in order that his lot\nmight be among the _impii_ beneath the earth.[236]\n\nSo far we have met with nothing to suggest that the Roman idea of\ndivinity had passed much beyond an advanced type of animism; we have\nfound little or no trace of personal deities of a polytheistic cast.\nThere is, however, a fact of importance now to be considered, which has\nsome bearing upon this difficult subject. Some of the _numina_ of the\ncalendar had special priests attached to their cults; _e.g._ among those\nI have already mentioned, Volcanus, Furrina, Portunus, and Volturnus, to\nwhich we may now add Pales, Flora, Carmenta, Pomona, and a wholly\nunknown deity, Falacer. These nine all had flamines, a word which is\ngenerally derived from _flare_, _i.e._ they were the kindlers of the\nsacrificial fire.[237] Sacrificing priests they undoubtedly always were,\neach limited to the sacrificial rites of a particular cult, unless\nauthorised by religious law to undertake those of some other deity whose\nname he did not bear, and who was destitute, like Robigus, of a priest\nof his own.[238] We have no certain evidence that all these flamines\nwere of high antiquity; but those attached to deities of the calendar\nwere probably of earlier origin than that document, and as we have no\nrecord of the creation of a new flaminium in historical times until the\nera of Caesar-worship, it is fair to conclude that the others I have\nmentioned were not younger.\n\nNow what bearing has this fact on the question as to how the early\nRomans conceived the objects of their worship? There are, of course,\nso-called priests all the world over, even among the lowest fetishistic\nand animistic peoples, who exercise power over the various kinds of\nspirits by potent charms and spells; these should rather be called\nwizards, medicine-men, magicians, and so on.[239] But the flamines as we\nknow them were not such; they were officials of a State, entrusted with\nthe performance of definite ritualistic duties, more particularly with\nsacrifice, and therefore, as we may assume from universal Roman practice\nso far as we know it, also with prayer. If they did not actually slay\nthe victims themselves--and in historical times this was done by an\nassistant--they superintended the whole process and were responsible for\nits correct performance.[240] Does the existence of such priests come\ninto relation with the development of the idea of a _deus_ out of a\nnumen or a spirit? What is the influence of the sacrificing priest on\nthe divinity whom he serves? This last is a question to which it is not\neasy to find a ready answer; the history of priesthood, and of the moral\nand intellectual results of the institution, has yet to be written. Even\nDr. Westermarck, in his recently published great work on the development\nof moral ideas, has little to say of it. It is greatly complicated by\nthe undoubted fact that among many peoples, perhaps to some extent even\namong the Latins, the earliest real priests had a tendency to personate\nthe deity themselves, to be considered as the deity, or in some sense\ndivine.[241] But in regard to Roman priests we may, I think, go at least\nas far as this. When a spirit was named and localised as a friendly\nbeing at a particular spot within the walls of the city, which is made\nover to him, and where he has his _ara_; when the ritual performed at\nthis spot is laid down in definite detail, and undertaken by an\nindividual appointed for this purpose by the head of the community with\nsolemn ceremony; then the spirit, hitherto but vaguely conceived, must\nin course of time become individualised. The priestly if not the popular\nconception of him is fixed; there is now no question who he is or how he\nshould be called; \"quis deus incertum est\"[242] can no longer be said of\nhim. Once provided with a flamen and an ordered cult of sacrifice and\nprayer, I conceive that he had now in him the possibility of turning\ninto a _deus_ personally conceived, if he came by the chance.[243] A few\ndid get the chance; others did not; Volcanus, for example, became a god\nafter the model of the Greek Hephaestus, while Volturnus remained a\nnumen and made no further progress, though he was doubtless ready to\n\"take\" the Graecising epidemic when it came. I do not say that he or any\nother numen was the better for the change. But I must not now pursue the\nstory of this strange double fate of the old Roman deities; I have\nperhaps said enough to show that city life, with its priesthoods and its\nordered ritual, had some appreciable effect on the deities who were\nadmitted to it.\n\nAmong these deities there were four of whom I have as yet said nothing\nat all, though they are the most famous of all the divine inhabitants of\nRome. I have mentioned nine flamines; there were in all twelve, and\nbesides these there was in historical times a priest known as the _rex\nsacrorum_, the republican successor to some of the religious functions\nof the civil king. This rex, and the three _flamines maiores_, so called\nin contra-distinction to the other nine, were specially attached to the\ncults of Janus, Jupiter (_Flamen Dialis_), Mars (_Flamen Martialis_),\nand Quirinus (_Flamen Quirinalis_). I have kept these deities apart from\nthe others already mentioned, not only because their priests stand apart\nfrom the rest, but because they themselves seem from the first to have\nbeen more really gods (_dei_); Quirinus is the only one who has an\nadjectival name. Two of them, Jupiter and Mars, remained throughout\nRoman history of real importance to the State, and in Jupiter there were\nat least some germs of possible development into a deity capable of\ninfluencing conduct and enforcing morality. Of Janus this cannot\npossibly be said; and as he is historically the least important of the\nfour, I will begin by saying a few words about him as a puzzle and a\ncuriosity only.\n\nJanus, ever since he ceased to be an intelligible deity, has been the\nsport of speculators; and this happened long before the Roman religion\ncame to an end. In the last century B.C. philosophic writers about the\ngods got hold of him, and Varro tells us that some made him out to be\nthe heaven, others the universe (_mundus_).[244] Ovid amused himself\nwith this uncertainty of the philosophers, and in the first book of his\n_Fasti_ \"interviewed\" the god, whose answers are unluckily of little\nvalue for us.[245] At various times and in different hands Janus has\nbeen pronounced a sun-god, a heaven-god, a year-god, a wind-god; and now\na Cambridge school of speculators, to whose learning I am in many ways\nindebted, has claimed him as an oak-god, the mate of Diana, the Jupiter\nof aboriginal Latium, and so on.[246] We have fortunately long left\nbehind us the age when it was thought necessary to resolve the Greek and\nRoman gods into personifications of natural phenomena, and to try to\nexplain all their attributes on one principle; but my learned friends at\nCambridge have of late been showing a tendency to return to methods not\nless dangerous; they hanker, for example, after etymological evidence,\nwhich in the case of deities is almost sure to be misleading unless it\nis absolutely certain, and supported by the history of the name. This is\nunluckily not the case with Janus; his etymology is matter of\ndispute,[247] and he is therefore open, and always will be so, to the\ninquirer who is hunting a scent, and more concerned to prove a point\nthan to discover what the early Romans really thought about a god. In\nthis lecture I am but humbly trying to do this last, and I may therefore\nleave etymology, with the mythology and philosophy of a later age, and\nconfine myself to such facts of the cult of Janus as are quite\nundisputed. They will admit of being put together very shortly.\n\nThe first and leading fact is that Janus was the first deity to be\naddressed in all prayers and invocations; of this we have abundant\nevidence, as also of the corresponding fact that Vesta came last.[248]\nSecondly, we know that he was the object of worship on the Kalends of\nJanuary, and probably of every month, and that the sacrificing priest\nwas in this case the _rex sacrorum_. Thirdly, we know that he had no\ntemple until the year 260 B.C., but that he was associated with the\nfamous gateway at the north-east end of the Forum--not a gate in the\nwall, but a symbolic entrance to the heart of the city, as the round\ntemple of Vesta at the opposite end, with its eternal fire, was symbolic\nof the common life of the community. Fourthly, we know a few cult-titles\nof Janus, among them Clusius (or Clusivius), and Patulcius, in which the\nconnection with gates is obvious; Junonius, which may have originated in\nthe fact that Juno also was worshipped on the Kalends; Matutinus, which\nseems to be a late reference to the dawn as the opening or gate of the\nday, and Quirinus, which last is also almost certainly of late origin.\nClusius and Patulcius are genuine old titles, if the text of the Salian\nhymn is rightly interpreted; so too is another, Curiatius, for it was\nused of the god only as residing in an ancient gateway near the Subura\ncalled the _tigillum sororium_.[249] These are all the most important\nfacts we have to go upon; the double head of Janus on the earliest Roman\n_as_ is of uncertain origin, and Wissowa seems to have conclusively\nshown that this representation was not admitted to the gate called Janus\nGeminus until towards the close of the republican period.[250] The\nconnection of the god with the fortress on the hill across the Tiber,\nwhich still bears his name, admits of no quite satisfactory explanation.\n\nNow if we recall the fact that the entrance to the house and the\nentrance to a city were points of great moment, and the cause of\nconstant anxiety to the early Italian mind, we may naturally infer that\nthey would be in the care of some particular numen, and that his\nworship would be in the care of the head of the family or community--in\nthe case of the city, in the care of the _rex_, whose duties of this\nkind were afterwards taken over by the priest called _rex sacrorum_. The\nfact that the word for an entrance was _ianus_ confirms this conjecture;\nJanus was perhaps the spirit guarding the entrance to the real wall of\nthe earliest city, but when the city was enlarged in the age from which\nthe calendar dates, a symbolic gateway was set up where you entered the\nforum from the direction of Latium, answering to the symbolic hearth in\nthe _aedes Vestae_, and this very naturally took the name of the deity\nassociated with entrances. Two other _iani_ probably existed in the\nforum, and the name was later on transferred as a substantive to similar\nobjects in Roman colonies, while a feminine form, _ianua_, came to be\nused for ordinary house entrances.[251] Whether there ever was a cult of\nthe god at the real gateway of a city we do not know; there was none at\nthe symbolic gateway of Rome, which was in no sense a temple. But the\nidea of entrance stuck to the old spirit of the doorway long after the\nreconstruction of the city, and the rex now sacrifices to him on the\nentrance-day of each month, and more particularly on the entrance-day of\nthe month which bears his name and is the beginning of the natural year\nafter the winter solstice. This is the best account to be had of the\noriginal Janus,[252] a deity, let it be remembered, of a simple\nagricultural and warlike people, without literature or philosophy. But\nit is not difficult to see how, when philosophy and literature did at\nlast come in a second-hand form to this people, they might well have\noverlaid with cobwebs of story and speculation a deity for whom they had\nno longer any real use, who was best known to them by the mysterious\ndouble-head on the _as_ and the gateway, and for whom they could find no\nconclusive parallel among the gods of Greece.\n\nNext in order of invocation to Janus came Jupiter, and his priest, the\nFlamen Dialis, was likewise the second in rank, according to ancient\nrule, after the _rex sacrorum_. Unlike Janus, Jupiter (to use the\nspelling familiar in England) was at all times a great power for the\nRoman people, and one who could be all the more valued because he was\nintelligible. No one doubted then, and no one doubts now, that he was\nthe god of the light and of heaven, _Diovis pater_, or rather perhaps\nthe heaven itself[253] with all its manifestations of rain and thunder,\nof blessing and damage to the works of man; the common inheritance of\nthe Italian peoples, dwelling and worshipped in their woods and on their\nhills; and, as we know now, also the common inheritance of all Aryan\nstocks, the \"European Sky-god,\" as Mr. A. B. Cook has traced him with\nlearning and ingenuity from the Euxine to Britain.[254]\n\nJupiter must have had a long and important history in Latium before the\nera of the Roman City-state; Dr. Frazer has seen this, and set it forth\nin his lectures on the early history of the kingship, though basing his\nconclusions on evidence much of which will not bear a close\nexamination.[255] The one substantial proof of it lies in the unique and\ntruly extraordinary character of the taboos placed on his flamen, and to\nsome extent on the flamen's wife, by the Roman _ius divinum_. Even if we\nsuppose that some of these may have been later inventions of an\necclesiastical college like the pontifices (and this is hardly\nprobable), many of them are obviously of remote antiquity, and can only\nhave originated at a time when the magical power of the man responsible\nfor the conduct of Jupiter was so precious that it had to be safeguarded\nin these many curious ways. I have already suggested that the scene of\nthe early paramount importance of Jupiter and his flamen, in that age\nperhaps a king of some kind, was Alba Longa, which by universal\ntradition was the leading city of Latium before Rome rose to importance,\nand where the sky-god was worshipped on his holy mountain as the\nreligious centre of Latium from the earliest times. I have also\nsuggested that when the new warlike city on the Tiber took the place of\nAlba, the worship was transferred thither, but lost its strength in the\nprocess, and that the flamen was little more than a survival even in the\nmost primitive period of what we may call for the moment Roman history.\nThis can be accounted for by the fact that the traditions of primitive\nRome were connected much more closely with Mars than with Jupiter. Not\ntill Etruscan kings founded the great temple on the Capitol, which was\nto endure throughout all later ages of Roman dominion, did the sky-god\nbecome the supreme guardian deity of his people, under the titles of\nOptimus Maximus, the best and greatest of all her deities.\n\nBut Jupiter was there; and we know certain facts of his cult which give\nus a pretty clear idea of what the Romans of the pre-Etruscan period\nthought about him. In the calendar all Ides belonged to him, were\n_feriae Iovis_;[256] he seems to be the source of light, whether of sun\nor moon, for neither of which the Romans had any special divinity; in\nthe hymn of the Salii he is addressed as Lucetius, the giver or source\nof light. The festivals of the vintage belonged to him, since the\nproduction of wine specially needed the aid of sun and light, and his\nflamen was employed in the cult on these occasions.[257] When rain was\nsorely needed, the aid of the sky-god was sought under the cult-title\nElicius, and as Fulgur or Summanus[258] he was the Power who sent the\nlightning by day and by night. The ideas thus reflected in the Roman\ncult were common to all Italian peoples of the same stock; everywhere we\nfind him worshipped on the summits of hills, and in woods of oak, ilex,\nor beech,[259] where nothing but the trees he loved intervened between\nthe heaven and the earth.\n\nHis oldest cult at Rome was on the Capitoline hill, but at all times\nquite distinct from that which became so famous afterwards; he was known\nhere as Feretrius, a cult-title of which the meaning is uncertain,[260]\nand here, so far as we can guess, there must have been an ancient oak\nregarded either as the dwelling of the numen or as the numen himself,\nupon which Romulus is said to have hung the _spolia opima_ taken from\nthe king of the Caeninenses;[261] here we may see the earliest trace of\nthe triumphal procession that was to be. Doubtless an _ara_ was here\nfrom the first, and then followed a tiny temple, only fifteen feet wide\nas Dionysius describes it from personal knowledge in the time of\nAugustus,[262] who restored it. There was no image of the god, but in\nthe temple was kept a _silex_, probably a stone celt believed to have\nbeen a thunderbolt;[263] this stone the Fetiales took with them on their\nofficial journeys, and used it in the oath, _per Iovem lapidem_, with\nwhich they ratified their treaties. As the Romans thought of Jupiter,\nnot as a personal deity living in the sky like Zeus, but rather as the\nheaven itself, so they could think of him as immanent in this stone,\n_Iuppiter lapis_. And the use of the flint in treaty-making suggests\nanother aspect of the god, which he retained in one way or another\nthroughout Roman history; it is his sanction that is called in to the\naid of moral and legal obligations, resulting from treaties, oaths, and\ncontracts such as that of marriage. As Dius Fidius he was invoked in the\ncommon Roman oath _medius fidius_; as Farreus (if this were an old\ncult-title) he gave his sanction to the solemn contract entered into in\nthe ancient form of marriage by _confarreatio_, where his flamen had to\nbe present, and where in all probability the cake of _far_ was eaten as\na kind of sacrament by the parties to the covenant.[264] In much of this\nit is tempting to see, as we can see nowhere else in the Roman religion,\nfaint traces of a feeling about the heaven-god brought from a remote\npastoral life under the open sky, where neither forest nor mountain\nintervened to shelter man from the great Presence;[265] and it is also\ntempting to think that there was here, even for Latins who had learnt to\nworship Jupiter under the form of stocks and stones in the land of their\nfinal settlement, some chance of the development of a deity \"making for\nrighteousness.\"\n\nThird and fourth in the order of invocation came Mars and Quirinus, and\nthe same order held good for their flamines. These two priests may have\nbeen subject to some of the taboos which restricted the Flamen\nDialis;[266] they too, that is, may have been to some extent precious,\nand have been endowed in a lost period of history with magical powers;\nbut if so, the memory and importance of such disabilities was rapidly\nforgotten in the City-state, and they were early allowed to fill civil\noffices, a privilege which the Dialis did not attain till the second\ncentury B.C.[267] Of the sacrificial duties of the Martialis we know\nnothing for certain, and can get no help from him as to the ideas of the\nearly Romans about their great deity Mars.\n\nMars is in some ways the most interesting of all the Roman deities; but\nexcept as the familiar war-god of Roman history he remains a somewhat\ndoubtful conception. Like Jupiter and Janus he has attained to a real\nname; but of that name, which in various forms is still so often on our\nlips, no convincing account has ever been given. Comparative mythology\nused to be much occupied with him, and he has been compared with Indra,\nApollo, Odin, and others. But as M. Reinach said, it is time to attend\nmore closely to differences; and Mars seems to stand best by himself, as\na genuine Italian religious conception. His name is found all over\nancient Italy in various forms--Mavors, Mamers, Marmor, and as Cerfus\nMartius at Iguvium. His wild and warlike character, his association with\nthe wolf and the spear, seem to suggest the struggle for existence that\nmust have gone on among the tribes that pushed down into a peninsula of\nrugged mountain and dense forest, abounding with the wolves which are\nnot yet wholly extinct there. Whether or no his antecedents are to be\nfound in other lands, we shall not be far wrong in assuming that the\nRoman Mars was the product of life and experience in Italy, and Italy\nonly.\n\nThere is an excellent general account of him in Roscher's article in\nhis _Lexicon_, which, like that on Janus, has the advantage of being the\nresult of a second elaborate study, free from the enticements of the\ncomparative method. What we know for certain about his cult at Rome in\nearly times can be very briefly stated. First, we have the striking fact\nthat he is conspicuous, together with the Lares, in the _carmen_ which\nhas come down to us as sung by the Arval Brethren in their lustration of\nthe cultivated land of the Roman city:[268] \"Neve luerve Marmor sins\nincurrere in pleores, satur fu fere Mars!\" One is naturally inclined to\nask how this wild and warlike spirit can have anything to do with\ncultivation and crops. But there is no mistake; the connection is\nconfirmed by the fact that he is also the chief object of invocation in\nthe private _lustratio_ of the farm, which Cato has preserved for\nus.[269] In each case the victims are the same, the _suovetaurilia_ of\nox, sheep, and pig, the farmer's most valuable property. Again, let us\nremember that the month which bears his name is that not only of the\nopening of the war season, but of the springing up of vegetation, and\nthat the dances and singing of the Salii at this time may probably have\nbeen meant, like similar performances of savage peoples,[270] to\nfrighten away evil demons from the precious cultivated land and its\ngrowing produce, and to call on the Power to wake to new life. The clue\nto the mystery is perhaps to be found in the cult-title Silvanus which\nwe find in the prayer set down by Cato as proper for the protection of\nthe cattle when they are on their summer pasture (_in silva_): \"Marti\nSilvano in silva interdius in capita singula boum facito.\"[271] We know\nthat wealth in early Italy consisted chiefly of sheep and cattle; we\nknow that these were taken in the warm months, as they still are, into\nthe forest (_saltus_) to feed;[272] and from this passage of Cato we\nknow that Mars was there. It is only going one step farther if we\nconjecture that Mars, like Silvanus, who may have been an offshoot of\nhis own being, was for the early settler never a peaceful inhabitant of\nthe farm or the dwelling, but a spirit of the woodland of great\nimportance for the cattle-owner, and of great importance, too, in all\ncircumambulation of the boundaries which divided the woodland from the\ncultivated land.[273]\n\nBut with conjecture I deal on principle but sparingly. It is time to\nturn to the Mars of the City-state of Rome; and it is at once\ninteresting to find that until the age of Augustus, who introduced a new\nform of Mars-worship, he had no temple within the walls, and even\noutside only two _fana_, one an altar in his own field the Campus\nMartius, the other a temple dedicated in 388 B.C. outside the Porta\nCapena. \"He was always worshipped outside the city,\" says Dr. J. B.\nCarter in his _Religion of Numa_, \"as a god who must be kept at a\ndistance.\" Should we not rather say that the god was unwilling to come\nwithin those sacred boundaries encircling the works of man? So stated,\nwe may see in this singular fact a reminiscence of the time when Mars\nwas really the wild spirit of the \"outland,\" where wolves and human\nenemies might be met with; he was perhaps in some sense a _hostis_, a\nstranger, like the many other deities originally strange to Rome who,\nuntil the second Punic war, were never allowed to settle within the\nsacred precincts.[274] In one sense, however, Mars was actually resident\nin the very heart of the city. In a _sacrarium_ or chapel of the\nregia,[275] the ancient dwelling of the king, were kept the spears and\nshields which the Salii carried in their processions in March and\nOctober; and that the deity was believed to be there too must be\ninferred from the fact, if it be correctly stated by Servius, that the\nconsul who was about to take the field entered the chapel and shook\nthese spears and shields together, saying, \"Mars vigila.\" I am, however,\nrather disposed to think that this practice belongs to a time when Mars\nwas more distinctly recognised as a god of war, and when the weapons of\nthe Salii were thought of rather as symbols of his activity than as\nobjects in which he was immanent.[276]\n\nThese are the salient facts in the oldest cult of Mars, and they are\nentirely in keeping with all we know of the early history and economy\nof the Roman people--a people economically dependent on agriculture, and\nespecially on cattle-breeding, living in settlements in the midst of a\nwilder country, and constantly liable to the attacks of enemies who\nmight raid their cattle and destroy their crops. I do not see in him\nonly a deity of agriculture, or only a god of war; in my view he is a\nspirit of the wilder regions, where dwell the wolf and woodpecker which\nare connected with him in legend: a spirit who dwells on the outskirts\nof civilisation, and can with profit be propitiated both for help\nagainst the enemies beyond, and for the protection of the crops and\ncattle within, the boundaries of human activity.\n\nFourth in invocations came Quirinus, and fourth in order of precedence\nwas his flamen. But of Quirinus I need say little; there is, on the\nwhole, a consensus of opinion that he was a form of Mars belonging to\nthe community settled on the hill that still bears his name. The most\nconvincing proof of his identity with Mars (though identity is doubtless\ntoo strong a word) lies in the well-known fact that there were twelve\nSalii Collini, _i.e._ belonging to the Collis Quirinalis, occupied with\nthe cult of Quirinus, answering to the twelve Salii Palatini of the cult\nof Mars. \"Quid de ancilibus vestris,\" Camillus says in Livy's glowing\nrhetoric, \"Mars Gradive (the particular cult-title of the warlike Mars),\ntuque Quirine pater?\"[277] Now the Quirinal was, of course, _within_ the\nwalls, and the Romans who identified the two deities noted this point of\ncontrast with the Mars-cult; for Servius writes, \"Quirinus est Mars qui\npraeest paci et _intra civitatem_ colitur, nam belli Mars _extra\ncivitatem_ templum habet.\" In keeping with this is the use of the word\nQuirites of the Romans in their civil capacity; but unluckily we are\naltogether uncertain as to the etymology and history of both Quirites\nand Quirinus.[278] And as Quirinus never became, like Mars, an important\nproperty of the Roman people, but was speedily obscured and only revived\nby the legend of late origin which identified him with Romulus, he is\nnot of importance for my subject, and I may leave him to etymologists\nand speculators.\n\nThere is one other deity of whom I might naturally be expected to say\nsomething; I mean Juno. But our familiarity with Juno in Roman\nliterature must not be allowed to lead us into believing too rashly that\nshe was one of those great _numina_ of the early Roman State with whom I\nhave just been dealing. She had no special festival in the\ncalendar;[279] her connection with the Kalends she shared, as we have\nseen, with Janus. She had no special priest of her own; for in spite of\nall assertions that the flaminica Dialis was attached to her cult, I am\nconvinced that I was right some years ago in maintaining that this is an\nerror, though a natural one.[280] It cannot be proved that she had any\nancient temple in the city; for the oldest known to us as strictly\nindigenous, that of Juno Moneta on the arx, was not dedicated till 344\n_B.C._, and we do not know that there was an older altar on the same\nspot.[281] Assuredly Rome was not in early times a great centre of the\nJuno cult, as were some of the cities in her neighbourhood, _e.g._\nLanuvium, Falerii, and Veii;[282] and the gradual establishment of her\nposition as a truly Roman goddess may be explained by her appearance in\nthe trias of deities in the Capitoline temple at the end of the regal\nperiod, and by the removal to Rome of Juno Regina of Veii still later,\nafter the destruction of that city.\n\nWhat, then, was Juno originally to the Roman religious mind? There is no\nmore difficult question than this in our whole subject; as we probe\ncarefully in those dark ages she baffles us continually. Undoubtedly she\nwas a woman's deity, and we may aptly say of her \"varium et mutabile\nsemper femina.\" The most singular fact we know about her cult is that\nwomen used to speak of their Juno as men spoke of their Genius;[283] and\nit is not by any means impossible that this may be the clue to the\noriginal Italian conception of her.[284] In that case we should have to\nexplain her appearance as a well-defined goddess in so many Latin towns,\nas the anthropomorphising result of that penetration of Greek ideas\ninto Latium from the south, of which I shall have something to say later\non. Such ideas, when they reached Rome, may have produced the notion\nthat she was the consort of Jupiter, for which I must confess that I can\nfind no sufficient evidence in the early cult of either.[285] But I must\nhere leave her, for in truth she does not belong to this lecture; and it\nwould need at least one whole lecture to discuss her adequately in all\nher later aspects. The latest German discussion of her occupied sixty\nclosely printed pages; and instructive as it was in some ways, arrived\nat the apparently impossible conclusion that she was a deity of the\nearth.\n\nLast in the order of invocation, even to the latest days of Rome, came\nVesta, \"the only female deity among the highest gods of the most ancient\nState,\"[286] for Juno can hardly be reckoned among them, and Tellus had\nno special cult or priesthood of her own. We have already noticed Vesta\nas the religious centre of the house, making it into a _home_ in a sense\nalmost more vivid than that in which we use the sacred word. Through all\nstages of development from house to city this religious centre must have\nbeen preserved, and in the Rome of historical times Vesta was still\nthere, inherent in her sacred hearth-fire, which was tended by her six\nvirgin priestesses, and renewed on the Roman New Year's day (March 1) by\nthe primitive method of friction.[287] The Vestals beyond doubt\nrepresented the unmarried daughters of the primitive Latin family, and\nthe _penus Vestae_, a kind of Holy of Holies of the Roman State,\nrecalled the _penus_ or store-closet of the agricultural home; this\n_penus_ was cleansed on June 15 for the reception of the first fruits of\nthe harvest, and then closed until June 7 of the following year.[288]\nThese and other simple duties of the Vestals, all of them traceable to\nthe old life on the farm, together with their own sex and maidenhood,\npreserved this beautiful cult throughout Roman history from all\ncontamination. Vesta in her _aedes_, a round dwelling which was never a\ntemple in the technical sense, was represented by no statue, and her\ntitle of Mater never suggested to the true Roman worshipper anything but\nher motherly grace and beneficence.[289] Far more than any other cult,\nthat of Vesta represents the reality and continuity of Roman religious\nfeeling; and the remains of her latest dwelling, and the statues of her\npriestesses with no statue of herself among them, may still give the\nvisitor to the Forum some dim idea of the spirit of Roman worship.[290]\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE VI\n\n    [219] Arnobius (v. 155) fortunately mentions that this\n    story came from the second book of Valerius Antias,\n    whose bad reputation is well known. It was plainly meant\n    to account for the cult-title of Jupiter Elicius, and\n    the origin of the _procuratio fulminis_, and was\n    invented by Greeks or Graecising Romans at a time (2nd\n    century B.C.) when all reverence for the gods had\n    vanished as completely as in Greece. Yet Dr. Frazer\n    writes of Numa as \"an adept at bringing down lightning\n    from heaven\" (_Early History of Kingship_, p. 204).\n\n    [220] On this subject, the evolution of the knowledge of\n    God, I may refer to Professor Gwatkin's _Gifford\n    Lectures_ of 1904-5, published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark,\n    Edinburgh.\n\n    [221] The meaning of _deus_ is well put by Mr. C. Bailey\n    in his sketch of _Roman Religion_ (Constable & Co.), p.\n    12.\n\n    [222] Guesses can be made about these, but little or\n    nothing is to be learnt from them to help us in this\n    lecture.\n\n    [223] I adhere to what was said in _R.F._ p.\n    312 foll. We do not know, and probably never shall know,\n    the original deity concerned in that festival. The\n    ritual is wholly unlike that of the _rustica Faunalia_\n    (_R.F._ p. 256 foll.). I believe that it dates from a\n    time anterior to the formation of real gods--possibly\n    from an aboriginal people who did not know any. (I am\n    glad to see this view taken in the latest summary of\n    German learning on this subject, _Einleitung in die\n    Altertumswissenschaft_, by Gaercke and Norden, vol. ii.\n    p. 262.) At the moment of printing an interesting\n    discussion of the Lupercalia, by Prof. Deubner, who\n    treats it as a historical growth, in which are embodied\n    ideas and rites of successive ages, has appeared in\n    _Archiv_ (1910, p. 481 foll.). See Appendix B.\n\n    [224] Wissowa, _R.K._ pp. 170 and 250 foll.\n\n    [225] Strabo, p. 164. Cp. Usener, _Goetternamen_, p. 277,\n    whose comment is, \"Die Goetter aller dieser Staemme waren\n    'namenlos,' weil sie nicht mit Eigennamen sondern durch\n    Eigenschaftsworte benannt wurden. Fuer einen\n    griechischen Reisenden vorchristlicher Zeit waren sie\n    nicht fassbar.\" Arnobius iii. 43, Gellius ii. 28. 2 are\n    good passages for the principle. The latter alludes to\n    the anxiety of _veteres Romani_ on this point, \"ne alium\n    pro alio nominando falsa religione populum alligarent.\"\n    Hence the formulae \"si deus si dea,\" or \"sive quo alio\n    nomine fas est nominare,\" Serv. _Aen._ ii. 351;\n    \"quisquis es,\" _Aen._ iv. 576. See also Farnell,\n    _Evolution of Religion_, 184 foll.; Dieterich, _Eine\n    Mithrasliturgie_, p. 110 foll.\n\n    [226] Serv. _Aen._ ii. 351. I am inclined to think it is\n    only an inference from the want of substantival names in\n    so many Roman deities; surely, it would be argued, the\n    pontifices must have had some reason for this. It is\n    contradicted by the fact that in such ancient formulae\n    as that of the _devotio_ (Livy viii. 9) the great gods\n    are called by their own names, though the army was in\n    the field and in presence of the enemy. There was,\n    however, an old idea that the name of the special\n    tutelary god of the city was never divulged, lest he\n    should become _captivus_, and that the true name of the\n    city itself was unknown; see Macrob. iii. 9. 2 foll. I\n    believe that these ideas were encouraged by the\n    pontifices, but were not founded on fact.\n\n    [227] For the Indigitamenta see below, p. 159; _R.F._ p.\n    341; R. Peter's able article in _Myth. Lex._, _s.v._\n    Scholars do not seem to me to have reckoned sufficiently\n    with the tendency of a legal priesthood, devoted to the\n    strict maintenance of religious minutiae, to elaborate\n    and organise the material for god-making which was\n    within their reach. To judge by the elaboration of the\n    ritual at Iguvium, the same tendency must have existed\n    in other kindred Italian communities, both to develop\n    ritualistic priesthoods, and through them to elaborate\n    the ritual. This is, I think, the weak point of Usener's\n    reasoning in his _Goetternamen_, and as applied to Roman\n    deities it is the weak point of an interesting article\n    by von Domaszewski, reprinted in his _Abhandlungen zur\n    roem. Religion_, p. 155 foll.\n\n    [228] The best account of Tellus is in Wissowa, _R.K._\n    p. 159 foll.\n\n    [229] _R.F._ p. 71; Ovid, _Fasti_, iv. 631 foll. This\n    was a festival of the populus as a whole, and also of\n    each Curia, like the Fornicalia in February. Both were\n    clearly agricultural in origin, though the Curia as we\n    know it was probably an institution of the city. I must\n    own that I am quite uncertain as to what the thing was\n    which was originally meant by the word Curia; my friend\n    Dr. J. B. Carter may have something to say on the\n    subject in his book on the Roman religion in the Jastrow\n    series.\n\n    [230] Dieterich, _Mutter Erde_, pp. 11 and 73 foll.\n\n    [231] Virg. _Aen._ iv. 166, \"prima et Tellus et pronuba\n    Iuno Dant signum\"; commenting on which Servius wrote,\n    \"quidam sane etiam Tellurem praeesse nuptiis tradunt;\n    nam et in auspiciis nuptiarum invocatur: cui etiam\n    virgines, vel cum ire ad domum mariti coeperint, vel iam\n    ibi positae, diversis nominibus vel ritu sacrificant.\"\n    There is little doubt that Tellus is frequently\n    concealed under the names of Ceres, Dea Dia, etc. For\n    Ceres and Juno in marriage rites, see Marquardt,\n    _Privatleben_, p. 49.\n\n    [232] See below, p. 206 foll.; Macrob. iii. 9. 11;\n    Deubner in _Archiv_, 1905, p. 66 foll.\n\n    [233] See De Marchi, _La Religione_, _etc._, i. p. 188\n    and reff. (The reference to Gellius should be iv. 6. 7,\n    not iv. 67.) Like some other operations of the Roman\n    religion, this became a form, and was used as a kind of\n    insurance, whether or no there had been any omission;\n    Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 160.\n\n    [234] That Ceres represented the _fructus_ is shown by\n    the fact that in the XII. Tables the man who raided a\n    field of standing corn at night was made _sacer_ to her;\n    Pliny, _N.H._ xviii. 12.\n\n    [235] Cato, _R.R._ 134. De Marchi, _op. cit._ p. 135.\n    Janus, Jupiter, and Juno are concerned in this rite,\n    Ceres coming last. Varro has preserved the part of\n    Tellus for us: \"quod humatus non sit, heredi porca\n    praecidanea suscipienda Telluri et Cereri, aliter\n    familia non pura est\" (_ap. Nonium_, p. 163).\n\n    [236] The verses are quoted by Dieterich, _Mutter Erde_,\n    p. 75, among others from Buecheler's _Anthology of Roman\n    Epitaphs_, Nos. 1544 and 1476. The story is told in\n    Suetonius' _Life of Tib._ c. 75, and again of Gallienus\n    by Aurelius Victor (_Caes._ c. 33).\n\n    [237] Marquardt, p. 326, who notes that the Romans\n    themselves derived the word from _filum_, a fillet;\n    _e.g._ Varro, _L.L._ v. 84, \"quod in Latio capite velato\n    erant semper, ac caput cinctum habebant _filo_.\" Modern\n    etymologists equate the word with _Brahman_.\n\n    [238] Thus the Flamen Quirinalis sacrificed at the\n    Robigalia, _R.F._ p. 89, and with the Pontifices and\n    Vestals took part in the Consualia, Marq. 335.\n\n    [239] We may note here that the most general Latin name\n    for a priest was _sacerdos_, which seems to have\n    excluded all magic, etc.; it means an office sanctioned\n    by the State. On the general question of the origin of\n    priesthood see Jevons, _Introduction_, _etc._, ch. xx.,\n    with whose explanations, however, I cannot entirely\n    agree. I should prefer to keep the word priest for an\n    official who sacrifices and prays to his god. In this\n    view I am at one with E. Meyer, _Geschichte des\n    Altertums_, i.^2 p. 121 foll. God and priest go together\n    as permanent, regular in function, and entrusted by a\n    community with certain duties.\n\n    [240] Marquardt, p. 180; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 427. The\n    popa or victimarius is seen in many artistic\n    representations of sacrifice, _e.g._ Schreiber, _Atlas\n    of Classical Antiquities_, plate xvii. figs. 1 and 3.\n\n    [241] Jevons, ch. xx.; Frazer, _G.B._ i. 245 foll., and\n    _Lectures on Early History of Kingship_, Lectures ii.\n    and v.\n\n    [242] Virg. _Aen._ viii. 352.\n\n    [243] In a valuable paper in his _Gesammelte\n    Abhandlungen_ (p. 284) Wissowa says that \"personal\n    conception of deity is absolutely strange to the old\n    Roman religion of the _di indigetes_.\" I believe this to\n    be essentially true; but my point is that localisation\n    and ritual prepared the way for the reception of Greek\n    ideas of personality. The process had already begun in\n    the religion of the house; but it was not likely there\n    to come in contact with foreign germs. When Janus and\n    Vesta, who were in every house (Wissowa, p. 285), were\n    localised in certain points in a city, they would be far\n    more likely to acquire personality, if such an idea came\n    in their way, than in the worship of the family.\n\n    [244] Aug. _Civ. Dei_, vii. 28, \"quem alii caelum, alii\n    dixerunt esse mundum.\" Dr. Frazer, citing this passage\n    (_Kingship_, p. 286) in support of his view that Janus\n    was a duplicate of Jupiter, has omitted to notice that\n    some theorisers fancied he was the _universe_, which by\n    itself is enough to betray the delusive nature of this\n    kind of theological speculation. Varro elsewhere gives\n    us a clue to the liability of Janus to be exalted in\n    this unnatural fashion, _L.L._ vii. 27, \"divum deo\" (in\n    the Salian hymn), if this be taken as referring to\n    Janus, as it may be, comparing Macrob. i. 9. 14. But\n    this is easily explained by the position of Janus in\n    prayers; cp. Cic. _Nat. Deor._ ii. 27. 67, \"cum in\n    omnibus rebus vim haberent maximam prima et extrema,\n    principem in sacrificando Ianum esse voluerunt.\" The\n    phrase \"Deorum\" or \"Divum deus\" is indeed remarkable,\n    and unparalleled in Roman worship; but no one acquainted\n    with Roman or Italian ritual will for a moment suspect\n    it of meaning \"God of gods\" in either a Christian or\n    metaphysical sense. I shall have occasion to notice the\n    peculiar use of the genitive case and of genitival\n    adjectives in worship later on. See below, p. 153 foll.\n\n    [245] _Fasti_, i. 89 foll.; _R.F._ p. 281 foll.\n\n    [246] Frazer, _l.c._ (a page of which every line appears\n    to me to be written under a complete misapprehension of\n    the right methods of research into the nature of Roman\n    gods); A. B. Cook, _Classical Review_, vol. xviii. 367\n    foll.; Professor Ridgeway, _Who were the Romans?_ p. 12,\n    where, among other remarkable statements, Janus is\n    confidently said to have been introduced at Rome by the\n    Sabine Numa, and therefore to have been a Sabine deity,\n    an assumption quite irreconcilable with those of Dr.\n    Frazer and Mr. Cook. In striking contrast with such\n    speculations is a sensible paper on Janus in M.\n    Toutain's _Etudes de mythologie et d'histoire_, p. 195\n    foll. (Paris, 1909).\n\n    [247] Dr. Frazer is aware of this; see his _Kingship_,\n    p. 285, note 1. See also Roscher in _Myth. Lex._, _s.v._\n    \"Janus,\" p. 45 foll.\n\n    [248] For the evidence for this and the following facts,\n    see Roscher's article just cited, or Wissowa, _R.K._ p.\n    91 foll.; cp. _R.F._ p. 280 foll. The cult epithets of\n    Janus are thus explained by von Domaszewski,\n    _Abhandlungen_, p. 223, note 1, \"Bei Ianus tritt\n    regelmaessig der Begriff des Wesens hinzu, dessen Wirkung\n    er von Anfang an bestimmt, so I. Consevius der Anfang\n    der in Consus wirkenden Kraft, und in derselbe Weise I.\n    Iunonius, Matutinus,\" etc. This is reasonable, but it\n    does not suit with I. Patulcius-Clusius, and I cannot\n    accept it with confidence at present.\n\n    [249] Roscher, _op. cit._ p. 34.\n\n    [250] Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 284 foll.\n\n    [251] Festus, p. 185.\n\n    [252] It is due to the good sense and learning of Dr.\n    Roscher; he had previously, when working on the old\n    methods, tried to prove that Janus was a \"wind-god\"\n    (_Hermes der Windgott_, Leipzig, 1878); but a more\n    searching inquiry into the Roman evidence, when the\n    prepossessions had left him which the comparative method\n    is so likely to produce, brought him to the view I have\n    explained in outline, which has been adopted in the main\n    by Wissowa, Aust, and J. B. Carter, as well as by myself\n    in _R.F._ The last word about so puzzling a deity can of\n    course never be said; but if we indulge in speculations\n    about him we must use the Roman evidence with adequate\n    knowledge of the criticism it needs.\n\n    [253] This difference between Zeus and Jupiter has been\n    pointed out by Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 100; Jupiter stands\n    for the heaven even in classical Latin literature, as we\n    all know.\n\n    [254] See his papers in the _Classical Review_, vol.\n    xvii. 270 and xviii. 365 foll., and in _Folklore_, vol.\n    xv. 301; xvi. 260 foll.\n\n    [255] _Kingship_, p. 196 foll.\n\n    [256] Macrobius i. 15. 14. In historical times a white\n    victim, _ovis idulis_, was taken to the Capitol by the\n    _via sacra_ in procession (Ov. _Fasti_, i. 56. 588).\n    Festus says that some derived the term _via sacra_ from\n    this procession (p. 290); and to this Horace may be\n    alluding in _Ode_ iii. 30. 8, \"dum Capitolium Scandet\n    cum tacita virgine pontifex.\"\n\n    [257] _R.F._ pp. 86, 204.\n\n    [258] _R.F._ p. 160.\n\n    [259] No doubt Jupiter was specially connected with the\n    oak, as Mr. Cook has shown with great learning in the\n    paper cited above, note 36; but at Rome he had an\n    ancient shrine among beeches, and was known as I.\n    Fagutalis: Varro, _L.L._ v. 152; Paulus 87. For I.\n    Viminalis, see _R.F._ p. 229.\n\n    [260] See Aust's article \"Jupiter\" in _Myth. Lex._ p.\n    673.\n\n    [261] Aust gives a cut of a coin of the consul Claudius\n    Marcellus (223 B.C.) dedicating _spolia opima_ in this\n    little temple, according to the ancient fashion,\n    supposed to be initiated by Romulus, Livy i. 10.\n\n    [262] Dionys. Hal. ii. 34.\n\n    [263] _R.F._ p. 230.\n\n    [264] See De Marchi's careful investigation, _La\n    Religione_, _etc._, i. p. 156 foll.; Gaius i. 112. The\n    cult-title should indicate that the god was believed to\n    be immanent in the cake of _far_, rather than that it\n    was offered to him (so I should also take I. Dapalis,\n    though in later times the idea had passed into that of\n    sacrifice, Cato, _R.R._ 132), and if so, the use of the\n    cake was sacramental; cp. the rite at the Latin\n    festival, _R.F._ p. 96.\n\n    [265] There are distinct traces of a practice of taking\n    oaths in the open air, _i.e._ under the sky; of Dius\n    Fidius, unquestionably a form of Jupiter, Varro says\n    (_L.L._ v. 66), \"quidam negant sub tecto per hunc\n    deiurare oportere.\" Cp. Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 28;\n    _R.F._ p. 138. For the conception of a single great\n    deity as primitive, see Lang, _The Making of Religion_,\n    ch. xii.; Flinders Petrie, _Religion of Egypt_ (in\n    Constable's shilling series), ch. i.; Ross, _The\n    Original Religion of China_, p. 128 foll.; Warneck, _Die\n    Lebenskraefte des Evangeliums_, p. 20 (of the Indian\n    Archipelago). The last reference I owe to Professor\n    Paterson, of Edinburgh University.\n\n    [266] Serv. _Aen._ viii. 552, \"more enim veteri sacrorum\n    neque Martialis flamen neque Quirinalis omnibus\n    caerimoniis tenebantur quibus flamen Dialis, neque\n    diurnis sacrificiis distinebatur.\" It is, however,\n    possible that under the word _caerimonia_ Servius is not\n    here including taboos, but active duties only.\n\n    [267] See my paper, \"The Strange History of a Flamen\n    Dialis,\" in _Classical Review_, vol. vii. p. 193.\n\n    [268] Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 26.\n\n    [269] Cato, _R.R._ 141; Henzen, _op. cit._ p. 48.\n\n    [270] Frazer, _G.B._ iii. 123, note 3; _R.F._ p. 40, for\n    further examples. It may be worth while to point out\n    here that the coupling of all farm animals except goats\n    took place in spring or early summer; Varro, _R.R._ ii.\n    2 foll. Isidorus (_Orig._ v. 33), who embodies Varro and\n    Verrius to some extent, derived the name Mars from\n    _mares_, because in the month of March \"cuncta animalia\n    ad mares aguntur.\"\n\n    [271] I prefer, with De Marchi, to take Silvanus here as\n    a cult-title, though we do not meet with it elsewhere;\n    see _La Religione_, _etc._, p. 130 note; but Wissowa,\n    who has a prejudice against the view that Mars was\n    connected with agriculture, insists on taking Marti\n    Silvano as a case of asyndeton, _i.e._ as two deities.\n\n    [272] See, _e.g._, Varro, _L.L._ v. 36, \"quos agros non\n    colebant propter silvas aut id genus, ubi pecus possit\n    pasci, et possidebant, ab usu salvo saltus nominarunt.\"\n\n    [273] Cato, _R.R._ 141. Mars is there invoked as able to\n    keep off (_averruncare_) evil influences and to make the\n    crops grow, etc.; he has become in the second century\n    B.C. a powerful deity in the actual processes of\n    husbandry, just as he became in the city a powerful\n    deity of war. But as he was not localised either on the\n    farm or in the city, I prefer to think that he was\n    originally conceived as a Power outside the boundary in\n    each case, but for that very reason all the more to be\n    propitiated by the settlers within it.\n\n    [274] See below, p. 235.\n\n    [275] So Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 131. Cp. _R.F._ p. 39, note\n    4. Deubner in _Archiv_, 1905, p. 75.\n\n    [276] Servius, commenting on line 3 of _Aen._ viii.\n    (_utque impulit arma_) writes: \"nam is qui belli\n    susceperat curam, sacrarium Martis ingressus, primo\n    ancilia commovebat, post hastam simulacri ipsius,\n    dicens, Mars vigila.\" The mention of a statue shows that\n    this account belongs to a late period. But Varro seems\n    to have stated that there was originally only a spear;\n    see a passage of Clement of Alexandria in the fragments\n    of the _Ant. rer. div._, Agahd, p. 210, to which Deubner\n    (_l.c._) adds Arnobius vi. 11. Deubner calls this spear\n    a fetish, which is not the right word if the deity were\n    immanent in it in the sense suggested by \"Mars vigila.\"\n    See above, p. 116. If Servius correctly reports the\n    practice, it must be compared with the clashing of\n    shields and spears by the Salii, which may thus have had\n    a positive as well as negative object.\n\n    [277] Livy v. 52.\n\n    [278] Mr. A. B. Cook (_Classical Review_, 1904, p. 368)\n    has tried to connect both names with the Greek word\n    [Greek: prinos], and Professor Conway, quoted by him, is\n    inclined to lend the weight of his great authority to\n    the conjecture. Thus Quirinus would be an oak-god, and\n    Quirites oak-spearmen. We must, however, remember that\n    Mr. Cook is, so to speak, on an oak scent, and his\n    keenness as a hunter leads him sometimes astray. One is\n    a little perplexed to understand why Jupiter, Janus,\n    Mars, and Quirinus should all be oak-gods (and all in\n    origin identical as such!). On the other hand, it is\n    fair to note that the original spear was probably of\n    wood, with the point hardened in the fire, like the\n    _hasta praeusta_ of the Fetiales: Festus, p. 101. If\n    _quiris_ has really anything to do with oaks, it would\n    be more natural to explain the two words as springing\n    from an old place-name, Quirium, as Niebuhr did long\n    ago, and to derive that again from the oaks among which\n    it may have stood. But I am content to take _quiris_ as\n    simply a spear, as Buecheler did; see Deubner, _op.\n    cit._ p. 76. Since the above was written, the article\n    \"Quirinus\" by Wissowa in the _Myth. Lex._ has appeared.\n    Naturally it does not add anything to our knowledge; but\n    Wissowa holds to the opinion that the most probable\n    derivation of the name Quirinus is from Quirium,\n    possibly the name of the settlement on the Quirinal; and\n    compares _Q. pater_ (_e.g._ Livy v. 52. 7) with the\n    _Reatinus pater_ of _C.I.L._ ix. 4676.\n\n    [279] The Nonae Caprotinae (July 7), the day when women\n    sacrificed to Juno Caprotina under a wild fig-tree in\n    the Campus Martius, is not known to us except from\n    Varro. See _R.F._ p. 178, where (note 8) is a suggestion\n    that the festival had to do with the _caprificatio_, or\n    method of ripening the figs, which Dr. Frazer has\n    expanded in his _Lectures on Kingship_, p. 270,\n    believing the process to be that of fertilisation.\n\n    [280] _Classical Review_, vol. ix. p. 474 foll. The same\n    view has recently been taken independently by W. Otto in\n    _Philologus_, 1905, pp. 215 foll., 221. It is perfectly\n    clear that the monthly sacrifice to Juno was the duty of\n    the wife of the _rex sacrorum_; a pontifex minor is also\n    mentioned (Macrob. i. 15. 19).\n\n    [281] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 116.\n\n    [282] _Ib._ p. 114.\n\n    [283] See Ihm's article \"Iunones\" in _Myth. Lex._ vol.\n    ii. 615; Pliny, _N.H._ ii. 16.\n\n    [284] Dr. J. B. Carter tells me that he has abandoned\n    this explanation of the evolution of Juno. On the other\n    hand, von Domaszewski seems in some measure to accept it\n    (_Abhandlungen_, p. 169 foll.), when he says that\n    \"similar functions, when exercised by different\n    _numina_, can eventually produce a god. _Auf diese Weise\n    ist Iuno geworden._\" He means that the creative power is\n    called Juno in a woman, or in a people (Iuno Populonia),\n    or in the curiae (Iuno Curitis), and that an independent\n    deity, Juno _par excellence_, emerges from all these.\n    But so far I cannot follow him.\n\n    [285] There is no real evidence from purely Roman\n    sources of this fancied conjugal or other relation, if\n    we exclude that of the alleged cult of Juno by the\n    Flaminica Dialis. This has been well seen and expressed\n    by W. Otto, _l.c._ p. 215 foll.; see also _Classical\n    Review_ as quoted above. As we shall see in the next\n    lecture, Dr. Frazer is much concerned to show that\n    Jupiter and Juno are actually a married pair, and\n    consequently he will have nothing to do with my opinion\n    on this point: _Early History of Kingship_, p. 214\n    foll., and _Adonis_, _Attis,_ _Osiris_, ed. 2, p. 410,\n    note 1.\n\n    [286] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 141.\n\n    [287] Festus, p. 106; Macrob. i. 12. 6.\n\n    [288] I have discussed the Vestalia and the nature of\n    Vesta and her cult in _R.F._ p. 145 foll. See also\n    Marquardt, p. 336 foll., and Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 141\n    foll.\n\n    [289] Ovid, _Fasti_, vi. 296, says that he had been\n    stupid enough to believe that there was a statue in the\n    _aedes Vestae_, but found out his mistake:--\n\n      esse diu stultus Vestae simulacra putavi;\n         mox didici curvo nulla subesse tholo.\n\n    The passage is interesting as showing how natural it was\n    for a Roman of the Graeco-Roman period to suppose that\n    his deities must be capable of taking iconic form. For\n    anthropomorphic representations of Vesta in other places\n    and at Pompeii, see Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_,\n    p. 67 foll.\n\n    [290] See Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of Ancient\n    Rome_, p. 223 foll. The statues of the _virgines\n    vestales maximae_, discovered in the Atrium Vestae, all\n    belong to the period of the Empire. They are now in the\n    museum of the Baths of Diocletian.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VII\n\nTHE DEITIES OF THE EARLIEST RELIGION: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS\n\n\nIn the last lecture we interrogated the calendar as to the deities whose\nfestivals are recorded in it, with the aid of what we know of the most\nancient priesthoods attached to particular cults. The result may be\nstated thus: we found a number of impersonal _numina_, with names of\nadjectival form, such as Saturnus, Vertumnus, and so on; others with\nsubstantival names, Tellus, Robigus, Terminus; the former apparently\nfunctional deities, concerned in the operations of nature or man, and\nthe latter spirits immanent in objects--Mother Earth herself, a stone,\nthe mildew, or (like Janus and Vesta) the entrance and the hearth-fire\nof human dwellings or cities. Lastly, we found from the evidence,\nchiefly of the priesthoods, that certain more important divinities stand\nout from the crowd of spirits, Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, and\nVesta; and we found some reason to think that these, and possibly a few\nof the others, by becoming the objects of priestly _cura_ and\n_caerimonia_ at particular spots in the city, were not unlikely to\nbecome also in some sense personal deities, to acquire a quasi-human\npersonality, if they came by the chance. In the present lecture I must\ngo rather more closely into such evidence as we possess bearing on the\nmental conception which these early Romans had formed of the divine\nbeings whom they had admitted within their city.\n\nAnd, first, we must be quite clear that in those early ages there was\nnothing in Rome which we can call a temple, as we understand the word;\nnor was there any such representation of a deity as we can call an image\nor _eidolon_. The deities were settled in particular spots of ground,\nwhich were made _loca sacra_, _i.e._ handed over to the deity by the\nprocess of _consecratio_ authorised by the _ius divinum_.[291] It was\nmatter of no moment what might be erected on this bit of ground; there\nmight be a rude house like that of Vesta, round in shape like the oldest\nItalian huts; there might be a gateway like that of Janus; or the spot\nmight be a grove, or a clearing within it (_lucus_), as in the case of\nRobigus or the Dea Dia of the Arval Brethren. All such places might be\ncalled by the general name _fanum_; and as a rule no doubt each _fanum_\ncontained a _sacellum_, _i.e._ a small enclosure without a roof,\ncontaining a little altar (_ara_). These \"altars\" may at first have been\nnothing more than temporary erections of turf and sods; permanent stone\naltars were probably a later development. Servius tells us that in later\ntimes it was the custom to place a sod (_caespes_) on the top of such a\nstone altar, which must be one of the many survivals in cult of the\nusages of a simpler age.[292]\n\nWith such spots as these we cannot associate anything in the nature of\nan image of the deity established there; and we have every reason to\nbelieve that no such thing was known at Rome until the Etruscan temple\nof the Capitoline trias was built near the end of the regal period.\nVarro expressly declared that the Romans remained for more than 170\nyears without any images of their gods, and added that those who first\nintroduced such images \"civitatibus suis et metum dempsisse et errorem\naddidisse.\"[293] What he had in his mind is clear; he had indeed no\ndirect knowledge of those early times, but he is thinking of a definite\ntraditional date in the kingly period--the last year of the reign of\nTarquinius Priscus, who, according to Varro's own account, built the\ntemple on the Capitol and placed in it a statue of Jupiter.[294] That\nwas the oldest image of which he knew anything; and, as Wissowa has\nremarked, his belief is entirely corroborated by the fact that in every\nsingle case in which the image of a god has any part in his cult, it is\nalways either this Capitoline Jupiter or some deity of later\nintroduction and non-Roman origin. It is also borne out by another\nsignificant and interesting fact--that the next image to be introduced,\nthat of Diana in the temple on the Aventine, was a copy of the [Greek:\nxoanon] of Artemis at Massilia, itself a copy of the famous one at\nEphesus.[295] Let us note that these two earliest statues were placed in\nroofed temples which were the dwelling-places of gods in an entirely new\nsense; so far no Roman deity of the city had been so housed, because he\ncould not be thought of in terms of human life, as visible in human form\nand needing shelter. But this later and foreign notion of divinity so\ncompletely took possession of the minds of the Romans of the\ncosmopolitan city that Varro is the only writer who has preserved the\ntradition of the older way of thinking. In the religion of the family\nOvid indeed has charmingly expressed it, perhaps on the authority of\nsome lost passage of Varro[296]:--\n\n  ante focos olim scamnis considere longis\n    mos erat, et mensae credere adesse deos.\n\nTibullus in one passage has mentioned what seems to be some rude attempt\nto give outward shape and form to an ancient pastoral deity[297]:--\n\n  lacte madens illic suberat Pan ilicis umbrae\n    et facta agresti lignea falce Pales.\n\nAnd Propertius hints at a like representation of Vertumnus, the garden\ndeity. But without some corroborative evidence it is hardly safe to take\nthese as genuine examples of early iconic worship.\n\nThus we may take it as certain that even the greater deities of the\ncalendar, Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, and Vesta, were not thought of\nas existing in any sense in human form, nor as personal beings having\nany human characteristics. The early Romans were destitute of\nmythological fancy, and as they had never had their deities presented to\nthem in visible form, could hardly have invented such stories about\nthem as sprang up in a most abundant crop when Greek literature and\nGreek art had changed their mental view of divinity. Roman legends were\noccupied with practical matters, with kings and the foundation of\ncities; and even among these it is hardly possible to detect those which\nmay be really Roman, for they are hidden away, like rude ancient\nfrescoes, under the elaborate decorations of the Greek artists, who\nseized upon everything that came to hand, including the old deities\nthemselves, to amuse themselves and win the admiration of their dull\npupils at Rome. He who would appreciate the difficulty of getting at the\noriginal rude drawings must be well acquainted with the decorative\nactivity of the Alexandrian age.\n\nThus we might well presume _a priori_ that the old Roman gods were not\nconceived as married pairs, nor as having children; and this is indeed\nthe conclusion at which we have arrived after half a century or more of\nmost careful and conscientious investigation by a series of German\nscholars. But quite recently in this country the contrary view has been\nput forward by an author of no less weight than Dr. Frazer; and another\neminent Cambridge scholar, Mr. A. B. Cook, evidently inclines to the\nsame view. I should in any case be reluctant to engage in controversy\nwith two valued personal friends; but it is just possible that in what\nfollows I may be able to throw some faint light on the evolution of the\nidea of marriage among divine beings; and on the strength of this I am\ncontent for the moment to be controversial. Dr. Frazer's arguments, with\nstrictures on my opinions, will be found in an appendix to his book on\n_Adonis,_ _Attis_, _Osiris_, 2nd edition.\n\nIn pure animism the spirits are nameless; when their residence and\nfunctions are more clearly recognised they acquire names, and these\nnames are naturally masculine or feminine among peoples whose language\nis not genderless, as was the case with the Sumerians of\nBabylonia.[298] This would seem to be the first step on the path to a\npersonal conception of divinity. But there are signs that the Romans had\nnot got very far on this path when we begin to know anything about their\nreligion. I have already alluded to the formula \"Sive deus sive dea,\"\nwhich occurs in the ritual of the Fratres Arvales, in the formula given\nby Cato for making a new clearing, and elsewhere;[299] and indeed there\nseems to have been always some uncertainty about the sex of one or two\nwell-known deities, such as Pales and Pomonus or Pomona.[300] It is not,\ntherefore, _a priori_ probable that the process of personalisation (if I\nmay coin the word) should have proceeded, at the period we are treating\nof, so far as to ascribe to these named deities of both sexes the\ncharacteristics of human beings in social life and intercourse. Yet\nVarro, as Dr. Frazer points out, is quoted by St. Augustine as saying\nthat his ancestors (that is, as Augustine adds), \"veteres Romanos,\"\nbelieved in the marriage of gods and in their procreative power.[301] If\nVarro wrote \"maiores meos,\" as he seems to have done, of whom was he\nreally thinking? Was Augustine's comment based on the rest of Varro's\ntext, or was he jumping to a conclusion which would naturally serve his\nown purpose? Varro, of course, was not a Roman, but from Reate in the\nSabine country. But even if he were thinking of Rome, how far back would\nhis knowledge extend? The Romans had known Greek married gods for three\nor four centuries before his time, and he may quite well be thinking of\nthese. Of the _di indigetes_ of an earlier period he could hardly know\nmore than we do ourselves; his only sources of information were the\nfacts of the cult and the books of the pontifices. The facts of the\ncult, so far as he and others have recorded them, suggest no pairing of\ndeities, no \"sacred marriage.\"[302] The pontifical books, which\ncontained rules and formulae for the proper invocation of deities by\ntheir right names, do indeed seem to have suggested a certain\nconjunction of male and female divine names; and it is just possible\nthat this is what Varro had in his mind when he wrote the passage seized\nupon by Augustine. I will proceed at once to examine this evidence, as\nit is incidentally of great interest in the history of Italian religion;\nand Dr. Frazer will probably allow that his conclusion must stand or\nfall by it.\n\nThe evidence to which I allude is preserved in the 13th book of the\n_Noctes Atticae_ of Aulus Gellius (ch. xxiii.), and extracted from\n\"libri sacerdotum populi Romani,\" as \"comprecationes deorum\nimmortalium\"; these also occur, he says, in _plerisque antiquis\norationibus_, _i.e._ in the invocations to the gods made by the orator\nat the beginning or end of his speech.[303] Among these Gellius found\nthe following conjunctions of divine names: Lua Saturni, Salacia\nNeptuni, Hora Quirini, Virites Quirini, Maia Volcani, Herie Iunonis,\nMoles Martis, and Neriene Martis, or Nerio Martis. Now among these\nconjunctions there are three which obviously do not express pairs of\ndeities, married or other, viz. Virites Quirini, Moles Martis, and Herie\nIunonis; the first two of which plainly mean the strength or force of\nQuirinus and Mars, and the third conjoins two female names. The question\nis whether the others are to be understood as giving us the names of the\n\"wives\" of Saturnus, Neptunus, Quirinus, Volcanus, and Mars. The fact\nthat these are associated with others which cannot mean anything of the\nkind is itself against this conclusion; but I have carefully examined\neach pair by the light of such stray information about them as we\npossess, and have failed to find anything to suggest Dr. Frazer's\nemphatic conclusion that these are married pairs. I should be tedious if\nI were to go through the evidence in detail in a lecture like this; but\nI will take the pair which Gellius himself discusses, and on which Dr.\nFrazer chiefly relies, Neriene or Nerio Martis: it is the pair about\nwhich we know most, and in every way is the most interesting of the\nset.[304]\n\nAfter giving the list of names, Gellius goes on to express his own\nopinion that _Nerio Martis_ means (like _Moles Martis_) the _virtus_ or\n_fortitudo_ of Mars, _Nerio_ being a Sabine word meaning strength or\ncourage;[305] and a little further he sums up his view thus: \"Nerio\nigitur Martis vis et potentia et maiestas quaedam esse Martis\ndemonstratur.\" This seems to fit in very comfortably with what can be\nguessed of the meaning of two of the other pairs, Virites Quirini and\nMaia Volcani: Maia was explained by another Roman scholar as equivalent\nto Maiestas.[306]\n\nBut Gellius goes on to quote three passages from old Latin authors in\nwhich Nerio (or Neria) appears positively as the wife of Mars; and again\nconcludes that there was also a tradition that these two were\n_coniuges_. Of these passages we luckily have the context of one, for it\noccurs in the _Truculentus_ of Plautus: turning this out (line 515) we\nfind that a rough soldier, arriving at Athens, salutes his sweetheart\nwith the words \"Mars peregre adveniens salutat Nerienen uxorem\nsuam\"--words which Plautus must have adapted from his Greek original in\nsuch a way as to make them intelligible to a Roman audience. Gellius\nsays that he had often heard a learned friend blame Plautus for thus\nputting a false notion about Mars (that he had a wife) into the mouth of\nhis soldier--\"nimis comice\"--merely to produce a comic effect. But, he\nadds, there was some justification for it; for if you read the third\nbook of the annals of Gellius (a namesake who lived in the second\ncentury B.C.) you will find that he puts into the mouth of Hersilia,\npleading for peace before Ti. Tatius, words which actually make Nerio\nthe wife of Mars: \"De tui, inquit, coniugis consilio, Martem scilicet\nsignificans.\" Little, I fear, can be said to the credit of this\nGellius;[307] he lived in an age when annalists were many and inventive,\nand long after the Romans had grown accustomed to Greek ideas of the\ngods; but we may take this passage as evidence of what may have been in\nhis day a popular idea of Mars and his consort. Lastly, Aulus Gellius\nquotes a brace of lines from one Licinius Imbrex, an old comic writer of\nthe same century, who, in a _fabula palliata_ called Neaera, wrote:--\n\n  nolo ego Neaeram te vocent, aut Nerienem,\n  cum quidem Marti es in connubium data.\n\nThe real question is whether these passages from comic writers and an\nannalist of no reputation combine to prove that there was an ancient\npopular idea of Mars as a married god; as to the priestly view of the\nmatter they can, of course, prove nothing. It seems to me that Dr.\nFrazer is entitled to argue that in the second century B.C. such a\npopular idea existed,[308] which the Roman state religion did not\nrecognise, and which Aulus Gellius, as we have seen, could not agree\nwith. I do not, however, think him entitled to go farther, and to infer\nthat this was an idea of divinity native to Italy or of very old\nstanding. Is it not much simpler to suppose, with a cool-headed scholar\nwhom Dr. Frazer is willing to follow when it suits his turn, that pairs\nor conjunctions of this kind, the true meaning of which I hope to\nexplain directly, were easily mistaken by the vulgar mind for married\ngod and goddess?[309] In those degenerate days of the Roman religion,\nafter the war with Hannibal, to which these writers belong--and all are\nlater than Ennius, the first to make mischief by ridiculing the\ngods--nothing could be easier than to take advantage of what looked like\nmarried life to invent comic passages to please a Roman audience, now\nconsisting largely of semi-educated men who had lost faith in their own\nreligion, and of a crowd of smaller people of mixed descent and\nnationality. Such passages, in fact, cannot safely be used as evidence\nof religious ideas, apart from the tendencies of the age in which they\nwere written. Had there really been religious beliefs, rooted in the old\nRoman mind, about the wedded life of gods and goddesses, it would even\nthen have been dangerous to use them mockingly in comedy. And once more,\nhad there been such genuinely Roman ideas, why, in an age that made for\nanthropomorphism, did they not find their way into the Roman\nPantheon,--why did they survive only in literary allusions, to the\nbewilderment of scholars like Aulus Gellius?\n\nThe real explanation of these curious conjunctions of masculine and\nfeminine names is, I think, not very hard to come by. Let us remember,\nin the first place, that they were found in the books of the priests,\nand that they belonged to forms of prayer--_comprecationes deorum\nimmortalium_; in other words, they do not represent popular ideas of the\ndeities, but ritualistic forms of invocation. As such they may indeed no\ndoubt be regarded as expressing, or as growing out of, a popular way of\nthinking of the Power manifesting itself in the universe; but they are\nthemselves none the less, like those strange lists of divine names\ncalled _Indigitamenta_, with which I shall deal directly, the creations\nof an active professional priesthood, working upon the principle that\nevery deity must be addressed in precisely the correct way and no other,\nand accounting the name of the deity, as indicating his or her exact\nfunction, the most vitally important thing in the whole invocation. I\nhave already pointed out how difficult the early Latin must have found\nit to discover how to address the _numina_ at work around him, and I\nshall return to the subject in another lecture; at present all I want to\ninsist upon is that the priests of the City-state relieved him of this\nanxiety, and indeed must have carried the work so far as to develop a\nkind of science of divine nomenclature. Every one who has studied the\nhistory of religions knows well how strong the tendency is, when once\ninvocation has become ritualised, for the names and titles of the\nobjects of worship to abound and multiply. The Roman Church of to-day\nstill shows this tendency in its elaborate invocation of the Virgin.\n\nWith the old Romans the common method of elaboration lay in the\ninvention of cult-titles, of which the different kinds have been\ndistinguished and explained by Dr. J. B. Carter in his treatise \"de\nDeorum Romanorum cognominibus.\"[310] Most of them are suggestive of\nfunction or character, as, _e.g._, Janus Patulcius Clusivius, or Jupiter\nLucetius, Ops Opifera; sometimes they doubled the idea, as in Aius\nLocutius, or Anna Perenna, or Fors Fortuna; and in one or two cases\nthey seem to have combined two deities together in rather puzzling\nconjunctions, which usually, however, admit of some possible\nexplanation, as Janus Junonius, or Ops Consiva (_i.e._ Ops belonging to\nConsus).[311] In the Iguvian ritual, which is the highly-elaborated work\nof a priesthood as active as the Roman, we find combinations of not less\nthan four names:[312] Cerfe Martie, Praestita Cerfia Cerfi Martii, Tursa\nCerfia Cerfi Martii, which may perhaps be rendered \"Spirit of Mars,\nprotecting (female) spirit of the (male) spirit of Mars, fear-inspiring\n(female) spirit of the (male) spirit of Mars.\"\n\nSuch strange multiple combinations as these suggest that expressions\nlike Moles Martis or Virites Quirini are only another form of the usual\ncult-title, expressing adoration of the power of the deity addressed;\nand it is only reasonable to explain the others of the same group on the\nsame principle. As we have seen, Roman scholars themselves explained\nNerio Martis as equivalent to Virtus Martis; Herie Iunonis probably\nmeans something of the same kind; the others are not so easily\nexplained, and guesswork about them is unprofitable. But I hope I have\nsaid enough to show that there is absolutely no good ground for\nsupposing that these combinations of names in nominative and genitive\nindicate a relationship of any kind except a qualitative one. Abstract\nqualities, let us note, are usually feminine in Latin, and I think it is\nnot improbable that abstractions such as Fides and Salus, which were\ndeified at a very early period at Rome, may have reached divinity by\nattachment to some god from whom they subsequently became again\nseparated.[313] And lastly, we can trace the same tendency to combine\nnames and ideas together far down the course of Roman history; witness\nthe combination of Genius with cities, legions, gods, etc., as well as\nwith the individual man, and again such expressions as Pietas Legionis,\nby analogy with which von Domaszewski, wrongly as I think, would explain\nthose we have been discussing.[314]\n\nBefore leaving this complicated and cloudy system of divine\nnomenclature, it is as well to ask the question once more, even if we\ncannot answer it, whether if left to itself it might have developed into\na polytheistic system of personal deities. I will give my own opinion\nfor what it is worth. I do not think that such a result could have been\nreached without the magic touch of the Greek poet and artist, or the\narrival of Greek deities and their images in Latium. Professor Sayce, in\nhis Gifford lectures on the religion of Babylonia, has shown how the\nnon-Semitic Sumerians knew only of spirits and demons until the Semite\narrived in the Persian Gulf with his personal gods of both sexes;[315]\nand I gather that he does not suppose that without such immigration the\nSumerian ideas of divinity could have become personalised. The question\nis not exactly the same at Rome; for there the spirit world had passed\ninto the hands of an organised priesthood occupied with ritual, and\nespecially with its terminological aspect; and the chance of\npersonalisation, if it were there at all, lay in the importance of the\nfunctional name. But the question is after all beside the mark; we shall\nsee what happened when the Greeks arrived. We may be content at present\nto note the fact that they found the functional terminology sufficiently\nadvanced to take advantage of it, and to revolutionise the whole Roman\nconception of the divine.\n\nDr. Frazer gives me an opportunity of adverting to another point bearing\non the question we are discussing,--the way in which the old Roman\nthought of his deities. \"It is difficult,\" he says,[316] \"to deny that\nthe epithets Pater and Mater, which the Romans bestow on so many of\ntheir gods, do really imply paternity and maternity; if this implication\nbe admitted, the inference appears to be inevitable that these divine\nbeings were supposed to exercise sexual functions, etc.\" In a footnote\nhe adds a number of formidable-looking references, meant, I suppose, to\nprove this point. I have closely examined these passages; what they do\nprove is simply that many deities were called Pater and Mater. Not one\neven suggests that paternity and maternity were in such cases to be\nunderstood literally and, so to speak, physically. The two that come\nnearest to what he is looking for are those from Varro and Lactantius.\nVarro says[317] that Ops was called Mater because she was identical with\nTerra, who was, of course, Terra Mater: \"Haec enim--\n\n  'terris gentes omnes peperit et resumit denuo,\n\nquae dat cibaria,' ut ait Ennius.\"[318] It is clear, then, that neither\nVarro nor Ennius understood this title of Ops and Terra in Dr. Frazer's\nsense of the word. The quotation from the early Christian father\nLactantius, which contains three well-known lines of Lucilius, might\npossibly deceive those who neglect to turn it out and read the context;\nthere we find at once that not even Lactantius could attribute to these\nepithets the meaning which Dr. Frazer wishes to put on them. He would\nhave been as glad to do so as Dr. Frazer himself, though for a very\ndifferent reason; but what he actually wrote is this:--\n\n\"Omnem Deum qui ab homine colitur, necesse est inter solennes ritus et\nprecationes patrem nuncupari, non tantum honoris gratia, verum etiam\nrationis; quod et antiquior est homine, et quod vitam, salutem, victum\npraestat, ut pater. Itaque ut Iuppiter a precantibus pater vocatur,\netc.\"[319]\n\nDr. Frazer's quotation begins with this last sentence; it is a pity that\nhe did not read the context. If he had read it, his candour would have\ncompelled him to confess that not even a Christian father, with a keen\nsense of what was ridiculous or degrading in the pagan religion,\nunderstood the fatherhood of the gods as he wishes to understand it.\n\nBut I am wasting time in pressing this point. Dr. Frazer would hardly\nhave used such an argument if he had not been hard put to it. The\nfigurative use of human relationships is surely a common practice, when\naddressing their deities, of all peoples who have reached the stage of\nfamily life. As another distinguished anthropologist says: \"The very\nwant of an object tends to supply an object through the imagination; and\nthis will be either the vital energy inherent in things, or the reflex\nof the human father, who once satisfied his needs (_i.e._ of the\nworshipper). So, in Aryan religions, the supreme god is father, [Greek:\nZeus pater], Diespiter, Marspiter. Ahura-Mazda is a father.... Another\nanalogy shows the relationship of brother and friend, as in the case of\nMithra.\"[320] The Romans themselves were familiar from the first with\nsuch figurative use of relationship, as was natural to a people in whom\nthe family instinct was so strong; we have but to think of the _pater\npatratus_ of the Fetiales,[321] of the Fratres Arvales, or the Fratres\nAttiedii of Iguvium. What exactly they understood by Pater and Mater\nwhen applied to deities is not so easy to determine: we have not the\nnecessary data. They were never applied, I believe, to imported deities,\n_di novensiles_; always to _di indigetes_, those on whom the original\nRoman stock looked as their fellow-citizens and guardians. And we shall\nnot be far wrong if we conclude that in general they imply the\ndependence of the human citizen upon his divine protector, and thus\nbring the usage into line with that of other Aryan peoples. Behind this\nfeeling of dependence there may have been the idea, handed down from\nremote ages, that Father Sky and Mother Earth were in a sense the\nparents of all living things; but there is nothing in the Roman religion\nto suggest that the two were thought of as personally uniting in\nmarriage or a sexual act.\n\nI will sum up this part of the discussion by translating an admirable\npassage in Aust's book on the Roman religion, with which I am in cordial\nagreement[322]:--\n\n\"The deities of Rome were deities of the cult only. They had no human\nform; they had not the human heart with its virtues and vices. They had\nno intercourse with each other, and no common or permanent residence;\nthey enjoyed no nectar and ambrosia ... they had no children, no\nparental relation. They were indeed both male and female, and a male and\nfemale deity are often in close relations with each other; but this is\nnot a relation of marriage, and rests only on a similarity in the sphere\nof their operations.... These deities never become independent\nexistences; they remain cold, colourless conceptions, _numina_ as the\nRomans called them, that is, supernatural beings whose existence only\nbetrays itself in the exercise of certain powers.\"\n\nThey were, indeed, cold and colourless conceptions as compared with the\nGreek gods of Olympus, whose warmth and colour is really that of human\nlife, of human passions; but the one remarkable and interesting thing\nabout these Roman and Italian numina is the life and force for good or\nevil which is the very essence of their being. The puzzling combinations\nwe have just been studying are quite enough to illustrate this\ncharacter. Moles, Virites, Nerio, and perhaps others too, seem to mean\nthe strength or force inherent in the numen; Cerfius, or Cerus, as the\nLatins called it, Liber, Genius, all are best interpreted as meaning a\nfunctional or creative force. Jupiter is the sky or heaven itself, with\nall its manifestations of activity; Tellus is Mother Earth, full of\nactive productive power. At the bottom of these cold and colourless\nconceptions there is thus a real idea of power, not supernatural but\nrather natural power, which may both hurt and benefit man, and which he\nmust attempt to enlist on his side. This enlistment was the task of the\nRoman priesthood and the Roman government, and so effectually was it\ncarried out that the divine beings lost their vitality in the process.\n\nWe shall be better able to follow out this curious fate of the Roman\ndeities in later lectures; here I wish to note one other aspect of the\nRoman idea of divinity, which will help to explain what I have just been\nsaying about the life and force inherent in these numina.\n\nIn most cursory accounts of the Roman religion it has been the practice\nto lay particular stress upon an immense number of \"gods,\" as they used\nto be called, each of which is supposed to have presided over some\nparticular act or suffering of the Roman from the cradle to the\ngrave--from Cunina, the \"goddess\" of his cradle, to Libitina who looked\nafter his interment. I have as yet said nothing about all these. I will\nnow briefly explain why I have not done so, and why I hesitate to\ninclude them, at any rate in the uncompromising form in which they are\nusually presented, among the genuine religious conceptions of the\nearliest period. Later on I shall have further opportunity of discussing\nthem; at the end of this lecture I can only sum up the results of recent\nresearch into this curious cloud of so-called deities.\n\nWe know of them mainly, but not entirely, from Tertullian, and the _de\nCivitate Dei_ of St. Augustine.[323] These scholarly theologians,\nwishing to show up the absurdity of the heathen religions, found a mine\nof material in the great work of Varro on the Roman religious\nantiquities; and though they found him by no means so elegant a writer\nas Cicero, they studied him with pains, and have incidentally added\nimmensely to our knowledge both of Varro himself and of the Roman\nreligion. St. Augustine tells us that it was in the last three books of\nhis work that Varro treated of the Roman deities, and that he divided\nthem under the heads of _di certi_, _di incerti_, and _di selecti_. In\nthe first of these he dealt chiefly with those with which we are now\nconcerned: they were _certi_ because their names expressed their\nsupposed activity quite clearly.[324] We know for certain that Varro\nfound these names in the books of the pontifices, and that they were\nthere called Indigitamenta:[325] a word which has been variously\ninterpreted, and has been the subject of much learned disputation. I\nbelieve with Wissowa that it means \"forms of invocation,\" _i.e._ the\ncorrect names by which gods should be addressed.\n\nThus these lists of names come down to us at third hand: Varro took them\nfrom the pontifical books, and the Christian fathers took them from\nVarro. It is obvious that this being the case they need very careful\ncritical examination; and till recently they were accepted in full\nwithout hesitation, and without reflection on such questions as, _e.g._,\nwhether they are psychologically probable, or whether they can be\nparalleled from the religious experience of other peoples. Some\npreliminary critical attempts were made about fifty years ago in this\ndirection,[326] but the first thoroughgoing examination of the subject\nwas published by R. Peter in the article \"Indigitamenta\" in Roscher's\n_Mythological Lexicon_. This most industrious scholar, though his\ninterpretation of the word Indigitamenta is probably erroneous,[327] was\nthe first to reach the definite conclusion that the lists are not really\nprimitive, and do not, as we have them, represent primitive religious\nthought. It was after a very careful study of this article, which is\nlong enough to fill a small volume, that I wrote in my _Roman Festivals_\nof the Indigitamenta as \"based on\"--not actually representing, I might\nhave added--\"old ideas of divine agency, now systematised by something\nlike scientific terminology and ordered classification by skilled legal\ntheologians\"; and as \"an artificial priestly exaggeration of a primitive\ntendency to see a world of nameless spirits surrounding and influencing\nall human life.\"[328]\n\nI was not then specially concerned with the Indigitamenta, and only\nalluded to them in passing. But before my book was published there had\nalready appeared a most interesting work on the names of deities\n(_Goetternamen_) by H. Usener, a brilliant investigator, which drew fresh\nattention to the subject. Usener found in mediaeval records of the\nreligion of the heathen Lithuanians what seemed to be a remarkable\nparallel with this old Roman theology, and he also compared these\nrecords with certain facts in what we may call the pre-Olympian\nreligious ideas of the Greeks. \"The conclusion which he draws,\" writes\nDr. Farnell[329]--and I cannot state it better--\"is that the\nIndo-Germanic peoples, on the way to the higher polytheism, passed\nthrough an earlier stage when the objects of cult were beings whom he\ndesignated by the newly-coined words 'Augenblickgoetter' and\n'Sondergoetter'\" (gods of momentary or limited function). He went further\nthan this, and claimed that the anthropomorphic gods of Greece and\nItaly, of the Indo-Iranians, Persians, and Slavs, were developed out of\nthese spirits presiding over special functions and particular moments of\nhuman life; but with this latter part of his theory I am not now\nconcerned. What we want to know now is whether in writing thus of the\nRoman Indigitamenta Usener was using a record which really represents an\nearly stage of religious thought in Italy; and I may add that we should\nbe glad to know whether his Lithuanian records are also to be\nunhesitatingly relied on.[330] As regards Greece, Dr. Farnell has\ncriticised his theories with considerable effect.\n\nThe most recent contribution to the discussion of the Roman part of the\nsubject is that of Wissowa, who in 1904 published a paper on \"True and\nFalse Sondergoetter at Rome\";[331] this is a piece of most valuable and\nweighty criticism, but extremely difficult to follow and digest. I here\ngive only the main results of it. Wissowa takes two genuine examples of\nSondergoetter which have come down to us from other sources, and more\ndirectly than those mentioned above: the first from Fabius Pictor, the\noldest Roman historian,[332] and the other from the Acta Fratrum\nArvalium.[333] Fabius said that the flamen (Cerealis?), when sacrificing\nto Tellus and Ceres, also invoked the following deities: Vervactor, for\nthe first ploughing, as Wissowa interprets it; Redarator, for the second\nploughing; Imporcitor, for the harrowing; Insitor, for the sowing;\nOberator, for the top-dressing; Occator, Sarritor, Subrincator, Messor,\nConvector, Conditor, Promitor, for subsequent operations up to the\nharvest and actual distribution of the corn for food. Secondly, in the\nActa of the Arval Brethren we find, on the occasion of a _piaculum_\ncaused by the growth of a fig-tree on the roof of the temple of Dea Dia,\nat the end of a long list of deities invoked, and before the names of\nthe _divi_ of the Imperial families, the names of three Sondergoetter,\nAdolenda Commolenda Deferunda, and on another occasion, Adolenda and\nCoinquenda; these seem beyond doubt to refer to the process of getting\nthe obnoxious tree down from the roof, of breaking it up, and burning\nit.\n\nIn both these examples, which have come down to us more directly than\nthe lists in the Fathers, Wissowa sees assistant or subordinate deities\n(if such they can be called) grouped around a central idea, that of the\nmain object of sacrifice in each case;[334] these are the result of the\n_cura_ and _caerimonia_ supervised and over-elaborated by pontifical law\nand ritual. It is, I may add on my own account, most unlikely, and\npsychologically almost impossible, that any individual farmer should\nhave troubled himself to remember and enumerate by name twelve deities\nrepresenting the various stages of an agricultural process; and Cato, in\nfact, says nothing of such ritual. It was the flamen of the City-state,\nwho, when sacrificing to Tellus and Ceres before harvest,[335] pictured,\nor recalled to mind, the various processes of a year of what we may call\nhigh farming rather than primitive, under the names of deities plainly\ninvented out of the words which express those processes--words which\nthemselves are certainly not all antique. And in the second example,\nwhich dates from the second century A.D., we see that the process of\ndestroying the intruding fig-tree is represented in ritual in exactly\nthe same curious way: the names of the deities, Deferunda and the rest,\nbeing invented for the occasion out of the words which express the\nseveral acts of the process of destruction. These Arval Brethren of the\nsecond century inherited the traditions of their predecessors of an\nearlier age, and carried out the work of amplification in their\ninvocations by pedantically imitating the pontifices of five or six\ncenturies earlier. They held, in a way which to us is ludicrous, to the\nold notion that you should try and cover as much ground as possible in\nworship, and to cover it in detail, so that no chance might be missed\nof securing the object for which you were taking so much trouble.\n\nNow to return to Varro and his lists of names. What is Dr. Wissowa's\nconclusion about these, after examining the two examples of Sondergoetter\nwhich have not come down to us through so much book-learning as the\nrest?\n\nVarro's _di certi_, he says[336]--and I think there is no doubt that he\nis right--included the name of every deity, great or small, of which he\ncould feel sure that he knew something, as he found it in the books of\nthe pontifices; and the part of those books in which he found these\nnames, known as Indigitamenta, probably contained formulae of\ninvocation, _precationum carmina_,[337] of the same kind as the\n_comprecationes deorum immortalium_ from which Gellius quoted the pairs\nof male and female deities which we discussed above. Varro arranged all\nthese names in groups of principal and subordinate or assistant deities,\nthe latter amplifying in detail the meaning and scope of the former, as\nwe have just seen; and of this grouping some traces are still visible in\nthe accounts of Augustine and Tertullian. But the good Fathers tumbled\nthe whole collection about sadly in their search for material for their\nmockery, having no historical or scientific object in view; with the\nresult that it now resembles the bits of glass in a kaleidoscope, and\ncan no longer be re-arranged on the original Varronian plan. The\ndifficulty is increased by the etymologies and explanations which they\noffer of the divine names, which, as a rule, are even more absurd than\nthe divinities themselves.[338]\n\nBut, in the last place, the question must be asked whether these\nSondergoetter of the real kind, such, for example, as those twelve\nagricultural ones invoked by the flamen at the Cereale sacrum, had their\norigin in any sense in popular usage or belief. At the end of his paper\nWissowa emphatically says that he does not believe it. For myself, I\nwould only modify this conclusion so far as this: they must, I think,\nhave been the theological, or perhaps rather the ritualistic outcome,\nof a psychological tendency rooted in the popular mind. I have already\nnoticed that curious bit of folklore in which three spirits of\ncultivation were invoked with a kind of acted parable at the birth of a\nchild;[339] and I cannot regard this custom as a piece of pontifical\nritualism, though the names may have been invented by the priests to\nsuit the practice. The old Roman seems to have had a tendency to ascribe\nwhat for want of a better word we may call divinity, not only to animate\nand inanimate objects, but to actions and abstractions; this, I take it,\nis an advanced stage of animism, peculiar, it would seem, to a highly\npractical agricultural people, and it is this stage which is reflected\nin the ritualistic work of the priests. They turned dim and nameless\npowers into definite and prehensible deities with names, and arranged\nthem in groups so as to fall in with the life of the city as well as the\nfarm. What was the result of all this ingenuity, or whether it had any\npopular result at all, is a question hardly admitting of solution. What\nis really interesting in the matter, if my view is the right one, is the\ncurious way in which the early Roman seems to have looked upon all life\nand force and action, human or other, as in some sense associated with,\nand the result of, divine or spiritual agency.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE VII\n\n    [291] For _loca sacra_ and _consecratio_ see Marquardt,\n    p. 148 foll.; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 400.\n\n    [292] Serv. _ad Aen._ xii. 119, \"Romani moris fuerat\n    cespitem arae super imponere, et ita sacrificare.\" Cp.\n    some valuable remarks of Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p.\n    23. The altar of the Fratres was in front of their\n    grove; they used also a movable one (_foculus_) of\n    silver, but _cespiti ornatus_ (_ib._ p. 21): this was\n    for the preliminary offering of wine and incense\n    (Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 351).\n\n    [293] In Aug. _Civ. Dei_, iv. 31; Agahd's edition of the\n    fragments of Varro's _Ant. rer. div._ p. 164.\n\n    [294] Aug. _Civ. Dei_, iv. 23; Agahd, p. 159. See\n    Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 280 foll.\n\n    [295] Strabo iv. 180.\n\n    [296] _Fasti_, vi. 305.\n\n    [297] Tibull. ii. 5. 27. The lines of Propertius are iv.\n    (v.) 2. 59, \"Stipes acernus eram, properanti falce\n    dolatus, Ante Numam grata pauper in urbe deus.\" The\n    question is whether these are genuine examples of the\n    natural evolution of a \"stock or stone\" into something\n    in the nature of an anthropomorphic image of a deity, or\n    whether they are the result of the introduction of Greek\n    statues acting on the popular mind in rustic parts of\n    Italy. The passages, so far as I know, stand alone, and\n    we have no means of deciding whether the anthropomorphic\n    tendency was native or foreign. Vortumnus was, however,\n    undoubtedly of Etruscan origin; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 233.\n    The subject of iconic development of this kind is well\n    summarised in E. Gardner's little volume on _Religion\n    and Art in Ancient Greece_, ch. i.\n\n    [298] See Sayce, _Gifford Lectures on the Religions of\n    Egypt and Babylonia_, p. 302. An interesting paper on\n    the evolution of _dei_ at Rome out of functional\n    _numina_ will be found in von Domaszewski's\n    _Abhandlungen zur roem. Religion_, p. 155 foll., based on\n    Usener's theory of Sondergoetter. It is ingenious and\n    imaginative, but in my view does not square with the\n    facts as far as we know them. His stages are: (1)\n    momentary function of _numina_, _e.g._ lightning; (2)\n    elevation of this into a permanent power or function;\n    (3) consequent limitation of the numen to a special\n    well-marked function; (4) elevation of the numen to a\n    _deus_, conceived in the likeness of man, and male or\n    female, because man cannot think of power otherwise than\n    on the analogy of male or female creative energy.\n    Lastly, when the _deus_ is complete, the functions of\n    the former numen become attributes or qualities, traces\n    of which we find in the pairs of deities in Gellius,\n    xiii. 23, which are discussed later on in this lecture.\n    Some of these, of course, eventually became separate\n    deities--Salacia, Maia, Lua. As I cannot accept the view\n    that the earliest Roman idea of the supernatural is to\n    be found in _comprecationes_ of a comparatively late\n    period, _i.e._ in the so-called Indigitamenta, this\n    charmingly symmetrical account has no charm for me\n    beyond its symmetry.\n\n    [299] Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ pp. 144, 146; Cato,\n    _R.R._ 139; _C.I.L._ vi. 110 and 111. Other references\n    are given by Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 33, note 2.\n\n    [300] For Pales, _R.F._ p. 80 note; for Pomona, Wissowa,\n    _R.K._ p. 165.\n\n    [301] The passage runs thus (Aug. _C.D._ iv. 32):\n    \"Dicit enim (Varro) de generationibus deorum magis ad\n    poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos, et\n    ideo et sexum et generationes deorum maiores suos (id\n    est veteres credidisse Romanos) et eorum constituisse\n    coniugia.\" There is an amusing passage in Lactantius, i.\n    17 (_de Falsa Religione_), which Dr. Frazer might read\n    with advantage. It begins, \"Si duo sunt sexus deorum,\n    sequitur concubitus.\" Then he goes on mockingly to argue\n    that the gods must have houses, cities, lands which\n    they plough and sow, which proves them mortal. Finally\n    he takes the whole series of inferences backwards,\n    finishing with \"si domibus carent, ergo et concubitu. Si\n    concubitus ab his abest, et sexus igitur foemineus,\"\n    etc. All this, he means, can be inferred from the fact\n    that gods are of both sexes; but that they have\n    _concubitus_ can no more be inferred from his argument\n    than that they plough and sow.\n\n    [302] Dr. Frazer conjectures a sacred marriage of\n    Jupiter and Juno under the forms of Janus and Diana, in\n    _Kingship_, p. 214; but he is well aware that it is pure\n    guesswork. There was, indeed, at Falerii such a marriage\n    of Juno with an unknown deity (Ovid, _Amores_, iii. 13),\n    of which, however, we do not know the history. Falerii\n    was one of those cities, like Praeneste, where Etruscan,\n    Greek, and Latin influences met. The \"Orci nuptiae\" on\n    which Frazer lays stress was simply the Greek marriage\n    of Pluto and Proserpine: \"Orci coniux Proserpina,\" Aug.\n    _C.D._ vii. 23 and 28, Agahd, p. 152. Wissowa shows this\n    conclusively, _R.K._ p. 246. Orcus was Graecised as\n    Plutus, but was himself totally without personality.\n\n    [303] Dr. Frazer wrongly translates this as \"ancient\n    prayers\" (p. 411), adding \"the highest possible\n    authority on the subject.\" _Oratio_ is never used in\n    this sense until Christian times: the word is always\n    _precatio_. All scholars are agreed that what is meant\n    is invocations to deities in old speeches, such as occur\n    once or twice in Cicero (_e.g._ at the end of the\n    _Verrines_); cp. Livy xxix. 15. As the recording of\n    speeches cannot be assumed to have begun before the\n    third century B.C., this does not carry us very far\n    back. That century is also the age in which the\n    pontifices were probably most active in drawing up\n    _comprecationes_; see below, p. 285 foll.\n\n    [304] See Appendix B at end of volume.\n\n    [305] Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, iii. 850, \"_forti_ sacrificare\n    deae.\" In _R.F._ p. 60 foll., I have criticised the\n    attempts, ancient and modern, to make this Nerio the\n    subject of myths.\n\n    [306] Macrob. i. 12. 18. This word Maiestas shows the\n    doubtful nature of these feminine names, and probably\n    betrays the real meaning of Maia. I may mention here\n    that Bellona instead of Nerio is ascribed as wife to\n    Mars by Seneca ap. Aug. _C.D._ vi. 10; also Venus to\n    Volcanus instead of Maia. Neither have any connection,\n    so far as we know, with the gods to whom Seneca ascribes\n    them as wives: Venus-Vulcan is, of course, Greek. Both\n    Augustine and Dr. Frazer might with advantage have\n    abstained from citing Seneca on such a point: as a\n    Spaniard by birth he was not likely to know much about\n    technical questions of Roman ritual.\n\n    [307] See Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_, i. 274.\n\n    [308] In the Graeco-Roman age Mars seems to have been\n    rather a favourite subject of myth-making; see Usener's\n    article on Italian myths in _Rhein. Mus._ vol. xxx.;\n    Roscher in _Myth. Lex._ for works of Graeco-Etruscan\n    art in which he appears in certain mythical scenes.\n\n    [309] H. Jordan, quoted in _R.F._ p. 61 note. I relegate\n    to an appendix what needs to be said about the other\n    pairs of deities mentioned by Gellius.\n\n    [310] Leipzig, 1898, p. 7 foll.\n\n    [311] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 168. Carter, _op. cit._ p. 21.\n\n    [312] See Buecheler, _Umbrica_, pp. 22 and 98.\n\n    [313] So Fides is usually explained, as originally\n    belonging to Jupiter (Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 103 foll.); but\n    a different view is taken by Harold L. Axtell in his\n    work on the _Deification of Abstract Ideas at Rome_\n    (Chicago, 1907), p. 20.\n\n    [314] In the Festschrift f. O. Hirschfeld, p. 243 foll.\n\n    [315] _Religion of the Babylonians_, introductory\n    chapter.\n\n    [316] _Op. cit._ p. 412.\n\n    [317] _L.L._ v. 64.\n\n    [318] This fragment is No. 503 in Baehrens, _Fragm.\n    Poet. Rom._\n\n    [319] Lactantius, _Div. inst._ iv. 3.\n\n    [320] Crawley, _The Tree of Life_, p. 256; Farnell,\n    _Evolution of Religion_, p. 180; von Domaszewski,\n    _Abhandlungen_, p. 166, \"Man ruft sie an im Gebete als\n    pater und mater zum Zeichen der Unterwerfung unter ihren\n    Willen, wie der Sohn dem Gebote des paterfamilias sich\n    fuegt. Der sittlich strenge Gehorsam, der das\n    Familienleben der Roemer beherrscht, die pietas, ist der\n    Sinn der roemischen religio.\" Cp. also Appel, _de Rom.\n    precationibus_, pp. 102-3, who thinks that they regarded\n    the gods \"velut patriarchas sive patres familias.\" He\n    quotes Preller-Jordan i. 55 and Dieterich, _Eine\n    Mithrasliturgie_, p. 142 sq. So too with mater--\"velut\n    mater familias.\"\n\n    [321] The expression seems to mean \"a father made for\n    the purpose of the embassy.\" Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 477,\n    note 3.\n\n    [322] p. 19. This was written, it may be noted, several\n    years after Aust had thoroughly investigated the cult of\n    Jupiter for his article in the _Mythological Lexicon_;\n    in which cult, if anywhere, one may be tempted to see\n    evidence of a personal conception of deities. As Dr.\n    Frazer has referred to the cult of Jupiter at Praeneste,\n    to which I referred him as evidence of a possibly\n    personal conception of the god in that Latin city, I may\n    say here that I adhere to what I said about this in\n    _R.F._ p. 226 foll.; no piece of antique cult has\n    occupied my attention more than this, and I have tried\n    to lay open every source of confirmation or criticism.\n    Wissowa has expressed himself in almost exactly the same\n    terms in _R.K._ p. 209: we arrived at our conclusions\n    independently.\n\n    [323] Tertullian, _ad Nationes_ 11, and _de Anima_, 37\n    foll.; Aug. _de Civ. Dei_, iv. _passim_, and especially\n    ch. xi.; R. Peter compiled a complete list (_Myth.\n    Lex._, _s.v._ \"Indigitamenta,\" p. 143) from these and\n    other sources.\n\n    [324] Aug. _C.D._ vii. 17. That this was what Varro\n    meant by _di certi_ was first affirmed by Wissowa in a\n    note to his edition of Marquardt, p. 9; it has been\n    generally accepted as the true account. A full\n    discussion will be found in Agahd's edition of the\n    fragments of Varro's work, p. 126 foll.; cf. Peter's\n    article quoted above, and Wissowa, _R.K._ pp. 61 and 65.\n    A somewhat different view is given in Domaszewski's\n    article in _Archiv_ for 1907, p. 1 foll., suggested by\n    Usener's _Goetternamen_.\n\n    [325] The evidence for this will be found in Marquardt's\n    note 4 on p. 9. I have no doubt that Wissowa is right in\n    explaining Indigitamenta as \"Gebetsformeln,\" formulae of\n    invocation; in which the most important matter, we may\n    add, would be the name of the deity. See his _Gesammelte\n    Abhandlungen_, p. 177 foll. The Indigitamenta contained,\n    as one section, the invocations of _di certi_.\n\n    [326] Chiefly by Ambrosch in his _Religionsbuecher der\n    Roemer_. Peter's article contains a useful account of the\n    whole progress of research on this subject.\n\n    [327] _Lex._ p. 137; it was that of his master\n    Reifferscheid. Cp. Wissowa, _op. cit._ (_Ges. Abhandl._\n    p. 306 foll.).\n\n    [328] _R.F._ pp. 191, 341.\n\n    [329] \"The place of the Sondergoetter in Greek\n    Polytheism,\" printed in _Anthropological Essays\n    addressed to E. B. Tylor_, p. 81. Usener's discussion of\n    the Roman and Lithuanian Sondergoetter is in his\n    _Goetternamen_, p. 73 foll.\n\n    [330] Wissowa writes (_Ges. Abhandl._ p. 320 note) that\n    he has reason to believe that a great number of the\n    Lithuanian Sondergoetter only became such through the\n    treatment of the subject by the mediaeval writers on\n    whom Usener relied!\n\n    [331] _Ges. Abhandl._ p. 304 foll.\n\n    [332] Servius (Interpol.) _ad Georg._ i. 21.\n\n    [333] Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 147; _C.I.L._ vi.\n    2099 and 2107.\n\n    [334] _Op. cit._ p. 323 foll.; for _famuli_ and _anculi\n    divi_, Henzen, _op. cit._ p. 145.\n\n    [335] See above, p. 121.\n\n    [336] p. 312; cp. 320, where he further asserts his\n    belief that Varro is responsible himself for the\n    creation of a great number of these Sondergoetter, owing\n    to his extreme desire to fix and define the function of\n    every deity in relation to human life; just as the\n    mediaeval writers Laskowski and Pretorius may have\n    created many Lithuanian Sondergoetter. As I am not quite\n    clear on this point, I have not mentioned it in the\n    text.\n\n    [337] _Op. cit._ p. 314, note 1. See above, note 33.\n\n    [338] _e.g._ Vaticanus, \"qui infantum vagitibus\n    praesidet\"; _Rusina_ from _rus_; _Consus_ from\n    _consilium_, etc.\n\n    [339] See above, p. 84.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE VIII\n\nRITUAL OF THE _IUS DIVINUM_\n\n\nI have already frequently mentioned the _ius divinum_, the law governing\nthe relations between the divine and human inhabitants of the city, as\nthe _ius civile_ governed the relations between citizen and\ncitizen.[340] When we examined the calendar of Numa, we were in fact\nexamining a part of this law; we began with this our studies of the\nreligion of the Roman city-state, because it is the earliest document we\npossess which illuminates the dark ages of city life, so far as religion\nis concerned. The study of the calendar naturally led us on to consider\nthe evidence it yields, taken together with other sources of\ninformation, as to the nature of the deities for whose worship it fixes\ntimes and seasons, or, more accurately, the amount of knowledge to which\nthe Romans had attained about their divine beings. But we must now\nreturn to the _ius divinum_, and study it in another aspect, for which\nthe calendar itself does not suffice as evidence.\n\nPerhaps the simplest way of explaining this _ius_ is to describe it as\nlaying down the rules for the maintenance of right relations between the\ncitizens and their deities; as ordaining what things are to be done or\navoided in order to keep up a continual _pax_, or quasi-legal covenant,\nbetween these two parties. The two words _ius_ and _pax_, we may note,\nare continually meeting us in Roman religious documents. In a prayer\nsanctioned by the pontifices for use at the making of a new clearing, we\nread: \"Si deus, si dea sit cuius illud sacrum est, _ut tibi ius siet_\nporco piaculo facere illiusce sacri coercendi ergo,\"[341] _i.e._ \"O\nunknown deity, whether god or goddess, whose property this wood is, let\nit be legally proper to sacrifice to thee this pig as an expiatory\noffering, for the sake of cutting down trees in this wood of thine.\"\n\"Pacem deorum exposcere\" (or \"petere\") is a standing formula, as all\nreaders of Virgil know;[342] and it occurs in many other authors and\nreligious documents. When Livy wants to express the horror of the old\npatrician families at the idea of plebeians being consuls--men who had\nno knowledge of the _ius divinum_ and no right to have any--he makes\nAppius Claudius exclaim, \"Nunc nos, tanquam iam nihil pace deorum opus\nsit, omnes caerimonias polluimus.\"[343] How can we maintain our right\nrelations with the gods, if plebeians have the care of them?\n\nThus it is not going too far to describe the whole Roman religion of the\ncity-state as a _Rechtsverkehr_,[344] a legal process going on\ncontinually. When a _colonia_ was founded, _i.e._ a military outpost\nwhich was to be a copy in all respects of the Roman State, it was\nabsolutely essential that its _ius divinum_ should be laid down; it must\nhave a religious charter as well as a civil one. Even at the very end of\nthe life of the Republic, when Caesar founded a colony in Spain, he\nordained that, within ten days of its first magistrates taking office,\nthey should consult the Senate \"quos et quot dies festos esse et quae\nsacra fieri publice placeat et quos ea sacra facere placeat,\" _i.e._ as\nto the calendar, the ritual, and the priesthood.[345] The Romans, of\ncourse, assumed that Numa, their priest-king, had done the same thing\nfor Rome; Livy describes him as ordaining a pontifex to whom he\nentrusted the care of all these matters, with written rules to\nfollow.[346] This was the imaginary religious charter of the Roman\nState. Without it the citizen, or rather his official representative,\nwould not know with the necessary accuracy the details of the _cura_ and\n_caerimonia_; without it, too, the deities could not be expected to\nperform their part of advancing the interests of the State, and indeed,\nas I think we shall find, could not be expected to retain the strength\nand vitality which they needed for the work. Support was needed on each\nside; the State needed the help of the gods, and the gods needed the\nhelp of the State's care and worship.\n\nThe ways and means towards the maintenance of this _pax_ were as\nfollows. First, the deities must be duly placated, and their powers kept\nin full vigour, by the ritual of sacrifice and prayer, performed at the\nproper times and places by authorised persons skilled in the knowledge\nof that ritual. Secondly, there must be an exact fulfilment of all vows\nor solemn promises made to the deities by the State or its magistrates,\nor by such private persons as might have made similar engagements.\nThirdly, the city, its land and its people, must be preserved from all\nevil or hostile influences, whether spiritual or material or both, by\nthe process broadly known as _lustratio_, which we commonly translate\n_purification_. Lastly, strict attention must be paid to all outward\nsigns of the will of the gods, as shown by omens and portents of various\nkinds. This last method of securing the _pax_ became specially prominent\nmuch later in Roman history, and I prefer to postpone detailed\ndiscussion of it for the present; but the other three we will now\nexamine, with the help of evidence mainly derived from facts of cult,\nnot from the fancies of mythologists.\n\nFirst, then, I take sacrifice, dealing only with the general principles\nof sacrificial rites, so far as we can discern them in the numerous\ndetails which have come down to us. The word _sacrificium_, let us note,\nin its widest sense, may cover any religious act in which something is\nmade _sacrum_, _i.e._ (in its legal sense) the property of a deity;[347]\nI am not now concerned to conjecture what exactly may have been the\nmeaning of this immortal word before it was embodied in the _ius\ndivinum_. \"Sacrificium\" is limited in practical use by the Romans\nthemselves to offerings, animal or cereal, made on the spot where the\ndeity had taken up his residence, or at some place on the boundary of\nland or city (_e.g._ the gate) which was under his protection, or (in\nlater times at least) at a temporary altar erected during a campaign.\nThus it was as much a sacrificium when the paterfamilias threw at each\nmeal a portion of the food into the fire, the residence of Vesta, as\nwhen the consul offered a victim to Mars on the eve of a battle.\n\nSacrifices have generally been divided into the three classes of (1)\nhonorific, where the offering is believed to be in some sense a gift to\nthe deity; (2) piacular, or sin-offerings, where the victim was usually\nburnt whole, no part being retained for eating (though this was not the\ncase at Rome); (3) sacramental sacrifices, where the worshippers enter\ninto communion with the deity by partaking of the sacred offering\ntogether with him.[348] The two former are constant and typical in the\nRoman religion; but traces of the sacramental type, which Robertson\nSmith believed to be the oldest, are also found, and it will clear the\nground if I refer to them at once. By far the most interesting example\nis that of the Latin festival on the Alban mount, where the flesh of the\nvictim, a white heifer that had never felt the yoke, was partaken of by\nthe deputies of all the cities of the Latin league, great importance\nbeing attached to the due distribution.[349] Here the Latin race \"yearly\nacknowledges its common kinship of blood, and seals it by partaking in\nthe common meal of a sacred victim,\" thus entering into communion with\nJupiter, the ancient god of the race, and with each other, by\nparticipation in the flesh of the sacred animal. \"This common meal is\nperhaps a survival from the age when cattle were sacred animals, and\nwere never slain or eaten except on the solemn annual occasions when the\nclan or race renewed its kinship and its mutual obligations by a solemn\nsacrament.\" It is tempting to compare with this great sacrament the\n_epulum Iovis_ on the Ides of September, the dedication-day of the\nCapitoline temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, which three deities\nseem to have been present in visible form to share the meal with the\nmagistrates and senate.[350] But we have not yet arrived at the age when\nthis temple was built, and we have no evidence enabling us to carry the\nrite back in any form to the pre-Etruscan period. There are, however,\nfaint indications that the old Italians believed the deities to be in\nsome sense present at their meals, though not in visible form; and at\none festival, the Fornacalia, which was a concern not of the State as a\nwhole, but of the thirty _curiae_ into which it was divided,[351] there\nseems to be no doubt that a common meal took place in which the gods\nwere believed to have a part, or at any rate to be present though\ninvisible. Yet the _ius divinum_ of the Roman State assuredly did not\nencourage this kind of sacrament; for in the regular round of State\nfestivals, in which we cannot include even the _feriae Latinae_, the\nsacrifices, so far as we are informed, were all honorific or piacular.\nIf I am not mistaken, the idea of participation by the people in solemn\nsacred rites was discouraged by the Roman priesthood; in the _ius\ndivinum_ the line drawn between _sacrum_ and _profanum_ was clear;\nscenes of gluttony or revelry, like the Greek hecatombs, were eliminated\nfrom the _sacra publica_, as I have already pointed out. Not till the\nadvent of the Sibylline books and the _Graecus ritus_ did the people\ntake an active part in the State religion; their duty was merely to\nabstain from disturbance during the performance of sacred rites. \"Feriis\niurgia amovento\" is the only reference in Cicero's imaginary sketch of\nthe _ius divinum_ to the conduct of the citizen on festival days.[352]\nWithin the family, the curia, the gens, there might be direct and active\nparticipation in daily or yearly ceremonies, but it was an essential\nprinciple of the life of the city-state that its business, religious as\nwell as civil, should be carried out for the citizens by officials\nspecially appointed.\n\nIn the typical and organised worship of the State, _i.e._ sacrifice\nhonorific and piacular, sanctioned by the _ius divinum_, the utmost care\nwas taken that the whole procedure should be in every sense acceptable\nto the deity; that nothing _profanum_ should cross the threshold of the\ndivine; hence it was quiet, orderly, dignified. The feeling that\ncommunication with the deity invoked was impossible save under such\nconditions was very strong in the Roman mind, stronger perhaps than with\nany other people whose religious practice is known to us; and the sense\nof obligation and duty, _pietas_, as they called it, was thus very early\ndeveloped, and of infinite value to the State in its youth. This is\nentirely in keeping with what we have learnt in the last two lectures of\nthe ideas of the Romans about the nature of their deities, and throws\nadditional light on those ideas. They did not as yet know too much about\nthe divine beings and their powers and wishes; familiarity had not yet\nbred contempt; _religio_, as we saw, was still strong among them--the\nfeeling of awe that is likely to diminish or disappear when you have\nyour god before you in the form of an idol. It is a principle of human\nnature that where knowledge is imperfect, care must be taken to be on\nthe safe side; this is true of all practical undertakings, and as the\nreligion of the Romans was that of a practical people with a practical\nend in view, it was particularly true of them.\n\nFirst then, in order that the worship might be entirely acceptable to\nthe deity invoked, it was essential that the person who conducted it\nshould be also acceptable. At the head of the whole system was the rex,\nwho was priest as well as king. We do not know, of course, exactly how\nthe rex was appointed; but in the case of the typical priest-king Numa,\nLivy has described his _inauguratio_ in terms of the _ius divinum_ of\nlater times for the appointment of priests, and we may take it as fairly\ncertain that the same principle held good from the earliest times.[353]\nAfter being summoned (so the story ran) from the Sabine city of Cures by\nthe Senate, he consulted the gods about his own fitness. He was then\nconducted by the augur to the arx on the Capitol, and sat down on a\nstone facing the south. The augur took his seat on his left hand (the\nlucky side) with veiled head, holding the _lituus_[354] of his office\nin his right hand, with which, after a prayer, he marked out the\n_regiones_ from east to west, the north being to the left, the south to\nthe right, and silently noted some object in the extreme distance of the\n_ager Romanus_, as the farthest point where the appearance of an omen\nmight be accepted. Then, passing the _lituus_ to his left hand, he laid\nhis right on the head of Numa, and uttered this prayer: \"Father Jupiter,\nif it be thy will (_fas_) that this Numa Pompilius, on whose head my\nhand is laid, be king of Rome, I pray thee give us clear token within\nthe limits which I have marked out.\" Then he said aloud what auspicia he\nsought for (_i.e._ whether of birds, lightning, or what); and when they\nappeared, Numa descended as rex from the citadel. This process was\ncalled _inauguratio_; it is attested for the confirmation of the\nelection of the three flamines maiores, the rex, and the augurs, in\nhistorical times,[355] whatever was the method of that election, and\nwithout it the priest was not believed to be acceptable to the gods. It\nis not mentioned by Roman writers in connection with the Pontifices or\nthe Vestals; if this be not merely from dearth of evidence, it is not\neasy to account for, unless the reason were that neither body was\nspecially concerned with sacrifice. But the principle is perfectly\nclear--that the person who is to represent the community in worship must\nbe one of whom the _numina_ openly express approval.\n\nA priest, _sacerdos_, is thus a person set apart by special ritual for\nthe service of the _sacra populi Romani_. The rex no doubt himself made\nthe selection and supervised the inauguratio of the other priests at\nwhose head he was. When the kingship came to an end, his powers of this\nkind passed to the pontifex maximus; and it may be as well to add at\nonce that his sacrificial powers, though they were in a special sense\ninherited by a priest who took his title, the _rex sacrorum_, passed\nwith the civil power to all magistrates _cum imperio_, who wore the\n_toga praetexta_ symbolic of priestly function, and had the right of\npresiding at sacrificial rites both at home and in the field. Thus\nmagistrate and priest, though quite distinct under the Republic from the\npoint of view of public law, have certain characteristics in common as\nderiving from a common source in the powers of the rex.[356]\n\nBut to return to the period of Numa and the calendar: it was not only\nnecessary that the priest should be acceptable to the gods, but that he\nshould be marked off from the rest of the community as being dedicated\nto their service. As Dr. Jevons says,[357] in all early religions\npriests are marked off from other worshippers, partly by what they do,\nand partly by what they may not do; and what he means is (1) that the\npriest originally was the person who alone could slay a victim; (2) that\nin consequence of his sacredness he was subject to a great number of\nrestrictions. I have already spoken of these restrictions or priestly\ntaboos in my second lecture; and as I believe that in the period we are\nnow dealing with they were little more than a survival, I shall not\nreturn to them now. But of the outward insignia, which marked off the\npriest as alone entitled to perform the essential act of worship, the\nsacrifice, and which bring him out of the region of the _profanum_ into\nthat of _sacrum_, I must say a few words before going farther.\n\nIn historical times the actual slaying of the victim was done by\nsubordinates, _popae_, _victimarii_, etc.; but there is no doubt\nwhatever that it was originally the work of the priest, for he seems at\nall times to have used one gesture which is clearly symbolic of it,[358]\nand there are traces also of a practice of wearing the toga in such a\nway as to leave the right arm free for the act.[359] That toga, or any\nother special robe worn by the priest, was always in whole or part red\nor purple. The purple-edged _toga praetexta_ was worn both by priests\nand magistrates, and by children under age; and I think there is good\nreason to believe that in all these cases the original idea was the\nsame--that they took part, directly or indirectly, as primary or\nsecondary agents in sacrificial acts. The Salii and the augurs wore the\n_trabea_, which was of purple or red, or both; the flamines had a\nspecial robe about the colour of which we are not informed, but the\nFlaminica Dialis wore a purple garment called _rica_, and a red veil\ncalled _flammeum_, which was also worn by the bride in the religious\nceremony of marriage. Whether we are to see in this prevalence of red or\npurple any symbolism of the shedding of blood in sacrifice I cannot be\nsure, but the inference is a tempting one, and has been put forward with\nconfidence by some recent investigators. It is worth noting that the\nVestals, who did not sacrifice animals, wore white only.[360] If the red\ncolour has anything to do with blood-shedding, it is probably more than\nmerely symbolic; it may mean that the sacrificing priest partakes of\nthat life and strength which he passes on to the god through the blood,\nthat is the life, of the victim.[361]\n\nThe Roman priests had also other insignia, of which the original meaning\nis less evident. The Flamen Dialis, and probably all the flamines, wore\na cap with an olive-twig fastened to the top of it; this is well shown\nin the sculptures of the Ara Pacis of Augustus.[362] The flaminicae had\na head-dress called _tutulus_, which consisted in part, at least, of a\npurple fillet or ribbon. The flamines, when actually sacrificing, wore a\n_galerus_, or hood of some kind made of the skin of a victim, and the\nFlamen Dialis in particular wore one made of the skin of a white heifer\nsacrificed to Jupiter.[363] In these various ways all priests were\noutwardly shown to be holy men, _sacerdotes_, marked off from the\n_profanum vulgus_. Only for the pontifices we have no information as to\na special dress, just as we also have none as to their inauguratio.[364]\n\nThus there is no question that the priests were chosen and separated\nfrom the people in such a way as to meet with the approval of the gods;\nand even the acolytes, _camilli_ and _camillae_, boys and girls who\nfrequently appear in sacrificial scenes on monuments, wore the _toga\npraetexta_, and, in order to be acceptable, must be the children of\nliving parents.[365] This rule has lately been the subject of a\ndiscussion by Dr. Frazer, on which he has brought to bear, as usual, a\ngreat range of learning. He regards the restriction not so much as a\nmatter of good omen, _i.e._ of freedom from contamination by the death\nof a parent, but as pointing to a notion that they were \"fuller of life\nand therefore luckier than orphans.\"[366] Whether or no this explanation\nis the right one, it is quite consistent, as we shall see directly, with\nthe general idea of sacrifice at Rome, and the learning by which it is\nsupported is in any case of interest and value.\n\nThere is abundant evidence from historical times that all worshippers,\nand therefore _a fortiori_ all priests, when sacrificing, had to be\npersonally clean and free from every kind of taint; a rule which also\nheld good for the utensils used in the worship, which in many cases at\nleast were of primitive make and material, not such as were in common\nuse.[367] The need of personal purity is well expressed by Tibullus in\nhis description of a rural festival[368]:--\n\n  vos quoque abesse procul iubeo, discedat ab aris\n    cui tulit hesterna gaudia nocte Venus.\n  casta placent superis: pura cum veste venite\n    et manibus puris sumite fontis aquam.\n\nThese lines indicate an approach at least to the idea of mental as well\nas material purity; and Cicero in his _ius divinum_ in the _de\nLegibus_[369] actually reaches that idea: \"caste iubet lex adire ad\ndeos, animo videlicet, in quo sunt omnia: nec tollit castimoniam\ncorporis,\" etc. But this is the language of a later age, and does not\nreflect the notions of the old Roman, but rather those of the religious\nphilosophy of the Greek. The personal purity which the Roman rule\nrequired was a survival from a set of primitive ideas, closely connected\nwith taboo, which we are only now beginning to understand fully. They\nare common to all or almost all peoples who have made any progress in\nsystematising their sacrificial worship. As Dr. Westermarck has\nrecently expressed it,[370] \"they spring from the idea that the contact\nof a polluting substance with anything holy is followed by injurious\nconsequences. It is supposed to deprive a deity or holy being of its\nholiness.... So also a sacred act is believed to lose its sacredness by\nbeing performed by an unclean individual.\" And in the next sentence he\ngoes still farther back in the history of the belief, pointing out that\na polluting substance is itself held to contain mysterious energy of a\nbaneful kind. But I must leave this interesting subject now; the story\nof the evolution of the habit of cleanliness from these ancient ideas\nwill be found in the thirty-ninth chapter of his _Origin and Development\nof Moral Ideas_.\n\nComing next to the act of sacrifice itself, it is needless to say that\nthe victim must be as exactly fitted to please the deity--if that be the\nright way to express the obligation--as the priest who sacrificed it. It\nmust be of the right kind, sex, age, colour; it must go willingly to the\nslaughter, adorned with fillets and ribbons (_infulae_, _vittae_), in\norder to mark it off from other animals as holy; in the case of oxen, we\nhear also of the gilding of the horns, but this must have been costly\nand unusual.[371] All these details were doubtless laid down in the _ius\ndivinum_, and in later times, when the deities dwelt in roofed temples,\nthey were embodied in the _lex_ or charter of each temple.[372] I do not\nneed to go into them here minutely; for my present purpose, the\nelucidation of the meaning which the Romans attached to sacrificial\nworship, it will be sufficient to point out that all victims, so far as\nwe know, were domestic animals, and in almost all cases they were\nvaluable property (_pecunia_), such as belonged to the stock of the\nLatin farmer, ox, sheep, pig, varying according to age and sex. Goats\nwere used at the Lupercalia, and a horse was sacrificed to Mars, as we\nhave seen, on October 15, and at the Robigalia in April a red dog was\noffered to the spirit of the mildew. But though time forbids me to\nexplain all these rules, a careful study of the evidence for them is\nmost useful for any one who wishes to understand the influence of the\n_ius divinum_ on the mind of the early Roman. In the family what rules\nwere needed were matter of tradition; deities were few, and offerings\nlimited. But in the city-state it was very different; here even the _di\nindigetes_ were many, with diverse wishes and likings as well as\nfunctions: how were these to be ascertained and remembered at the right\nmoment? Here, as in all methods of securing the _pax deorum_, a central\nsupervising authority was needed, in whose knowledge and wisdom the\nwhole community had confidence; and he was found in the rex, as is\nclearly shown in the whole traditional account of the priest-king Numa.\nVery naturally tradition also ascribed to Numa the institution of the\npontifices, whom the historical Romans knew as succeeding the rex in the\nsupervision of religious law.[373]\n\nIf all went well, the victim going willingly and no ill omen\nsupervening, the actual slaughter followed at the altar. During the\nwhole operation silence was enjoined; the priests' heads were veiled\nwith the folds of the toga;[374] pipers (_tibicines_) continued to play,\nin order that no unlucky sound or word might be heard which would make\nit necessary to start afresh with another victim (_instauratio_).\nImmediately before the slaughter the victim was made holier than ever by\nsprinkling upon it fragments of sacred cake made of _far_ (_immolatio_),\nand by pouring on it libations of wine from a _foculus_ or movable altar\ncontaining this holy condiment, together with incense if that were used\nin the rite. As soon as it was dead, the internal organs were examined\nto make sure that there was no physical defect or abnormal growth, for\nit was, of course, quite as necessary that the animal should be \"purus\"\nwithin as without; this was the only object of the examination, until\nthe Etruscan art of _extipicina_ made its way to Rome. What became of\nthe blood we are not told; I have already remarked that blood has\ncuriously little part in Roman ritual and custom.[375] But the _exta_,\n_i.e._ internal organs of life, were separated from the rest of the\ncarcase, and carefully cooked in holy vessels, before being laid upon\nthe altar (_porrectio_), together with certain slices of flesh called\n_magmenta_, or increase-offerings, while the rest of the flesh, which\nhad now lost its holiness, was retained for the use of the priests.[376]\nThe time occupied in the actual slaughter and inspection of the organs\nwas not long; but the cooking of these must have been often a lengthy\nprocess. Ovid tells us how on April 25 he met the Flamen Quirinalis\ncarrying out the exta of a dog and a sheep, which had been sacrificed at\nRome to Robigus that morning, in order to lay them on the altar of that\ndeity at the fifth milestone on the Via Claudia.[377] Certain days in\nthe calendar, called _endotercisi_, which were _nefasti_ in morning and\nevening, were _fasti_ in the middle of the day, between the slaying of a\nvictim and the placing of its exta on the altar (_inter hostiam caesam\net exta porrecta_).[378]\n\nI have so far purposely omitted one important detail--the prayer which,\nso far as we know, invariably accompanied the sacrifice. It is not\nabsolutely certain at what moment of the rite it was said at Rome; in\nthe ritual of Iguvium we find it occurring immediately before the\nplacing of the exta on the altar;[379] but as that ritual is a\nprocessional one, concerned with sacrifices at several spots, the two\nchief parts of the rite, the slaughter and the _porrectio_, probably\nfollowed closely on one another. We may perhaps guess that where these\ntwo parts were separated by a considerable interval, as in the majority\nof Roman festivals, the prayer was said by the priest also at the moment\nof _porrectio_. The prayer is so important a detail as to need separate\nhandling--important because it helps us to interpret the ideas of the\nRomans about their sacrifices, and the attitude in which they conceived\nthemselves as standing towards the deities whom they thus approached. I\npropose to occupy the rest of this lecture in considering this most\ninteresting topic. I wish first to draw attention to a particular\nfeature, or rather expression, which occurs in the authentic wording of\ncertain prayers which we are lucky enough to possess, because I think it\nthrows some light on the meaning which the Romans attached to the\nsacrifice it accompanied; and secondly, to consider the character of\nRoman prayers generally, in view of a question now being largely\ndiscussed, _i.e._ whether prayer is a development from spell or charm,\nbelonging in its origin to the region of magic.\n\nWe have various forms of prayer surviving in Roman literature: some of\nthem are versified by the poets, and therefore give us a general\nimpression of the contents without the actual and genuine wording; we\nhave also two fragments of ancient _carmina_ which have the form of\nprayers, those of the Salii and the Fratres Arvales; and we have certain\nforms used on special occasions, such as the _evocatio_ of the gods of a\nhostile community, or the formulae of vows (_vota_) which I must\npostpone to the next lecture. But the only unquestionably genuine old\nRoman prayers used at sacrifice, taken from the books of the pontifices\nand preserved word for word, are those which Cato embodied in his\ntreatise on agriculture in the second century B.C., as proper to be used\nwith sacrifice on certain occasions in the agricultural year.[380] It is\nhere that we meet with the phrase, familiar in another form to all Latin\nscholars, on which I wish to lay stress now. It occurs in all the four\nforms of prayer which Cato copied down. The first is at the time of the\nflowering of the pear-trees, on behalf of the oxen: \"Iuppiter dapalis,\nquod tibi fieri oportet in domo familia mea culignam vini dapi eius\nrei[381] ergo, _macte hac illace dape polucenda esto_.\" And again, when\nthe wine is offered: \"Iuppiter dapalis, _macte istace dape polucenda\nesto. Macte vino inferio esto_.\" So in the piacular sacrifice when a\nclearing is made, the unknown deity is addressed in the last words of\nthe prayer thus: \"harum rerum ergo _macte hoc porco piaculo immolando\nesto_.\" We find this _macte esto_ again in the prayer for the ceremony\nof lustratio, at the end of the formula: \"_macte hisce suovetaurilibus\nlactentibus immolandis esto_.\" In the rite of the _porca praecidanea_,\nto which I have already referred, the instruction for the invocation of\nJupiter runs: \"_Fertum_ (_i.e._ a kind of cake) _Iovi obmoveto et\nmactato sic, Iuppiter, te hoc ferto_ obmovendo bonas preces precor, uti\nsies volens propitius mihi liberisque meis domo familiaeque meae _mactus\nhoc ferto_.\" Janus gets another kind of cake (_strues_) and a\nwine-offering, and is addressed in the same way. Then we read, \"Iovi\nfertum obmoveto _mactatoque item_, ut prius feceris.\"\n\nWhat is the real meaning of this phrase _macte esto_, which must surely\nhave been in universal use at sacrifices, not only at private rites like\nthose of Cato, since it came to be used in common speech of\ncongratulation or felicitation, e.g. _macte virtute esto_?[382] Servius\nin commenting on Virgil has made it sufficiently clear. He explains it\nas _magis aucte_, and connects it with _magmentum_, increase-offering,\n_quasi magis augmentum_, and adds that when the victims had been slain\nand their exta placed on the altar, they were said to be _mactatae_. So,\ntoo, in another comment he seems to connect the word with the victim\nrather than with the deity. But he is quite clear as to the meaning of\nthe word, as signifying an increase or addition of some kind; and though\nhis etymology is wrong, we may be sure that he was right in this\nrespect, for it is beyond doubt built on a base, _mac_ or _mag_, which\nproduced _magnus_, _maius_, _maiestas_, and so on. \"Macte nova virtute\npuer\" means \"Be thou increased, strengthened in _virtus_\"; a fragment of\nLucilius (quoted by Servius) brings this out well, \"_Macte inquam\nvirtute simulque his viribus esto_,\" and another from Ennius, \"Livius\ninde redit magno _mactatus_ triumpho.\"[383] We might almost translate it\nin these passages by \"glorified\"; but it most certainly includes the\nmeaning of \"strengthened\" or \"increased in might.\"\n\nNow in the formulae of Cato we have seen that it is applied to the\ndeity and not to the victim; this naturally did not occur to Servius,\nwhose mind was occupied rather with Virgil and the literary use of the\nword than with the original use and meaning of the language of prayer.\nUndoubtedly he has made a mistake here, which Cato's piety has enabled\nus to detect. It was, in fact, the deity whose strength was to be\nincreased by the offerings; so much at least seems to me to be beyond\ndoubt. There is, indeed, no certain trace in the ritual, or in Roman\nliterature, that the gods were supposed to consume the exta, or the\ncakes and wine offered them; that primitive notion must have been\nexcluded from the _ius divinum_. But instead of it we find the more\nspiritual idea that by placing on the altar the organs of the life of\nthe victim, with ancient forms of sacred cake and offerings of wine, the\nvitality of the deity, his power to help his worshippers, to make the\ncorn grow and the cattle bring forth young, to aid the State against\nenemies, or what not, was really increased in this semi-mystic way. Let\nus remember that the Roman numina were powers constantly at work in\ntheir own sphere; they are the various manifestations of the one Power\nas conceived in immediate relation to man and his wants; they are\nsometimes addressed in prayer, as we have seen, by additional titles\nwhich suggest their strength and vitality: Virites Quirini, Nerio\nMartis, Moles Martis, Maia or Maiestas Volcani. What, then, could be\nmore natural than that the Roman should call upon his divine\nfellow-citizen to accept that which, according to ancient tradition and\npractice, will keep up his strength, and at the same time increase his\nglory and his goodwill towards his worshippers? This is, then, the idea\nwhich I believe to have been at the root of Roman sacrificial ritual,\nand it seems to confirm the dynamic theory of sacrifice recently\npropounded by some French anthropologists, _i.e._ that a mystic current\nof _religious force_ passed through the victim, from priest to deity,\nand perhaps back again.[384] I believe that we have here a transitional\nidea of the virtue of sacrifice--an idea that bridges over the gulf\nbetween the crude notion that the gods actually partake of the offering,\nand the later more spiritual view that the offering is an honorary gift\n\"to the glory of God.\" It seems also to be found in the Vedic religion.\nDr. Farnell writes: \"In the Vedic ritual we find a pure and spiritual\nform of prayer; yet a certain spell-power may attach even to the highest\ntypes, for we find not infrequently the conception that not only the\npower of the worshipper, but the power of the deity also is nourished\nand strengthened by prayer, and the prayer itself is usually accompanied\nby a potent act (such as that of sacrifice). \"May our prayers increase\nAgni\": \"The prayers fill thee with power and strengthen thee, like great\nrivers the Sindhu.\"[385]\n\nI must now turn to the form and manner of Roman prayers, in order to\ngain further light on the question as to the mental attitude of the\nworshipper towards the deity invoked. Of late years there has been a\nstrong tendency to find the origin of prayer in spell; or, in other\nwords, to discover a bridge between that mental attitude which believes\nthat a deity can be forced into a certain course of action by magical\nformulae, and the humble attitude of the petitioner in prayer, which\nassumes that the power of the deity altogether transcends that of his\nworshipper. The evidence of Roman prayers is, I think, of considerable\nvalue in dealing with this question; but it needs to be carefully\nstudied and handled. The general impression conveyed by those who have\nwritten on the subject is that Roman prayers were dull, dry formulae,\nwhich were believed to have a constraining influence on the deity simply\nas formulae, if they were repeated with perfect precision the right\nnumber of times. Dr. Westermarck, for example, has no shadow of a doubt\nabout this; quoting Renan, he says that \"in the Roman, as in the\nmajority of the old Italian cults, prayer is a magic formula, producing\nits effect by its own inherent quality.\" And again, he writes that the\nRomans were much more addicted to magic than to religion; \"they wanted\nto compel the gods rather than to be compelled by them. Their _religio_\nwas probably near akin to the Greek [Greek: katadesmos], which meant not\nonly an ordinary tie, but also a magic tie or knot or a bewitching\nthereby.\"[386] I need not stop to point out the misconception of the\nword _religio_ which suggested the whole of this passage; the supposed\nderivation from _ligare_ was quite enough to suggest magic to those who\nare on the trail of it.[387] Let us go on to examine the prayers\nthemselves; I think we shall find that though there is much truth in the\ncommon view of them, it is not quite the whole truth.\n\nThe oldest Roman prayers we possess are usually called hymns, because\nthe Latin word for them was _carmen_, viz. the _Carmen Saliare_, which\nis too obscure and fragmentary to be of use to us, and the _Carmen_ of\nthe Arval Brethren, which is preserved on stone and is quite\nintelligible.[388] The word _carmen_, let us notice, was used by the old\nRomans for any kind of metrical formula, whether hymn, prayer, or spell.\nPliny, when writing of magic and incantations, plainly includes prayer\namong them;[389] and Dr. Jevons has recently pointed out that singing,\nand especially singing in a low voice or muttered tones, is a\ncharacteristic of magic not only in Greece and Rome, but in many parts\nof the world at the present day.[390] The evidence of the word is thus\nstrongly in favour of the view that these ancient _carmina_ of Roman\nworship were really spells; and the _Carmen Arvalium_ itself does not\ncontradict it. After an elaborate sacrificial ceremonial the priests,\nusing a written copy of the _carmen_ (_libellis acceptis_), danced in\ntriple rhythm (_tripodaverunt_) while they sang it; it consisted of six\nclauses, each repeated three times. \"_Enos Lases iuvate! Neve luerve\nMarmar sins incurrere in pleores! Satur fu fere Mars, limen sali, sta\nberber! Semunes alternei advocapit cunctos! Enos Marmar iuvato!\nTriumpe!_\" With the precise interpretation of these words I am not now\nconcerned; but they obviously contain invocations to the Lares and Mars,\nwhich may be either petitions or commands, and which perhaps are really\non the borderland between the two; and as thrice repeated, and\naccompanied with dancing and gesticulation, they seem certainly to\nbelong rather to the region of magic than of religion proper.\n\nIt is interesting to compare with this _carmen_ the prayers of the guild\nof brethren (_Attiedii_) at Iguvium; these are the best preserved of all\nold Italian prayers, and though not Roman, are the product of the same\nrace. In the lustratio of the _arx_ (_Ocris Fisius_) of Iguvium we find\nthree several deities invoked, with elaborate sacrificial ritual, at\nthree gates, and a long prayer addressed to each deity, thrice repeated,\nas in the _Carmen Arvale_. It is to be said under the breath (_tacitus\nprecator totum_, vi. A. 55), which was a common practice also at Rome,\nand is believed to be characteristic of the magical spell;[391] and\nexcept in the case of the first prayer, which is addressed to the chief\ndeity Jupiter Grabovius, it is accompanied by some kind of dancing or\nrhythmical movement (_tripodatio_).[392] Thus in outward form this\nritual seems to show but little advance on the Roman prayer of the\nArvales, and indeed it may in substance go back to a time as remote as\nthat in which the latter had its origin. But when we examine the matter\nof the prayer, we find that it is cast in the language of petition\nbeyond all doubt--if it be rightly interpreted, as we may believe it\nis:--\n\n\"Te invocavi invoco divum Grabovium pro arce Fisia, pro urbe Iguvina,\npro arcis nomine, pro urbis nomine: _volens sis, propitius sis_ arci\nFisiae, urbi Iguvinae, arcis nomini, urbis nomini. Sancte, te invocavi\ninvoco divum Grabovium. Sancti fiducia te invocavi invoco divum\nGrabovium. Dive Grabovie te hoc bove opimo piaculo pro arce Fisia, etc.\nDive Grabovi, illius anni quiquomque in arce Fisia ignis ortus est, in\nurbe Iguvina ritus debiti omissi sunt, pro nihilo ducito. Dive Grabovi,\nquicquid tui sacrificii vitiatum est, peccatum est, peremptum est,\nfraudatum est, demptum est, tui sacrificii visum invisum vitium est,\ndive Grabovi, quicquid ius sit, hoc bove opimo piaculo piando.... Dive\nGrabovi, piato arcem Fisiam, piato urbem Iguvinam. Dive Grabovi, piato\narcis Fisiae, urbis Iguvinae, nomen, magistratus, ritus, viros, pecora,\nfundos, fruges: piato, _esto volens propitius pace tua_ arci Fisiae,\netc. Dive Grabovi, salvam servato arcem Fisiam salvam servato urbem\nIguvinam .... Dive Grabovi, te hoc bove opimo piaculo pro arce Fisia,\npro urbe Iguvina, pro arcis nomine, pro urbis nomine, Dive Grabovi, te\ninvocavi.\"[393]\n\nThat in this prayer, and the others which accompany it, exactness of\nwording was believed to be essential, as in the ritual which preceded it\nexactness of performance, there is no doubt; for at the end of the whole\ndocument (vi. B. 48) we find that if there had been any slip in the\nritual, the Brethren had to go back to the first gate and begin all over\nagain. There is plainly present the idea, surviving from an age of\nmagic, that the deities had strong feelings about the right way of\ninvocation, and would not respond to the performance unless those\nfeelings were understood and appealed to; that they would miss something\nand decline to do their part. Yet are we justified in going on to assume\nthat they were bound, as by a solemn contract, to perform their part, if\nthere were no slip in the ritual? I confess it is difficult for me to\ntake this further step, in view of the language of the prayers, which is\nso clearly that of petition, nay, of humble petition. We are not dealing\nhere with _vota_, to which I shall come in the next lecture, and in\nwhich there is a kind of legal contract between the man and the god--the\nformer undertaking to do something pleasing to the deity, if the latter\nshall have faithfully performed what is asked of him. These _vota_, so\nabundant in historical times, are really responsible for the idea that\nRoman prayer is simply a binding formula--a magical spell, let us say,\nwhich in the hands of a city priesthood has become a quasi-legal\nformula. But these prayers are not _vota_; they do not contain any\nlanguage which betrays the notion of binding the deity. They seem to me\nto mark a process of transition between the age of spell and magic and\nthe age of prayer and religion; they retain some of the outward\ncharacteristics of spell, but internally, _i.e._ in the spirit in which\nthey were intended, they have the real characteristics of prayer.[394]\nThe numina to whom they were addressed were powerful spirits, unknown,\nunfamiliar, until their wishes were discovered by the organised\npriesthood which handed down these forms of petition.\n\nTo return to Rome, and to the prayers in Cato's book, to which I\nreferred just now when discussing the word _macte_. Attempts have been\nmade to prove that these were originally written in metre;[395] and this\nis quite possible. If so, it only means that they retained the outward\nform of the primitive spell; it must not lead us on to fancy that the\nsacrifice which accompanied the prayer was a magical act, or that the\nwhole process was believed to compel the deity. No doubt there was\nbelieved to be efficacy in the exact repetition, as is shown by the\ndirections for piacular sacrifices in case of error of any kind.[396]\nBut the language is the language of prayer, not of compulsion, nor even\nof bargaining: \"Eius rei ergo te hoc porco piaculo immolando bonas\npreces precor, ut sies volens propitius mihi, domo familiaeque\nmeis.\"[397] \"Mars pater, te precor quaesoque uti sies volens propitius\nmihi, domo,\" etc.[398] No amount of vain repetition or scruple can\ndeprive this language of its natural meaning. The god is powerful in his\nown sphere of action, and man has no control over him; man is fully\nrecognised as liable to misfortune unless the god helps him; but he can\nworship in full assurance of faith that his prayer will be answered, if\nit be such as the authorities of the State have laid down as the right\nwording, and if the ritual accompanying it is equally in order. The\nfaith is, indeed, thus founded upon man's devices rather than the god's\ngood-will as such; it is a belief in the State and its authorities and\n_ius divinum_, which is conceived, not indeed as constraining the deity,\nbut as calling upon him (_invocare_) to perform his part, in formulae\nwhich he cannot well neglect, simply because it would be unreasonable\nto do so, contrary to his nature as a deity of the Roman State and its\n_ager_.\n\nIt is obvious in all this sacrificial ritual that the officiating person\nor persons were expected to observe the traditional forms with the\nutmost care and exactness. Any slip or omission was, in fact, a\n_piaculum_, or _sacrum commissum_--terms of the _ius divinum_ which seem\nto suggest, if I may use the expression, the obverse side of holiness.\nIt is now well known that cleanness and uncleanness, holiness and its\nopposite, can be expressed in religious vocabulary by the same terms,\nfor in both cases there is something beyond the ordinary, something\ndangerous, uncanny; thus we are not surprised to find that such words as\nI have just mentioned can be used to express some kind of impurity\ncaused by a breach of ritual as well as that ritual itself. If we accept\nthe latest theory of sacrifice, _i.e._ the dynamic theory, as it is\ncalled, we explain this intense nervousness about a ritualistic flaw as\noccasioned by the consciousness of a breach in the current of \"religious\nforce\" (the expression is that of Messrs. Hubert and Mauss[399]), which\nmust pass in regular sequence from the sacrificer through the victim to\nthe deity, or vice versa. If this is the true explanation--and at\npresent it may be said to hold the field--then the extreme exactness of\nthe Roman ritual was a survival from an age when this strange feeling\nwas a reality; but no more than a survival, for, so far as I can\ndiscover, the Roman idea was rather that the deity to whom the ritual\nwas addressed was in some way offended by the omission.[400] The dynamic\nnotion is lost, if it ever were there, and its place has been taken by\none that we may perhaps call theological. But however that may be, the\nculprit was regarded as in a state of sin or impurity, \"un etre sacre,\"\nand had to get rid of this sin or impurity by another sacrifice before\nthe whole ritual could be started afresh (_instaurare_).\n\nAccording to the \"dynamic\" theory of sacrifice, we might naturally\nexpect that the victim, as being destined to carry away the unholiness\n(or whatever we choose to call it) of the culprit, would be burnt whole,\nnot offered to the deity in the form of exta, or eaten by the\nsacrificers.[401] But this does not seem to have been the case in the\nRoman practice; in all the examples of _piacula_ of which we have\ndetails, the exta are laid on the altar as in the typical\nsacrifice.[402] The inference seems to be that the theological idea of\nsacrifice had established itself completely ever since the formation of\nthe _ius divinum_; the victim is not a scapegoat in any sense, but\nreally an expiatory offering; and not only does the sacrificer yield up\nsomething of value, but he offers it to increase the strength of the\ndeity as well as to appease his anger.\n\nA curious point may be noticed in the last place. The practical Roman\nmind seems to have invented a kind of sacrificial insurance, by which a\npiacular sacrifice might be offered beforehand to atone for any omission\nin the ritual which was to follow. Thus the Fratres Arvales, if they had\nto take an iron implement into their sacred grove, offered a piaculum\nbefore as well as after this breach of religious rule.[403] Again, the\n_porca praecidanea_, which I have already mentioned as offered before\nharvest, was an example of the same system of insurance; for the first\ncutting of the corn was a sacred rite, and one in which it was easy to\ntake a false step. Writing of this, Gellius says in general terms that\n_hostiae praecidaneae_ are those which are offered the day before\n_sacrificia solennia_.[404]\n\nThe term \"piacular sacrifice\" (_piaculum_) had a wide range of meaning,\napart from the examples here given. With one important form of it I\nshall deal in the next lecture:[405] others we shall come across later\non.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE VIII\n\n    [340] See Appendix C.\n\n    [341] Cato, _R.R._ 139, where the language suggests that\n    as the deity was unknown, the _ius_ of the religious act\n    was also uncertain, _i.e._ the ritual was not laid down.\n    De Marchi translates (_La Religione_ _nella vita\n    domestica_, i. 132) \"sia a te fatto il debito\n    sacrificio,\" etc., which sufficiently expresses the\n    anxiety of the situation. Keil reads here \"ut tibi ius\n    _est_,\" and gives no variant in his critical note; but\n    the words just below, \"uti id recte factum siet,\" seem\n    to me to suggest the subjunctive. In any case there is\n    no doubt about _ius._ In _Tab. Iguv._ vi. A. 28\n    (_Umbrica_, p. 58) Buecheler translates the Umbrian\n    _persei mersei_ by \"quicquid ius sit,\" and compares this\n    passage of Cato, together with Gellius i. 12. 14, where\n    the phrase is used of the duties of a Vestal under the\n    _ius divinum_ in the formula used by the Pontifex\n    Maximus, _cum virginem capiat_: \"Sacerdotem Vestalem,\n    quae sacra faciat, quae ius siet sacerdotem Vestalem\n    facere pro pop. Rom.\" etc.\n\n    [342] _e.g._ _Aen._ iv. 56, x. 31 (\"si sine pace tua\n    atque invito numine,\" etc.). Cp. _Tab. Iguv._ vi. 30,\n    33, etc. (_Umbrica_, p. 59), \"esto volens propitiusque\n    pace tua arci Fisiae.\"\n\n    [343] Livy vi. 41 _ad fin._\n\n    [344] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 318, and p. 319 for the\n    illustrations that follow. Cp. Cicero, _Part. Or._ xxii.\n    78, where _religio_ is explained as \"iustitia erga\n    deos.\"\n\n    [345] _Lex Coloniae Genetivae_, cap. 64; _C.I.L._ ii.,\n    supplement No. 5439.\n\n    [346] Livy i. 20. 5.\n\n    [347] This follows from the definition in Festus, p.\n    321, and in Macrobius iii. 3. 2. This last is quoted\n    from Trebatius _de religionibus_: \"sacrum est quicquid\n    est quod deorum habetur.\" In common use _sacrificium_\n    seems to be reserved for animal sacrifice, but the verb\n    _sacrificare_ is not so limited. Festus, p. 319: \"mustum\n    quod Libero sacrificabant pro vineis ... sicut\n    praemetium de spicis, quas primum messuissent,\n    sacrificabant Cereri.\" It has been suggested to me by\n    Mr. Marett that the termination of the word\n    _sacrificium_ may have reference to the use of _facere_\n    for animal sacrifice, as in Greek [Greek: rhezein,\n    erdein, dran]; but on the whole I doubt this. _Facere_\n    and _fieri_ are in that sense, I think, euphemisms,\n    occasioned by the mystic character of the act (examples\n    are collected in Brissonius _de formulis_, p. 9). _Rem\n    divinam facere_ seems to be the general expression, as\n    in Cato, _R.R._ 83; or the particular victim is in the\n    ablative, _e.g. agna Iovi facit_ (Flamen Dialis) in\n    Varro, _L.L._ vi. 16; cp. Virg. _Ecl._ iii. 77.\n\n    [348] This classification, originally due to R. Smith,\n    article \"Sacrifice\" in _Encycl. Brit._, ed. 10, has\n    lately been criticised by Hubert et Mauss, in _Melanges\n    d'histoire des religions_, p. 9 foll.; but it is\n    sufficiently complete for our purposes. At the same time\n    it is well to be aware that no classification of the\n    various forms of sacrifice can be complete at present;\n    that which these authors prefer, _i.e._ constant and\n    occasional sacrifices, is, however, a useful one.\n\n    [349] _R.F._ p. 95 foll. Cp. Robertson Smith, _Rel. of\n    Semites_, Lect. VIII.\n\n    [350] _R.F._ p. 217 foll.\n\n    [351] _R.F._ p. 302 foll. Meals in connection with\n    sacrifice are also found at the Parilia (_R.F._ p. 81,\n    and Ovid, _Fasti_, iv. 743 foll.) and Terminalia (Ovid,\n    _Fasti_, ii. 657); but in both cases Ovid seems to be\n    describing rustic rites; nor is it certain that the meal\n    was really sacramental. What does seem proved is that\n    the old Latins and other Italians believed the deities\n    of the house to be present at their meals--\n\n      ante focos olim scamnis considere longis\n        mos erat et mensae credere adesse deos (_Fasti_, vi. 307),\n\n    and thus the idea was maintained that in some sense all\n    meals had a sacred character, _i.e._ all in which the\n    members of a _familia_ (see above, p. 78), or of _gens_\n    or _curia_, met together. Cp. R. Smith, _op. cit._ p.\n    261 foll. We may remember that the Penates were the\n    spirits of the food itself, not merely of the place in\n    which it was stored; it had therefore a sacred\n    character, which is also shown by the sanctification of\n    the firstfruits (_R.F._ pp. 151, 195). (The _cenae\n    collegiorum_, dinners of collegia of priests, were in no\n    sense sacrificial meals; see Marquardt, p. 231, note 7;\n    Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ pp. 13, 39, 40.)\n\n    [352] Cic. _de Legibus_, ii. 8. 19.\n\n    [353] Livy i. 18. For constitutional difficulties in\n    this passage, see, _e.g._, Greenidge, _Roman Public\n    Life_, p. 50.\n\n    [354] For this and the augurs generally, see Lecture\n    XII.\n\n    [355] The passages are collected by Wissowa, _R.K._ p.\n    420, note 3. There is no doubt about the inauguratio of\n    the three great flamines and the rex sacrorum, who were\n    all specially concerned with sacrifice, and of the\n    augurs, who would obviously need it in order to perform\n    the same ceremony for others--as a bishop needs\n    consecration for the same reason. As regards the\n    pontifices, Dionysius (ii. 73. 3) clearly thought it was\n    needed for them, and we might a priori assume that one\n    who might become a pontifex maximus would need it; but\n    Wissowa discounts Dionysius' opinion, and I am unwilling\n    to differ from him on a point of the _ius divinum_, of\n    which he is our best exponent. If he is right, it may be\n    that the three _flamines maiores_, who were reckoned in\n    strict religious sense as above the pontifices,\n    including their head (Festus, p. 185), needed \"holiness\"\n    more than any pontifex, and so with the augurs. The\n    insignia of the pontifices, as well as many historical\n    facts, show that the pontifices were competent to\n    perform sacrifice in a general sense (Marq. p. 248\n    foll.); but it is possible that they never had the\n    right, like the flamines, actually to slay the victim. I\n    do not feel sure that the _securis_ was really one of\n    their symbols, though Horace seems to say so in _Ode_\n    iii. 23. 12. The whole question needs further\n    investigation. It may be found that the essential\n    distinction between the pontifices and magistrates _cum\n    imperio_ on the one hand, and the flamines on the other,\n    is to be sought in the ideas of holiness connected with\n    the shedding of blood in sacrifice. The flamen is\n    permanently holy, having charge of constant sacrifices;\n    _e.g._ the Dialis had duties every day. He is the duly\n    sanctified guide for all rites within his own religious\n    range.\n\n    [356] Wissowa, _R.K._ pp. 339, 410 foll.\n\n    [357] The whole subject of the preparation of the\n    sacrificer for his work, and of the steps by which he\n    becomes separated from the profane, is well treated by\n    Hubert et Mauss, _Melanges d'histoire des religions_, p.\n    23 foll. The reference to Dr. Jevons is _Introduction_,\n    ch. xx. p. 270 foll.\n\n    [358] Serv. _Aen._ xii. 173; Virgil wrote \"dant fruges\n    manibus salsas, et tempora ferro Summa notant pecudum\";\n    to which Servius adds that the symbolic movement was a\n    (pretended) cut from head to tail of the victim.\n    Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 352.\n\n    [359] Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl., s.v._ \"cinctus\n    Gabinus.\"\n\n    [360] Marquardt, p. 340. The Vestals were never, so far\n    as we know, directly concerned in animal sacrifice.\n\n    [361] See below, p. 190. For the colour of the garments,\n    and the explanation referred to, see Samter,\n    _Familienfeste_, p. 40 foll.; Diels, _Sibyllinische\n    Blaetter_, p. 70; and cp. von Duhn's paper, \"Rot und Tot\"\n    in _Archiv_, 1906, p. 1 foll. That red colouring was\n    used in various ways in sacred and quasi-sacred rites\n    there is no doubt (see above, p. 89, note 46); but\n    whether it can be always connected with bloodshed is by\n    no means so certain (Rohde, _Psyche_, i. 226). In the\n    case of women it is at least hard to understand. The\n    idea of consecration through blood, which is very rare\n    in Roman literature, comes out curiously in the words\n    which Livy puts into the mouth of Virginius after the\n    slaughter of his daughter (iii. 48): \"Te Appi tuumque\n    caput sanguine hoc consecro\" (_i.e._ to a deity not\n    mentioned). The sentence to which this note refers was\n    written before the appearance of Messrs. Hubert et\n    Mauss' essay on sacrifice (_Melanges d'histoire des\n    religions_, pp. 1-122). The theory there developed, that\n    the victim is the intermediary in all cases between the\n    sacrificer and the deity, and that the _force\n    religieuse_ passes from one to the other in one\n    direction or another, does not essentially differ from\n    the words in the text; but the French savants would, I\n    imagine, prefer to look on the insignia in a general\n    sense as bringing the person wearing them within the\n    region of the _sacrum_, the force of which would react\n    on him still more strongly after the destruction of the\n    victim (see p. 28 foll.).\n\n    [362] See, _e.g._, _Roman Sculpture_ by Mrs. Strong,\n    Plates xi. and xv.\n\n    [363] For this and other insignia see Marquardt, p. 222\n    foll. The question is under discussion whether some of\n    these insignia are not old Italian forms of dress (see\n    Gruppe, _Mythologische Literatur_, 1898-1905, p. 343).\n    For the wearing of the skin of a victim, which meets us\n    also at the Lupercalia (_R.F._ p. 311), see Robertson\n    Smith, _Semites_, p. 416 foll.; Jevons, _Introduction_,\n    p. 252 foll.; Frazer, _G.B._ iii. 136 foll.\n\n    [364] They, of course, wore the _praetexta_ when\n    performing religious acts. Cp. the Fratres Arvales, who\n    laid aside the _praetexta_ after sacrificing. Henzen,\n    _Acta Fr. Arv._ pp. 11, 21, and 28.\n\n    [365] Serv. _Aen._ xi. 543. The _camillae_ assisted the\n    _flaminicae_, Marquardt, p. 227. This is one of the most\n    beautiful features of the stately Roman ritual, and has\n    been handed on to the Roman Church. It was, of course,\n    derived from the worship of the household (see above, p.\n    74).\n\n    [366] _Adonis, Attis, Osiris_, p. 413 foll. Dr. Frazer\n    is criticising Dr. Farnell, who had touched on the\n    subject in the _Hibbert Journal_ for 1907, p. 689, and\n    had taken the more obvious view that death in a family\n    disqualified for actions requiring extreme holiness.\n\n    [367] The passages are collected in Marquardt, p. 174\n    foll.; we may notice in particular Livy xlv. 5. 4,\n    where, though only the washing of hands is referred to,\n    we have the important statement that \"omnis praefatio\n    sacrorum,\" _i.e._ the preliminary exhortation of the\n    priest, enjoined _purae manus_. Livy must be using the\n    language of Roman ritual, though he is not speaking here\n    of a Roman rite. For the material of sacred utensils see\n    Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 30.\n\n    [368] Tibullus ii. 1. 11.\n\n    [369] Cic. _de Legibus_, ii. 10. 24.\n\n    [370] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of Moral\n    Ideas_, ii. 352 foll.; consult the index for further\n    allusions to the subject. Cp. Farnell, _Evolution of\n    Religion_, Lecture III. [Fehrle, _Die kultische\n    Keuschheit im Altertum_ (Giessen, 1910), has reached me\n    too late for use in this chapter.]\n\n    [371] Full details, with the most important references\n    quoted in full, are in Marquardt, p. 172 foll.; but some\n    of the latter are applicable only to the Graeco-Roman\n    period.\n\n    [372] So we may gather from the Lex Furfensis of 58 B.C.\n    (_C.I.L._ ix. 3513), and that of the Ara Augusti at\n    Narbo of A.D. 12 (_C.I.L._ xii. 4333).\n\n    [373] The real origin of the pontifices and their name\n    is unknown to us. If they took their name from the\n    bridging of the Tiber, as Varro held (_L.L._ v. 83) and\n    as the majority of scholars believe (see O. Gilbert,\n    _Rom. Topographie_, ii. 220, note), the difficulty\n    remains that they are found in such a city as Praeneste,\n    where there was no river to be bridged, and where they\n    could not well have been merely an offshoot from the\n    Roman college; see Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 432, note. Nor can\n    we explain how they came to be set in charge of the _ius\n    divinum_; and where there are no data conjecture is\n    useless.\n\n    [374] The covering of the head (_operto capite_, as\n    opposed to _aperto capite_ of the _Graecus ritus_) is\n    usually explained as meant to shut out all sounds\n    belonging to the world of the _profanum_; and the\n    playing of the tibicines is interpreted in the same way.\n    Hubert et Mauss explain the covered head differently:\n    \"le rituel romain prescrivit generalement l'usage du\n    voile, signe de separation et partant de consecration\"\n    (p. 28). Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to_ _the Study of\n    Greek Religion_, p. 522, also holds that it is the\n    outward sign of consecration; cp. S. Reinach, _Cultes,\n    mythes, et religions_, i. 300 foll. The fact, noted by\n    Miss Harrison, that in Festus's account of the _ver\n    sacrum_ (p. 379, ed. Mueller) the children expelled were\n    veiled, seems to point to the idea of\n    dedication--unless, indeed, _velabant_ here means that\n    they blindfolded them.\n\n    [375] The wine was poured over the altar as well as on\n    the victim, which suggests a substitution for blood;\n    Arnobius vii. 29 and 30; Dion. Hal. vii. 72. I cannot\n    find that any one of the many utensils used in sacrifice\n    were for pouring out blood. Blood was, however, poured\n    on the stone at the Terminalia (_R.F._ pp. 325-326); but\n    the rite here described by Ovid seems to be a rural one,\n    outside the _ius divinum_. In the sacrifice of victims\n    to Hecate in Virg. _Aen._ vi. 243 foll., which cannot be\n    _ritus Romanus_, the warm blood is collected in\n    _paterae_; but nothing is said of what was done with it,\n    nor does Servius help. Cp. _Aen._ viii. 106. In\n    Lucretius v. 1202, \"aras sanguine multo spargere\n    quadrupedum,\" the context shows that the ritual alluded\n    to is not old Roman. In Livy's description of the\n    \"occulti paratus sacri\" of the Samnites (ix. 41), we\n    find \"_respersae fando nefandoque sanguine arae_, et\n    dira exsecratio ac furiale carmen.\" Livy seems to think\n    of this blood-sprinkling, whether the blood be human or\n    animal, as unusual and horrible. Ancient, no doubt, is\n    the practice, recorded in the _Acta Fratr. Arv._ (see\n    Henzen, pp. 21 and 23), of using the blood in a\n    religious feast, in the process of cooking: \"porcilias\n    piaculares epulati sunt et sanguem.\" (There is a mention\n    of the pouring of blood in an inscription from Lusitania\n    in _C.I.L._ ii. 2395.) For the use of wine as a\n    substitute for blood, see the recently published work of\n    Karl Kircher, \"Die sakrale Bedeuting des Weines,\" in\n    _Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche, etc._, p. 82 foll.,\n    where, however, the subject is not worked out.\n\n    [376] According to Luebbert (_Commentarii pontificales_,\n    p. 121 foll.) _magmentum_ is the same as _augmentum_,\n    which word is also found (Varro, _L.L._ v. 112). Festus,\n    p. 126, \"magmentum magis augmentum\"; Serv. _Aen._ iv.\n    57, to which passage I shall return. For the equivalent\n    in the Vedic ritual of the cooking and offering of the\n    exta, see Hubert et Mauss, _op. cit._ p. 60 foll.\n\n    [377] _R.F._ p. 89.\n\n    [378] _ib._ p. 10.\n\n    [379] Buecheler, _Umbrica_, pp. 60, 69, etc. Of course\n    the prayer might be said while other operations were\n    going on. For the constant connection of prayer and\n    sacrifice, see Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 10, \"quippe\n    victimam caedi sine precatione non videtur referre aut\n    deos rite consuli.\" If Macrobius is right (iii. 2. 7\n    foll.) in asserting that the prayer must be said while\n    the priest's hand touches the altar, one may guess that\n    this was done at the same time that the exta were laid\n    on it. Ovid saw the priest at the Robigalia offer the\n    exta and say the prayer at the same time (_Fasti_, iv.\n    905 foll.), but does not mention the hand touching the\n    altar. For this see Serv. _Aen._ vi. 124; Horace, _Ode_\n    iii. 23. 17, and Dr. Postgate on this passage in\n    _Classical Review_ for March 1910.\n\n    [380] Cato, _R.R._ 132, 134, 139, and 141. That these\n    formulae were taken from the books of the pontifices is\n    almost certain, not only from the internal evidence of\n    the prayers themselves, but because Servius (Interpol.)\n    on _Aen._ ix. 641 quotes the words: \"macte hoc vino\n    inferio esto,\" which occur in 132, introducing them\n    thus: \"et in pontificalibus sacrificantes dicebant\n    deo....\"\n\n    [381] The verb is omitted here for some ritualistic\n    reason, as in the Iguvian prayers (_Umbrica_, p. 55).\n\n    [382] Virg. _Aen._ ix. 641, \"macte nova virtute puer,\n    sic itur ad astra,\" etc., and many other passages. The\n    verb _mactare_ acquired a general sense of sacrificial\n    slaying, as did also _immolare_, though neither had\n    originally any direct reference to slaughter. The best\n    account I find of the word is in H. Nettleship's\n    _Contributions to Latin Lexicography_, p. 520. He takes\n    _mactus_ as the participle of a lost verb _maco_ or\n    _mago_, to make great, increase, equivalent to _augeo_,\n    which is also a word of semi-religious meaning, as\n    Augustus knew. Nettleship quotes Cicero _in Vatinium_,\n    14, \"puerorum extis deos manes mactare.\"\n\n    [383] Baehrens, _Fragm. Poet. Lat._ 180; Lusilius fragm.\n    143; Nonius, 341, 28 has \"versibus.\"\n\n    [384] It may possibly be objected that some of the\n    deities were powerful for evil as well as good, _e.g._\n    Robigus, the spirit of the red mildew, and that the\n    power of such a deity was not to be encouraged or\n    increased. But all such deities (and I cannot mention\n    another besides Robigus) were of course conceived as\n    able to restrain their own harmful function; they were\n    not invoked to go away and leave the ager Romanus in\n    peace, but to limit their activity in the land where\n    they had been settled for worship. We have no prayer to\n    Robigus (or Robigo, feminine, as Ovid has it) except\n    that which Ovid somewhat fancifully versified after\n    hearing the Flamen Quirinalis say it (_Fasti_, iv. 911\n    foll.), in which of course the word _macte_ does not\n    occur. As the victim was a dog, an uneatable one, it is\n    possible that the ritual was not quite the usual one.\n    But the language of the prayer is interesting and brings\n    out my point:\n\n      aspera Robigo, parcas Cerialibus herbis.\n        vis tua non levis est;...\n      parce precor, scabrasque manus a messibus aufer\n        neve noce cultis: posse nocere sat est.\n\n    It concludes by praying Robigo to direct her strength\n    and attention to other objects, _gladios et tela\n    nocentia_; but this is the poet's fancy.\n\n    [385] _Evolution of Religion_, p. 212, quoting _Vedic\n    Hymns_, pt. ii. pp. 259 and 391.\n\n    [386] _Origin and Development of Moral Ideas_, vol. ii.\n    p. 585 foll.; cp. 657. See also Farnell, _Evolution of\n    Religion_, p. 195.\n\n    [387] See above, p. 9. _Religio_ in the sense of an\n    obligation to perform certain ritualistic acts is in my\n    view a secondary and later use of the word. See\n    _Transactions of the Congress of Historical Religion for\n    1908_, vol. ii. p. 169 foll.\n\n    [388] Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 26 foll.; _C.I.L._\n    vi. 2104, 32 foll.; Buecheler und Riese, _Carmina Lat._,\n    epigr. pars ii., no. 1. All surviving Roman prayers are\n    collected in Appel's _De Romanorum precationibus_,\n    Giessen, 1909.\n\n    [389] Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 10 foll.\n\n    [390] In _Anthropology and the Classics_, p. 94.\n\n    [391] Cp. Tibullus ii. 1. 84, \"vos celebrem cantate deum\n    pecorique vocate, Voce palam pecori, clam sibi quisque\n    vocet.\" This murmuring was certainly characteristic of\n    Roman magic; see Jevons, p. 99, and especially the\n    reference to a Lex Cornelia, which condemned those \"qui\n    susurris magicis homines occiderunt\" (Justinian, _Inst._\n    iv. 18. 5).\n\n    [392] On the nature of this _tripodatio_ see Henzen,\n    _op. cit._ p. 33. Buecheler, _Umbrica_, p. 69, gives the\n    Umbrian verb a different meaning, though he translates\n    it _tripodato_.\n\n    [393] Buecheler, _Umbrica_, pp. 13 and 52.\n\n    [394] Wissowa, _R.K._, 333, inclines to the belief that\n    prayer had a legal binding force upon the deity; but he\n    does not cite any text which confirms this view, and is\n    arguing on general grounds. I gather from the language\n    of Aust (_Religion der Roemer_, p. 30) that he thinks\n    there was a germ which might have developed into a more\n    truly religious attitude towards the gods, if it had not\n    been killed by priestly routine and quasi-legal\n    formulae. With this opinion I am strongly inclined to\n    agree. Cp. the story of Scipio Aemilianus audaciously\n    altering and elevating the formula dictated by the\n    priest in the censor's lustratio (Val. Max. iv. 1. 10),\n    to which I shall return in the proper place.\n\n    [395] Westphal, quoted by De Marchi, _La Religione,\n    etc._, i. p. 133, note.\n\n    [396] See, _e.g._, ch. 141 _ad fin._ The prayer in the\n    Acta of the Ludi Saeculares to the Moirae is an\n    imitation of old prayers. See below, p. 442.\n\n    [397] _ib._ ch. 139.\n\n    [398] _ib._ ch. 141.\n\n    [399] Hubert et Mauss, _Melanges d'histoire des\n    religions_, p. 74.\n\n    [400] So Cato, _R.R._ 141, \"si minus in omnes litabit,\n    sic verba concipito; Mars pater, quod tibi illuc porco\n    neque satisfactum est, te hoc porco piaculo.\" (The word\n    for the slaughter is here euphemistically omitted; De\n    Marchi, p. 134.)\n\n    [401] Hubert et Mauss, _op. cit._ p. 55 foll.; Leviticus\n    vi. I doubt whether the theory of the learned authors\n    will hold good generally on this point.\n\n    [402] Marquardt, p. 185, asserted the contrary, but\n    cited no evidence except Serv. _Aen._ vi. 253, which\n    does not prove the practice of the holocaust to be\n    really Roman. Wissowa's exactness is well illustrated in\n    his detection of this error; see _R. K._ p. 352, note 6.\n    Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 135, leaves no doubt on\n    the question possible.\n\n    [403] Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 131. See above, p.\n    35. Festus, p. 218.\n\n    [404] Gellius iv. 6. 7.\n\n    [405] _i.e._ lustratio. That this was a form of piaculum\n    is clear from the use of the word _pihaklu_ of the\n    victim in the lustratio of the arx of Iguvium, _e.g._\n    Buecheler, _Umbrica_, index, 5, v.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE IX\n\nRITUAL--_continued_\n\n\nIn the last lecture we found that the magical element in the Roman\nritual is exaggerated by recent writers. But it has also long been the\npractice to describe that ritual as a system of bargaining with the\ngods: as partaking of the nature of a legal contract. \"The old Roman\nworship was businesslike and utilitarian. The gods were partners in a\ncontract with their worshippers, and the ritual was characterised by the\nhard formalism of the legal system of Rome. The worshipper performed his\npart to the letter with the scrupulous exactness required in pleadings\nbefore the praetor.\"[406] This is an excellent statement of a view very\ngenerally held, especially since Mommsen, whose training in Roman law\nmade him apt to dwell on the legal aspects of Roman life, wrote the\nfamous chapter in the first volume of his history. I now wish to examine\nthis view briefly.\n\nNo doubt it was suggested by the necessary familiarity of the Roman\nhistorian with _vota publica_, the vows so frequently made on behalf of\nthe State by its magistrates, in terms supplied by the pontifices, and\ndictated by them to the magistrate undertaking the duty. Some few of\nthese formulae have survived, and it may certainly be said of them that\nthey are analogous to legal formulae, and express the quasi-contractual\nnature of the process. Such legalised religious contracts seem to be\npeculiar to Rome; they are curiously characteristic of the Roman genius\nfor formularisation, which in course of time had most important effects\nin the domain of civil law. But the vow as such is, of course, by no\nmeans peculiar to Rome; it is familiar in Greek history, and is found in\nan elementary form among savages at the present day.[407] But at Rome\nboth in public and private life it is far more frequent and striking\nthan elsewhere. This is a phenomenon that calls for careful study; and\nwe must beware that we are not misled by quasi-legal developments into\nmissing the real significance of it from the point of view of morality\nand religion.\n\nThe _vota privata_, which include vows and offerings made to deities by\nprivate individuals, had never been adequately examined till De Marchi\nwrote his book on the private religion of the Romans; nor could they\nhave been so examined until the _Corpus Inscriptionum_ was fairly well\nadvanced. There the material is extraordinarily abundant, but it is, of\ncourse, almost entirely of comparatively late date, and the great\nmajority of votive inscriptions belong to the period of the Empire. Yet\nit is quite legitimate to argue from this to an origin of this form of\nworship in the earliest times, and we have enough early evidence to\njustify the inference. Among the oldest Latin inscriptions are some\nfound on objects such as cups or vases, showing that the latter were\nvotive offerings to a deity: thus we have _Saeturni poculum, Kerri\npoculum_, and other similar ones which will be found at the beginning of\nthe first volume of the _Corpus_.[408] They give only the name of the\ndeity as a rule, and do not tell us why the object was offered to him;\nbut they must have been thank-offerings for some supposed blessing. In\none case, not indeed at Rome, but not far away at Praeneste, we have\nproof of this; for a mother makes a dedication to Fortuna _nationu\ncratia_, which plainly expresses gratitude for good luck in\nchildbirth;[409] and this inscription is one of the oldest we possess.\nNor do they tell us whether there was a previous vow or promise of which\nthe offering is the fulfilment. But in the majority of inscriptions of\nlate date the familiar letters V.S.L.M. (_votum solvit lubens merito_)\nbetray the nature of the transaction, and it is not unreasonable to\nguess that there was usually a previous undertaking of some kind, to be\ncarried out if the deity were gracious.\n\nBut these private _vota_ were not, strictly speaking, legal\ntransactions, supposed to bind both parties in a contract, as we shall\nsee was to some extent the case with the _vota publica_. They could not\nhave needed the aid of a pontifex, or a solemn _voti nuncupatio_, _i.e._\nstatement of the promise; they were rather, as De Marchi asserts,[410]\nspontaneous expressions of what we may call religious feeling; and it\nmay be that he is right in maintaining that throughout Roman history\nthey remained as expressions of the religious sense and of the better\nfeeling of the lower classes. The practice implies three conceptions:\n(1) of the deity as really powerful for good and evil; (2) of the gift,\na work of supererogation, as likely to please him; (3) of the grateful\nact and feeling as good in themselves. Surely there must have been in\nthis practice a germ of moral development; I am surprised that Dr.\nWestermarck has not mentioned in his chapter on gratitude the\nextraordinary abundance of Roman votive offerings and inscriptions.\nDoubtless there lies at the root of it the idea of _Do ut des_, or\nrather of _Dabo ut des_; doubtless also it could be turned to evil\npurposes in the form of _devotio_, when promises were made to a deity on\ncondition that he killed or injured an enemy; but in the ordinary and\ncommon example it is impossible to deny that the final act, the\nperformance of the vow, must have been accompanied by a feeling of\ngratitude. The merest recognition of a supposed blessing is of value in\nmoral development.\n\nBut it is in the _vota publica_ that we undoubtedly find something in\nthe nature of a bargain--covenant would be a more graceful word--with a\ndeity in the name of the State. Even here, however, the impression is\nrather produced by the use of legal terms and the formularisation of the\nprocess, than by any assumed attitude of contempt towards, or even of\nequality with, the deity concerned. There is no trace in early Roman\nreligious history of any tendency to abuse or degrade the divine beings\nif they did not perform their part, such as is well known in China,[411]\nor even, strange to say, occasionally met with in the southern Italy of\nto-day; the attitude towards the deity in cult (though not invariably in\nthe later Graeco-Roman literature) was ever respectful, as it was\ntowards the magistrates of the State. The farthest the Romans ever went\nin condemning their gods was when misfortune persuaded them that they\nwere become indifferent or useless; then they began to neglect them, and\nto turn to other gods, as we shall see in subsequent lectures.\n\nThe public _vota_ were of two kinds: the ordinary, or regularly\nrecurring, and the extraordinary, which were occasioned by some\nparticular event. Of the ordinary, the most familiar is that undertaken\nby the consul, and no doubt in some form by the Rex in the days of the\nkingship, for the benefit of the State on the first day of the official\nyear. Accompanied by the Senate and a crowd of people, the consuls went\nup to the Capitoline temple, and performed the sacrifice which had been\nvowed by their predecessors of a year before; after which they undertook\na new _votum_, \"_pro reipublicae salute_.\"[412] We have not the formula\nof this vow, and cannot tell what resemblance it bore to a bargain; but\nthe ceremony itself must have been most impressive, and calculated to\nremind all who were present of the greatness and goodwill of the supreme\ndeity who watched over the interests of the State. So too at the\n_lustrum_ of the censors, which took place in the Campus Martius every\nfive years, it is almost certain that the _votum_ of the predecessors in\noffice was fulfilled by a sacrifice, and a new one undertaken. Here\nagain we are without the formula, but that there was one we know from a\nvery interesting passage of Valerius Maximus. He tells us that Scipio\nAemilianus, when as censor he was conducting this sacrifice, and the\n_scriba_ (on behalf of the pontifex?) was dictating to him the _solemne\nprecationis carmen ex publicis tabulis_, in which the immortal gods were\nbesought to make the prosperity of the Roman State \"better and\ngreater,\" had the audacity to interrupt him, saying that the condition\nof the State was sufficiently good and great: \"itaque precor ut eas\n(res) perpetuo incolumes servent.\" This change, Valerius says, was\naccepted, and the formula altered accordingly in the _tabulae_.[413]\nThis story, which is probably genuine and is quite characteristic of\nScipio, must convince an impartial mind that in this votive ceremony\nthere was enough truth and dignity to suggest a real advance in\nreligious thought, so far at least as the State was concerned.\n\nThe extraordinary _vota_ were innumerable. They were occasioned by\ndangers or misfortunes of various kinds, the magistrate undertaking to\ndedicate something to the god concerned if the State should have come\nsafely through the peril. Many temples had their origin in this\npractice;[414] we meet also with _ludi_, special sacrifices, or a tithe\nof the booty taken in war. In two or three cases Livy has copied the\nformula from the _tabulae_ of the pontifices; thus before the war with\nAntiochus in 191 B.C., the consul recited the following words after the\npontifex maximus: \"Si duellum quod cum Antiocho rege sumi populus\niussit, id ex sententia senatus populique Romani confectum erit; tum\ntibi Iuppiter populus Romanus ludos magnos dies decem continuos faciet\n... quisquis magistratus eos ludos quando ubique faxit, hi ludi recte\nfacti, donaque data recte sunto.\"[415] This document dates from the days\nof the decay of the Roman religion, and is, of course, modernised by\nLivy; but it may give an idea of what is meant by writers who speak of\nan element of bargain or covenant in these _vota_. Still more elaborate,\nand probably more antique, is the famous formula of the vow of the _ver\nsacrum_ in the darkest hour of the war with Hannibal.[416] This very\ncurious rite, which proves beyond question the devotion of the Italian\nstocks to the principle of the _votum_, consisted of a promise to\ndedicate to Mars or Jupiter all the valuable products of a single\nspring, including the male children born at that time; to this the\nRomans had recourse for the last time in 217 B.C., and Livy has\nfortunately preserved the words of the vow. These, with the exception of\nthe dedication of the children, which is judiciously omitted, probably\nstand much as they had come down from a remote antiquity. The _votum_ is\nput in the form of a _rogatio_ to the people, without whose sanction it\ncould not be put in force; are they willing to dedicate to Jupiter all\nthe young of oxen, sheep, or pigs born in the spring five years after\ndate, if the State shall have been preserved during those years from all\nits enemies? The curious feature of the document is, not that it binds\nthe deity to any course of action, but that it secures the individual\nRoman against his anger in case of any chance slip in his part of the\nprocess, and the people against any evil consequences arising from such\na slip or from misdoing on the part of an individual. \"Si quis clepsit,\nne populo scelus esto neve cui cleptum erit: si atro die faxit insciens,\nprobe factum esto.\"[417] Of this formula a recent writer of great\nlearning and ability has written thus: \"The well-known liturgical\narchive containing Rome's address to Jupiter in the critical days of the\nHannibalic war is a wary and cleverly drawn legal document, intended to\nbind the god as well as the State.\"[418] He is no exception to the rule\nthat those who have not habitually occupied themselves with the Roman\nreligion are liable to misinterpret its details. This is not an address\nto Jupiter, nor is there any sign in it that the god was considered as\nbound to perform his part as in a contract; the covenant is a one-sided\none, the people undertaking an act of self-renunciation if the god be\ngracious to them, and thereby going far to assure themselves that he\nwill so be gracious. And the legal cast of the language, which seems so\napt to mislead the unwary,[419] is only to be found in the clauses which\nguarantee the people against the contingency of the whole vow being\nruined by the inadvertence or the rascality of an individual; surely a\nvery natural and inevitable _caveat_, where for once the whole people,\nand not only their priests or magistrates, were concerned in the\ntransaction.\n\nA curious form of the _votum_, which, however, I can only mention in\npassing, is that addressed to the gods of a hostile city, with a view to\ninduce them to desert their temples and take up their abode at Rome;\nthis is the process called _evocatio_, which was successfully applied at\nthe siege of Veii, when Juno Regina consented to betray her city.[420]\nMacrobius, commenting on Virgil's lines (_Aen._ ii. 351),\n\n  excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis\n  di quibus imperium hoc steterat,\n\nhas preserved the _carmen_ used at the siege of Carthage.[421] It is\ncast in the language of prayer: \"Si deus si dea est cui populus\ncivitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela ... precor venerorque veniamque\na vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque Carthaginiensem deseratis,\"\netc.; but it ends with a vow to build temples and establish _ludi_ in\nhonour of these deities if they should comply with the petition. It is\nworth noting here that it was, of course, impossible to make a bargain\nwith strange or hostile gods, or in any way to force their hand; the\npromise is entirely one-sided; and I am inclined to think that in\ndealing with his own gods the mental attitude of the Roman was much the\nsame, though his faith in them was undoubtedly greater.\n\nThis is the proper place to mention another very curious rite, closely\nallied to the _votum_, but differing from it in one or two important\npoints, which is almost peculiar to the Romans and most characteristic\nof them; I mean the _devotio_ of himself on the field of battle by a\nmagistrate _cum imperio_.[422] The famous example, familiar to us all,\nis that of Decius Mus at the battle of Vesuvius in the great Latin\nwar[423] (340 B.C.): the same story is told of his son in a war with\nGauls and Samnites, and of his grandson in the war with Pyrrhus.[424]\nThe historical difficulties of these accounts do not concern us now; by\ncommon consent of scholars the method and formula of the _devotio_ are\nauthentic, and the rite must have had its origin in remote antiquity.\n\nThe story runs[425] that Decius, at whose preliminary sacrifice before\nthe battle with the Latins the liver of the victim had been found\nimperfect, while that of his colleague was normal, perceived that his\nwing of the army was giving way. He therefore resolved to sacrifice\nhimself by _devotio_, and called on the pontifex maximus, who was\npresent, to dictate for him the correct formula. He was directed to put\non the toga praetexta, to wear it with the cinctus Gabinus, to veil his\nhead with it, to touch his chin with his hand under the folds of the\nrobe, and to stand upon a spear. He then repeated after the pontifex the\nfollowing formula: \"Iane, Iuppiter, Mars pater, Quirine, Bellona, Lares,\ndivi Novensiles, di Indigetes, divi quorum est potestas nostrorum\nhostiumque, diique Manes, vos precor, veneror, veniam peto feroque, uti\npopulo Romano Quiritium vim victoriamque prosperetis, hostesque populi\nRomani Quiritium terrore formidine morteque adficiatis. Sicut verbis\nnuncupavi, ita pro re publica Quiritium, exercitu legionibus auxiliis\npopuli Romani Quiritium, legiones auxiliaque hostium _mecum_ deis\nManibus Tellurique devoveo\" (Livy ix. 9). He then mounted his horse and\nrode into the midst of the enemy to meet his death. The Latins were\nseized with panic and the Romans were victorious.\n\nHere the vow is made and fulfilled almost at the same moment,--_the\nfulfilment takes place before the gods have done their part_. Here too\nthe offering made is the life of a human being which brings the act\nwithin the domain of sacrifice. Its sacrificial nature is obvious in all\nthe details.[426] The dress is that of the sacrificing priest or\nmagistrate;[427] Decius was therefore priest and victim at the same\ntime, and the two characters seem to be combined in the symbolic\ntouching of the chin, which has been rightly explained,[428] I think, as\nanalogous to the laying on of hands in the consecratio of the Rex, as we\nsaw it in the case of Numa, and perhaps to the _immolatio_ of a victim\nby sprinkling the _mola salsa_ on its head; where the object of\nconsecration is made holy by contact with holy things.[429] The\nstanding on the spear is difficult to explain; it may have been a\nsymbolic dedication to Mars, whose spear or spears, as we have seen,\nwere kept in the Regia.[430]\n\nThe formula contains certain points of great interest. Firstly, it is\nnot only the Roman gods of all sorts and conditions who are invoked, but\nthose of the enemy also, or, in vague language, those who have power\nover both Romans and Latins.[431] Secondly, it begins with a prayer\ncombined with a curse upon the enemy: in which respect it resembles the\nprayer at the _lustratio populi_ at Iguvium[432] (which I shall mention\nagain directly) and to a later type of _devotio_ used at the siege of\nCarthage and preserved by Macrobius.[433] Thirdly, in spite of this\nreligious aspect of the formula, it ends with what can only be called a\nmagical spell. By the act of self-sacrifice, which is the potent element\nin the spell, Decius exercises magical power over the legions of the\nenemy, and devotes them with himself to death,--to the Manes and Mother\nEarth.[434]\n\nThe story suggests to me that the rite had been at one time well known;\nthe pontifex maximus was ready with the instructions and formula. It was\na survival from an age of magic, but the priests have given it a\nreligious turn, and the language of the first part is quite as much that\nof prayer as is the language of the collect to be said in time of war\nwhich still disfigures the Anglican prayer-book.[435] What is still more\nremarkable is that it has not only a religious but an ethical character.\nThe idea of service to the State is here seen at its highest point. The\nsacrifice is a vicarious one.[436] Livy significantly adds that a\nprivate soldier might be chosen by the commander to represent him, and\nthat if this man were not killed by the enemy an image seven feet long\nmust be buried in the earth and a piacular sacrifice offered.[437] Later\non it would seem that instead of sacrificing himself, the consul might\nimplore the gods to accept the hostile army or city as his substitutes:\n\"eos _vicarios_ pro me fide magistratuque meo pro populi Romani\nexercitibus do devoveo, ut me exercitumque nostrum ... bene salvos\nsiritis esse.\"[438] The idea here, and indeed in the _devotio_ of\nDecius, bears some analogy to that which lies at the root of the old\nRoman practice, of making a criminal _sacer_ to the deity chiefly\nconcerned in his crime; when this was done, any man might kill him, and\nhe was practically a victim offered as _vicarius_ for the Roman people,\nwho had been contaminated by his deed.[439]\n\n\nBut I must now pass on the last kind of ritual to be explained in these\nlectures, and far the most impressive of all, that of _lustratio_, or\nthe purification, as it is commonly called, of land, city, human beings,\nor even inanimate objects, by means of a solemn procession accompanied\nwith sacrifice.\n\nSo important a part did these processional rites play in the public life\nof the Roman people,--so characteristic are they too of the old Roman\nhabit of thought and action, that they have given a wonderful word to\nthe Latin language. _Lustrare_ has many meanings; but the one which is\nimmediately derived from the rites I speak of, that of slow processional\nmovement, is the most beautiful and impressive of them all. When Aeneas\nfirst sees Dido in all her stately beauty, he says:[440]\n\n  in freta dum fluvii current, _dum montibus umbrae\n  lustrabunt convexa_, polus dum sidera pascet,\n  semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt,\n  quae me cunque vocant terrae.\n\n\"So long as the cloud-shadows move slowly over the hollows of the\nhills.\" Here in Scotland you must have all seen this procession of the\nshadows, as I have watched it when fishing in Wales; let us always\nassociate it with the magic of a poet of nature as well as with the\nreligious processions of his people.\n\n_Lustrare_, _lustratio_, are words which, as I think, belong to an age\nof religion, that is, according to our formula, of effective desire to\nbe in right relation with the Power manifesting itself in the Universe.\nIn other processes which are usually called purificatory, magic seems to\nsurvive: the word _februum_, from which comes the name of our second\nmonth, meant an object with magical potency, such as water, fire,\nsulphur, laurel, wool, or the strips of the victims sacrificed at the\nLupercalia, and the verb _februare_ meant to get rid of certain\nunwholesome or miasmatic influences by means of these objects.[441] What\nwas the really primitive idea attached to these words need not concern\nus now; but Varro, and Ovid following him, explicitly explain them as\nmeaning _purifying_ agents and processes,[442] from which we may infer\nthat they had a magical power to produce certain desired conditions, or\nto protect from evil influences, like charms and amulets. But _lustrare_\nand _lustratio_ seem to belong to an age when the thing to be driven or\nkept away is rather spiritual mischief, and when the means used are\nsacrifices and prayers, with processional movement.\n\nWhat is the original meaning of the word _lustrare_? It seems to be a\nstrong form of _luere_; and _luere_ is explained by Varro as equivalent\nto _solvere_.[443] The word _lustrum_, he says, _i.e._ the solemn\nfive-yearly ceremony in the Campus Martius, is derived from _luere_ in\nthe sense of _solvere_, to pay; because every fifth year the\ncontract-moneys for the collection of taxes and for public undertakings\nwere paid into the treasury through the censors. Servius,[444] doubtless\nfollowing him, explains such expressions as _peccata luere_, _supplicium\nluere_, on the same principle--in the sense of payment, just as we speak\nof paying the penalty. We might thus be tempted to fancy that the\nroot-idea of _lustrare_ is to perform a duty and so get rid of it, as we\ndo in paying for anything we buy; but this would be to misapprehend the\noriginal meaning of the word as completely as Varro did when he\nexplained _luere_ by reference to the payments of contractors. Varro\nand Servius do, however, suggest the right clue; they see that the idea\nlurking in the word is that of getting rid of something, but they\nunderstand that something in the light, not of primitive man's\nintelligence, but of the duty of man in a civilised State. What exactly\nit was that was to be got rid of is a more difficult question; but all\nthat we have so far learnt about the early religious ideas of the Romans\nstrongly suggests that they were in what we may call an advanced\n_animistic_ stage of religious ideas, and that whatever may have been\nthe notion of their primitive ancestors, they themselves, in these rites\nas we know them, saw the means of getting rid of and so keeping away\nhostile spirits. A French sociologist, M. van Gennep, whose book _Les\nRites de passage_ I have read with great interest, has kindly written me\na long letter in which he insists that this animistic interpretation of\n_lustratio_ is really superfluous, and that the idea of separation\nalone, _i.e._ of separation between sacred and profane, without any\nreference to spirits or _dei_, is a fully sufficient explanation. So no\ndoubt it may be among many savage peoples; but he would probably allow\nthat as a people advances from one stage of superstition to another,\nwhile it retains in outline the scheme of its rites, it will apply new\nmeanings to them in keeping with the changes in its mental attitude.\nThis is one of the most interesting processes with which modern research\nhas been occupied; we are now familiar with the adoption of\npre-Christian ceremonies, with a complete change of meaning, in the\nritual of the Christian Church. These very processions of _lustratio_,\nwhich had already been once metamorphosed in an animistic period, were\nseized upon by the Roman Church with characteristic adroitness, adapted\nto its ritual, and given a new meaning; and the Catholic priest still\nleads his flock round the fields with the prayers of the _Litania maior_\nin Rogation week, begging a blessing on the flocks and herds, and\ndeprecating the anger of the Almighty.[445]\n\nBut let us now pass briefly in review the more important of these rites\nof lustration and compare them with each other; we shall find the\nessential features the same in all of them.\n\nThe first permanent difficulty of new settlers in Latium was to mark off\ntheir cultivated land from the forest or waste land beyond it, and so,\nas M. van Gennep would phrase it,[446] to make a margin of separation\nbetween the sacred and the profane, within which the sacred processes of\ndomestic life and husbandry might go forward, undisturbed by\ndangers--human, spiritual, or what not--coming from the profane world\nwithout. The boundary was marked out in some material way, perhaps by\nstones (_cippi_) or posts, placed at intervals;[447] and thus \"a fixed\npiece of ground is appropriated by a particular social group, so that if\nany stranger penetrated it he would be committing a sacrilege as\ncomplete as he would if he trespassed in a sacred grove or a temple.\"\nThis boundary-line was made sacred itself by the passage round it\n(_lustratio_) at some fixed time of the year, usually in May, when crops\nwere ripening and especially liable to be attacked by hostile\ninfluences, of a procession occupied with sacrifice and prayer. The two\nmain features of the rite, as formulated by Cato in his treatise on\nagriculture, are--1, the procession of the victims, ox, sheep, and pig\n(_suovetaurilia_), the farmer's most valuable property; 2, the prayer to\nMars pater, after libations to Janus and Jupiter, asking for his kindly\nprotection of the whole _familia_ of the farm, together with the crops\nof all kinds and the cattle within the boundary-line.[448] We are not\nexpressly told that this procession followed the boundary throughout,\nbut the analogy of other lustrations forbids us to doubt it; and thus\nthe rite served the practical purpose of keeping it clear in the\nmemory,--a matter of the utmost importance, especially for the practical\nRoman. In Cato's formula the farmer's object is to ward off disease,\ncalamity, dearth, and infertility; and it is Mars who is invoked, _i.e._\na great god who has long ago emerged from the crowd of impersonal\nspirits; but we may safely believe that the primitive farmer used other\nlanguage, addressing the spirits of disease and dearth themselves; and\nwe may guess, if we will, that again before that there was no invocation\nor sacrifice at all, but that the object was only to mark the boundary\nbetween land civilised and sacred and land uncivilised and profane.\n\nAs we have seen, the farms and homesteads of the early Latins were\ngrouped together in associations called _pagi_; and we can hardly doubt\nthat these were subjected to the same process of _lustratio_ as the\nfarms themselves. We have no explicit account of a circumambulation in\nthis case, but we have in the later poets several charming allusions to\na _lustratio pagi_, and it is of a rite of this kind that Virgil must\nhave been thinking when he wrote the beautiful passage in the first\nGeorgic beginning \"In primis venerare deos\";[449] and the lines\n\n  terque novas circum felix eat hostia fruges,\n  omnis quam chorus et socii comitentur ovantes, etc.,\n\nclearly imply a procession with the object of keeping away harmful\ninfluences from the crops at a critical time. And when the city-state\ncame into being we may be equally sure that its _ager_, so long at least\nas it was small enough to admit of such a processional ritual, was\nlustrated in the same way. In historical times this _ager_ had become\ntoo extensive, and there is no procession to be found among the duties\nof the Fratres Arvales as we know them when they were revived by\nAugustus; but we have not, of course, the whole of the \"acta\" of the\nBrethren, and even if we had, it would not be likely that we should find\nany trace of a practice which must have been dropped in course of time\nas the Roman territory increased. Let us go on to the beginnings of the\ncity, where we shall find the same principle and practice applied in\nstriking fashion.\n\nAs it was necessary to protect the homestead and its land by a sacred\nboundary, so the city had to be clearly marked off from all that was\noutside of it. Its walls were sacred, or, strictly speaking, a certain\nimaginary line outside of them called the _pomoerium_ was sacred. This\nis well shown in the traditional method of founding a city even in\nhistorical times, _e.g._ a _colonia_, as described by Varro, Servius,\nand Plutarch.[450] A white ox and a white cow were harnessed to a\nplough, of which the share must be made of bronze--a rule which shows at\nonce the antiquity and the religious character of the rite, for iron, as\nwe saw, was taboo in most religious ceremonies. A rectangular furrow was\ndrawn where the walls of the city were to be; the earth was turned\ninwards to mark the future line of the wall, and the furrow represented\nthe future _pomoerium_. When the plough came to the place where there\nwas to be a gate, it was lifted over it, and the ploughing resumed\nbeyond it. This probably meant, as Plutarch expressed it, that the walls\n(or rather the _pomoerium_), were sacred while the gates were profane;\nhad the gates been holy, scruple would necessarily have been felt about\nthe passage in and out of them of things profane. Thus the _pomoerium_\nwas a boundary line between the sacred and the profane, like that of the\nfarm; but in historical times it acquired a more definite religious\nmeaning, for within it there could only dwell those deities who belonged\nto the city and its inhabitants, _i.e._ the _di indigetes_, and who were\nrecognised as its divine inhabitants.[451] And only within its limits\ncould the _auspicia_ of the city be taken.\n\nWe should naturally expect that this sacred boundary would have its\nholiness secured or revived by an annual _lustratio_ like that of the\nfarm and _pagus_; and so no doubt it was. But the memory of this\nsurvives only in the word _amburbium_, which, on the analogy of\n_ambarvalia_, must mean a rite of this processional kind. Luckily we\nhave definite knowledge of the real _lustratio_ of a city in those\nritualistic inscriptions of Iguvium which I have more than once referred\nto.[452] It is the _lustratio_ of the _arx_, the citadel of Iguvium,\nwhich we may guess to have been the original _oppidum_ or germ of the\nhistorical city. The details are complex, and show clear traces of\npriestly organisation; but the main features stand out unmistakably. A\nprocession goes round the _arx_ (_ocris Fisia_), with the\n_suovetaurilia_--ox, sheep, and pig--as in the Latin _lustratio_; at\neach gate it stops, while sacrifice and prayer are offered on behalf of\nthe citadel, the city, and the whole people of Iguvium. There were three\ngates, and each of them is the scene of sacrifice and prayer, because\nthey are the weak points in the wall, and they need to be strengthened\nby annual religious operations; such at least is the most obvious\nexplanation. Whether the Fratres Attiedii would have been able to\nexplain it thus we may doubt; neither in the sacrificial ritual nor in\nthe prayers, as recorded in the inscription, do we find any clear trace\nof a distinction between the sacred and the profane, or of the idea of a\nhostile spiritual world outside the sacred boundary. So far as we can\njudge from the prayers, the object is really a religious one, to implore\nthe deities of the city to preserve it and all within it. The language\nof these prayers hardly differs from that in which a Christian Church of\nto-day asks for a blessing on a community.[453]\n\nSo far I have been speaking of the permanent separation of land or city\nby a sacred boundary line from the profane world without. But human\nbeings _en masse_ might be subjected to the same process--an army, for\nexample, at the opening of the season of war; and so, too, might its\nappurtenances--horses, arms, and trumpets. In the account of the census\nand _lustrum_ in the Campus Martius given by Dionysius of Halicarnassus,\nwho passed some years in Rome in the time of Augustus, we find the\n_suovetaurilia_ driven three times round the assembled host and\nsacrificed to Mars. This was doubtless the early form of the political\ncensus, which had a military meaning and origin. But we have a more\nexact and reliable account of a similar rite in the Iguvian documents,\nwhich contain instructions for the _lustratio_ of the people apparently\nbefore a campaign.[454] So far as we can gather from the Umbrian text,\nthe male population was assembled in a particular spot in its military\ndivisions, and round this host a procession went three times; at the end\nof each circuit there was sacrifice and prayer to Mars and two female\nassociates of his power, the object of which, as we can read in the\nwords of the prayer, was to bless the people of Iguvium and to curse its\nenemies, who were to be confounded and frightened and paralysed.\n\nHere religion of a rude sort has been superimposed on the originally\nmagical ceremonial. For the idea must have been that by drawing a \"magic\ncircle\" around the host, which might have to march against enemies\nliving far beyond the pale of the _ager Romanus_ (or Iguvinus), where\nhostile magical influences might be brought to bear against them, they\nwere in some mysterious way marked off, rendered \"holy,\" and so\nprotected against the wiles of the enemy. A later and animistic age\nwould think of them as needing protection against hostile spirits, of\nwhose ways and freaks they were of course entirely ignorant. Of these\nprimitive ideas about the danger of entering hostile territory and of\nleaving your own, Dr. Frazer has collected some examples in his _Golden\nBough_ (i. 304 foll.), both from savage tribes and from Greek usage. A\nsingle parallel from the pen of a Roman historian, which Dr. Frazer has\nnot mentioned, may suffice us here. Livy tells us that the method in\nMacedonia was to march the whole host in spring between the severed\nlimbs of a dog:[455] the principle is here the same as in Italy, but the\nmethod differs slightly. In each case some mysterious influence is\nbrought to bear on the whole army without exception; but in the one case\na line is drawn round it, in the other it passes through the parts of an\nobject which must have been supposed to be endowed with magical power.\n\nAnd once more, in spring before the season of arms, all the belongings\nof the host were subjected to some process of the same kind. I have\nalluded to this in my lecture on the calendar, and need not now\nreproduce the evidence of the Equirria at the end of February and on\nMarch 14, or of the Quinquatrus on March 19, when the _lustratio_ took\nplace of the shields (_ancilia_) of the Salii, the war-priests of Mars,\nand the Tubilustrium on March 23, which tells its own tale.[456] But I\nmay recall the fact that the calendar supplies us also with evidence\nthat on the return of the host to their own territory all these\nlustrations had to be repeated in order to rid men, horses, arms, and\ntrumpets of such evil contagion as they might have contracted during\ntheir absence. It may be that one special object of lustration after the\nreturn of an army was to rid it, with all belonging to it, of the taint\nof bloodshed, just as the Jewish warriors and their captives were\npurified before re-entering the camp.[457] But in the Roman pontifical\nlaw this idea is hardly discernible, and the only trace I can find of it\nis a statement of Festus that the soldiers who followed the general's\ncar in a triumph wore laurel wreaths \"ut quasi purgati a caede humana\nintrarent urbem.\"[458] I may add here that the passage of a triumphing\narmy through the Porta triumphalis, which was probably an isolated arch\nin the Campus Martius just outside the city wall,[459] most likely had\nas its original meaning the separation of the host from the profane\nworld in which it had been moving; and the triumphal arches of later\ntimes, which were within the city, were thus developed architecturally\nfrom an origin which belongs to the region of magic.[460] To the same\nclass of ideas, if I am not much mistaken, belongs the familiar Italian\npractice of compelling a surrendered army to pass under the yoke. As\nLivy explains this when he first mentions it, it was symbolical of\nsubjection: \"ut exprimatur confessio subactam domitamque esse\ngentem\";[461] and this was no doubt the idea in the minds of the\nhistorical Romans. But it may well have been that it had its root in a\nprocess which was supposed to deprive the conquered enemy of all\ndangerous contagion--to separate them from their own land and people\nbefore they came into peaceful contact with their conquerors.\n\nA last word before I leave this part of my subject. Though it is\ninteresting to try to get at the root-idea of these processes of\n_lustratio_, we must remember that in the Rome of history they had lost\nnot only such magical meaning as they ever had, but also much of the\nreligious meaning which in course of time was superimposed upon it. The\nsacrifices and the prayers remained, but the latter were muttered and\nunheard by the people. And except in the country districts these\nceremonies were more and more absorbed, as time went on, into the\nsocial, military, and political life of the community, as _e.g._ the\nlustration of the host became a political census; or they tended to\ndisappear altogether, like the _ambarvalia_ and perhaps the _amburbium_.\nThey grew up in the religious experience of the Romans, beginning with\nits very earliest and quasi-magical forms; but they came at last to\nrepresent that experience no longer, and when we meet with them in\nhistorical times it is impossible to ascribe to them any real influence\non life and conduct. _Lustratio_ never in pagan Italy developed an\nethical meaning as _catharsis_ did in Greece.[462] But meaningless as\nthey were, the stately processions remained, and could be watched with\npride by the patriotic Roman all through the period of the Empire, until\nthe Roman Church adapted them to its own ritual and gave them, as we\nsaw, a new meaning. As the cloud-shadows still move slowly over the\nhollows of the Apennines, so does the procession of the patron saint\npass still through the streets of many an Italian city.[463]\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE IX\n\n    [406] Dill, _Roman Society in the Last Century of the\n    Western Empire_, p. 63.\n\n    [407] See Westermarck, _Origin and Development of Moral\n    Ideas_, ii. 615 foll.\n\n    [408] _C.I.L._ i. Nos. 43 foll.\n\n    [409] _C.I.L._ xiv. 2863. See _R.F._ p. 224, and\n    Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 209.\n\n    [410] _Op. cit._ vol. i. p. 252; cp. 271.\n\n    [411] See Sir Alfred Lyall's _Asiatic Studies_, Series\n    I. ch. vi. No one would call the vow of Aeneas, in\n    _Aen._ vi. 69, a bargain with Apollo and the Sibyl.\n\n    [412] Marquardt, p. 266; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, i.^2\n    594 foll. The ceremony is best described by Ovid, _Ex\n    Ponto_, iv. 9. 5 foll. He is addressing the consul of\n    the year from his place of exile:\n\n      at cum Tarpeias esses deductus in arces,\n        dum caderet iussu victima sacra tuo,\n      me quoque secreto grates sibi magnus agentem\n        audisset media qui sedet aede deus.\n                                    (II. 28 foll.)\n\n    [413] Valerius Maximus iv. 1. 10.\n\n    [414] A list of these is given in Aust, _De aedibus\n    sacris populi Romani_ (Marpurg, 1889). A valuable work,\n    which will be of service to us later on.\n\n    [415] Livy xxxvi. 2. 3.\n\n    [416] _Ib._ xxii. 10.\n\n    [417] _Ib._ sec. 6. The meaning is that if any one has\n    stolen an animal which was intended to be dedicated, no\n    blame attaches to the person so robbed; and that if a\n    man performs his dedication on a day of ill omen\n    unwittingly, it will hold good none the less.\n\n    [418] Farnell, _Evolution of Religion_, p. 195.\n\n    [419] The fact that words like _reus_ and _damnatus_\n    were applied respectively to persons who had made a vow\n    and to those who had performed it, _i.e._ as being\n    liable like a defendant, and then released from that\n    position by a verdict or sentence (see Wissowa, _R.K._\n    p. 320), is of course significant of the idea of the\n    transaction in the mind of the Roman, who, as Macrobius\n    says (iii. 2. 6) _se numinibus obligat_, as an accused\n    person is _obligatus_ to the authorities of the State\n    (Mommsen, _Strafrecht_, 189 foll.). It is the natural\n    tendency of the Roman mind to give all transactions a\n    legal sanction; but it does not thence follow that the\n    original idea was really thought of as a contract, and\n    we have only to reflect that the final act was a\n    thank-offering to see the difference between the civil\n    and the religious process.\n\n    [420] Livy v. 21.\n\n    [421] Macr. iii. 9, 6. He says that he found it in the\n    fifth book of _Res reconditae_ by one Sammonicus\n    Serenus, and that the latter had himself found it \"in\n    cuiusdam Furii vetustissimo libro.\"\n\n    [422] On this subject see article \"Devotio\" in\n    Pauly-Wissowa.\n\n    [423] Livy viii. 10, \"licere consuli dictatori\n    praetori....\" Cp. Cic. _de Nat. deorum_, ii. 10, \"at\n    vero apud maiores tanta religionis vis fuit, ut quidam\n    imperatores etiam se ipsos dis immortalibus capite\n    velato certis verbis pro republica devoverent.\"\n\n    [424] See Muenzer's article \"Decii\" in Pauly-Wissowa,\n    _Real-Encycl._; Soltau, _Die Anfaenge der roem.\n    Geschichtschreibung_, p. 48 foll.\n\n    [425] Livy viii. 9 foll.; Dio Cassius, fragment, xxxv.\n    6; Ennius, _Ann._ vi. 147, Baehrens. The latter fragment\n    is the oldest reference to the event which we possess,\n    and just sufficient to confirm Livy's account: \"Divi hoc\n    audite parumper, ut pro Romano populo prognariter armis\n    certando prudens animum de corpore mitto.\"\n\n    [426] It is worth remarking that the sacrificial aspect\n    struck St. Augustine. In _Civ. Dei_, v. 18, he writes:\n    \"Si se occidendos certis verbis quodam modo consecrantes\n    Decii devoverunt, ut illis cadentibus et iram deorum\n    sanguine suo placantibus Romanus liberaretur exercitus,\"\n    and goes on to compare the Decii with Christian martyrs.\n    I am indebted for this reference to Mayor's note on\n    Cicero, _de Nat. deor._ ii. 3. 10.\n\n    [427] See above, p. 176; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 352, note 1.\n\n    [428] By Deubner in _Archiv_, 1905, p. 69 foll. This\n    touching of the chin seems to be an example of that\n    personal contact which makes a man or thing holy; see,\n    _e.g._, Westermarck, _op. cit._ i. 586. Decius makes\n    himself holy for the sacrifice (as victim) by touching\n    (as priest) the only part of his person which was\n    exposed. For the magic touch of the hand see O.\n    Weinrich, _Antike Heiligungswuender_, p. 63 foll., and\n    Macrobius iii. 2. 7, for the touching of the altar by a\n    sacrificing priest.\n\n    [429] See above, p. 180.\n\n    [430] This is Deubner's explanation, which he elaborates\n    at length by examples of the worship of the spear or\n    sword among various peoples.\n\n    [431] This is peculiar to the formula in Livy viii. 9.\n    Is it possible that it may have some reference to the\n    fact that the Romans were fighting their own kin, the\n    Latins?\n\n    [432] Buecheler, _Umbrica_, pp. 22 and 102: \"hastatos\n    inhastatos completo timore tremore, fuga formidine, nive\n    nimbo, fragore furore, senio servitio,\" where, however,\n    the translator from the Umbrian is assisted by the Latin\n    formulae we are discussing.\n\n    [433] Macrobius iii. 9. 10, \"exercitum quem ego me\n    sentio dicere fuga formidine terrore compleatis,\" etc.\n    This is of comparatively late origin, as it is addressed\n    to Dis pater, who only became a Roman deity in 249 B.C.\n    (Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 257). The interesting feature in\n    this _devotio_, used at the siege at Carthage, is that\n    it is not himself whom the commander devotes--the common\n    sense of the Romans had got beyond that--but the enemy\n    as substitutes for himself. \"Eos vicarios pro me fide\n    magistratuque meo pro populo Romano exercitibus do\n    devoveo, ut me meamque fidem imperiumque legiones\n    exercitumque nostrum bene salvos siritis esse.\" Thus the\n    enemy is made the victim, and this is why the only gods\n    invoked are the Di Inferi, Dis pater, Veiovis, Manes,\n    while in the older formula it is the gods of Romans and\n    Latins. Pacuvius in a praetextata called _Decius_ wrote:\n    \"Lue patrium hostili fusum sanguen sanguine\" (Ribbeck,\n    p. 280). This is the language Ennius used before him of\n    the sacrifice of Iphigenia: \"ut hostium eliciatur\n    sanguis sanguine,\" where, however, the word _eliciatur_\n    shows that it is magic. The curious thing in this last\n    passage is that the parallel passage in the Euripidean\n    _Iph. in Aul._ (1486) does not suggest magic. Is the\n    idea Italian? The curse (for such it really is) is to be\n    witnessed by Tellus and Iuppiter, and the celebrant\n    points down and up respectively in invoking them, as\n    also in the _devotio_ of Curtis in the Forum (Livy vii.\n    6), which was an abnormal _procuratio prodigii_.\n\n    [434] Cp. the language used by Livy of the second Decius\n    (x. 29): \"prae se agere formidinem ac fugam ...\n    contacturum funebribus diris signa tela arma hostium.\"\n    For spells or curses of this kind see Westermarck i.\n    563: a curse is conveyable by speech, especially if\n    spoken by a magistrate or priest. \"Among the Maoris the\n    anathema of the priest is regarded as a thunderbolt that\n    an enemy cannot escape.\" See also Robertson Smith,\n    _Semites_, p. 434, for the Jewish ban, by which impious\n    sinners, or enemies of the city and its God, were\n    devoted to destruction. He remarks that the Hebrew verb\n    to ban is sometimes rendered \"consecrate\": Micah iv. 13;\n    Deut. xiii. 16; and Joshua vi. 26 (Jericho), which\n    exactly answers to the consecratio of Carthage. For\n    curses conveyable by sacrifices, as in all the cases I\n    have mentioned, see Westermarck ii. 618 foll. 624, and\n    the same author's paper on conditional curses in\n    Morocco, in _Anthropological Essays_, addressed to E. B.\n    Tylor, p. 360.\n\n    [435] \"Abate their pride, assuage their malice, and\n    confound their devices.\" I well remember hearing this\n    read in church throughout the Crimean war.\n\n    [436] \"Pro republica Quiritium,\" in the formula quoted\n    above.\n\n    [437] Livy viii. 10 _ad fin._\n\n    [438] See above, note 28.\n\n    [439] See Marquardt, p. 276 and notes; Mommsen,\n    _Strafrecht_, 900 foll. The subject has generally been\n    treated from the legal point of view rather than the\n    religious; but from the religious point of view it has\n    generally been assumed that the sacrifice was to appease\n    the god. So no doubt it was; but I venture also to\n    conjecture that the victim was _vicarius_ for the\n    contamination of the community. On the subject generally\n    Westermarck's two chapters on human sacrifice and\n    blood-revenge (xix. and xx. in vol. i.) are extremely\n    well worth reading.\n\n    [440] _Aen._ i. 607 foll. Cp. _Aen._ iii. 429--\n\n      praestat Trinacrii metas lustrare Pachyni\n      cessantem, longos et circumflectere cursus,\n\n    where the slow movement and circuitous course of a\n    lustratio must have been in Virgil's mind. The movement\n    round an object for lustral purposes is seen in _Aen._\n    vi. 229, \"idem ter socios pura circumtulit unda,\" where\n    Servius explains _circumtulit_ by _purgavit_. As early\n    as Livius Andronicus (second century B.C.) we find\n    \"classem lustratur\" of fishes swimming round a fleet\n    (Ribb. _Trag. Fragmenta_, p. 1).\n\n    [441] Marquardt, p. 324, for the _februa_ of the\n    Luperci, _R.F._ p. 320 foll., and the explanations there\n    given. More will be found alluded to in Van Gennep, _Les\n    Rites de passage_, p. 249. To my mind none are quite\n    convincing. The Romans believed that blows with these\n    _februa_ (strips of the victim's skin) made women\n    fertile; they were therefore clearly magical implements,\n    but beyond this we do not seem to get. (See also Deubner\n    in _Archiv_, 1910, p. 495 foll.)\n\n    [442] Varro, _L.L._ vi. 13, \"Februum Sabini purgamentum,\n    et id in sacris nostris verbum.\" Cp. Varro, _ap.\n    Nonium_, p. 114; Ovid, _Fasti_, ii. 19 foll., where he\n    calls _februa piamina, purgamenta_, in the language of\n    the _ius divinum_.\n\n    [443] _L.L._ vi. 11.\n\n    [444] Servius, _ad Aen._ x. 32; xi. 842; cp. i. 136.\n\n    [445] See _R.F._ p. 127, for the same rite in the Church\n    of England (Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, p. 292).\n\n    [446] _Les Rites de passage_, ch. ii.\n\n    [447] For boundary marks in historical times see\n    _Gromatici auctores_, vol. ii. p. 250 foll. (Rudorff).\n\n    [448] If the cattle were in the woodland beyond the\n    settlement, as they would be in summer, they could not\n    be protected in this way: like an army going into the\n    country of _hostes_ (see above, p. 216) they were\n    treated in another way, which we may connect with the\n    ritual of the Parilia, as Dr. Frazer has beautifully\n    shown in his paper on St. George and the Parilia (_Revue\n    des etudes ethnographiques et sociologiques_, 1908, p. 1\n    foll.).\n\n    [449] _Georg._ i. 338 foll.\n\n    [450] Varro, _L.L._ v. 143; Servius, _Aen._ v. 755 (from\n    Cato); Plutarch, _Romulus_, xi.\n\n    [451] See above, p. 117.\n\n    [452] Buecheler, _Umbrica_, pp. 12 foll. and 42 foll.\n\n    [453] The deities of the city were invoked to preserve\n    the name, the magistrates, rites, men, cattle, land, and\n    crops: a list in which the name is the only item that\n    carries us back to pre-Christian times.\n\n    [454] Buecheler, _Umbrica_, pp. 21 and 84 foll.\n\n    [455] Livy xl. 6 init.\n\n    [456] See above, p. 96.\n\n    [457] Numbers xxxi. 19.\n\n    [458] Festus, p. 117.\n\n    [459] See Huelsen-Jordan, _Roem. Topographie_, vol. iii.\n    p. 495; Von Domaszewski, _Abhandlungen_, p. 217 foll.\n\n    [460] Suggested by Van Gennep, _Les Rites de passage_,\n    p. 28.\n\n    [461] Livy iii. 28. 11.\n\n    [462] Farnell, _Evolution of Religion_, p. 132 foll.\n\n    [463] The account of _lustratio_ given in this lecture\n    is adapted from the author's chapter on the same subject\n    in _Anthropology and the Classics_, Oxford University\n    Press, 1908.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE X\n\nTHE FIRST ARRIVAL OF NEW CULTS IN ROME\n\n\nI said in my first lecture that the whole story of Roman religious\nexperience falls into two parts: first, that of the formularisation of\nrules and methods for getting effectively into right relations with the\nPower manifesting itself in the universe; secondly, that of the gradual\ndiscovery of the inadequacy of these, and of the engrafting on the State\nreligion of Rome of an ever-increasing number of foreign rites and\ndeities. The first of these stories has been occupying us so far, and\nbefore I leave it for what will be practically an introduction to\nsucceeding lectures, it will be as well for me to sum up the results at\nwhich we have already arrived.\n\nI began with what I called the protoplasm of religion, the primitive\nideas and practices which form the psychological basis of the whole\ngrowth. The feeling of awe and anxiety about that which is mysterious\nand unknown, the feeling which the Romans called _religio_, seems to\nhave manifested itself in Italy, as elsewhere, in those various ways\nwhich I discussed in my second and third lectures, in the various forms\nof magic, negative and positive. We find unmistakable evidence of the\nexistence of those strict rules of conduct called taboos, which fetter\nthe mind and body of primitive man, which probably arise from an\nineffective desire to put himself in right relations with forces he does\nnot understand, and which have their value as a social discipline.\nAgain, we find surviving in historical Rome numerous forms of active or\npositive magic, by which it was thought possible to compel or overcome\nthose powers, so as to use them for your own benefit and against your\nenemies. But I was careful to point out that on the whole little of all\nthis evidence of the early existence of magic at Rome is to be found in\nthe public religion of the Roman State, and that the natural inference\nfrom this is that at one time or another there must have been a very\npowerful influence at work in cutting away these obsolete root-leaves of\nthe plant that was to be, and in making of that plant a neat,\nwell-defined growth.\n\nI went on to deal with the first stage in the working of this influence,\nwhich we found reflected in the religion of the family as we know it in\nhistorical times. The family, settled on the land, with its homestead\nand its regular routine of agricultural process, developed a more\neffective desire to get into right relation with the Power manifesting\nitself in the universe. Anxiety is greatly lessened both in the house\nand on the land, because within those limits there is a \"peace\" (or\ncovenant) between the divine and human inhabitants who have taken up\ntheir residence there. The supernatural powers, conceived now (whatever\nthey may have been before) as spirits, are friendly if rightly\npropitiated, and much advance has been made in the methods of\npropitiation; magic and religion are still doubtless mixed up together\nin these, but the tendency seems to be to get gradually rid of the more\ninadequate and blundering methods. In fact, man's knowledge of the\nDivine has greatly advanced; spirits have some slight tendency to become\ndeities, and magic is in part at least superseded by an orderly round of\nsacrifice and prayer, which is performed daily within the house, and\nwithin the boundary of the land at certain seasons of the year. This\nstage of settlement and routine was the first great revolution in the\nreligious experience of the Romans, and supplied the basis of their\nnational character.\n\nThe second revolution which we can clearly discern, and far the most\nimportant as a factor in Roman history, is that of the organisation of\nthe religion of the city-state of Rome. Doubtless there were stages\nintermediate between the two, but they are entirely lost to us. We had\nto concentrate our attention on the city of the four regions--the first\ncity we really know--and to examine the one document which has survived\nfrom it, the so-called calendar of Numa. In my fifth lecture I explained\nthe nature of that calendar, and noted how it reflects the life of a\npeople at once agricultural and military, and how it must presuppose the\nexistence of a highly organised legal priesthood, or of some powerful\ngenius for political as well as religious legislation. The tradition of\na great priest-king is not wholly to be despised, for it expresses the\nfeeling of the Romans that religious law and order were indispensable\nparts of their whole political and social life. During the rest of these\nlectures I have been trying to interrogate this religious calendar, with\nsuch help as could be gained from any other sources, on two points: (1)\nthe conception, or, if we can venture to use the word, the knowledge,\nwhich the Romans of that early city-state had of the Divine; (2) the\nchief forms and methods of their worship. We saw that they did not think\nof the divine beings as existing in human form with human weaknesses,\nbut as invisible and intangible functional powers, _numina_. Each had\nits special limited sphere of action; and some were now localised within\nthe _pomoerium_, or just outside it within the _ager Romanus_, and\nworshipped under a particular name. I suggested that this very\nsettlement had probably some influence in preparing them for assuming a\nmore definite and personal character, should the chance be given them.\nIn regard to the forms of cult with which they were propitiated, I found\nin the ritual of sacrifice and prayer a genuine advance towards a really\nreligious attitude to the deity, the sacrifices being meant to increase\nhis power to benefit the community, and the prayers to diminish such\ninclination as he might have to damage it; but that there are in these\ncertain survivals of the age of magic, which are, however, only formal,\nand have lost their original significance. I found some curious\nexamples of such survivals in the rite of _devotio_, and in vows\ngenerally a somewhat lower type of method in dealing with the\nsupernatural. But, on the other hand, the forms of _lustratio_, at the\nbottom of which seems to lie the idea of getting rid of evil spirits and\ninfluences, present very beautiful examples of what we may really call\nreligious ceremony.\n\nThere was, then, in this highly-organised religion of the city-state, in\nsome ways at least, a great advance. But in spite of this gain, it had\nserious drawbacks. Most prominent among these was the fact that it was\nthe religion of the State as a whole, and not of the individual or the\nfamily. Religion, I think we may safely say, had placed a certain\nconsecration upon the simple life of the family, which was, in fact, the\nlife of the individual; for the essence of religion in all stages of\ncivilisation lies in the feeling of the individual that his own life,\nhis bodily and mental welfare, is dependent on the Divine as he and his\nregard it. But to what extent can it be said that religion so\nconsecrated the life of the State as to enable each individual in his\nfamily group to feel that consecration more vividly? That would have\nconstituted a real advance in religious development; that was the\nresult, if I am not mistaken, of the religion of the Jewish State, which\nwith all the force of a powerful hierarchical authority addressed its\nprecepts to the mind and will of the individual. But at Rome, though the\nearliest traces and traditions of law show a certain consecration of\nmorality, inasmuch as the criminal is made over as a kind of\npropitiatory sacrifice to the deity whom he has offended, yet in the\nordinary course of life, so far as I can discern, the individual was\nleft very much where he was, before the State arose, in his relation to\nthe Divine.\n\nIn no other ancient State that we know of did the citizen so entirely\nresign the regulation of all his dealings with the State's gods to the\nconstituted authorities set over him. His obligatory part in the\nreligious ritual of the State was simply _nil_, and all his religious\nduty on days of religious importance was to abstain from civil business,\nto make no disturbance. Within the household he used his own simple\nritual, the morning prayer, the libation to the household deities at\nmeals; and it is exactly here that we see a _pietas_, a sense of duty\nconsecrated by religion, which seems to have had a real ethical value,\nand reminds us of modern piety. But in all his relations with the gods\n_qua_ citizen, he resigned himself to the trained and trusted\npriesthoods, who knew the secrets of ritual and all that was comprised\nin the _ius divinum_; and by passive obedience to these authorities he\ngradually began to deaden the sense of _religio_ that was in him. And\nthis tendency was increased by the mere fact of life in a city, which as\ntime went on became more and more the rule; for, as I pointed out, the\nround of religious festivals no longer exactly expressed the needs and\nthe work of that agricultural life in which it had its origin.\n\nIt would be an interesting inquiry, if the material for an answer were\navailable, to try and discover how this gradual absorption of religion\n(or rather religious duties) by the State and its authorities affected\nthe morality of the individual Roman. It has often been maintained of\nlate that religion and morality have nothing in common; and even Dr.\nWestermarck,[464] who, unlike most anthropologists, treats the whole\nsubject from a psychological point of view, seems inclined to come to\nthis conclusion. For myself, I am rather disposed to agree with another\neminent anthropologist,[465] that religion and morality are really\nelemental instincts of human nature, primarily undistinguishable from\neach other; and if that be so, then the over-elaboration of either the\nmoral or religious law, or of the two combined, will tend to weaken the\nbinding force of both. If, as at Rome, the citizen is made perfectly\ncomfortable in his relations with the Power manifesting itself in the\nuniverse, owing to the complete mastery of the _ius divinum_ by the\nState and its officials, there will assuredly be a tendency to paralyse\nthe elemental religious impulse, and with it, if I am not mistaken, the\nelemental sense of right and wrong. For in the life of a state with such\na legalised religious system as this, so long at least as it thrives and\nescapes serious disaster, there will be few or none of those moments of\nperil and anxiety in which \"man is brought face to face with the eternal\nrealities of existence,\"[466] and when he becomes awakened to a new\nsense of religion and duty. In the life of the family, the critical\nmoments of birth, puberty, marriage, and death regularly recur, and keep\nup the instinct, because man is then brought face to face with these\neternal facts; there is no need of extraordinary perils, such as\ntempests or pestilences, to keep the instinct alive. But in the life of\nthe State as such there were no such continually recurring reminders;\neven the old agricultural perils were out of sight of the ordinary\ncitizen. Thus the farthest we can go in ascribing a moral influence to\nthe State religion is in giving it credit for helping to maintain that\nsense of law and order which served to keep the life of the family sound\nand wholesome. That it did to some extent perform this service I have\nalready pointed out;[467] and it is a remarkable fact that the decay of\nthe State religion was coincident, in the last two centuries B.C., with\nthe decay of the family life and virtues. But on the whole, as we shall\nsee, the _ius divinum_ had rather the effect of hypnotising the\nreligious and moral instinct than of keeping it awake. It needed new\nperils for the State as a whole to re-create that feeling which is the\nroot of the growth of conscience; and when the craving did at last come\nupon the Roman, which in times of doubt and peril has come upon\nindividuals and communities in all ages, for support and comfort from\nthe Unseen, it had to be satisfied by giving him new gods to worship in\nnew ways--aliens with whom he had nothing in common, who had no home in\nhis patriotic feeling, no place in his religious experience.[468]\n\nI wish to conclude this first part of my subject by giving some account\nof the first beginning of this introduction of new deities, _di\nnovensiles_ as they were called,[469] into the old Roman religious\nworld. Those, however, of whom I shall speak here were not introduced as\nthe result of disaster or distress, but were simply the inevitable\nconsequence of the growing importance of the city on the Tiber--of the\nbeginnings of her commercial and political relations with her\nneighbours, and also of her own development in the arts of civilisation.\nThe religious system with which I have so far been dealing was the\nexclusive property, we must remember, of those _gentes_, with the\nfamilies composing them, which formed the original human material of the\nState, and were known as _patrician_. If we had no other reason for\nbeing sure of this, the fact that all State priesthoods were originally\nlimited to patrician families would be sufficient to prove it;[470] even\ndown to the latest times the _rex sacrorum_, the three _flamines\nmaiores_, and the _Salii_ were necessarily of patrician birth--a fact\nwhich had much to do with their tendency to disappear in the last age of\nthe Republic.\n\nBut in the course of the period within which the Numan calendar was\ndrawn up, this community of patrician burghers began to suffer certain\nchanges. A population of \"outsiders,\" as in so many Greek cities, had\ngained admittance to the site of Rome, though not into its political and\nreligious organism.[471] So solid a city, in such an important position,\nwas sure to attract such settlers, whether from the Latins dwelling\nabout it, or from the Etruscans on the north, or the Greek cities along\nthe coast southwards and in Sicily. The Latins were, of course, of the\nsame stock as the Romans, and already in some loose political relation\nto them; and as each Latin city was open, like Rome, to Greek and\nEtruscan influences, we should probably see in Latium an indirect\nchannel of communication between those peoples and Rome, to be reckoned\nin addition to the direct and obvious one. As Dr. J. B. Carter has well\nsaid,[472] \"the Latins, becoming rapidly inferior to Rome, were enabled\nto do her at least this service, that of absorbing the foreign\ninfluences which came, and in certain cases of Latinising them, and thus\ntransmitting them to Rome in a more or less assimilated condition.\" As\nDr. Carter has been the first to explain the arrival of these new\nreligious influences to English readers, I shall in what follows closely\nfollow his footsteps. They indicate and also reflect a change from\nagricultural economy and habits to a society interested in trade and\ntravel: I say interested, because we cannot be quite sure how far the\nold Romans engaged in such pursuits themselves, as well as admitting\nfrom outside those who did, with their worships. They indicate also the\ngrowth of an industrial population, organised in gilds, as in the Middle\nAges; here beyond doubt the workers were mainly of native birth. Lastly,\nthey indicate an advance in military efficiency and, as a result of this\nmilitary progress, some change in the relation of Rome to her\nfellow-communities of Latium.\n\nPerhaps the first of these new deities to arrive was the famous Hercules\nVictor or Invictus of the _ara maxima_ in the Forum Boarium, who\ncontinued for centuries to accept the tithes of the booty of generals\nand the profits of successful merchants. Virgil in the eighth\n_Aeneid_[473] makes Evander show his guest this altar and the\ncelebration of its festival, and tell him the tale of Cacus and the oxen\nand the cave on the Aventine hard by; the poet, like every one else\nuntil the last few years, believed the cult to be primeval and Roman.\nBut one of the many gains for the history of Roman religion which have\nrecently been secured--even since the publication of my _Roman\nFestivals_--is the certainty that the Italian Hercules is really the\nGreek Heracles acclimatised in the sister peninsula, and that the cult\nof the _ara maxima_, though that altar was inside the sacred boundary of\nthe _pomoerium_, was not native in Rome.[474] It seems, however, almost\ncertain that it did not come direct from any part of Hellas, though its\nposition, close to the Tiber and its landing-place, might naturally lead\nus to think so. It is almost impossible to believe that Heracles would\nhave been allowed inside the _pomoerium_, had he been introduced by\nforeigners in the strict sense of the word. No doubt much has yet to be\nlearnt about Hercules in Italy; but recent painstaking researches have\nmade it possible for us to acquiesce in the belief that this Hercules of\nthe _ara_ came from a Latin city,--from that Tibur which by tradition\nwas of Greek origin--\"Tibur Argeo positum colono,\"--and which, like its\nneighbour Praeneste, was curiously receptive of foreign influence.[475]\nIt is believed that the Greek traders from Campania and Magna Graecia\nmade their way northwards through Latium, and thus eventually reached\nRome with the deity whom they seem to have always carried with them. He\nwas, in the words of Dr. Carter,[476] a deity of whom, by the contagion\nof commerce, the Romans already felt a great need, a god of great power\nfrom whom came success in the practical undertakings of life; and it was\nquite natural that his shrine should be in the busy cattle-market of the\ncity, if we remember that the wealth of the early Romans, _pecunia_ as\nthey called it, mainly consisted in sheep and oxen. As Heracles in\nvarious forms was to be met with all over the Mediterranean coasts, it\nwould indeed be strange if he were not found in the growing city\ncommanding the central water-way of Italy; and his appearance there may\nbe said to have put Rome in touch with the Mediterranean business of\nthat day. There he was destined to remain, with all the honour of an\noldest cult, though other cults of the same god came in later, and were\nestablished quite close to him; and though never a State deity of much\nimportance, he exercised a wholesome influence in matters of trade, as\nthe god who sanctioned your oath, and who accepted the tithe of your\ngain which you had vowed at the outset of an enterprise.[477]\n\nIn the same period, though the traditional date of their temple is\nlater, came the Twin Brethren, Castor and Pollux, and found their way,\nlike Hercules, into the city within the _pomoerium_. The famous temple\nof Castor (before whom his brother gradually gave way) was at the end\nof the Forum under the Palatine, close to the fountain of Juturna, where\nthe Twins watered their horses after the battle of Lake Regillus; and\nthere the beautiful remains of the latest reconstruction of it still\nstand.[478] This position alone should make us feel confident that the\ncult did not come direct from Greek sources; and it had its origin,\nperhaps, in the period when Rome was in close relation with Latin\ncities, which themselves had been gradually absorbing the cults and\nproducts of the Greeks of Campania. There is a strong probability that\nit came from Tusculum, with which the legend of the Regillus battle is\nclosely connected, and where the cult had beyond doubt taken strong\nroot.[479] Like the Hercules of the _ara maxima_, the Twins were no\ndoubt brought by the course of trade, which was continually pushing up\nfrom the south; for they too were favourites of the merchant adventurer,\nand throughout Hellas were the special protectors of the seafarer. Their\nconnection with horses is well known, and not as yet satisfactorily\nexplained in its Roman aspect; but Dr. J. B. Carter thinks that they\nfirst became prominent in Greece when the Homeric use of chariots was\nabandoned for a primitive kind of cavalry, and that \"the Castor-cult\nmoved steadily northward (from Magna Graecia), carried, as it were, on\nhorseback,\" and that when it reached Rome it became connected with the\nreorganisation of the cavalry. This seems to be almost pure guess-work,\nand, attractive as it is, I fear we cannot put much faith in it.[480]\nThe position in the Forum, and the well-known connection of both twins\nwith oaths,[481] seem to me rather to suggest a more natural origin in\ntrade. I would suggest that the equine character of the cult in Latium\nwas secondary, and that the connection of the temple and cult with the\nRoman cavalry was a natural result, but not a primary feature, of its\nintroduction. I should be inclined to look on it as coming in with the\nbuilding of the temple, which was probably of later origin than the\noriginal introduction of the cult.\n\nSome time after the calendar was drawn up, a deity was established on\nthe Aventine, _i.e._ not within the _pomoerium_, whose arrival marks a\ndevelopment in the organisation of handicraft. We cannot indeed _prove_\nthat the settlement of Minerva on the Aventine took place so early, but\nwe have strong grounds for the conclusion.[482] This temple was in\nhistorical times the religious centre of trade-gilds; and these gilds\nwere by universal Roman tradition ascribed to Numa as founder, which\nsimply means that they were among the oldest institutions of the\nCity-state. As Minerva does not appear in the calendar, had no _flamen_,\nand therefore must have been altogether outside the original patrician\nreligious system, the natural inference is that the temple was founded,\nlike the shrines of Hercules and the Twin Brethren, towards the end of\nthe period we are dealing with, and was from the first the centre of the\ngilds. Of those mentioned by Plutarch in his life of Numa (ch. 17), we\nknow that the following gilds belonged to Minerva: _tibicines_, _fabri_\n(carpenters?), _fullones_, _sutores_; and it is a reasonable guess that\nthe others, _coriarii_, _fabri aerarii_, and _aurifices_, were also\nunder her protection. These trades, as Waltzing remarks in his great\nwork on Roman gilds,[483] are all in keeping with the rudimentary\ncivilisation of primitive Rome; they are those which were first carried\non outside of the family. Workers in iron are not among them; bronze is\nstill the common metal.\n\nNow of course we must not go so far as to assume that none of these\ntrades existed before the cult of Minerva came to Rome; but from her\nclose association with them all through Roman history, and from the fact\nthat the Romans were originally an agricultural folk, as the calendar\nshows, with a simple economy and simple needs, it is legitimate to\nconnect the arrival of the goddess with the growth of town life and the\ndemand for articles once made in rude fashion chiefly on the farms, and\nwith a period of improvement in manufacture, and the use of better\nmaterials and better methods. Whence, then, did these improvements come?\nThis is only another way of asking the question, Whence did Minerva\ncome?\n\nBy the common consent of investigators she came from the semi-Latin town\nof Falerii in southern Etruria, where these arts were practised by\nEtruscans, or those who had learnt of Etruscans.[484] Her name is\nItalian, not Etruscan;[485] she was an old Italian deity taken over by\nthe invading Etruscans from the peoples whose land they occupied. But\nwhile in the hands of Etruscans she had adopted Greek characteristics,\nespecially those of Athene, the patroness of arts and crafts. She soon,\nindeed, appeared with some of the character of Athene Polias, as we\nshall see at the end of this lecture; but her real importance, far down\ninto the period of the Empire, was in the temple on the Aventine, and in\nconnection with the crafts. The dedication day of the temple was March\n19, which was known, as we learn on the best authority, also as\n_artificum dies_.[486]\n\nThere was another famous temple on the Aventine which by universal\nconsent is attributed to the same period as that of Minerva. Diana does\nnot appear in the calendar, and had no _flamen_; Roman tradition\nascribed her arrival to Servius Tullius, and we shall not be far wrong\nif we place it at or towards the end of the age of the kingship. The\ntemple was celebrated as containing an ancient statue of Diana, the\noldest or almost the oldest representation of a deity in human form\nknown at Rome, which was a copy of a rude image of Artemis at Massilia,\nof the type of the famous [Greek: xoanon] of the Ephesian Artemis.[487]\nIt also contained a _lex templi_ in Greek characters, and a treaty or\ncharter of a federation of Latin cities with Rome as their head, which\nwas seen by Dionysius of Halicarnassus when in Rome in the time of\nAugustus.[488]\n\nThe explanation of the arrival of Diana is simple. The _dies natalis_ of\nthe temple is the same as that of the famous shrine of the same goddess\nat Aricia--the Ides of August.[489] Aricia was at this time the centre\nof a league of cities including Tusculum and Tibur, with both of which,\nas we have just seen, Rome was closely connected at this time; a league\nwhich is generally supposed to have superseded that of Alba, marking\nsome revolution in Latium consequent on the fall of Alba.[490] Diana\nwas a wood-spirit, a tree-spirit, as Dr. Frazer has taught us, with some\nrelation to the moon and to the life of women; of late she has become\nfamiliar to every one, not as she was known later, in the disguise of\nArtemis, but as the deity of that shrine--\"pinguis et placabilis ara\nDianae\"--of which the priest was the Rex Nemorensis: he who \"slew the\nslayer and shall himself be slain.\"[491] But in those days it was only\nthe fact that she was the chief local deity of Aricia, the leading city\nof the new league, which brought her suddenly into notice. When the\nstrategic position of Rome gave her in turn the lead in Latium, Diana\npassed on from Aricia to the Tiber, entered on a new life, and\neventually took over the attributes of Artemis, with whom she had much\nin common. The Diana whom we know in Roman literature is really Artemis;\nbut Diana of the Aventine, when she first arrived there, was the\nwood-spirit of Aricia, and her temple was an outward sign of Rome's new\nposition in Latium: it was built by the chiefs of the Latin cities in\nconjunction with Rome, and is described by Varro as \"commune Latinorum\nDianae templum.\"[492] It was appropriately placed on the only Roman hill\nwhich was then still covered with wood, and was outside the _pomoerium_.\n\nThere was one other goddess, a Latin one, who was traditionally\nassociated with this period, and especially with king Servius\nTullius--Fortuna, or Fors Fortuna; she does not appear in the calendar,\nhad no _flamen_, and must have been introduced from outside. But it was\nlong before Fortuna became of any real importance in Rome, and I shall\nleave her out of account here. She had two homes of renown in Latium, at\nAntium and Praeneste, and was in each connected with a kind of oracle,\nwhich seems to have been specially resorted to by women before and after\nchildbirth. She was also very probably a deity of other kinds of\nfertility; and in course of time she took on the characteristics of the\nGreek Tyche, and became a favourite deity of good luck.[493]\n\nLet us pause for one moment to reflect on the character of these new\ndeities of whom I have been speaking: Hercules, Castor, Minerva, Diana.\nIt must be confessed that, as compared with the great deities of the\ncalendar, they are uninteresting; with the exception, perhaps, of\nHercules, they do not seem to have any real _religious_ significance.\nThey are local deities brought in from outside, and have no root in the\nmind of the Roman people as we have so far been studying it. They seem\nto indicate the growth of a population in which the true old Roman\nreligious instinct was absent; they represent commerce, business,\nhandicraft, or politics, pursuits in which the old Roman and Latin\nfarmers were not directly interested; they were suffered to be in Rome\nbecause the new population and the new interests must of necessity have\ntheir own worships, but they were not taken into the heart and mind of\nthe people. So at least it seems to us, after we have been examining the\ndevelopment of the native religious plant from its root upwards. But we\nmust remember that of that new population, its life and its needs, we\nknow hardly anything, and it would not be safe to assume that the\nconception of Minerva had no influence on the conscience of the artisan,\nor that of Hercules no power of binding the trader to honest dealing and\nrespect for his oath. As for Diana, though, as Dr. Carter says, she had\nbeen introduced \"as part of a diplomatic game, not because Rome felt any\nreligious need of her,\" the fact that the Latin treaty was kept in her\ntemple has a certain moral as well as political significance which ought\nnot to be overlooked. It is impossible to put ourselves mentally in the\nposition of the men who brought these cults to Rome, or of the Romans\nwho granted them admittance; but we shall be on the safe side if we\nimagine the former at least to have had a conviction that their dealings\nat Rome would not prosper unless they were carried out with the blessing\nof their own gods.\n\nBut we now come, in the last place, to the foundation of a cult of a\nvery different kind from these, and of far greater import than any of\nthem in the history of Roman religious experience. We have seen that the\ntemple of Diana on the Aventine meant the transference of the headship\nof the Latin league from Aricia to Rome. When Rome took over this\nheadship, and by removing its religious centre to Rome--or, perhaps more\naccurately, by offering Diana of Aricia a new home by the Tiber--removed\nalso any danger of a new power growing up in Latium outside her own\ninfluence, she seems to have taken another important step in the same\ndirection. Archaeological evidence confirms the tradition that at this\ntime the temple of Jupiter Latiaris, the real and original god of the\nleague, on the Alban hill, was rebuilt;[494] and as the remains of its\nfoundation are of Etruscan workmanship, we may believe that the work was\nundertaken at that period of an Etruscan dominion in Rome which no one\nnow seriously doubts, and which is marked by the Etruscan name\nTarquinius, and by the old tradition that Servius Tullius was really an\nEtruscan bearing the Etruscan name Mastarna.[495] Now those in power at\nRome at this time, whoever they were, not content with rebuilding the\nancient temple of Jupiter on the Alban hill, conceived the idea of also\nbuilding a great temple at Rome, on the steep rock overlooking the\nForum, to the same deity of the heaven who had long presided over the\nLatin league. The tradition was that this temple was vowed by the first\nTarquinius, begun by the second, and finally dedicated by the first\nconsul Horatius in the year 509.[496] It is quite possible that this\ntradition indicates the truth in outline--that it was an Etruscan who\nconceived the idea of the great work, and that the foreign domination\ngave way to a Roman reaction before the temple was ready for dedication.\nWe cannot know what exactly was the Etruscan intention as to the cult;\nbut we know that the temple was built in the Etruscan style, that its\nfoundations were of Etruscan masonry,[497] and that the deities\ninhabiting it were three--a _trias_--a feature quite foreign to the\nnative Roman religion.[498] Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva had each a\nseparate dwelling (_cella_) within the walls of the temple, which, in\norder to meet this innovation, was almost as broad as it was long.\nWhether this trias was the one originally intended by the Etruscan king\nor kings it is impossible to say; but I have great doubts of it. I\nconfess that I have no ground but probability to go on when I conjecture\nthat a long period elapsed between the beginning of this great\nundertaking and the final completion, and that in the meantime many\nthings had happened of which we have no record; that when the temple was\nfinished it was in Roman hands, though retaining its Etruscan\ncharacteristics, and especially the combination of three deities; and\nthat those three deities were essentially Roman in conception. Roman,\ntoo, was the idea that one of the three should be paramount; the two\ngoddesses never attained to any special significance, and the temple\nalways remained essentially the dwelling of the great Jupiter, the\nFather of heaven.[499]\n\nThe cult-titles of this Jupiter, Optimus Maximus, the best and greatest,\nseem to raise him to a position not only far above his colleagues in the\ntemple, but above all other Jupiters in Latium or elsewhere, and\npresumably above all other deities. They thus suggest a deliberate\nattempt to place him in a higher position than even the Jupiter Latiaris\nof the Mons Albanus, whose temple had been rebuilt in the same period.\nThe very novelty of such cult-titles betrays both power and genius in\ntheir originator; they are wholly unlike any we have met with so far;\nthey do not suggest a function or a locality or a connection with some\nother deity; they stand absolutely alone in the history of the Roman\nreligion till far on in the Empire.[500] Here is no _numen_ needed at a\nparticular season to bless some agricultural operation; Jupiter Optimus\nMaximus seems hardly to be limited by space or season, and is to be\nalways there looking down on his people from his seat on the hill which\nwas henceforward to be called Capitolinus, because the space which had\nbeen prepared there for his reception bore the name of Capitolium, the\nplace of headship.[501] These titles, Best and Greatest, call for\nreflection, for more thought than we are apt to give them; one wonders\nwhether they can be as old as tradition claimed, and in fact at least\none recent writer has been tempted, without sufficient reason, to date\nthe whole foundation two centuries later than the Tarquinii.[502] To me\nthey rather suggest the hypothesis that the break-up of the Etruscan\ndomination in Rome was the work of a man or men inspired by a new\nnational feeling which ascribed the revolution to the great god of the\nrace, to whose shrine on the same hill the kings had been used to bring\nthe spoils of their enemies[503]; and that they took advantage of the\nuncompleted Etruscan temple, with its huge foundations and underground\n_favissae_, to settle there a new Jupiter, better and greater than any\nother, to whom his people would be for ever grateful, and in whom they\nwould for ever put their trust. All older associations with cults of the\nHeaven-god were to be banished from the Capitolium, just as all other\ndeities were believed to have fled from the spot, save only Terminus;\nthe ancient priest of Jupiter, the Flamen Dialis, had no special\nconnection with this temple and its cult, which were under the immediate\ncharge of an _aedituus_ only.[504] Here was the centre of the public\nworship of the State as a whole, not only of the old patrician State;\nand no such ancient curiosity as the Flamen Dialis, who, as I have\nsuggested, was a survival from some older era of Latin religious\nhistory, was to be supreme there. Here the Consul of the free Republic\nwas to offer, on entering office, the victim--the white heifer of the\nAlban cult--which his predecessor had vowed, and himself to bind his\nsuccessor to a like sacrifice; and this he did on behalf of patrician\nand plebeian alike. Here the victorious general was to deposit his\nspoils, reaching the temple in the solemn procession of the _triumphus_,\nand wearing the _ornamenta_ of the deity himself; for here, contrary to\nall precedent in the worship of Romans, there was an image of the god\nwrought in terra cotta and brought from Etruria.[505] It is in\nconnection with such solemn events as these that we may find the origin\nof those imposing processions which for centuries were to impress the\nminds of the Roman people, and indeed of their enemies also, with the\nmight and magnificence of their Empire; for apart from the triumphal\nprocessions with which we are all familiar, the scene at the entrance of\nnew consuls on their office must have been most impressive. They were\naccompanied by the other magistrates, the Senate, the priests in their\nrobes of office, and by an immense crowd of citizens. After the ceremony\nthe Senate met _in the temple_ to transact the first religious business\nof the year. Here too the tribal assembly met for the purpose of\nenrolling the new levies before each season of war, in order that the\nyouths who were to fight the battles of Rome might realise the presence\nof Rome's great protecting deity. Even in the most degenerate days of\nthe Roman religion, though Jupiter had suffered from the ridicule of\nplaywrights or the speculations of philosophers, an orator's appeal to\nthe Best and Greatest looking down on the Forum from his seat above it,\ncould not fail to move the hearers; \"Ille, ille Iuppiter restitit,\"\ncried Cicero in the peril of the Catilinarian conspiracy, \"ille\nCapitolium, ille haec templa, ille cunctam urbem, ille vos omnes salvos\nesse voluit.\"[506]\n\nNor was it only the State as represented by its officials that could and\ndid address itself to the worship of this great god. It seems probable\nthat the new idea of a single guardian deity, with his two attendant\ngoddesses, for which the Romans were indebted to the genius (whoever he\nmay have been) who released them from the yoke of the Etruscan, opened\nthe cult to the individual in a way which must have been a novelty in\nthe religious life of the people.[507] The most memorable example of\nthis is in the famous story told of Scipio, the conqueror of Hannibal,\nwhich is not likely to be an invention of the annalists. As Gellius\nrecords it, it stands thus: Scipio was wont to ascend to the temple just\nbefore daylight, to order the _cella Iovis_ to be opened for him, and\nthere to remain alone for a long time, as if taking counsel with the\ngod about the affairs of the State. The dogs, it was said, which guarded\nthe entrance, astonished the temple-keepers by treating him always with\nrespect, while they would attack or bark at others.[508]\n\nThe reader may remark, that during the last few minutes I have wandered\nquite away from the Roman religion which we have so far been trying to\nunderstand, and he will be right. I have but just touched on this great\ncult, which properly belongs to Rome of the Republic, in order to show\nhow great a change must have taken place, how great a revolution must\nhave been consummated, when this temple arose on its Etruscan\nsubstructures. We have marked two forward steps in the social and\npolitical experience of the Romans: the settlement of the family on the\nland and the organisation of the City-state with its calendar. Here is a\nthird, the liberation of that State from a foreign dominion, and the\ndevelopment, in matters both internal and external, which subjection and\nliberation alike brought with them. In regard to religious experience,\nthe first produced the ordered worship of the household, which had a\nlasting effect on the Roman character; the second produced the _ius\ndivinum_, the priesthoods and the ritual for the service of the various\n_numina_ which had consented to take up their abode in the city and its\nprecincts. These two taken together changed doubt and anxiety into\nconfidence, stilled the _religio_ natural to uncivilised man, and\ndeveloped the machinery of magic into forms and ceremonies which were\nmore truly religious. Now we note a third great social step forward,\nwhich brings with it a new conception and expression of the religious\nunity of the State; henceforward, alongside of a multiplicity of cults\nand of priests attached to them, we have one central worship to which\nall free citizens may resort, and a trinity of guardian deities, of whom\none, Jupiter Best and Greatest, is the one presiding genius of the whole\nState.\n\nLastly, there can hardly be a doubt that this new cult marks a more\nextensive communication with neighbouring peoples than the State had as\nyet experienced or encouraged. Etruria, Latium, and Greece, all seem to\nhave had a hand in it. Of its relation to the Latins and Etruscans I\nhave already spoken. It only remains for me to note the fact that it was\nhere, in this Capitoline temple, according to unanimous tradition, that\nthose legendary \"Sibylline books\" were deposited which came from a Greek\nsource, and according to the story, from Cumae.[509] These mysterious\nbooks were destined to change the whole character of the religion of the\nRomans during the next two centuries; and this is why the dedication of\nthe great temple is a convenient halting-place on our journey. I propose\nto begin the second part of my subject by examining the nature of this\nchange, and then to pass on to others, until we have reached the end of\nthe religious experience of the genuine Roman people.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE X.\n\n    [464] _Origin and Development of Moral Ideas_, chapters\n    l.-lii.: \"Gods as guardians of morality.\"\n\n    [465] Crawley, _The Tree of Life_, in a remarkable\n    chapter on the function of religion (ch. ix.),\n    especially p. 287 foll. \"Morality,\" says Mr. Crawley,\n    \"is one of the results of the religious impulse.\" What\n    he means here by morality is not \"that elaborated by\n    abstract thinkers,\" but the \"morality of elemental human\n    nature.\" \"Elemental morality\" may be a somewhat obscure\n    term; but I think it is highly probable that Mr. Crawley\n    is, in part at least, right in ascribing the origin of\n    morality to the religious impulse.\n\n    [466] Crawley, _op. cit._, p. 265.\n\n    [467] Above, pp. 107-8.\n\n    [468] See the author's article in _Hibbert Journal_ for\n    July 1907, p. 894.\n\n    [469] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 15 foll.\n\n    [470] _Ib._ p. 421: Aust, _Religion der Roemer_, p. 47.\n\n    [471] I am, of course, well aware that quite recently\n    attempts have been made to explain the _plebs_ as the\n    original inhabitants of Latium, and the Romans as\n    conquering invaders; _e.g._ by Prof. Ridgeway in his\n    paper, \"Who were the Romans,\" read to the British\n    Academy, and by Binder in his recently published volume\n    _Die Plebs_. The theory is a natural one, and not out\n    of harmony with the facts as known; but it has yet to be\n    further developed and tested, and as those who hold it\n    are not as yet in agreement with each other, and as the\n    evidence which alone can prove it is of a very special\n    character, archaeological and linguistic, I have\n    expressed myself in terms of the older view.\n\n    [472] _The Religion of Numa_, p. 30.\n\n    [473] _Aen._ viii. 184 foll.; the description of the\n    festival is in 280 foll.; where the interesting points\n    are the priests of the gentes appointed to look after\n    the cult (the Potitii only are here mentioned) \"pellibus\n    in morem cincti,\" and the Salii \"populeis evincti\n    tempora ramis.\"\n\n    [474] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 219 foll.; Carter, _Religion of\n    Numa_, p. 31 foll. The ground had been prepared for the\n    new view by the elaborate articles in Roscher's\n    _Mythological Lexicon_, vol. ii. pp. 2253 foll. and 2901\n    foll. Of late a painstaking discussion by J. G. Winter\n    has appeared in the _University of Michigan Studies for\n    1910_, p. 171 foll.; he mainly confirms Wissowa's\n    conclusions, but provisionally accepts a suggestion of\n    mine (_R.F._ 197) that the tithe practice of the _ara\n    maxima_ may possibly have been of Phoenician origin, and\n    points out that E. Curtius made the same suggestion as\n    long ago as 1845. On p. 269 he also dwells, very\n    properly, I think, on the part which the Etruscans may\n    have had in the dissemination of the myth and cult of\n    the Greek Heracles. Wissowa, however, stoutly maintains\n    that these are simply Greek and of commercial origin. It\n    has been Wissowa's special and valuable function to\n    elucidate the Greek origin of many Roman cults and\n    legends; but I doubt if he has adequately considered the\n    influence of other peoples, and in particular of\n    Phoenicians and Etruscans. Certainly the Hercules\n    question is not finally settled by his masterly analysis\n    of it in _R.K._ p. 220 foll. But most of what I said in\n    _R.F._ about the Hercules of the _ara maxima_ may now be\n    considered obsolete; and I may add that my remarks on\n    the supposed connection of Hercules with Genius, Dius\n    Fidius, and Jupiter in the same work, p. 143 foll., have\n    lost much strength since Wissowa's book appeared. Yet I\n    am not prepared to accept the view which would deny to\n    Hercules on Italian soil all contamination with Italian\n    ideas; as Willamowitz-Moellendorf puts it (_Herakles_,\n    ed. 2, vol. i. p. 25), \"Die Italiker haben dem Koerper,\n    den sie uebernahmen, den Odem ihrer eigenen Seele\n    eingeblasen: aber wie der Name ist der Gestalt des\n    Hercules hellenischer Import.\" There are points in\n    connection with the Roman Hercules, _e.g._ the _nodus\n    herculaneus_ of the bride's girdle, which Wissowa does\n    not explain, and which, so far as I can see, can only be\n    explained by assuming that, as might have been expected,\n    the Greek Hercules became to some extent entangled in\n    the web of Italian thought.\n\n    [475] The cult was Greek in detail; _Graeco ritu_,\n    according to Varro as quoted by Macrobius iii. 6. 17;\n    see also references in Wissowa, _R.K._ 222, note 2.\n    Following R. Peter in the articles in Roscher, I\n    assumed, in _R.F._ p. 194, that this might be a later\n    reconstruction of an originally Italian cult; but for\n    the present it is safer to look on the _Graecus ritus_\n    as primitive, and on the presence of Salii, a genuine\n    Italian institution, as brought from Tibur by the gens\n    Pinaria, of which there is a trace in that city\n    (_C.I.L._ xiv. 3541). There also Salii were engaged in\n    the cult of Hercules Victor, to whom tithes were also\n    offered (_C.I.L._ xiv. 3541). The evidence for the\n    theory that the cult came to Rome from Tibur is\n    summarised by Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 220.\n\n    [476] _Op. cit._, p. 37.\n\n    [477] For the connection of the cult with trade,\n    Wissowa, _R.K._ 225; and the story told in Macrobius\n    iii. 6. 11, from Masurius Sabinus, of a _tibicen_ who\n    became a merchant and had an interview with the god in a\n    dream. For the connection with _oaths_, _R.F._ p. 138. I\n    may say before leaving Hercules that though I accept the\n    latest hypotheses provisionally, I am far from believing\n    that the last word has been said on the subject.\n\n    [478] See, _e.g._, Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of\n    Ancient Rome_, p. 271 foll. The date of the temple is\n    482 B.C., but it was vowed in 496 after the Regillus\n    battle. The three columns still standing date from 7\n    B.C.\n\n    [479] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 217, who points out that the\n    Dioscuri never appear in _lectisternia_ at Rome, as they\n    do at Tusculum, which shows that the latter cult was\n    more directly Greek than that at Rome, and that the\n    Roman authorities admitted it as a Latin cult without\n    the Greek details.\n\n    [480] Carter, _op. cit._ p. 38. There seemed to be\n    difficulties in the way of his conclusion; the Dioscuri\n    were very strong in the Peloponnese, yet the Spartans\n    neglected the use of cavalry. At any rate the theory\n    needs careful historical testing. See article \"Dioscuri\"\n    in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ It would seem natural\n    that when once the cult had been introduced by traders\n    it might become specially attached to the cavalry, owing\n    to the ancient connection of the Twins with horses.\n\n    [481] Ecastor and Edepol, which were oaths used\n    especially by women, who were not allowed to swear by\n    Hercules, Gell. xi. 6.\n\n    [482] The reasoning will be found in full in Wissowa,\n    _R.K._ p. 203 foll., and in his article \"Minerva\" in the\n    _Mythological Lexicon_. See also Carter, _Religion of\n    Numa_, p. 45 foll. For the position of this temple and\n    that of Diana on the Aventine, a suburb which cannot be\n    proved to have been then within any city wall, see\n    Carter in _Proceedings of the American Philosophical\n    Society for 1909_, p. 136 foll.\n\n    [483] Waltzing, _Etude historique sur les corporations\n    romaines_, vol. i. pp. 63 and 199. The relation between\n    town life and trades is stated with his usual insight by\n    von Jhering, _Evolution of the Aryan_, p. 93 foll.\n\n    [484] See Mueller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 47; Deecke,\n    _Falisker_, p. 89 foll.\n\n    [485] Minerva or Menrva is assuredly not Etruscan,\n    though frequently found on Etruscan monuments; see\n    Deecke, _l.c._ p. 89 foll.\n\n    [486] Fasti Praenestini in _C.I.L._ i.^2 March 19.\n    \"Artificum dies (quod Minervae) aedis in Aventino eo die\n    est (dedicata).\" This is one of those additional notes\n    in the Fast. Praen., which are believed to have been the\n    work of Verrius Flaccus: see _Roman Festivals_, p. 12.\n\n    [487] Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 288. We\n    know the fact from Strabo's account of Massilia, Bk. iv.\n    p. 180.\n\n    [488] Dion. Hal. iv. 26. See _R.F._ p. 198.\n\n    [489] Statius, _Silvae_ iii. 1. 60. See Wissowa's\n    article \"Diana\" in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._\n\n    [490] Wissowa, _l.c._ p. 332.\n\n    [491] _Golden Bough_, i. p. 1 foll.; _Early History of\n    the Kingship_, Lecture I.\n\n    [492] Varro, _L.L._ 5. 43; Carter, _op. cit._ p. 55.\n\n    [493] See on Fortuna the exhaustive article by R. Peter\n    in the _Mythological Lexicon_; Wissowa, _R.K._ 206\n    foll.; _R.F._ p. 161 foll., and 223 foll.; Carter, _op.\n    cit._ p. 50 foll. Dr. Carter seems to me to be too\n    certain of the absence of any idea of luck or chance in\n    the original conception of Fortuna: the word _fors_, so\n    far as we know, never had any other meaning, and the\n    deity Fors must be a personification of an abstraction,\n    like Ops, Fides, and Salus. See Axtell, _Deification of\n    abstract idea in Roman literature_, p. 9, with whom I\n    agree in rejecting the notion of Marquardt and Wissowa\n    that she was a deity of horticulture. He rightly points\n    out that she is not included in the list of agricultural\n    deities in Varro, _R.R._ i. 1. 6.\n\n    [494] See Aust in his article \"Jupiter\" in the _Myth.\n    Lex._ p. 689, where the evidence for the contemporaneous\n    origin of the temple on the Alban hill and that on the\n    Capitol is fully stated. In this case excavations have\n    confirmed the Roman tradition, which ascribed the former\n    temple to one or other of the Tarquinii. Jordan, _Roem.\n    Top._ i. pt. 2. p. 9.\n\n    [495] See the speech of Claudius the emperor, _C.I.L._\n    xiii. 1668, printed in Furneaux' _Tacitus' Annals_, vol.\n    ii. Gardthausen, _Mastarna_, p. 40; Mueller-Deecke,\n    _Etrusker_, i. 111. For the Etruscan name Mastarna, see\n    Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_^3, ii. 506\n    foll.: Gardthausen gives a cut of the painting found in\n    a tomb at Vulci in which he appears with the name\n    attached. Even the ultra-sceptical Pais does not doubt\n    the fact of an Etruscan domination in Rome; but he does\n    not believe the Tarquinii and Mastarna to have been\n    historical personages, and will not date the temples\n    attributed to this age earlier than the fourth century\n    B.C. See his _Ancient Legends of Roman History_, ch.\n    vii.; _Storia di Roma_, i. 310 foll. But the names of\n    these kings do not concern us, except so far as they\n    connect Etruria with Roman history in the sixth century.\n\n    [496] Cic. _Rep._ ii. 24. 44; Livy i. 38. and 55;\n    Dionys. iii. 69; iv. 59. 61. The whole evidence will be\n    found collected in Jordan, _Topogr._ i. pt. ii. p. 9\n    foll., and in Aust, _Myth. Lex._, _s.v._ Jupiter, p. 706\n    foll. If the date 509 were seriously impugned Roman\n    chronology would be in confusion, for this is believed\n    to be the earliest date on which we can rely, and on it\n    the subsequent chronology hangs: Mommsen, _Roem.\n    Chronologie_, ed. 2, p. 198.\n\n    [497] Aust, p. 707 foll.; Jordan, _op. cit._, p. 9.\n\n    [498] _i.e._ the admission of more than one deity into a\n    single building. The word \"trias\" is sometimes used of\n    the three old Roman deities, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus\n    (_e.g._ by Wissowa, _Myth. Lex._ _s.v._ Quirinus), but\n    this is in a different sense. On the idea of a trias\n    generally, see Kuhfeldt, _de Capitoliis imperii Romani_,\n    p. 82 foll.; Cumont, _Religions orientales dans le\n    paganisme romain_, p. 290, note 51.\n\n    [499] The technical name of the temple was aedes Iovis\n    Opt. Max.: for other indications of Jupiter's supremacy\n    see Aust, p. 720.\n\n    [500] On Oriental developments of Jupiter Opt. Max. see\n    an interesting paper by Cumont in _Archiv_ for 1906, p.\n    323 foll. (_Iuppiter summus exsuperantissimus_). A\n    relief in the Berlin Museum has a dedication _I.O.M.\n    summo exsuperantissimo_; but Prof. Cumont believes the\n    deity to have been really Oriental, introduced by Greek\n    philosophical theologians in the last century B.C., but\n    probably Chaldaean in origin.\n\n    [501] Jordan, _op. cit._ p. 7 and note. It is uncertain\n    whether the whole hill had any earlier name. The Mons\n    Saturnius of Varro, _L.L._ v. 42, with the legend of an\n    oppidum _Saturnia_, and the Mons Tarpeius (_Rhet. ad\n    Herenn._, iv. 32. 43; Pais, _Ancient Legends_, chs. v.\n    and vi.) need not be taken into account.\n\n    [502] Pais, _Ancient Legends of Roman History_, ch. v.\n\n    [503] See above, p. 130.\n\n    [504] This is an inference from the fact that this\n    Flamen is nowhere mentioned as connected with the\n    Capitoline cult. Macrob. i. 15, 16, speaks of the ovis\n    Idulis as sacrificed on every ides _a flamine_, and\n    this, it is true, took place on the Capitolium (Aust, in\n    _Lex._ _s.v._ Jupiter, 655), but (1) Festus, 290,\n    mentions sacerdotes, Ovid, _Fasti_ i. 588, castus\n    sacerdos only; and (2) this sacrifice may well, as O.\n    Gilbert conjectured, have originally taken place in the\n    Regia (_Gesch. und Topogr. Roms_, i. 236). In any case\n    the Flamen was not in any special sense priest of Iup.\n    Opt. Max.\n\n    [505] The _locus classicus_ for this is Pliny, _N.H._\n    xxxv. 157. The artist was said to have been one Volcas\n    of Veii. Ovid, _Fasti_ i. 201, says that the god had in\n    his hand a _fictile fulmen_. Varro believed this to be\n    the oldest statue of a god in Rome; see above, p. 146,\n    and Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 280, accepts\n    his statement as probably correct.\n\n    [506] Cic. _Catil._ iii. 9. 21.\n\n    [507] Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 2. pp. 39 and 62, notes. The\n    most convincing passages quoted by him are Suet. _Aug._\n    59, and Serv. _Ecl._ iv. 50 (of boys taking toga virilis\n    who \"ad Capitolium eunt\"); but was not this to sacrifice\n    to Liber or Iuventas? _R.F._ p. 56.\n\n    [508] Gellius vi. 1. 6, from C. Oppius et Iulius\n    Hyginus. In his famous character of Scipio (xxvi. 19)\n    Livy seems to think that Scipio did this to make people\n    think him superhuman or of divine descent.\n\n    [509] Ovid, _Fasti_, iv. 158. 257; Virg. _Ecl._ iv. 4,\n    _Aen._ vi. 42; Marquardt, 352, note 7, for evidence that\n    the books came to Cumae from Erythrae. See also Diels,\n    _Sibyllinische Blaetter_, p. 80 foll.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XI*\n\nCONTACT OF THE OLD AND NEW IN RELIGION\n\n\nI said at the beginning of my first lecture that Roman religious\nexperience can be summed up in two stories. The first of these was the\nstory of the way in which a strong primitive religious instinct, the\ndesire to put yourself in right relation with the Power manifesting\nitself in the universe, _religio_ as the Romans called it, was gradually\nsoothed and satisfied under the formalising influence of the settled\nlife of the agricultural family, and still more so under the organising\ngenius of the early religious rulers of the City-state. This story I\ntried to tell in the last few lectures. The second story was to be that\nof the gradual discovery of the inadequacy of this early formalised and\norganised religion to cope with what we may call new religious\nexperience; that is, with the difficulties and perils met with by the\nRoman people in their extraordinary advance in the world, and with the\nnew ideas of religion and morals which broke in on them in the course of\ntheir contact with other peoples. This story I wish to tell in the\npresent course of lectures. It is a long and complicated one, including\nthe introduction of new rites and ideas of the divine, the anxious\nattempts of the religious authorities to put off the evil day by\nstretching to the uttermost the capacity of the old forms, and the final\nvictory of the new ideas as Roman life and thought became gradually\nhellenised.\n\n    [*] This Lecture was the first of a second and separate\n    course.\n\nI propose to divide the story thus. In the latter part of this first\nlecture I will deal with the first introduction of Greek rites into the\nState worship under the directions of the so-called Sibylline books.\nThen I will turn to the efforts of the lay priesthoods, pontifices and\naugurs, to meet the calls of new experience by formalising the old\nreligion still more completely in the name of the State, until it became\na mere skeleton of dry bones, without life and power. That will bring us\nto the great turning-point in Roman history, the war with Hannibal, to\nthe religious history of which I shall devote my fourth lecture; and the\nfifth will pursue the subject into the century that followed. In the\nnext lecture I hope to sketch the influence on Roman religious ideas of\nthe Stoic school of philosophy, and in the seventh to discuss, so far as\nI may be able, the tendency towards mysticism prevalent in the last\nperiod of the life of the Republic. My eighth lecture I intend to devote\nto the noble attempt of Virgil to combine religion, legend, philosophy,\nand consummate art in a splendid appeal to the conscience of the Roman\nof that day. Then I turn to the more practical attempt of Augustus to\nrevive the dying embers of the old religion; and in my last lecture I\nshall try to estimate the contribution, such as it was, of the religious\nexperience we have been discussing, to the early Christian church.\n\nWe shall shortly hear so much of petrifaction and disintegration, that\nit may be as well, before I actually begin my story, to convince\nourselves that the old religion was in its peculiar way a real\nexpression of religious feeling, and not merely a set of meaningless\nconventions and formulae. It was the positive belief of the later Romans\nthat both they and their ancestors were _religiosissimi mortales_,[510]\nfull to the brim, that is, of religious instinct, and most scrupulous in\nfulfilling its claims upon them; for the word _religio_ had come, by the\ntime (and probably long before the time) when it was used by men of\nletters, to mean the fulfilment of ritualistic obligation quite as much\nas the anxious feeling which had originally suggested it.[511] Cicero,\nwriting in no rhetorical mood, declared that, as compared with other\npeoples, the Romans were far superior \"in religione, id est cultu.\"[512]\nThis is in his work on the nature of the gods; in an oration he\nnaturally puts it more strongly: \"We have overcome all the nations of\nthe world, because we have realised that the world is directed and\ngoverned by the will of the gods.\"[513] Sallust, Livy, and other Roman\nprose writers have said much the same thing[514]; the _Aeneid_ as a\nwhole might be adduced as evidence, and in a less degree all the poets\nof the Augustan age. Foreigners, too, were struck with the strange\nphenomenon, in an age of philosophic doubt. Polybius in the second\ncentury B.C. declared his opinion that what was reckoned among other\npeoples as a thing to be blamed, _deisidaimonia_, both in public and\nprivate life, was really what was holding together the Roman state.[515]\nEven in the wild century that followed, Posidonius could repeat the\nassertion of Polybius, and in the age of Augustus, Dionysius of\nHalicarnassus, then resident at Rome, looking back on the early history\nof Rome, stated his conviction that one needed to know the _pietas_ of\nthe Romans in order to understand their wonderful career of\nconquest.[516] Aulus Gellius, in a curious passage in which he notes\nthat the Romans had no deity to whose activity they could with\ncertainty ascribe earthquakes, describes them as \"in constituendis\nreligionibus atque in dis immortalibus animadvertendis _castissimi\ncautissimique_,\"--a rhetorical but happy conjunction of epithets. He\nmeans that they would order religious rites, though ignorant of the\n_numen_ to whom they were due.[517]\n\nIt might be argued that these later writers knew really little or\nnothing about the primitive Romans, and that these passages only prove\nthat this people had an extraordinary scrupulosity about forms and\nceremonies in this as in other departments of action. But the argument\nwill not hold; the survival of all this formalism into an age of\ndisintegration really proves beyond a doubt that there must have been a\ntime when these forms really expressed anxieties, fears, convictions,\nthe earliest germs of _conscience_.\n\nMay we not take the constant occurrence in literature of such phrases as\n_dis faventibus_, _dis iuvantibus_ or _volentibus_, as evidence of an\nidea deeply rooted at one time in the Roman mind, that nothing should be\nundertaken until the will of the deities concerned had been ascertained\nand that early form of conscience satisfied? Let us remember that the\nwhole story of the _Aeneid_ is one of the bending of the will of the\nhero, as a type of the ideal Roman, to the ascertainable will of the\npowers in the universe.\n\nAnd we have abundant evidence that as a matter of fact the good-will of\nthe divine inhabitants of house and city was asked for whenever any kind\nof work was undertaken,--even the ordinary routine work of the farm or\nof government. In the household every morning some offering with prayer\nwas made to the Lar familiaris in historical times, and again before the\n_cena_, the chief meal of the day.[518] On Kalends, Nones, Ides, and on\nall _dies festi_ a _corona_ was placed on the hearth, and prayer was\nmade to the Lar; we know that this was so in the old Roman home, because\nin the second century B.C. Cato instructs the _vilicus_ to discharge\nthese duties on behalf of the absent or non-resident owner.[519] Before\nthe flocks were taken out to summer pasture, and doubtless when they\nreturned, some religious service (so we should call it) was held,[520]\njust as in the Catholic cantons of Switzerland the blessing of God is\nasked when the cows first ascend to the alpine pastures, and again when\nthey leave them for the valleys. Before a journey the later Romans\nprayed for good fortune;[521] in the old times travelling was of course\nunusual, and when it did occur the traveller was surrounded by so many\nspiritual as well as material dangers that _special_ religious measures\nmust have been taken, as by fetials or armies on entering foreign\nterritory. The survival of the same kind of belief and practice is also\nseen in private life in the religious commendations of some authors at\nthe outset of their literary work; Varro, for example, at the beginning\nof his work on agriculture, calls on all the agrarian deities (_iis deis\nad venerationem advocatis_) before he goes on to mention even the\nbibliography of his subject.[522] Livy in the last sentence of his\npreface would fain imitate the poets in calling on the gods to bless and\nfavour his undertaking. And in all time of their tribulation, even if\nnot in all time of their wealth, the pious Romans sought help from the\ndeities from whom help might be expected; if, at least, the many\ninstances occurring in Roman poetry may point to a practice of the\nordinary individual and family.[523] So too, if we may judge by many\npassages in the plays of Plautus and Terence,[524]--if here we have\ngenuine Roman usage, as is probable,--the feeling of dependence on a\nPower manifesting itself in the affairs of daily life is shown also in\nthe expression of _thankfulness_ which followed success or escape from\nperil. Gratitude was not a prominent characteristic of the Roman, but I\nhave already remarked on the presence of it in the practice of the\n_votum_, and there is at least some evidence that it was recognised as\ndue to benignant deities as well as human beings.[525]\n\nIn public life, throughout Roman history, the forms of religious rites\nwere maintained on all important occasions. When Varro wrote a little\nmanual of Senatorial procedure for the benefit of the inexperienced\nPompeius when consul in 70 B.C., he was careful to mention the\npreliminary sacrifice and _auspicatio_, performed by the presiding\nmagistrate, who also had to see that the business _de rebus divinis_\ncame first on the paper of agenda.[526] At one time every speaker\ninvoked the gods at the beginning of his oration, as well indeed he\nmight in a situation so unusual and trying for a Roman before the days\nof Greek education; and the earliest speeches preserved in the literary\nage, _e.g._ those of Cato and the Gracchi, retained the religious\nexordium.[527] We have a trace of the Gracchan practice in a famous\npassage at the end of the work called _Rhetorica ad Herennium_ of\n_circ._ 82 B.C., where the death of Ti. Gracchus is graphically\ndescribed.[528] But there is no need to multiply examples of public\nreligious formalism on occasions of all kinds, on entering on an office,\nfounding a colony, leaving Rome for a provincia, and so on; some of them\nI have already mentioned, others are familiar to all classical students.\n\nSo let us not hesitate for a moment to give this people credit for their\nreligiousness. True, their neighbours, Greeks like Polybius, approved of\nit only with an ironical smile on their lips, as we may smile at the\ndevoted formalism of extreme Catholic or Protestant, while we\nsecretly--if we have some sympathy with strangely varying human\nnature--admire the confidence and regularity that we cannot ourselves\nclaim. At the moment where I have thus paused before beginning my second\nstory, at the end, that is, of the regal period, I believe that this\nreligious system, though perhaps beginning to harden, still meant a\nprofound belief in the Power thus manifested in many forms, and an\nardent and effective desire to be in right relation to it. I believe\nthat it contained the germ of a living and fruitful growth; but that\ngrowth was at this very moment arrested by the beginning of a process of\nwhich I shall have much to say in the next two or three lectures.\n\nBut it is hard to realise this better side of the religion of a hard and\npractical people, and all the more so since it is the worse side that is\nalmost always presented to us in modern books. It is hard to realise\nthat it was not merely a system of insurance, so to speak, against all\nkinds of material evils,--and here again all the more so because there\nis a tendency just now to reduce both religion and law to an origin in\nmagic, leaving the religious instinct, the _feeling of dependence_, the\nprogenitor of conscience, quite out of account. One must indeed be\nthoroughly familiar with Roman literature and antiquities to overcome\nthese difficulties, to discover the spiritual residuum in the Roman\ncharacter beneath all its hardness and utilitarianism. Before we pass on\nto the task before us, let me make two suggestions for the help of those\nwho would endeavour to find this spiritual residuum. The first is that\nthey should consider the history and true meaning of three great words\nwhich Latin language has bequeathed to modern speech,--_religio_, the\nfeeling of awe, taking practical shape in the performance of authorised\nceremonies; _sacrum_, that which by authoritative usage is made over\nwithout reserve to the divine inhabitants of the city; and last but not\nleast, _pietas_, the sense of duty to god and man alike, to all divine\nand human beings having an authorised claim upon you. And this word\n_pietas_ shall introduce my second suggestion--that there is no better\nway of getting to understand the spirit of the Roman religion than by\ncontinual study of the _Aeneid_, where the hero is the ideal Roman,\n_pius_ in the best and widest sense. What makes the _Aeneid_ so helpful\nin this way is the poet's intimate and sympathetic knowledge of the\nreligious ideas of the Italians, in which we may see reflected those of\nthe Roman of the age we are now dealing with: his love too of antiquity\nand of all ancient rites and legends; and his conviction that the great\nwork of Rome in the world had been achieved not only by _virtus_ but by\n_pietas_. What has been won by _virtus_ must be preserved by _pietas_,\nby the sense of duty in family and State,--that is the moral of the\n_Aeneid_. In no other work of Roman genius is this idea found in\nanything like the same degree of prominence and consistency; and when a\nstudent has steeped his mind well in the details of the Roman worship,\nand begins to weary of what must seem its soulless Pharisaism, let him\ntake up the _Aeneid_ and read it right through for the story and the\ncharacters. I will venture to say that he will think better both of the\nRomans and their poet than he ever did before. But of the _Aeneid_ I\nshall have more to say later on; at present let us turn to the less\ninspiring topics which must occupy us for the next few lectures.\n\nThe last fact of Roman religious history which I mentioned last year was\nthe building of the great Capitoline temple of Jupiter, Juno, and\nMinerva, and I then explained why this constituted a religious\nrevolution. The next temple of which tradition tells us was destined for\nanother trias, Ceres, Liber, and Libera; the traditional date was 493\nB.C., the cause a famine, and the site was at the foot of the Aventine,\nthe plebeian quarter outside the pomoerium, close to the river where\ncorn-ships might be moored.[529] Ceres, Liber, and Libera are plainly\nneither more nor less than the three Greek corn deities, Demeter,\nDionysus, and Persephone, in a Latin form,[530] whose worship was\nprominent in South Italy and Sicily; and unless we throw tradition\noverboard entirely, as indeed has often been done, the inference is\nobvious that this trias came from the Greeks of the south with an\nimportation of corn to relieve a famine which pressed especially on the\nplebs. It is a fact that the temple and its cult remained always closely\nconnected with the plebs; they were under the charge of the plebeian\naediles, who also in historical times had the care of the corn-supply\nnecessary for the city population.[531] Thus, though we need not accept\nin full Livy's statement that the very next year corn was imported from\nEtruria, Cumae, and Sicily, it cannot be denied that there is a strong\nconsensus in the various traditions about the temple, which taken\ntogether suggest a Greek, non-patrician, and early origin. That the cult\nhad at all times a Greek character is undisputed fact.\n\nBut I am not so much concerned with the temple itself as with the date\nand the manner of its foundation. It was said to have been founded in\nthe year 496, and dedicated in 493, in obedience to directions found in\n\"the Sibylline books,\" which books, according to the well-known\ntradition, had been acquired by the last Tarquin, after some haggling,\nfrom an old woman, and placed in the charge of _duoviri sacris\nfaciundis_. The story itself is worthless in detail; but the question\nfor us is whether it can be taken as showing that the Sibylline\ninfluence then pervading the Greek world gained a footing at Rome in any\nform so early as this. Was the temple really founded in 496, or at some\ntime thereabout? And was it founded in obedience to some Sibylline\ndirection? These questions are of real importance, for upon our answer\nto them depends the date of the beginning of a gradual metamorphosis of\nthe Roman religious practice. The so-called Sibylline books and their\nkeepers were responsible, as we shall see directly, for the introduction\nat Rome of what was known as the _Graecus ritus_,--for the foundation of\ntemples to deities of Greek origin, and for other rites which initiated\nan entirely new type of religious feeling. We need to be sure when all\nthis began.\n\nIn the first place, so far as I can judge, it is almost impossible to\ndissociate the origin of the temple from Sibylline influence. As we have\nseen, the cult was Greek, and all such Greek cults of later times were\nintroduced by the keepers of the Sibylline books; and further, the\nrecords of temple foundations were among the most carefully preserved\nfacts in Roman annals.[532] I think it is hardly possible to suppose\nthat a cult which came, not from Latium or southern Etruria, like those\nof Diana, Minerva, and the Capitoline deities, but from some Greek\nregion to the south, and probably from Sicily, could have been\nintroduced by Roman authorities unaided by Greek influence. If that be\nso, and if we can show that the temple really belongs to this early age,\nthen we have a strong probability that the Sibylline influence gained a\nfooting at Rome at the very beginning of the republican period.[533]\n\nThere is one curious fact in connection with the temple that in my\nopinion goes far to prove that the traditional date is not far out.\nPliny tells us explicitly that the two Greek artists who decorated the\ntemple, Damophilus and Gorgasus, inscribed their names on the walls, and\nhe added that the work of the former would be found on the right and\nthat of the latter on the left.[534] Nothing more is known about them;\nbut I am assured that the fact that they signed their names and added\nthese statements suits the character of Greek art in the archaic age 580\nto 450 B.C. No signatures of artists are known earlier than about 580;\nthen comes a period when signatures are found, sometimes with statements\nsuch as these. And lastly, about 450, we begin to find simple signatures\nwithout any other words.[535] Thus the presumption is a strong one that\nthe temple belongs to a time earlier than 450; and if that be so, then I\nthink the inference holds good that the Sibyl first gained a footing at\nRome about the same time. There are indeed some reasons why we should\nnot put this event in the period of the kings;[536] but if we accept the\ntraditional date of the temple we may put it any time between 509 and\n496.\n\nI have purposely used vague terms, such as Sibylline _influence_,\ninstead of speaking in the old manner of Sibylline _books_ or oracles,\nbecause it is almost incredible that at so early a date it could have\nbeen possible to divulge any contents of a store of writings such as\nmust have been most carefully treasured and concealed. This has been\nshown conclusively to be out of the question in Diels' now famous little\nbook \"_Sibylline Leaves_.\" But we may also follow Diels in assuming that\nabout the end of the sixth century some kind of Greek oracle or oracular\nsaying did actually arrive at Rome, purporting to be an utterance of the\nfamous Sibyl of Cumae.[537]\n\nBut what _was_ this Sibylline influence which thus penetrated to Rome,\nif I am right, at the beginning of the fifth century? It is no part of\nmy design to discuss the history of Greek mysticism, though we shall\nhear something more of it in a later lecture. It will be enough to\nremind you that in the sixth century Greece was not only full of Orphism\nand Pythagoreanism, but of floating oracular _dicta_ believed to emanate\nfrom a mystic female figure, a weird figure of whom it is hard to say\nhow far she was human or divine; and of whose origin we know nothing,\nexcept that her original home was, as we might expect, Asia Minor. She\nwas inspired by Apollo,[538] it was said, like the Pythia, and like her\ntoo became [Greek: entheos] (_possessed_) when uttering her prophecies;\nthis is the earliest fact we know about her, for a famous fragment of\nHeracleitus represents her as uttering sayings \"with frenzied\nlips,\"[539]--a tradition of which Virgil has made good use in the sixth\n_Aeneid_:\n\n                    non vultus, non color unus,\n  non comptae mansere comae; sed pectus anhelum,\n  et rabie fera corda tument.\n\nBut more to our purpose is the sober judgment of Plato a century after\nthe first Roman experience of her, who in the _Phaedrus_ classes her\namong those who have wrought _much good_ by their inspired\nutterances.[540] This passage may help us to understand how ready men\nwere at that time to turn for aid in tribulation to what they believed\nto be divine help, to an inspired wisdom beyond the range of the local\ndeities of their own city-states.\n\nThis Sibyl became gradually localised in certain Greek cities, and\nthereby broke up, as it were, into several Sibyls. One of these\nSibylline homes was at Cumae in Campania, the oldest Greek city in\nItaly, and this enables us to explain easily how the name and fame of\nthe Sibyl reached Rome. Dim as is all early Roman history, the one clear\nfact of the sixth century is, as we have seen, the rapid advance of the\nEtruscans, their occupation of Rome, Praeneste, and other Latin cities,\nand their conquest of Campania, which is now ascribed to that same\nage.[541] Legend told in later days how the last Etruscan king had taken\nrefuge at Cumae after his expulsion from Rome, and it is just possible\nthat it may here be founding upon some dim recollection of a fact.\nHowever this may be, it is plain that it was through the great Etruscan\ndisturbance of that period that Rome came to make trial of Sibylline\nutterances. In a moment of distress--the famine of which I spoke just\nnow, and which I take to be historical because the remedy, the temple\nunder the Aventine, was so closely connected with the corn-supply--she\nsent for or admitted an utterance of the Sibyl of Cumae, with whom she\nhad come into some kind of contact through her Etruscan kings.\n\nLet us consider that this foreign dynasty must have brought a new\npopulation to the city on the Tiber, the chief strategic point of middle\nItaly,--a new element of plebs, whatever the old one may have been.[542]\nWe have seen signs, even in the religious history of this age, that\ncommerce and industry were increasing, and that their increase was due\nto a movement from without, rather than to the old patrician _gentes_.\nWhen the Etruscan dynasty fell and the old patrician influence was\nrestored, the government must have been face to face with new\ndifficulties, and among them the supply of corn for an increasing\npopulation in years of bad harvest. With a fresh source of supply from\nthe south came the cult of the Greek corn-deities at the bidding of a\nSibylline utterance; and henceforward that remedy was available for\nother troubles. But the patrician rulers of Rome were true, it would\nseem, as far as was possible, to the old ways, and for a long time they\nused this foreign remedy very sparingly. At what date the utterances\nwere collected in \"books\" and deposited in the Capitoline temple we do\nnot know, nor have we any certain knowledge of their original nature or\nform. Tradition said that the collection dated from the last king's\nreign, and that it was placed in the care of _duoviri sacris faciundis_,\nas we have seen, who in 367 B.C. gave way to _decemviri_, five of whom\nmight be members of the plebs. I am myself inclined to conjecture that\nthis comparatively late date may be the real date of the origin of a\n_permanent collection_ and a _permanent college of keepers_, and that\nthe earlier _duoviri_ were only temporary religious officers, _sacris\nfaciundis_, _i.e._ for the carrying out of the directions of Sibylline\nutterances specially sought for at Cumae. They would thus be of the same\nclass as other special commissions appointed by the Senate for\nadministrative purposes;[543] while the decemviri, though retaining the\nold title, were permanent religious officers appointed to collect and\ntake charge of a new and important set of regulations for the benefit of\nthe community, and one which concerned the plebs at least as much as the\npatricians.\n\nBut I must turn to the more important question how far, down to the war\nwith Hannibal, when I shall take up the subject afresh, the Roman\nreligion was affected for good or harm by these utterances and their\nkeepers. They took effect in two ways: either by introducing new deities\nand settling them in new temples, or by ordering and organising new\nceremonies such as Rome had never seen before.\n\nThe introduction of a new deity now and again was not of great account\nfrom the point of view of religion, except in so far as it encouraged\nthe new ceremonies; the Romans had never taken much personal interest in\ntheir deities, and the arrival (outside the pomoerium in each case) of\nHermes under the name of Mercurius, or Poseidon bearing the name of the\nold Roman water _numen_ Neptunus, or even of Asclepios with a Romanised\nname Aesculapius, would not be likely to affect greatly their ideas of\nthe divine. These facts have rather a historical than a religious\nsignificance; Hermes Empolaios, for example, suggests trade with Greek\ncities, perhaps in grain,[544] and belongs therefore to the same class\nas Ceres, Liber, Libera, of whom I have already spoken. The arrival of\nPoseidon-Neptune may mean, as Dr. Carter has suggested, a kind of\n\"marine insurance\" for the vessels carrying the grain from Greek\nports.[545] The settling of Aesculapius in the Tiber island in 293, as\nthe result of a terrible pestilence, is interesting as being the first\nfact known to us in the history of medicine at Rome; the temple became a\nkind of hospital on the model of Epidaurus, where the god had been\nbrought in the form of a snake by an embassy sent for the purpose, and\nthe priests who served it were probably Greeks skilled in the healing\nart.[546] This last case is a curious example of new Roman religious\nexperience, but it can hardly be said to have any deep significance in\nthe religious history of Rome. Of the obliteration of the old _numen_\nNeptunus by the Greek god who took his name we know nothing for good or\nill; we are ignorant of the real meaning of the old _numen_, and cannot\ntell whether the loss of him was compensated by the usefulness of his\nname in Roman literature to represent the Greek god of the sea.\n\nLet us turn to the much more important subject of the new ceremonies\nordered by the Sibylline \"books.\" The first authentic case of such\ninnovation occurred in 399 B.C., during the long and troublesome siege\nof the dangerous neighbour city Veii; I call it authentic because all\nthe best modern authorities so reckon it, though it occurred before the\ndestruction of old records during the capture of the city by the Gauls.\nThe circumstances were such as to fix themselves in the memory of the\npeople, and in one way or another they found their way into the earliest\nannals, probably those of Fabius Pictor, composed during the Second\nPunic War.[547]\n\nThe previous winter, Livy tells us,[548] was one of extraordinary\nseverity; the roads were blocked with snow, and navigation on the Tiber\nstopped by the ice. This miserable winter was followed too suddenly by a\nhot season, in which a plague broke out which consumed both man and\nbeast, and continued so persistently that the Senate ordered the\nSibylline books to be consulted. This persistence is the first point we\nshould notice; \"Cuius insanabili pernicie quando nec causa nec finis\ninveniebatur,\"--so wrote Livy, evidently meaning to express an extremity\nof trouble which would not give way to ordinary religious remedies. We\nmay compare his account of the next recorded consultation of the books\n(Livy vii. 2), when neither the old rites nor even the new ones were\nsufficient to secure the _pax deorum_ and abate another pestilence, and\nrecourse was had to yet another remedy in the form of _ludi scenici_.\nThe times were out of joint,--the peace of the gods was broken, and thus\nthe community was no longer in right relation to the Power manifesting\nitself in the universe. The result was a revival of _religio_, of the\nfeeling of alarm and anxiety out of which the whole religious system had\ngrown. The old deities might seem to be forsaking their functions, since\nthe old rites had ceased to appeal to them. Mysterious and persistent\npestilence is a great tamer of human courage; it is a new experience\nthat man knows not how to meet, and in ancient life it was also a new\n_religious_ experience.\n\nThe remedy was as new as the pestilence, and almost as pernicious.\nDuring eight days Rome saw three pairs of deities reclining in the form\nof images on couches, before which were spread tables covered with food\nand drink. Whether in this first case they were taken out of the temples\nand exposed to view in certain places, _e.g._ the forum, is not clear;\nlater on, in the days of _supplicationes_, of which more will be said\npresently, they were visited in procession. The three pairs were Apollo\nand Latona, Diana and Hercules, Mercurius and Neptunus; all of them\nGreek, or, as in the case of Diana, Mercurius, and Neptunus, Roman\ndeities in their new Greek form. We cannot trace the special\napplicability of all of them to the trouble they were thus invoked to\nappease,--another point that suggests a complete revolution in the Roman\nways of contemplating divine beings. These are not functional _numina_,\nbut foreigners whose ways were only known to the manipulators of the\nSibylline utterances. They seem like quack remedies, of which the action\nis unknown to the consumer.\n\nNew also, but better in its effect, was the publicity of these\nproceedings, and the part taken in them by the whole population,\npatrician and plebeian, men, women, and children. If we can trust Livy's\nfurther statements, every one left his door open and kept open house,\ninviting all to come in, whether known or unknown; all old quarrels were\nmade up, and no new ones suffered to begin; prisoners were freed from\ntheir chains, and universal good-will prevailed. These eight days were\nin fact kept as holidays, and doubtless by the novelty of the whole\nscene the astute authorities hoped to inspire fresh hope and confidence,\nand to divert attention from the prevailing misery, just as our soldiers\nin India are induced to forget the presence of cholera in a station by\nconstant games and amusements. That this was really one leading object\nof the whole show is not generally recognised by historians; but it\nseems fully explained by the fact I mentioned just now, that in the\nsimilar trouble of 349 B.C. recourse was had for the first time to _ludi\nscenici_ in order to amuse the people. In the history of the Hannibalic\nwar we shall have plenty of opportunity of noting this kind of\nexpedient. The Roman people, we must remember, were getting more and\nmore to be inhabitants of a large city, and, as such, to seek for\nentertainment, like all citizens in all ages. The religious rites of the\nold calendar were perhaps by this time getting too familiar, losing\ntheir original meaning; whether they had ever been very entertaining to\na city population may be doubted. Something more showy was needed;\nprocessions had always been to the taste of the Roman, and banquets,\nsuch as the epulum Iovis, which I have already noticed, often\naccompanied the processions.\n\nNow, this love of show and novelty, of which we have abundant evidence\nlater on as a Roman characteristic, taken together with the anxiety and\nalarm--the new _religio_--arising from the pestilence, will sufficiently\nexplain the _lectisternia_, as these shows were called. We have here in\nfact the first appearance, constantly recurring in later Roman history,\nof a tendency to seek not only for novelty, but for a more emotional\nexpression of religious feeling than was afforded by the old forms of\nsacrifice and prayer, conducted as they were by the priest on behalf of\nthe community without its active participation. Those old forms might do\nfor the old patrician community of farmers and warriors, but not so well\nfor the new and ever-increasing population of artisans and other\nworkmen, whether of Roman or foreign descent. It would seem, indeed, as\nif the sensitiveness of the human fibre of a primitive community\nincreases with its increasing complexity, and with the greater variety\nof experience to which it is exposed; and in the case of Rome, as if the\nsimple ancient methods of dealing with the divine inhabitants of the\ncity were no longer adequate to the needs of a State which was steering\nits way to empire among so many difficulties and perils. It is not\nindeed certain that the new rites, or some points in them, may not have\nhad their prototypes in old Italian usage, though the _lectisternia_,\nthe actual display of gods in human form and in need of food like human\nbeings, are almost certainly Greek in origin.[549] But so far as we can\nguess, the emotional element was wholly new. True, Livy tells us in two\npassages of his third book of occasions when men, women, and children\nflocked to all the shrines (_omnia delubra_) seeking for the _pax\ndeorum_ at the invitation of the senate; but the early date, the great\nimprobability of the senate taking any such step, and the absence of any\nmention of the priesthoods, makes it difficult to believe that these\nassertions are based on any genuine record. We must be content to mark\nthe first _lectisternia_ in 399 as the earliest authentic example of the\nemotional tendency of the Roman plebs.[550]\n\nIf we can judge of this period of Roman religious history by the general\ntendency of the policy of the Roman government, we may see here a\ndeliberate attempt to include the new population in worship of a kind\nthat would calm its fears, engage its attention, and satisfy its\nemotion, while leaving uncontaminated the old ritual that had served the\nState so long. If this conclusion be a right one, then we must allow\nthat the new ceremonial had its use. Dr. Frazer has lately told us in\nhis eloquent and persuasive way, of how much value superstition has been\nin building up moral habits and the instinct of submission to civil\norder. His thesis might be illustrated adequately from the history of\nRome alone. But from a purely religious point of view the story of the\n_lectisternia_ is a sad one. The old Roman invisible _numen_, working\nwith force in a particular department of human life and its environment,\nwas a far nobler mental conception, and far more likely to grow into a\npower for good, than the miserable images of Graeco-Roman full-blown\ngods and goddesses reclining on their couches and appearing to partake\nof dinner like a human citizen. Such ideas of the divine must have\nforced men's religious ideas clean away from the Power manifesting\nitself in the universe, and must have dragged down the Roman _numina_\nwith them in their corrupting degradation. According to our definition\nof it, religion was now in a fair way to disappear altogether; what was\ndestined to take its place was not really religion at all. Nor did it in\nany way assist the growth of an individual conscience, as perhaps did\nsome of the later religious forms introduced from without. It was of\nvalue for the moment to the State, in satisfying a population greatly\ndisturbed by untoward events; and that was all.\n\nClosely connected with the _lectisternia_, and following close upon them\nin chronological order, were the processional ceremonies called\n_supplicationes_. The historical relation between the two is by no means\nclear; but if we conclude, as I am fairly sure we may, that the\n_lectisternia_ were shows of a joyful character, accompanied, as Livy\ndescribes the first one, with private entertainments, and meant to keep\nup the spirits of the plebeian population, and if we then turn to the\nearly _supplicationes_, in which men, women, and children, _coronati_,\nand carrying laurel branches, went in procession to the temples, and\nthere prostrated themselves after the Greek fashion, the women \"crinibus\npassis aras verrentes,\" we shall be disposed to look on them as, in\norigin at least, distinct from each other.[551] We may conjecture that\nthe appearance of the gods in human form at the doors of their temples\nsuggested to the plebeian women a kind of emotional worship which was\nalien to the old Roman feeling, but familiar enough to those (and they\nmust have been many) who knew the life of the Greek cities of Italy. It\nmay be that they had tried it even in earlier times; but anyhow, in the\nfourth and third centuries B.C. advantage was taken of the _pulvinaria_\nto use them as stopping-places in the procession of a _supplicatio_, and\nthe phrase becomes a common one in the annals, \"supplicatio ad omnia\npulvinaria indicta.\" The _lectisternia_ were ordered five times in the\nfourth century;[552] by that time, it would seem likely, the\n_supplicationes_ had become an authorised institution, and had perhaps\nembodied the practice of _lectisternia_ in the way suggested above. We\nshall meet with them again when we come to the religious history of the\nwar with Hannibal.\n\nOne word more before I leave this subject for the present. In all this\ninnovation we must not forget to note the growth of individual feeling\nas distinguished from the old worship of civic grouping, in which the\nindividual, as such, was of little or no account. I pointed out the\nfirst signs of this individualism when speaking of the temple of the\nCapitoline Jupiter, and we shall have reason to mark its rapid growth\nfurther. We are now, in fact, and must realise that we are, in a period\nin which, throughout the Graeco-Roman world, the need was beginning to\nbe felt of some new rule of individualistic morality. The Roman\npopulation, now recruited from many sources, was but reflecting this\nneed unconsciously when it insisted on new emotional rites and\nexpiations. The Roman authorities were forced to satisfy the demand; but\nin doing so they made no real contribution to the history of Roman\nreligious experience. It was impossible that they should do so; they\nrepresented the old civic form of religion, \"bound up with the life of a\nsociety, and unable to contemplate the individual except as a member of\nit.\"[553] The new forms of worship, the _supplicatio_ and\n_lectisternium_, could not be, as the old forms had in some sense been,\nthe consecration of civic and national life. They were to the Romans as\nthe worship of Baal to the Jews of the time of the Kings; and, unlike\nthat poisonous cult, they could never be rooted out.[554][555]\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XI\n\n    [510] This is the expression of Sallust, _Catil._ 12. 3.\n\n    [511] See my paper on the Latin history of the word\n    _religio_, in _Transactions of the Congress for the\n    History of Religions_, 1909, vol. ii. p. 172. W. Otto in\n    _Archiv_, 1909, p. 533 foll.\n\n    [512] Cic. _de Nat. Deorum_, ii. 8.\n\n    [513] Cic. _Harusp. resp._ 19.\n\n    [514] Livy xliv. 1. 11; Sallust, _l.c._; Gellius, _Noct.\n    Att._ ii. 28. 2.\n\n    [515] Polyb. vi. 56.\n\n    [516] Posidonius ap. Athenaeum vi. 274 A; Dion.\n    Hal. ii. 27. 3.\n\n    [517] Gell. ii. 28.\n\n    [518] Marquardt, iii. 126.\n\n    [519] Cato, _R.R._ 142.\n\n    [520] Calpurnius, _Eclogue_, v. 24. I have described a\n    similar scene in the Alps in _A Year with the Birds_,\n    ed. 2, p. 126.\n\n    [521] Petronius, _Sat._ 117: \"His ita ordinatis, quod\n    bene feliciterque eveniret precati deos, viam\n    ingredimur.\" I owe this reference, as others in this\n    context, to Appel's treatise _de Romanorum\n    precationibus_, p. 56 foll.\n\n    [522] Varro, _R.R._ i. 1.\n\n    [523] _e.g._ Virg. _Aen._ v. 685 (Aeneas during the\n    burning of the fleet); _Aen._ xii. 776 (Turnus in\n    extremity). Cp. Tibull. iii. 5. 6 (in sickness).\n\n    [524] A good example is _Captivi_, 922: \"Iovi disque ago\n    gratias merito magnas quom te redducem tuo patri\n    reddiderunt,\" etc.\n\n    [525] For gratitude to human beings see Valerius Maximus\n    v. 2. A good example of gratitude to a deity is in Gell.\n    _N.A._ iv. 18; but it is told of Scipio the elder, who\n    was eccentric for a Roman. When accused by a tribune of\n    peculation in Asia he said, \"Non igitur simus adversum\n    deos ingrati et, censeo, relinquamus nebulonem hunc,\n    eamus hinc protinus Iovi Optimo Maximo gratulatum.\"\n    Public gratitude to the gods is frequent in later\n    _supplicationes_, _e.g._ Livy xxx. 17. 6.\n\n    [526] Gellius, _N.A._ xiv. 7. 9.\n\n    [527] Servius ad _Aen._ xi. 301 (\"praefatus divos solio\n    rex infit ab alto\").\n\n    [528] This was in a _contio_: \"Cum Gracchus deos\n    inciperet precari.\" See above, Lecture VII. note 13.\n\n    [529] See _R.F._ p. 74 foll.; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 243.\n    For the relation of the pomoerium to the wall, see\n    above, p. 94.\n\n    [530] The process is amusingly explained by Carter in\n    _The Religion of Numa_, p. 72 foll.\n\n    [531] _R.F._ p. 75.\n\n    [532] See Aust, _De aedibus sacris P.R._, passim.\n\n    [533] Lately this has been denied by Pais, _Storia di\n    Roma_, i. 339.\n\n    [534] Pliny, _N.H._ 35, 154.\n\n    [535] I owe the information to my friend Prof. Percy\n    Gardner.\n\n    [536] See Carter, _op. cit._ p. 66; but I am not sure\n    that his reasons are conclusive.\n\n    [537] Diels, _Sibyllinische Blaetter_, p. 6 foll., and\n    cp. 79.\n\n    [538] It should be noted that the cult of Apollo in Rome\n    was older than the introduction of Sibylline influence;\n    so at least it is generally assumed. Wissowa, however\n    (_R.K._ p. 239), puts it as \"gleichzeitig.\" The date of\n    the Apollinar in pratis Flaminiis, the oldest Apolline\n    fanum in Rome (outside pomoerium), is unknown; that of\n    the temple on the same site was 431 (Livy iv. 25 and\n    29). There is little doubt that the Apollo-cult spread\n    from Cumae northwards, and was by this time well\n    established in Italy. (The foundation of the temple of\n    431, consisting of opus quadratum, still in part\n    survives: Huelsen-Jordan, _Rom. Topographie_, iii. 535).\n\n    [539] Heracleitus, _fragm._ xii., ed. Bywater.\n\n    [540] _Phaedrus_, p. 244.\n\n    [541] So Korte in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._, _s.v._\n    \"Etrusker.\"\n\n    [542] The present tendency is to take the plebs as\n    representing an older population of Latium before the\n    arrival of the patricians; see, _e.g._, Binder, _Die\n    Plebs_, p. 358 foll. But the plebs of later days is not\n    to be explained on one hypothesis only.\n\n    [543] _e.g._ in religious matters the _duoviri aedi\n    dedicandae_; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. 601 foll.\n\n    [544] Carter, _Religion of Numa_, p. 77 foll. It is\n    uncertain whether there was a Roman Mercurius of earlier\n    origin, or whether the name Mercurius (_i.e._ concerned\n    in trade) was a new invention to avoid using the Greek\n    name, as in the case of the trias Ceres, Liber, Libera.\n\n    [545] Carter, _op. cit._ 81. The connection of this\n    Poseidon-Neptunus and Hermes-Mercurius is confirmed by\n    the fact that the two were paired in the first\n    _lectisternium_, 399 B.C. Livy v. 13.\n\n    [546] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 254.\n\n    [547] See Diels, _Sib. Blaetter_, p. 12, note 1.\n\n    [548] Livy v. 13.\n\n    [549] I have discussed the possibility of the epulum\n    Iovis being an old Italian rite in _R.F._ p. 215 foll.\n    For the Greek origin of these shows see _Dict. of\n    Antiquities_, ed. 2, _s.v._ \"lectisternia.\"\n\n    [550] Livy iii. 5. 14, and 7. 7.\n\n    [551] The plebeian tendencies of the time are suggested,\n    _e.g._, by the fact that immediately before the first\n    _lectisternium_ a plebeian was elected military tribune\n    (Livy v. 13). The fourth century is of course the period\n    of plebeian advance in all departments, and ends with\n    the opening of the priesthoods to the plebs by the lex\n    Ogulnia, and the publication of the Fasti. Plebeian too,\n    I suspect, was the keeping open house and promiscuous\n    hospitality which is recorded by Livy of the first\n    _lectisternia_; this was the practice of the plebs on\n    the Cerealia (April 19), and was perhaps an old custom\n    connected with the supply of corn and the temple of\n    Ceres (see above, p. 255). It was not imitated by the\n    patrician society, with its reserve and exclusiveness,\n    till the institution of the Megalesia in 204 B.C. See\n    Gellius xviii. 2. 11.\n\n    [552] The expression _crinibus demissis_ is found in a\n    lex regia (Festus, _s.v._ \"pellices\"); the harlot who\n    touches Juno's altar has to offer a lamb to Juno\n    \"crinibus demissis.\" This is therefore Roman practice.\n\n    [553] For the _supplicationes_ see Wissowa, _R.K._ 357\n    foll.; Marq. 48 and 188; and the author's article in\n    _Dict. of Antiquities_. The passages already referred to\n    as doubtful evidence (Livy iii. 5. 14, 7. 7) describe\n    all the features of the _supplicatio_ as early as the\n    first half of the fifth century. A list of later\n    passages in Livy will be found in Marq. 49, note 4. On\n    the whole I doubt if much was made of these rites before\n    the third century and the Punic wars.\n\n    [554] Wissowa, _R.K._ 356, note 7.\n\n    [555] Caird, _Gifford Lectures_, vol. ii. p. 46.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XII\n\nTHE PONTIFICES AND THE SECULARISATION OF RELIGION\n\n\nIn the last lecture we saw how the new experiences of the Roman people,\nduring the period from the abolition of the kingship to the war with\nHannibal, led to the introduction of foreign deities and showy\nceremonies of a character quite strange to the old religion. But there\nwas another process going on at the same time. The authorities of that\nold religion were full of vigour in this same period; it may even be\nsaid, that as far as we can trace their activity in the dim light of\nthose early days, they made themselves almost supreme in the State. And\nthe result was, in brief, that religion became more and more a matter of\nState administration, and thereby lost its chance of developing the\nconscience of the individual. It is indeed quite possible, as has\nrecently been maintained,[556] that it stood actively in the way of such\ndevelopment. I have no doubt that there was a germ of conscience, of\nmoral feeling, in the _religio_ of old days--the feeling of anxiety and\ndoubt which originally suggested the _cura_ and _caerimonia_ of the\nState; but the efforts of the authorities in this period were spent in\ngradually destroying that germ. True, they did not interfere with the\nsimple religion of the family, which had its value all through Roman\nhistory; but the attitude of the individual towards public worship will\nreact on his attitude towards private worship, which may also have lost\nsome part of its vitality in this period.\n\nThe religious authorities of which I speak are of course the two great\ncolleges of pontifices and augurs. Of the latter, and of the system of\ndivination of which they held the secrets, I will speak in the next\nlecture. Here we have to do with the pontifices and their work in this\nperiod, a thorny and somewhat technical subject, but a most important\none for the history of Roman religious experience.\n\nI have so far assumed that this college existed in the age of the kings,\nand assisted the Rex in the administration of the _ius divinum_. It is\nlegitimate to do this, but as a matter of fact we do not know for\ncertain what was the origin of the college itself, or of its mysterious\nname. In the period we have now reached we come, however, upon a\nstriking fact, which is luckily easy to interpret; the king's house, the\n_Regia_, has become the office of the head of the college, the pontifex\nmaximus, and also the meeting-place of the college for business.[557]\nObviously this head, whether or no he existed during the kingly period,\nhas stepped into the place of the Rex in the control of the _ius\ndivinum_. Again, we know that in the third century B.C., when written\nhistory begins, the pontifices and their head had reached a very high\nlevel of power, as we shall presently see more in detail; the process of\nthe growth of this power must therefore lie in the two preceding\ncenturies, during which Rome was slowly attaining that paramount\nposition in Italy in which we find her at the time of the Punic wars.\nThirdly, we know that in that third century B.C. the college was laid\nopen to plebeians as well as to members of the old patrician gentes, and\nthat one of the most famous of all its many distinguished heads was not\nonly not a patrician, but a Latin from Cameria, Ti. Coruncanius. Putting\nthese three facts together we can divine in outline the history of the\npontifices during these two centuries. With the instinct for order and\norganisation that never failed them, the Romans have constructed a\n_permanent_ power to take charge of their _ius divinum_, _i.e._ all\ntheir relations to the deities with whom they must maintain a _pax_; the\ncircumstances of their career during two centuries have exalted this\npower to an extraordinary degree of influence, direct and indirect,\ninternal and external; and, lastly, in a period which saw the gradual\namalgamation into a unified whole of privileged and unprivileged,\n_patres_ and _plebs_, they have with wonderful wisdom thrown open to all\ncitizens the administration of that _ius_ which was essential to the\nwelfare of the united community. These are indisputable facts; and they\nare thoroughly characteristic of the practical wisdom of the Roman\npeople in that early age.\n\nIn order to understand how the pontifices attained their great position,\nthe one thing needful is to examine the nature of their work. This I\npropose to do next, and then to attempt to sum up the result of their\nactivity on the Roman religious system.\n\nIt is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the college in the\nearly history of Roman law; and for us in particular that importance\nlies in the fact that they were the sole depositaries of the religious\nlaw in the period during which the civil law was being slowly\ndisentangled from it. If we look at the so-called _leges regiae_, which\nare probably the oldest rules of law that have come down to us (though\nthey may have been made into a collection as late as the very end of the\nRepublic),[558] we see at once that they belong to the _ius divinum_;\nand there is little doubt that they were extracted from those books of\nthe pontifices which I shall have to explain later on.[559] In other\nwords, it is the maintenance of the _pax deorum_ that they are chiefly\nconcerned with; the crime of the citizen is a violation of that _pax_,\nand the deity most concerned will punish the community unless some\nexpiatory step is taken to re-establish the right relation between the\nhuman and divine inhabitants of the city. \"Pellex aram Iunonis ne\ntangito; si tanget, Iunoni crinibus demissis agnum feminam caedito.\" \"Si\nparentem puer verberit, ast olle plorassit, puer divis parentum sacer\nesto.\"[560] The harlot who touches the altar of Juno, the deity of\nmarried women, breaks the _pax_ with that deity, and she must offer a\npiacular sacrifice to renew it; the son who strikes a parent is made\nover as the property of the _divi parentum_, _i.e._ those of the whole\ncommunity,[561] the peaceful relation with whom his act has imperilled.\nWith such rules as these the civil magistrate of the republic can have\nhad nothing to do; they belong to an older period of thought and of\ngovernment, and survived in the books of the college which under the\nrepublic continued to administer the _ius divinum_; for these rules\ndoubtless continued to exist side by side with the civil law as it\ngradually developed itself, and the necessary modes of expiation were\nknown to the pontifices only. Roman society was indeed so deeply\npenetrated for many ages with the idea of _religio_--the dread of\nviolating the _pax deorum_,--that the idea of law as a matter of the\nrelation of man to man, as \"the interference of the State in the\npassions and interests of humanity only,\" must have gained ground by\nvery slow degrees. This primitive religious law then, _i.e._ the\nregulation of the proper steps to be taken to avoid a breach of the _pax\ndeorum_, was entirely in the hands of the religious authorities, the Rex\nat first and then the pontifices, as the only experts who could know the\nsecrets of the _ius divinum_; and from their decisions and prescriptions\nthere could be no appeal, simply because there was no individual or body\nin the State to whom an appeal was conceivable. But after the rule of\nthe Etruscan kings, with all its disturbing influences, and after the\nrevolution which got rid of them, there must have been an age of new\nideas and increased mental activity, and also of increasing social\ncomplexity, the signs of which in the way of trade and industry we have\nalready found in certain facts of religious history. In the domain of\nlaw this meant new problems, new difficulties; and these were met in the\nmiddle of the fifth century B.C., if the received chronology is to be\naccepted,[562] by the publication of the XII. Tables.\n\nIn order to get some idea of the work of the pontifices at this time,\nlet us consider one or two of these difficulties and problems.\n\nWithin the family every act, every relation, was matter of religion; the\n_numina_ had to be considered in regard to it. The end and aim, then as\nthroughout Roman history, was the maintenance of the _sacra_ of the\nfamily, without which it could not be conceived as existing--the due\nworship of its deities, and the religious care of its dead. Take\nmarriage as an example: \"the entry of a bride into the household--of one\nwho as yet had no lot in the family life--meant some straining of the\nrelation between the divine and human members,\"[563] and the human part\nof the family must be assured that the divine part is willing to accept\nher before the step can be regarded as complete. She has to enter the\nfamily in such a way as to share in its _sacra_; and if _confarreatio_\nwas (as we may believe) the oldest form of patrician marriage,[564] the\nbride was subjected to a ceremony which was plainly of a sacramental\ncharacter--the sacred cake of _far_ being partaken of by both bride and\nbridegroom in the presence of the highest religious authority of the\nState. In the simplest form of society there would be no call for\nfurther priestly interference in marriage; but in a society growing more\nnumerous and complex, exceptions, abnormal conditions begin to show\nthemselves, and new problems arise, which must be solved by new\nexpedients, prescriptions, permissions, devices, or fictions. For these\nthe religious authorities are solely responsible; for what is a matter\nof religious interest to the family is also matter of religious interest\nto the State, simply because the State is composed of families in the\nsame sense as the human body is composed of cellular tissue. All this,\nwe believe, was once the work of the Rex, perhaps with the college of\npontifices to help him; when the kingship disappeared it became the work\nof that college solely, with the pontifex maximus as the chief\nauthority.\n\nSo, too, in all other questions which concerned the maintenance of the\nfamily, and especially in regard to the devolution of property. I am\nhere only illustrating the way in which the pontifical college acquired\ntheir paramount influence by having a quantity of new and difficult work\nforced upon them, and it is not part of my plan to explain the early\nhistory of adoptions and wills; but I may give a single concrete\nillustration for the benefit of those who are not versed in Roman law.\nIt must constantly have happened, in that disturbed period which brought\nthe kingship to an end, that by death or capture in war a family was\nleft without male heirs. Daughters could not take their place, because\nthe _sacra_ of a family could not be maintained by daughters, who would,\nin the natural order of things, be sooner or later married and so become\nmembers of other families. Hence the expedient was adopted of making a\n_filius familias_ of another family a member of your own; and this, like\nmarriage, involved a straining of the relations between the human and\ndivine members of your family, and was thus a matter for the religious\nauthorities to contrive in such a manner as to preserve the _pax_\nbetween them. The difficulty was overcome by the practical wisdom of the\npontifical college, which held a solemn inquiry into the case before\nsubmitting it to the people in specially summoned assembly (_comitia\ncalata_);[565] and thus the new _filius familias_ was enabled not only\nto renounce his own _sacra_ (_detestatio sacrorum_), but to pass into\nthe guardianship of another set of _sacra_, without incurring the anger\nof the _numina_ concerned with the welfare of either.\n\nSuch difficult matters as these, and many more connected directly or\nindirectly with the devolution of property, such as the guardianship of\nwomen and of the incapable, the power to dispose of property otherwise\nthan by the original rules of succession, the law of burial and the care\nof the dead,--all these, at the time of which I am speaking, must have\nbeen among the secrets of the pontifices; and we can also suspect,\nthough without being sure of our facts, that the great increase of the\nimportance of the _plebs_ under the Etruscan dynasty offered further\nopportunities for the growth alike of the work and influence of the\ncollege.[566] Above all, we must remember that this work was done in\nsecret, that the mysteries of adjustment were unknown to the people when\nonce they had passed out of the ken of family and gens, and that there\ncould have been no appeal from the pontifices to any other body. Nay,\nmore, we must also bear in mind that this body of religious experts was\n_self-electing_. Until the lex Domitia of 104 B.C. both pontifices and\naugurs filled up their own colleges with persons whom they believed\nqualified both by knowledge and disposition. Thus it would seem that\nthere was every chance that in that early Rome, where neither in family\nnor State could anything be undertaken without some reference to the\nreligious authority, where the _pax deorum_ was the one essential object\nof public and private life, a power might be developed apt one day not\nonly to petrify religion and stultify its worshippers, but thereby also\nto cramp the energies of the community, acting as an obstacle to its\ndevelopment within its walls and without. Had Roman law remained\nentirely in the hands of this self-electing college, one of two things\nmust have happened: either that college would have become purely secular\nin character, or the wonderful legal system that we still enjoy would\nnever have had space to grow up. But this was not to be; with the\npublication of the XII. Tables a new era opens.\n\nIf we reject, as we conscientiously may, the latest attempts of\ncriticism to post-date the drawing up of the Tables,[567] and in fact to\ndestroy their historical value for us, what is their significance for\nour present purpose? It is simply that in the middle of the fifth\ncentury B.C. the pontifices lost a monopoly--ceased to be the sole\ndepositaries of the rules of law affecting the _pax deorum_, and that\nnew rules are being set down in writing, on the basis of old custom,\nwhich more especially affect the relations between the human citizens.\nFor both the _ius divinum_ and the _ius civile_ are to be found in this\ncollection, but the latter is beginning to assert its independence. I\nthink we may say, without much hesitation, that this event, however\ndoubtful its traditional details, did actually save Rome from either of\nthe two consequences to which I alluded just now. The constitution\ndeveloped itself on lay and not on ecclesiastical lines, leaving the\npontifices other work to do, and Roman civil law was eventually able to\nfree itself from the trammels of the _ius divinum_.\n\nBut for another century the college still found abundant legal work to\ndo, for it was not likely that at Rome, the most conservative of all\ncity-states, it could be quickly set aside, or that the old ideas of law\ncould so speedily disappear. What then was this work?\n\nWhen rules of civil law were written down, it was still necessary to\ndeal with them in two ways which were open to the pontifices, and indeed\nat this early time to no one else. First, it was necessary to make their\nprovisions effectual by prescribing in each case the proper method of\nprocedure (_actio_). Now it is most important to grasp the fact that\nprocedure in the _ius civile_ was originally of precisely the same\nnature as procedure in the _ius divinum_, and that precisely the same\nrigid exactness is indispensable in both. Action and formula in civil\nlaw belong to the same class of practices as sacrifice and prayer in\nreligious law, and spring from the same mental soil. Thus, for example,\nthe most familiar case of action and formula in civil law, the\n_sacramentum_, was, as the name proves, a piece of religious procedure,\n_i.e._ the deposition in a sacred spot of a sum of money which the\nsuitor in the case would forfeit if he lost it, together with the\nutterance of a certain formula of words which must be correctly spoken.\nIf we choose to go back so far, we may even see in this combination of\nformularised act and speech a survival of magical or quasi-magical\nbelief;[568] but this is matter rather for the anthropologist than the\nhistorian of religion. The point for us at this moment is that these\nacts and formulae (_legis actiones_, as they are known in Roman law)\ncould not suddenly or rapidly pass out of the hands of that body of\nskilled experts which had so long been in sole possession of them; the\npublication of old and new rules of law in the XII. Tables made no\nimmediate difference in this respect. The consuls, the new civil\nexecutive, were still in no sense necessarily skilled in such matters,\nand were without the prestige of the former executive, the Rex; they\nwere also doubtless busy with other work, especially in the field.\nNothing could be more natural than that the pontifices should continue\nto provide the procedure for the now written law, just as they had\nformerly supplied it for the unwritten.[569]\n\nSo, too, with the _interpretation_ of the Tables; this was the second\npart of the work that still remained to them. Writing was in that age a\nmystery to the mass of the population, and doubtless the idea was still\nin their minds that there was something supernatural about it. Writing,\nin fact, as well as formularised action and speech, may have had the\nflavour of magic about it. However that may be, there can be no doubt\nthat the interpretation of a legal document was in those days a much\nmore serious, if a less arduous business, than it is now. Here again,\nthen, it seems perfectly natural that there should be no rapid or\nviolent change in the _personnel_ of those deemed capable of such\ninterpretation; there was no other body of experts capable of the work;\nthe pontifices remained _iuris-consulti_, _i.e._ interpreters and\nadvisers, and in the course of two and a half centuries accumulated an\namount of material that formed a basis for the first published system of\nRoman law, the _ius Aelianum_ or _tripartita_ of 200 B.C. It is most\nuseful to remember, as proof of this, that one member of the college was\nselected every year for the special purpose of helping the people with\nadvice in matters of civil law, both in regard to interpretation and the\nchoice of _legis actiones_; so we are expressly told by Pomponius, who\nadds that this practice continued for about a hundred years after the\npublication of the Tables, _i.e._ till the election of the first praetor\nin 366.[570] After that date the _ius civile_ emerges more distinctly\nfrom the old body of law, which included also the _ius divinum_, and its\ninterpretation was no longer a matter purely for religious experts. In\n337 we hear of the first _plebeian_ praetor--truly a momentous event,\nshowing that the old profound belief is dying out, which demanded a\nreligious and patrician qualification for all legal work. And at the end\nof the fourth century comes the publication, not only of the _legis\nactiones_, but of the Fasti, _i.e._ even of that most vital part of the\n_ius divinum_, which distinguished the times and seasons belonging to\nthe numina from those belonging to the human citizens.[571] One might\nwell suppose that the power of the pontifices was on the wane, for they\nhad lost another monopoly.\n\nAnd indeed in one sense this was so. It must have been so, for as the\nrange of the State's activity increased, the sphere of religious\ninfluence became relatively less. Marriage, for example, though it still\nneeded a religious ceremony in common opinion, ceased to need it in the\neye of the law--a change which is familiar to us in our own age. The\npontifex was no longer indispensable to the suitor at law, nor to the\ncitizen who wished to know on what day he might proceed with his suit.\nThe college undoubtedly ceased to be the powerful secretly-acting body\nin whose hands was the entire _religio_ of the citizen, _i.e._ the\ndecision of all points on which he might feel the old anxious\nnervousness about the good-will of the gods. But now we mark a change\nwhich gave the old institution new life and new work. At the end of this\nfourth century (300 B.C.) it was thrown open to plebeians by the lex\nOgulnia; and, as I have already mentioned, within a few years we come\nupon a plebeian pontifex maximus, who was not even a Roman by birth, yet\none of the most famous in the whole series of the holders of that great\noffice. Most probably, too, the numbers of the members have already been\nincreased from five to nine, of whom five must be plebeian. These\nmembers begin to be found holding also civil magistracies, and the\npontifex maximus was often a consul of the year. It is quite plain then\nthat this priestly office is becoming more and more secularised; it\nexpands with the new order of things instead of shrinking into itself.\nIt leaves religion, in the proper sense of the word, far behind. The\nsacrificing priests, the flamines, etc., who were the humbler members in\na technical sense of the same college, go on with their proper and\nstrictly religious work under the supervision of the pontifex\nmaximus,[572] but they steadily become of less importance as the greater\nmembers become secularised in their functions and their ambitions. And\nthese greater members, instead of becoming stranded on a barren shore of\nantique religion, boldly venture into a new sphere of human life, and\nadd definite secular work to their old religious functions.\n\nThe events of the latter part of the fourth century B.C., culminating in\nthe publication of the Fasti and the _legis actiones_, probably meant\nmuch more for the Romans than we can divine by the uncertain light of\nhistorical imagination. It is the age of expansion, internal and\nexternal; the old patrician exclusive rule was gone beyond recall; the\nplebeians had forced their way into every department of government,\nincluding at last even the great religious _collegia_; the old Latin\nleague had been broken up, and the Latin cities organised in various new\nrelations to Rome, each one being connected with the suzerain city by a\nseparate treaty, sealed with religious sanctions. After the Samnite wars\nand the struggle with Pyrrhus, further organisation was necessary, and\nthere arose by degrees a loose system of union which we are accustomed\nto call the Italian confederation. The adaptation of all these new\nconditions to the existing order of things at Rome was the work of the\nsenate and magistrates so far as it concerned human beings only; but so\nfar as it affected the relations of the divine inhabitants of the\nvarious communities it must have been the work of the pontifices. That\nwork is indeed almost entirely hidden from us, for Livy's books of this\nperiod are lost, and Livy is the only historian who has preserved for us\nin any substance the religious side of Rome's public life. But what we\nhave learnt in the course of these lectures will have made it plain that\nno political changes could take place without involving religious\nadaptation, and also that the only body qualified to undertake such\nadaptation was the pontifical college.\n\nWe may thus be quite certain, that though they had lost their old\nmonopoly of religious knowledge, the pontifices found plenty of fresh\nwork to do in this period. It is my belief that they now became more\nactive than they ever had been. From this time, for example, we may\nalmost certainly date their literary or quasi-literary activity; I mean\nthe practice of recording the leading events of each year, which may\nhave had its origin a century earlier, with the eclipse of the sun in or\nabout 404 B.C.[573] I should guess that after the admission of the\nplebeians to the college in 300 B.C., the new members put fresh life and\nvigour into the old work, and developed it in various directions. It is\nin this period that I am inclined to attribute to the college that zeal\nfor compiling and perhaps inventing religious formulae of all kinds,\nwhich took shape in the _libri_ or _commentarii pontificum_, and\nembodied that strange manual of the methods of addressing deities, which\nwe know as _Indigitamenta_. And again, in the skilled work of the\nadmission of new deities and the dedication of their temples, occasioned\nby the new organisation and condition of Italy, and lastly, in the\nsupervision of the proper methods of expiating _prodigia_, which (though\nthe habit is doubtless an old one) began henceforward to be reported to\nthe Senate from all parts of the ager Romanus and even beyond, their\nmeetings in the Regia must have been fully occupied. Our loss is great\nindeed in the total want of detail about the life and character of the\ngreat plebeian pontifex maximus of the first half of the third century\nB.C., that Titus Coruncanius whom I have already mentioned as being a\nLatin by birth; for Cicero declares that the _commentarii_ of the\ncollege showed him as a man of the greatest ability,[574] whose\nreputation remained for ages as one who was ready with wise counsel in\nmatters both public and private. Coupling him with two other memorable\nholders of the office, he says that \"et in senatu et apud populum et in\ncausis amicorum et domi et militiae consilium suum fidemque\npraestabant.\"[575] This passage should be remembered as a valuable\nillustration of the way in which the college and its head were becoming\nmore and more occupied with secular business; it is worth noting, too,\nthat this great man was himself consul in the year 280, and took a\nuseful part in the first campaign against Pyrrhus.[576] Yet Cicero makes\nit plain that he looked on him also as a great figure in religious\nmatters--nay, even as a man whom the gods loved.[577]\n\nI will finish this lecture by illustrating briefly this renewed and\nextended activity of the pontifices, so far as we can dimly trace it in\nthis third century B.C. Most of it is connected more or less directly\nwith the State religion, yet with a tendency to become more and more\nsecular and perfunctory; the word _cura_ would express it better than\n_caerimonia_, and _caerimonia_ better than _religio_. The care of the\ncalendar, for example (a technical matter which lies outside my province\nin these lectures), was originally of religious importance, because the\noldest religious festivals marked operations of husbandry, and these,\nwhen fixed in the calendar, must occur at the right seasons.[578] It was\nthe duty of the pontifices so to adjust the necessary intercalations as\nto effect this object--a duty to which they were, as it turned out,\nquite unequal. But continued city life broke the connection between the\nfestivals and the agricultural work to which they originally\ncorresponded, and what was once a _cura_ of religious import became a\nsecular matter of which the value was not appreciated. So too with\nanother duty, for which both the Romans and ourselves have more reason\nto be grateful to them--the recording of the leading events of national\nhistory.\n\nIt is uncertain what prompted the college, or rather its head, to begin\nmaking these records, though there is no doubt about the fact. But it\nwould be natural enough that those who had charge of the calendar, which\nwould necessitate some record of years for purposes of intercalation,\nshould go on to mark the names of the consuls and such striking events\nas would make a year memorable. In any case this was what actually\nhappened. The pontifex maximus, we are told with precision, kept a\n_tabula_, or whited board, on which these events were noted down, with\nthe consuls' names attached to them, or possibly a kind of almanac, made\nout for the whole year, on which they could append their notes to\nparticular days.[579] This yearly _tabula_ was no doubt at first kept\nsecret, like all the pontifical documents, but sooner or later, perhaps\nat the same time as the publication of the _fasti_ and _legis actiones_,\nit was exposed to public view in or at the Regia.[580] This went on for\nat least two centuries, and the records, which in the nature of things\nmust have grown in length and detail as events became more startling and\nnumerous, were edited in eighty books by the pontifex maximus P. Mucius\nScaevola in 123 B.C.--the year of the first tribunate of C. Gracchus.\nThe large number of these books has long been a stumbling-block to the\nlearned, for we are expressly told that the _annales maximi_, as the\nrecords were called, were (in spite of their name) of a very meagre\ncharacter; and many conjectures have quite recently been made to explain\nit.[581] But guessing is almost useless, seeing that there are no data\nfor it. The editor may have added matter of his own, amplifying and\nadorning after the manner of writers of his day; or he may have worked\nin the contents of other pontifical books, _libri_ or _commentarii\npontificales_. The point for us is simply the continued activity of the\npontifex maximus in this work, which must have become almost entirely\nsecular in character. The notes may have been jejune, but they were\nprobably accurate, and free from the perversions of family vanity or\nsuch lengthy rhetorical ornamentation as became the universal fashion\namong private writers of annalistic history. They were, we may suppose,\nexactly what our modern historical conscience demands. But all that is\nleft of them, or almost all, is the list of consuls (_fasti consulares_)\nand of triumphs (_fasti triumphales_) which in their present form must,\nor at least may, have been extracted from them.[582] On the whole, we\nmay reckon them as the most valuable work of the college; and they may\nbe taken as marking a growing sense of the importance of Rome and her\nhistory, the commemoration of which is thus committed to an official\nwho, as an individual, had invariably served the State well, and in whom\nall classes had perfect confidence.[583]\n\nOne important part of the work of the college in this century must have\nbeen the adjustment of the civic religion of the Italian communities to\nthat of Rome. What deities were to be made citizens of Rome? Which were\nto be left in their old homes undisturbed? No doubt many other questions\nmust have called for attention in religious matters after the conquest\nof Italy, but this is the one of which we know most. The temple\nfoundations of this period have all been carefully put together (chiefly\nfrom Livy's invaluable records) by Aust,[584] and show that there was a\ncertain tendency to bring in deities from outside, not so much because\nthey represented some special need of the Romans, corn or art or\nindustry, as two centuries earlier, but simply because they were deities\nof the conquered whom it might be prudent to adopt. The great Juno\nRegina of Veii was long ago induced by _evocatio_ to migrate to Rome;\nFors Fortuna from Etruria, Juturna from Lavinium, Minerva Capta from\nFalerii, Feronia, a famous Latin goddess from Capena, Vortumnus from\nVolsinii,[585] all attest the same liberal tone in religious matters\nwhich on the whole marks the secular Italian policy of the Senate in\nthis period. If we had but more information about the former, we should\nbe able to understand the latter far better. We should like to know why\nin some cases the chief deity of a community came to Rome, while in\nothers there is not trace of migration. The famous Vacuna of Reate, for\nexample, never left her home in the Apennines, possibly because she was\na kind of Vesta, who could not be spared from Reate, and was not wanted\nat Rome.[586]\n\nThe list of foundations also points to other tendencies and experiences\nof the time. We might guess that there was some attempt, with the aid of\npontifical skill, to encourage agriculture or give it a fresh start\nafter the invasion of Pyrrhus; for between 272 and 264, the years of the\npacification of Italy, we find temples built to four agricultural\ndeities, three indigenous Roman ones, Consus, Tellus, Pales, and one\nEtruscan garden god, Vertumnus.[587] Then we have a group of foundations\nin honour of deities connected with water--Juturna, Fons, Tempestates,\nwhich seem to have some reference to the naval activity of the first\nPunic war; they all fall between 259 and 241 B.C.[588] Lastly, we notice\na fresh accession of deified abstractions,--Salus (an old deity in a new\nform), Spes, Honos et Virtus, Concordia, and Mens.[589] I am glad to\nfind that the latest investigator of these religious abstractions is at\none with me in believing that they simply mark a developed stage in the\nreligious bent of the earliest Roman. If the old Romans had the habit of\nspiritualising a great variety of material objects, in other words, if\nthey were in an advanced animistic stage, there seems to be no reason\nwhy they should not have begun to spiritualise mental concepts also (for\nwhich they had words, as for the material objects), even at a very early\nperiod. The whole psychological aspect of such abstractions is most\ninteresting, but I must pass it over here, merely suggesting that each\nof these abstractions was doubtless deified for some particular reason,\nunder the direction, or with the sanction, of the pontifices.[590]\n\nBut we have not as yet reached what is, after all, for our purposes the\nmost instructive part of the work of the pontifices--I mean the archives\nor memoranda (_libri_ or _commentarii_) which they kept, and from which,\nindirectly, much of what I have had to say about the _ius divinum_ has\nbeen drawn. It is here that we see the policy of maintaining the _pax\ndeorum_ carried to its highest point. These books contained a vast\ncollection of formulae for every kind of process in which the deities\nwere in any way concerned; here was the complete _pharmacopoeia_ of the\n_ius divinum_.[591] We must remember that the pontifex maximus and his\nassessors had to be ready at any moment with the correct formula for all\nreligious acts, whether extraordinary, like the _devotio_ of Decius or\nthe expiation of some startling \"prodigium,\" or belonging to the\nordinary course of city life, such as prayers in sacrificial ritual,\n_vota_ both public and private, charters (_leges_) of newly founded\ntemples, and so on. The idea that the spoken formula (ultimately, as we\nsaw, derived from an age of magic) was efficient only if no slip were\nmade, seems to have gained in strength instead of diminishing, as we\nmight have expected it to do with advancing civilisation; and the\npontifices not only responded to its importunity, but actually\nstimulated it. _Vires acquirit eundo_ are words which apply well in all\nages to the passion for organisation and precision. Though we cannot\nprove it, I myself have little doubt that the members of the college, or\nsome of them, collected and invented formulae simply for the pleasure of\ndoing it, and that the work became as congenial to them as the\nsystematisation of the law to Jewish scribes after the captivity, or as\ncasuistry to the confessors of the middle ages. When the art of writing\nbecame familiar to experts, the natural and primitive desire of the\nRoman to have exactness in the spoken word affected him also in his\nrelations with the word as written. The scribe and the Pharisee found\ntheir opportunity. The whole public religion of the State, and to some\nextent also the private religion of the family, became a mass of forms\nand formulae, and never succeeded in freeing itself from these fetters.\n\nWe can best illustrate this superfluity of priestly zeal in that strange\nlist of forms of invocation called _Indigitamenta_, which I have already\nexplained with the help of Wissowa.[592] Working upon the old Roman\nanimism, and the popular fondness for formulae, the pontifices drew up\nthose lists in the fourth and third centuries B.C., which have so\nseriously misled scholars as to the genuine primitive religious ideas of\nthe Romans. They are in the main priestly inventions, the work of\ningenious formulators. We may even be tempted to look on them as an\nattempt to rivet the yoke of priestly formalism on the life of the\nindividual as well as on the life of the State as a whole. But if ever\nthis was the intention, it was too late. A people that was beginning to\nget into touch with the civilisation of Hellas could not possibly bear\nsuch a yoke. In the last lecture we have already seen a tendency towards\nemotional religion independent of the old State worship; the philosophy\nof individualism was to complete the work of emancipation in the last\ntwo centuries B.C. The old State religion remained, but in stunted form\nand with paralysed vitality; Rome was the scene of an _arrested\nreligious development_. The feeling, the religious instinct (_religio_)\nwas indeed there, though latent; the Romans were human beings, like the\nrest of us. But as we go on with the story we shall find that, when\ntrouble or disaster brought it out of its hiding-place, it was no longer\npossible to soothe it on Roman principles or by Roman methods. These\nmethods--in other words, the _ius divinum_ as formulated by the\nauthorities--had been meant to soothe it, and had indeed so effectually\nlulled it to sleep, that when at last it awoke again they had lost the\npower of dealing with it. When the craving did come upon the Roman,\nwhich in time of peril or doubt has come upon individuals and\ncommunities in all ages, for support and comfort from the Unseen, it had\nto be satisfied by giving him new gods to worship in new ways, gods from\nGreece and the East, some of them concealed under Latin names, but still\naliens, not citizens of his own State, aliens with whom he had little or\nnothing in common, who had no home in his patriotic feeling, no place in\nhis religious experience.[593] As I said at the beginning of the last\nlecture, we must not underrate the religiousness of the Roman\ncharacter, which was never entirely lost; but the secret of its\ncomparative uselessness lies in this--that the natural desire to be\nright with the Power manifesting itself in the universe, and to know\nmore of that Power, became weakened and destroyed by an over-scrupulous\nattention to the means taken to realise it, and by the introduction of\nforeign methods which had no root in the mental fibre of the people, and\nreflected no part of its experience. Religion was effectually divorced\nfrom life and morality.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XII\n\n    [556] See Mulder, _De notione conscientiae, quae et\n    qualis fuerit Romanis_, Leyden, 1908, cap. 2. On p. 56\n    he quotes Luthard (_Die antike Ethik_, p. 131), who says\n    of the Roman religion that it was even more an affair of\n    the State than with any other people; hence its peculiar\n    legal character. Though Mulder overworks his point, his\n    chapter (especially p. 61 foll.) is full of interest.\n\n    [557] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 431. The first chapter of\n    Ambrosch's _Studien und Andeutungen_, in which the\n    nature and history of the Regia was first really\n    investigated, is still valuable. An excellent short\n    account is given by Mr. Marindin in his article in the\n    _Dict. of Antiquities_, ed. 2. It is now generally\n    maintained that the Regia in historical times was rather\n    a building for sacred purposes than a residence for a\n    man and his family, and this I hold to be correct; but\n    it may for all that have originally been the residence\n    of the Rex and of the Pont. Max. when the Rex had\n    disappeared.\n\n    [558] See Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_, i. 43,\n    where a succinct account is given of modern opinion as\n    to the so-called _ius Papirianum_. The main argument for\n    the late date of the collection is that Cicero does not\n    seem to have known of it when he wrote the letter _ad\n    Fam._ ix. 21 in 46 B.C. This of course in no way affects\n    the primitive character of the rules themselves.\n\n    [559] The inference that the rules were found in the\n    _Libri pontificum_ is inevitable in any case, but seems\n    proved by the fact that one of them, that relating to\n    the _spolia opima_, is stated by Festus, p. 189 (_s.v._\n    \"opima\"), to have been extracted from those books.\n\n    [560] Festus, _s.v._ \"pellices\" and _s.v._ \"plorare,\"\n    which latter word is interpreted as = _inclamare_.\n\n    [561] The _divi parentum_ are here generally taken as\n    those of the particular family, and this may have been\n    so; but cf. Wissowa, _R.K._ 192.\n\n    [562] For the attempts of Pais in Italy and Lambert in\n    France to date the Tables at the end of the fourth\n    century or later, see Schanz, _op. cit._ i. 41. In\n    Germany opinion is universally in favour of the\n    traditional date.\n\n    [563] See _Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero_, p.\n    135.\n\n    [564] On the religious character of _confarreatio_ see\n    De Marchi, _La Religione nella vita privata_, i. p. 145\n    foll.\n\n    [565] Cic. _de Domo_, 12. 14; Gellius, v. 19.\n\n    [566] See, _e.g._ Launspach, _State and Family in Early\n    Rome_, p. 256 foll. The last three chapters of this\n    little book, on Patria potestas, Marriage, and\n    Succession, will be found useful by those who cannot\n    enter into the many disputes and difficulties which have\n    arisen out of the attempts of writers on Roman law to\n    adjust legal ideas to the dim early history of Rome.\n    Binder, in his work _Die Plebs_, starts from the\n    improbable hypothesis that the plebs was the population\n    of the Latin part of the city as distinct from that\n    Sabine part on the Quirinal, which he believes to have\n    been the only patrician body; and he further believes\n    that the plebs lived originally under \"Mutterrecht,\" the\n    patres under \"Vaterrecht.\" Such a condition of society\n    would, of course, have greatly added to the pontifical\n    work of religious adjustment; it would have been more\n    than even the pontifices could have successfully\n    achieved.\n\n    [567] See above, note 7. Binder, _Die Plebs_, p. 488\n    foll., discusses, and in the main rejects, the arguments\n    of Pais and Lambert.\n\n    [568] So Huvelin, in a paper in _L'Annee sociologique_,\n    1905-6, p. 1 foll., criticised by Hubert et Mauss,\n    _Melanges d'histoire des religions_, p. xxiii. foll.\n\n    [569] From the religious point of view the _legis\n    actiones_ are best explained in Marquardt, 318 foll. Cp.\n    Muirhead, _Roman Law_, ed. 1899, pp. 246-7; Greenidge,\n    _Roman Public Life_, index _s.v._ \"legis actio,\" and\n    especially p. 87.\n\n    [570] The famous passage of Pomponius is in the\n    _Digest_, i. 2. 2, sec. 6 (for the work of Aelius, see\n    _Dig._ i. 2. 2, 38) \"ex his legibus ... actiones\n    compositae sunt, quibus inter se homines disceptarent:\n    quas actiones ne populus prout vellet institueret,\n    certas sollemnesque esse voluerunt.... Omnium tamen\n    harum et interpretandi scientia et actiones apud\n    collegium pontificum erant, ex quibus constituebatur,\n    quis quoquo anno praeesset privatis.\"\n\n    [571] Livy ix. 46 \"civile ius, repositum in penetralibus\n    pontificum, evulgavit (Cn. Flavius), fastosque circa\n    forum in albo proponit, ut quando lege agi posset\n    sciretur.\" Cp. Val. Max. ii. 5. 2. _Civile ius_ is here\n    usually taken as meaning the procedure; but this is a\n    passage which may give some countenance to those who\n    would put the publication of the XII. Tables later than\n    the traditional date.\n\n    [572] For the relation of the Flamines, Vestals, and Rex\n    sacrorum to the pontifex maximus, see Wissowa, _R.K._\n    432 foll.\n\n    [573] See above, p. 283. For the eclipse, Cic. _Rep._ i.\n    16. 25; and for the various scientific determinations of\n    its exact date, Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Lit._ vol. i.\n    (ed. 2) p. 37. \"Ex hoc die,\" writes Cicero, \"quem apud\n    Ennium et in maximis annalibus consignatum videmus,\n    superiores solis defectiones reputatae sunt.\"\n\n    [574] Cic. _Brutus_, 55 \"longe plurimum ingenio\n    valuisse.\"\n\n    [575] _De Orat._ iii. 33. 134.\n\n    [576] See _Dict. of Classical Biography_, _s.v._\n    \"Coruncanius.\"\n\n    [577] _Nat. deor._ ii. 165. Coruncanius is mentioned as\n    one of those whom the gods love, if indeed they take an\n    interest in human affairs.\n\n    [578] See above, p. 100 foll.; and _Roman Festivals_, p.\n    3.\n\n    [579] Our knowledge of this _tabula_ chiefly depends on\n    a passage in the Danielian scholiast on Virg. _Aen._ i.\n    373: \"ita enim annales conficiebantur. Tabulam dealbatam\n    quotannis pontifex maximus habuit, in qua praescriptis\n    consulum nominibus et aliorum magistratum, digna\n    memoratu notare consueverat domi militiaeque terra\n    marique gesta per singulos dies. Cuius diligentiae\n    annuos commentarios in octoginta libros veteres\n    retulerunt, eosque a pontificibus maximis, a quibus\n    fiebant, annales maximos appellarunt.\" The explanation\n    of the name is no doubt wrong; but all the rest of this\n    passage can be relied on; cp. Cic. _de Orat._ ii. 12.\n    52; Dion. Hal. i. 73, 74; Gell. ii. 28. 6; Cic. _Legg._\n    i. 2. 6. For the idea of the almanac, see Cichorius in\n    Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._, _s.v._ \"annales maximi.\"\n\n    [580] _Proponebat tabulam domi_, Cic. _de Orat._ ii. 12.\n    52. This must refer to the official residence of the\n    Pont. Max.; see above, p. 271.\n\n    [581] These attempted solutions of an insoluble problem\n    may be found in brief in Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Lit._\n    i. 37. Perhaps the boldest is that of Cantorelli, that\n    the annales were constructed not out of the tabula but\n    out of the commentarii; but this is in conflict with the\n    passage in the scholiast on Virgil. To me the difficulty\n    does not seem overwhelming; events occurring \"domi\n    militiaeque, terra marique,\" may have filled\n    considerable space, and yet have been meagre in the eyes\n    of the rhetoricians of the last century B.C.\n\n    [582] Schanz, _op. cit._ p. 35.\n\n    [583] The great authority of the Pont. Max. is well\n    shown in the story of Tremellius the praetor, who in the\n    middle of the second century B.C. was fined (by a\n    tribune?) \"quod cum M. Aemilio pontifice maximo\n    iniuriose contenderat, sacrorumque quam magistratuum ius\n    potentius fuit.\" Livy, _Epit._ 47.\n\n    [584] _De aedibus sacris populi Romani_, p. 10 foll.\n\n    [585] Aust, _op. cit._ p. 14 foll. See also _R.F._ p.\n    340 foll.\n\n    [586] For Vacuna, Wissowa, _R.K._ pp. 44 and 128. She\n    was later, but probably without good reason, identified\n    with Victoria. The conjecture that she was a hearth\n    deity rests on the lines of Ovid, _Fasti_, vi. 305,\n    which I have before referred to in another context:\n\n      ante focos olim scamnis considere longis\n        mos erat et mensae credere adesse deos.\n      nunc quoque cum fiunt antiquae sacra Vacunae,\n        ante Vacunales stantque sedentque focos.\n\n    [587] Aust, p. 14. For Vertumnus the _locus classicus_\n    is Propert. v. 2. It is not certain that the connection\n    with gardens was primitive.\n\n    [588] _R.F._ p. 341.\n\n    [589] _R.F._ p. 341.\n\n    [590] See Axtell, _The Deification of Abstract Ideas in\n    Roman Literature and Inscriptions_ (Chicago, 1907), p.\n    59 foll., where the views of Mommsen, Boissier,\n    Marquardt, and Wissowa are discussed. Axtell's own\n    conclusion is given on p. 62 foll. In the main it seems\n    to agree with that hazarded in my _Roman Festivals_, p.\n    190.\n\n    [591] For the evidence as to the contents of the\n    _commentarii_, which are now generally identified with\n    the _libri_, see Wissowa, _R.K._ 32 and 441; Schanz,\n    _op. cit._ i. 32; and the article \"Commentarii\" in\n    Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ As Wissowa remarks (p.\n    441, note 6), we are greatly in need of a complete\n    collection of all fragments of these archives.\n\n    [592] See above, p. 159 foll. The conviction that these\n    lists are of comparatively late and priestly origin,\n    which has long been growing on me, was originally\n    suggested by the learned article \"Indigitamenta\" by R.\n    Peter in Roscher's _Lexicon_, vol. ii. p. 175 foll.\n\n    [593] I have here adopted some sentences from my article\n    in the _Hibbert Journal_ for 1907, p. 854.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIII\n\nTHE AUGURS AND THE ART OF DIVINATION\n\n\n\"The one great corruption to which all religion is exposed is its\nseparation from morality. The very strength of the religious motive has\na tendency to exclude, or disparage, all other tendencies of the human\nmind, even the noblest and best. It is against this corruption that the\nprophetic order from first to last constantly protested.... Mercy and\njustice, judgment and truth, repentance and goodness--not sacrifice, not\nfasting, not ablutions,--is the burden of the whole prophetic teaching\nof the Old Testament.\"[594]\n\nThe over-formalising, or ritualising, of any religion is sure to bring\nabout that result against which the Jewish prophets protested. We saw at\nthe end of the last lecture how the pontifices contributed to such a\nresult. We are now to study the contribution of the other great college,\nthe augurs. For instead of developing, as did the wise man or seer of\nIsrael, into the mouthpiece of God in His demand for the righteousness\nof man, the Roman diviner merely assisted the pontifex in his work of\nrobbing religion of the idea of righteousness. Divination seems to be a\nuniversal instinct of human nature, a perfectly natural instinct,\narising out of man's daily needs, hopes, fears; but though it may have\nhad the chance, even at Rome, it never has been able, except among the\nJews, to emerge from its cramping chrysalis of magic and become a really\nvaluable stimulant of morality.\n\nBy divination I mean the various ways and methods by which, in all\nstages of his development, man has persuaded himself that what he is\ngoing to do or suffer will turn out well or ill for him. It is probably\njudicious, with Dr. Tylor and with the majority of recent\nanthropologists, to consider it as belonging to the region of\nmagic;[595] and it is obvious that it affords excellent examples of that\ninadequacy which characterises magical attempts to overcome the\ndifficulties man meets with in his struggle for existence.[596] It\nbelongs, like other forms of magic, to a stage in which man's idea of\nhis relation to the Power manifesting itself in the universe is both\nrude and rudimentary. But it shares with magic the power or property of\nsurviving, in form at least, through the animistic stage into that of\nreligion, and it is largely practised at the present day even among\nhighly civilised peoples.\n\nBut I must observe, before I go on, that divination as an object of\nanthropological inquiry still stands in need of a thorough scientific\nexamination. At present it seems to puzzle anthropologists;[597] and the\nreason probably is that the material for studying it inductively has not\nas yet been collected and sifted. Strange to say, it does not appear in\nthe index to Dr. Westermarck's great work, which I have so often quoted:\nit is hardly to be found even in the _Golden Bough_: nor can I find a\nthoroughgoing treatment of it in any other books about the early\nhistory of mankind. And any sort of guesswork under these circumstances\nonly increases our difficulties. Some years ago the great German\nphilosophical lawyer, von Jhering, in an interesting work called the\n_Evolution of the Aryan_, made some most ingenious attempts to explain\nthe origin of Roman divination. He fancied that the practice of\nexamining the entrails of a victim, for example, began in the course of\nAryan migration, because when you encamped in a new region you would\ncatch and kill some of the native cattle in order to see whether they\nwere wholesome enough to tempt you to stay.[598] Again, the study of the\nflight of birds was prompted by the desire to get information about the\nmountain passes and the course of great rivers; and this study grew into\nan elaborate art as the leader of the host, the prototype of the Roman\naugur, gained experience by constant observation from elevated\nground.[599] Such a theory as this last might be worth something if it\nwere based upon known facts; as it is, it is only most ingenious\nguesswork. This great legal writer did not know, as we do now, that\ndivination by both these methods is found all over the world, and cannot\nbe explained by any supposed needs of migrating Aryans.\n\nWhatever be the origin of the several forms of divination, the object of\nthe practice in ancient Italy and Greece is beyond doubt--to find out\nwhether the Power with whom you wish to be in right relation is\nfavourable to certain human operations, or willing to aid in removing\ncertain forms of human suffering. According to our definition, it was a\npart of religion, whether or no it belonged originally to magic. It was\na practical expression of that doubt or anxiety to which I believe the\nRomans attached the word _religio_. In the agricultural period it must\nhave been specially useful and even inevitable,[600] because the tiller\nof the soil is always in need of knowledge as to the best times and\nseasons for his operations, and his out-of-door life gives him constant\nopportunity of observing natural phenomena, _diosemeia_, signs from\nheaven, and the utterances and movements of birds and other animals. It\nis interesting to reflect that these last may often be of real service\nin foretelling the weather, which is so important to the farmer. As I\nwrite this on a December day I recall the fact that I have myself within\nthe last week successfully foretold a spell of cold after observing a\ngreat arrival of winter thrushes from the north. This particular branch\nof augury is, in fact, neither so inadequate nor so absurd as most\nothers. Von Jhering may turn out to be right in his notion that at least\nsome forms of divination have their origin in practical needs and in the\nskill of uncivilised man in discerning the signs of the weather--a skill\nwhich it is well to remember far exceeds that of the house-dweller of\nmodern civilisation. But with the growth of the City-state and the\nhabits of life in a town, these early instincts and methods of the\nagriculturist came to be caught up into a system of religious practice,\nadapted to the conditions of civil and political existence; thus they\ngradually lost their original meaning and such real value as they ever\npossessed. I have pointed out that the Roman festivals and the ritual of\nthe oldest calendar gradually got out of relation with the agricultural\nlife in which they for the most part originated:[601] so it was with\ndivination, which in the hands of the State authorities became\nformalised into a set of rules for ascertaining the good-will of the\ngods, and obtaining their sanction for the operations of the community,\nwhich had no scientific basis whatever, no relation to truth and fact.\nOf all the methods for putting yourself in right relation with the\nPower, this was the least valuable, and indeed the most harmful; it came\nin course of time to be a positive obstacle to efficiency and freedom of\naction, it wasted valuable time, and it often served as the means of\npromoting private ends to the detriment of the public interest.\n\nBefore I go on to consider the development of the highly formalised\nsystem of public divination, let me clear the ground by a few remarks\nabout such forms of the practice as were not sanctioned by the State.\nThat these existed throughout Roman history there is no doubt, as they\nexisted in Greece, among the Jews, and elsewhere in the East, alongside\nof the advanced and organised methods of official and authorised\nexperts.\n\nOur information about private divination is scattered about in Roman\nliterature, and even when brought together there is not a great deal of\nit. What is prominent both in Roman literature and Roman history is the\ndivination authorised by the State and systematised by its authorities;\neven in Cicero's treatise _de Divinatione_, though the subject-matter is\nof a general kind, drawn from Greece as well as Rome, it is, I think,\napart from philosophical questions, chiefly the art of augurs and\nharuspices that interests the writer, who was himself an augur when he\nwrote it. In Greek literature exactly the opposite is the case; there we\nhear little of State-authorised divination, and a great deal of\nwandering soothsayers, soothsaying families, and oracles which (except\nat Delphi) were not under the direct control of a City-state.[602] The\nmethods of divination are much the same in both peninsulas, and indeed\nvary little all the world over; the difference lies simply in\nthis,--that at Rome the adoption and systematisation by the State of\ncertain methods, especially those which dealt with birds and lightning,\nhad the effect of discrediting, if not excluding, an immense amount of\nprivate practice of this kind. I mean that if the State strongly\nsanctions some forms of divination, working them by its own officials,\nit casts a shadow of discredit over the rest. As the _ius divinum_\ntended to exclude magic and the barbarous in ritual, so did the _ius\naugurale_, which was a part of it, exclude the quack in divination. And\nin this particular department of human delusion the result may be said\nto have been happy; for though divination belongs to religion as having\nsurvived from an earlier stage into a religious one, yet it is the least\nvaluable, the least fruitful, part of it.[603] True, the augural\nsystematisation, as we shall see, had a sinister effect on political\nprogress; but even there the very emptiness and absurdity of the whole\nbusiness helped to bring contempt on it, and, as Cicero tells us in a\nwell-known passage, even old Cato declared that he could not imagine why\na _haruspex_ did not laugh when he met a brother of the craft.[604] In\nGreece, on the contrary, it might, I believe, be shown that the absence\nof systematisation by the State only served to prolong the credit and\ninfluence of the professional quack.\n\nGreece was at all periods full of these quacks; did the sham prophet\nexist at Rome in the period we have now under review? Later on the\nOriental soothsayer found his way there; of these _Chaldaei_ and\n_mathematici_ I shall have a word to say in another lecture, and we\nshall see how the State authorities made occasional attempts to exclude\nthem. Of the _frantic_ type of diviner, the [Greek: entheos], so common\nin Greece, we hear nothing in the sober Roman annals; the idea of a\nhuman being \"possessed by a spirit of divination\" seems foreign to the\nRoman character.[605] The only soothsayer, so far as I know, who appears\nin Roman legend in a private capacity is that Attus Navius who gave\nTarquinius Priscus the benefit of his knowledge; and he is represented\nas a respectable Sabine, and his art as an augural one learnt from the\nEtruscans.[606] There are, indeed, ancient traces of a prophetic art at\nRome, but, as the historian of divination has well observed, they are\nall connected not with human beings, but with divinities, a fact which\nexplains the Latin word _divinatio_.[607] To take what is perhaps the\nbest example, the ancient deity Carmenta, who had a flamen and a double\nfestival in the month of January, may very probably represent some dim\ntradition of a _numen_ at whose shrine women might gain some knowledge\nas to their fortunes in childbirth, just as outside Rome, at Praeneste\nand Antium, Fortuna seems to have had this gift in historical\ntimes.[608] So St. Augustine interpreted Carmenta,[609] probably\nfollowing Varro; and to Virgil she was the \"_vates fatidica_, cecinit\nquae prima futuros Aeneadas magnos et nobile Pallanteum.\"\n\nBut Carmenta, Picus, Faunus, are dim mythical figures which for us can\nhave no bearing on Roman religious experience; it would be more to the\npoint to ask what was the original meaning and history of the word\n_vates_, if the question were answerable in the absence of an early\nRoman literature. All we can say about this is that this word had, as a\nrule, a certain dignity about it, which enabled it eventually to stand\nfor a poet, and that it rarely has a sinister sense, unless accompanied\nby some adjective specially used in order to give it.[610] The real word\nfor a quack is _hariolus_, and the fact that it is comparatively rare\nsuggests that the character it expresses was not a common one. It occurs\nhere and there in fragments of old plays, where, unluckily, we cannot be\nquite sure whether it represents a Greek or a Latin idea. The following\nlines from the Telamo of Ennius shows us the _hariolus_, as well as the\nword _vates_ with a discreditable adjective attached:\n\n  sed superstitiosi vates impudentesque harioli\n  aut inertes, aut insani, aut quibus egestas imperat,\n  qui sibi semitam non sapiunt, alteri monstrant viam,\n  quibu' divitias pollicentur, ab iis drachmam ipsi petunt.[611]\n\nA more satisfactory bit of evidence as to the existence of the quack in\nthe second century B.C., when Greece and the East were beginning to pour\ntheir unauthorised religionists into Italy, is the interesting passage\nin old Cato's book on agriculture, in which he urges that the bailiff of\nan estate should not be permitted to consult either a _haruspex_,\n_augur_, _hariolus_, or _Chaldaeus_.[612] But on the whole, such little\nevidence as we possess seems to confirm the view I hazarded just now,\nthat the overwhelming prestige of State authority at Rome discouraged\nand discredited the quack diviner both in public and private life. His\nwork in private life was largely that of fortune-telling, of foretelling\nthe future in one sense or another; and this was exactly what the State\nauthorities never did and never countenanced, at any rate until the\nstress of the Hannibalic war, and then only in a very limited sense.\nTheir object was a strictly religious one, to get the sanction of the\ndivine members of the community for the undertakings of the human ones.\nEven the so-called Sibylline oracles, as we saw, were not prophecies;\nand the augural art never provided an answer to the question, \"What is\ngoing to happen?\" but only to that much more religious one, \"Are the\ndeities willing that we should do this or that?\"[613]\n\nBut before I leave the subject of private divination, I must note that\nthere was a department of it which may be called legitimate, as\ndistinguished from that of the quack. I mean the _auspicia_ of the\nfamily religion, and also the comparatively harmless folklore about\nomens of all sorts and kinds.\n\nNaturally we have little information about legitimate _auspicia_ in the\nlife of the family; but we have seen that the religious instinct of the\nRoman forbade him to face any important undertaking or crisis without\nmaking sure of the sanction of the _numina_ concerned, and among the\nmethods of insurance (if I may use a convenient word) the _auspicia_\nmust have had a place from the earliest times. No important thing was\ndone, says Cicero in the _de Divinatione_, \"nisi auspicato, ne privatim\nquidem.\"[614] Valerius Maximus says the same in so many words, and some\nother evidence has been collected by De Marchi in his work on the\nprivate religion of the Romans.[615] But only in the case of marriage do\nwe hear of _auspicia_ in historical times, and even there they seem to\nhave degenerated into a mere form. \"Auspices nuptiarum, re omissa, nomen\ntantum tenent\"--so Cicero wrote of his own time;[616] he seems to be\nthinking of augury by means of birds, for he adds, \"nam ut nunc extis\nsic tunc avibus magnae res impetrari solebant.\" As we have already seen,\nthe object of the examination of a victim's entrails was simply to\nascertain its fitness to be offered; but by Cicero's time the Etruscan\nart of divination by this method must have penetrated into private life.\nI think we may conjecture that in the life of the family on the land the\n_auspicia_, as the word itself implies, were worked chiefly by\nobservation of birds. Nigidius Figulus, the learned mystic of Cicero's\ntime, wrote a book, _de Augurio Privato_, of which one fragment survives\nwhich has to do with this kind of divination, and with the distinction\nbetween omens from birds seen on the right or left, and from high or low\nflyers.[617] In the familiar ode of Horace beginning, \"Impios parrae\nrecinentis omen,\"[618] the _corvus_ and _cornix_ are mentioned besides\nthe _parra_, and in that wholesome old out-of-door life of the farm, as\nI said just now, there was a certain basis of truth and fact in the\nobservation of such presages. But Horace mentions other animals, wolf,\nfox, and snake, and some at least of the folklore about omens which is\nto be found in Pliny's descriptions of animals may help us to appreciate\nthe nature of the old Roman ideas on this subject. The tiller of the\nland and the shepherd on the uplands used their eyes and ears, not\nwholly without advantage to themselves; but in the life of the city such\nobservation became gradually formal and meaningless, and degenerated\ninto the superstition reflected in Horace's ode. I must parenthetically\nconfess to a personal feeling of regret that this people, who in their\nearly days had good opportunities, made little or no contribution to the\nknowledge of animals and their habits.[619] But I must pass on to the\nmore important subject of divination as developed and formalised by the\nauthorities of the State.\n\nIn explaining the ritual of the _ius divinum_ I laid stress on the fact\nthat its main object was to maintain the _pax deorum_, the right\nrelation between the divine and human citizens.[620] To make this _pax_\nsecure, it was necessary that in every public act the good-will of the\ngods should be ascertained by obtaining favourable auspices--it must be\ndone _auspicato_. To take the first illustration that occurs, Livy\ndescribes a dictator about to fight a battle as leaving his camp\n_auspicato_, after sacrificing to obtain the _pax deorum_.[621] It is\nfor this reason that the _auspicia_ have a leading place in the\nfoundation legends of the city. We are all familiar with the story of\nthe _auspicia_ of Romulus and Remus, which goes back at least as far as\nEnnius;[622] and we find them also in the foundation of _coloniae_ in\nhistorical times.[623] I do not know that I can better express the place\nwhich the _auspicia_ occupied in the mind of the Roman than by quoting\nthe words which Livy puts into the mouth of Appius Claudius in 367 B.C.,\nwhen supposed to be inveighing against the opening of the consulship to\nplebeians: \"Auspiciis hanc urbem conditam esse, auspiciis bello ac pace,\ndomi militiaeque, omnia geri, quis est qui ignoret?\" He goes on to argue\nthat these _auspicia_ belong to patricians only, that no plebeian\nmagistrate is created _auspicato_, that the man who wants to allow\nplebeians to become curule magistrates, _tollit ex civitate auspicia_.\n\"Nunc nos, tanquam iam nihil pace deorum opus sit, omnes caerimonias\npolluimus.\"[624] This is, of course, only Livy's rhetoric, but it\nrepresents the fundamental Roman idea of the public _auspicia_.\n\nThe passage is also useful because it alludes to the fact that the right\nof taking the _auspicia_ belonged ultimately to the whole patrician body\nof fully qualified citizens.[625] But so far as we can discern in the\ndim light of the earliest period, this body entrusted the right and duty\nto its chief magistrate, the Rex, exactly as it entrusted him with the\n_imperium_, the supreme power of command in civil matters. Thus the\n_auspicia_ and the _imperium_ were indissolubly connected; as Dr.\nGreenidge says,[626] \"they are the divine and human side of the same\npower,\" and may be found together in a thousand passages in Roman\nliterature and inscriptions. But at the side of the Rex we find,\naccording to tradition, two helpers or advisers called _augures_, the\nthree together perhaps forming a _collegium_.[627] Now there was\ncertainly an important difference between the Rex and the augurs; the\nlatter were aiders and interpreters, but the Rex only was said _habere\nauspicia_, just as the whole patrician body had this right, though they\ndelegated it to the Rex during his lifetime, and on his death received\nit again. The man who \"habet auspicia\" has the right of _spectio_,\n_i.e._ of taking the auspices in a particular case,[628] of watching the\nsky or the conduct of the sacred fowls in eating; this right the augurs\nnever had. Their power was limited to guidance and interpretation. This\nfollows necessarily from the fundamental principle that the _auspicia_\nand the _imperium_ were indissolubly connected; for the augur, of\ncourse, never possessed the _imperium_ by virtue of his office. It is\ntrue that of the augur in the regal period we know almost nothing; his\nart, as we shall see directly, was kept strictly secret, and he was\nbound by oath not to reveal it.[629] But we may safely argue back in\ngeneral terms from the relation of magistrate and augur under the later\nRepublic to the relation of augur and Rex, from whom descended the\nmagistrate's _imperium_. The one essential thing to remember is that _it\nwas in all periods the magistrate who was responsible_, under the\nsanction and advice of his assistants the pontifices and augurs, for the\nmaintenance of the _pax deorum_. The lay element in the actual working\nof the constitution never lost this prerogative. Rome was never\nhierarchically governed.\n\nIt would be going beyond the scope of these lectures if I were to plunge\nat this point into the thorny question of the exact relation between\nmagistrate and augur in respect of details. Nor do I propose to go into\nthe minutiae of augural lore, which are not instructive, like those of\nsacrifice, for our survey of Roman religious experience. It will be\nsufficient to state in outline what I believe to be necessary for our\npurpose.[630] The person who had the _auspicia_, _i.e._ originally the\nRex, like the later magistrate, had to watch for signs from heaven; in\norder to do so he marked out a _templum_, a rectangular space, by noting\ncertain objects, trees or what not, beyond which, whether he looked at\nearth or sky, he need take no notice of what he saw. The spot where he\ntook up his position for this purpose was itself a rectangular\nspace,[631] marked out on a similar principle; in each case the space\nwas _liberatus effatus_, _i.e._ freed from previous associations by a\nform of words, and ready, if need were (as in the case of _loca sacra_)\nto be further handed over to the deities as their property; this\nconsecration, however, did not, of course, follow in the ordinary\nprocedure of the _auspicia_. In the _urbana auspicia_ all _loca effata_\nmust be within the sacred boundary of the _pomoerium_. Within this the\nmagistrate watched in silence at the dead of night for such signs as he\nespecially asked for (_auspicia impetrativa_); those which offered\nthemselves without such specification (_oblativa_) he was not bound to\ntake cognisance of unless some one claimed his attention for them. The\nsigns were originally in the regal period, if we may guess from the word\n_auspicium_, only such as birds supplied, and the space in which they\nwere watched for was not complicated by the divisions of the later\naugural art.[632] The business of the augur was, we may suppose, to see\nthat the details were carried out correctly, and to interpret the signs;\nbut those signs were not sent to _him_, for he was not the actual\nrepresentative of the State in this ritual.\n\nIf the constitutional position and duty of the augurs have now been made\nsufficiently clear, I may go on to explain briefly, as in the case of\nthe pontifices, how the office became gradually secularised, and the\nduty formalised, so that if there ever had been anything of a really\nreligious character in this art, any genuine belief in the manifestation\nby the Power of his will in matters of State life, such character, such\nbelief, had become by the second century B.C. entirely paralysed and\ndestroyed. But the history of the augurate is much more difficult to\nfollow than that of the pontificate. The work of the pontifices touched\nthe life of every day, public and private, at many points, with the\nresult that their secrets ceased to be secrets by the end of the fourth\ncentury B.C. The work of the augurs was occasional, and more technical\nthan that of the other college; it can hardly be said to have affected\nthe religion of family life, nor did it continually bear upon public\nlife, as did the pontifical knowledge of the _ius divinum_ and the\ncalendar. Hence the augural lore was never published, under pressure of\npublic opinion, and neither ancient nor modern scholars have had to\nwaste their time in investigating it. Books were indeed written about it\nin later times by one or two curious students, but in the time of\nCicero, who was himself an augur, the neglect of it was general, even by\nmembers of the college.[633]\n\nThis mysterious augural lore was preserved in books, like that of the\npontifices; and in all probability these books were put together in the\nsame period as the latter, viz., the two centuries immediately following\nthe abolition of the kingship.[634] I think there is a strong\nprobability that the augurate emerged from the age of Etruscan rule\nwhich marks the latter part of the kingly period, with increased\nimportance and fresh activity, the result of immediate contact with\nEtruscan methods of divination.[635] It is likely that they began in\nthis way to cultivate the art of divination by lightning, which was\npeculiarly Etruscan, and to divide their _templum_ into _regiones_,\nwhich, as I said just now, were not apparently needed for the\nobservation of omens from birds. How far they carried this art we cannot\ntell, owing to the loss of their books and the commentaries upon them;\nbut about the Etruscan discipline we do know something. Those who wish\nto have a glimpse of it may consult the first chapter of the fourth\nvolume of Bouche-Leclercq's _History of Divination_, as a more\nintelligible account than any known to me.[636] But all I need to insist\non now is the likelihood that the augurs began the Republican period\nwith a power of interpretation which was the more important because the\nart was changed; it is now the depository not only of the old bird lore,\nbut of the new lightning lore. And as this last became the peculiar\ncharacteristic of the art of public divination, and as the augurs were,\nlike the pontifices, a close self-electing corporation until 104 B.C.\nand a close self-electing _patrician_ body until the lex Ogulnia of 300\nB.C., holding secret meetings every month on the _arx_,[637] and\nrecording their lore in books which were never made public, they might\nwell have grown into a powerful hierarchy, _if they had only been\npossessed of the right of spectio_. What saved Rome from this fate was\nsimply the fact that the college was a body of interpreters only, or, in\nother words, the principle that the _auspicia_ belonged exclusively to\nthe magistrate. The _auspicia_ were in fact a matter of public law, not\nof religion, properly speaking; the idea on which they were based, that\nthe sanction of the deities was needed for every public action, very\nearly lost its true significance, and the process of taking them became\na mere form, the religious character of which was almost entirely\nforgotten. They ceased to be matter of religion just as the amulet or\nany other form of preventive magic fails to be reckoned as within the\nsphere of religion; the feeling was there that they must be attended to\n(though even that feeling lost its strength in course of time), but only\nas a matter of custom, not because the Power was really believed to\nsanction an act in this way.\n\nThus it seems that the importance of the augurs belongs to Roman public\nlaw, and not to the history of Roman religious experience. It will be\nfound fully explained, in that connection, in Mommsen's _Staatsrecht_,\nor in Dr. Greenidge's volume on _Roman Public Life_.[638] All we have to\nnote here is the complete secularisation of what was once really a part\nof the Roman religion; the augurs themselves were public men and could\nhold magistracies, and their art of interpretation came to be used for\nsecular and political purposes only. They could declare a magistrate\n_vitio creatus_, whether they had been present at the taking of the\nauspices or not; they could also on appeal stop the proceedings at a\npublic assembly, whether for election or legislation; it may be said of\nthem that in one way or another they had a veto on every public\ntransaction.[639] As Cicero expresses it in his _ius divinum_, in the\nsecond book of his work on the constitution: \"Quae augur iniusta nefasta\nvitiosa dira defixerit inrita infectaque sunto, quique non paruerit,\ncapital esto.\"[640] But in spite of the fine words _iniusta nefasta\nvitiosa_, there was no religious principle involved in this solemn\ninjunction. When Bibulus in 59 B.C. sought as consul to stop Caesar's\nproceedings by using his right of _spectio_, all he had to do was to\nannounce that he was going to look for lightning (_obnuntiare_); and if\nthere had been the smallest remnant of religious belief left in the\nRoman mind about such transactions, it would quietly have acquiesced, in\nthe conviction that Jupiter would send lightning to the Roman magistrate\nwho asked for it; as it was, Caesar took no notice, and the Roman people\nonly laughed. Caesar was at the time, let us note, the head of the Roman\nreligion, pontifex maximus. So with the augurs as the interpreters of\nthe magisterial _spectio_; proud as Cicero was of becoming an augur,\nwith all the old surviving elective ritual,[641] he never, we may be\nsure, believed for a moment that he had the power of interpreting the\nwill of the gods. A century before his augurship the whole business of\npublic divination had been regulated by statute, like any other secular\nmatter; and in his own day it was an open question with men of education\nwhether there were such a thing as divination at all.[642] True, as we\nshall see, the _illegitimate_ forms of divination were at this very time\ngaining ground, as the current of superstition increased in strength\nwhich marks this last period of the republic; but the augur's art and\nthe _spectio_ of the magistrate were still surviving as mere\nconstitutional fossils, and were not destined to share largely in\nAugustus' heroic attempt to put fresh life into the _ius divinum_. _Vile\ndamnum_, as Tacitus said of the foreign quacks banished to Sardinia by\nTiberius; for neither in the sphere of religion nor later in that of\npolitics can the art of divination be said to have had any lasting\nvalue.\n\nI have not dealt at any length with the augurs and the State system of\ndivination, but I hope I have said enough to show that, as I hinted at\nthe beginning of this lecture, it affords an excellent illustration of\nthe way in which the religious instinct, the desire to be in right\nrelation with the Power manifesting itself in the universe, was first\nsoothed and satisfied, then hypnotised and paralysed, by the\nformalisation and gradual secularisation of religious processes. The\ndesire to obtain the sanction of the Power by seeking for favourable\nsigns or omens seems to be a universal instinct of human nature, though\na perverse one; if left to itself it will apparently pass into the\nregion of harmless folklore, where it does not seriously interfere with\nhuman progress, either secular or religious; but where, as at Rome, it\nis taken up into the ritual of a religious system, and is further\nallowed to express itself mechanically in the region of public law, it\nexhausts itself rapidly, loses all its original significance, and\nbecomes a clog on human progress.\n\nIn ancient Italy this instinct for divination was nowhere so strongly\nand so perversely developed into a mechanical system as in Etruria, and\nit is highly probable that this development contributed largely to the\nrapid political and moral decay of the Etruscan people. The narrow\naristocratic constitution of the Etruscan cities, worked by a kind of\npriestly nobility, seems to have afforded great opportunities for the\ncultivation of the perverse art which (as we are now beginning to\nrecognise) this people had brought with them from the East.[643] I have\nalready suggested that an Etruscan dominion at Rome had very probably\nunfortunate results in developing and formalising the art of the augurs.\nBut the age of the Tarquinii was not the only one in which the sinister\ninfluence of this strange people was brought to bear on Roman religious\ninstitutions; and before I close this lecture I must say a very few\nwords about a second invasion of Etruscan perversity, which began some\ntwo centuries and a half later. This was the result of that renewed\n_religio_, that feeling of anxiety and sometimes of despair\ncharacteristic of the last half of the third century B.C., the perilous\nera of the Punic wars, with which I shall deal more particularly in the\nnext lecture. The state religion could not soothe it; neither pontifices\nnor augurs had any sufficient native remedy for it, and as the ritual of\nworship was reinforced from Greece and the East, so the ritual of\ndivination was reinforced from Etruria.\n\nThe Etruscans seem to have educated their diviners with care and system.\nWe do not know the details of such education, but it seems likely that\nthere were schools of these prophets, by means of which the art was\nhanded down and developed.[644] The word for the person thus trained was\n_haruspex_ in its Italian form as known to us, though it had an Etruscan\noriginal.[645] The art acquired was of three kinds--the interpretation\nof lightning; the explanation and interpretation of the entrails of\nvictims, and especially of the liver; and, thirdly, the explanation and\nexpiation of portents and prodigia.[646] All three departments seem to\nhave been carried to an extreme degree of perverse development. To give\nan idea of it I need but refer to recent discussions of the relation\nbetween the divisions marked on a bronze model of a victim's liver\n(found in 1877 at Piacenza), in which are written the Etruscan names of\na great number of deities, and the somewhat similar divisions of the\ntemplum of the heavens as given by Martianus Capella in explanation of\nthe celestial dwellings of the Italian deities. A study of this\nunprofitable subject, of which the only interest lies in the\nillustration it offers of the prostitution of human ingenuity, will be\nfound in a little work by Carl Thulin, published in the series called\n_Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten_.[647]\n\nJust as the Roman authorities had recourse from time to time to the\nSibylline books, so also they occasionally, though not apparently before\nthe Punic wars, sought the help of the trained Etruscan diviners. We\nshall come across instances of this in the next two lectures, and I need\nnot specify them now. They seem to have used their art in all its\ndepartments; and in the most degraded of these, the examination of\nentrails, it was found so convenient to have their services in a\ncampaign that in course of time one at least seems to have accompanied\nevery Roman army.[648] The complicated art of augury might in fact be\ndispensed with if you had a _haruspex_ ready and willing at a moment's\nnotice to give you a good report of the victim's liver. To keep up the\nsupply of experts, the senate, probably in the second century B.C.,\ndetermined to select and train ten boys of noble family in each Etruscan\ncity. This was the last service that the degenerate Etruscan people\nrendered to its conquerors, and a more degrading one it is impossible to\nimagine. These foreign diviners were never admitted to the dignity of a\n_collegium_;[649] they rather played the part of the domestic chaplain\nkept to say grace before meat. For a moment they attract our attention\nin connection with the persecution of Cicero by his political enemies,\nand the _consecratio_ after his exile of the site of his house on the\nPalatine hill.[650] For a moment again we meet with them in the reign of\nClaudius, who was interested in the Etruscans and wrote a work about\nthem, and once raised the question in the senate of the revival of the\nharuspices and their art--such part of it, at least, as might seem worth\npreserving--\"ne vetustissima Italiae disciplina per desidium\nexolesceret.\"[651] And strange to say, though in fact no part of this\nancient Italian discipline was in the least worth preserving, it\nsurvived in outward form into the fourth century of the empire.[652] We\nread with astonishment in the code of the Christian emperor Theodosius,\nthat if the imperial palace or other public buildings are struck by\nlightning the haruspices are to be consulted, according to ancient\ncustom, as to the meaning of the portent.[653] Thirteen years after the\ndeath of Theodosius, in 408, Etruscan experts offered their services to\nPompeianus, prefect of Rome, to save the city from the Goths. Pompeianus\nwas tempted, but consulted Innocent, the Bishop of Rome, who \"did not\nsee fit to oppose his own opinion to the wishes of the people at such a\ncrisis, but stipulated that the magic rites should be performed\nsecretly.\" What followed is uncertain. \"The Christian historian says\nthat the rites were performed, but were unavailing; the pagan Zosimus\naffirms that the aid of the Tuscans was declined.\"[654] So hard died the\nfutile arts of the most unfruitful of all Italian races.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XIII\n\n    [594] Stanley's _Jewish Church_ (ed. 1906), vol. i. p.\n    398 foll.\n\n    [595] _Hist. de divination dans l'antiquite_, vol. i. p.\n    7 foll.; divination is \"contemplative,\" magic \"active.\"\n    But this learned author did not deal with divination\n    except as it existed in Greece and Italy; and in view of\n    our present extended knowledge this differentia is not\n    instructive.\n\n    [596] See Tylor's article in the last edition of the\n    _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, and his _Gifford Lectures_,\n    Pt. ii. ch. iv.; Haddon, _Magic and Fetishism_, p. 40.\n    Bouche-Leclercq, _Hist. de divination dans l'antiquite_,\n    vol. i. p. 7, distinguishes divination from magic; but\n    his knowledge of the subject was limited to civilised\n    races.\n\n    [597] Mr. Marett seems doubtful about it: see his\n    _Threshold of Religion_, pp. 42 and 83. In the latter\n    passage he says that it may or may not be treated as a\n    branch of magic, and may be \"originally due to some dim\n    sort of theorising about causes, the theory engendering\n    the practice rather than the practice the theory.\" I\n    should doubt whether, when the facts have been fully\n    collected, this will be the conclusion to which they\n    point.\n\n    [598] _Evolution of the Aryan_, Drucker's translation,\n    p. 369.\n\n    [599] _Ib._ pp. 364, 374.\n\n    [600] A curious survival of divination from the\n    agricultural period, which was taken over by the State,\n    but not fixed to a day in the calendar, is the _augurium\n    canarium_. The exta of red puppies which had been\n    sacrificed were consulted, apparently with a view to\n    ascertain the probability of the corn ripening well\n    (Festus, p. 285, quoting Ateius Capito). See _R.F._ p.\n    90, and the references there given; also Cic. _de\n    Legibus_, ii. 20; Fest. 379; and Wissowa in\n    Pauly-Wissowa, p. 2328.\n\n    [601] See above, p. 102.\n\n    [602] See Dr. Jevons' account in Gardner and Jevons,\n    _Manual of Greek Antiquities_, ch. vii.\n\n    [603] Bouche-Leclercq in the introduction to his first\n    volume (p. 3) expresses a different opinion. He thinks\n    that the benefit conferred by divination in the conduct\n    of life was the most valuable part of religion. With\n    this I entirely disagree.\n\n    [604] Cic. _de Divinatione_, ii. 51.\n\n    [605] See Bouche-Leclercq, iv. 119 foll. In a recently\n    published essay, _De antiquorum daemonismo_, by J.\n    Tamburnino (Giessen, 1909), the only genuine Roman\n    evidence adduced of possession is Minucius Felix,\n    _Octavius_, ch. 27, _i.e._ it belongs to the late second\n    century A.D. In the so-called Italian oracles there is\n    no question of it: _e.g._ the lots at Praeneste were\n    worked by a boy (Cic. _de Div._ ii. 86).\n\n    [606] Livy i. 36; Cic. _de Div._ i. 17. It is Dion. Hal.\n    iii. 70 who says that his art was Etruscan.\n\n    [607] Bouche-Leclercq, iv. 120.\n\n    [608] For Carmenta see _R.F._ 167 and 291 foll. For\n    Fortuna, _ib._ 223 foll.; cp. 170 foll.\n\n    [609] Aug. _de Civ. Dei_, iv. 11; he uses the plural\n    _Carmentes_; see _R.F._ as above. Virgil, _Aen._ viii.\n    336.\n\n    [610] As \"superstitiosi vates\" in the passage of Ennius\n    quoted below. In his imaginary _ius divinum_ Cicero uses\n    the word for \"fatidici\" authorised by the State (_de\n    Legg._ ii. 20). He is perhaps thinking of the\n    haruspices.\n\n    [611] Ribbeck, _Fragm. tragicorum Romanorum_, p. 55. For\n    hariolus outside the play-writers, Cic. _de Nat. Deor._\n    i. 20. 55, where it is combined with haruspices,\n    augures, vates, and coniectores (interpreters of\n    dreams). _Ad Att._ viii. 11. 3.\n\n    [612] Cato, _R.R._ ch. 54; cp. Columella, i. 8 and xi.\n    1.\n\n    [613] See P. Regell, _De augurum publicorum libris_, p.\n    6 \"Omnia illa auguria quae futurarum rerum aliquid\n    predicunt ... augurum publicorum disciplinae abroganda\n    sunt: aut privati sunt augurii, aut Tuscorum\n    disciplinae.\" Cp. Cic. _de Har. Resp._ 9. 18.\n\n    [614] Cic. _de Div._ i. 16. 28; Val. Max. ii. 1. 1.\n\n    [615] _La Religione nella vita domestica_, i. 153 foll.;\n    232 foll.\n\n    [616] Cic. _de Div._ i. 16, 28.\n\n    [617] This fragment is preserved in Gellius vii. 6. 10.\n    Nigidius may be responsible for many of Pliny's omens.\n    Regell, _op. cit._ p. 8.\n\n    [618] Hor. _Odes_, iii. 27. 1 foll.\n\n    [619] Exactly the same misfortune occurred in the middle\n    ages. The monks had abundant opportunity of observation,\n    but were occupied with other matters, and have left\n    behind them no works on natural history.\n\n    [620] See above, p. 169 foll.\n\n    [621] Livy vi. 12.\n\n    [622] See the fragment of Ennius' _Annales_ in Cic. _de\n    Div._ i. 107.\n\n    [623] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 450; _Lex coloniae Genetivae_,\n    66 and 67.\n\n    [624] Livy vi. 41.\n\n    [625] See a good account in the _Dict. of Antiquities_,\n    vol. i. 252 and 255; and Wissowa in Pauly-Wissowa,\n    _s.v._ \"auspicia.\"\n\n    [626] _Roman Public Life_, p. 162.\n\n    [627] Wissowa, _R.K._ 451, note 2; Marq. 241.\n\n    [628] Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, i. 86.\n\n    [629] Wissowa, _R.K._ 451, note 7; Plut. _Quaest. Rom._\n    99; Pliny, _Ep._ 4. 8. Plutarch asks why an augur can\n    never be deprived of his office, and answers that the\n    secrecy of his art made it impossible. Cp. Paulus, 16.\n\n    [630] The latest authoritative account of the auspicia\n    is in Pauly-Wissowa, _s.v._, where the necessary\n    literature and material will be found for a study of an\n    extremely complicated subject.\n\n    [631] The technical term was _templum minus_, in\n    contradistinction to the _templum maius_, _i.e._ the\n    space in which he was to look for signs. See\n    Bouche-Leclercq, iv. 197; Fest. 157. The usual place was\n    the _arx_, where was the _auguraculum_, on which the\n    magistrate taking the auspices \"pitched his tent\"\n    (_tabernaculum_), looking to the east, with the north as\n    his left or lucky side. Von Jhering, _op. cit._ p. 364,\n    makes some ingenious use of this procedure to support\n    his theory that the origin of such institutions is to be\n    found in the period of migration.\n\n    [632] That the division of the _templum_ into _regiones_\n    was necessary only for the _auguria caelestia_, and not\n    for the observation of birds, is the conclusion drawn by\n    Wissowa (_R.K._ 457, note 2) from the words of Cicero\n    (_de Legibus_, ii. 21) in his _ius divinum_: \"caelique\n    fulgura regionibus ratis temperanto\" (_i.e._ the\n    magistrates).\n\n    [633] Cicero expressly says that even old Cato\n    complained of the neglect of the auspicia by the\n    college: _de Div._ i. 15. 28; above, in sec. 25, he had\n    said the same thing of the augurs of his own day, _i.e._\n    including himself. We know of a work on the _auspicia_\n    by M. Messalla, an augur, from which Gellius, xiii. 15,\n    quotes a lengthy extract (cp. ch. 14). This man was\n    consul in 53 B.C.; Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Lit._, ii.\n    492. Just at the same time Appius Claudius, Cicero's\n    predecessor as governor of Cilicia, wrote _libri\n    augurales_, to which Cicero more than once alludes in\n    his correspondence with Appius: _ad Fam._ iii. 9. 3 and\n    11. 4. It is plain that the old augural lore is now\n    treated only as a curiosity, of which the secrecy need\n    no longer be respected.\n\n    [634] P. Regell, _De augurum publicorum libris_, whose\n    excellent little work has never been superseded, thinks\n    (p. 19) that the _libri_ were the result of the neglect\n    of the art, _i.e._ that it was necessary to put it in\n    writing, because otherwise it would be forgotten. \"Tota\n    eius vita,\" he says, \"lenta est mors.\" The lore was\n    complete about the time of the decemvirate, but\n    _decreta_ must have been continually added (p. 23). The\n    nucleus may be represented in Cicero, _de Legibus_, ii.\n    20. 21, and perhaps existed in Saturnian verse (Festus,\n    290). The additions in the way of decree or comment\n    would probably range over the fourth and third centuries\n    B.C. like those of the pontifices. No doubt the\n    Hannibalic war had the effect of diminishing the\n    importance of the lore, as the next lecture should show.\n    On the whole we may put the great period of the college\n    between the decemvirate and the war with Hannibal.\n\n    [635] This is the opinion of Bouche-Leclercq, _op. cit._\n    vol. iv. p. 205 foll.; cp. Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 457.\n    Cicero calls the augurs \"interpretes Iovis Optimi\n    maximi\" (_de Legibus_, ii. 20), and herein could hardly\n    have made a mistake, as he was himself an augur. As the\n    great deity was of Etruscan origin in this form, I\n    should conjecture that the college took new ground and\n    gained new influence under the Etruscan dynasty.\n\n    [636] Cp. also Mueller-Deecke, _Die Etrusker_, ii. 165\n    foll. Our knowledge comes chiefly from the learned but\n    obscure writer Martianus Capella (ed. Eyssenhardt), who\n    wrote under the later Empire.\n\n    [637] For these meetings see Cic. _de Div._ i. 41. 90;\n    Regell, p. 23. They were obsolete in Cicero's time, but\n    seem to have still existed in the time of Scipio\n    Aemilianus: Cic. _Lael._ 2. 7.\n\n    [638] _Staatsrecht_, i. 73 foll.; Greenidge, _Roman\n    Public Life_, p. 172 foll.\n\n    [639] The best account of the constitutional power of\n    the augurs is in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopaedie_,\n    _s.v._ \"augur,\" vol. i. p. 2334 foll.; cp. Wissowa,\n    _R.K._ 457-8.\n\n    [640] _De Legibus_, ii. 21.\n\n    [641] The outward form of _co-optatio_ was still\n    preserved, like our \"election\" of a bishop by a chapter.\n    Cicero was co-opted by Hortensius after nomination by\n    two other augurs. See his interesting account of this in\n    his _Brutus_, ch. i. The survival may be taken as\n    throwing light on the original secrecy and closeness of\n    the _collegium_.\n\n    [642] For the _leges Aelia et Fufia_, cf. Greenidge,\n    _op. cit._ p. 173. The Stoics of the last century B.C.\n    were divided on this point. See below, p. 399. In the\n    second book of his _de Divinatione_, following the\n    Academic or agnostic school, he himself confutes his\n    brother Quintus' argument for divination contained in\n    Bk. I.\n\n    [643] This is the view of Thulin, _Die Goetter des\n    Martianus Capella und der Bronzeleber von Piacenza_\n    (Giessen, 1906), p. 7 foll., and it seems at present to\n    hold the field: see Gruppe, _Die mythologische Literatur\n    aus den Jahren 1898-1905_, p. 336.\n\n    [644] Mueller-Deecke, vol. ii. p. 7 foll.\n\n    [645] See Deecke's note on p. 12 of Mueller-Deecke, vol.\n    ii. It is possibly connected with _hariolus_.\n\n    [646] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 470, and Mueller-Deecke, vol.\n    ii. 165 foll.\n\n    [647] See above, note 50.\n\n    [648] References to Livy will be found in Wissowa,\n    _R.K._ p. 473, note 11. One of these, to Livy xxvii. 16.\n    14, is worth quoting as suggesting that a _haruspex_\n    might give useful advice in spite of his art: \"Hostia\n    quoque caesa consulenti (Fabio) deos haruspex, cavendum\n    a fraude hostili et ab insidiis, praedixit.\"\n\n    [649] They were not _sacerdotes publici Romani_, nor is\n    a _collegium_ mentioned till the reign of Claudius: Tac.\n    _Ann._ xi. 15. The proper term seems to have been\n    _ordo_, which occurs in inscriptions of the Empire:\n    Marq. p. 415.\n\n    [650] typo fixed: 54: See the oration _De haruspicum\n    responsis_ (especially 5. 9), the genuineness of which\n    is now generally acknowledged. Asconius quotes it as\n    Cicero's (ed. Clark, p. 70): so also Quintilian, v. 11.\n    42.\n\n    [651] Tac. _Ann._ 11. 15.\n\n    [652] The _haruspices_ mentioned in inscriptions (above,\n    note 56) were not the genuine article; they were Romans\n    and _equites_. Probably this was only one of the many\n    ways of finding dignity or employment for persons of\n    good birth under the Empire.\n\n    [653] _Cod. Theod._ xvi. 10. 1 (of the year 321 A.D.),\n    quoted by Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 475, note 1. In ix. 16. 3.\n    5, however, the practice of consulting such experts is\n    strictly prohibited.\n\n    [654] The story is told in Prof. Dill's _Roman Society\n    in the Last Century of the Western Empire_, ed. 1, p.\n    41.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIV\n\nTHE HANNIBALIC WAR\n\n\nWe have noticed two different, if not opposing, tendencies in Roman\nreligious experience since the disappearance of the kingship. First,\nthere was a tendency towards the reception of new and more emotional\nforms of worship, under the direction of the Sibylline books and their\nkeepers; secondly, we have seen how, in the hands of pontifices and\naugurs, religious practice became gradually so highly formularised and\nsecularised that the real religious instinct is hardly discernible in\nit, except indeed in the degraded form of scruple as to the exact\nperformance of the ritual laid down. There was also, towards the end of\nthat period, a third tendency beginning to show itself, which was\neventually to complete the paralysis of the old religion--a tendency to\nneglect and despise the old religious forms. This need not surprise us,\nif we keep in mind two facts: (1) that Rome is now continually in close\ncontact with Greece and her life and thought; (2) that it seems to be\ninevitable in western civilisation that a hard and fast system of\nreligious rule should eventually arouse rebellion in certain minds.\nAlready there are a few signs that the regulations of the _ius divinum_\nare not invariably treated with respect.\n\nAs long ago as 293 B.C. and the last struggle with the Samnites, we find\na trace of this neglect or carelessness. One of the chicken-keepers\n(_pullarii_) reported falsely to the consul Papirius that the sacred\nchickens had given good omen in their eating: this was discovered by a\nyoung nephew of Papirius, \"iuvenis ante doctrinam deos spernentem\nnatus,\" as Livy calls him, and came to the consul's ears. Papirius'\nreception of the news was characteristic of the way in which a Roman\ncould combine practical common-sense with the formal respect claimed by\nhis _ius divinum_; he declared that the omen had been reported to him as\ngood, and therefore \"populo Romano exercituique egregium auspicium est.\"\nThe umpire had decided favourably for him, and there was an end of the\nmatter, except indeed that that umpire was placed in the forefront of\nthe battle that the gods might punish him themselves, and there of\ncourse he died.[655] A generation later we have a case of far more\npronounced contempt in the familiar story of P. Claudius Pulcher and his\ncolleague Junius, each of whom lost a Roman fleet after neglecting the\nwarning of the _pullarius_: of Claudius it is told that he had the\nsacred chickens thrown into the sea.[656] Another well-known story is\nthat of Flaminius, the democrat consul who, as we shall learn directly,\nwas defeated and killed at Trasimene after leaving Rome with none of\nhis religious duties performed.[657] The famous Marcellus of this second\nPunic war, though himself an \"augur optimus,\" according to Cicero,\ndeclined to act upon an _auspicium ex acuminibus_--electric sparks seen\nat the end of the soldiers' spears--and was accustomed to ride in his\nlitter with blinds drawn, so that he should not see any evil omen.[658]\nAssuredly the transition from superstition to reason had its ludicrous\nside even in public life.\n\nBut it is not the gradual approach of rationalism that is the subject of\nthis lecture. For years after the death of Flaminius we have no trace of\nit: that was no time for speculating, and it would have been dangerous.\nThe religious history of the time, as recorded by Livy, shows on the\ncontrary that _religio_ in the old sense of the word is once more\noccupying the Roman mind--the sense of awe in the presence of the\nUnknown, the sense of sin or of duties omitted, or merely a vague sense\nof terror that suggested recourse to the supernatural. No wonder: for\nthough Italy had been invaded within the memory of living man, it was\nnot then invaded by one who had sworn to his father in infancy to\ndestroy the enemy root and branch. Instinctively both Romans and loyal\nItalians knew that they were face to face with a struggle for life and\ndeath. It is hard for us to realise the terror of the situation as it\nmust have been in those days of slow communication and doubtful news. It\nis to Livy's credit that he recognised it fully, and all who look on\nhistory as something more than wars and battles must be eternally\ngrateful to him for searching the records of the pontifices for evidence\nof a people's emotion and the means taken to soothe it. Polybius has\nnothing to tell us of this but a few generalisations, drawn from his own\nexperience a century later.[659] In all essential attributes of a Roman\nhistorian Livy is far the better of the two. I propose to follow his\nguidance in trying to gain some knowledge of the revived _religio_ of\nthe age and the way in which it was dealt with by the authorities.\n\nIt is in the winter of 218-17, when Hannibal was wintering in north\nItaly after his victory at the Trebbia, that Livy first brings the\nmatter before us.[660] He uses the word I have just now and so often\nused: men's minds were _moti in religionem_, and they reported many\n_prodigia_ which were uncritically accepted by the vulgar. He begins\nwith Rome, and here it is worth noting that these portents issue from\nthe crowded haunts of the markets, the _forum olitorium_, and the _forum\nboarium_, both close to the river and the quays. In the latter place,\nfor example, an ox was said to have climbed to the third story of a\nhouse, whence it threw itself down, terrified by the panic of the\ninhabitants--a story which incidentally throws light on the housing of\nthe lower population at the time.[661] Other wonders were announced from\nvarious parts of Italy,[662] and the decemviri were directed to have\nrecourse to the Sibylline books, except for the _procuratio_ of one\nmiracle, common in a volcanic country, the fall of pebble-rain.[663]\nThis had a _procuratio_ to itself by settled custom, the _novendiale\nsacrum_,[664] an expiation parallel with that which, in the religion of\nthe family, followed a birth or a death. For the rest, the whole city\nwas subjected to _lustratio_,[665] and, in fact, the whole population\nwas busy with the work. A _lectisternium_ was ordered for Iuventas,[666]\nthe deity of the young recruits, a _supplicatio_ for Hercules at\none of his temples, and five special victims were ordered for\n_Genius_--directions which have been variously interpreted. I am\ndisposed to think of them as referring to the capacity of the State to\nincrease its male population in the face of military peril. That the\nauthorities were looking ahead is clear from the fact next stated, that\none of the praetors had to undertake a special vow if the State should\nsurvive for ten years. These measures, ordered by the books, \"magna ex\nparte levaverant religione animos.\" Unfortunately, the wayward consul\nFlaminius spoilt their endeavours by wilfully neglecting his religious\nduties at the Capitol, and also at the Alban mount, where he should have\npresided at the Latin festival, and hurrying secretly to the seat of\nwar, lest his command should be interfered with by the aristocrats.\n\nSpring came on, and with the immediate prospect of a crisis the\n_religio_ broke out afresh.[667] Marvels were reported from Sicily and\nSardinia, as well as Italy and Rome. We need not trouble ourselves with\nthem, except so far as to note that one, at least, was pure invention;\nat Falerii, where there was an oracle by lots,[668] one tablet fell out\nof the bundle with the words written on it, _Mavors telum suum\nconcutit_. The mental explanation of all this is lost to us;[669] it\nwould be interesting to know how the reports really originated and were\nconveyed to Rome. That a widely spread _religio_ is really indicated we\ncan hardly doubt. The steps taken to soothe it, the religious\nprescriptions, are of more value to us. The Senate received the reports,\nand the consul then introduced the question of procuration. Besides\ndecreeing, no doubt with the sanction of the pontifices, certain\nordinary measures, the Senate referred the matter to the decemviri and\nthe Sibylline books. A _fulmen_, weighing fifty pounds, was awarded to\nJupiter, and gifts of silver to his consorts in the Capitoline temple.\nThen follow directions which show that the _religio_ of women was to be\nparticularly cared for. Juno Regina of the Aventine was to have a\ntribute collected by matrons, and she and the famous Juno Sospita of\nLanuvium were to have special sacrifices; and it is probable that\nanother Juno Regina, she of Ardea, was the object of a sacrifice, which\nthe decemviri themselves undertook in the forum of that city.[670] This\nprominence of Juno may be a counterpart, I think, to the special\nattention shown to Hercules and Genius in the previous winter.[671] And\nit is interesting to notice that the libertinae were directed to collect\nmoney for their own goddess Feronia.[672]\n\nIt is evident that Livy, in detailing these directions from the books of\nthe pontifices,[673] took them in the chronological order in which they\nwere to be carried out; for the day sacred to Juno Regina of the\nAventine is September 1, that of Feronia November 13, and the last\ninstruction he mentions is in December, when Saturnus was to have a\nsacrifice and _lectisternium_ at his own temple in the forum (prepared\nby senators), and a _convivium publicum_. This meant, we note with\ninterest, the Graecising of this old Roman cult, which now took the form\nwhich is so familiar to us of public rejoicing by all classes, including\nslaves.[674] But long before these dates the terrible disaster of\nTrasimene had forced the Senate, at the urgent persuasion of the\ndictator Fabius, to have recourse to the sacred books again.[675] Never\nbefore had they been so frequently consulted; the ordinary _piacula_ of\nthe pontifices were not thought of; a consul had grievously broken the\n_pax deorum_, and what remedy was possible no Roman authority could\ntell. The prescriptions of the books were many and various; the most\ninteresting of them is the famous _ver sacrum_, an old Italian custom,\nalready referred to, but here prescribed by a Greek authority. This was\nsubmitted to the people in Comitia, and carried with quaint provisions\nsuited to protect them against any unconscious mistake in carrying out\nthe vow, such as might produce further _religio_. We will only notice\nthat though, according to the old tradition, it was to Mars that the\nItalian stocks were wont in time of famine and distress to dedicate the\nwhole agricultural produce of the year, together with the male children\nborn that spring,[676] in this crisis it is to Jupiter that the vow is\nmade. It is the Roman people only who here make the vow, and they make\nit, I doubt not, to that great Jupiter of the Capitol who for 300 years\nhas been their guardian, and in whose temple are kept the sacred books\nthat ordered it.[677]\n\nBut the authorities were determined to make now a supreme effort to\nstill the alarm, and to restore the people to cheerfulness. They went on\nto vow _ludi magni_, _i.e._ extra games beside the usual yearly _ludi\nRomani_, at a cost of 333,333 and one-third asses, three being the\nsacred number. Then a _supplicatio_ was decreed, which was attended not\nonly by the urban population, but by crowds from the country, and for\nthree days the decemviri superintended a _lectisternium_ on a grand\nscale, such as had never been seen in Rome before, in which twelve\ndeities in pairs, Roman and Greek indistinguishable from each other,\nwere seen reclining on cushions. If Wissowa interprets this\nrightly,[678] as I think he does, it marks a turning-point in the\nreligious history of Rome. The old distinction between _di indigetes_\nand _di novensiles_ now vanishes for good; the showy Greek ritual is\napplied alike to Roman and to Greek deities; the Sibylline books have\nconquered the _ius divinum_, and the decemviri in religious matters are\nmore trusted physicians than the pontifices. The old Roman State\nreligion, which we have been so long examining, may be said henceforward\nto exist only in the form of dead bones, which even Augustus will hardly\nbe able to make live.\n\nSo far, however, all had been orderly and dignified. But after Cannae we\nbegin to divine that the stress of disaster is telling more severely on\nthe nervous fibre of the people. Two Vestals were found guilty of\nadultery always a suspicious event; in such times a wicked rumour once\nspread would have its own way. One killed herself; the other was buried\nalive at the Colline gate. A _scriba pontificis_, who had seduced one of\nthem, was beaten to death by the pontifex maximus. Such a violation of\nthe _pax deorum_ was itself a prodigium, and again the books were\nconsulted, and an embassy was sent to Delphi with Fabius Pictor as\nleader.[679] Greece is looming ever larger in the eyes of the frightened\nRoman.\n\nUnder such circumstances it is hardly astonishing to read of a new (or\nalmost new) and horrible rite, in which a Greek man and woman and a\nGallic man and woman (slaves, no doubt) were buried alive in the _forum\nboarium_ in a hole closed by a big stone, which had already, says Livy,\nbeen used for human victims--\"minime Romano sacro.\" As in the case of\nthe Vestals, blood-shedding is avoided, but the death is all the more\nhorrible. What are we to make of such barbarism? Technically, it must\nhave been a sacrifice to Tellus and the Manes, like the _devotio_ of\nDecius, and like that also, it probably had in it a substratum of\nmagic.[680] As regards the choice of victims it baffles us, for if we\ncan understand the selection of a Gallic pair at a time when the Gauls\nof North Italy were taking Hannibal's side, it is not so easy to see why\nthe Greeks were just now the objects of public animosity. Diels has\nsuggested that Gelo, son of Hiero of Syracuse, deserted Rome for\nCarthage after Cannae,[681] and wanting a better explanation we may\naccept this, and imagine, if we can, that the cruel death of a pair of\nGreek slaves need not be taken as expressing any general feeling of\nantagonism or hatred for things Greek. But, after all, the most\nastonishing fact in the whole story is this--that the abominable\npractice lasted into the Empire; Pliny, at least, emphatically states\nthat his own age had seen it, and heard the solemn form of prayer which\nthe magister of the quindecemviri used to dictate over the victims.[682]\nPliny, we may note, also speaks of the _forum boarium_ as the scene of\nthe sacrifice, where also the first gladiatorial games were\nexhibited.[683] Rome was already accustomed to see horrors there.\n\nAs we have now reached the climax of the religious panic of these years,\nI may pause here for a moment to refer to an interesting matter which I\nmentioned in my third lecture. At this very time, if we accept Wissowa's\nconjecture, the twenty-seven puppets of straw known as Argei, which were\nthrown over the _pons sublicius_ by the Vestals on the ides of May, were\nbeing substituted as surrogates for the sacrifice by drowning of the\nsame number of Greeks (Argei); an atrocity which he fancies actually\ntook place somewhere in the interval between the first and second Punic\nwars, under orders found in the Sibylline books.[684] All scholars know\nthat there were in the four regions of the old city twenty-seven (or\ntwenty-four) chapels, _sacella_, which were also called Argei, and have\ncaused great trouble to topographers and archaeologists.[685] To\ncomplete his hypothesis, Wissowa conjectures that these too date from\nthis same age, and were distributed over the city in order to take away\nthe miasma caused by some great pestilence or other trouble, of which,\nowing to the loss of Livy's second decade, we have no information. But\nneither have we a scrap of information about the building of the\nchapels, or the drowning of the twenty-seven Greeks, an atrocity so\nabominable that the only way in which we might conceivably account for\nits disappearance in the records would be the hypothesis of a conspiracy\nof silence, an impossible thing at Rome. The loss of Livy's second\ndecade cannot of itself be an explanation; such an event is just what an\nepitomator would have seized on, yet there is no trace of it in the\nsurviving epitomes, nor in any other author who may have had Livy before\nhim. Varro knew nothing of it, so far as we can tell; where he refers to\nthe Argei he makes no mention of such an astonishing origin either of\npuppets or chapels. If there had been a record in the books of the\npontifices, it is impossible to imagine that he was not aware of it.\n\nOn the contrary, he quotes no official record, but a line of Ennius\nwhich attributes the origin of the Argei to Numa:[686]\n\n  libaque fictores Argeos et tutulatos.\n\nNow Ennius was born in 239[687] B.C., and was, therefore, living when\nthe whole astonishing business began. How does he come to ascribe to\nNuma institutions which were to himself exactly as the building of the\nForth Bridge might be to an Edinburgh man of middle age? Why, too, if\nthese institutions were of such recent date, did the Romans of the last\ntwo centuries B.C. invent all sorts of wild explanations of them, at\nwhich Wissowa very properly scoffs? It is for him to explain why these\nexplanations were needed. It is inconceivable that in a large city, with\ncolleges of priests preserving religious traditions and formulae, all\nmemory of the remarkable origin of _sacella_ and puppets should have so\ncompletely vanished as to leave room for the growth of such a crop of\nexplanations. These will be found in my _Roman Festivals_, p. 112, and\nwhoever reads them will conclude at once, I am sure, that the Romans\nknew nothing at all about the true history of the Argei. We may still\nclass this curious ceremony with some of the primitive magical or\nquasi-magical rites of the ancient settlement. We are not entitled to\ncite it as an example of the growing savagery of this trying period; and\nif it be argued that it is an example rather of humanity, because for\nthe original victims straw puppets were substituted, the answer is that\neven if we were to grant the human sacrifice, the surrogation of puppets\nis a most unlikely thing to have happened.[688] It is a rare practice;\nWissowa himself judiciously rejects it as an explanation of such objects\nas _oscilla_ and _maniae_. You cannot adopt it when you choose, to\nexplain a difficulty, and then reject it when you choose. Why, one may\nask, was this humane method not applied also to the two pairs of Gauls\nand Greeks just mentioned? But I need not pursue the subject further; we\nmay be satisfied to reflect that from an anthropological point of view\nthe Argei need never have been anything more than puppets.[689]\n\nBut to return to the religious history of the war. It would seem that\nthe extraordinary series of performances ordered during the depression\nand despair that followed Cannae had succeeded for the time in quieting\nthe _religio_. Fabius Pictor too had returned from Delphi,[690] and\nbrought home in what seems to be hexameter verse instructions as to the\nworship of certain deities, with injunctions to the Romans to send gifts\nto the Pythian Apollo if prosperity should return to them, and ending\nwith the significant words, \"lasciviam (disorderly excitement) a vobis\nprohibete,\" which may be interpreted as \"keep quiet, and do not get into\na religious panic.\" The hexameters were Greek, but were translated for\nthe benefit of the people; and Fabius publicly told how he had himself\nobeyed the voice of the oracle by sacrificing to the deities it named,\nand had worn the wreath, the sign that he was accomplishing religious\nwork, during the whole of his journey home. This wreath he now deposited\non the altar of Apollo. This was in 216, and it is remarkable that we\nhear of no new outbreak of _prodigia_, the normal symptom of _religio_,\ntill the next year. Then we have a list; as Livy says,[691] \"simplices\net religiosi homines\" were ready with them at any time. A panic arose in\nRome, not strictly of a religious kind, which shows the nervousness of\nthe population; a rumour went about that an army had been seen on the\nJaniculum, but men who were on the spot refuted it. In this case the\nSibylline books were not consulted, but Etruscan haruspices were called\nin, who simply ordered a _supplicatio_ of the new kind, at the\n_pulvinaria_. This is the first, or almost the first instance of these\nexperts being consulted; earlier statements of the kind are probably\napocryphal, as I pointed out in the last lecture. It is not clear why\nthe authorities had recourse to them at this moment; but I am inclined\nto think that the old remedies even of the Sibylline books and their\nkeepers were getting stale, and that while it was thought undesirable to\nexcite the people by new rites, it was felt that the familiar ones might\ngain some new prestige by being recommended by new experts. The old\nprescription, given by a new physician, may gain in authority. The next\nyear again, 213, brought another crop of _prodigia_, but Livy dismisses\nthem with the simple words, \"His procuratis ex decreto pontificum.\"[692]\nIt is reasonable to suppose that a reaction was taking place in the\nminds of the senators and pontifices, and that they were determined to\ntake as little notice as possible of disturbing symptoms, relying on the\nprestige of the Delphic oracle, and acting on its advice to suppress\n_lascivia_.\n\nBut in this same year the _lascivia_ broke out again with unprecedented\nforce. The cause was not only, as Livy explains it, the dreary\ncontinuance of the war with varying success; if we read between the\nlines we may guess that the break-up of family life occasioned by the\ndeaths of so many heads of houses and their sons, had opened the way for\n_feminine_ excitement and for the introduction of external rites such as\nan old Roman _paterfamilias_ would no more have tolerated than the\npontifices themselves. \"Tanta religio,\" says Livy,[693] \"et ea magna ex\nparte externa, civitatem incessit, _ut aut homines, aut dii repente alii\nviderentur facti_\"; it seemed as if the old religious system, in spite\nof all its highly formalised apparatus of expiation, was being\ndeliberately set aside. \"Nec iam in secreto modo atque intra parietes\nabolebantur Romani ritus: sed in publico etiam ac foro Capitolioque\n(this is the hardest cut of all) _mulierum_ turba erat, nec\nsacrificantium nec precantium deos patrio more.\" To understand such an\namazing religious rebellion against the _ius divinum_ we must remember\nthat 80,000 men had fallen at Cannae, besides great numbers in the two\nprevious years, and that therefore the real effective human support of\nthat _ius_ had in great part given way. Private priests and prophets,\nvermin to be found all over the Graeco-Roman world, had captured for\ngain the minds of helpless women, and of the ruined and despairing\npopulation of the country now flocking into Rome. The aediles and\ntriumviri capitales, responsible for the order of the city, could do\nnothing; the Senate had to commission the praetor urbanus to rid the\npeople of these _religiones_. When in those days the Senate and\nmagistrates took such a matter in hand, further rebellion was\nimpossible. All we are told is that the praetor issued an edict ordering\nthat all who possessed private forms of prophecy or prayer, or rules of\nsacrifice, should bring them to him before the kalends of April next;\nand that no one should sacrifice in public with any strange or foreign\nrite. I do not know that the wonderful good sense of this decree has\never been commented on. To take violent or cruel measures would have\nbeen dangerous in the extreme at such a psychological moment. Livy tells\nthis story at the very end of the year 213, and the kalends of April\nreferred to must be those of the next year; there was, therefore, plenty\nof time to obey the order, and in the meantime the excitement might\nsubside of itself. The mischief was not absolutely and suddenly\nstopped; in private houses the new rites were allowed to go on,--a\npolicy adhered to in time to come,--but the _ius divinum_ of the Roman\nState, the public worship of the Roman deities, must not be tampered\nwith. This wise policy seems to have succeeded for the time; for even\nafter the capture of Tarentum by Hannibal, and the prospect of an attack\nin that direction from Macedonia, we do not hear of any renewed\noutbreak. _Prodigia_ are reported as usual, but the remedy thought\nsufficient is only a single day's _supplicatio_ and a _sacrum\nnovendiale_. The consuls, however, in the true Roman spirit, devoted\nthemselves for several days to religious duties before leaving Rome for\ntheir commands.\n\nThis was at the beginning of the year 212. But after the Latin festival\nat the end of April we hear of a new _religio_, and a very curious\none.[694] It looks as though certain Latin oracles, written in Saturnian\nverse, and attributed to an apocryphal _vates_ of the suspicious name of\nMarcius, had got abroad in the panic of the previous year, and had been\nconfiscated by the praetor urbanus charged, as we saw, with the\nsuppression of religious mischief. He had handed them on to the new\npraetor urbanus of 212. One of them prophesied the disaster of Cannae\nwhich had already happened; the other gave directions for instituting\ngames in honour of Apollo, including one which placed the religious part\nof these _ludi_ in the hands of the decemviri. I strongly suspect that\nthe whole transaction was a plan on the part of the Senate and the\nreligious colleges, in order to quiet the minds of the people by a new\nreligious festival in honour of a great deity of whose prestige every\none had heard, for he had been long established in Rome; he is now to\ntake a more worthy place there, to be incorporated in the _ius divinum_\nin a new sense, in gratitude perhaps for his recent advice given to\nFabius Pictor at Delphi. Possibly also he is to be regarded here as the\nGreek deity of healing, though we do not hear of any pestilence at the\ntime; but four years later it was in consequence of an epidemic that\nthese _ludi_ were renewed and made permanent. The main object of the\nmoment was no doubt to amuse the people and occupy their minds. The\nwhole population took part in the games, wearing wreaths as partakers in\na sacred rite; the matrons were not left out; and every one kept his\nhouse door open and feasted before the eyes of his fellow-citizens.[695]\n\nIf it be asked why these games in honour of a Greek god should have been\nsuggested by a Latin oracle, the answer is, I think, that the latter was\nused rather as a pretext for a pre-conceived plan; if it be true that\nthe Marcian verses had won some prestige among the vulgar, it was an\nadroit stroke to invent one that might be used in this way. This is the\nonly way in which we can satisfactorily account for the direction to the\ndecemviri to undertake the necessary sacrifices. The government seizes a\nchance of taking the material of _religio_ out of the hands of the\nvulgar and utilising it for its own purposes. It was clever too to give\nthe alleged Latin oracles the sanction of the _Graecus ritus_;\n\"decemviri Graeco ritu hostiis sacra faciant,\" says the oracle. The\nkeepers consulted the sacred books as to the projected _ludi_, and\nhenceforward, as it would seem, these Latin oracles were placed in their\nkeeping to be added to the Sibylline books in the collection on the\nCapitol. The amalgamation of Roman and Greek religion is complete. If\nthere were any doubt of it after the _lectisternia_ to the twelve gods\nwhich we noticed just now, all such doubt is removed by the religious\nevents of this year 212--that famous year in which Hannibal came within\nsight of Rome, and fell away again, never to return.\n\nThe student of Roman religious history, and of all religious psychology,\nas he follows carefully the extracts from the priestly records which\nLivy has embodied in his story of the last years of the great struggle,\nwill find much to interest him. Even little things have here their\nsignificance. He will still find relics of the scruple about the\nminutiae of the _ius divinum_ to which the Romans had become habituated\nunder priestly rule--_religio_ in that sense in which it is least really\nreligious. He will find a Flamen Dialis resigning his priesthood because\nhe had made a blunder in putting the _exta_ of a victim on the\naltar;[696] only too ready, it may have been, to take an opportunity of\ngetting free of those numerous taboos which deprived the priest of\nJupiter of all possibility of active life. Such a conjecture finds\nsupport in the curious fact that his successor was a youth of such bad\ncharacter that his relations induced the pontifex maximus to select him\nfor the sacred post, in hopes that the restrictive discipline he would\nhave to undergo might improve his morals and make him a better\ncitizen.[697] About the later history of this youth I may have something\nto say in the next lecture. Again, we find _religio_ of the scrupulous\nkind sadly worrying the stout old warrior Marcellus shortly before his\ndeath[698]: \"Aliae atque aliae obiectae animo religiones tenebant.\" One\nof these _religiones_ was a curious one; he had vowed a temple of Honos\nand Virtus--two deities together; and the pontifices made difficulties,\ninsisting that two deities could not inhabit the same _cella_, for if it\nshould be struck by lightning, how were you to tell, in conducting the\n_procuratio_, to which of them to sacrifice? The difficulty was solved\nby building two temples. Such quaintnesses of the old type of religious\nidea are thus still found, but they are becoming mere survivals.\n\nThe _prodigia_ continue, and occasionally, as a new crisis in the war\nwas known to be approaching, became exacerbated. In 208, just before the\nold consul Marcellus left the city to meet his death, he and his\ncolleague were terribly pestered with them, and could not succeed in\ntheir sacrificing (_litare_). For many days they failed to secure the\n_pax deorum_.[699] When it was known that Hasdrubal was on his way from\nSpain, and that the greatest peril of the war was approaching, special\nsteps were taken to make sure of that _pax_.[700] The pontifices ordered\nthat twenty-seven maidens--a number of magical significance both in\nGreece and Italy[701]--should chant a _carmen_ composed by the poet\nLivius Andronicus; and in the elaborate ritual that followed, as the\nresult of the striking of the temple of Juno on the Aventine by\nlightning, the decemviri and haruspices from Etruria also had a share.\nThe procession of the maidens, singing and dancing through the city till\nthey reached the temple of Juno by the Clivus Publicius, was a new\nfeature in ritual, and must have been a striking one. Doubtless it was\nall a part of a deliberate policy to keep the women of the city in good\nhumour, and in touch with the religion of the State, instead of going\nafter other gods, as they had already gone and were again to go with\namazing and perilous fervour. For Juno Regina of the Aventine was their\nspecial deity; and in this case they were authorised--all _matronae_\nliving within ten miles of the city--to contribute in money to a noble\ngift to the temple.\n\nHasdrubal was defeated and killed (207), and the danger passed away.\nThen, when the news reached Rome (if Livy's account may be relied on),\nthere followed such an outburst of gratitude to the deities as we have\nnever yet met with, and shall not meet with again in Roman history.[702]\nIt was not only that the State ordered a _supplicatio_ of three days\nthanksgiving; men and women alike took advantage of it to press in\ncrowds to the temples, the materfamilias with her children, and in her\nfinest robes: \"cum omni solutae metu, perinde ac si debellatum foret,\ndeis immortalibus grates agerent.\" I would draw attention to the fact\nthat here is no mere fulfilment of a vow, of a bargain, as some will\nhave it; in this moment of real religious emotion the first thought is\none of thankfulness that the _pax deorum_ is restored, and that the\nPower manifesting itself in the universe, though in the humble form of\nthese dwellers in Roman temples, would permit the long-suffering people\nonce more to feel themselves in right relation to him. As we go on with\nour studies in the two centuries that follow, let us bear this moment in\nmind; it will remind us that the religious instinct never entirely dies\nout in the heart of any people.\n\nI would fain stop at this point, and have done with the war and its\nreligious troubles; but there is one more event which cannot be\nomitted,--the solemn advent of a new deity, this time neither Greek nor\nItalian. After the Metaurus battle, the dreaded Hannibal yet remained in\nItaly, and so long as he was there the Romans could know no security. So\nfar as religion could help them every possible means had been used;\nthere seemed no expedient left. In 205 a pretext for inspecting the\nSibylline books was found in an unusual burst of pebble-rain; and there,\nas it was given out, an oracle was deciphered, which foretold that\nHannibal would have to leave Italy if the Magna Mater of Pessinus were\nbrought to Rome.[703] In whose brain this idea originated we do not\nknow, but it was a brilliant one. The eastern cult was wholly unknown at\nRome, was something entirely new and strange, a fresh and hopeful\nprescription for an exhausted patient. The project was seized on with\navidity, and supported by the influence of Delphi and of that strange\nsoldier mystic the great Scipio.[704] The best man in the State was to\nreceive the goddess, and when, after many months, she came to Italy in\nthe form of a black stone, it was Scipio who was chosen for the duty.\nFor Attalus, king of Pergamus, had consented to let her go from her\nPhrygian home; and when she arrived at Ostia, Scipio with all the Roman\nmatrons went thither by land; alone he boarded the ship, received the\ngoddess from her priests, and carried her to land, where the noblest\nwomen of the State received her,--received the black stone, that\nis,--and carried it in their arms in turns, while all Rome poured out to\nmeet her, and burned incense at their doors as she passed by. And\npraying that she might enter willingly and propitiously into the city,\nthey carried her into the temple of Victory on the Palatine on the 4th\nof April, henceforward to be a festal day, the popular Megalesia.\n\nThis Magna Mater was the first Oriental deity introduced into Rome, and\nthe last deity introduced by the Sibylline books. It is probable that no\nRoman then knew much about the real nature of her cult and its noisy\norgiastic character and other degrading features; it was sufficient to\nhave found a new prescription, and once more to have given the people,\nand especially the women, a happy moment of hope and confidence. But the\ntruth came out soon enough; and though the goddess must have her own\npriests, it was ordered by a _Senatusconsultum_ that no Roman should\ntake part in her service.[705] Though established in the heart of the\ncity, and ere long to have her own temple, she was to continue a foreign\ndeity outside the _ius divinum_. As such she belongs to those worships\nwith which I am not called upon by the plan of these lectures to deal.\n\nHannibal withdrew at last from Italy, and in 202 the war came to an end.\nLooking at the divine inhabitants of the city in that year, we may see\nin them almost as much a _colluvies nationum_ as in the human population\nitself. Under such circumstances neither the old City-state nor its\nreligion could any longer continue to exist. The decay of the one\nreflects that of the other; the failure to trust the _di indigetes_, the\nconstant desire to try new and foreign manifestations of divine power,\nwere sure signs that the State was passing into a new phase. In the next\ntwo centuries Rome gained the world and lost her own soul.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XIV\n\n    [655] The story is told in Livy x. 40 and 41, and must\n    have been taken by him from the records of the\n    pontifices, which had almost certainly begun by this\n    date (see above, p. 283). While on these chapters the\n    reader may also note the curious vow of this Papirius to\n    Jupiter Victor at the end of ch. xlii.; and the\n    description of the religious horrors of the Samnites\n    witnessed by the army, and especially the words\n    \"respersae fando infandoque sanguine arae\" (see above,\n    p. 196), which clearly indicate a practice abhorrent to\n    Romans.\n\n    [656] Val. Max. i. 5. 3 and 4; Cic. _de Div._ i. 16. 29;\n    Livy, _Epit._ xix.\n\n    [657] The _locus classicus_ is Livy xxi. 63.\n\n    [658] Cic. _de Div._ ii. 36. 77. I find an illustration\n    of this effect of lightning in Major Bruce's _Twenty\n    Years in the Himalaya_, p. 130: \"Directly the ice-axes\n    begin to hum (in a storm) they should be put away.\"\n\n    [659] He notices it in connection with the war only in\n    iii. 112. 6, after the battle of Cannae: a striking\n    passage, but cast in general language.\n\n    [660] Livy xxi. 62 foll. Wissowa comments on this\n    passage in _R.K._ p. 223.\n\n    [661] See the author's _Social Life at Rome in the Age\n    of Cicero_, p. 28 foll.\n\n    [662] The rule seems to have been that no _prodigia_\n    were accepted, and _procurata_ by the authorities, which\n    were announced from beyond the ager Romanus. See Mommsen\n    in O. Jahn's edition of the _Periochae_ of Livy's books,\n    and of Iulius Obsequens, preface, p. xviii. But this\n    does not appear from the records of this war; and, at\n    any rate, the religious panic was Italian as well as\n    Roman.\n\n    [663] Red sand still occasionally falls in Italy,\n    brought by a sirocco from the Sahara, and this accounts\n    for the _prodigium_, \"_pluit sanguine_,\" which is often\n    met with. I have a record of it in the _Daily Mail_ of\n    March 11, 1901. But the _lapides_ were probably of\n    volcanic origin.\n\n    [664] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 328.\n\n    [665] This must have been a special performance of the\n    yearly Amburbium, of which unluckily we known hardly\n    anything (Wissowa, _R.K._ 130).\n\n    [666] _R.F._ p. 56, where unfortunately the word is\n    misprinted Pubertas. Wissowa, _R.K._ 126, thinks of Hebe\n    in a Latin form; in his view it must be a Greek deity,\n    being brought in by the decemviri and the books. But we\n    shall find that these begin now to interfere with Roman\n    cults, and in such a crisis we need not wonder at it.\n    Wissowa allows that we do not know where this Hebe can\n    have come from, nor, I may add, why she should have\n    come. That there was some special meaning in the\n    combination Juventas, Hercules, Genius I feel sure, and\n    I conjecture that it may be found in the urgent need of\n    a supply of _iuvenes_. Hercules and Genius seem both to\n    represent the male principle of life (_R.F._ 142 foll.).\n    Juventas speaks for herself, but we may remember that\n    the _tirones_ sacrificed to her on the day of the\n    Liberalia (17th March), and that Liber is almost\n    certainly another form of Genius (_R.F._ 55).\n\n    [667] Livy xxii. 1.\n\n    [668] It is only from this passage that we know of the\n    oracle. See Bouche-Leclercq, _Hist. de divination_, iv.\n    146. That of Caere is mentioned in Livy xxi. 62. Both\n    cities were mainly Etruscan.\n\n    [669] Livy xxvii. 37 betrays some knowledge of the\n    infectious nature of prodigy-reporting: \"Sub unius\n    prodigii, ut fit, mentionem, alia quoque nuntiata.\"\n\n    [670] Pliny, _N.H._ xxxv. 115, where the verses are\n    quoted as inscribed on the paintings in her temple at\n    Ardea. Note that Juno is here called the wife of Jupiter\n    by a Greek artist from Asia.\n\n    [671] For Juno as the woman's deity and guardian spirit,\n    see above, p. 135. To refer this prominence of the\n    goddess to her connection with Carthage and mythical\n    enmity to the Romans, as we see it in the _Aeneid_, is\n    premature; we must suppose that each Juno was still a\n    local deity, and no general conception in the later\n    Greek sense is as yet possible.\n\n    [672] For Feronia, see _R.F._ 252 foll.\n\n    [673] The _procurationes_ ordered were doubtless\n    recorded in the _annales maximi_. The books of the\n    decemviri, we must suppose, were burnt with the oracles\n    in 38 B.C. (Diels, _Sib. Blaetter_, p. 6 note).\n\n    [674] Wissowa, _R.K._ 170; Marq. 586 foll.\n\n    [675] Livy xxii. 9-10.\n\n    [676] See above, p. 204 foll.; Strabo, p. 250; Festus,\n    p. 106.\n\n    [677] If it be asked why Jupiter is here without his\n    titles Optimus Maximus, the answer is that just below,\n    where _ludi magni_ are vowed to him, as all such _ludi_\n    were, he is also simply Jupiter.\n\n    [678] _R.K._ 356. In his view the new amalgam of twelve\n    gods was known as _di Consentes_, an expression of\n    Varro's which has been much discussed. See\n    Mueller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 83; _C.I.L._ vi. 102;\n    Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, 190 foll. In _de Re\n    Rust._ i. 1, Varro speaks of twelve _dei consentes,\n    urbani_, whose gilded statues stood in the forum.\n\n    [679] Livy xxii. 57.\n\n    [680] See above, p. 207. Orosius' account of this is\n    worth reading; he calls it \"obligamentum hoc magicum\"\n    (iv. 13). He mentions a Gallic pair and a Greek woman,\n    and dates it in 226 (227 according to Wissowa,\n    _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 227). Cp. Plut. _Marcell._\n    3. Livy's words, \"iam ante hostiis humanis, minime\n    Romano sacro, imbutum,\" agree with this. There must have\n    been an outbreak of feeling and recourse to the\n    Sibylline books in the stress of the Gallic war.\n\n    [681] _Sib. Blaetter_, p. 86.\n\n    [682] Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 12 and 13. Plutarch, _l.c._,\n    confirms him. Pliny, it may be noticed, is here writing\n    of spells, etc., among which he classes the _precatio_\n    of this rite.\n\n    [683] The first gladiatorial show was in 264 B.C. (Val.\n    Max. ii. 4. 7).\n\n    [684] The arguments are stated fully in his _Gesammelte\n    Abhandlungen_, 211 foll.\n\n    [685] The best account of these, or rather of the Argean\n    itinerary, of which fragments are preserved in Varro,\n    _L.L._ v. 45 foll., is still that of Jordan in his\n    _Roemische Topographie_, ii. 603 foll. The extracts seem\n    to be from a record of directions for the passage of a\n    procession round the _sacella_ (or _sacraria_, Varro v.\n    48). Though quoting these, Varro has nothing to say of\n    their origin, which would be strange indeed if they were\n    of such comparatively late date.\n\n    [686] In Varro, _L.L._ vii. 44. There is no doubt that\n    the line is from Ennius; it is also quoted as his in\n    Festus, p. 355.\n\n    [687] Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_, vol. i. ed.\n    3, p. 110.\n\n    [688] Some examples of substitution will be found in\n    Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n    Ideas_, i. 469. It is of course a well-known phenomenon,\n    but is now generally rejected as an explanation of\n    _oscilla_, _maniae_, etc. (see Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 355,\n    and Frazer, _G.B._ ii. 344). I know of no case of it on\n    good evidence at Rome, unless it be one in the\n    _devotio_, of an effigy for the soldier, (\"ni moritur,\"\n    Livy viii. 10).\n\n    [689] See _Roman Festivals_, p. 117, with references to\n    Mannhardt; Frazer, _G.B._ ii. 256; Farnell, _Cults of\n    the Greek States_, v. 181.\n\n    [690] Livy xxiii. 11. See also Diels, _Sib. Blaetter_,\n    pp. 11 and 92.\n\n    [691] Livy xxiv. 10.\n\n    [692] _Ib._ xxiv. 44.\n\n    [693] _Ib._ xxv. 1.\n\n    [694] _Ib._ xxv. 12. On the Marcian oracles and their\n    metre, see Bouche-Leclercq, _Hist. de divination_, iv.\n    128 foll.; Wissowa, _R.K._ 463 note 2; Diels, _op. cit._\n    p. 7 foll.\n\n    [695] See above, Lect. xi. p. 262. For the Apolline\n    games, _R.F._ p. 179 foll.\n\n    [696] Livy xxvi. 23.\n\n    [697] _Ib._ xxvii. 8.\n\n    [698] _Ib._ xxvii. 25; Plut. _Marcellus_, p. 28.\n\n    [699] _Ib._ xxvii. 23.\n\n    [700] _Ib._ xxvii. 37.\n\n    [701] The idea that this number was \"chthonic\" and a\n    monopoly of the Sibylline utterances was started by\n    Diels, _Sib. Blaetter_, p. 42 foll., with imperfect\n    anthropological knowledge, and has led Wissowa and\n    others into wrong conclusions, _e.g._ as to the Argei.\n    See an article criticising Wissowa in _Classical Rev._\n    1902, p. 211. On the whole subject of the number three\n    and its multiples, see Usener, \"Dreizahl,\" in\n    _Rheinisches Museum_ for 1903, and Goudy, _Trichotomy in\n    Roman Law_ (Oxford, 1910), p. 5 foll.\n\n    [702] Livy xxvii. 51. For gratitude among Romans, see\n    above, p. 202. A gift of thanksgiving was sent to Delphi\n    (Livy xxviii. 45).\n\n    [703] _Ib._ xxix. 10 foll. For other references see\n    _R.F._ p. 69 foll.\n\n    [704] _Ib._ xxix. 10.\n\n    [705] Dion. Hal. ii. 19; _R.F._ p. 70.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XV\n\nAFTER THE HANNIBALIC WAR\n\n\n\nThe long and deadly struggle with Hannibal ended in 201 B.C., and no\nsooner was peace concluded than the Senate determined on war with\nMacedon. This decision is a critical moment in Roman history, for it\ninitiated not only a long period of advance and the eventual supremacy\nof Rome in the Eastern Mediterranean, but also an age of narrow\naristocratic rule which remained unquestioned till revolution broke out\nwith Tiberius Gracchus. But we cannot safely deny that it was a just\ndecision. Hannibal was alive, and his late ally, Philip of Macedon, now\nin sinister coalition with Antiochus of Syria, might be capable of\ninvading exhausted Italy. To have an enemy once more in the peninsula\nwould probably be fatal to Rome and Italy, and one more effort was\nnecessary in order to avert such a calamity; an effort that must be made\nat once, while Carthage lay prostrate.\n\nIt is necessary to grasp fully the danger of the moment if we are to\nunderstand the part played by religion (if I may use the word) in\nbringing about the desired result. It was most difficult to persuade a\npeople worn out by one war that it was essential for their safety that\nthey should at once face another. Historians naturally look on the\nsuccess of the Senate in this task as due to its own prestige, and to\nthe skilful oratory of the Consul in the speech to the people which Livy\nhas reproduced in his own admirable rhetoric. But a closer examination\nof the chapters at the beginning of the historian's thirty-first book\nwill show that religion too was used, in accordance with the experience\nof the late war, to put pressure on the voters and to inspire their\nconfidence. As we saw in the last lecture, they had been constantly\ncheered and braced by religious expedients,--their often-recurring\n_religio_ had been soothed and satisfied; now the same means were to be\nused positively rather than negatively, to help in urging them to a\ndefinite course of action. Some sixty years later Polybius, writing of\nthe extreme religiousness of the Romans, expressed his conviction that\nreligion was invented for political objects, and only serves as the\nmeans of bridling the fickle and unreasoning Demos; for if it were\npossible to have a State consisting of wise men only, no such\ninstitution would be necessary.[706] The philosophic historian is here\nthinking mainly of the way in which religion was turned to account by\nthe Roman authorities in his own lifetime. We cannot have a better\nillustration of this than the events of the year 200 B.C.\n\nAlready, in the autumn of the previous year, the ground had been\nprepared. To the plebeian games in November there had been added a feast\nof Jupiter (_Iovis epulum_), as had been done more than once during the\nlate war.[707] Jupiter, in the form of his image in the Capitoline\ntemple, lay on his couch at the feast of the outgoing plebeian\nmagistrates, with his face reddened with minium as at a triumph, and\nJuno and Minerva sat each on her _sella_ on either side of him; and to\ngive practical point to this show, corn from Africa was distributed at\nfour asses the modius, or at most one quarter of the normal price. When\nthe new consuls entered on office on the ides of the following March,\nfurther religious steps were at once taken; the political atmosphere was\ncharged with religiosity. On the first day of their office the consuls\nwere directed by the Senate, doubtless with the sanction of the\npontifices, to _sacrifice to such deities as they might select_, with a\nspecial prayer for the success of the new war which Senate and people\n(the latter by a clever anticipation) are contemplating. Haruspices from\nEtruria had been adroitly procured, and no doubt primed, who reported\nthat the gods had accepted this prayer, and that the examination of the\nvictims portended extension of the Roman frontier, victory, and\ntriumph.[708] Yet, in spite of all this, the people were not yet\nwilling; in almost all the centuries, when the voting for the war took\nplace, they rejected the proposal of the Senate. Then the consul\nSulpicius was put up to address them, and at the end of Livy's version\nof his speech we find him clinching his political arguments with\nreligious ones. \"Ite in suffragium, bene iuvantibus dis, et quae Patres\ncensuerunt, vos iubete. Huius vobis sententiae non consul modo auctor\nest, sed etiam di immortales; qui mihi sacrificanti ... laeta omnia\nprosperaque portendere.\" Thus adjured, the people yielded; and as a\nreward, and to stifle any _religio_ that might be troubling them, they\nare treated to a _supplicatio_ of three days, including an \"_obsecratio\ncirca omnia pulvinaria_\" for the happy result of the war; and once more,\nafter the levy was over,--a heavy tax on the patience of the\npeople,--the consul made vows of _ludi_ and a special gift to Jupiter,\nin case the State should be intact and prospering five years from that\nday.[709]\n\nExactly the same religious machinery was used a few years later to gain\nthe consent of the people for a war of far less obvious necessity,--that\nwith Antiochus of Syria. It was at once successful. The haruspices were\nagain on the spot and gave the same report; and then, _solutis religione\nanimis_, the centuries sanctioned the war. The vow that followed, of\nwhich Livy gives a modernised wording, was for _ludi_ to last ten\ncontinuous days, and for gifts of money at all the _pulvinaria_, where\nnow, as we gather from these same chapters, the images of the gods were\ndisplayed on their couches during the greater part of the year.[710]\n\nWe may realise in accounts like these how far we have left behind us the\nold Roman religion we discussed in earlier lectures. That religion did\nnot any longer supply the material needed; it was not suited to be the\nhandmaid of a political or military policy; it was a real religion, not\ninvented for political purposes, to use Polybius' language, but itself a\npart of the life of the State, whether active in war, or law, or\npolitics. In the ceremonies I have just been describing almost all the\nfeatures are foreign,--the _pulvinaria_, the haruspices, perhaps even\nthe _Iovis epulum_; and we feel that though the _religio_ in the minds\nof the people is doubtless a genuine thing, yet the means taken to\nsoothe it are far from genuine,--they are _mala medicamenta_, quack\nremedies. Such is the method by which a shrewd, masterly government\ncompels the obedience of a _populus religiosus_. After long experience\nof such methods, can we wonder that Polybius could formulate his famous\nview of religion, or that a great and good Roman lawyer, himself\npontifex maximus, could declare that political religion stands quite\napart from the religion of the poets, or that of the philosophers, and\nmust be acted on, whether true or false?[711]\n\nThe reporting of _prodigia_ goes on with astonishing vigour in this\nperiod, and seems to have become endemic. I only mention it here (for we\nhave had quite enough of it already) because the question arises whether\nit is now used mainly for political purposes, or to annoy a personal\nrival or enemy. This does not appear clearly from Livy's accounts, but\nin an age of personal and political rivalries, as this undoubtedly was,\nit can hardly have been otherwise. Certain it is that the interests of\nthe State were grievously interfered with in this way. The consuls at\nthis time, and until 153 B.C., did not enter on office until March 15,\nand they should have been ready to start for their military duties as\nsoon as the levies had been completed; instead of which, they were\nconstantly delayed by the duty of expiating these marvels. In 199\nFlamininus, whose appointment to the command in Macedonia had of course\nannoyed the friends of the man he was superseding, was delayed in this\nway for the greater part of the year, and yet he is said to have left\nItaly at an earlier date than most consuls.[712] Thus the change to\nJanuary 1 for the beginning of the consular year, which took place in\n153 B.C., was an unavoidable political necessity. Even the Sibylline\nbooks came to be used for personal and political purposes. In the year\n144 the praetor Marcius Rex was commissioned to repair the Appian and\nAniensian aqueducts and to construct a new one. The _decemviri sacris\nfaciundis_, consulting the books, as it was said, for other reasons,\nfound an oracle forbidding the water to be conveyed to the Capitoline\nhill, and seem on this absurd ground to have been able to delay the\nnecessary work. Our information is much mutilated, but the real\nexplanation seems to be that there was some personal spite against\nMarcius, who, however, eventually completed the work.[713] Nearly a\ncentury later a Sibylline oracle, beyond doubt invented for the purpose,\nwas used to prevent Pompeius from taking an army to Egypt to restore\nPtolemy Auletes to his throne. But all students of Roman history in the\nlast two centuries B.C. are familiar with such cases of the prostitution\nof religion or religious processes, and I have already said enough about\nit in the lecture on divination.[714]\n\nI do not, of course, mean to assert that personal and political motives\naccount for all or the greater number of _prodigia_ reported. There is\nplenty of evidence that the genuine old _religio_ could be stirred up by\nreal marvels, which the government were bound to expiate in order to\nsatisfy public feeling. Thus in 193 B.C. earthquakes were so frequent\nthat the Senate could not meet, nor could any public business be done,\nso busy were the consuls with the work of expiation. At last the\nSibylline books were consulted and the usual religious remedies applied;\nbut the spirit of the age is apparent in the edict of the consuls,\nprompted by the Senate, that if _feriae_ had been decreed to take place\non a certain day for the expiation of an earthquake, no fresh earthquake\nwas to be reported on that same day.[715] This delicious edict,\nunparalleled in Roman history, caused the grave Livy to declare that the\npeople must have grown tired, not only of the earthquakes, but of the\n_feriae_ appointed to expiate them.\n\nLet us turn to another and more interesting feature of this age, which\nis plainly visible in the sphere of religion, as in other aspects both\nof private and public life: I mean the growth of _individualism_. Men,\nand indeed women also, as we shall see, are beginning to feel and to\nassert their individual importance, as against the strict rules and\ntraditions, civil or religious, of the life of the family and the State.\nThis is a tendency that had long been at work in Greece, and is\nespecially marked in the teaching of the two great ethical schools of\nthe post-Alexandrian period, the Epicureans and Stoics. The influence of\nGreece on the Romans was already strong enough to have sown the seeds of\nindividualism in Italy; but the tendency was at the same time a natural\nresult of enlarged experience and expanding intelligence among the upper\nclasses. The second century B.C. shows us many prominent men of strong\nindividual character, who assert themselves in ways to which we have not\nbeen accustomed in Roman history, _e.g._ Scipio the elder, Flamininus,\nCato, Aemilius Paulus and his son, Scipio Aemilianus; and among lesser\nand less honourable men we see the tendency in the passionate desire for\npersonal distinction in the way of military commands, triumphs, and the\ngiving of expensive games. This is the age in which we first hear of\nstatues and portrait busts of eminent men; and magistrates begin to put\ntheir names or types connected with their families on the coins which\nthey issue.[716]\n\nIn religion this tendency is seen mainly in the attempts of the\nindividual, often successful, to shake himself free of the restrictions\nof the old _ius divinum_. I pointed out long ago that it was a weak\npoint in the old Roman religion that it did little or nothing to\nencourage and develop the individual religious instinct; it was\nformalised as a religion of family and State, and made no appeal, as did\nthat of the Jews, to the individual's sense of right and wrong.[717] The\nsense of sin was only present to the Roman individual mind in the form\nof scruple about omissions or mistakes in the performance of religious\nduties. Thus religion lost her chance at Rome as an agent in the\ndevelopment of the better side of human nature. As an illustration of\nwhat I mean I may recall what I said in an early lecture, that the\nspirit of a dead Roman was not thought of as definitely individualised;\nit joined the whole mass of the Manes in some dimly conceived abode\nbeneath the earth; there is no singular of the word Manes. It is only in\nthe third century B.C. that we first meet with memorial tombstones to\nindividuals, like those of the Scipios, and not till the end of the\nRepublican period that we find the words Di Manes representing in any\nsense the spirit of the individual departed.[718]\n\nIn practical life the quarrel of the individual with the _ius divinum_\ntakes the form of protest against the restrictions placed on the old\nsacrificing priesthoods, these of the Flamines and the Rex sacrorum,\nwho, unlike the pontifices and augurs, were disqualified from holding a\nsecular magistracy.[719] These priesthoods must be filled up, and when a\nvacancy occurred, the pontifex maximus, who retained the power of the\nRex in this sphere, as a kind of _paterfamilias_ of the whole State,\nselected the persons, and could compel them to serve even if they were\nunwilling. But the interests of public life are now far more attractive\nthan the duties of the cults,--the individual wishes to assert himself\nwhere his self-assertion will be noted and appreciated.\n\nThese attempts at emancipation from the _ius divinum_ were not at first\nsuccessful. In 242 a flamen of Mars was elected consul; he hoped to be\nin joint command with his colleague Lutatius of the naval campaign\nagainst Carthage. But the _ius divinum_ forbade him to leave Italy, and\nthe pontifex maximus inexorably enforced it.[720] Of this quarrel we\nhave no details; but in 190 a similar case is recorded in full. A flamen\nQuirinalis, elected praetor, who had Sardinia assigned him as his\nprovince, was stopped by the _ius divinum_ administered by another\ninexorable pontifex maximus; and it was only after a long struggle, in\nwhich Senate, tribunes, and people all took part, that he was forced to\nsubmit. So great was his wrath that he was with difficulty persuaded not\nto resign his praetorship.[721] Naturally it became difficult to fill\nthese priesthoods, for it was invidious to compel young men of any\npromise to commit what was practically political suicide. The office of\n_rex sacrorum_ was vacant for two years between 210 and 208;[722] and in\n180 Cornelius Dolabella, a _duumvir navalis_, on being selected for this\npriesthood, absolutely refused to obey the pontifex maximus when ordered\nto resign his secular command. He was fined for disobedience, and\nappealed to the people; at the moment when it became obvious that the\nappeal would fail, he contrived to escape by getting up an unlucky omen.\n_Religio inde fuit pontificibus inaugurandi Dolabellae_; and here we\nhave the strange spectacle of the _ius divinum_ being used to defeat its\nown ends. Such a state of things needs no comment.[723]\n\nBut the most extraordinary story of this kind is that of a flamen of\nJupiter,--a story which many years ago I told in detail in the\n_Classical Review_. Here I may just be allowed to reproduce it in\noutline. In the year 209 a young C. Valerius Flaccus, the black sheep of\na great family, was inaugurated against his will as Flamen Dialis by the\npontifex maximus P. Licinius.[724] It was within the power of the head\nof the Roman religion to use such compulsion, but it must have been\ndifficult and unusual to do so without the consent of the victim's\nrelations. In this case, as Livy expressly tells us, it was used because\nthe lad was of bad character,--_ob adolescentiam negligentem\nluxuriosamque_; and it is pretty plain that the step was suggested by\nhis elder brother and other relations, in order to keep him out of\nmischief. For, as we have seen, the taboos on this ancient priesthood\nwere numerous and strict, and among the restrictions laid on its holder\nwas one which forbade him to leave his house for a single night. Thus we\nlearn not only that this priesthood was not much accounted of in those\ndays, but also that for the _cura_ and _caerimonia_ of religion a pure\nmind was no longer needed. But it might be utilised as a kind of penal\nsettlement for a libertine noble; and it is not impossible that a\ncentury and a quarter later the attempt to put the boy Julius Caesar\ninto the same priesthood, though otherwise represented by the\nhistorians, may have had the same object.[725] But the strange thing in\nthe case of Flaccus is that this very _cura_ and _caerimonia_, if Livy's\naccount is to be trusted, had such a wholesome disciplinary effect, that\nthe libertine became a model youth, the admiration of his own and other\nfamilies. Relying on his excellent character he even asserted the\nancient right of this flamen to take his seat in the Senate, a right\nwhich had long been in abeyance _ob indignitatem flaminum priorum_; and\nhe eventually gained his point, in spite of obstinate opposition on the\npart of a praetor. Some years later, in 200, this same man was elected\ncurule aedile.[726] This was clearly the first example of an attempt to\ncombine the priesthood with a magistracy, for a difficulty at once arose\nand was solved in a way for which no precedent is quoted. Among the\ntaboos on this priest there was one forbidding him to take an oath; yet\nthe law demanded that a magistrate must take the usual oath within five\ndays of entering on office.[727] Flaccus insisted on asserting his\nindividuality in spite of the _ius divinum_, and the Senate and people\nboth backed him up. The Senate decreed that if he could find some one to\ntake the oath for him, the consuls might, if they chose, approach the\ntribune with a view to getting a relieving _plebiscitum_; this was duly\nobtained, and he took the oath by proxy. In his year of office as aedile\nwe find him giving expensive _ludi Romani_; and in 184 he only missed\nthe praetorship by an unlucky accident.[728] In this story we find the\nself-assertion of an individual supported by Senate, consuls, and people\nin breaking loose from the antiquated restrictions of a bygone age, and\nwe cannot but sympathise with it. But Roman history is full of\nsurprises, and among these I know none more amazing than the successful\nattempt of Augustus two centuries later to revive this priesthood with\nall its absurdities.[729]\n\nThe self-assertion of members of the great families against the _ius\ndivinum_ was inevitable, and in the instances just noticed the attitude\nof compromise taken up by the government was only what was to be\nexpected in an age of stress and change and new ideas. But in less than\ntwenty years after the peace with Carthage this government found itself\nsuddenly face to face with what may be called a religious rebellion\nchiefly among the lower orders, including women; and the authorities\nunhesitatingly reverted to the position of conscientious guardians of\nthe religious system of the City-state. They began to realise that they\nhad been holding a wolf by the ears ever since the beginning of the\nHannibalic war; that they had a population to deal with which was no\nlonger pure Roman or even pure Italian, and that even the genuine Romans\nthemselves were liable to be moved by new currents of religious feeling.\nDuring the war they had done all that was possible to meet the mental as\nwell as the material troubles of this population, even to the length of\nintroducing the worship, under certain restrictions, of the great\nPhrygian Mother of the gods. But now, in 186, the sudden outbreak of\nDionysiac orgies in Italy showed them that all their remedies were stale\nand insufficient, and that the wolf was getting loose in their hands.\n\nDionysus had long been housed at Rome, under the name of Liber, in that\ntemple of Ceres, Liber, and Libera which was discussed in detail in my\neleventh lecture.[730] But it is not likely that many Romans recognised\nthe identity of Liber and Dionysus, and it is quite certain that the\ncharacteristic features of the Dionysiac ritual were entirely unknown at\nRome for three centuries after the foundation of the temple. That\nritual, as it existed in Greece from the earliest times, retaining the\nessential features which it bore in its original Thracian home,[731] has\nlately been thoroughly examined and clearly expounded by Dr. Farnell in\nthe fifth volume of his _Cults of the Greek States_, and the student of\nthe Roman religious history of this period would do well to study\ncarefully his fifth chapter. In most Greek states, as at Athens, in\nspite of occasional outbreaks, the wilder aspects of the cult had not\nbeen encouraged, but at Delphi and at Thebes, _i.e._ on Parnassus and\nCithaeron, the more striking phenomena of the genuine ritual are found\ndown to a late period. Dr. Farnell has summed these up under three heads\nat the beginning of his account: \"The wild and ecstatic enthusiasm that\nit inspired, the self-abandonment and communion with the deity achieved\nthrough orgiastic rites and a savage sacramental act, and the prominence\nof women in the ritual, which in accordance with a certain psychic law\nmade a special appeal to their temperament.\"[732] It meant in fact\nexactly that form of religious ecstasy which was peculiarly abhorrent to\nthe minds of the old Romans, who had built up the _ius divinum_ with its\nsober ritual and its practical ideas of the supernatural powers around\nthem. We found nothing in our studies of this religion to lead us to\nsuppose for an instant that it had any mental effect such as \"the\ntranscending of the limits of the ordinary consciousness and the feeling\nof communion with the divine nature.\"[733] The Latin language indeed had\nno native words for the expression of such emotions.[734]\n\nBut it would be a great mistake to suppose that there was no soil in\nItaly, or even at Rome, where such emotional rites might take root. We\nmay believe that the dignity and sobriety of the Roman character was in\npart at least the result of the discipline of ordered religion in family\nand state; but this is not to say that the Romans were never capable of\nreligious indiscipline,--far from it. The Italian rural festival, then\nas now, was lively and indecorous, so far as we can guess from the few\nglimpses we get of it; and at Rome the ancient festival of Anna Perenna,\nin which women took part, was a scene of revelry as Ovid describes\nit,[735]--of dancing, singing, and intoxication, and we need not wonder\nthat it found no place in the ancient calendar of the _ius divinum_. And\nwe have lately had occasion to notice, in the new ritual instituted\nunder the direction of the Sibylline books, and more especially during\nthe great war, clear indications that the natural emotions of women,\neven of Roman women, had to be satisfied by shows and processions in\nwhich they could share, and that the ideal dignity of the Roman matron\nhad often given way under the terrible stress of public and domestic\nanxiety and peril. No wonder then that when Roman armies had been for\nyears in Greece, and Greeks were flocking into Rome in larger numbers\nevery year, the Dionysiac rites should find their way into Italy, and no\nwonder too that they should instantly find a congenial soil, exotics\nthough they were.\n\nThe story of the Bacchanalia is told by Livy in his best manner, and\nwhether or no it be literally true in every particular, is full of life\nand interest. It is the fashion now to reject as false whatever is\nsurprising; and the latest historian of Rome dismisses Livy's account of\nthe discovery of the mischief as \"an interesting romance.\"[736]\nFortunately we are not now concerned with this romance, if such it be; I\nonly propose to dwell on one or two points more nearly concerned with\nour subject.\n\nFirst, let us note that the seeds of this evil crop were sown in\nEtruria, the most dangerous neighbour of the Romans from a religious\npoint of view; for it is hardly too much to say that all Greek\ninfluences that filtered through Etruria on their way to Rome were\ncontaminated in the process. According to the story,[737] a common Greek\nreligious quack (_sacrificulus et vates_, as Livy calls him), of the\ntype held up to scorn by Plato in the _Republic_,[738] came to Etruria\nand began to initiate in the rites; drunkenness was the result, and with\ndrinking came crime and immorality of all kinds. From Etruria the\nmischief spread to Rome, and was there discovered accidentally.\nAccording to the evidence given, it began with a small association of\nwomen, who met openly in the daytime only three times a year. Then it\nfell under the direction of a priestess from Campania,--Rome's other\nmost dangerous neighbour in regard to religion and morals,--who gave it\na sinister turn. The meetings were held at night, and were accompanied\nnot only by the characteristic features of the old Thracian ritual, but,\nas in Etruria, by the most abominable wickedness. It was said to have\ninfected a large part of the population, including young members of\nnoble families; for with the true missionary instinct, young people only\nwere admitted by the hierophants. We need not necessarily believe all\nthis; but it is certain, from the steps taken by the government, about\nwhich there is no doubt, that it is in the main a true account. The\nstorm and stress of the long war with Hannibal would be enough to\naccount for the phenomena, even if they were not in keeping with\nwell-known psychical facts.\n\nLet us now turn for a moment to the attitude of the government in this\nextraordinary episode of Roman religious experience. The danger is dealt\nwith entirely by the Senate and the magistrates; the authorities of the\n_ius divinum_ as such have nothing to do with it. It is characteristic\nof the age that it is not dealt with as a matter of religion merely, but\nas a conspiracy--_coniuratio_.[739] This is the word used by Livy, and\nwe find it also in the document called _Senatusconsultum de\nBacchanalibus_, part of which has most fortunately come down to us. This\nis the word also used, we may note, of the conspiracy of Catiline in the\ncentury following, and it always conveys the idea of _rebellion_ against\nthe order and welfare of the State. In this case it was rebellion\nagainst the whole body of the _mos maiorum_, the [Greek: ethos] of the\nCity-state of Rome. For it was an attempt to supersede the ancient\nreligious life of that State by _externa superstitio, prava\nreligio_--_prava_, because _deorum numen praetenditur sceleribus_; and\nhence, as Livy expresses it in the admirable speech put into the mouth\nof the consul, the Roman gods themselves felt their _numen_ to be\ncontaminated.[740] All the speeches in Livy, except perhaps the military\nones, are worth careful study by those who would enter into the Roman\nspirit as conceived by an Augustan writer; and this is one of the most\nvaluable of them.\n\nLastly, let us note the steps taken by the government in this emergency.\nIt is treated as a matter of police, both in Rome and Italy; the guilty\nare sought out and punished as conspirators against the State, and a\nprecedent of tremendous force is hereby established for all future\ndealings with _externa superstitio_, which held good even to the last\nstruggle with Christianity. Where foreign rites are believed to be\ndangerous to the State or to morality, they must be rigidly suppressed\nin the Roman world; when they are harmless they may be tolerated, or\neven, like the cult of the Magna Mater, received into the sacred circle\nof Roman worships.[741] But there is yet another lesson to be learnt\nfrom the conduct of the government at this crisis. Who would have\nsuspected, while reading the horrible story, and noting the almost\narbitrary energy with which the _coniuratio_ was stamped out, that the\nDionysiac rites would even now be tolerated under certain conditions?\nThat this was so is a fact attested not only by Livy, but by the\n_Senatusconsultum_ itself.[742] The government was now forced to\nrecognise the fact that there were Romans for whom the _ius divinum_ no\nlonger sufficed, and who needed a more emotional form of religion. If\nany one (so ran in effect the _Senatusconsultum_) felt conscientiously\nthat he could not wholly renounce the new religion, he might apply in\nperson to the praetor urbanus; and the praetor would lay the matter\nbefore a meeting of the Senate, at which not less than a hundred must be\npresent. The Senate may give leave for the worship, provided that no\nmore than five persons be present at it; and that there be no common\nfund for its support, nor any permanent priest to preside at it. These\nclauses, says Aust,[743] are a concession to the strong spiritual\ncurrent of feeling which sought for something fresher and better to take\nthe place of the old religion of forms; and on the whole we may agree\nwith him. All religious revivals are liable to be accompanied by moral\nevil, but they all express unmistakably a natural and honourable\nyearning of the human spirit.\n\nNot long after this, in 181, the government put its foot down firmly on\nwhat seems to have been another attempt, though in this case a ludicrous\none, to introduce strange religious ideas at Rome. We have the story of\nthis on the authority not only of Livy, but of the oldest Roman\nannalist, Cassius Hemina, from whose work Pliny has preserved a fragment\nrelating to this matter.[744] Cassius must almost certainly have been\nalive in 181, and would remember the event;[745] and though his account\nand Livy's differ in details, we may take the story as in the main true.\nA secretary (_scriba_), who had land on the Janiculan hill, dug up there\na stone coffin with an inscription stating that the king Numa was buried\nin it. No remains of a body were found, but in a square stone casket\ninside the coffin were found books written on paper (_charta_) and\nsupposed to be writings of Numa about the Pythagorean philosophy. These\nwritings were read by many people, and eventually by a praetor, who at\nonce pronounced them to be subversive of religion. That anything\nsupposed to emanate from Numa should have this character was of course\nimpossible; and it is plain that the writings were believed even at the\ntime to be absurd forgeries, drawn up with the idea of investing strange\ndoctrines with the authority of Numa's name; for the legend of a\nreligious connection between Numa and Pythagoras must have been known at\nthe time. The discoverer appealed to the tribunes, who referred the\nmatter to the senate; and the senate authorised the praetor to burn the\nbooks in the Comitium, which was done in the presence of a large\nassembly.\n\nIn a later lecture I shall have something to say of the revival of\nPythagoreanism in the time of Cicero, and I need not now attempt to\nexplain what such a revival might mean. All we need to note is that\nsomething subversive of the Roman religion was believed to be\ncirculating in 181 in Roman society under the assumed authority of\nNuma's name, and that the senate, warned by recent experience,\ndetermined to stamp it out at once. They seem to have suddenly become\nalive to the fact that Greece, and in this instance mainly Magna\nGraecia, was sending clever agents to Rome for the propagation of ideas\nwhich might make the people less tractable to authority. In the stress\nof the great war, indeed for years afterwards, they had probably never\nhad leisure to reflect on the inevitable result of the writings of a man\nlike Ennius, who was not improbably responsible for the propagation of\nthese very Pythagorean notions.[746] Now a reaction seems to set in\nagainst the flowing tide of admiration for everything Greek;[747] but it\nwas too late to arrest the flood. All that could be hoped for was that\nin the lives and minds of the wiser Romans the new Greek civilisation\nmight so leaven the old Roman ignorance that no permanent harm should be\ndone to the instincts of _virtus_ and _pietas_: and to some extent this\nhope was realised. But for the masses there was no such hope. What Greek\nteaching reached their minds was almost wholly that of the _ludi\nscenici_; and I must now say a word in conclusion about this unwholesome\ninfluence--unwholesome, that is, so far as it affected the old religious\nideas.\n\nI had occasion, when dealing with Dr. Frazer's notion that the Roman\nreligion admitted such ideas as the marriage of the gods with all its\nnatural consequences,[748] to point out that his evidence was almost\nwholly derived from the play-writers of the very period on which we are\nnow engaged. I said that he seems to be justified in concluding that\nthere was a popular idea of such a kind, which the State religion did\nnot recognise; but that it can very easily be explained as the natural\neffect of a degenerate Greek mythology, popularised by Greek dramas\nadapted to the Roman stage, upon certain peculiarities of the Roman\ntheology, and especially the functional combination of male and female\ndivine names in Italian invocations of the deities. Nothing could be\nmore natural than that playwrights should take advantage of such\ncombinations to invent or translate comic passages to please a Roman\naudience, \"now largely consisting of semi-educated men who had lost\nfaith in their own religion, and a host of smaller people of mixed\ndescent and nationality.\" We do not know enough of the older comedies to\nbe at all sure how far they had gone in this direction, though we are\ncertain, to use the words of Zeller,[749] that it was impossible to\ntransplant Greek poetry to Roman soil without bringing Greek mythology\nwith it; or, as I should put it, without subordinating the old\nreasonable idea of the Power manifesting itself in the universe to the\nGreek fancy for clothing that Power in the human form and endowing it\nwith human faults and frailties.\n\nBut of the two great literary figures of the age we have now reached,\nEnnius and Plautus, we know beyond all doubt that they taught the\nignorant Roman of their day not only to be indifferent to his deities,\nbut to laugh at them. Just at the very time when the forged books of\nNuma were being burnt in the Comitium, Ennius' famous translation of the\n_Sacred History of Euhemerus_ was becoming known at Rome, in which was\ntaught the doctrine of the human origin of all deities; and though we\nhave hardly a fragment left of the comedies of Ennius, we may presume\nthat he would not have hesitated for a moment to make the gods\nridiculous on the stage. It was he who wrote the celebrated lines in his\ntragedy of Telamo:[750]\n\n  ego deum genus esse semper dixi et dicam caelitum,\n  sed eos non curare opinor quid agat humanum genus,\n\nwhich (as I have said elsewhere)[751] strike a direct blow at the\nefficacy of sacrifice and prayer by openly declaring that the gods did\nnot interest themselves in mankind. This is the same Epicurean doctrine\nafterwards preached by Lucretius, and I must return to it in the next\nlecture. At present let us select a couple of specimens of the more\nexplicit evidence of the extant plays of Plautus, which began to be\nexhibited at Rome just about the end of the war with Hannibal.\n\nHere is an example of the way in which the family relationships of Greek\ngods could be made amusing under Roman names. Alcesimarchus in the\n_Cistellaria_ wishes to make a strong asseveration, and begins:[752]\n\n  at ita me di deaeque, superi et inferi et medioxumi,\n\nbut immediately goes on to specify these deities more particularly by\ntheir names and relationships--_and gets the latter wrong_. Melaenis\ncorrects him in a way which (as Aust notes)[753] could only have seemed\ncomical to a Roman audience if they had already some acquaintance with\nthe divine family gossip.\n\n      itaque me Iuno regina et Iovi' supremi filia\n      itaque me Saturnus eiius patruos--ME. ecastor, pater.\n  AL. itaque me Ops opulenta, illius avia--ME. immo mater quidem.\n\nPerhaps it was the fancy of the age for divine genealogy that is here\nbeing made fun of rather than the gods themselves; but in any case the\npassage shows how irrecoverably lost was the real impersonal character\nof the old Roman _numen_, and how impossible it must have been in such\nan age to believe that anything was really to be gained by the once\nsolemn rites of the _ius divinum_.\n\nBut the most remarkable evidence is in the Amphitruo,[754] where Jupiter\nand Mercurius are among the _dramatis personae_. This comedy is\nextremely amusing, and was quite capable of entertaining the Parisians\nin the form given it by Moliere; but for them it could hardly have been\nso funny as for the Greeks in the age of the New Comedy and their\ndisciples the Romans of Plautus' day, who saw Zeus and Hermes, Jupiter\nand Mercurius, brought by their own misdoings into absurd and degrading\nsituations. Jupiter personates Amphitruo, and so gains admission to his\nwife, Alkmene! Comment is needless, unless we take the last line of the\nplay as a comment:--\n\n  Nunc, spectatores, Iovi' summi causa clare plaudite!\n\nI do not propose to follow further the downfall of the old Roman ideas\nabout the objects of worship, or the neglect and decay of the _ius\ndivinum_. They do not fall within the scope of my subject--the religious\nexperience of the Roman people. So long as there was any life in these\nideas and in the cult which was the practical expression of them, they\nformed part of that experience. But I think I have sufficiently proved\nthat the life has gone out of the ideas, and that the worship has\nconsequently become meaningless. Ideas about the divine may be discussed\nby philosophers as the Romans begin to read and in some degree to think;\nand the outward forms of the cult may be maintained in such particulars\nas most closely concern the public life of the community; but as a\nreligious system expressing human experience we have done with these\nthings.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XV\n\n    [706] Polybius vi. 56.\n\n    [707] Livy xxxi. 4 _ad fin._, cp. xxv. 2, xxvii. 36,\n    etc. For the _Iovis epulum_ see _R.F._ 216 foll. and the\n    references there given. Wissowa, _R.K._ foll. 111. 385\n    foll. I am not sure that I am right in limiting the\n    human partakers of the epulum of Nov. 13 to the plebeian\n    magistrates.\n\n    [708] Livy xxxi. 5. The importance of the words\n    \"prolationem finium\" does not seem to have been noticed\n    by historians. If they are genuine they indicate an\n    undoubtedly aggressive attitude.\n\n    [709] Livy xxxi. 7 and 8.\n\n    [710] Livy xxxvi. 1.\n\n    [711] Augustine, _Civ. Dei_, iv. 27: \"Relatum est in\n    litteras doctissimum pontificem Scaevolam disputasse\n    tria genera tradita deorum: unum a poetis, alterum a\n    philosophis, tertium a principibus civitatis. Primum\n    genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de diis\n    fingantur indigna, etc. Expedire igitur falli in\n    religione civitates.\"\n\n    [712] Livy xxxii. 9, cp. 28. In connection with these\n    _prodigia_ it may be worth noting that in xxxii. 30 we\n    are told that a consul vowed a temple to Juno Sospita,\n    who had in her famous seat at Lanuvium been a constant\n    centre of marvel-mongering. Livy xxxiv. 53 places the\n    building of this temple _in foro olitorio_ three years\n    later, if we may read there Sospitae instead of the\n    Matutae of the MSS. with Sigonius: (cp. Aust, _de\n    Aedibus_, p. 21, and Wissowa, _R.K._ 117). This\n    interesting deity had been taken into the Roman worship\n    in 338 B.C., but not moved from Lanuvium, which had\n    peculiar religious relations with Rome. See _Myth. Lex._\n    vol. ii. p. 608, where the attributes of this Juno in\n    art are described by Vogel. The date of the temple at\n    Rome was 194. Whether the object of it was to diminish\n    the portents at Lanuvium it is impossible to say, but\n    judging from the records of _prodigia_ in Julius\n    Obsequens it had that effect. I find only four\n    _prodigia_ reported from Lanuvium after this date.\n\n    [713] See the passage in Frontinus, _de Aqueductibus_,\n    i. 7 (C. Herschel's edition gives the reading of the\n    best MS.), and the mutilated passage in the new epitomes\n    of Livy found by Grenfell and Hunt in Egypt\n    (_Oxyrrhyncus Papyri_, vol. iv. pp. 101 and 113). The\n    general bearing of the two passages taken together seems\n    to me to be that given in the text.\n\n    [714] Cic. _ad Fam._ i. 1 and 2. A somewhat similar case\n    in 190 B.C. will be found in Livy xxxviii. 45, where the\n    oracle forbade a Roman army to cross the Taurus range.\n\n    [715] Livy xxxiv. 55.\n\n    [716] Livy xxxviii. 56, mentions statues which were\n    believed to be those of Scipio the elder, his brother\n    Lucius, and Ennius, \"in Scipionum monumento\" outside the\n    Porta Capena, and another of Scipio at Liternum, where\n    he had a villa; this one Livy says that he saw himself\n    blown down by a storm. On statues and busts at Rome, see\n    Pliny xxxiv. 28 foll.; Mrs. Strong, _Roman Sculpture_,\n    p. 28 foll.; _Cambridge Companion to Latin Studies_, p.\n    550 foll.; and for coins, p. 456.\n\n    [717] See above, p. 240, for the remarkable exception in\n    the case of the elder Scipio, whose practice when in\n    Rome was to go up to the Capitoline temple before\n    daybreak and contemplate the statue of Jupiter; the dogs\n    never barked at him, and the aedituus opened the _cella\n    Iovis_ at his summons. I see no good ground for\n    rejecting this story, which is not likely to have been\n    invented. It can be traced back to two writers, Oppius,\n    the friend of Caesar, and Julius Hyginus, the librarian\n    of Augustus (Gell. vi. 1. 1), and was probably based on\n    tradition. Livy mentions it in xxvi. 19, and suggests\n    that this and other ways of Scipio were assumed to\n    impress the multitude. The Roman mind was naturally\n    averse from such individualism in religion; but Scipio\n    was beyond doubt more familiar than his contemporaries\n    with Greek ideas. In a chapter on Idealism in his little\n    book on _Religion and Art in Ancient Greece_, Professor\n    Ernest Gardner writes: \"The statue (of Athene) by\n    Phidias within the Parthenon offered not merely that\n    form in which she would choose to appear if she showed\n    herself to mortal eyes, but actually showed her form as\n    if she had revealed it to the sculptor. To look upon\n    such an image helped the worshipper as much as--perhaps\n    more than--any service or ritual, to bring himself into\n    communion with the goddess, and to fit himself, as a\n    citizen of her chosen city, to carry out her will in\n    contributing his best efforts to its supremacy in\n    politics, in literature, and in art.\" That Scipio had\n    some feeling of this kind need not be doubted, though\n    the statue was not a great work of art like that of\n    Phidias. Cp. Lucretius, vi. 75 foll.\n\n    [718] See below, p. 386.\n\n    [719] Marquardt, 332, and Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, i. ed.\n    2, p. 463 foll.\n\n    [720] Livy, _Epit._ xix.\n\n    [721] Livy xxxvii. 51: \"Religio ad postremum vicit, ut\n    dicto audiens esset flamen pontifici.\" Here _religio_ is\n    used in the sense of obligation to the _ius divinum_.\n\n    [722] Livy xxvii. 6; cp. 36.\n\n    [723] This story is told in Livy xl. 42.\n\n    [724] Livy xxvii. 8. For the compelling power (_capere_)\n    of the Pont. Max., see Marq. 314. The story may have\n    come from the annals of the Valerii Flacci, and also\n    from those of the pontifices; it was apparently well\n    known, as Valerius Maximus knew it (vi. 9. 2).\n\n    [725] Velleius ii. 43.\n\n    [726] Livy xxxi. 50.\n\n    [727] For the oath see \"Lex incerta reperta Bantiae,\"\n    lines 16 and 17, in Bruns, _Fontes Iuris Romani_. The\n    oath taboo is mentioned by Gellius 10. 15. 3.; Festus\n    104, and Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 113.\n\n    [728] Livy xxxii. 7; xxxix. 39.\n\n    [729] Tac. _Ann._ iv. 16.\n\n    [730] See above, p. 255.\n\n    [731] Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, vol. v. p.\n    85 foll. Very interesting is the modern survival of\n    Dionysiac rites recently discovered in Thrace by Mr.\n    Dawkins (_Hellenic Journal_, 1906, p. 191).\n\n    [732] Farnell, _op. cit._ vol. v. p. 150.\n\n    [733] Quoted by Farnell, p. 151, from Rohde's _Psyche_.\n\n    [734] It is possible that _superstitio_ may originally\n    have had some such meaning; see W. Otto in _Archiv fuer\n    Religionswissenschaft_, 1909, p. 548 foll.; Mayor's\n    edition of Cic. _de Nat. Deorum_, note on ii. 72 foll.\n\n    [735] Ovid, _Fasti_, iii. 523 foll. See also _Roman\n    Society in the Age of Cicero_, p. 289.\n\n    [736] See Mr. Heitland's _History of the Roman\n    Republic_, vol. ii. p. 229 note, and cp. Wissowa in\n    Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encycl._ _s.v._ \"Bacchanalia.\"\n\n    [737] Livy xxxix. 8 foll.\n\n    [738] Plato, _de Rep._ 364 B; cp. _Laws_, 933 D.\n\n    [739] \"Quaestio de clandestinis coniurationibus decreta\n    est,\" Livy xxxix. 8; so also in chs. 14 and 17. Cp.\n    _Sctm. de Bacchanalibus_, line 13, \"conioura (se).\" This\n    document is, strictly speaking, a letter to the\n    magistrates \"in agro Teurano\" in Bruttium embodying the\n    orders of the Senatus consultum. It will be found in\n    Bruns, _Fontes Iuris Romani_, or in Wordsworth,\n    _Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin_.\n\n    [740] Livy xxxix. 16: \"Omnia, dis propitiis\n    volentibusque, faciemus, qui quia suum numen sceleribus\n    libidinibusque contaminari indigne ferebant,\" etc.\n\n    [741] Mommsen, _Strafrecht_, p. 567 foll.\n\n    [742] Livy xxxix. 18 _ad fin._ _Sctm. de Bacch._ lines 3\n    foll.\n\n    [743] _Religion der Roemer_, p. 78.\n\n    [744] Livy xl. 29 seems to have put his account together\n    from Cassius Hemina and other annalists, so far as we\n    can judge from the reference to them in Pliny, _N.H._\n    xiii. 84; Valerius Antias, who simply stated that the\n    writings were Pythagorean as well as Numan, Livy\n    rejects as ignorant of the chronological impossibility\n    of making the king contemporary with the philosopher.\n    The fragment of Cassius Hemina is quoted in Pliny, sec.\n    86; Val. Max. i. 1, and Plutarch, _Numa_ 22, add nothing\n    to our knowledge of the incident.\n\n    [745] See Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_, i. 268;\n    Pliny, _loc. cit._, calls him \"vetustissimus auctor\n    annalium,\" but his work was later than the _Annals_ or\n    _Origines_ of Cato.\n\n    [746] Ennius came from South Italy (Rudiae in Messapia),\n    the home of Pythagoreanism. For traces of it in his\n    works, see Reid on Cicero, _Academica priora_, ii. 51.\n\n    [747] This is the view taken by Colin, _Rome et la\n    Grece, 200-146 B.C._, p. 269 foll. This reaction was\n    probably only a part of the general reversion to\n    conservatism which we have been noticing in the action\n    of the government in religious matters.\n\n    [748] See above, p. 149 foll.\n\n    [749] Quoted by Aust, _Religion der Roemer_, p. 64. The\n    passage is in Zeller's _Religion und Philosophie bei den\n    Roemern_, a short treatise reprinted in his _Vortraege und\n    Abhandlungen_, ii. 93 foll.\n\n    [750] Ribbeck, _Fragmenta Tragicorum Latinorum_, p. 54.\n\n    [751] _Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero_, p.\n    334.\n\n    [752] _Cistellaria_, ii. 1. 45 foll.\n\n    [753] Aust, _op. cit._ p. 66.\n\n    [754] See Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_, vol. i.\n    p. 75.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XVI\n\nGREEK PHILOSOPHY AND ROMAN RELIGION\n\n\nI said at the end of the last lecture that ideas about the Divine might\nbe discussed at Rome by philosophers, as the Romans began to read and in\nsome degree to think. At the era we have now reached, the latter half of\nthe second century B.C., this process actually began, and I propose in\nthis lecture to deal with it briefly. But my subject is the Roman\nreligious experience, and I can only find room for philosophy so far as\nthe philosophy introduced at Rome had a really religious side. Another\nreason forbidding me to give much space to it is that it was at Rome\nentirely exotic, did not spring from an indigenous root in Roman life\nand thought, and never seriously affected the minds of the lower and\nless educated population. And I must add that the types of Greek\nphilosophy which concern us at all have been fully and ably dealt with,\nthe one in vol. ii. of Dr. Caird's lectures on this foundation on _The\nEvolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers_, a work from which I\nhave learnt much, and the other by Dr. Masson in his most instructive\nwork on the great Epicurean poet Lucretius.\n\nWe have seen in the two last lectures that in that second century B.C.\nthe Roman was fast becoming religiously destitute--a castaway without\nconsolation, and without the sense that he needed it. He was destitute,\nfirst, in regard to his idea of God and of his relation to God; for if\nwe take our old definition of religion, which seems to me to be\ncontinually useful, we can hardly say of that age that it showed any\neffective desire to be in right relation with the Power manifesting\nitself in the universe. The old idea of the manifestation of the Power\nin the various _numina_ had no longer any relation to Roman life; the\nkind of life in which it germinated and grew, the life of agriculture\nand warlike self-defence, had passed away with the growth of the great\ncity, the decay of the small farmer, and the extension of the empire;\nand no new informing and inspiring principle had taken its place.\nSecondly, he was destitute in regard to his sense of duty, which had\nbeen largely dependent on religion, both in the family and in the State.\nNo new force had come in to create and maintain conscience. In public\nlife, indeed, the religious oath was still powerful, and continued to be\nso, though there are some signs that its binding force was less strong\nthan of yore, especially in the army.[755] But in a society so complex\nas that of Rome in the last two centuries B.C. much more was wanted than\na bond sanctioned by civil and religious law; there was needed a sense\nof duty to the family, the slave, the provincials, the poor and\nunfortunate. There was no spring of moral action, no religious\nconsecration of morality, no stimulus to moral endeavour. The individual\nwas rapidly developing, emancipating himself from the State and the\ngroup-system of society; but he was developing in a wrong direction. The\nimportance of self, when realised in high and low alike, was becoming\nself-seeking, indifference to all but self. We have now to see whether\nphilosophy could do anything to relieve this destitution of the Romans\nin regard both to God and duty.\n\nThe first system of philosophy actually to make its appearance at Rome\nwas that of Epicurus[756]; but it speedily disappeared for the time, and\nonly became popular in the last century B.C., and then in its most\nrepulsive form. It was indeed destined to inspire the noblest mind among\nall Roman thinkers with some of the greatest poetry ever written; but I\nneed say little of it, for it was never really a part of Roman religious\nexperience. Though capable of doing men much good in a turbulent and\nindividualistic age, it did not and could not do this by establishing a\nreligious sanction for conduct. The Epicurean gods were altogether out\nof reach of the conscience of the individual. They were superfluous even\nfor the atomic theory on which the whole system was pivoted;[757] and\nwhat Epicurus himself understood by them, or any of his followers down\nto Lucretius, is matter of subtle and perplexing disputation.[758] One\npoint is clear, that they had no interest in human beings;[759] and the\nnatural inference would be that human beings had no call to worship\nthem; yet, strange to say, Epicurus himself took part in worship, and in\nthe worship of the national religion of his native city. Philodemus, the\ncontemporary of Lucretius, expressly asserts this,[760] and even insists\nthat Epicurism gave a religious sanction to morality which was absent in\nStoicism.[761] Lucretius himself clearly thought that worship was\nnatural and possible. \"If you do not clear your mind of false notions,\"\nhe says, \"nec delubra deum placido cum pectore adibis.\"[762] Man might\ngo on with his ancestral worship, but entirely without fear, and as with\n\"placid mind\" he took part in the rites of his fathers, a mysterious\ndivine influence might enter his mind; \"the images of a Zeus, a\nHeracles, an Athene, might pass in and impress on him the aspect and\ncharacter of each deity, and carry with them suggestions of virtue, of\ncourage, of wise counsel in difficulty.\"[763] Evidently both Epicurus\nand his followers had felt the difficulty and the peril of breaking\nentirely with the religious habits of the mass of the people, and had\nconscientiously done their best to reconcile their own belief with\npopular practice--an attempt which has its parallel in the religious\nspeculation of the present day.\n\nBut for the Roman follower of Epicurus, wholly unused to such subtle\nideas as the passage of divine influence into the mind by means of\nreligious contemplation, this lame attempt to bring apathetic gods into\nrelation with human life must have been quite meaningless. Cicero well\nexpresses the common sense of a Roman at the very beginning of his\ntreatise on the _Nature of the Gods_.[764] \"If they are right who deny\nthat the gods have any interest in human affairs, where is there room\nfor _pietas_, for _sanctitas_, for _religio_?\" What, he adds, is the use\nof worship, of honour, of prayer? If these are simply make-believes,\n_pietas_ cannot exist, and with it we may almost assume that _fides_ and\n_iustitia_, and the social virtues generally, which hold society\ntogether, must vanish too. Such criticism is characteristically Roman,\nand we may take it as representing accurately the feeling of the\nold-fashioned Roman of Cicero's day, as well as of the Stoic or Academic\ncritic of Epicurism. On the other hand, the believing Epicurean at Rome\nwas not more likely to accept the compromise; he had done with his own\ngods and their worship, and such a \"ficta simulatio\" was not likely to\nattract him. Even Lucretius, whose mind was in a sense really religious,\ndoes no more in the passage I quoted just now than _allude_ to actual\nworship of the gods, and he makes it quite clear that the tranquillity\nand happiness coming from contemplation, and the punishment that follows\nmisdoing, are both purely subjective; the gods are not active in\ninfluencing man's life, but man influences that life himself by opening\nhis mind to the contemplation of the gods. This passage of Lucretius\n(vi. 68 foll.) is, if I am not mistaken, the nearest approach to real\nreligion that we find in the history of Roman Epicurism; yet so far as\nwe know it bore no fruit. It seems to me to express a genuine feeling, a\n_religio_, but the expression is blurred by a consciousness of\ninconsistency.\n\nThe fact is that in the system of Epicurus the Power manifesting itself\nin the universe is not a divine Power, but a mechanical one; the gods\nhave nothing to do with it, they cannot be active, their perfection is\nfound in repose; they are an adjunct, an after-thought in the system.\nThus all attempts to reconcile the Power with the popular religion must\ninevitably be failures, and more especially so in the Roman world. At\nbest the Epicurean gods could but set an example of quietism which could\nnot possibly be a force for good in that active world of business and\ngovernment.[765] The real force of Epicurism, for the Roman at least, if\nI am not mistaken, was _analogous_ to a religious force, though far\nindeed from being one in reality--I mean the profound and touching\nbelief in the Founder himself as a saviour, which is so familiar to all\nreaders of Lucretius.[766] And the real legacy of Lucretius himself to\nRoman religion is only indirectly a religious one--I mean the wholesome\ncontempt for \"_superstitio_\" and all the baser side of religious belief\nand practice, old and new.[767] If his devotion to the Master had been\nrooted more in the love of goodness and less in the admiration for his\nspeculations, and if his contempt for _superstitio_ had been less\nharshly dogmatic, had he been more sympathetic and generous in his\nattitude to the Italian ideas of the divine--the power of Lucretius\nmight possibly have been strong and permanent.\n\nThus for the Roman's destitution in regard to God Epicurism could find\nno remedy, and as a consequence it could provide no religious sanction\nfor his conduct in life. What power it had upon conduct as a system of\nethics is a question outside the range of my subject. No doubt a certain\ntype of mind, naturally pure and good, and apt to retire upon itself,\nmight find in Epicurism not only no harm but even positive help; perhaps\nthe best way to appreciate this fact, too often overlooked, is to read\nthe defence of the Epicurean ethics put into the mouth of Torquatus, in\nthe first book of the _de Finibus_,[768] by one who was far from being\nin sympathy with the creed. But for the Roman of that age, when ideas of\nduty and discipline were losing strength, this enticing faith, with\npleasure as its _summum bonum_, and with quietism as its ideal of human\nlife,[769] could hardly be a real stimulus to active virtue; the Roman\nneeded bracing, and this was not a tonic, but a sedative. Far more\nvaluable in every way, and far better suited to the best instincts of\nthe Roman character, was the rival creed of Stoicism, and I must devote\nthe rest of this lecture to the consideration of its religious aspect.\n\nIt was most fortunate for Rome that her best and ablest men in the\nsecond century B.C. fell into the hands, not of Epicureans, but of\nStoics--into the hands, too, of a single Stoic of high standing, fine\ncharacter, and good sense. For destitute as the Roman was both in regard\nto God and to Duty, he found in Stoicism an explanation of man's place\nin the universe,--an explanation relating him directly to the Power\nmanifesting itself therein, and deriving from that relation a _binding_\nprinciple of conduct and duty. This should make the religious character\nof Stoicism at once apparent. It is perfectly true, as the late Mr.\nLecky said long ago,[770] that \"Stoicism, taught by Panaetius of Rhodes,\nand soon after by the Syrian Posidonius, became the true religion of the\neducated classes. It furnished the principles of virtue, coloured the\nnoblest literature of the time, and guided all the developments of moral\nenthusiasm.\" To this I only need to add that it woke in the mind an\nentirely new idea of Deity, far transcending that of Roman _numina_ and\nof Greek polytheism, and yet not incapable of being reconciled with\nthese; so that it might be taken as an inpouring of sudden light upon\nold conceptions of the Power, glorifying and transfiguring them, rather\nthan, like the Epicurean faith, a bitter and contemptuous negation of\nman's inherited religious instincts. But before we go on to consider\nthis illumination more closely, let me say a few words about Panaetius\nthe Stoic missionary, and Scipio Aemilianus, his most famous disciple.\n\nScipio, born 184, was a happy combination of the best Roman aristocratic\ncharacter and the receptive intelligence which for a Roman was the chief\nresult of a Greek liberal education. He had been educated by his famous\nfather, Aemilius Paulus, in a thoroughly healthy way; he was no mere\nbook-student, but a practical courageous Roman, with a solid mental\nfoundation of moral rectitude (_pietas_) fixed firmly in the traditions\nand instincts of his own family. On this foundation, as has been well\nsaid,[771] a superstructure of intellectual culture might be built\nsecurely without destroying it, and this was exactly what did take\nplace, both for Scipio and for that circle of friends of his which has\nbecome so famous in Roman history. In very early life he became the\nintimate friend of Polybius, whose account of their first unreserved\nintercourse is one of the most delightful passages in all ancient\nliterature;[772] and from Polybius he doubtless learnt to think. He must\nhave learnt to understand the real nature of the Roman empire, to\nappreciate the forces which had called it into being,[773] the qualities\nwhich had preserved it through the fearful struggle with Hannibal, and\nthe duty of a noble Roman in regard to it. From Polybius, indeed, it is\nnot likely that he gained much light on matters either of religion or\nmorality; but that statesman and historian must inevitably have\naccustomed him, in the course of their long intercourse, to think more\ndeeply than Roman had ever yet thought, about the world in which he\nlived and was to act for many years the leading part. Thus he was well\nprepared for the friendship of a more spiritual guide.\n\nPanaetius, who was probably about the same age as Scipio, had the\nadvantage, as a visitor at Rome, of being a Rhodian, _i.e._ a citizen of\nthe one Greek State which had been almost continuously on good terms\nwith Rome, and of great value to her. He was also a scion of an old and\nhonoured family in that city, and was thus in every way a fit friend and\ncompanion for a great Roman noble. When their friendship began we do not\nknow for certain; but it is a fact that he lived for some two years,\ntogether with Polybius, in the house of Scipio, and these years were\nprobably between 144 and 141 B.C., after Scipio's return from the\nconquest of Carthage.[774] When Scipio in 141 was commissioned by the\nSenate to go and set things in order in the eastern Mediterranean, he\ntook Panaetius with him,[775] and brought him home to live with him\nagain as a guest, perhaps until he left for the Numantine war in 134,\nafter which it is not likely that they met again before Scipio's sudden\ndeath in 129. I am particular about the extent of their intimacy,\nbecause I wish to make it clear that this was no ordinary or fleeting\nfriendship between a commonplace Greek philosopher and an average Roman\nstatesman. Both statesman and philosopher were far above the usual level\nof their kind, and in the course of this long intimacy must have had\nfull opportunity of learning from each other. From Scipio Panaetius\nwould learn the secrets of the Roman temperament, and divine the right\nmethods of dealing with it, and the result of this was a happy\nmodification of the old rigidity of the Stoic principles--an adaptation\nof them to the Roman character which had far-reaching consequences. From\nPanaetius Scipio and his friends would learn a new and illuminating\nconception of man's place in the universe, and of his relation to the\nPower manifested in it. To understand the power of Stoicism on the mind\nof these Romans and their intellectual successors, it is necessary to\nhave a clear idea of this illumination.\n\nHitherto there had been nothing in the religion of Rome, or of any other\ncity-state, to make it inevitable, reasonable, that man should worship\nthe Power, except tradition and self-interest, involved in the tradition\nand self-interest of the family and the city. The gods belonged, as we\nsaw, to family or city as divine inhabitants, and if you neglected them\nthey would show their anger against you. Originally it was _religio_,\nthe feeling of awe for something distinct from man and unknown to him,\nwhich forced him to propitiate that which he might fear, but had no\nreason, except the instinct of self-preservation, to reverence; and\nlater on, as he came to know his _numina_ better, to make them, so to\nspeak, his own, and to formulate the methods of propitiating them, he\ngradually came also to take them for granted, and to worship them as a\nmatter of traditional duty. The idea of conforming his life to the will\nof any of these _numina_ would, of course, be absolutely strange to\nhim--the expression would have no meaning whatever for him. The help\nwhich he sought from them was not moral help, but material.[776] But\nnow, when the _religio_ has been hypnotised and soothed away, and when\nthe tradition of ceremonial observance was growing dim and weak, when he\nis left alone with his fellow-men, and without any binding reason for\nright conduct towards them, he may learn from Stoicism that there is a\nPower above and beyond all his _numina_, yet involving and embracing\nthem all, to which, and by the help of which, as a man endowed with\nreason, he _must_ conform his life.\n\nThe theology held and taught by Panaetius, in common with all Stoics at\nall periods, was based upon two leading thoughts, in the correlation of\nwhich lay the kernel of the Stoic ethical system. The first of these\nthoughts is this: the whole universe, in all its forms and\nmanifestations, shows unmistakably the work of Reason, of Mind; without\nmind, reason, _spiritus_, as Cicero calls it,[777] the universe could\nnot exist. I need not go here into the origin and history of this\nthought; what is important for us is to make clear the theological\nconsequences of it. Obviously it was natural that the Stoic should be\nled on to the conviction that this universe endowed with Reason--with a\nReason far transcending all human capacity--must itself be God. The\nStoic arguments in support of this further step are indeed lame, as they\ninevitably must be; they are well set forth at the beginning of Book ii.\nof Cicero's work _de Natura Deorum_ (based upon one by Posidonius, the\nsuccessor and disciple of Panaetius), where they seem to us rather cold\nand formal. That step is indeed incapable of being made convincing by\nany syllogism; it is only when we try to think with the minds of those\nold thinkers, living in a world of unmeaning worship, that we begin to\nrealise the nobility of a conviction which they tried in vain to reduce\nto a syllogism. _Sapiens a principio mundus, et deus habendus est_;[778]\nthese words, which sound like an article of a creed, suffice for us\nwithout the laborious arguments of Cleanthes and Chrysippus which we may\nread in the fifth and sixth chapters of Cicero's book. Cicero has added\nto these a characteristic illustration from city life, which I may quote\nas more useful for us. \"If a man enters a house or a gymnasium or a\nforum, and sees reason, method, and discipline reigning there, he cannot\nsuppose that these came about without a cause, but perceives that there\nis someone there who rules and is obeyed: how much more, when he\ncontemplates the motions and revolutions to be seen in the universe\n(_e.g._, in the heavenly bodies), must he conclude that they are all\ngoverned by a conscious Mind!\" And this Mind can be nothing else but\nGod.\n\nThis sounds like the Deism of the eighteenth century, and might be\ndescribed as \"natural religion\"; but the Stoics took yet another step,\nand developed their thought into Pantheism. The idea of a personal\nDeity, distinct from the universe and its Creator, was obnoxious to\nthem; it would have committed them to a dualism of Mind and Matter\nwhich, from the very outset of their history, they emphatically\nrepudiated; their conviction was of a Unity in all things, and to this\nthey consistently held in spite of constant and damaging criticism. The\ntheological result of this conviction has lately been well expressed by\nDr. Bussell.[779] He is speaking of Seneca in particular, but what he\nsays applies to all Stoics equally well: \"Though he yearns to see God\nin 'the moral order of the Universe,' he is forced in the interests of\nUnity to identify Him with every other known force. As He is everything,\nso any name will suit Him. He is the sum of existence: or the secret and\nabstract law which guides it: He is Nature or Fate. The partial names of\nspecial deities are all His, and together they make up the fulness of\nthe divine title; but _they disappear in the immense nothingness_,\nrather than colour or qualify it.\" This is a point of immense importance\nfor the study of Stoicism at Rome; it was fully developed by Posidonius,\nand copied from him both by Cicero and Varro. \"God,\" says Cicero in the\nbook I have been quoting, \"pervading all nature (_pertinens per naturam\ncuiusque rei_), can be understood as Ceres on the land, as Neptune on\nthe sea, and so on, and may be and should be worshipped in all these\ndifferent forms;\" not in superstitious fear and grovelling spirit--the\nmental attitude which Lucretius had condemned years before this treatise\nwas written--but with pure heart and mind, following the one and true\nGod in all his various manifestations.[780] Thus the Stoic Pantheism, in\nspite of its weak points, could find room for the deities of the\ncity-state, and put new illuminating life into them. To us it may seem,\nas it seems to Dr. Bussell, that they would disappear in an immense\nnothingness; but to the Roman mind of Scipio's age, if I am not\nmistaken, they might, on the contrary, save the great Pantheistic idea\nfrom so itself disappearing. I cannot but think that the Roman's idea of\ndivinity, the force or will-power which he called _numen_,[781] would\nfind here a means of reviving its former hold on the Roman mind, and\nenabling it to grasp as a concrete fact, and not merely as an abstract\nidea, the \"deus pertinens per naturam cuiusque rei.\" In particular the\nRoman conception of the great Jupiter, the father of heaven, might gain\nnew life for the people who had so long been used to call him \"the Best\nand Greatest.\" Almost from the very beginning of Stoicism the school had\nseized upon Zeus to convey, under the guise of a personality and a name,\nsome idea of the Reason in the universe;[782] and the same use might\njust as well, perhaps even better, be made of the great deity of the\nCapitoline temple, whom his people recognised as the open heaven with\nall its manifestations, the celestial representative of good faith and\nrighteous dealing, and the special protector of the destinies of Rome\nand her empire.\n\nThe second thought which lies at the base of the religion or theology of\nStoicism, is this: that Man himself, alone in all the Universe, shares\nwith God the full possession of Reason. In other words, Man alone,\nbesides God, is strictly individual, self-conscious, capable of\nrealising an end and of working towards it; he is so utterly different\nfrom the animals, so far above them (or if we call him an animal, he is,\nin Cicero's language,[783] _animal providum, sagax, multiplex, acutum,\nmemor, plenum rationis et consilii_), that he must surely be of the same\nnature as God. And this is what, in strict conformity with all Stoic\nteaching, Cicero in this same passage expressly says--man is _generatus\na deo_. So too in the famous hymn of Cleanthes,[784] quoted by St. Paul\nat Athens (\"For we are also his offspring,\"):--\n\n  Chiefest glory of deathless Gods, Almighty for ever,\n  Sovereign of Nature that rulest by law, what name shall\n    we give thee?\n  Blessed be Thou, for on Thee should call all things that are mortal.\n  For that we are Thy offspring: nay, all that in myriad motion\n  Lives for its day on the earth bears one impress, Thy likeness,\n    upon it;\n  Wherefore my song is of Thee, and I hymn Thy power for ever.\n\nIn these splendid lines it is plain that not Man only is thought of, but\nall living things, animals included with Man; and this is in accordance\nwith the true Stoic Pantheism. But none the less on this account did\nthe Stoics believe Man to be the one living thing in the universe\ncomparable with God, and capable of communion with him by virtue of the\npossession of Reason. As Cicero says, a few lines farther on in the work\nI am quoting, \"virtus eadem in homine ac deo est, neque ullo alio\ningenio praeterea.\" And since every creature seeks to maintain and\naugment its own being, to bring it to perfection, to express it fully,\nby an innate law of its nature, Man being endowed with Reason above all\nother creatures, strives, or should strive, to bring himself to a\nperfect expression, by identifying himself with the divine principle\nwhich he shares with God. As Dr. Caird puts it,[785] \"the ruling power\nof Reason so dominates his nature that he cannot be described as\nanything but a self-conscious _ego_ (_i.e._ in contrast with other\nanimals); and just because of this, all his impulses become concentrated\nin one great effort after self-realisation.\" But the self that he tries\nto realise must be his true self, not his irrational impulses: the self\nwhich is a part of the divine principle. He must desire to realise\nhimself as having Reason, and so to come into close communion with God,\nthe Reason of the universe. Those who are at all familiar with the later\nRoman Stoics, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus, if we may\ninclude him among them, will recognise in this inspiring thought, vague\nand impalpable as it may seem, the germ of many beautiful expressions of\nthe relation of Man to God, which seem to bring Stoicism into closer\nspiritual connection with Christianity than any other doctrine of the\nancient world.\n\nThe work of Cicero from which I have been quoting, the first book of his\ntreatise on the Laws, _i.e._ the Roman constitution, is very probably\nbased on one by Panaetius himself,[786] of whom we are expressly told\nthat he used to discuss that constitution together with Polybius and\nScipio in the days of their happy intimacy at Rome.[787] In any case we\nmay find it helpful, taken together with the earlier fragmentary work\n_de Republica_, in trying to form some idea of the effect of this second\nleading Stoic thought on the best Roman minds of the last ages of the\nRepublic. We find, as we might expect, that it is not on Man simply as\nindividual that stress is here laid. Man is not thought of as hoping to\nrealise his own Reason in isolation; the Stoics, though, like their\nrivals, they represent a reaction of the individual against the State,\nwere all along perfectly clear that man in isolation would be helpless,\nand that his own reason bade him realise himself in association with his\nfellow-men.[788] It is the position of Man, as associated, 1, with God,\n2, with other men, that is here made prominent; and the bond of\nconnection is in each case Law, which is indeed only one name for the\nSupreme Reason and the highest Good. I must say a word about these two\naspects of Man's position in the world, in order to explain what I\nbelieve to have been the effect of this teaching on the Roman mind.\n\n1. In explaining the relation of Man to God Cicero uses an expression\nwhich some years before he had developed in a fine passage in the\nRepublic: _true law_, he says, _is right reason_.[789] In the Laws he\ntakes it up again, and argues that as both God and Man have reason,\nthere must be a direct relation between them.[790] And as Law and right\nreason are identical, we may say that Law is the binding force of that\nrelation. And again, this means that the universe may be looked on as\none great State (_civitas_), of which both God and Man (or gods and men)\nare citizens, or in another way as a State of which the constitution is\nitself the Reason, or God's law, which all reasonable beings must obey.\nSuch obedience is itself the effort by which Man realises his own\nreason: he is a part of a reasonable universe, and he cannot rebel\nagainst its law without violating his own highest instinct. It is not\nhard to see how this way of expressing the Stoic theological principle\nwould appeal to the Roman mind. That mind was wholly incapable of\nmetaphysical thinking; but it could without effort understand, with the\nhelp of its social and political principles and experience, the idea of\nsupreme intelligent rule--a supreme _imperium_, as it were, to rebel\nagainst which would be a moral _perduellio_, high treason against a\nsupreme Law, unwritten like his own, and resting, as he thought of his\nown as resting, on the best instincts, tradition, reason, of his\ncommunity; from his own constitution and laws he could lift his mind\nwithout much difficulty to the constitution and law of the _communis\ndeorum et hominum civitas_. The idea of God in any such sense as this\nwas indeed new to him; but he could grasp it under the expression\n\"universal law of right reason\" when he would have utterly failed, for\nexample, to conceive of it as \"the Absolute.\" He can feel himself the\ncitizen of a State whose maker and ruler is God, and whose law is the\ninevitable force of Reason; he can realise his relationship to God as a\npart of the same State, gifted with the same power of discerning its\nlegal basis, nay, even helping to administer its law by rational\nobedience.\n\n2. Reason as thus ruling the universe can also provide a basis for Man's\nreasonable association with his fellow-men, and a religious basis if\nconceived as God; for Man's recognition of the divine law, the _recta\nratio_, as binding on him, is followed quite naturally by his\nrecognition of the application of that law to the world he lives in.\n\"Human law comes into existence,\" says Zeller, explaining this\npoint,[791] \"when man becomes aware of the divine law, and recognises\nits claim on him.\" Here, again, it is easy to see how illuminating would\nbe this conception of law for the Roman of Scipio's time. So far the\nRoman idea and study of law (as I have elsewhere expressed it)[792] had\nbeen of a crabbed, practical character, wanting in breadth of treatment,\ndestitute of any philosophical conception of the moral principles which\nlie behind all law and government. The new doctrine called up life in\nthese dry bones, and started Roman lawyers, many of whom were Stoics\nmore or less pronounced, on a career of enlightened legal study which\nhas left one of the most valuable legacies inherited by the modern\nworld from ancient civilisation. In another way too it had, I think, an\nimmediate effect on Scipio himself and his circle, and on their mental\ndescendants, of whom Cicero was the most brilliant: it made them look on\nthe law and constitution of their State as eminently reasonable, and on\nrebellion against it as unreason, or as the Romans call it, _lascivia_,\nwanton disregard of principle. So far as I know, no great Roman lawyer\nwas ever a revolutionary like Catiline or Clodius, nor yet an obstinate\nconservative like Cato, whose Stoicism was of the older and less\nRomanised type; the two of whom we know most in the century following\nthe arrival of Panaetius were both wise, just, and moderate men, Mucius\nScaevola and Servius Sulpicius, of whom it may be truly said they\ncontributed as much to civilisation as the great military and political\nleaders of the same period.[793]\n\nThere now remains the question whether this noble Stoic religion, as we\nmay fairly call it, with its ideas of the relation of Man to God and to\nhis fellow-men, had, after all, sufficient definiteness for a Roman to\nact as a grip on his conscience and his conduct in his daily dealings\nwith others. It could deduce the existence and beauty of the social\nvirtues from its own principles; if Man partakes of the eternal Reason,\nor, as they otherwise put it, if he is through his Reason a part of God\nhimself in the highest sense, and if God and Reason are in the highest\nsense good, then in realising his own Reason, in obeying the voice of\nthe God within him,[794] he must be himself good by the natural instinct\nof his own being. Accordingly, these social virtues, duties, _officia_,\nas the Romans called them, were set forth by Panaetius in two books,\nwhich in a Latinised form we still fortunately possess,--the first two\nof Cicero's work _de Officiis_,--and without the uncompromising rigidity\nwhich characterised the original Stoic ethical doctrine inherited from\nthe Cynics.[795] In the first book he treated of the good simply\n(_honestum_), in the second of the useful (_utile_), and in a third,\nwhich it was left for Cicero to execute, of the cases of conflict\nbetween these two. In this charming work there is much to admire, and\neven much to learn: the social virtues--benevolence, justice,\nliberality, self-restraint, and so on, are enlarged upon and illustrated\nby historical examples[796] in perfect Latin by Cicero; and as we read\nit we cannot but feel that the influence of Panaetius upon his educated\nRoman pupils must have been eminently wholesome.\n\nBut at the same time we inevitably feel that there is something wanting.\nWhat power could such a discussion really have to constrain an ordinary\nman to right action? The constraint, such as it is, seems purely an\nintellectual process, and this is indeed noticeable in the Stoic ethics\nof all periods. No Stoic brought his doctrine nearer to a religious\nsystem than Epictetus; yet this is how Epictetus puts the matter:[797]\n\"If a man could be thoroughly penetrated, as he ought to be, with this\n_thought_, that we are all in an especial manner sprung from God, and\nthat God is the Father of men as well as gods, full sure he would never\nconceive aught ignoble or base of himself.... Those few who _hold_ that\nthey are born for fidelity, modesty, and unerring rightness in dealing\nwith the things of sense, never conceive aught base or ignoble of\nthemselves.\" He means that, for the real Stoic, _self-respect is the\nnecessary consequence of his intellectual conception of his place in the\nuniverse_, and that self-respect must as inevitably result in virtue.\nCan this intellectual attitude really act as a constraining force on the\nwill of the average man? This is far too complicated a question for me\nto enter upon here, and I can but suggest the study of it for anyone who\nwould wish to test the actual life-giving moral power of this\nphilosophy. Suffice it to say that their idea of the universe as Reason\nand God naturally led the Stoics into a kind of Fatalism, a destined\norder in the world which nothing could effectually oppose;[798] and they\nwere naturally in some difficulty in reconciling this with the freedom\nof Man's will. That freedom they constantly and consistently asserted;\nbut it comes after all to this, that Man is free to bring his will into\nconformity, _through knowledge_, with the Power and the universal\nReason; or, as Dr. Caird puts it,[799] \"Man has the choice whether he\nwill be a willing or an unwilling servant (of the universal Reason):\nunwilling, if he makes it his aim to satisfy his particular self, an aim\nwhich he can only attain so far as the general system of things allows\nhim; willing, if he identifies himself with the divine reason which is\nmanifested in that system.\" But that identification of himself with the\ndivine Reason is again an intellectual process; it can only be realised\nby minds highly trained in thinking; it could not have the smallest grip\non the conduct of the ordinary ignorant man, or on the minds of women\nand children.\n\nAnd here we come upon another weak point in Stoicism as presented to the\nRoman world in this last century B.C. It was an age in which gentleness,\ntenderness, pity, and the philanthropic spirit were most sadly needed,\nand it cannot be said of Stoicism that it had any mission to encourage\ntheir growth. The Stoics looked on the mass of men as ignorant and\nwicked,[800] and it never occurred to them that it was a duty of the\nGood Man to teach and redeem them,--to sacrifice his life, if need be,\nin the work of enlightenment. They seem to have thought even of women\nand children as hardly partaking of Reason; their ideally good man was\nvirtuous in a strictly virile way,[801] and it never occurred to them\nthat training in goodness must begin from the earliest years, and be\ngradually developed with infinite sympathy and tenderness. If a man is\nto learn that there is something within him which partakes of God, and\nwhich should naturally lead him to right conduct, he must begin to learn\nthis truth in his infancy.[802] But the absence of a place for emotion\nand sympathy in the Stoic system, resulting from the purely intellectual\nnature of their central doctrine of Reason, meant also the absence of\nany spirit of enthusiastic propaganda. Their notion that emotion or\npassion is \"a movement of mind contrary to reason and nature,\"[803]\nlamed their whole system as a progressive force in the world of that\nday. Such religious power as it could exercise worked simply through\nthe radiating influence of a few wise and good men, by nature pure and\nunselfish, who gradually familiarised the educated part of society with\na nobler idea of God than the old religion had ever been able to supply,\nand with that other inspiring idea of the near relation of Man to God as\npartaking of His nature. But the active enthusiasm of a real\nreligion--the _effective_ desire to be in right relation with the\nPower--was strange to Stoicism. In one way or another it had many\nexcellent results; it cleared the ground, for example, for a new and\nuniversal religion by putting into the shade, if not altogether out of\nthe way, the old local cults with their narrow and limited civic force:\nit glorified the idea of law and order in an age when the Roman world\nseemed to be forgetting what these sacred words meant; _but a real\nactive enthusiasm of humanity was wanting in it_. Hence there is a\ncertain hopelessness about Stoicism, which increased rather than\ndiminished as the world went on, and such as is seen in a kind of sad\ngrandeur in Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic emperor. Of him it may be said,\nboth as emperor and philosopher, as has been said of the Stoic in\ngeneral, that \"he was essentially a soldier left to hold a fort\nsurrounded by overpowering hosts of the enemy. He could not conquer or\ndrive them away, but he could hold out to the last and die at his post.\"\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XVI.\n\n    [755] See, _e.g._ Livy iii. 20: \"Sed nondum haec, quae\n    nunc tenet saeculum, neglegentia deum venerat; nec\n    interpretando sibi quisque iusiurandum et leges aptas\n    faciebat, sed suos potius mores ad ea accommodabat.\" Cp.\n    Cic. _de Off._ iii. 111.\n\n    [756] Two Epicureans were expelled from Rome in 173\n    (probably), Athenaeus, p. 547. Cicero, _Tusc._ iv. 3, 7,\n    gives some idea of the later popularity of the school in\n    the first half of the last century B.C.\n\n    [757] So Masson, _Lucretius_, i. 263, 271.\n\n    [758] See Masson i. ch. xii. and ii. p. 141 foll.;\n    Mayor's Cicero _de Nat. Deor._ vol. i. xlviii. and 138\n    foll.; Guyau, _La Morale d'Epicure_ (ed. 4), p. 171\n    foll.\n\n    [759] Cic. _N.D._ i. 19, 49 foll., and many other\n    passages; Diog. Laert. x. 55; Zeller, _Stoics,\n    Epicureans, and Sceptics_, p. 441 foll.; Masson i. 292,\n    who aptly quotes Cotta the academic critic in Cicero's\n    dialogue: \"When Epicurus takes away from the gods the\n    power of helping and doing good, he extirpates the very\n    roots of religion from the minds of men\" (Cic. _N.D._ i.\n    45. 121). One may add with Dr. Masson (i. 416 foll.)\n    that a machine cannot command worship; the _Natura_ of\n    Lucretius, _i.e._, was really a machine.\n\n    [760] Masson i. p. 284, and citations of Philodemus\n    there given.\n\n    [761] Mayor's Cic. _N.D._ vol. i. p. xlix.\n\n    [762] Lucr. vi. 68 foll.\n\n    [763] Masson i. p. 285.\n\n    [764] Cic. _N.D._ i. 2. 3.\n\n    [765] Cic. _N.D._ i. 37. 102; to believe the gods idle\n    \"etiam homines inertes efficit.\"\n\n    [766] For this profound reverence for Epicurus see also\n    Cic. _N.D._ i. 8. 18. It amounted to a faith. In this\n    passage the Epicurean is described as \"nihil tam verens\n    quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur, tanquam modo ex\n    deorum concilio et ex Epicuri intermundiis\n    descendisset.\" See also sec. 43 and Mayor's note; Cic.\n    _de Finibus_, i. 5. 14; Masson i. 354-5, who quotes the\n    most striking passages from Lucretius, _e.g._ v. 8-10:\n\n             deus ille fuit, deus, inclyte Memmi,\n      qui princeps vitae rationem invenit eam quae\n      nunc appellatur sapientia, etc.\n\n\n    In a paper entitled \"Die Bekehrung (conversion) im\n    klassischen Altertum,\" by W. A. Heidel (_Zeitschrift fuer\n    Religionspsychologie_, vol. iii. Heft 2), the author, an\n    American disciple of W. James, argues that the exordium\n    of Bk. iii. indicates a psychological conversion of\n    Lucretius.\n\n    [767] See Masson's chapter (p. 399 foll.) on the\n    teaching and personality of Lucretius. _Social Life at\n    Rome in the Age of Cicero_, p. 327 foll., and references\n    there given. I may note here that the power of Epicurism\n    as a faith depended also largely on the directness,\n    downrightness, and audacity of its system, working on\n    minds weary of philosophers' disputations and political\n    quarrels.\n\n    [768] Cic. _de Finibus_, i. viii. to end (translation by\n    J. S. Reid, Camb. Univ. Press). The following sentence\n    in ch. 18, sec. 57, puts the Epicurean ethics in a\n    nutshell: \"Clamat Epicurus, is quem vos nimis\n    voluptatibus esse deditum dicitis, non posse iucunde\n    vivi nisi sapienter, honeste, iusteque vivatur, nec\n    sapienter, honeste, iuste, nisi iucunde.\"\n\n    [769] What this quietism might mean for a Roman may be\n    gathered from the following passage in Cic. _de\n    Finibus_, i. 13. 43, in which _sapientia_ is practical\n    wisdom, the Aristotelian [Greek: phronesis] or the _ars\n    vivendi_, as Cicero has explained it just before:\n    \"Sapientia est adhibenda, quae, et terroribus\n    cupiditatibusque detractis et omnium falsarum opinionum\n    temeritate derepta, certissimam se ducem praebeat ad\n    voluptatem. Sapientia enim est una, quae maestitiam\n    pellat ex animis, quae nos exhorrescere metu non sinat;\n    qua praeceptrice in tranquillitate vivi potest, omnium\n    cupiditatum ardore restincto. Cupiditates enim sunt\n    insatiabiles, quae non modo singulos homines, sed\n    universas familias evertunt, totam etiam labefactant\n    saepe rempublicam. Ex cupiditatibus odia discidia\n    discordiae seditiones bella nascuntur.\" And so on to the\n    end of the chapter. The message of Lucretius to the\n    Roman was practically the same. The remedy was the wrong\n    one in that age; though it does not necessarily entail\n    withdrawal from public life with all its enticements\n    and risks, it must inevitably have a strong tendency to\n    suggest it; and such withdrawal had, as a matter of\n    fact, been one of the characteristics of the Epicurean\n    life. See Zeller, _Stoics_, etc., ch. xx.; Guyau, _La\n    Morale d'Epicure_, p. 141 foll.\n\n    [770] _History of European Morals_ (1899), vol. i. p.\n    225. The treatment of Stoicism in this work, though not,\n    strictly speaking, philosophical, is in many ways most\n    instructive.\n\n    [771] F. Leo, _Die griechische und lateinische\n    Literatur_, p. 337. See the author's _Social Life at\n    Rome in the Age of Cicero_, p. 105.\n\n    [772] Polybius xxxii. 9-16.\n\n    [773] See a discussion by the author of the meaning of\n    [Greek: tyche] in Polybius, _Classical Review_, vol.\n    xvii. p. 445, and the passages there quoted relating to\n    the growth of the Roman dominion.\n\n    [774] See Schmekel, _Die mittlere Stoa_, p. 3 foll.\n\n    [775] _Ib._ p. 6, note 3.\n\n    [776] See above, p. 251.\n\n    [777] Cic. _N.D._ ii., end of sec. 19. He is translating\n    the Greek [Greek: pneuma], which in Stoicism is not a\n    spiritual conception, but a material one, in harmony\n    with their theory of the universe as being itself\n    material, including reason and the soul. This is one of\n    the weak points of the Stoic idea of Unity. For the\n    meaning of _spiritus_ see Mayor's note on the passage;\n    it is \"the ether or warm air which penetrates and gives\n    life to all things, and connects them together in one\n    organic whole.\"\n\n    [778] Cic. _N.D._ ii. xiii. 36 _ad fin._ On all this\n    department of the Stoic teaching see Zeller, _Stoics_,\n    etc., p. 135 foll.; Caird, _Gifford Lectures_, vol. ii.,\n    Lectures 16 and 17.\n\n    [779] _Marcus Aurelius and the Later Stoics_, by F. W.\n    Bussell p. 42.\n\n    [780] Cic. _N.D._ ii. ch. 28 (secs. 70-72), with Mayor's\n    commentary; Zeller, _op. cit._ p. 327 foll.; Mayor,\n    introduction to vol. ii. of his edition of Cic. _N.D._\n    xi. foll.; _Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero_,\n    p. 334 foll. It is important to note the distinction\n    drawn by Cicero between religion and superstition; what\n    Lucretius called _religio_ as a whole Cicero (and Varro\n    too, cf. Aug. _Civ. Dei_, vi. 9) thus divided. See\n    Mayor's valuable note, vol. ii. p. 183. Some interesting\n    remarks on the Stoic way of dealing with popular\n    mythology will be found in Oakesmith's _Religion of\n    Plutarch_, p. 68 foll.\n\n    [781] See above, p. 118 foll.\n\n    [782] See Mayor's note on Cic. _N.D._ ii. 15. 39 (vol.\n    i. p. 130), with quotation from Philodemus. Zeller,\n    _Stoics_, etc., p. 337 foll.\n\n    [783] Cic. _de Legibus_, i. 7. 22.\n\n    [784] _Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum_, Paris, 1883.\n    I have borrowed the beautiful translation of my friend\n    Hastings Crossley, printed p. 183 foll. of his _Golden\n    Sayings of Epictetus_, in Macmillan's Golden Treasury\n    Series.\n\n    [785] _Gifford Lectures_, ii. p. 94.\n\n    [786] So Schmekel, _Die mittlere Stoa_, p. 61 foll. The\n    evidence is not conclusive, and the process of argument\n    is one of elimination; but it raises a fairly strong\n    probability.\n\n    [787] Cic. _de Rep._ i. 21. 34.\n\n    [788] See Zeller, _Stoics_, etc., p. 294 foll.\n\n    [789] Cic. _de Rep._ iii. 22. 33.\n\n    [790] Cic. _de Legibus_, i. 7. 22 foll.: \"Est igitur,\n    quoniam nihil est ratione melius, eaque in homine et in\n    deo, prima homini cum deo rationis societas. Inter quos\n    autem ratio, inter eosdem etiam recta ratio communis\n    est,\" etc.\n\n    [791] Zeller, _Stoics_, etc., p. 226 foll.\n\n    [792] _Social Life at Rome_, p. 117.\n\n    [793] _Ib._ p. 118 foll.\n\n    [794] I may take this opportunity of noting that a Roman\n    might better understand this notion of his Reason as the\n    voice of God within him, or conscience, from his own\n    idea of his \"other soul,\" or genius; see above, p. 75.\n    But we do not know for certain that it was presented to\n    him in this way by Panaetius, though Posidonius (_ap.\n    Galenum_, 469) used the word [Greek: daimon] in this\n    sense, as did the later Stoics; see Mulder, _de\n    Conscientiae notione_, p. 71. Seneca, _Ep._ 41. 2, uses\n    the word _spiritus_: \"Sacer intra nos spiritus sedet ...\n    in unoquoque virorum bonorum, quis deus incertum est,\n    habitat deus\" (from Virg. _Aen._ viii. 352). Cp. Marcus\n    Aurelius iii. 3. Seneca uses the word genius clearly in\n    this sense in _Ep._ 110 foll. On the Stoic daemon\n    consult Zeller, _Stoics_, etc., p. 332 foll.; Oakesmith,\n    _Religion of Plutarch_, ch. vi.\n\n    [795] See, _e.g._, Zeller, p. 268.\n\n    [796] This habit of illustrating by historical examples\n    had an educational value of its own, but serves well to\n    show how comparatively feeble was the appeal of Stoicism\n    to the conscience. It may be seen well in Valerius\n    Maximus, whose work, compiled of fact and fiction for\n    educational purposes, is far indeed from being an\n    inspiring one. See _Social Life at Rome_, p. 189.\n\n    [797] Arrian, _Discourses_, i. 3. 1-6 (_Golden Sayings\n    of Epictetus_, No. 9).\n\n    [798] Schmekel, _Die mittlere Stoa_, p. 190 foll.\n    (Panaetius), and 244 foll. (Posidonius), Zeller 160\n    foll. This is the Fate or Providence on which the moral\n    lesson of the _Aeneid_ is based; see below, p. 409\n    foll. Aeneas is the servant of Destiny. If he had\n    persisted in rebelling against it by remaining at\n    Carthage with Dido, that would not have changed the\n    inevitable course of things, but it would have ruined\n    him.\n\n    [799] _Gifford Lectures_, ii. 96.\n\n    [800] Zeller, _Stoics_, etc., p. 255. This, of course,\n    did not diminish the duty of general benevolence, _ib._\n    p. 310 and references, where fine passages of Cicero and\n    Seneca are quoted about duties to one's inferiors. But\n    an enthusiasm of humanity was none the less wanting in\n    Stoicism, and this was largely owing no doubt to their\n    hard and fast distinction between virtue and vice, and\n    their want of perception of a growth or evolution in\n    society. See Caird, _op. cit._ ii. 99; Lecky, _Hist. of\n    European Morals_, i. 192 foll.; Zeller 251 foll.\n\n    [801] See some excellent remarks in Lecky, _op. cit._ i.\n    p. 242 foll.\n\n    [802] See above, note 40.\n\n    [803] Zeller, _Stoics_, etc., p. 229. Cic. _de Finibus_,\n    iii, 10, 35; _Tusc. Disp._ iv. 28, 60.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XVII\n\nMYSTICISM--IDEAS OF A FUTURE LIFE\n\n\nWe have now reached the end of the period of the Republic; but before I\ngo on to the age of Augustus, with which I must bring these lectures to\nan end, I must ask attention to a movement which can best be described\nby the somewhat vague term Mysticism, but is generally known to\nhistorians of philosophy as Neo-pythagoreanism. The fact is that such\ntendency as there ever was at Rome towards Mysticism--which was never\nindeed a strong one till Rome had almost ceased to be Roman[804]--seems\nto have taken the form of thinking known as Pythagorean. The ideas at\nthe root of the Pythagorean doctrine, the belief in a future life, the\nconception of this life as only preparatory to another, the conviction\nof the need of purgation in another life and of the preparatory\ndiscipline and asceticism to be practised while we are here,--these are\ntruly religious ideas; and even among Romans the religious instinct,\nthough it might be hypnotised, could never be entirely destroyed. When\nit awoke from time to time in the minds of thinking men it was apt to\nexpress itself in Pythagorean tones. With the ignorant and vulgar it\nmight find a baser expression in superstition pure and simple,--in the\nfinding of portents, in astrology, in Dionysiac orgies; but with these\nPythagoreanism must not be reckoned. These, as they appeared on the soil\nof Italy, were the bastard children of quasi-religious thought. But the\nmovement of which I speak marks a reaction, among men who could both\nfeel and think, against the whole tendency of Roman religious experience\nas we have been tracing it; against the extreme formalism, now\nmeaningless, of the Roman State religion; against the extreme scepticism\nand indifference so obvious in the last century and a half of the\nrepublican era; against the purely intellectual appeal of the ethical\nsystems of which I have been recently speaking. Stoicism indeed, as we\nshall see, held out a hand to the new movement, simply because Stoicism\nhad a religious side which was wanting in Epicurism. But the thought\nthat our senses and our reason are not after all the sole fountains of\nour knowledge, a thought which is the essence of mysticism, was really\nforeign to Stoicism; and when this thought did find a soil in the mind\nof a thinking Roman of this age, it was likely to spring up in a\ntranscendental form which we may call Pythagoreanism.\n\nSouth Italy was indeed the true home of the Pythagorean teaching. There\nits founder had established it, and there, mixed up with more popular\nOrphic doctrine and practice, it must have remained latent for\ncenturies.[805] \"Tenuit magnam illam Graeciam,\" says Cicero of\nPythagoras, \"cum honore disciplinae, tum etiam auctoritate; multaque\nsaecula post sic viguit Pythagoreorum nomen, ut nulli alii docti\nviderentur.\"[806] To South Italy Plato is said to have travelled to\nstudy this philosophy, and to learn the doctrine of the immortality of\nthe soul; and the story is generally accepted as true.[807] But of any\nmissionary attempt of Pythagoreanism on Rome we know nothing--and\nprobably there was nothing to tell--till that mysterious plot to\nintroduce it after the Hannibalic war which I mentioned in a recent\nlecture.[808] That war brought Rome into close contact with Tarentum and\nsouthern Italy, and it is likely enough that the attempt to connect King\nNuma with the philosopher, both in the familiar legend and in the\nalleged discovery of the stone coffin with its forged manuscripts, had\nits origin in this contact. The Senate could not object to the legend,\nbut it promptly stamped out this grotesque attempt at propagandism. Then\nwe hear no more of the doctrine for a century at least; but in the last\ncentury B.C. we know that there appeared a number of Pythagorean\nwritings, falsely attributed to the founder himself or his\ndisciples,[809]--a method of propagandism which, like that of the\nprevious century, may perhaps be taken as marking the religious nature\nof the doctrine, which needed the _ipse dixit_ of the founder or\nsomething as near it as possible.[810] But of the immediate influence of\nthese writings we know nothing. The person really responsible for the\ntendency to this kind of mysticism was undoubtedly the great Posidonius,\nphilosopher, historian, traveller, who more than any other man dominated\nthe Roman world of thought in the first half of the last century B.C.,\nand whose writings, now surviving in a few fragments only, lie at the\nback of nearly all the serious Roman literature of his own and indeed of\nthe following age.[811] Panaetius, there can be little doubt, had done\nsomething to leaven Stoicism with Platonic-Aristotelian psychology,[812]\nthe general tendency of which was towards a dualism of Soul and Body.\nThe Stoics, in the strict sense of the name, \"could not be content with\nany philosophy which divided heaven from earth, the spiritual from the\nmaterial.\" \"They rebelled against the idea of a transcendent God and a\ntranscendent ideal world, as modern thought has rebelled against the\nsupernaturalism of mediaeval religion and philosophy.\"[813] In their\npassion for unity they would not separate soul and body. But when once\nPanaetius had hinted at a reversion to the older mode of thought, it was\nnatural and easy to follow his lead in a society which had long ago\nabandoned burial for cremation, and bidden farewell to the primitive\nnotion that the body lived on under the earth: in a society, too, which\nhad always believed in that \"other soul,\" the _Genius_ of a man, as\ndistinct from his bodily self of this earthly life.[814]\n\nNow as soon as this dualism of body and soul was suggested, it was taken\nup by Posidonius into what we may call his neo-Stoic system, and at once\ngave mysticism,--or transcendentalism, if we choose so to call it--its\nchance. For in such a dualistic psychology it is the soul that gains in\nvalue, the body that loses. Life becomes an imprisonment of the soul in\nthe body; the soul seeks to escape, death is but the beginning of a new\nlife, and the imagination is set to work to fathom the mysteries of\nMan's future existence, nay, in some more fanciful minds, those of his\npre-existence as well. This kind of speculation, half philosophic, half\npoetical, is the transcendental side of the Platonic psychology, and in\nthe last age of the Republic was able to connect Platonism and\nPythagoreanism without deserting Stoicism.[815] We can see it reflected\nfrom Posidonius in the Dream of Scipio, the beautiful myth, imitated\nfrom those of Plato, with which Cicero concluded his treatise on the\nState, written in the year 54 B.C., after his retirement from political\nlife. In this, and again in the first book of his _Tusculan\nDisputations_, composed nearly ten years later, Cicero is beyond doubt\non the tracks of Posidonius, and therefore also of Pythagoreanism.[816]\nListen to the words put into the mouth of the elder Scipio and addressed\nto his younger namesake: \"Tu vero enitere et sic habeto, non esse te\nmortalem, sed corpus hoc; non enim tu es, quem forma ista declarat; sed\n_mens cuiusque is est quisque_, non ea figura quae digito demonstrari\npotest.\"[817] Here is the body plainly losing, the soul gaining\nimportance. But he goes still further: \"_deum igitur te scito esse_: si\nquidem deus est qui viget qui sentit qui meminit: qui providet, qui tam\nregit et moderatur et movet id corpus cui propositus est, quam hunc\nmundum ille princeps deus, et ut mundum ex quadam parte mortalem ipse\ndeus aeternus, sic fragile corpus animus sempiternus movet.\"[818]\n\nWith such a view of the soul in relation to the body, we can understand\nhow in this myth it is described as flying upwards, released from\ncorporeal bondage, and ascending through heavenly stations to pure\naether, if at least (and here we may note the characteristic Roman\ntouch) its abode on earth has been the body of a good citizen.[819] All\nthat is of earth earthy, all old ideas of burial, all notions of a\ngloomy abode below the earth, are here fairly left behind. So too in the\nfirst book of the _Tusculans_, written after the death of his beloved\ndaughter, Cicero would persuade himself and others that death cannot be\nan evil if we once allow the soul to be immortal: for from its very\nnature it must rise into aethereal realms, cannot sink like the body\ninto the earth.[820] Into its experiences in the aether I do not need to\ngo here. Enough has been said to show that, as it were, the heavens were\nopened, and with the psychological separation of soul from body the\nimaginative faculty was released also; not indeed that any Roman, or\neven Posidonius himself, could revel in cosmological dreams as did\nPlato, but they found in him all they needed, and it would seem that\nthey made much use of it. Plato's _Timaeus_ was made by Posidonius the\nsubject of a commentary,[821] and by Cicero himself it was in part at\nleast translated, about the time when he was writing the _Tusculans_,\nand still deeply moved by his recent loss. Of this translation a\nfragment survives; and in the introductory sentences he indicates a\nsecond stimulus to his Pythagorean tendencies, besides Posidonius. He\ntells how he had met at Ephesus, when on his way to his province of\nCilicia, the famous Pythagorean Nigidius Figulus, and had enjoyed\nconversation with him.[822] Nigidius was an old friend, who had helped\nCicero in his consulship; he was one of those \"polyhistores\" who are\ncharacteristic of the age, like Posidonius and Varro, and wrote works on\nall kinds of subjects of which but few fragments remain. But his\nreputation as a Pythagorean survived for centuries;[823] and this\nmention of him by Cicero is only another proof of the direction the\nthoughts of the latter were taking in these last two years of his life.\n\n\nClearly, then, Cicero in his philosophical writings of these years was\naffected by the current of mysticism that was then running. But to me it\nis still more interesting to find it moving him in a practical matter of\nwhich he has himself left the truth on record; for Cicero is a real\nhuman being for whom all who are familiar with his letters must have\nsomething in the nature of affection, and with whom, too, we feel\ngenuine sympathy in the calamity which now fell upon him. It was early\nin 45 B.C. that he lost his only and dearly loved daughter, and the blow\nto his sensitive temperament, already hardly tried by political anxiety,\nwas severe. We still have the private letters which he wrote to Atticus\nafter her death from his solitude at Astura on the edge of the\nmelancholy Pomptine marshes;[824] and here, if our minds are\nsufficiently divested of modern ideas and trained to look on death with\nRoman eyes, we may be startled to find him thinking of her as still in\nsome sense surviving, and as divine rather than human: as a deity or\nspirit to whom a _fanum_ could be erected. He makes it clear to Atticus,\nwho is acting as his business agent at Rome, that he does not want a\nmere tomb (_sepulcrum_), but a _fanum_, which as we have seen was the\ngeneral word for a spot of ground sacred to a deity. \"I wish to have a\n_fanum_ built, and that wish cannot be rooted out of my heart. I am\nanxious to avoid any likeness to a tomb, not so much on account of the\npenalty of the law, as in order to attain as nearly as possible to an\n_apotheosis_. This I could do if I built it in the villa itself, but ...\nI dread the changes of owners. Wherever I construct it on the land, I\nthink that I could secure that posterity should respect its\nsanctity.\"[825] The word here translated sanctity is _religio_; we may\nremember that all burial places were _loca religiosa_, not consecrated\nby the State, yet hallowed by the feeling of awe or scruple in\napproaching them; but Cicero is probably here using the word rather in\nthat wider sense in which it so often expresses the presence of a deity\nin some particular spot.[826]\n\nAtticus was a man of the world and probably an Epicurean, and his\nfriend in two successive letters half apologises for this strong\ndesire. \"I should not like it to be known by any other name but\n_fanum_,--unreasonably, you will perhaps say.\" And again, \"you must bear\nwith these silly wishes (_ineptiae_) of mine.\"[827] But this only makes\nthe intensity of his feeling about it the more plain and significant; he\nreally seems to want Tullia to be thought of as having passed into the\nsphere of divinity, however vaguely he may have conceived of it. Perhaps\nhe remembered his own words in Scipio's dream, \"Deum te esse scito.\"\nThe ashes of Tullia rested in the family tomb, but the godlike thing\nimprisoned in her mortal body was to be honoured at this _fanum_, which,\nstrange as it may seem to us, her father wished to erect in a public and\nfrequented place. She does not fade away into the common herd of Manes,\nbut remains, though as a spirit, the same individual Tullia whom her\nfather had loved so dearly.\n\nI long ago explained the old Roman idea of Manes,[828] a vague\nconception of shades of the dead dwelling below the earth, and hardly,\nif at all, individualised. But in Tullia's case we meet with a clear\nconception of an individual spirit; and this alone would lead us to\nsuspect a Pythagorean influence at work, such as that under which Virgil\nwrote the famous words \"Quisque suos patimur Manes,\" which simply mean\n\"Each individual of us must endure his own individual ghosthood.\"[829]\nThis process of individualisation must have been gradually coming on,\nbut the steps are lost to us; we only know that the earliest sepulchral\ninscription which speaks to it, in the vague plural Di Manes so familiar\nin later times, is dateable somewhere about this very time.[830] My\nfriend Dr. J. B. Carter would explain it, in part at least, by the Roman\nconception of Genius to which I alluded just now, and doubtless this\nmust be taken into account. For myself I would rather think of it as the\nnatural result of the growth of individualism in the living human being\nduring the last two centuries B.C. Surely it was impossible for\npersonality to grow as it did in that period without a corresponding\ngrowth of the idea of individual immortality in the minds of all who\nbelieved in a future life of any kind at all. The Epicureans did not so\nbelieve; but Roman Stoics instructed by Panaetius and Posidonius might\nnot only believe in immortality but in an immortality of the individual.\n\nLet me take this opportunity of noting that there was, of course, no\nsort of restriction on a man's belief about this or any other religious\nquestion. It was perfectly open to every one to hold what view best\npleased him about the state of the dead: all that the State required of\nhim was that he should fulfil his obligations at the tombs of his own\nkin. No dogma reigned in the necropolis, only duty, _pietas_,--and that\n_pietas_ implied no conviction. The Parentalia in February were\noriginally, so far as we can discern, only a yearly renewal of the rite\nof burial on its anniversary;[831] this implies civilisation and some\nkind of calendar, but not a creed. Later on, in the Fasti of the\nCity-state, the day was fixed for all citizens without regard of\nanniversaries; and here the rites become a matter of _ius_, the _ius\nManium_, to the observance of which the Manes are entitled. Still there\nis no creed, though Cicero speaks of this _ius_ as based on the idea of\na future life.[832] As a fact these rites are a survival from an age in\nwhich the dead man was believed to go on living in the grave, but that\nprimitive idea was no longer held by the educated. Each man was free in\nall periods to believe what he pleased about the dead, and as the Romans\nbegan to think, this freedom becomes easy to illustrate. Cicero himself\nis usually agnostic, as is in keeping with his Academic tendency in\nphilosophy; even in one of these very letters he seems to speak of his\nown non-existence after death.[833] So, too, the excellent Servius\nSulpicius, in the famous letter of condolence written to Cicero at this\ntime from Athens, seems to be uncertain.[834] We all know the words of\nCaesar (reported by Sallust), which are often quoted with a kind of holy\nhorror, as though a pontifex maximus might not hold any opinion he\npleased about death, and as though his doubt were not the common doubt\nof innumerable thinking men of the age.[835] Catullus wrote of death as\n\"nox perpetua dormienda\"; Lucretius, of course, gloried in the thought\nthat there is no life beyond. In the following century the learned Pliny\ncould write of death as the relapsing into the same nothingness as\nbefore we were born, and could scoff at the absurdities of the cult of\nthe dead.[836]\n\nBut when a man like Cicero was deeply touched by grief, his emotional\nnature abandoned its neutral attitude, and turned for consolation to\nmysticism. As I have said, he was persuading himself that Tullia was\nstill living,--a glorified spirit. We can gain just a momentary glimpse\nof what was in his mind by turning to the fragments of the _Consolatio_\nwhich he was now writing at Astura.\n\nThis was a _Consolatio_ of the kind which was a recognised literary form\nof this and later times,[837] though in this case it was addressed by\nthe writer to himself; to write was for Cicero second nature, and he was\nsure to take up his pen when he had feelings that needed expression. It\nis unfortunately lost, all but one fragment, which he quotes himself in\nthe first book of his _Tusculans_, and one or two more preserved by the\nChristian writer Lactantius, a great admirer of Cicero, who came near to\ncatching the beauty of his style. The passage quoted by himself is\nprecious.[838] It insists on the spiritual nature of the soul, which can\nhave nothing in common with earth or matter of any kind, seeing that it\nthinks, remembers, foresees: \"ita quicquid est illud, quod sentit, quod\nsapit, quod vivit, quod viget, caeleste et divinum, ob eamque rem\naeternum sit necesse est.\" And in the concluding words he hints strongly\nat the _divinity_ of the soul, which is of the same make as God\nhimself,--of the same immaterial nature as the only Deity of whom we\nmortals can conceive. His daughter, therefore, is not only still living\nin a spiritual life, but she is in some vague sense divine; that word\n_apotheosis_, which he twice uses in the letters, has a real meaning for\nhim at this moment; and in a fragment of the _Consolatio_ quoted by\nLactantius he makes this quite plain; \"Te omnium optimam doctissimamque,\napprobantibus dis immortalibus ipsis, in eorum coetu locatam, ad\nopinionem omnium mortalium consecrabo.\"[839]\n\nUndoubtedly Cicero is here under the influence of the Pythagoreans as\nwell as of his own emotion. In another chapter Lactantius seems to make\nthis certain;[840] he begins by combining Stoics and Pythagoreans as\nboth believing the immortality of the soul, goes on to deal with the\nPythagorean doctrine (or one form of it) that in this life we are\nexpiating the sins of another, and ends by quoting Cicero's _Consolatio_\nto that effect: \"Quid Ciceroni faciemus? qui cum in principio\nConsolationis suae dixit, luendorum scelerum causa nasci homines,\niteravit id ipsum postea, quasi obiurgans eum qui vitam poenam non esse\nputet.\" Another lost book, the _Hortensius_, which was written\nimmediately after the _Consolatio_, March to May 45,[841] shows in one\nor two surviving fragments exactly the same tendency of thought and\nreading.[842] Our conclusion then must be that Cicero, always\nimpressionable, and in his way also religious, had in this year 45 a\nreal religious experience. He was brought face to face with one of the\nmysterious facts of life, and with one of the great mysteries of the\nuniverse, and the religious instinct awoke within him. How many others,\neven in that sordid and materialistic age, may have had the like\nexperience, with or without a mystical philosophy to guide their\nthoughts? In the last words of the famous Laudatio Turiae, of which I\nhave written at length in my _Social Life in the Age of Cicero_,[843] we\nmay perhaps catch an echo of a similar religious feeling: \"Te di Manes\ntui ut quietam patiantur atque ita tueantur opto\" (I pray that thy\ndivine Manes may keep thee in peace and watch over thee). These words,\nexpressing the hope of a practical man, not of a philosopher, are very\ndifficult to explain, except as the unauthorised utterances of an\nindividual. They hardly find a parallel either in literature or\ninscriptions. We must not press them, yet they help us to divine that\nthere was in this last half-century B.C. some mystical yearning to\nrealise the condition of the loved ones gone before, and the relation of\ntheir life to that of the living. This religious instinct, let us note\nonce for all, is not identical with the old one which we expressed by\nthe formula about the Power manifesting itself in the universe. The\nreligious instinct of the primitive Roman was concerned only with this\nlife and its perils and mysteries; the religious instinct of Cicero's\ntime was not that of simple men struggling with agricultural perils, but\nthat of educated men whose minds could pass in emotional moments far\nbeyond the troubles of this present world, to speculate on the great\nquestions, why we are here, what we are, and what becomes of us after\ndeath.\n\nBut what of the ordinary Roman of this age--what of the man who was not\ntrained to think, and had no leisure or desire to read? What did he\nbelieve about a future life, or did he believe anything? This brings us\nto a curious question about which I must say a very few words--did this\nordinary Roman, as Lucretius seems to insist, believe in Hades and its\ntorments? Not in one passage only does Lucretius insist on this. \"That\nfear of Hell\" (so Dr. Masson translates him) \"must be driven out\nheadlong, which troubles the life of man from its inmost depth, and\noverspreads everything with the blackness of death, and permits no\npleasure to be pure and unalloyed.\"[844] I need not multiply quotations;\nevidently the poet believed what he said, though he may be using the\nexaggeration of poetical diction. And to a certain extent he is borne\nout by the literature of his time. In fact Polybius, writing nearly a\ncentury earlier of the Romans and their religion, implies that such\nnotions were common, and that they were invented by \"the ancients\" to\nfrighten the people into submission.[845] Cicero, though he of course\nthinks of them as merely the fables of poets, seems to suggest that the\nordinary man did believe in them; thinking of his own recent loss, he\nsays that our misery would be unbearable when we lose those we love, if\nwe really thought of them as \"_in iis malis quibus vulgo\nopinantur_.\"[846] Of course all these fables were Greek, not Roman.\nThere is no reason to believe that the old Romans imagined their own\ndead experiencing any miseries in Orcus--the old name, as it would seem,\nfor the dimly imagined abode of the Manes, afterwards personified after\nthe manner of Plutus.[847] No doubt they believed that the dead were\nghosts, desiring to get back to their old homes, who, in the\nwell-ordered religion of the City-state, were limited in this strong\ndesire to certain days in the civic year.[848] But their first\nacquaintance with Hades and its tortures may probably be dated early,\n_i.e._ when they first became acquainted with Etruscan works of art,\nthemselves the result of a knowledge of Greek art and myth.[849] Early\nin the second century B.C. Plautus in the _Captivi_ alluded to these\npaintings as familiar;[850] and we must not forget that the Etruscans\nhabitually chose the most gruesome and cruel of the Greek fables for\nillustration, and especially delighted in that of Charon, one likely\nenough to strike the popular imagination. The play-writers themselves\nwere responsible for inculcating the belief, as Boissier remarked in his\nwork on the Roman religion of the early empire.[851] In the theatre,\nwith women and children present, Cicero says in the first book of his\n_Tusculans_, the crowded auditorium is moved as it listens to such a\n\"grande carmen\" as that sung by a ghost describing his terrible journey\nfrom the realms of Acheron; and in another passage of the same book he\nmentions both painters and poets as responsible for a delusion which\nphilosophers have to refute.[852] I need not say that the Roman poets\ntoo continually use the imagery of Tartarus; but they use it as\nliterary tradition, and in the sixth _Aeneid_ it is used also to enforce\nthe idea of duty to the State which is the real theme of the poem.\n\nAs Dr. Masson truly observes, we have the literature but we have not the\nfolklore of the age of Cicero and Virgil; and it must be confessed that\nwithout the folklore such scanty literary evidence as I have just\nmentioned does not come to much. Dr. Masson indeed concludes on this\nevidence that the fear of future torments played a considerable part in\nthe religious notions both of the common people and possibly of some of\nthe educated. I think it may have been so, but on other grounds, which I\nmust briefly explain.\n\nFrom all that I have said in these lectures about the religious ideas\nrepresented in the earliest calendar, _i.e._ those of the governing\nRomans of the earliest City-state, it will be plain that a gruesome\neschatology was an impossibility for them. Just the same may be said of\nthe Greek ideas represented in the Homeric poems; for with the exception\nof the Nekuia of the _Odyssey_, which almost all scholars agree in\nattributing to a later age than the bulk of the two Homeric epics, in\nthis poetry _il se fait grand jour_.[853] This is not the first time\nthat I have compared the religion of the Roman patricians to that of\nHomer;[854] and there is a growing conviction among experts that we have\nin each case the ideas of a comparatively civilised immigrant\npopulation, whose religion, though it has developed in very different\nways, has the common characteristic of cleanness and brightness. In\nItaly it is practical, in Homer imaginative; but in both it is free from\nthe brutal and the grotesque. Even the eschatology of the eleventh\n_Odyssey_ is not cruel, it is comparatively colourless; and, as I said\njust now, this also may be said of the Roman ideas of Orcus and the\nManes.\n\nIn each case it is life, not death, that is of interest to the living;\ndeath is rather a negation than anything distinctly realised. The state\nof the dead in Homer is shadowy and _triste_, a state not to be desired,\nas Achilles so painfully expresses it in a famous passage; but the\n_life_ of the Achaean in the poems is vivid--nay, such a vivid\nrealisation of life can alone account for the production of such poems.\nSo, too, the immigrant population at Rome, to whom is due the regulation\nof the religion as we know it, and the inspiring force that made for\nordered government and warlike enterprise, was too full of practical if\nnot of imaginative vitality to be apt to dwell upon the possibilities of\nexistence after death, to conceive of such existence as either happy or\nmiserable, the reward or the punishment for things done in this world.\n\nBut in each peninsula this immigrant race was living in the midst of a\nfar more primitive population; and it is perhaps to this population that\nwe must look for the origin of the more detailed and imaginative notions\nof the life of the dead. Of the Greeks in this matter I have not space\nhere to speak, nor am I competent to do so. But the conviction is\nsteadily gaining ground that in early Rome we have to recognise the\nexistence of two races; whether the older of these was Ligurian, as\nProf. Ridgeway thinks, or primitive Latin, _i.e._ old Italic, as Binder\nbelieves, does not matter for our present purpose;[855] nor are the\narguments drawn from religion which these writers have used at all\nconvincing to my intelligence. But they have not noticed what is to me a\nreally valid argument, viz. the double festival of the dead in the\ncalendar of Numa. In February we find the cheerful and orderly festival\nof the Parentalia, the yearly renewal of the seemly rite of burial; in\nMay, on the other hand, the student of the calendar is astonished to\nfind three several days called Lemuria, the rites belonging to which are\nnever mentioned, except where Ovid treats us to a grotesque account of\nthe driving out of ancestral spirits from the house.[856] No one\ndoubts, I think, that the Lemuria represents an older stratum of thought\nabout the dead than the other festival,[857] but no one, so far as I\nknow, has ventured to claim the Lemures and their three days as\nbelonging to the religion of the more primitive race. If I make this\nsuggestion now, it must be taken as a hypothesis only, but as a\nhypothesis it can at least do no harm. If I am asked why Lemuria should\nhave been admitted into the patrician calendar, I answer that I have\nlong held that a few of the non-patrician religious customs were\nabsorbed into the religion of the city of the four regions, the\nLupercalia, for example;[858] and nothing could be more likely than that\nthe old barbarous ideas about the dead should win this amount of\nrespect, seeing that by the limitation to three days in the year order\nand decency might be brought into their service. I may repeat, with a\nslight addition, what I wrote ten years ago about these two Roman\nfestivals of the dead: \"If we compare Ovid's account of the grotesque\ndomestic rites of the Lemuria with those of February, which were of a\nsystematic, cheerful, and even beautiful character, we may feel fairly\nsure that the latter represent the organised life of a City-state, the\nformer the ideas of an age when life was wilder and less secure, and the\nfear of the dead, of ghosts and demons, was a powerful factor in the\nminds of the people. If we may argue from Ovid's account, it is not\nimpossible that the Lemuria may have been one of those periodical\nexpulsions of demons of which we hear so much in the _Golden Bough_, and\nwhich are performed on behalf of the community as well as in the\ndomestic circle among savage peoples. It is noticeable that the offering\nof food to the demons is a feature common to these practices, and that\nit also appears in those described by Ovid.\"[859] To this I should now\nadd the suggestion above made, that the Lemuria represents the ideas of\nthe older race that occupied the site of Rome, while the Parentalia is\noriginally the festival of the patrician immigrants.\n\nBut what has all this to do with the eschatology which Lucretius\nattributes to the common people at Rome in his own day? Simply this,\nthat the ideas at the root of the Lemuria may well have provided the raw\nmaterial for such an eschatology, while those at the root of the\nParentalia could not have done this. Dr. Westermarck has recently shown\nthat primitive religions do spontaneously generate the idea of moral\nretribution after death, _e.g._ the notion that the souls of bad people\nmay reappear as evil spirits or obnoxious animals.[860] We have no proof\nwhatever of the existence of such notions at Rome; but I contend that\nthe permanence of this type of belief about the dead which is\nrepresented by the Lemuria--a permanence which is attested by Ovid's\ndescription--raises a presumption that the lower stratum of the Roman\npopulation, if the chance were given it, would the more readily\nunderstand the pictures of Etruscan artists and the allusions of Greek\nplaywrights, and the more easily become the prey of the eschatological\nhorrors which Lucretius describes as terrifying them. The material was\nthere from the earliest times, and all that was needed was for Greeks\nand Etruscans to work upon it.\n\nBefore leaving this point it may be worth while to remember that though\nthe well-to-do and educated classes cremated their dead, the poor of the\ncrowded city population of the period I am now dealing with enjoyed no\nsuch orderly and cleanly funeral rites. The literary evidence is\nexplicit on this point, and has been confirmed by modern excavation on\nthe Esquiline, where we know from Varro and Horace that the poor and the\nslaves were thrown _en masse_ into _puticuli_, _i.e._ holes where it was\nimpossible that any memorial ceremonies could be kept up.[861] Horace's\nlines are familiar (_Sat._ 8. 8):\n\n   huc prius angustis eiecta cadavera cellis\n   conservus vili portanda locabat in arca.\n   hoc miserae plebi stabat commune sepulcrum, etc.\n\nIt is dangerous to be too confident about the effect on the religious\nimagination of different ways of dealing with the dead; but it is at\nleast not improbable that any inherited tendency to believe in a\nmiserable future for the soul would be confirmed and maintained by so\nmiserable a fate for the body. The mass of the population had little\nchance of ridding itself of eschatological superstition.\n\nThus I am inclined to come to Dr. Masson's conclusion, though on\nsomewhat different grounds. I think it quite possible that the\nuneducated in the age of the poet may have really been inoculated with\nthese ideas of cruel retribution, and that in many cases this may have\nresulted in despair or at least discomfort. Only we must remember that\nin a great city like Rome, as in Paris or London to-day, both the\nmiseries and the enjoyments of life would tend to accustom the minds of\nthe lower strata to consider the present rather than the future; the\nnecessities and pleasures of the moment are with them the only material\nof thought. Neither comfort nor remonstrance could reach them from\npulpit or from missioner; neither fear nor hope could largely enter into\ntheir lives. In fact I half suspect that most of them were, after all,\nso long as they were healthy and active, much what Lucretius would have\nthem be--free from all religious scruple; but, alas, utterly destitute\nof the intellectual support which he claimed from the study of\nphilosophy. We can well understand how it was among the lower population\nof the great cities that early Christianity found its chance. They had\nno education or philosophy to stand between them and the gospel of\nredemption.\n\nI must say one word about another kind of transcendentalism which was\npushing its way into favour in Roman society at this time--I mean\nastrology. One may call it transcendental because it was based, in its\noriginal home in the East, on a mystical notion of sympathy between the\nphenomena of the starry heavens and the phenomena of human life;[862]\nand that this notion was carefully inculcated by those who taught the\n\"science\" at Rome is shown by the long and wearisome poem on astrology\nwritten by Manilius in the succeeding age. But it is not likely that\nthis form of mysticism had become really popular before the period of\nthe Empire, and in any case it can hardly be called a part of Roman\nreligious experience. I only mention it here as helping to illustrate\nthe way in which men's minds were now beginning to turn with interest to\nspeculations altogether beyond the range of that practical ethical\nphilosophy which was natural and congenial to the Roman, altogether\nbeyond the horizon of man's daily prospect in this world. The growing\ninterest in Fortuna, both as natural force and deity, which became\nintense under the Empire, is another indication of the same\ntendency.[863]\n\nAs soon as Rome had come into close contact with Greece, which had long\nbefore been overrun by the eastern astrology--by the Chaldaeans or\n_mathematici_, as they are so often called--these experts began to\nappear also in Italy. We first hear of them from old Cato, who advises\nthat the steward of an estate should be strictly forbidden to consult\n_Chaldaei_, _harioli_, _haruspices_, and such gentry.[864] In 139\nB.C.--a year in which there happened to be in Rome an embassy from Simon\nMaccabaeus--Chaldaeans were ordered to leave Rome and Italy within ten\ndays; but I think there is some evidence that these were really Jews who\nwere trying to propagate their own religion.[865] For some time we hear\nnothing more of these intruders; but they probably gained ground again\nin the course of the Mithridatic wars, which were responsible for the\nintroduction of much Oriental religion into Italy. They are mentioned in\n87, together with [Greek: thytai] and Sibyllistae, as persuading the\nill-fated Octavius to remain in Rome to meet his death, as it turned\nout, at the hands of the Marians.[866] But no Roman seems to have taken\nup astrology as a quasi-scientific study till that Nigidius, of whom I\nhave already said a word, was persuaded thus to waste his time and\nbrains. He is said to have foretold the greatness of Augustus at his\nbirth in 63 B.C.;[867] and from this time forward the taking of\nhoroscopes or _genethliaca_ became a favourite pursuit at\nRome--unfortunately for the people of Europe, who caught the infection\nand kept it endemic for at least fifteen centuries.\n\nAstrology is in no sense religion, and I must leave it with these few\nremarks. It represents the individual and his personal interests, not\neven the advantage of the community, and it was for this reason that the\nChaldaei were disliked by the Roman government. The individual is not\nsatisfied with legitimate Roman means of divination; he is employing\nillegitimate ways when he entrusts himself to these Orientals, who, most\nof them doubtless, well deserved the scathing contempt which Tacitus has\ncontrived to put into six words: \"Genus hominum potentibus infidum,\nsperantibus fallax,\" adding, with no less contempt for the Roman\nauthorities who had to deal with them, that they will always be\nforbidden, and always will be found at Rome.[868]\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XVII\n\n    [804] For the Pythagoreanism of the Neo-platonic\n    movement in the third century A.D. consult Bussell,\n    _Marcus Aurelius and the Later Stoics_ (Edin. 1910), p.\n    30 foll., who explains the reaction from Stoicism to\n    Neo-Platonism. See also Caird, _Gifford Lectures_, ii.\n    162 foll.\n\n    [805] Schmekel, _Die mittlere Stoa_, p. 403, says that\n    it had ceased to exist for centuries as a philosophy,\n    but cautiously adds in a note that the knowledge of it\n    was not extinct. The famous Orphic tablets from South\n    Italy are taken as dating from the third and fourth\n    centuries B.C., and if not actually Pythagorean, they\n    are next door to being so. See Miss Harrison,\n    _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, p. 660.\n\n    [806] _Tusc. Disp._ i. 38.\n\n    [807] See, _e.g._, Prof. Taylor's little book on Plato\n    (Constable), p. 11.\n\n    [808] See above, p. 349.\n\n    [809] Sextus Empiricus, _adv. Physicos_, ii. 281 foll.\n\n    [810] For the devotion of the believers to the founder\n    and his _ipse dixit_, see Cicero, _Nat. Deor._ i. 5. 10.\n\n    [811] The relation of Posidonius to Roman literature has\n    been much discussed of late. See, _e.g._, Norden,\n    Virgil, _Aen._ vi., index, _s.v._ \"Stoa\"; Schmekel, _Die\n    mittlere Stoa_, 85 foll., 238 foll.\n\n    [812] For Panaetius' enthusiasm for Plato and his\n    teaching, see Cic. _Tusc. Disp._ i. 32. 79; the whole\n    passage indicates, though it does not exactly prove, an\n    approach to the Platonic psychology.\n\n    [813] Caird, _Gifford Lectures_, vol. ii. p. 85.\n\n    [814] See above, p. 75. The idea that the practice of\n    cremation influenced the ideas of the Roman about the\n    soul was first, I think, suggested by Boissier,\n    _Religion romaine_, i. 310. Cicero himself hints at this\n    conclusion in _Tusc. Disp._ i. 16. 36: \"In terram enim\n    cadentibus corporibus, hisque humo tectis, e quo dictum\n    est humari, sub terra censebant reliquam vitam agi\n    mortuorum. Quam eorum opinionem magni errores consecuti\n    sunt; quos auxerunt poetae.\"\n\n    [815] This point is well put by Dill, p. 493 of _Roman\n    Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_. See also\n    Dieterich, _Eine Mithras-Liturgie_, p. 200 fol.;\n    Stewart, _Myths of Plato_, 352-53.\n\n    [816] Schmekel, _Die mittlere Stoa_, p. 400 foll.\n\n    [817] _De Rep._ vi. 26.\n\n    [818] _Ib._ The word _providet_ reminds us that this\n    transcendental philosophy supplied the later Stoics with\n    an explanation of divination. See Bouche-Leclercq,\n    _Hist. de divination_, i. 68; Dill, _op. cit._ p. 439;\n    Seneca, _Nat. Quaest._ ii. 52, fully accepted\n    divination. Cp. Cic. _Tusc. Disp._ i. 37. 66, where he\n    quotes his own _Consolatio_; see above, p. 388.\n    Panaetius, however, had courageously denied divination:\n    Cic. _Div._ i. 3. 6; Zeller, _Stoics_, etc., p. 352.\n\n    [819] _De Rep._ vi. 15, 26, and 29.\n\n    [820] _Tusc. Disp._ i. 16. 36 foll. On the whole subject\n    of the rise of the soul after death see Dieterich, _Eine\n    Mithras-Liturgie_, p. 179 foll.\n\n    [821] Schmekel, _op. cit._ p. 438; Stewart, _Myths of\n    Plato_, p. 300.\n\n    [822] For Nigidius, see Schanz, _Gesch. der roem.\n    Literatur_ (ed. 2), vol. ii. p. 419 foll.\n\n    [823] \"Nigidius Figulus Pythagoreus et magus in exilio\n    moritur\" is the notice of him in St. Jerome's Chronicle\n    for the year 45 B.C.\n\n    [824] These letters are in the 12th book of those to\n    Atticus, Nos. 12-40.\n\n   [825] _Ad Att._ xii. 36. The translation is Shuckburgh's.\n\n    [826] A good example is Virg. _Aen._ viii. 349, but it\n    is needless to multiply instances of the _religio loci_.\n    Serv. _ad Aen._ i. 314 defines _lucus_ as \"arborum\n    multitudo cum religione.\"\n\n    [827] _Ad Att._ xii. 36; cp. 35. He uses the Greek word\n    [Greek: apotheosis] in 35. 1, which seems to have come\n    into use in his own time; see Liddell & Scott, _s.v._\n\n    [828] See above, p. 58.\n\n    [829] _Aen._ vi. 743. The meaning of these words seems\n    to be quite plain, though commentators have worried\n    themselves over them from Servius downwards. The mistake\n    has been in not sufficiently considering the force of\n    _quisque_, and puzzling too much over the vague word\n    _Manes_. Henry discerned the true meaning in our own\n    time. See his _Aeneidea_, vol. iii. p. 397. Cp. the\n    words quoted above from _Somn. Scip._: \"mens cuiusque is\n    est quisque.\" M. S. Reinach (_Cultes_, etc. ii. 135\n    foll.) is not far out: \"Nous souffrons chacun suivant le\n    degre de souillure de nos ames.\"\n\n    [830] _C.I.L._ i. 639, with Mommsen's note.\n\n    [831] See _R.F._ p. 308.\n\n    [832] _Tusc. Disp._ i. 12. 27. For the \"ius Manium,\" _de\n    Legibus_, ii. 22 and 54 foll.\n\n    [833] _Ad Att._ xii. 18: \"Longum illud tempus _cum non\n    ero_ magis me movet quam hoc exiguum,\" etc. Cp. _Tusc._\n    i. _ad fin._\n\n    [834] _Ad Fam._ iv. 5. 6: \"Quod si quis apud inferos\n    sensus est, qui illius in te amor fuit pietasque in\n    omnes suos, hoc certe illa te facere nonvult.\"\n\n    [835] Sall. _Cat._ ch. 51: \"Mortem cuncta mortalium\n    dissolvere, ultra neque curae neque gaudio locum esse.\"\n    This is the Epicurean doctrine, which Caesar was said to\n    hold.\n\n    [836] Catull. 5. 6; Pliny, _N.H._ vii. 188. The whole\n    passage is worth quoting: \"Post sepulturam vanae Manium\n    ambages. Omnibus a supremo die eadem quae ante primum,\n    nec magis a morte sensus ullus aut corpori aut animae\n    quam ante natalem. Eadem enim vanitas in futurum etiam\n    se propagat et in mortis quoque tempora sibi vitam\n    mentitur, alias immortalitatem animae, alias\n    transfigurationem, _alias sensum inferis dando et Manes\n    colendo deumque faciendo qui iam etiam homo esse\n    desierit_, ceu vero ullo modo spirandi ratio ceteris\n    animalibus praestet, aut non diuturniora in vita multa\n    reperiantur quibus nemo similem divinat immortalitatem,\"\n    etc.\n\n    [837] There is an essay on this form of literature in\n    the _Etudes morales sur l'antiquite_ of Constant Martha,\n    p. 135 foll.\n\n    [838] _Tusc. Disp._ i. 27. 66.\n\n    [839] Lact. _Inst._ i. 15. 20.\n\n    [840] Lact. iii. 18.\n\n    [841] See Schanz, _Gesch. der roem. Literatur_, vol. ii.\n    p. 376.\n\n    [842] Fragments 54 and 55.\n\n    [843] P. 158 foll.\n\n    [844] Lucr. vi. 764 foll. Cp. iii. 966 foll.; Masson,\n    _Lucretius_, i. p. 402. Mr. Cyril Bailey also reminds me\n    of Lucr. iii. 31-93, and 1053 to end; and adds a decided\n    opinion that the poet is not here thinking of the common\n    Roman, but of the educated Roman brought up on Greek and\n    Graeco-Roman poetry and philosophy.\n\n    [845] Polyb. vi. 56.\n\n    [846] _Tusc._ i. 46. 111.\n\n    [847] See Roscher's _Myth. Lex._ _s.v._ \"Orcus\";\n    Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 192.\n\n    [848] See above, p. 107.\n\n    [849] Mueller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 108 foll.\n    Illustrations can be seen in Dennis, _Cities and\n    Cemeteries of Etruria_, ed. 2.\n\n    [850] _Captivi_, v. 4. 1.\n\n    [851] _La Religion romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins_, vol.\n    i. p. 310.\n\n    [852] Cic. _Tusc._ i. 16. 37. For the eschatology of the\n    sixth _Aeneid_, a curious melange of religion,\n    philosophy, and folklore, see Norden's work on Virgil,\n    _Aeneid_, vi. (index, p. 468). Norden believes, I may\n    note, that the philosophical and religious elements in\n    it are mainly derived from Posidonius. Cp. also Glover,\n    _Studies in Virgil_, ch. x. (Hades). For popular\n    beliefs in Hades, etc., under the Empire, see\n    Friedlaender's _Sittengeschichte_, vol. iii. last\n    chapter.\n\n    [853] Weil, _Etudes sur l'antiquite grecque_, p. 12,\n    quoted by Glover, p. 218.\n\n    [854] See above, p. 105.\n\n    [855] Since this lecture was written a most interesting\n    discussion of Greek ideas, Achaean and Pelasgic, about\n    the relation of soul and body after death, has appeared\n    in Mr. Lawson's _Modern Greek Folklore and Ancient Greek\n    Religion_, especially in chapters v. and vi., confirming\n    me, to some extent at least, in the conjecture I had\n    here hazarded. The working of the imagination in regard\n    to a future state is in Greece, in his view, peculiar to\n    the older or Pelasgic population; and if the Etruscans\n    were of Pelasgic stock, as is now believed by many,\n    their imaginative grotesqueness, a degraded form perhaps\n    of the original characteristic, acting on the ideas of a\n    still more primitive population of which the Lemuria is\n    a survival, might explain the later prevalence of a\n    gruesome eschatology at Rome. But whoever studies Mr.\n    Lawson's chapters closely will find serious difficulties\n    in the way even of such a hypothesis as this.\n\n    [856] Ovid, _Fasti_, v. 430 foll.; _R.F._ p. 109.\n    Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 192, attributes the ideas of larvae\n    (ghosts) and of Orcus, not to religion, but to popular\n    superstition. If he here means by religion the State\n    religion and the _Parentalia_ in particular, I can agree\n    with him.\n\n    [857] Dr. Carter allows this in Hastings' _Dict. of\n    Religion and Ethics_, vol. i. (Roman section of article\n    \"Ancestor Worship.\")\n\n    [858] See _R.F._ p. 334.\n\n    [859] _R.F._ p. 107.\n\n    [860] _Origin and Development of Moral Ideas_, ii. 693\n    foll.\n\n    [861] Varro, _L.L._ v. 25; Paulus p. 216;\n    Huelsen-Jordan, _Roem. Topogr._ iii. p. 268 foll. The\n    remains of these puticuli were unluckily very\n    imperfectly reported, and have been lost in the building\n    of the Rome of to-day. On the question of the religious\n    aspect of the two ways of disposing of the dead, burial\n    and cremation, it is as well to remember Dieterich's\n    warning in _Mutter Erde_, p. 66, note: \"den Versuch, aus\n    der Verbreitung und dem Wechsel der Sitte des\n    Verbrennens und Begrabens fuer meine Untersuchung\n    Schluesse zu gewinnen, habe ich voellig aufgegeben, als\n    ich angesichts der ungeheueren Materialen meines\n    Kollegen von Duhn die Unmoeglicheit solcher Schluesse\n    einsehen musste.\" In Mr. Lawson's book quoted above it\n    seems to me to be proved that the object of both methods\n    is the same, viz. to destroy the body as quickly as\n    possible in order to prevent the soul from re-entering\n    it and annoying the survivors.\n\n    [862] This is well explained by Cumont in his _Religions\n    orientales dans le paganisme romain_, p. 196 foll.,\n    following Bouche-Leclercq's work on astrology in Greece.\n    Cumont thinks that astrology took over the business of\n    the augurs and haruspices, which was now dropped, and\n    this is true in the main as regards the individual, but\n    not as regards the State; see above, p. 308 foll.\n\n    [863] For Fortuna in the writings of Caesar, etc., see\n    _Classical Review_, vol. xvii. p. 153. The _locus\n    classicus_ for Fortuna as a deity under the early empire\n    is Pliny, _N.H._ ii. 22.\n\n    [864] Cato, _R.R._ ch. v. 4.\n\n    [865] Val. Max. i. 3. 2, who no doubt was following\n    Livy; for in the Epitomes of some lost books of Livy\n    discovered at Oxyrrhyncus by Grenfell and Hunt (_Oxyrrh.\n    Papyri_, vol. iv. p. 101), the same fact is alluded to.\n    For the embassy, Maccab. i. 14. 24; xv. 15-24. Two\n    extracts from the text of Valerius, which is here lost,\n    both state that proselytising Jews were at this time\n    driven from Rome; the Jupiter Sabazius, whose cult they\n    were propagating, can hardly be other than that of\n    Jehovah; see Schuerer, _Jewish People in the Time of\n    Christ_, pt. ii. vol. ii. p. 233 of the English\n    translation. The expulsion of Chaldaei may, however,\n    have been a separate measure of the praetor Hispalus.\n\n    [866] Plutarch, _Marius_, 42.\n\n    [867] Suet. _Aug._ 1. I have seen a learned work about a\n    century old, now entirely forgotten, in which it is\n    maintained that Virgil's fourth Eclogue is simply a\n    genethliacon of Augustus; the arguments, which are\n    ingenious but futile, are drawn from the poem of\n    Manilius.\n\n    [868] Tacitus, _Hist._ i. 22.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XVIII\n\nRELIGIOUS FEELING IN THE POEMS OF VIRGIL\n\n\nMy justification for devoting a whole lecture to Virgil must be that\nthis great poet, more warmly and sympathetically than any other Latin\nauthor, gives expression to the best religious feeling of the Roman\nmind. And this is so not only in regard to the tendencies of religion in\nhis own day; he stands apart from all his literary contemporaries in\nthat he sums up the past of Roman religious experience, reflects that of\nhis own time, and also looks forward into the future. No other poet, no\nhistorian, not even Livy, who sprang from the same region and in his\ntone and spirit in some ways resembles Virgil, has the same broad\noutlook, the same tender interest in religious antiquity, the same\nall-embracing sympathy for the Roman world he knew, and the same\nconfident and cheerful hope for its future. Each of the Augustan\npoets--Horace, Ovid, Propertius, Tibullus--has his own peculiar gift and\ncharm; but those who know Virgil through and through will at once\nacknowledge the difference between these and the man possessed of\nspiritual insight. They are helpful in various ways to the student of\nRoman religion, and Tibullus especially has a simple reverence for the\nold religion which has inspired a few exquisite descriptions of this\naspect of Italian life. But, if I may use the word, they had no\nmission; they were true poets, yet not poets of the prophetic order;\nthey had not thought deeply and reached conviction, like Lucretius and\nVirgil. A few words from the conclusion of an Edinburgh professor's\nadmirable work on Virgil will sufficiently express what I mean. \"His\nreligious belief,\" says Sellar, \"like his other speculative convictions,\nwas composite and undefined; yet it embraced what was purest and most\nvital in the religions of antiquity, and in its deepest intuitions it\nseems to look forward to the belief which became dominant in Rome four\ncenturies later.\"[869] In fact, Virgil gathers up what was valuable in\nthe past of Rome and adds to it a new element, a new source of life and\nhope. It was this that made it possible for a great French critic to\nassert that for those who have read Virgil there is nothing astonishing\nin Christianity.[870] Let us try and realise what these writers mean.\nThe Scotsman is sober and earnest, the Frenchman epigrammatically\nexaggerating; but the feeling that underlies both utterances is a true\none.\n\nWe have traced the gradual paralysis of the secularised State religion.\nWe have glanced at the two types of philosophical thought which took the\nplace of that religion in the minds of the cultivated section of Roman\nsociety, neither of which could adequately supply the Roman and Italian\nmind with an expression of its own natural feeling, never wholly\nextinct, of its relation to the Power manifesting itself in the\nuniverse. Stoicism came near to doing what was needed, by rehabilitating\nitself on Italian soil and indulging Roman preconceptions of the divine;\nbut it could not greatly affect the mass of men, and its appeal was not\nto feeling, but to reason. Epicurism, though perhaps more popular, was\nin reality more in conflict with what was best in the Italian nature,\nand the passionate appeal of Lucretius to look for comfort to a\nscientific knowledge of the _rerum natura_ had no enduring power to\ncheer. Lastly, we have examined the tendency of the same age towards\nmysticism and Cicero's doubting and embarrassed expression of it, and we\nfound that this tendency rather illustrates a sense of something\nwanting than hopefully satisfies it. We may well feel ourselves, now we\nhave arrived at the close of the Republican era, just as the best men of\nthat day felt, that there _is_ something wanting. In their minds this\nfeeling almost amounted to despair; in ours, as we read the story of the\ntroublous time after the death of Caesar, it is pity and wonder. There\nwas, in fact, more than a sense of weariness and discomfort, moral and\nmaterial, in the Roman mind of that generation--there was also what we\nmay almost call a sense of sin, such a feeling, though doubtless less\nreal and intense, as that which their prophets, from time to time, awoke\nin the Jewish people, and one not unknown in the history of Hellas. It\nwas essentially a feeling of neglected duty--of neglected duty to the\nPower and of goodwill wanting towards men. Lucretius had been\nunconsciously a powerful witness to this feeling, but had not found the\nremedy. In the early Augustan age it is again expressed by Horace, by\nSallust, and more deeply and truly in the beautiful preface to Livy's\nHistory.[871] Livy there says that he devoted himself to the early\nannals of Rome that he might shut his eyes to the evils of his own\ntime--\"tempora quibus nec vitia nostra nec remedia pati possumus.\"\n\nThis something wanting was then a feeling, a _religio_, if we can\nventure to use the old word once more in the sense which I have so often\nattributed to it. Not an unreasonable or ungovernable feeling, not a\n_superstitio_, but a feeling of happy dependence on a higher Power, and\na desire to conform to His will in all the relations of human life. This\nis the kind of feeling that had always lain at the root of the Roman\n_pietas_, the sense of duty to family and State, and to the deities who\nprotected them. In the jarring of factions, the cruelty and bloodshed of\ntyrants, and the luxurious self-indulgence of the last two generations,\nthe voice of _pietas_ had been silenced, the better instincts of\nhumanity had gone down. We have to see what was done by our poet to\nawake that voice again and to put fresh life into those instincts. Only\nlet us remember that more permanent good is done in this world by a\nbeautiful nature giving itself its natural expression, than by precept\nor denunciation; and beware of attributing to Virgil more direct\nconsciousness of his mission than he really felt. It is the nature of\nthe man that is of value to us in our studies, as it was to the Romans\nin their despair, a nature ruled by sweet, calm feeling, full of\nsympathy and full of hope.\n\nThe something wanting in others which we find in Virgil only, or in him\nmore convincingly felt and more resonantly expressed, is a kindly and\nhopeful outlook on the world, with a deep and real sympathy for all\nsorrow and pain. It is not the result of any definite religious\nconviction; it is in the nature of the man, and is of the very fibre of\nhis being; but it made him a better religious teacher than the rest,\njust because real religion is not a matter of reason only, or of\nconvention, or of art, but of feeling. This was the true antidote to\ndespair or depression--a sympathy with man in all he does or suffers,\nnot an indignant cry of remonstrance like that of Lucretius. Virgil's\nsympathetic outlook includes not only Man, but the animal world, and\nthere can be no better proof that his feeling was genuine. The\nnightingale robbed of her young,[872]\n\n                            quem durus arator\n  observans nido implumes detraxit: at illa\n  flet noctem, ramoque sedens miserabile carmen\n  integrat et maestis late loca questibus implet;\n\nthe cattle smitten by the plague,[873] the migrating birds coming in\nfrom the sea,[874] and many another tender touch, all show us the\nfeeling of which I am speaking; for he who could so feel towards animals\nmust needs have a soul of pity for man. So, too, with the inanimate\nnature of Italy; the land in which Virgil's shepherds and husbandmen\nlive and work is one full of such detailed loveliness as might suggest a\nbeneficent Power presiding over it all, inviting man to lift up his\nheart in gratitude or prayer. As Sellar has well remarked,[875] the\nsense of natural beauty is in the _Georgics_ intertwined with the toil\nof man, raising, as it were, the toiler to a higher level of humanity as\nhe lifts his eyes from his work. And this natural beauty is made real\nfor the reader by the life and force that everywhere pervades it; all\nnature is alive and full of feeling; the fruit trees, for example, in\nthe second _Georgic_ seem instinct with an almost human life.[876] The\nmoment this comes home to us we see how it harmonises with all we have\nlearnt of the old Italian conception of the divine, of the forceful\n_numina_ working for man's benefit if properly propitiated. And even\nwhen Virgil is using the language of the Stoics to explain the life of\nnature, we feel that behind the philosophical theory there lies this\nfeeling of the Italian:\n\n                  deum namque ire per omnes\n  terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum:\n  hinc pecudes, armenta, viros, genus omne ferarum.[877]\n\nThis is the religious spirit of the _Georgics_; the divine forces are\neverywhere, and a man must submit himself to them and seek their aid. He\nfinds his true resource rather in prayer than in philosophy, his part in\nthe world is \"laborare et orare.\" The hard lot of the Hesiodic labourer\nis not that of the _agricola_ of the _Georgics_, who carries on his\ncampaign of toil with a cheerful heart and a clear conscience, for he is\nin right relation with the Power manifesting itself in the life around\nhim.\n\nThis, then, so far as I can describe it without going too far into\ndetail, is the feeling, the _religio_, which was needed in the Italy of\nthat day. We may, perhaps, venture to compare its revival in the work of\nVirgil with the return to nature in the English poetry of a century ago,\nwhich also brought with it a revival of religious fervency. Though\nVirgil and Wordsworth are in many ways as unlike as two poets can be,\nthey are alike in the possession of that gentle and trustful outlook on\nthe world of nature which stimulates the mind to think of itself in its\nrelation to the Power. We do not need to analyse the process or to put\nit into any logical shape; we may rest content with it as a fact in the\nhistory of Roman religious experience.\n\nIn Virgil's case, as in Wordsworth's, this feeling had the effect of\nreconciling the poet's mind to the old forms of religious worship.\nReconcile is, perhaps, hardly the right word; we may doubt whether he\nhad ever quarrelled with them. As he believed in the Power and its\nmanifestations, so too he believed in the traditional modes of\npropitiating it, not asking himself the _raison d'etre_ of this or that\nceremony, still less looking on them with pity and contempt, like\nLucretius, but accepting them in his broad humanity as part of the life\nand thought of man in Italy.\n\n  fortunatus et ille Deos qui _novit_ agrestes.[878]\n\nLet us mark the word _novit_. The husbandman has come to recognise these\nemanations of the Power and to know them as friends; the word could not\nhave been used of malignant spirits. As I said in an early lecture, man\nadvances in his knowledge of the Power as he advances in civilisation.\nSo the rural rites have a claim on his sympathy no less than the men who\nperformed them; he knew them in their detail, and he knew them in the\nspirit which animated them. He must have studied them in detail, and not\nonly the rural cults, but those of the city too; every gesture in\nworship has an interest for him, and so great is our respect for his\naccuracy that we accept what he tells us even if we cannot explain\nit.[879] His careful learning in all these details has been the means of\npreserving for us large sources of knowledge; for Servius, Macrobius,\nand other commentators accumulated stores of it in endeavouring to\ninterpret him.\n\nNow, this is not mere antiquarianism in Virgil, any more than is the\ndetail of old life which abounds in Scott's poems and novels. These two\nmen had the same wide, sympathetic outlook on the world. Scott was\ninterested in everything and everybody, whether living or dead long ago,\nand in all they did; and I think we may say the same of Virgil, though\nhe is said to have been rather reserved and shy than genial and\ntalkative like Scott. Virgil's mind was not so much \"curious,\" I think,\nas sympathetic, and his delight in these religious details arises from\nhis love of Italy and all that man did in it. He caught the spirit of\nthe old Italian worship, which, as we saw, demanded that each act should\nbe performed accurately according to rules laid down. He recognises the\nnecessity, and with true Italian instinct he acts upon it as he writes.\nHe knows that these acts of cult are one outward expression of that\nquality which had made Rome great--_pietas_, the sense of duty to\nfamily, State, and Deity.\n\nSo far I have been considering what I may call the psychological basis\nof Virgil's religion--the man's sympathetic nature and wide outlook,\nwhich included in its love of Italy even the old practical worship of\nItalians. I have now to go on to the poet's greatest work, in which the\nidea of duty was not merely recognised in religious acts but exemplified\nin an ideal Roman. It is mainly in the _Aeneid_ that we see him looking\nforward as well as backward, for it is there that we have the chart of\nthe Roman's duty drawn to the scale of his past history, and meant to\nguide him in the future in still more glorious travel.\n\nThere are two ways in which we may contemplate the _Aeneid_ as a whole\nand the teaching it offered the Roman of that day. We may think of it\n(if I may for a moment use musical language) as a great fugue, of which\nthe leading subject is the mission of Rome in the world. Providence,\nDivine will, the Reason of the Stoics, or, in the poetical setting of\nthe poem, Jupiter, the great protecting Roman deity, with the Fates\nbehind him somewhat vaguely conceived,[880] had guided the State to\ngreatness and empire from its infancy onwards, and the citizens of that\nState must be worthy of that destiny if they were to carry out the great\nwork. This mighty theme pervades the whole poem and, like the subject of\na fugue, enters and re-enters from time to time in thrilling tones. It\nis given out in the prophecy put into the mouth of Jupiter himself at\nthe beginning of the first book; it is heard in still more magnificent\nmusic from the shade of old Anchises in the last moments of the hero's\nvisit to Hades in the sixth book, and again in the description of the\nshield which Venus gives her son.[881] Though the poem is unequal and\nsome parts of it are left without the final touches, yet whenever the\npoet comes upon this great theme the tone is that of a full organ. This\nis, I think, apart from those exquisite beauties of detail which are for\nthose only who have been initiated in the Virgilian mysteries, what\nchiefly moves the modern reader of Virgil. There are drawbacks which,\nfor us moderns at least, detract from the general effect: the\nintervention of gods and goddesses after the Homeric manner, but without\nthe charm of Homer; the seeming want of warm human blood in the hero;\nthe stern decrees of Fate overruling human passions and interests; but\nhe who keeps the great theme ever in mind, watching for it as he reads,\nas one watches for the new entry of a great fugue-subject, will never\nfail to see in the _Aeneid_ one of the noblest efforts of human art--to\nunderstand what makes it the world's second great epic.\n\nBut this great destiny of Rome has been accomplished by the service of\nman; by his loyalty, self-sacrifice, and sense of duty; by that quality\nknown to the Romans as _pietas_; and the second lesson or reminder of\nthe _Aeneid_ lies in the exemplification of this truth in the person and\ncharacter of the hero. We moderns find it hard to interest ourselves in\nthe character of Aeneas. But as Prof. Nettleship remarked long ago,[882]\na Roman reader would not have thought him dull or uninteresting; if that\nhad been so, the poem could hardly have become popular from the moment\nof its publication. I am inclined to think that the _development_ of the\ncharacter of Aeneas under stress of perils, moral and material, was much\nmore obvious to the Roman than it is to us, and much more keenly\nappreciated. For him it was the chief lesson of the poem, which makes it\nas it were a \"whole duty of the Roman\"; and as this lesson is really a\npart of Roman religious experience I am going to occupy the rest of this\nlecture with it.\n\nThe development of the character of Aeneas, under the influence of\nperils and temptations through which he is guided by Jupiter and the\nFates, is not a subject which has received much attention from modern\ncriticism.[883] Yet to me, at least, it would be surprising if the\nleading character of the poem were, so to speak, a statue once and for\nall conceived and executed by the artist, instead of a human being\nsubjected to various experiences which work upon his character as well\nas his career. There were circumstances in Virgil's time which made it\nnatural that a poet of a serious and philosophical turn of mind should\nbe interested in the development of character and make it part of his\ngreat subject. We have more than once had occasion to notice the growth\nof individualism in the last two centuries B.C. Beyond doubt personal\ncharacter had a great interest at this time for thinking men, apart from\nits development; the world was ruled by individuals, and at no time has\nso much depended on the disposition of individuals. Men had long begun\nto take themselves very seriously, and to write their own biographies.\nSo entirely had the individual emancipated himself from the State, that\nhe had almost forgotten that the State existed and claimed his _pietas_;\nhe worked and played for his own ends.[884] Even the armies of that\nmelancholy age were known and thought of, not as the servants of the\nState, but as Sullani, Pompeiani, and so on. This almost arrogant\nself-assertion of the individual was a fact of the time, and could not\nbe suppressed entirely; it was henceforward impossible to return to the\nold times when the State was all in all and the individual counted for\nlittle.\n\nBut in the _Aeneid_, if I am not mistaken, there is an almost perfect\nbalance between the two conflicting interests. The State is the pivot on\nwhich turns all that is best in individual human character; in other\nwords, Aeneas is not playing his own game, but fulfilling the order of\ndestiny which was to bring the world under Roman dominion. Individualism\nof the wrong type, that of Dido, Turnus, Mezentius, has to be escaped or\novercome by the hero, for whom the call of duty is that of the State to\nbe; but, all the same, the hero is an _individual_, and one conceived\nnot merely as a type or a force. True, he is typical of Roman _pietas_,\nand bears his constant epithet accordingly; but if we look at him\ncarefully we shall see that his _pietas_ is at first imperfect, and that\nhis individualism has to be tamed and brought into the service of the\nState _with the help of the State's deities_. This is what makes the\n_Aeneid_ a religious poem; the character of Aeneas is pivoted on\nreligion; religion is the one sanction of his conduct. There is no\nappeal in the _Aeneid_ to knowledge, or reason, or pleasure,--always to\nthe will of God. _Pietas_ is Virgil's word for religion, as it had been\nCicero's in his more exalted moments. In the Dream of Scipio we read\nthat \"_piis_ omnibus retinendus est animus in custodia corporis: nec\niniussu eius a quo ille est vobis datus, ex hominum vita migrandum est,\n_ne munus humanum adsignatum a deo defugisse videamini_.\"[885] In these\nwords, as is shown by those that follow, the _munus hominum_ is exactly\nwhat it is in the _Aeneid_, duty to Man and the State, and as it is laid\ndown for man by God, it is also duty to Him. The State finds its\nperfection in the individual so long as he thus fulfills the will of\nGod.[886]\n\nLet us now go on to watch Aeneas as he gradually develops this perfect\nbalance of motive.\n\nAeneas is marked at the very outset of the poem as \"insignem pietate\nvirum\"; the key-note of his character is sounded here at once with\nskill, and the key thus suggested (to use musical metaphor once more) is\nmaintained steadily throughout it. The quality demanded by the gods from\nevery true Roman who would take his part in carrying out the divine\nmission of Rome must be emphasised in the ideal Roman. Yet, as we read\non, we soon discover that Aeneas was by no means as yet a perfect\ncharacter. It can hardly be by accident that the poet has described him\nas yielding to despair and bewailing his fate on the first approach of\ndanger--forgetting the mission before him and the destiny driving him\non, and wishing that he were lying dead with Hector under the walls of\nTroy (i. 92 foll.). It would have been easy enough for Virgil to have\ntaken up at once the heroic vein in the man, as it was left him by\nHomer,[887] and to have made him urge his men to bestir themselves or to\nyield bravely to fate. And this is precisely what Aeneas does _when the\nstorm is over and the danger past_ (198 foll.); yet even then he is not\nwhole-hearted about it:\n\n  talia voce refert, curisque ingentibus aeger\n  _spem voltu simulat_, premit alto corde dolorem.\n\nAt the very moment, that is, when he expresses his belief in his destiny\nand the duty of making for Italy, he still has misgivings, though he\ndare not express them.\n\nHeinze has remarked[888] that before this, at the sack of Troy, he had\nshown a want of self-control, and yielded to a mad passion of desperate\nfighting that is not to be found in the Aeneas of the last six books\n(ii. 314 foll.):\n\n  arma amens capio nec sat rationis in armis.\n\n_Furor_ and _ira_ drive him headlong; we are reminded of the mad fury of\nMezentius or Turnus.\n\nAgain, after the death of Priam Venus has to remind him of his duty to\nhis father, wife, and son (ii. 594 foll.), reproaching him for his loss\nof sanity and self-control:\n\n  nate, quis indomitas tantus dolor excitat iras?\n  quid furis, aut quonam nostri tibi cura recessit?\n  non prius aspicies ubi fessum aetate parentem\n  liqueris Anchisen, superet coniunxne Creusa\n  Ascaniusque puer?[889]\n\nDuring the wanderings narrated in the third book it is Anchises who\nleads, and who receives and interprets the divine warnings; he seems to\nbe the guardian and guide of his son: to that son he is \"omnis curae\ncasusque levamen\" (iii. 709), and he is \"felix nati pietate\" (iii. 480).\nHe is, in fact, the typical Roman father, who, unlike Homer's Laertes,\nmaintains his activity and authority to the end of his life, and to whom\neven the grown-up son, himself a father, owes reverence and obedience.\nAs Boissier has pointed out,[890] the death of Anchises is postponed in\nthe story as long as possible, and it is only after his death that\nAeneas is exposed to a really dangerous temptation; it is immediately\nafter this event that, as we saw, he loses heart at the first storm, and\nthen, on landing in Africa, falls a victim for the moment to the queenly\ncharms of Dido. We may notice that up to this point his _pietas_ has\nbeen a limited one, hardly called upon for exercise beyond the bounds of\nfamily life and duty; when he is himself at the head, not only of the\nfamily, but, so to speak, of the State, it has to take a wider range,\nand to be put to a severe test.\n\nTo all that has at different times been written about Virgil's treatment\nof the Dido legend I must venture here to add another word. Heinze has\nshown[891] that no certain origin can be discovered for the form of the\nstory as Virgil tells it; it may have been Naevius who first took Aeneas\nto Sicily, but we do not know whether he or any successor of his\ninvented the essential point of Virgil's story,--the suicide of Dido as\na consequence of her desertion by Aeneas.[892] In any case the question\narises, why our poet should have deliberately abandoned the current and\npopular version, and exposed his hero to such imminent danger of\ndeserting the path which Jupiter and the Fates had marked out for\nhim,--of sacrificing his great mission to the passion of a magnificent\nwoman, and to the prospect of illicit ease and unsanctioned dominion.\nHeinze is of opinion that Virgil's motive was here a purely artistic\none; he wanted an opportunity to introduce the pathetic element into his\nepic. \"There was no lack of models; the latest bloom of Greek poetry had\nbeen in nothing more inventive than in dealing with all the phenomena of\nthe passion of love,--its agony, shame, and despair, and the\nself-immolation of its victims.\"[893] He enforces this view with great\nlearning, and all he writes about it is of value; but I must confess\nthat he has not convinced me that this was Virgil's chief motive. He\nseems to me to leave out of account two important considerations: first,\nthat though the poet drew freely on every available source, Greek and\nRoman, for the enrichment of his subject and its treatment, yet the\nwhole design and purpose of the _Aeneid_ is Roman and not Greek, and the\nintroduction of a love-story _as such_ would have been foreign to that\ndesign, and also to the aims and hopes of Augustus and the best men of\nthe age. Secondly, Heinze seems to forget, like so many others who have\nwritten about the Dido episode, that Virgil had before his very eyes\nfacts sufficiently striking, a romance quite sufficiently appalling, to\nsuggest the adoption of the form of the story as we have it in the\nfourth book. Twice in his own lifetime did a single formidable woman\nwork a baleful spell upon the destinies of the Roman empire. In neither\ncase did the spell take fatal effect; Julius escaped in time from the\nwiles and the splendour of Cleopatra; Antony failed indeed to escape,\nbut brought himself and her to fortunate ruin. It is to me inexplicable,\nconsidering how all Virgil's poems abound with allusions to the events\nof his time, and with side-glances at the chief agents in them, that\nneither Heinze nor Norden should have even touched on the possibility\nthat Cleopatra was in the poet's mind when he wrote the fourth book. It\nis perhaps difficult for one who puts the poem on the dissecting-board,\nand whose attention is continually absorbed in the investigation of\nminute points in the fibre of it, to bear in mind the extraordinary\nevents of the poet's lifetime,--the civil war, the murder of Julius, the\ndivision of the Roman world, the distraction of Italy, the attempt of\nAntony, or rather, indeed, of his enslaver, to set up a rival Oriental\ndominion, and the rescue of Romanism and civilisation by Augustus. Had\nLucretius himself lived in that generation, he could hardly have escaped\nthe influence of these appalling facts. Whoever will turn to the late\nProf. Nettleship's essay on the poetry of Virgil, appended to his\n_Ancient Roman Lives of Virgil_,[894] can hardly fail to be convinced\nthat on the later poet's mind they had produced a profound impression,\nthe effects of which are traceable throughout the whole mass of his\nwork. His Roman readers, whose state and empire had been brought to the\nverge of ruin by the exaltation of individual passions and ambitions,\nwould look for these constant allusions and understand them far better\nthan we can.\n\nI maintain, then, that the poet adopted his version of the story of Dido\nnot simply as an affecting and pathetic episode, but (in keeping with\nhis whole design) to emphasise the great lesson of the poem by showing\nthat the growth and glory of the Roman dominion are due, under\nprovidence, to Roman _virtus_ and _pietas_--that sense of duty to\nfamily, State, and gods, which rises, in spite of trial and danger,\nsuperior to the enticements of individual passion and selfish ease.\nAeneas is sorely tried, but he escapes from Dido to perform the will of\nthe gods; it is Jupiter, ruler of the Fates and the Roman destinies, who\nrescues him, and thus the divine care for Rome, an idea of which\nAugustus wished to make the most, is carefully preserved in the tale. If\nfor us the character of Aeneas suffers by his desertion of Dido, that is\nsimply because the poet, seized with intense pity for the injured queen,\nseems for once, like his own hero, to have forgotten his mission in the\npoem, and at the very moment when he means to show Aeneas performing the\nnoblest act of self-sacrifice, renouncing his individual passion and\nlistening to the stern call of duty, human nature gets the better of\nhim, and what he meant to paint as a noble act has come out on his\ncanvas as a mean one.\n\nIn Virgil's story, then, we have in contrast and conflict the opposing\nprinciples of duty and pleasure, of patriotism and selfishness, and the\nvictory of the latter in the person of Aeneas by the help of the great\ngod who was the guardian of the destinies of Rome, and of the goddess\nwho was the mother of the hero and the reputed progenitor of the Julian\nfamily. When once this great trial is over, the way is clear for the\naccomplishment of Aeneas' mission, though he still has trials to face,\nand as yet is not fully equipped for meeting them.\n\nWhoever, after reading the stormy scenes of the fourth book, will go\nstraight on to the fifth, cannot but be struck with a change of tone\nwhich would have been doubly welcome to a man of that true Roman feeling\nwhich Virgil was counting on as well as inculcating throughout his\nwork--doubly welcome, because he would find it not only in the\nincidents, but in the character of Aeneas. We here leave self and\npassion behind, and are introduced to scenes where the careful\nperformance of religious and family duties seems to produce ease of mind\nand the tranquillity that comes of a soothed conscience. For the first\ntime in the poem we meet with a characteristic of that best Roman life\nwhich was dear to the heart of Augustus, and with which we may be quite\ncertain that the poet himself was entirely in sympathy. Strange, indeed,\nit is that this should be the case in a book so wholly based for its\nexternals on Greek poetical traditions; but it is none the less true,\nand it is a striking example of Virgil's wonderful genius for\ntransforming old things with new light and meaning.[895]\n\nIt is not only then, or even mainly, the traditional necessity of\ndescribing games in an epic poem, that is the _raison d'etre_ of the\nfifth book; the object was rather, as I understand it, to gain the\nneedful contrast to the stormy passion of the fourth, and a relief for\nthe mind of the Roman reader before he approached the awful scenery and\nexperiences of the sixth, while at the same time there could be\nindicated--and for a Roman reader more than indicated--the _first\nbeginning of a change_ in the character of the hero. All this is\neffected with wonderful skill by making Aeneas perform with detailed\ncarefulness the Roman ritual of the _Parentalia_ as it was known to the\nRomans of the Augustan age. The _Parentalia_, as I have said\nelsewhere,[896] were not days of terror or ill-omen, but rather days on\nwhich the performance of duty was the leading idea in men's minds; that\nduty was a pleasant and cheerful one, for the dead were still members of\nthe family, and there was nothing to fear from them so long as the\nliving performed their duties towards them under the due regulations of\nthe _ius divinum_. The ritual indicates the idea of the yearly renewal\nof the rite of burial, with the propitiation of the departed which was\nnecessary for the welfare of the family; and when the liturgical nine\ndays were over, the living members met together in the _Caristia_, a\nkind of love feast of the family, at which all quarrels were to be\nforgotten, and from which all guilty members were excluded. In families\nof wealth and distinction in Virgil's time the days of mourning might be\nfollowed by _games in honour of the departed_. Thus a Roman would at\nonce recognise the fact that Aeneas is here presented to us for the\nfirst time as a Roman father of a family, discharging the duties\nessential to the continuance and prosperity of that family with\ncheerfulness as well as with _gravitas_; and that his _pietas_ here\ntakes a definite, practical, and truly Roman form, though it is not as\nyet extended to its full connotation as the performance of duty towards\nthe State and its gods.\n\nAll this is quite in keeping with the little touches of characterisation\nwhich we can also notice in this book. In the second line Aeneas pursues\nhis way _certus_, even while he gazes at the flames of Dido's funeral\npyre, not knowing what they meant. He presides at the games with the\ndignity of a Roman magistrate, and reproachingly consoles the beaten\nDares with words which seem to reflect his late experience at Carthage\n(v. 465):\n\n  infelix, quae tanta animum dementia cepit?\n  non vires alias conversaque numina sentis?\n  _cede deo_.\n\nWhen the ships are burnt he does not give way to despair, as in the\nstorm of the first book, but prays for help to the omnipotent Jupiter,\nin whose hand were the destinies of his descendants (v. 687 foll.). But\nhe is not yet perfect in his sense of duty; he feels the blow severely,\nand for a moment wavers (v. 700 foll.):\n\n                 ... casu concussus acerbo\n  nunc huc ingentis, nunc illuc pectore curas\n  mutabat versans, Siculisne resideret arvis\n  oblitus fatorum, Italasne capesseret oras.\n\nIt needs the cheering advice of old Nautes (_quicquid erit, superanda\nomnis fortuna ferendo est_), and the appearance of the shade of\nAnchises, to confirm his wavering will with renewed sense of his\nmission. This appearance of his father, \"omnis curae casusque levamen,\"\nwith the summons to meet him in Hades, is, as Heinze has seen,[897] a\nturning-point in the fortunes and the character of Aeneas, and prepares\nus for the final ordeal and initiation which he undergoes in the\nfollowing book.\n\nI here use the word initiation because I have no doubt that Virgil had\nin his mind when writing it the Greek idea of initiation into mysteries\npreparatory to a new life. An actual initiation was, of course, out of\nthe question; on the other hand a _catabasis_, a descent into Hades, was\npart of the epic inheritance he derived from Homer, and this, like the\nfuneral games in the fifth book, he might use with an earnestness of\npurpose wanting in Homer, to work in with the great theme of his poem,\nnot merely as an artistic effort. The purpose here was to make of Aeneas\na new man, to regenerate him; to prepare him by mystic enlightenment for\nthe toil, peril, and triumph that await him in the accomplishment of his\ndivine mission. We must not look too closely into the process; it is a\nstrange melange of popular and philosophic ideas and scenery, made at\nonce intelligible and magnificent by the wonderful resources of the\npoet; but we may be sure that it has the same general meaning as the\nvisions of Dante long afterwards. As Mr. Tozer has said, Dante's\nconversion and ultimate salvation were the primary object of his journey\nthrough the three realms of the spiritual world.[898] In this sense it\ncan be called an initiation, an ordeal, a sacrament.\n\nSo much has been written about this wonderful book that I do not need\nto dwell upon it here. I will content myself with pointing out very\nbriefly a fact which struck me when I last read it. The ordeal of\npreparation is not complete till the very end of the book, when the\nshade of Anchises has shown his son all the great things to come, the\ndue accomplishment of which depends on his sense of duty, his _pietas_.\nUp to that moment Aeneas is always thinking and speaking of the past,\nwhile in the last six books he is always looking ahead, absorbed in the\nwork each hour placed before him, and in the prospect of the glory of\nRome and Italy. The poet had contrived that his hero should himself\nnarrate the story of the sack of Troy and his subsequent wanderings, and\nnarrate them to the very person who would have made it impossible for\nhim ever again to look forward on the path of duty. Surely this is\nsignificant of a moral as well as an artistic purpose; the passionate\nlove of the queen urges her to keep his mind fixed on the past, to\nengage him in the story of events that concerned himself and not his\nmission (i. 748):\n\n  necnon et vario noctem sermone trahebat\n  infelix Dido, longumque bibebat amorem\n  multa super Priamo rogitans, super Hectore multa, etc.\n\nAfter the shade of Creusa had told him of his destiny, which she was not\nto share, the past was still in his mind, and he seems to have forgotten\nthe warning; he calls himself an exile (iii. 10):\n\n  litora cum patriae lacrimans portusque relinquo\n  et campos ubi Troia fuit. Feror exsul in altum--\n\nI find an exception after the meeting with Andromache, when he thinks of\nthe future for a moment, but even then half-heartedly as it seems to me,\nwith a very distinct reluctance to face the dangers to come, and with a\ntouching envy of those who could \"stay at home at ease\" (iii. 493\nfoll.). His want of faith in the future is again shown in Book v., in\nthe passage quoted just now; and even in Book vi. he is at first\npurposely depicted as \"slack,\" as having his attention caught by what is\nfor the moment before him, or with the figures of old friends and\nenemies whom he meets, until the last awakening revelation of Anchises.\nThus no sooner has he landed in Italy than he is attracted by the\npictures in the temple of Apollo and incurs a rebuke from the priestess\n(vi. 37 foll.):\n\n  non hoc ista sibi tempus spectacula poscit;\n  nunc grege de intacto septem mactare iuvencos\n  praestiterit, etc.;\n\nso also a little farther on she has to warn him again (50 foll.) at the\nentrance to the cave:\n\n             \"cessas in vota precesque,\n  Tros\" ait \"Aenea, cessas?\"\n\nIt may be fancy in me to see even in his prayer which follows a leaning\nto think of Troy and his past troubles (56 foll.). But I cannot but\nbelieve that in this book he is meant to take a last farewell of all who\nhave shared his past fortunes, have helped him or injured him; he meets\nPalinurus, Dido, Tydeus, Deiphobus, and the rest, and while meditating\nover these he has once more to be hurried by his guide (538):\n\n  sed comes admonuit breviterque adfata Sibylla est:\n  nox ruit, Aenea, nos flendo ducimus horas.\n\nWhen Anchises appears the whole tone changes, and his famous words seem\nto me to show conclusively that hesitation and want of fixed,\nundeviating purpose had been so far his son's chief failing (806):\n\n  et dubitamus adhuc virtutem extendere factis,\n  aut metus Ausonia prohibet consistere terra?\n\nThe father's vision and prophecy are of the _future_ and the great deeds\nof men to come, and henceforward Aeneas makes no allusion to the past\nand the figures that peopled it, abandons talk and lamentations,\n\"virtutem extendit factis.\" At the outset of Book vii. we feel the ship\nmoving at once; three lines suffice for the fresh start; Circe is passed\nunheeded. \"Maior rerum mihi nascitur ordo,\" says the poet in line 43;\n\"maius opus moveo;\" for the real subject of the poem is at last reached,\nand a heroic character by heroic deeds is to lay the foundation of the\neternal dominion of Rome.\n\nA very few words shall suffice about the Aeneas of the later books. Let\nus freely allow that he is not strongly characterised; that for us\nmoderns the interest centres rather in Turnus, who is heroic as an\nindividual, but not as a pioneer of civilisation divinely led; that\nthere is no real heroine, for feminine passion would be here out of\nplace and un-Roman, and the courtship of Lavinia is undertaken, so to\nspeak, for political reasons. The role of Aeneas, as the agent of\nJupiter in conquest and civilisation, would appeal to a Roman rather\nthan to a modern, and it was reserved for the modern critic to complain\nof a lack of individual interest in him. So, too, it is in Jewish\nhistory; we feel with Esau more than with Jacob, and with David more\nthan with Moses, who is none the less the grandest typical Israelite in\nthe Old Testament. And, indeed, Virgil's theme here is less the\ndevelopment of a character or the portraiture of a hero than the\nidealisation of the people of the Italy which he loved so well, who\nneeded only a divinely guided leader and civiliser to enter upon the\nglorious career that was in store for them.\n\nI cannot escape the belief, as I read again through these books, that\nVirgil did intend to depict in Aeneas his ideal of that Roman character\nto which the leading writers of his day ascribed the greatness of their\nrace. His _pietas_ is now confirmed and enlarged, it has become a sense\nof duty to the will of the gods as well as to his father, his son, and\nhis people, and this sense of duty never leaves him, either in his\ngeneral course of action or in the detail of sacrifice and propitiation.\nHis courage and steadfastness never fail him; he looks ever forward,\nconfident in divine protection; the shield he carries is adorned--a\nwonderful stroke of poetic genius--with scenes of the future, and not of\nthe past (viii. 729 foll.):\n\n  talia per clipeum Volcani, dona parentis,\n  miratur rerumque ignarus imagine gaudet\n  attollens umero famamque et fata nepotum.\n\nHe is never in these books to be found wanting in swiftness and\nvigilance; when he cheers his comrades it is no longer in a half-hearted\nway, but as at the beginning of the eleventh book, with the utmost\nvigour and confidence, \"Arma parate, animis et spe praesumite bellum\"\n(xi. 18).\n\nHis _humanitas_ again is here more obvious than in his earlier career,\nand it is plainly meant to be contrasted with the heroic savagery of\nMezentius and Turnus. So keenly did the poet feel this development in\nhis hero's character, that in his descriptions of the death of Lausus\nand the burial of Pallas--noble and beautiful youths whom he loved in\nimagination as he loved in reality all young things--his tenderness is\nso touching that even now we can hardly read them without tears. And not\nonly is the hero heroic and humane, but he is a just man and keeps\nfaith; when, in the twelfth book, the Rutulians break the treaty, and\nhis own men have joined in the unjust combat (xii. 311):\n\n  at pius Aeneas dextram tendebat inermem\n  nudato capite atque suos clamore vocabat:\n  \"quo ruitis? quove ista repens discordia surgit?\n  o cohibete iras; ictum iam foedus et omnes\n  compositae leges: mihi ius concurrere soli.\"\n\nHe claims for himself alone, under the guiding hand of providence, the\nright to deal with Turnus, the enemy of humanity and righteousness. And\nwe may note that when it came to that last struggle, though conquering\nby divine aid, he was ready to spare the life of the conquered till he\nsaw the spoils of the young Pallas upon him.\n\nThe character of Aeneas, then, though not painted in such strong light\nas we moderns might expect or desire, is _intentionally_ developed into\na heroic type in the course of the story--a type which every Roman would\nrecognise as his own natural ideal. And this growth is the direct result\nof religious influence. It is partly the result of the hero's own\nnatural _pietas_, innate within him from the first, as it was in the\nbreast of every noble Roman; partly the result of a gradually enlarged\nrecognition of the will of God, and partly of the strengthening and\nalmost sacramental process of the journey to Hades, of the revelation\nthere made of the mysteries of life and death, and of the great future\nwhich Jupiter and the Fates have reserved for the Roman people. In these\nthree influences Virgil has summed up all the best religious factors of\nhis day: the instinct of the Roman for religious observance, with all\nits natural effect on conduct; the elevating Stoic doctrine which\nbrought man into immediate relation with the universal; and, lastly,\nthe tendency to mysticism, Orphic or Pythagorean, which tells of a\nyearning in the soul of man to hope for a life beyond this, and to make\nof this life a meet preparation for that other.\n\nOnly one word more. We can hardly doubt the truth of the story that the\npoet died earnestly entreating that this greatest work of his life\nshould perish with him, and this may aptly remind us that though I have\nbeen treating the Aeneid as a poem of religion and morals, yet, after\nall, Virgil was a poet rather than a preacher, and thought of his\nAeneid, not as a sermon, but as a work of art. Had he thought of it as a\nsermon he could hardly have wished to deprive the Roman world of it. The\ntrue poet is never a preacher except in so far as he is a poet. If the\nGreeks thought of their poets as teachers, says the late Prof. Jebb,\n\"this was simply a recognition of poetry as the highest influence,\nintellectual and spiritual, that they knew.\" \"It was not merely a\nrecreation of their leisure, but a power pervading and moulding their\nwhole existence.\" Surely this is also true of Virgil, and of the best at\nleast of his Roman readers. No one can read the sixth Aeneid, the\ngreatest effort of his genius, without feeling that poetry was all in\nall to him; that learning, legend, philosophy, religion, whatever in the\nwhole range of human thought and fancy entered his mind, emerged from it\nas poetry and poetry only.[899]\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XVIII\n\n    [869] Sellar, _Virgil_, p. 371.\n\n    [870] Sainte-Beuve, _Etude sur Virgile_, p. 68.\n\n    [871] Horace, _Epode_ 16, where, however, he is not\n    quite so much in earnest as in _Odes_ iii. 6. Sallust,\n    prefaces to Jugurtha and Catiline: these do not ring\n    quite true.\n\n    [872] _Georg._ iv. 511 foll.\n\n    [873] _Georg._ iii. 440 foll. The famous lines (498\n    foll.) about the horse smitten with pestilence will\n    occur to every one.\n\n    [874] _Aen._ vi. 309.\n\n    [875] _Op. cit._ p. 231. He cites _Georg._ i. 107 and\n    187 foll.\n\n    [876] Sellar, _Virgil_, p. 232.\n\n    [877] _Georg._ iv. 221 foll.\n\n    [878] _Georg._ ii. 493.\n\n    [879] Prof. Hardie recently asked me an explanation of\n    the double altar that we meet with more than once in\n    Virgil in connection with funeral rites: _e.g._, _Ecl._\n    5. 66; _Aen._ iii. 305; v. 77 foll. Servius tries to\n    explain this, but clearly did not understand it. Of\n    course I could offer no satisfactory solution. Yet we\n    are both certain that there is a satisfactory one if we\n    could only get at it.\n\n    [880] Much has been written about the part of the Fates\n    in the _Aeneid_ and their relation to Jupiter. See\n    Heinze, _Vergils epische Technik_, p. 286 foll.; Glover,\n    _Studies in Virgil_, 202 and 277 foll. I may be allowed\n    to refer also to my _Social Life at Rome in the Age of\n    Cicero_, p. 342 foll.\n\n    [881] _Aen._ i. 257 foll., vi. 756 foll., viii. 615\n    foll.\n\n    [882] _Suggestions preliminary to a Study of the\n    Aeneid_, p. 36.\n\n    [883] It is not likely to strike us unless we read the\n    whole _Aeneid_ through, without distracting our minds\n    with other reading, and this few of us do. I did it some\n    ten years ago; before that the development of character\n    had not dawned on me fully. I later on found it shortly\n    but clearly set forth in Heinze's _Vergils epische\n    Technik_, p. 266 foll.; and this caused me to read the\n    poem through once more, with the result that I became\n    confirmed in my view, and read a paper on the subject\n    to the Oxford Philological Society, which I have in part\n    embodied in this lecture.\n\n    [884] This is dwelt on in _Social Life at Rome in the\n    Age of Cicero_, p. 124 foll.\n\n    [885] _De Republica_, vi. 15.\n\n    [886] It may be as well to note here that the actual\n    representation of God in the _Aeneid_ is its weakest\n    point. It was an epic poem, and could not dispense with\n    the Homeric machinery: hence Jupiter is practically the\n    representative of the Stoic all-pervading deity, with\n    the Fates behind him. But it is not unlikely that Virgil\n    may thus have actually helped to make the way clear for\n    a nobler monotheistic idea by damaging Jupiter in the\n    course of this treatment; see _Social Life at Rome in\n    the Age of Cicero_, p. 341 foll.\n\n    [887] On the Homeric Aeneas there are some good remarks\n    in Boissier's _Nouvelles Promenades\n    archaeologiques_ (_Horace et Virgile_), p. 130\n    foll. Of all the Homeric heroes he seems to come\n    nearest, though but slightly sketched, to the Roman\n    ideal of heroism.\n\n    [888] Heinze, _Vergils epische Technik_, p. 17.\n\n    [889] I should be disposed to consider this passage as\n    decisive of the point, but that it immediately follows\n    upon the doubtful lines 567-588, in which Aeneas is\n    tempted in his mad fury to slay Helen; and if those\n    lines are not Virgil's, we have not sufficient\n    explanation of the rebuke which Venus here administers\n    to her son. On the other hand, if they were really\n    Virgil's, and omitted (as Servius declares) by the\n    original editors Tucca and Varius, we should have a\n    convincing proof that the poet meant his hero, in these\n    terrible scenes, to come so short of the true Roman\n    heroic type as to be capable of slaying a woman in cold\n    blood, and while a suppliant at an altar of the gods.\n    Into this much-disputed question I must not go farther,\n    except to note that while Heinze is absolutely confident\n    that Virgil never wrote these lines, the editor of the\n    new Oxford text of Virgil is equally certain that he\n    did. My opinion is of no value on such a point; but I am\n    disposed to agree with Mr. Hirtzel that \"versus valde\n    Vergilianos, ab optimis codicibus omissos, iniuria\n    obleverunt Tucca et Varius.\" They are certainly in\n    keeping with the picture of Aeneas' _impotentia_ which\n    is generally suggested in Book ii. If it should be\n    argued that this _impotentia_, _i.e._ want of\n    self-control, is only put into the mouth of Aeneas in\n    order to heighten the effect of his stirring narrative,\n    it will be well to remember the remonstrances of Venus,\n    which make such a hypothesis impossible.\n\n    [890] _Op. cit._ p. 231.\n\n    [891] _Vergils epische Technik_, p. 113 foll.\n\n    [892] The original story was, that unable to escape from\n    an enforced marriage with Iarbas, she killed herself to\n    mark her unflinching faithfulness to her first husband\n    Sicharbas. Servius quotes Varro as stating that it was\n    not Dido, but Anna who committed suicide for love of\n    Aeneas (on _Aen._ iv. 682); and as Varro died before the\n    Aeneid was begun, this may be taken as proving that\n    Virgil's version of the love-story was not his own\n    invention. But it is quite possible that Servius here\n    only means that Varro's version differed in this point\n    from that which the poet soon afterwards adopted; it may\n    be that the story in the poem is thus practically his\n    own.\n\n    [893] _Op. cit._ p. 116.\n\n    [894] _Ancient Lives of Vergil_, Clarendon Press, 1879.\n\n    [895] The critics have, I think, been weaker in dealing\n    with the fifth book than with any of the others. Prof.\n    Tyrrell is too violent in his contempt for it to admit\n    of quotation here. Heinze has some good and acute\n    remarks on Virgil's motive in placing the book where it\n    is, but seems to me to miss the real importance of it\n    (_op. cit._ 140 foll.). Even Boissier, whose delightful\n    account of the scenery of Eryx should be read by every\n    one who would appreciate this book (_op. cit._ p. 232),\n    goes so far as to say that it is the one book with which\n    we feel we might easily dispense so far as the story is\n    concerned.\n\n    [896] _Roman Festivals_, p. 307.\n\n    [897] _Op. cit._ p. 270.\n\n    [898] _Commentary on Dante's Divina Commedia_, pp. 615\n    foll. I am indebted for this reference to Stewart's\n    _Myths of Plato_, p. 367.\n\n    [899] Nettleship remarked most truly that there is no\n    better way of appreciating the heroic Aeneas of these\n    last books than by studying carefully the early part of\n    the eleventh.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XIX\n\nTHE AUGUSTAN REVIVAL\n\n\nIt is a long descent from the inspiring idealism of Virgil to the cool,\ntactical attempt of Augustus to revive the outward forms of the old\nreligion. It seems strange that two men so different in character and\nupbringing should have been working in the same years in the same\ndirection, yet on planes so far apart. How far the two were directly\nconnected in their work we cannot know for certain. It is said that the\nsubject of the Aeneid was suggested to Virgil by Augustus, and it is\nquite possible that this may be true; but it by no means follows from\nthis that the inspiration of the poem came from any other source but\nVirgil's own thought and feeling. We also know that Augustus from the\nfirst appreciated the Aeneid, and that he saved it for all time; but it\nis by no means clear that it inspired him in his efforts towards moral\nand religious regeneration. Perhaps the truth is that both were moved by\nthe wave of mingled depression and hope that swept over Italy for some\nyears after the death of Julius, and that each used his experience in\nhis own way and according to his opportunities. They had at least this\nin common, that they utilised the past to encourage the present age, and\nthat by filling old forms and names with new meaning they set men's\nminds upon thinking of the future.[900]\n\nYet the revival of the State religion by Augustus is at once the most\nremarkable event in the history of the Roman religion, and one almost\nunique in religious history. I have repeatedly spoken of that State\nreligion as hypnotised or paralysed, meaning that the belief in the\nefficacy of the old cults had passed away among the educated classes,\nthat the mongrel city populace had long been accustomed to scoff at the\nold deities, and that the outward practice of religion had been allowed\nto decay. To us, then, it may seem almost impossible that the practice,\nand to some extent also the belief, should be capable of resuscitation\nat the will of a single individual, even if that individual represented\nthe best interests and the collective wisdom of the State. For it is\nimpossible to deny that this resuscitation was real; that both _pax\ndeorum_ and _ius divinum_ became once more terms of force and meaning.\nBeset as it was by at least three formidable enemies, which tended to\ndestroy it even while they fed on it, like parasites in the animal or\nvegetable world feeding on their hosts,--the rationalising philosophy of\nsyncretism, the worship of the Caesars, and the new Oriental cults,--the\nold religion continued to exist for at least three centuries in outward\nform, and to some extent in popular belief.\n\nWe must remember the tenacious conservatism of the Roman mind: the\nemotional stimulus of the age of depression and despair which preceded\nthis revival: and the conscientious care with which the successors of\nAugustus, Tiberius in particular, carried out his religious policy.[901]\nThen as we become more familiar with the Corpus of inscriptions and the\nwritings of the early Christian fathers, we begin to appreciate the fact\nthat the natural and inherited religion of a people cannot altogether\ndie, and that to describe this old Roman religion as _dead_ is to use\ntoo strong a word. The votive inscriptions of the Empire show us\noverwhelming proof of surviving belief in the great deities of the olden\ntime, and of the care taken of their temples. Antoninus Pius is honoured\n\"ob insignem erga caerimonias publicas curam et religionem.\"[902] Marcus\nAurelius himself did not hesitate in times of public distress to put in\naction the whole apparatus of the old religion.[903] Constantius in A.D.\n329 was shown round the temples when he visited Rome for the first time,\nand in spite of his Christianity took a curious interest in them.[904]\nThat the private worship, too, went on into the fourth century we know\nfrom the Theodosian code, where in the interest of Christianity the\nworship of Lares Penates and Genius is strictly forbidden.[905] Again,\nthe constant ridicule with which the Christian writers speak of the\n_minutiae_ of the heathen worship makes it quite plain that they knew it\nas actually existing, and not merely from books like those of Varro.\nThey do not so much attack the Oriental religions of their time as the\ngenuine old Roman cults; more especially is this the case with St.\nAugustine, from whose _de Civitate Dei_ we have learnt so much about the\nlatter. The very necessity under which the leaders of Christianity\nfound themselves of suiting their own religious character, and in some\nways even their own ceremonies, to the habits and prejudices of the\npagans, tells the same story. But the question how far Latin\nChristianity was indebted to the religion of the Romans must be\npostponed to my last lecture; I have said enough to indicate in which\ndirection we must go for evidence that the work of Augustus was not in\nvain, that it gave fresh stimulus to a plant that still had some life in\nit.\n\nIf, then, the Augustan revival was not a mere sham, but had its measure\nof real success, how are we to account for this? I think the explanation\nis not really difficult, if we bring to bear upon the problem what we\nhave learnt from the beginning about the religious experience of the\nRomans. Let us note that Augustus troubled himself little about the\nlater political developments of religion, which we have lately been\nexamining,--about pontifices, augurs, and Sibylline books; these\ninstitutions, which had been so much used in the republican period for\npolitical and party purposes, it was rather his interest to keep in the\nbackground. But in one way or another he must have grasped the\nfundamental idea of the old Roman worship, that the prosperity and the\nfertility of man, and of his flocks and herds and crops on the farm, and\nthe prosperity and fertility of the citizen within the city itself,\nequally depended on the dutiful attention (_pietas_) paid to the divine\nbeings who had taken up their abode in farm or city.[906] The best\nexpression of this idea in words is _pax deorum_,--the right relation\nbetween man and the various manifestations of the Power,--and the\nmachinery by which it was secured was the _ius divinum_.[907] We shall\nnot be far wrong if we say that it was Augustus' aim to re-establish the\n_pax_ by means of the _ius_; but if we wished to explain the matter to\nsome one who has not been trained in these technical terms, it would be\nbetter to say that he appealed to a deeply-rooted idea in the popular\nmind,--the idea that unless the divine inhabitants were properly and\ncontinually propitiated, they would not do their part in supporting the\nhuman inhabitants in all their doings and interests. This popular\nconviction he deliberately determined to use as his chief political\nlever.\n\nThis has, I think, been insufficiently emphasised by historians, who\ncontemplate the work of this shrewd statesman too entirely from the\npolitical point of view. I am sure that he had learnt from his\npredecessors in power that reform on political lines only was without\nany element of stability, and that he knew that it was far more\nimportant to touch a spring in the feeling of the people, than to occupy\nhimself, like Sulla, in mending old machinery or inventing new. If he\ncould but induce them to believe in him as the restorer of the _pax\ndeorum_, he knew that his work was accomplished. And I believe that we\nhave what is practically his own word for this conviction; not in his\nRes Gestae, the _Monumentum Ancyranum_, which is a record of facts and\nof deeds only, but in the famous hymn which Horace wrote at his instance\nand to give expression to his ideas, for use in the Secular Games of 17\nB.C., to which I am coming presently. Ferrero has lately described that\nhymn as a magnificent poem,[908] an opinion which to me is\nincomprehensible. It is neat, and embodies the necessary ideas\nadequately, but it is far too flat to be the genuine offspring of such a\npoet as Horace. To me it reads as though Augustus had written it in\nprose and then ordered his poet to put it into metre; and assuredly it\nexpresses exactly what we should have expected Augustus to wish to be\nsung by his youthful choirs. I shall refer to it again shortly to\nillustrate another point; all I need say now is that he who reads it\ncarefully and thinks about it will find there the conviction of which I\nhave been speaking, that prosperity and fertility, whether of man,\nbeast, or crop, depend on the Roman's attitude toward his deities;\nreligion, morality, fertility, and public concord are the points which\nthe astute ruler wished to be emphasised.[909] That this hymn was a\nreally important part of the ceremony is certain from the fact that it\nwas given to the best living poet to write, and that his name is\nmentioned as its author in the inscription, discovered not many years\nago, which commemorated the whole performance: \"CARMEN COMPOSUIT Q.\nHORATIUS FLACCUS.\"[910]\n\nIf, then, I am right, this strange movement was not merely a revival of\nreligious ceremonies, but an appeal through them to the conscience of\nthe people. A revival of religious _life_ it, of course, was not, for\nwhat we understand by that term had never existed at Rome; but it was an\nattempt to give expression, in a religious form and under State\nauthorisation, to certain feelings and ideas not far removed in kind\nfrom those which in our own day we describe as our religious experience.\nWhether Augustus himself shared in these feelings and ideas it is, of\ncourse, impossible to conjecture. But as a man's religious convictions\nare largely the result of his own experience and of that of the society\nin which he lives, and as Augustus' own experience for the twenty years\nbefore he took this work in hand had been full of trial and temptation,\nI am disposed to guess that he was rather expressing a popular\nconviction which he shared himself than merely standing apart and\nadministering a remedy. And this view seems to me to be on the whole\nconfirmed by the tone and spirit of the great literary works of the age.\n\nAugustus did not become pontifex maximus till the year 12 B.C., nineteen\nyears after he had crushed Antony at Actium; he waited with scrupulous\npatience until the headship of the Roman religion became vacant by the\ndeath of Lepidus.[911] But this did not prevent him from pursuing his\nreligious policy with great earnestness before that date, for he had\nlong been a member of the pontifical college, as well as augur and\nquindecemvir. No sooner had he returned to Rome from Egypt than the work\nof temple restoration began, the outward and visible sign to all that\nthe _pax deorum_ was to be firmly re-established. The fact of the\nrestoration he has told us in half a dozen words in his own Res\nGestae:[912] \"Duo et octaginta templa deum in urbe ex decreto senatus\nrefeci,\" adding that not one was neglected that needed repair. Among\nthem was that oldest and smallest temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the\nCapitol to which I referred in a former lecture;[913] and his personal\ninterest in the work is attested by Livy, who says that he himself heard\nAugustus tell how he had found an inscription, relating to the second\n_spolia opima_ dedicated there, when he went into the temple bent on the\nwork of restoration.[914] It needs but a little historical imagination\nto appreciate the psychological importance of all this work. We have to\nthink not only of the bystanders who watched, but of the very workmen\nthemselves, rejoicing at once in new employment and in the revival of an\nold sense of religious duty. Little more than twenty years earlier, no\nworkman could be found to lay a hand upon the newly-built temple of\nIsis, when the consul Aemilius Paulus gave orders for its destruction as\na centre of _superstitio_;[915] now abundant work was provided which\nevery man's conscience would approve. When I think of the Rome of that\nyear 28, with all its fresh hope and confidence taking visible shape in\nthis way, even Horace's famous lines seem cold to me (_Od._ ii. 6. 1):\n\n  delicta maiorum immeritus lues\n  Romane, donec templa refeceris\n    aedesque labentis deorum et\n      foeda nigro simulacra fumo.\n\nThe restoration of the temple buildings implies also a revival of the\nold ritual, the _cura et caerimonia_. As to this we are very imperfectly\ninformed,--we have no correspondence of this age, as of the last, and\nthe details of life in the Augustan city are not preserved in abundance.\nBut Ovid comes to the rescue here, as in secular matters, and on the\nwhole the evidence in his _Fasti_ suggests that the old sacrificing\npriesthoods, the Rex and the flamines, were set to their work again. He\ntells us, for example, how he himself, as he was returning to Rome from\nNomentum,[916] had seen the flamen Quirinalis carrying out the _exta_ of\na dog and a sheep which had been sacrificed in the morning in the city,\nto be laid on the altar in the grove of Robigus. In spite of all its\ndisabling restrictions, it was possible once more to fill the ancient\npriesthood of Jupiter; and of the Rex sacrorum and the other flamines we\nhear in the early Empire.[917] They were in the _potestas_ of the\npontifex maximus, and as after 12 B.C. that position was always held by\nthe Princeps himself, it was not likely that they would be allowed to\nneglect their duties. Other ancient colleges were also revived or\nconfirmed by the inclusion of the Emperor himself among their members (a\nfact which Augustus was careful to record in his own words), _e.g._ the\nFetiales, of whom he had made use when declaring war with Antony and\nCleopatra;[918] the Sodales Titienses, an institution of which we have\nlost the origin and meaning; the Salii, Luperci, and above all the\nFratres Arvales, the brotherhood whose duty it had once been to lead a\nprocession round the crops in May, and so to ensure the _pax deorum_ for\nthe most vital material of human subsistence. The corn-supply now came\nalmost entirely from Africa and Egypt; the inner meaning of this old\nritual could not be revived, and we must own that all this restoration\nof the old _caerimonia_ must have appealed rather to the eye than the\nmind of the beholder. It was necessary to put some new element into it\nto give it life. Here we come upon a most important fact in the work of\nAugustus, which will become apparent if we take a rapid glance at the\nwork and history of the Fratres, and then go on to find further\nillustration of the curious mixture of old and new which the Roman\nreligion was henceforward to be.\n\nThe fortunate survival of large fragments of the records of the\nBrotherhood, dating from shortly after the battle of Actium, show that\nit continued to work and to flourish down to the reign of Gordian (A.D.\n241), and from other sources we know that it was still in existence in\nthe fourth century.[919] These records have been found on the site of\nthe sacred grove, at the fifth milestone on the via Campana between Rome\nand Ostia, which from the time of this revival onwards was the centre of\nthe activity of the Fratres.\n\nThe brethren were twelve in number, with a _magister_ at their head and\na flamen to assist him; they were chosen from distinguished families by\nco-optation, the reigning Emperor being always a member.[920] Their\nduties fell into two divisions, which most aptly illustrate respectively\nthe old and the new ingredients in the religious prescriptions of\nAugustus, as they were carried out by his successors. The first of these\nis the performance of the yearly rites in honour of the Dea Dia, the\ngoddess or _numen_ without a substantival name (a form perhaps of Ceres\nand Tellus), whose home was in the sacred grove, and who was the special\nobject of this venerable cult. Secondly, the care of vows, prayers, and\nsacrifices for the Emperors and other members of the imperial house. I\nmust say a few words about each of these divisions of duty.\n\nThe worship of the Dea Dia took place in May on three days, with an\ninterval always of one day between the first and second, according to\nthe old custom of the calendar.[921] On the first, preliminary rites\nwere performed at Rome, in the house of the magister; on the second was\nthe most important part of the whole ceremony, which took place at the\nsacred grove. These rites will give a good idea of the old Roman\nworship, and of the exactness with which Augustus sought to restore it.\nAt dawn the magister sacrificed two _porcae piaculares_ to the Dea, and\nthen a _vacca honoraria_, after which he laid aside the _toga praetexta_\nor sacrificial vestment, and rested till noon, when all the brethren\npartook of a common meal, of which the _porcae_ formed the chief part.\nThen resuming the _praetexta_, and crowned with wreaths of corn-ears,\nthey proceeded to the altar in the grove, where they sacrificed the\n_agna opima_, which was the principal victim in the whole\nceremonial.[922] Other rites followed, _e.g._ the passing round, from\none to another of the brethren, fruits gathered and consecrated on the\nprevious day, each brother receiving them in his left, _i.e._ lucky\nhand, and passing them on with his right; and the singing of the famous\nArval hymn to Mars and the Lares to a rhythmic dance-tune. Then after\nanother meal and chariot-racing in the neighbouring circus, they\nreturned to Rome and finished the day with further feasting.[923] A\ncynical reader of these Acta might suggest that the appetites of the\ngood brethren were made more of than their _pietas_; but the feasting\nmay be just as much a part of the ancient practice as any of the other\ncuriosities of ritual.\n\nThe utensils employed were of the primitive sun-baked clay (_ollae_),\nand seem to have been regarded with a veneration almost amounting to\nworship.[924] Long ago I had occasion to note how the old form of\npiacular sacrifice was used and recorded whenever iron was taken into\nthe grove, or any damage done to the trees by lightning or other\naccident. Once, when a tiny fig-tree sprouted on the roof of the temple,\npiacula of all suitable kinds had to be offered to Mars, Dea Dia, Janus,\nJupiter, Juno, Virgines divae, Famuli divi, Lares, Mater Larum, sive\ndeus sive dea in cuius tutela hic lucus locusque est, Fons, Hora, Vesta\nMater, Vesta deorum dearumque, Adolenda Commolenda Deferunda,--and\nsixteen _divi_ of the imperial families![925] As the date of this\nextraordinary performance is A.D. 183, nothing can better show the\nextent to which the revival of elaborate ritual had been carried by\nAugustus, and the amazing tenacity with which it held its ground.\n\nThe second part of the activity of the brethren well illustrates the new\nelement which Augustus adroitly insinuated into the old religious forms:\nbut I shall not dwell upon it, for the worship of the Caesars in its\ndeveloped form is not of either Roman or Italian origin, any more than\nthe other kinds of cult which were now pressing in from the East; and it\nthus lies outside the range of my subject. The revival of this old\npriesthood, and doubtless of others, the Salii for example, was turned\nto account to mark the sacred character and political and social\npredominance of the imperial family. All events of importance in the\nlife of the Emperor himself and his family were the occasion of vows,\nprayers, or thanksgivings on the part of the Fratres; births, marriages,\nsuccessions to the throne, journeys and safe return, and the assumption\nof the consulship and other offices or priesthoods. These rites all took\nplace at various temples or altars in Rome, or at the Ara Pacis,\nrecently excavated, which Augustus had built in the Campus Martius.\nHere, by way of example of them, is a \"votum susceptum pro salute novi\nprincipis,\" on his accession.[926]\n\n\"Imperatore M. Othone Caesare Augusto, L. Salvio Othone Titiano iterum\nconsulibus, III kalendas Februarias magistro Imperatore M. Othone\nCaesare Augusto, promagistro L. Salvio Othone Titiano: collegi fratrum\nArvalium nomine immolavit in Capitolio ob vota nuncupata pro salute\nimperatoris M. Othonis Caesaris Augusti in annum proximum in III nonas\nIanuarias Iovi bovem marem, Iunoni vaccam: Minervae vaccam: Saluti\npublicae populi Romani vaccam: divo Augusto bovem marem, divae Augustae\nvaccam: divo Claudio bovem marem: in collegio adfuerunt, etc.\"\n\nThis record, which belongs to the year 69 and the accession of Otho,\nshows the _divi_, _i.e._ the deified emperors Augustus and Claudius,\ntogether with the deified Livia, associated with the _trias_ of the\nCapitoline temple and the _Salus publica_ in the sacrificial rites. But\nunder the Flavian dynasty which followed this association was\njudiciously dropped.[927] It may serve for the moment to illustrate what\nwas to come of this new element so subtly introduced into the old\nworship; how it led to practices which are utterly repulsive to us, and\nrepulsive too to an honest man even in that day. The noble words of\nTiberius, declining to have temples erected to him in Spain, have been\npreserved by Tacitus from the senatorial records:[928] \"Ego me, patres\nconscripti, mortalem esse fateor\"; and he added that his only claim to\nimmortality lay in the due performance of duty. Tiberius, whatever else\nhe may have been, was beyond doubt an honest man; and so too was Seneca,\nthe author of the famous skit on the deification of Claudius. But the\nextravagances of Caesar-worship are not to be met with in Augustus'\ntime; for him the new element may be defined, as in Rome (and in Italy\ntoo, so far as his own wish could limit it) nothing more than _the\nencouragement of the belief in him, and loyalty to him as the restorer\nof the pax deorum_. To this end he sought to magnify his own\nachievements as avenger of the crime of the murder of Julius, by which\nthe _pax_ had been grievously disturbed. I propose to finish this\nlecture by giving some account of the way in which he attained this\nobject. Let us briefly examine the famous ritual of the _Ludi\nsaeculares_, of which we have more detailed knowledge than of any other\nRoman rite of any period; it marks the zenith of his prosperity and\nreligious activity, and belongs to the year 17 B.C., two years after the\ndeath of Virgil,--a date which may be said to divide the long power of\nAugustus into two nearly equal halves.\n\nThis famous celebration is an epoch in the history of the Roman\nreligion, if not in the history of Rome herself. It stands on the very\nverge of an old and a new regime. It was the outward or ritualistic\nexpression of the idea, already suggested by Virgil in the fourth\n_Eclogue_ and the _Aeneid_, that a regeneration is at hand of Rome and\nItaly, in religion, morals, agriculture, government; old things are put\naway, new sap is to run in the half-withered trunk and branches of a\nnoble tree. The experience of the past, as with Aeneas after the descent\ninto Hades, is to lead to new effort and a new type of character, of\nwhich _pietas_ in its broadest sense is the inspiring motive.\nHenceforward the Roman is to look ahead of him in hope and confidence,\n_virtutem extendere factis_. Augustus, the Aeneas of the actual State,\nwas firmly established in a prestige which extended beyond Italy even to\nthe far East; his faithful and capable coadjutor Agrippa was by his side\nto take his part in the ritual, and no cloud in that year 17 seemed to\nbe visible on the horizon.\n\nThe _Ludi saeculares_ are also unique in respect of the records we have\nof them. By wonderful good fortune we can construct an almost complete\npicture of what was done in that year on the last days of May and the\nfirst three of June. We have the text of the Sibylline oracle,--how\nmanufactured we do not know, nor does it much matter,--which prescribed\nthe ritual, preserved by Zosimus, a Greek historian of the fifth century\nA.D., together with his own account.[929] Thus the outline of the ritual\nhas been known all along, together with many details; and to help it out\nwe have also the perfect text of the hymn written by Horace for the\noccasion, and sung by two choirs of boys and girls respectively. But\ngreat was the delight of the learned world when, in September 1890,\nworkmen employed on the Tiber embankment, close, as it turned out, to\nthe spot where the nightly rites of the _ludi_ took place, came upon a\nmediaeval wall partly made of ancient material, in which some marbles\nwere found covered with inscriptions relating to this same\ncelebration.[930] This treasure was badly mutilated, but the inscription\nwas easily decipherable; it contains a letter from Augustus giving\ninstructions, two decrees of the Senate, and a series of records of the\nQuindecemviri, who were of course in charge of a ritual which had been\nordered by a Sibylline oracle. Some few points were at first puzzling,\nbut have been cleared up since the discovery. Mommsen, of course, took\nthe work in hand, and his exposition is still, and always will be, the\nstarting-point for students. Wissowa has an excellent popular account of\nit, and recently, in the fifth volume of his _Greatness and Decline of\nRome_, Ferrero has utilised it to give an animated account of the whole\nceremony.[931]\n\nThe _Ludi saeculares_ take their name from the word _saeculum_; and the\nold Italian idea of a _saeculum_ seems to have been a period stretching\nfrom any given moment to the death of the oldest person born at that\nmoment,--a hundred years being the natural period so conceived.[932]\nThus a new saeculum might begin at any time, and might be endowed with\nspecial religious significance by certain solemn ceremonies; in this way\nthe people might be persuaded that a new leaf, so to speak, had been\nturned over in their history: that all past evil, material or moral, had\nbeen put away and done with (_saeculum condere_), and a new period\nentered on of innocence and prosperity. There are faint traces of three\nearly celebrations of this kind, beginning in 463 B.C., traditionally a\ndisastrous year, and renewed in 363 and 263. But in 249, another year of\ndistress and peril, a new saeculum was entered on with a new and a Greek\nritual, ordered by a Sibylline oracle. A subterranean altar in a spot\nby the Tiber, near the present Ponte St. Angelo, and called Tarentum\n(possibly to mark the original home of the rite), was dedicated to Dis\nand Proserpina, Greek deities of the nether world; and here for three\nsuccessive nights black victims were offered to them. The subterranean\naltar and the use of the word _condere_ (to put away), might suggest\nthat this rite may have had something in common with those well-known\nquasi-dramatic ones in which objects are _buried_ or thrown into the\nwater, to represent the cessation of one period of vegetation and the\nbeginning of another.[933] Or we may look on it in the light of one of\nthose _rites de passage_ in which a transition is made from one state of\nthings to another, without any definite religious idea being attached to\nit. There is no doubt some mystical element in the primitive idea of the\nbeginning and ending of periods of time, which has not as yet been\nthoroughly investigated.[934]\n\nNow it is easy to see how exactly a rite of this kind, with suitable\nmodifications, would fit in with Augustus' purposes as we have explained\nthem. Fortunately too Varro had in 42 B.C. published a book in which the\nmystic or Pythagorean doctrine was set forth of the palingenesis of All\nSouls after four saecula of 110 years each; the fourth _Eclogue_ of\nVirgil may have been influenced by this, among other mystical ideas, as\nit was written only three years later; and in any case the doctrine was\nwell known.[935] But Augustus had to wait a while, until peace and\nconfidence were restored. Why eventually he chose the year 17 is quite\nuncertain; it does not exactly fit in with any calculation of four\nsaecula of 110 years starting from any known date. But a saeculum, as we\nhave seen, might begin at any moment; and in any case it was easy to\nmanufacture a calculation, which was now duly accomplished by trusty\npersons, chief among them being the great lawyer, Ateius Capito, an\nardent adherent of Augustus and his projects.[936] Probably too it was\nnecessary to take advantage of the popular feeling of the moment, that a\nbetter time had come, and that it should be started on its way in some\nfitting outward form.\n\nSo an elaborate programme was drawn up, the main features of which I\nmust now explain. On 26th May and the two following days (for the mystic\nnumbers three, nine, and twenty-seven are noticeable throughout the\nritual)[937] the means of purification (_suffimenta_)--torches, sulphur,\nbitumen[938]--were distributed by the priests to all free persons,\nwhether citizens or not; for this once, all in Rome at the time, with\nthe exception of slaves, were to give an imperial meaning to the\nceremony by their share in it. Even bachelors, though forbidden to\nattend public shows under a recent law _de maritandis ordinibus_, were\nallowed to do so on this occasion. No doubt the idea was that the whole\npeople were to be purified from all pollution of the past; it is what M.\nvan Gennep calls a _rite de separation_, the first step in a _rite de\npassage_. The next three days all the people came to the Quindecemviri\nat certain stated places, and made offerings of _fruges_, the products\nof the earth, as we do at our harvest festivals; these were the\nfirstfruits of the coming harvest.[939] It may be worth while to recall\nthe facts that it was on these same days that the procession of the\nAmbarvalia used to go round the ripening crops, and that in the early\ndays of June the symbolic _penus_ of Vesta was being cleansed to receive\nthe new grain.[940] That Augustus wished to emphasise the importance of\nItalian agriculture is beyond doubt, and is apparent also in the hymn of\nHorace, _Fertilis frugum pecorisque Tellus spicea donet Cererem corona,\netc._\n\nWhen the _suffimenta_ had been distributed and the offerings made, all\nwas ready for the putting away or burying of the old _saeculum_. On the\nnight before 1st June Augustus himself, together with Agrippa,\nsacrificed to the Greek Moirae, the Parcae of Horace's hymn, perhaps in\nsome sense the Fata of the _Aeneid_; on the second night to Eilithyia,\nthe Greek deity of childbirth; and on the third to Mother Tellus. The\nform of prayer accompanying the sacrifice is preserved in the\ninscription; it is Latin in language and form, as dry and concise as any\nwe examined in my lectures on ritual, and contains the _macte esto_\nwhich I was then at pains to explain. Augustus prayed for the safety and\nprosperity of the State in every way, and also for himself, his house,\nand his familia.[941] The scene on the bank of the Tiber, illuminated by\ntorches, must have been most impressive.\n\nThese were the nightly ceremonies. But each day also had its ritual, in\nwhich the Roman deities of the heaven were the objects of worship, not,\nas by the Tiber bank, Greek deities of the earth and the nether world.\nOn the first two days Augustus and Agrippa offered the proper victims to\nJupiter and Juno respectively on the Capitol; Minerva is omitted, and\nprobably the other two are reckoned in Greek fashion as a married pair.\nThe form of prayer was the same as that used by night, with the\nnecessary modifications. Thus the great Capitoline temple and its\ndeities have a full share of attention, and they go too far who think\nthat Augustus was so wanting in tact as to put them in the shade.[942]\nBut on the third and last day the scene changes from the Capitol to the\nPalatine, the residence of Augustus, where he had built his great temple\nof Apollo; here for the first time in the ceremony Horace's hymn was\nsung. On all the days and nights there had been shows and amusements,\nand a hundred and ten chosen matrons had taken solemn part in the\nservices.[943] But I must pass these over and turn in the last place to\nthe question, as interesting as it is old and difficult, as to how and\nwhere Horace's hymn was sung, and how we are to understand it.\n\nThe instructions given to the poet by Augustus are obvious as we read\nthe Carmen in the light of the ceremonial of which it was to mark the\nconclusion. He was to bring into it, as we have already seen, the ideas\nwhich were to be revived and made resonant, of religion, morality, and\nthe fertility of man, beast, and crop; and they are all there. He was\nalso to include all the deities who had been addressed in prayer both by\nday and night, by Tiber bank and on the Capitol, and to give the most\nprominent place to those who on this last day were worshipped on the\nPalatine; to Apollo, for whom Augustus had built a great temple close to\nhis own house (_in privato solo_[944]), as his own specially protecting\ndeity since Actium, and Diana, who as equivalent to Artemis, could not\nbut be associated with Apollo. Thus the deities of the hymn are both\nLatin and Greek,[945] and this expresses the undoubted fact that the\nreligion of the Romans was henceforward to be even in outward expression\na cosmopolitan or Romano-Hellenic one, in keeping with the fact that all\nfree men of every race might take part in this great festival. But it\ncannot fail to strike every careful reader that the great trias of the\nCapitol is hardly visible in the poem, though Jupiter and Juno had been\nthe chief objects of worship on the two previous days. Jupiter is twice\nincidentally named, but in no connection with the Capitol;[946] and it\nis only when we read between the lines of the fourteenth stanza that we\ndiscover Jupiter and Juno as the recipients of the white oxen which had\nbeen sacrificed to them there. I have already said that we must not make\ntoo much of the neglect of Jupiter and Juno by Augustus; but it is plain\nthat he directed Horace not to make them too prominent in this hymn, and\nI think it is quite possible that Horace a little overdid his obedience.\n\nThe result of all this is that the hymn, in spite of its neatness and\nadequacy, is wanting in spontaneity, and presents the casual reader with\nan apparently unmeaning jumble of Greek and Roman gods and goddesses.\nThe only way to clear it up is by taking it in immediate relation with\nwhat we know about the places in which it was sung. To me at last it has\nbecome clear enough in all its main points; and I will give here my own\nresults, which do not altogether coincide with those of other recent\ninquirers.\n\nBefore the discovery of the great inscription we knew that this hymn was\nsung before the new temple of Apollo on the Palatine; we now know that\nit was also sung on the Capitol,[947] thus uniting in one performance\nthe old religion of republican Rome with the new imperial cult of\nApollo. But this new fact has, in my opinion, led to misapprehensions\nboth of the manner of singing and the order of subjects in the hymn.\nMommsen thought that the first part was sung on the Palatine, the middle\npart on the Capitol, and the last again on the Palatine, and he is\nfollowed by Wissowa; and both seem to think it possible that there may\nhave been singing too during the procession from the one hill to the\nother.[948] I think we need not trouble ourselves about the latter\npoint, for the Via Sacra, by which the procession must have gone, was\nfar too narrow and irregular to allow fifty-four singers, with the\n_tibicines_ who must have been accompanying them, to walk and perform at\nthe same time.[949] The inscription, too, says plainly that the hymn was\nsung on the Palatine and then on the Capitol, and by that plain\nstatement of fact we had better abide.\n\nNow let us note that these two stations on the two hills were the best\npossible positions for Augustus' purpose, not only because of their\nreligious importance, but because they afforded the most spacious views\nof the city, now everywhere adorned with new or restored buildings. The\ntemple of Apollo was built upon a large and lofty area at the north-east\nend of the Palatine.[950] Recent excavations have shown it to be some\nhundred yards broad by a hundred and fifty in length, and Ovid, in a\npassage of his _Tristia_[951] gives us an idea of its height:\n\n  inde tenore pari gradibus sublimia celsis\n    ducor ad intonsi candida templa dei.\n\nOn this area the choirs of boys and girls took their station, facing the\nmarble temple, on the _fastigium_ of which was represented the Sun\ndriving his four-horse chariot.[952] After singing, probably together,\nthe first two stanzas or exordium of the hymn, they addressed this Sol:\n\n  alme Sol, curru nitido diem qui\n  promis et celas, aliusque et idem\n  nasceris, possis nihil urbe Roma\n    visere maius.\n\nAs they sang these last words, they would turn towards the city that lay\nbehind them, and look over it to the Tiber and the scene of the nightly\nsacrifices of the Tarentum; and with the deities of these rites, who\nmust of course be taken before those of day and light, as in the order\nof the festival, the next five stanzas are occupied:[953] Eilithyia, the\nMoirae (Parcae), and Tellus or Ceres. When that duty is over they turn\nonce more to the temple, and the Greek deities of the Tarentum are\nmentioned no more. Three stanzas are devoted to Apollo and Diana (Luna),\nwith a happy allusion to the _Aeneid_, and then once more the choirs\nturn, and this time they face the Capitol; the hymn is long, and these\nchanges of movement would be at once a relief to the singers and a\npleasant sight to the spectators. They address the deities of the\nCapitol in appropriate language:\n\n  di probos mores docili iuventae,\n  di, senectuti placidae quietem,\n  Romulae genti date remque prolemque\n      et decus omne.\n\nThe allusion to Jupiter and Juno is thus veiled:\n\n  quaeque vos bobus veneratur albis\n  clarus Anchisae Venerisque sanguis,\n  impetret, bellante prior, iacentem\n      lenis in hostem.\n\nHorace has cleverly made Augustus himself the leading figure in this and\nthe following stanza, and the listeners forget the Capitoline gods as\nthey note the allusion to Venus, the ancestress of the Julii, the\nprestige of Augustus that has brought envoys to him from Scythia, Media,\nand India, and in the next stanza the public virtues, presented here as\ndeities--Fides, Pax, Honos, Pudor, Virtus--on whose aid and worship the\nnew regime is based.[954]\n\nAt the sixteenth stanza the choirs again face about to the temple of\nApollo, and with him and Diana again the next two stanzas have to do.\nOnly one remains, in which as an _exodos_ we may be sure the two choirs\nof boys and girls joined; it sums up the whole body of deities, but with\nApollo and Diana as the special objects of the day's worship:\n\n  haec Iovem sentire deosque cunctos\n  spem bonam certamque domum reporto,\n  doctus et Phoebi chorus et Dianae\n      dicere laudes.\n\nThe performance on the Palatine was now over, and the procession\nstreamed down the hill to join the Via Sacra near the Regia and the\nVesta temple, and so to make its way up to the Capitol, where the\nperformance was repeated.[955] Taking station at this noble point of\nview, he who will can again follow its movement with the hymn in his\nhand. The area in front of the Capitoline temple looked across to the\nPalatine, and the image of Sol and his _quadriga_ must have been in full\nview; thus the _exordium_ and the next stanza (alme Sol) would be sung\nlooking in that direction. Equally well in view, if they turned to the\nright, would be the scene of the midnight sacrifices across the Campus\nMartius; and so on throughout the singing the changes of position would\nbe easy and graceful, here as on the Palatine.\n\nHere I prefer to make an end of the performance, following the text of\nthe inscription, which tells us nothing of a return to the Palatine. It\nwould be far more in keeping with Roman practice that the Capitol should\nbe the scene of the conclusion of the processional ceremony, even on a\nday when Apollo was, with Augustus himself, the principal figure. From\nthe musical point of view, too, a third performance is improbable, for\nthe singers were young and tender.\n\nAnd here, too, with this impressive scene, which can hardly fail to move\nthe imagination of any one who has stood on Palatine and Capitol, I will\nclose my account of the religious experience of the Romans. A few\nremarks only remain for me to make about its contribution, such as it\nwas, to the Latin form of Christianity.\n\n\nNOTES TO LECTURE XIX\n\n\n    [900] A summary of the relations between Virgil and\n    Augustus may be found in Mr. Glover's _Studies in\n    Virgil_, p. 144 foll.\n\n    [901] Tiberius added to his Augustan inheritance a\n    curious and possibly morbid anxiety about religious\n    matters and details of cult, of which examples may be\n    found in Tac. _Ann._ iii. 58, vi. 12, among other\n    passages. Perhaps, however, the most interesting is that\n    connected with the famous story of \"the Great Pan is\n    dead,\" told by Plutarch in the _de Defectu Oraculorum_,\n    ch. xvii. The news of this strange story reached the\n    ears of Tiberius, who at once set the learned men about\n    him to inquire into it; and they came to the no less\n    strange conclusion that \"this was the Pan who was born\n    of Hermes and Penelope.\" S. Reinach has recently offered\n    an explanation of this story, which is at least better\n    than previous ones, in _Cultes, mythes, et religions_,\n    vol. iii. p. 1 foll.\n\n    [902] _C.I.L._ vi. 1001.\n\n    [903] Jul. Capitolinus, 13.\n\n    [904] Symmachus, _Rel._ 3.\n\n    [905] _Cod. Theod._ xvi. 10. 2. On this subject\n    generally consult Dill's _Roman Society in the Last\n    Century of the Western Empire_, bk. i. chs. i. and iv.\n\n    [906] This idea is exactly expressed by Horace in _Odes_\n    iii. 23, perhaps addressed to the _vilica_ of his own\n    farm. Cp. Cato, _R.R._ 143, where the _vilica_ is to\n    pray to the _Lar familiaris pro copia_. Horace mentions\n    only the Kalends for this rite; Cato adds Nones and\n    Ides. Cp. Tibull. i. 3. 34; i. 10. 15 foll.\n\n    [907] See above, Lectures iv. and v.\n\n    [908] _Greatness and Decline of Rome_ (E.T.), v. 93.\n\n    [909] See especially lines 45 foll. and 56 foll.\n\n    [910] _C.I.L._ vi. 32,323, or Dessau, _Inscriptiones\n    selectae_, vol. ii. part i. p. 284.\n\n    [911] For this reason the veiled figure in one of the\n    fine sculptures on the Ara Pacis frieze, which used to\n    be taken as Augustus Pont. Max., cannot be so identified\n    (see Domaszewski, _Abhandlungen zur roemischen Religion_,\n    p. 90 foll.), for the date of the Ara Pacis is 13 B.C.,\n    the year before Lepidus died. The figure can be most\n    conveniently seen by English students in Mrs. Strong's\n    _Roman Sculpture_, plate xi. p. 46. It may be Agrippa\n    acting as Pont. Max. for Lepidus.\n\n    [912] _Monumentum Ancyranum_, ed. Mommsen (Lat.), iv.\n    17.\n\n    [913] See above, p. 129.\n\n    [914] Livy iv. 20. 7.\n\n    [915] Valerius Maximus, _Epit._ 3, 4.\n\n    [916] Ovid, _Fasti_, iv. 901 foll.\n\n    [917] See Marquardt, 326 foll.\n\n    [918] Dio Cassius, l. 4, 5.\n\n    [919] Henzen, _Acta Fratrum Arvalium_, p. xxv. of the\n    exordium.\n\n    [920] Henzen, p. 154.\n\n    [921] See above, p. 98.\n\n    [922] Henzen, pp. 24, 28.\n\n    [923] For the hymn, Henzen, p. 26; Dessau, _Inscr.\n    select._ ii. pt. i. p. 276. See also above, p. 186.\n\n    [924] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 487, note 5.\n\n    [925] Henzen, 142 foll.; Dessau, p. 279; see above, p.\n    162.\n\n    [926] Henzen, p. 105.\n\n    [927] _Ib._ p. 107.\n\n    [928] Tac. _Ann._ iii.\n\n    [939] Zosimus, ii. 5 and 6. The oracle and the extract\n    from Zosimus are printed in Dr. Wickham's introduction\n    to the _Carmen saeculare_, and in Diels, _Sibyllinische\n    Blaetter_, p. 131 foll.\n\n    [930] _C.I.L._ vi. 32,323. _Ephemeris epigraphica_,\n    viii. 255 foll., contains the text and Mommsen's\n    exposition. Dessau, _Inscr. selectae_, ii. pt. i. 282,\n    does not give the whole document.\n\n    [931] Wissowa, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 192 foll.;\n    Ferrero, vol. v. 85 foll.\n\n    [932] The word was first explained by Mommsen, _Roem.\n    Chronologie_, ed. 2, p. 172.\n\n    [933] See, _e.g._, _Golden Bough_, ed. 2, vol. ii. p. 70\n    foll.\n\n    [934] The religious or mystical conception of time is\n    the subject of an interesting discussion by Hubert et\n    Mauss, _Melanges d'histoire et de religion_, p. 189\n    foll.; but the _saeculum_ does not seem to have\n    attracted their attention.\n\n    [935] The actual words of Varro, from his work _de gente\n    Populi Romani_, are quoted by St. Augustine, _de Civ.\n    Dei_, xxii. 28: \"Genethliaci quidam scripserunt esse in\n    renascendis hominibus quam appellant [Greek:\n    palingenesian] Graeci; hac scripserunt confici in annis\n    numero quadringentis quadraginta, ut idem corpus et\n    eadem anima, quae fuerint coniuncta in homine aliquando,\n    eadem rursus redeant in coniunctionem.\" The passage well\n    illustrates the mystical tendency of which I was\n    speaking in the last lecture.\n\n    [936] For attempts to explain the difficulty see\n    Wissowa, _op. cit._ p. 204.\n\n    [937] The cakes offered to Eilithyia, and again to\n    Apollo, are nine in number; see the inscription lines\n    117 and 143. The choirs of boys and girls were each\n    twenty-seven.\n\n    [938] The _suffimenta_ are described by Zosimus, _l.c._\n    There is a coin of Domitian, who also celebrated _Ludi\n    saeculares_, in which he appears seated and distributing\n    the _suffimenta_, as the inscription shows.\n\n    [939] So Zosimus, who says they consisted of wheat,\n    barley, and beans.\n\n    [940] _R.F._ p. 148 foll.\n\n    [941] See the inscription, line 92 foll. Ferrero assumes\n    that these words were to be taken as representing the\n    families of all worshippers present, who would repeat\n    the words \"mihi domo familiae.\" But this is arbitrary;\n    the prayer follows the old form as we have it, _e.g._,\n    in Cato, _R.R._ (see above, p. 182), and as Cato or any\n    landowner would represent the rest of the human beings\n    on the estate, so did Augustus represent the whole\n    community.\n\n    [942] So J. B. Carter, _Religion of Numa_, p. 160.\n\n    [943] The matrons, equal in number to the years of the\n    _saeculum_, first appear on 2nd June in the worship of\n    Juno.\n\n    [944] _Mon. Ancyr._ (Lat.), iv. 21.\n\n    [945] Zosimus, _l.c._, says that \"hymns\" were sung in\n    Greek as well as Latin; but this is not borne out by any\n    other authority.\n\n    [946] Line 31 (_et Iovis aurae_), where Jupiter simply\n    stands for the heaven and its influence on the earth;\n    and line 73 (_haec Iovem sentire_, etc.), where he is\n    introduced in the most general way as head of all\n    deities.\n\n    [947] Line 147 of the inscription: \"Sacrificioque\n    perfecto puer[i X] XVII quibus denuntiatum erat patrimi\n    et matrimi et puellae totidem carmen cecinerunt:\n    _eodemque modo in Capitolio_. Carmen composuit Q.\n    Horatius Flaccus.\"\n\n    [948] _Eph. epigr._ viii. 256. Wissowa, _Gesamm.\n    Abhandl._ p. 206, note, who refers to Vahlen and Christ\n    as differing from Mommsen, in papers which I have not\n    seen. Wissowa says that the threefold division of the\n    hymn \"springt in die Augen\"; but this has never been my\n    experience.\n\n    [949] Apart from the awkwardness for singers of the\n    descent from the Palatine and the steep ascent to the\n    Capitol, we may remember that they would have to pass\n    under the fornix Fabianus, which was not much more than\n    nine feet broad (Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations_, p.\n    217).\n\n    [950] See Huelsen-Jordan, _Topographie_, iii. 72 and\n    note. See also map at the end of the volume, No. 1 of\n    the series. There is, however, some doubt as to whether\n    the site was not on the side of the Palatine looking\n    towards the Tiber over the Circus maximus. See my paper\n    in the _Classical Quarterly_, 1910, p. 145 foll. If so,\n    my explanation of the performance of the hymn seems\n    rather to be confirmed than weakened.\n\n    [951] Ovid, _Tristia_, iii. 1. 59 foll.\n\n    [952] Propertius, iii. 28 (31): \"In quo Solis erat supra\n    fastigia currus.\" No one seems to have noticed the\n    connection between this and Horace's allusion to Sol,\n    which is otherwise not easy to explain.\n\n    [953] I will not enter on the insoluble question as to\n    what stanzas or parts of stanzas were sung by the boys\n    and girls respectively. That the hymn was so sung in\n    double chorus is intrinsically probable, and stated in\n    the oracle, lines 20, 21. Some of the schemes which have\n    been propounded are given in Wickham's _Horace_. I\n    imagine that the stanzas may have been sung alternately\n    except in the case of the first two and the last, but\n    the ninth looks as though it might have been divided\n    between the two choirs. Ferrero has a scheme of his\n    own, p. 91 foll.; and if he had taken a little more\n    pains might have worked out the whole problem\n    satisfactorily.\n\n    [954] Of these quasi-deities Fides is the oldest, and\n    was associated with Jupiter on the Capitol; Wissowa,\n    _R.K._ 103 foll. Thus we may find a _callida iunctura_\n    between the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth\n    stanzas, for Fides and Pax would fit in well with the\n    _responsa petunt_ of the fourteenth. Whether Pax was\n    recognised as a deity at this time is not quite certain;\n    but a few years later, in 9 B.C., an altar of Pax\n    Augusta was dedicated. The Ara Pacis was begun in 13\n    B.C. See Axtell, _Deification of Abstract Ideas_\n    (Chicago, 1907), p. 37, who may also be consulted for\n    the other deities here mentioned. See also above, p.\n    285. In Tibull. i. 10. 45 foll., Pax seems to be on the\n    verge of deification, but not to have attained it except\n    in the poet's fancy.\n\n    [955] The route may be followed in the map of the Via\n    Sacra in Lanciani's _Ruins and Excavations_, and in his\n    chapter entitled, \"A Walk through the Sacra Via,\" or\n    more shortly in my _Social Life in the Age of Cicero_,\n    p. 18 foll.\n\n    _Note._--The whole question of the singing of\n    the _Carmen saeculare_ in its relation to the two\n    principal sites and to the topography of the festival\n    generally, is fully discussed by the author in\n    _Classical Review_ for 1910, p. 145 foll.\n\n\n\n\nLECTURE XX\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\n\"A time of spiritual awakening, of a calling to higher destinies, came\nupon the world, the civilised world which lay around the Mediterranean\nSea, at the beginning of our era. The calling was concentrated in the\nlife and death of the Founder of Christianity.\"[956] The writer of these\nwords goes on to point out that the beginning of our era was \"a time of\ngeneral stirring in all the higher fields of human activity,\" and that\nall such stirring, all that brings higher ideals before the minds of men\nof action, of imagination, or of reflection, if not itself religion, is\nin some sense religious, and in that age must be taken into account as\nhaving some bearing on the origin of Christianity, the greatest of all\nreligious movements. And inasmuch as the new spirit of the age seems to\nhave put new life into the old religious systems, with the help of\nphilosophy and poetry, as well as of a purer and more effective\nconception of Man's relation to the Power manifesting itself in the\nuniverse, he finds it useful and legitimate to show how the ideas and\ncharacteristics of the leading types of religion in the civilised world\nof which he speaks were absorbed or \"baptized\" into the spirit of\nChristianity. In other words, we may ask what was the contribution of\neach of these religious types to the formation of the Christian type of\nreligion; for however new was the inspiration which was the essential\nliving germ of our religion, yet that germ was of necessity planted in\nsoil full of other religious ingredients, which found their way into the\nsap of the plant as it grew towards maturity.\n\nI have all along wished to bring our subject, the religious experience\nof the Roman people, into touch with Christianity, whether by marking\npoints of contact, or of contrast, or both. In the last few lectures I\nhave laid stress on certain points likely to be useful to us in this\nlast stage of our studies, and these will, I hope, furnish us with some\namount of material. But I confess that I have approached this subject\nwith great hesitation. What I shall have to say will be tentative and\nsuggestive only; but I hope that the account that I have given in these\nlectures of Roman religious experience may be of use in helping a better\nqualified student to carry on the work more adequately.\n\nLet us glance back for a moment at the results of the last four\nlectures, in which I have been dealing with Roman religious experience\nafter the paralysis or hypnotism of the old religion of the State. We\nsaw, in the first place, that the educated part of Roman society had\nbeen brought to the very threshold of a new and more elevating type of\nreligion, by Greek philosophy transplanted to Roman soil, and chiefly by\nStoicism. True, one great Epicurean genius had had his share in this\nprocess, by denouncing the weakness and wickedness of the Roman society,\nand the futility of all the religious forms and fancies with which they\nstill dallied; but Lucretius had nothing to offer in the place of these\nforms and fancies--nothing, that is, which could grip the conscience and\nact as a real force upon conduct. The Roman was in a religious sense\ndestitute, both of a real sense of duty to his fellow-men of all grades,\nand in regard to God; and for this destitution Lucretius' remedy, the\naccurate knowledge of a philosophical theory of the universe, was wholly\ninadequate. The first real appeal to the conscience of the Roman came\nfrom Stoicism, the reasonable and less austere type of Stoicism which\nPanaetius preached to the Scipionic circle. From this the Roman learnt\nthat as a part of the divine universe Man himself is divine: that as\nendowed with a portion of that Reason which itself is God, he has a\nsacred duty to perform in using it. Thus, as the Universal was revealed,\nso the Individual was ennobled; and the only thing wanting to make of\nthis a real religion was a bond that might unite the two more\neffectually in conduct as well as in thought. Though a later development\nof Stoicism did indeed all but achieve this union, that of the later\nRepublic failed to do so, because it inherited the old Stoic neglect of\nthe emotional side of man's nature, and could take little advantage from\na strong current of mystical feeling that was running side by side with\nit. The Stoic ingredient in the soil which was being prepared for\nChristianity was rich and valuable, but in this one respect it was poor.\nIt was intellectually beautiful, but it stirred as yet no \"enthusiasm of\nhumanity.\"[957]\n\nAnother ingredient in the soil was that imaginative transcendentalism\nwhich we discussed under the name of Mysticism, in which the soul\nbecomes of greater interest than the body, and a strange yearning\npossesses the mind to speculate on the nature of the soul, its existence\nbefore this life, and its lot in another world. These imaginative\nyearnings were not native to the Roman, who had never had any very\ndefinite idea of a future life, nor had ever troubled himself about a\nprevious one; they filtered through the Pythagorean and Platonic\nphilosophy into that type of later Stoicism which attracted him. They\nwere hardly treated in Roman society with real religious earnestness,\nexcept perhaps in some few moments of sorrow and emotion such as I dwelt\non in the experience of Cicero. But the mere fact that they were in the\nair at Rome is of importance for us. They _stimulated the imaginative\nfaculty in religious thought_; they kept alive in the minds at least of\nsome men the questions why we are here, what we are, and what becomes of\nus after death. They prepared the Roman mind for Christian eschatology;\nand this, though never so important in the Latin Church as in the\nGreek, was yet an important part of the teaching of the early Church.\nSt. Paul exactly expresses the yearning thus dimly foreshadowed in the\nmystical movement of which I am speaking: \"We that are in this\ntabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed,\nbut that we would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed\nup of life\" (2 Cor. v. 4). It was essential that the Roman should be\nable to understand words like these, and to associate them with a\nreligion which, though in its most vital points one mainly affecting\nthis life, was also, like those of Isis and Mithras, strongly tinged\nwith mysticism. \"All religions of that time,\" it has lately been said,\n\"were religions of hope. Stress was laid on the future: the present time\nwas but for preparation. So in the mysterious cults of Hellenism, whose\nhighest aim is to offer guarantees for other worldly happiness; so too\nin Judaism, whose legacy has but the aim of furnishing the happy life in\nthe kingdom of the future. But Christianity is a religion of faith, the\ngospel not only giving guarantees for the future life, but bringing\nconfidence, peace, joy, salvation, forgiveness, righteousness--whatever\nman's heart yearns after.\"[958]\n\nYet another ingredient was that kindly, charitable, sympathetic outlook\non the world which we found in the poems of Virgil, and which is\nassociated throughout them with the idea of duty and honourable service.\nThe husbandman toiling cheerfully and doing his simple acts of worship,\namong the patient animals that he loves, and the scenes of natural\nbeauty that inspire him with pure and tender thoughts; and then again in\nthe _Aeneid_ the warrior kept true to his goal by a sense of duty\nstimulated by supernatural influence: both these sides of the Virgilian\nspirit show well how the soil is being prepared for another and a richer\ncrop. Love and Duty are the essentials of Christian ethics; they are\nboth to be found in this poet, and through him made their way into the\nideas of the better Romans of the next generation, and so into the\nphilosophy of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. \"To minds touched with the\nsame sense of life's problems which pervades the poetry of Virgil, the\nideas that came from Galilee brought the rest and peace which they could\nnot find elsewhere.\"[959] The early Christian writers loved the \"vates\nGentilium,\" and St. Augustine in particular is for ever quoting him; but\nI should be going beyond the limits of my subject if I were to follow\nhis gentle influence farther down the stream of time.\n\nIn my last lecture we discussed the revival of the old religious forms\nby Augustus, and the consummation of this work of his in the splendid\nritual of the _Ludi saeculares_. Can it be said that such an astute and\nworldly policy as this had any value in the way of preparation for\nChristianity? Only, I think, in one way; it renewed the idea of the\nconnection between religion and the State, and of the religious duties\nof the individual citizen towards the State. It preserved the outward\nfeatures of the old State religion, such as the calendar, the ritual,\nand the terminology or vocabulary, and handed these down to a time when\nthey could be of service to a Latin Christian church.[960] Had the old\nforms been allowed to go utterly to rack and ruin, as they had been\nalready doing for the last two centuries, the Roman State would have\nbeen as such without religion, or the worship of the Caesars would have\nbecome disastrously powerful and prominent, or maybe the State would\nhave adopted the religion of Isis or Mithras or some other Oriental cult\nand belief, before Christianity could lay a firm grasp on it. I think it\nmight be shown that the continuity of the old religion in its connection\nwith the State was really of value in keeping these growths from\noccupying too much ground: of value in checking too rapid a growth of\nindividualism:[961] of value too in cherishing certain really precious\nreligious characteristics, orderliness and decency in ritual, for\nexample, which, as we have seen, were very early developed in the Roman\nreligious system, and which owed their continued vitality to the\noverwhelming influence of the Roman State over all her citizens and\ntheir ideas. Thus when at last, after a period of anxious conflict\nbetween rival religions, the State proclaimed itself Christian, and\nhenceforward for good or ill extended its protection to the Church, its\nreligious tradition was still one of decency and order, still free from\nalmost all that the old Roman State knew and dreaded as _superstitio_.\nThere was, in fact, a legacy, not indeed a spiritual one, but yet one of\nsome small value, left by the old Roman religion to the Latin Church:\nand this I will turn for a few minutes to examine.\n\nAs an example of the orderly, sane, and decent character which the\nChurch inherited from the Roman religion, I might recall what I said in\nLecture IX. about _lustratio_, that slow and orderly processional\nmovement in which the old Romans delighted, and which is familiar still\nto all travellers in Italy.[962] Another is the tender and reverential\ncare for the resting-places of departed relatives. I am not sure that\nProf. Gardner is right in asserting that the prayers for the dead of the\nCatholic Church took the place of the worship of the dead in the Roman\nfamily;[963] for it is not easy to say how far it is true that the dead\nwere ever really worshipped at Rome, and the idea of prayer for the\ndead, if it can be traced to Roman sources at all, may be rather due to\nthose tendencies which we discussed under Mysticism, than to anything\ninherent in the old Roman attitude to the departed. None the less there\nis in the _sacra privata_ of the Parentalia, and especially of the\nCaristia which concluded it--a kind of love-feast of all members of the\nfamily, where all quarrels and differences were to be laid\naside,[964]--something that suggests the Christian attitude towards the\ndead, and in some dim way too the doctrine of the Communion of Saints.\nAnd we may also notice how closely in regard to externals the great\nevents of family life,--those critical moments when the aid of the\n_numina_ was most needed--the first days of infancy, the eras of puberty\nand of marriage, passed on in their sober and orderly ritual into the\nbaptism, confirmation, and sacramental wedding of the Christian Church.\nIn such ways the private religion of the Roman family had doubtless a\nreal continuity in the new era, though the line of connection is\ndifficult to trace. This, and many other examples of survival, the\nworship of local saints which took the place of that of local deities,\nthe use of holy water and of incense as symbolic elements in worship,\nand the general resemblance of the arrangement of festivals in the\nCalendars, Roman and Christian, might be interesting matter for a\ncomplete course of lectures, but must be omitted here.\n\nAnother point of interest, which might also be widely expanded, is the\ninfluence of the Roman religious _spirit_, as distinct from the outward\nform, on Christian thought and literature in the Western half of the\nEmpire. The subtle transcendentalism of the Greek fathers was foreign to\nLatin Christianity; the characteristics of Roman life as reflected in\nRoman worship are plainly visible in the Latin fathers. From Minucius\nFelix onwards, the Christians who wrote in Latin, so far from being\nimaginative and dreamy, are one and all matter-of-fact; historical,\nabounding in illustration of life and conduct; ethical rather than\nspeculative; legal in their cast of thought rather than philosophical;\nrhetorical in their manner of expression rather than fervent or\npoetical. They were well versed in the great literature of Rome, but\nmost of them, and especially the African school (which carried Roman\ntendencies to an extreme), knew comparatively little of Greek. St.\nAugustine, for example, could not bring himself to work at Greek with\nardour, nor could he explain why this was so.[965] Of Augustine, as the\ntype of the literature of Latin Christianity, Bishop Westcott wrote with\nsomething of an exaggerated criticism, lamenting that he had not the\nGreek which had so large a place in the Bishop's own training. \"He\nlooked\" (more particularly in the _de Civitate Dei_) \"at everything from\nthe side of law and not of freedom: from the side of God, as an\nirresponsible sovereign, and not of man, as a loving servant. In spite\nof his admiration for Plato, he was driven by a passion for system\" (how\nthis reminds us of the old Roman religious lawyers!) \"to fix, to\nexternalise, to freeze every idea into a rigid shape. In spite of his\ngenius he could not shake off the influence of a legal and rhetorical\ntraining, which controversy called into active exercise.\"[966] The\nlecture from which I am quoting is an interesting one, on the work and\ncharacter of Origen, the great Alexandrian of the third century A.D.,\nwith whom Augustine is contrasted, as in an earlier age we might\ncontrast Seneca with Philo; the Latin writers rhetorical, practical,\nrealistic; the Greek authors idealistic and fervent, apt to see deep\nmoral significance in all human life. And this is really the manner and\nmental attitude of all the famous Latin fathers: of Lactantius, the\nclear, precise Ciceronian, whose every page shows the perennial value of\nthe Latin tongue; of Tertullian, the subtle and acute rhetorician, more\ngifted with imagination than his fellows; of Arnobius, another Roman\nAfrican, the reputed teacher of Lactantius.\n\nOne of the characteristics of these Latin fathers is their fondness for\nusing the famous words of the old Roman religion, but in new senses.\nThey inherit that Roman love for a strong technical word of pregnant\nmeaning which has left us so many imperishable legacies in terminology.\n_Municipium_, _colonia_, _imperium_, _collegium_, rise in one's mind the\nmoment the subject is mentioned; and a few minutes' thought will reveal\nanother score of words which in various forms pervade all our modern\nEuropean terminology. So, too, with the language of religion. These\nLatin advocates of Christian doctrine took the old words which we have\nso often dwelt on in the course of these lectures, and gave them new but\nalmost equally clear and pregnant meanings. Let us glance at three or\nfour of these; for such a legacy as this is no mean property of the\nChristian religion of the West.\n\nLet us take, to begin with, the greatest of all these words--_religio_.\nI have maintained throughout these lectures that the original sense of\nthis word was the natural feeling of man in the presence of the\nsupernatural; and though this has actually been questioned since I began\nthem,[967] I see no good reason to alter my conviction. But in the age\nof Cicero and Lucretius the word begins to take on a different meaning,\nof great importance for the future. Though Cicero as a young man had\ndefined _religio_ as \"the feeling of the presence of a higher or divine\nnature, which prompts man to worship,--to _cura et caerimonia_,\"[968]\nyet later on in life he uses it with much freedom of that _cura et\ncaerimonia_ apart from the feeling. To take a single example among many:\nin a passage in his _de Legibus_ he says that to worship private or\nstrange or foreign gods, \"confusionem habet religionum\";[969] and again\nhe calls his own imaginary _ius divinum_ in that treatise a _constitutio\nreligionum_, a system of religious duties.[970] In many other passages,\non the other hand, we find both the feeling which prompts and the\ncult-acts which follow on it equally connoted by the word; for example,\nthe phrase _religio sepulcrorum_ suggests quite as much the feeling as\nthe ritual. So it would seem that _religio_ is already beginning to pass\ninto the sense in which we still use it--_i.e._, _the feeling which\nsuggests worship, and the forms under which we perform that worship_. In\nthis broad sense it is also used by Lucretius, who included under it all\nthat was for him the world's evil and folly, both the feeling of awe\nwhich he believed to be degrading, and the organised worship of the\nfamily and the State, which he no less firmly believed to be futile.\n\"Tantum _religio_ potuit suadere malorum.\"[971] The fact is that in that\nage, when the old local character of the cults was disappearing, and\nwhen men like Posidonius, Varro, and Cicero were thinking and writing\nabout the nature of the gods and kindred subjects, a word was wanted to\ngather up and express all this religious side of human life and\nexperience: it must be a word without a definite technical meaning, and\nsuch a word was _religio_.\n\nThus while _religio_ continues to express the feeling only or the cult\nonly, if called on to do so, it gains in the age of Cicero a more\ncomprehensive connotation, as the result of the contemplation of\nreligion by philosophy as a thing apart from itself; and this enabled\nthe early Christian writers, who knew their Cicero well, to give it a\nmeaning in which it is still in use among all European nations.\n\nBut there was yet to be a real change in the meaning of the word, one\nthat was inevitable, as the contrast between Christianity and other\nreligions called for emphasis. The second century A.D. was that in which\nthe competition was keenest between various religious creeds and forms,\neach with its own vitality, and each clearly marked off from the others.\nIt is no longer a question of religion as a whole, contemplated by a\ncritical or a sympathetic philosophy; the question is, which creed or\nform is to be the true and the victorious religion. Our wonderful word\nagain adapts itself to the situation. Each separate religious system can\nnow be called a _religio_. The old polytheistic system can now be called\n_religio Deorum_ by the Christian, while his own creed is _religio Dei_.\nIn the _Octavius_ of Minucius Felix, written about the end of the second\ncentury, the word is already used in this sense. _Nostra religio, vera\nreligio_,[972] is for him the whole Christian faith and practice as it\nstood then--the depth of feeling and the acts which gave it outward\nform. The one true religion can thus be now expressed by the word. In\nLactantius, Arnobius, Tertullian, in the third century A.D., this new\nsense is to be found on almost every page, but a single noble passage of\nLactantius must suffice to illustrate it. \"The heathen sacrifice,\" he\nsays, \"and leave all their religion in the temple; thus it is that such\n_religiones_ cannot make men good or firm in their faith. But 'nostra\n_religio_ eo firma est et solida et immutabilis, quia mentem ipsam pro\nsacrificio habet, quia tota in animo colentis est.'\"[973]\n\nHere at last we come upon a force of meaning which the word had never\nbefore attained. _Religio_ here is not awe only or cult only, but _a\nmental devotion capable of building up character_. \"The kingdom of God\nis within you.\" Surely this is a valuable legacy to the Christian faith\nfrom our hard, dry, old Roman religion.\n\nAnother legacy in words is that of _pius_. Our English word \"pious\" has\nsuffered some damage from the sanctimoniousness of a certain type of\nPuritanism; but _piety_ still remains sweet and wholesome, and, like its\nLatin original in the middle ages it seems to express one beautiful\naspect of the Christian life better than any other word. In the old\nRoman religion _pius_ meant the man who strictly conforms his life to\nthe _ius divinum_; this we know from the very definite ancient\nexplanations of its contrary, _impius_. The _impius_ is the man who\n_wilfully_ breaks the _ius divinum_ and the _pax deorum_; for him no\n_piaculum_ was of avail.[974] Such a crime is the nearest approach in\nRoman antiquity to our idea of sin. _Pius_ is therefore, as we saw in\ndiscussing Aeneas, the man who knows the will of the gods, and so far as\nin him lies adjusts his conduct thereto, whether in the life of the\nfamily or as a citizen of the State. As applied to things, to a war for\nexample, the word _pium_ is almost equivalent to _iustum_ or _purum_,\n_i.e._, _pium bellum_ is a war declared and conducted in accordance with\nthe principles of the _ius divinum_.[975] _Pietas_ is therefore a\nvirtue, that of obedience to the will of God as shown in private and\npublic life, and it herein differs from _religio_, which is not a\nvirtue, but a feeling. But we need not be surprised to find that in\nLactantius _pietas_ can be used to explain _religio_; for _religio_ is\nno longer a feeling only or a cult only, but, as we saw just now, a\nmental devotion capable of building up character. In one passage he says\nthat it is no true philosophy which \"veram religionem, id est summam\npietatem, non habet.\"[976] In another interesting chapter he shows\nplainly enough that he uses _pietas_ just as he uses _religio_, to\nexpress the whole Christian mental furniture.[977] He begins by\nscornfully pointing to Aeneas as the typical _pius_, and asking what we\nare to think of the _pietas_ of a man who could bind the hands of\nprisoners in order to slaughter them as a sacrifice to the shade of\nPallas[978] (little dreaming, indeed, that Christian piety should ever\nbe guilty of such slaughter in the cause of the faith); and ends by\nasking, \"What, then, is _pietas_? Surely it is with those who know not\nwar; who keep at peace with all men; who love their enemies and count\nall men their brethren; who can control their anger and curb all mental\nwilfulness.\" And once again, _pietas_ is the main ingredient in\n_iustitia_, that is, in Christian righteousness, for \"pietas nihil aliud\nest quam Dei notio.\" Even here it is not so far removed from its old\nmeaning; but in a Christian writer it can mean conformity to the will of\nGod, based on a real knowledge of Him, in a sense which shows us by a\nsudden illuminating flash the deep gulf set between the old religion and\nthe new.\n\nAnother word, bequeathed in this case rather by the Latin language than\nthe Roman religion, in which it held no strictly technical meaning, is\n_sanctus_, which has played so large a part in the terminology of the\nCatholic Church, and passed thence into the language of Puritanism for\nthe living Christian, as in Baxter's famous book, _The Saints' Rest_.\nThe exact meaning of _sanctus_ is extremely difficult to fix, and this\nmay be why it was found to be a convenient word for a type of character\nnegative rather than positive. The lawyers defined it as meaning what is\n_sancitum_ by the State,[979] without tracing it back to a time when the\nState was a religious as well as a civil entity. But there was beyond\ndoubt a religious flavour in it from the beginning, as in other old\nItalian words connected with it; and thus it seems to be able to express\na certain conjunction of religious and moral purity which finally\nbrought it into the hands of the Christian writers. A single verse of\nVirgil will serve to explain what I mean. Turnus, before he rushes forth\nto meet his death at Aeneas' hand, and knowing that he is to meet it,\nasks the Manes to be good to him, \"quoniam superis aversa voluntas,\"\nfor--\n\n  _sancta_ ad vos _anima_ atque istius nescia culpae\n  descendam magnorum haud unquam indignus avorum.[980]\n\nHe goes to the shades with a conscience clear of guilt or of _impietas_;\nas the ancient scholiast interprets the word, it is equivalent to\n_incorrupta_.[981] In this sense it became one of the favourite\nsuperlatives to describe in sepulchral inscriptions, pagan or Christian,\nthe purity of departed women and children.[982]\n\nLastly, we have the great word _sacer_, with its compounds _sacrificium_\nand _sacramentum_. The adjective itself has no new or special\nsignificance, I think, in the language of the early Christians, and in\nour Teutonic languages the Roman sense of it, \"that which is made over\nto God,\" is expressed by the word _holy_, _sacred_ being retained in a\ngeneral sense for that which is not \"common.\" But _sacrificium_, the act\nof making a thing, animate or inanimate, or yourself, as in _devotio_,\nover to the gods, is indeed a great legacy on which I do not need to\ndwell. _Sacramentum_, on the other hand, needs a word of explanation.\n\n_Sacramentum_ in Roman public law meant (1) a legal formula (_legis\nactio_), under which a sum of money was deposited, originally in a\ntemple,[983] to be forfeited by the loser in a suit. The deposition _in\nloco sacro_ gives the word to the process, and helps us to see that it\nmust mean some act which has a religious sanction. So with (2) its other\nmeaning, _i.e._ the oath of obedience taken by the soldier, who was\n_iuratus in verba_, that is, sworn under a formula with a religious\nsanction attached.[984] It is tempting to suppose that it is through\nthis channel that it found its way into the Christian vocabulary--the\nsoldier of Christ affirming his allegiance in the solemn rites of\nbaptism, marriage, or the Eucharist. It is a curious fact that it seems\nto be used in this way in the religion of Mithras,[985] which was\nespecially powerful among the Roman legions of the Empire, and in which\nthere was a grade of the faithful with the title of _milites_.\n_Sacramentum_ was here the word for the initiatory rites of a grade. In\nthe earliest Christian writers of Latin it usually means a mystery; thus\nArnobius writes of the Christian religion as revealing the \"veritatis\nabsconditae sacramenta\";[986] but in another passage the idea in his\nmind seems to be that of military service. It is better, he says, for\nChristians to break their worldly contracts, even of marriage, than to\nbreak the _fides Christiana_, \"_et salutaris militiae sacramenta\ndeponere_;\"[987] and Tertullian more than once attaches the same\nmilitary meaning to it: \"Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi iam tunc _cum\nin verba sacramenti spopondimus_.\"[988] Perhaps we may take it that the\nword, though of general significance for a religiously binding force\nproduced by certain mysterious rites, had a special attraction for\nwriters of the painful third century A.D., as reflecting into the\nChristian life from old Roman times something of the spirit of the duty\nand self-sacrifice of the loyal legionary. In any case we have once more\na verbal legacy of priceless value.[989]\n\nTo sum up what I have been saying, there were certain ingredients in the\nRoman soil, deposits of the Roman religious experience, which were in\ntheir several ways favourable to the growth of a new plant. There were\nalso certain direct legacies from the old Roman religion, of which\nChristianity could dispose with profit, in the shape of forms of ritual,\nand, what was even of greater value, words of real significance in the\nold religion, which were destined to become of permanent and priceless\nvalue in the Christian speech of the western nations. There were also\nother points in the society and organisation of the Roman Empire which\nwere of great importance for the growth of the new creed; but these lie\noutside my proper subject, and have been dealt with by Professor Gardner\nin the lecture to which I alluded at the beginning of this lecture, and\nmost instructively by Sir W. M. Ramsay in more than one of his books,\nand especially in _St. Paul, the Traveller and Roman Citizen_.\n\nAnd yet, all this taken together, so far from explaining Christianity,\ndoes not help us much in getting to understand even the conditions under\nwhich it grew into men's minds as a new power in the life of the world.\nThe plant, though grown in soil which had borne other crops, was wholly\nnew in structure and vital principle. I say this deliberately, after\nspending so many years on the study of the religion of the Romans, and\nmaking myself acquainted in some measure with the religions of other\npeoples. The essential difference, as it appears to me as a student of\nthe history of religion, is this, that whereas the connection between\nreligion and morality has so far been a loose one,--at Rome, indeed, so\nloose, that many have refused to believe in its existence,--the _new\nreligion was itself morality_,[990] but morality consecrated and raised\nto a higher power than it had ever yet reached. It becomes active\ninstead of passive; mere good nature is replaced by a doctrine of\nuniversal love; _pietas_, the sense of duty in outward things, becomes\nan enthusiasm embracing all humanity, consecrated by such an appeal to\nthe conscience as there never had been in the world before--the appeal\nto the life and death of the divine Master.\n\nThis is what is meant, if I am not mistaken, by the great contrast so\noften and so vividly drawn by St. Paul between the spirit and the flesh,\nbetween the children of light and the children of darkness, between the\nsleep or the death of the world and the waking to life in Christ,\nbetween the blameless and the harmless sons of God and the crooked and\nperverse generation among whom they shine as lights in the world. I\nconfess that I never realised this contrast fully or intelligently until\nI read through the Pauline Epistles from beginning to end with a special\nhistorical object in view. It is useful to be familiar with the life and\nliterature of the two preceding centuries, if only to be able the better\nto realise, in passing to St. Paul, a Roman citizen, a man of education\nand experience, the great gulf fixed between the old and the new as he\nhimself saw it.\n\nBut historical knowledge, knowledge of the Roman society of the day,\nstudy of the Roman religious experience, cannot do more than give us a\nlittle help; they cannot reveal the secret. History can explain the\nprogress of morality, but it cannot explain its consecration. With St.\nPaul the contrast is not merely one of good and bad, but of the spirit\nand the flesh, of life and death. No mere contemplation of the world\naround him could have kindled the fervency of spirit with which this\ncontrast is by him conceived and expressed. Absolute devotion to the\nlife and death of the Master, apart even from His work and teaching (of\nwhich, indeed, St. Paul says little), this alone can explain it. The\nlove of Christ is the entirely new power that has come into the\nworld;[991] not merely as a new type of morality, but as \"_a Divine\ninfluence transfiguring human nature in a universal love_.\" The passion\nof St. Paul's appeal lies in the consecration of every detail of it by\nreference to the life and death of his Master; and the great contrast is\nfor him not as with the Stoics, between the universal law of Nature and\nthose who rebel against it; not as with Lucretius, between the blind\nvictims of _religio_ and the indefatigable student of the _rerum\nnatura_; not, as in the _Aeneid_, between the man who bows to the\ndecrees of fate, destiny, God, or whatever we choose to call it, and the\nwilful rebel, victim of his own passions; not, as in the Roman State\nand family, between the man who performs religious duties and the man\nwho wilfully neglects them--between _pius_ and _impius_; but between the\nuniversal law of love, focussed and concentrated in the love of Christ,\nand the sleep, the darkness, the death of a world that will not\nrecognise it.\n\nI will conclude these lectures with one practical illustration of this\ngreat contrast, which will carry us back for a moment to the ritual of\nthe old Roman _ius divinum_. That ritual, we saw, consisted mainly of\nsacrifice and prayer, the two apparently inseparable from each other. I\npointed out that though the efficacy of the whole process was believed\nto depend on the strictest adherence to prescribed forms, whether of\nactions or words, the prayers, when we first meet with them, have got\nbeyond the region of charm or spell, and are cast in the language of\npetition; they show clearly a sense of the dependence of man on the\nPower manifesting itself in the universe. There was here, perhaps, a\ngerm of religious development; but it was arrested in its growth by the\nformalisation of the whole Roman religious system, and no substitute was\nto be found for it either in the imported Greek ritual, or in the more\nenlightening doctrines of exotic Greek philosophy. The prayers used in\nthe ritual of Augustus' great festival, which was almost as much Greek\nas Roman in character, seem to us as hard and formal as the most ancient\nRoman prayers that have come down to us. In the most emotional moments\nof the life of a Roman of enlightenment like Cicero, when we can truly\nsay of him that he was touched by true religious feeling, as well as by\nthe spiritual aspirations of the nobler Greek philosophers, prayers find\nno place at all.\n\nBut for St. Paul and the members of the early Christian brotherhood the\nwhole of life was a continuous worship, and the one great feature of\nthat worship was prayer. It has been said by a great Christian writer\nof recent times that \"when the attention of a thinking heathen was\ndirected to the new religion spreading in the Roman Empire, the first\nthing to strike him as extraordinary would be that a religion of prayer\nwas superseding the religion of ceremonies and invocation of gods; that\nit encouraged all, even the most uneducated, to pray, or, in other\nwords, to meditate and exercise the mind in self-scrutiny and\ncontemplation of God.\"[992] And, as the same writer says, prayer thus\nbecame a motive power of moral renewal and _inward civilisation_, to\nwhich nothing else could be compared for efficacy. And more than this,\nit was the chief inward and spiritual means of maintaining that\nuniversal law of love, which, so far as this life was concerned, was the\ngreat secret of the new religion.\n\n\n    NOTES TO LECTURE XX\n\n    [956] P. Gardner, _The Growth of Christianity_, 1907, p.\n    2. Cp. some remarks of Prof. Conway in _Virgil's\n    Messianic Eclogue_, p. 39 foll.\n\n    [957] The phrase \"enthusiasm of humanity\" is, of course,\n    that of the author of _Ecce Homo_, a most inspiring book\n    for all students of religious history, as indeed for all\n    other readers.\n\n    [958] Dobschuetz on \"Early Christian Eschatology,\" in\n    _Transactions of the Third Congress for the History of\n    Religions_, vol. ii. (Oxford, 1908), p. 320.\n\n    [959] The words are those of Mr. Glover in the last page\n    of his _Studies in Virgil_.\n\n    [960] It should be understood that these legacies, with\n    the exception of the last (the vocabulary), were only\n    taken up by the Church after the first two centuries of\n    its existence. And even the vocabulary of the early\n    Roman Church was mainly Greek (Gwatkin, _Early Church\n    History_, ii. 213), and it was not till the rise of the\n    African school of writers (Tertullian, Arnobius,\n    Augustine) that the Latin vocabulary really established\n    itself. Any real assimilation of Christian and pagan\n    forms of worship was not possible until the latter were\n    growing meaningless; then \"the assimilation of\n    Christianity to heathenism from the third century is\n    matter of history\" (Gwatkin, i. 269).\n\n    [961] Caird, _Gifford Lectures_, vol. ii. p. 353, has\n    some interesting remarks on this point.\n\n    [962] See above, p. 211.\n\n    [963] _Growth of Christianity_, p. 144.\n\n    [964] See _Roman Festivals_, p. 308.\n\n    [965] _Confessions_, i. 14.\n\n    [966] Westcott, _Religious Thought in the West_, p. 246.\n    Gwatkin writes (vol. ii. 236) that all Augustine's\n    conceptions are shaped by law and Stoicism. Cp. p. 237.\n    So, too, of Tertullian.\n\n    [967] By W. Otto, in the _Archiv fuer\n    Religionswissenschaft_, vol. xii. (1909) p. 533 foll.\n\n    [968] _De Inventione_, ii. 161.\n\n    [969] _De Legibus_, ii. 10. 25.\n\n    [970] _Ib._ 10. 23.\n\n    [971] Lucretius i. 101.\n\n    [972] _E.g._ Octavius 38. 2; and again at the end of\n    that chapter.\n\n    [973] Lactantius, bk. v. (_de Iustitia_) ch. 19. I may\n    note here that the paragraph in the text where this is\n    quoted was first published in the _Transactions of the\n    Congress for the History of Religions_ (Oxford, 1908),\n    vol. ii. p. 174. I may also add that the restricted\n    sense of the word _religio_ as meaning the monastic\n    life is, of course, comparatively late. This restrictive\n    use of heathen words, from the third century onwards, is\n    the subject of some valuable remarks by Prof. Gwatkin in\n    his _Early Church History_, vol. i. p. 268 foll.\n\n    [974] See _Roman Festivals_, p. 299, and the references\n    there given.\n\n    [975] Livy i. 32, ix. 8. 6; Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 476;\n    Greenidge, _Roman Public Life_, p. 56.\n\n    [976] Lactantius iv. 3 (_de vera sapientia_).\n\n    [977] _Ib._ v. (_de Iustitia_) ch. 10.\n\n    [978] _Aen._ xi. 81.\n\n    [979] Marquardt, 145, note 5.\n\n    [980] _Aen._ xii. 648.\n\n    [981] Servius, _ad Aen._ xii. 648.\n\n    [982] The original meaning of _sanctus_ as applied to\n    things, _e.g._ walls and tombs, was probably\n    \"inviolable\"; Nettleship, _Contributions to Latin\n    Lexicography_, _s.v._ \"sanctus,\" who also suggests a\n    connection between the word and the attitude of the\n    Roman towards his dead: thus Cicero in _Topica 90_\n    writes of _aequitas_ as consisting of three\n    parts,--_pietas_, _sanctitas_, and _iustitia_,--meaning\n    man's relation to the gods, the Manes, and his\n    fellow-men. Nettleship also quotes _Aen._ v. 80 (_salve\n    sancte parens_), Tibull. ii. 2. 6, and other passages,\n    which show that the word was specially used of the dead\n    and their belongings. But when used of persons living,\n    as frequently in the last century B.C., it expresses a\n    certain purity of life, not without a religious\n    tincture, which could not so well be expressed by any\n    other word, owing to the original meaning being that of\n    religious inviolability. Thus Cicero uses it in the 9th\n    Philippic of his old friend Sulpicius, one of the best\n    and purest men of his time; and long before Cicero, Cato\n    had used it of an obligation at once ethical and\n    religious: \"Maiores _sanctius_ habuere defendi pupillos\n    quam clientem non fallere.\" It is interesting to notice\n    that it was used later on of Mithras and other oriental\n    deities (Cumont, _Mon. myst. Mithra_, i. p. 533; _Les\n    Religions orientales_, p. 289, note 45); in the case of\n    Mithras, at least, this meant that his life was pure,\n    and that he wished his worshippers to be pure also.\n\n    [983] Marquardt, p. 318, note 4; Mommsen, _Strafrecht_,\n    pp. 902, 1026. See also Greenidge, _Roman Public Life_,\n    p. 56; Festus, p. 347.\n\n    [984] Greenidge, _op. cit._ p. 154.\n\n    [985] Cumont, _Mysterien von Mithras_, p. 116 of the\n    German edition. See also De Marchi, _La Religione nella\n    vita privata_, vol. ii. 114. It may be worth noting that\n    the idea of life as the service of a soldier bound to\n    obedience by his oath is found also in Stoicism; see\n    Epictetus (_Arrian_), _Discourses_, i. 14, iii. 24,\n    99-101, ii. 26, 28-30; (Crossley's _Golden Sayings of\n    Epictetus_, Nos. 37, 125, 132, 134).\n\n    [986] Arnobius, _adv. Nationes_, i. 3.\n\n    [987] _Ib._ ii. 6.\n\n    [988] Tertull., _ad Martyr._ c. 3. Cp. _de Corona\n    Militiae_, c. 11.\n\n    [989] It is curious that the word _sacerdos_ did not\n    find its way into the Christian vocabulary. Apparently\n    it had its chance; for Tertullian uses it in several\n    ways, _e.g._, \"summus sacerdos\" for a bishop (_de Bapt._\n    17; \"disciplina sacerdotalis,\" _de Monog._ 7. 12; and\n    for other examples see Harnack, _Entstehung und\n    Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts\n    in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten_, 1910, p. 85). But the\n    words finally adopted for the grades of the priesthood\n    were Greek: bishop, priest, and deacon. Nevertheless,\n    the general word for the priesthood, as distinguished\n    from the laity, is Latin (_ordo_); hence \"ordination\"\n    and holy \"orders.\" It is not of religious origin, but\n    taken from the language of municipal life, _ordo et\n    plebs_ being contrasted just as they were contrasted in\n    _municipia_ as senate (_decuriones_) and all\n    non-official persons. See Harnack, _op. cit._ p. 82.\n\n    [990] This is, of course, in one light, the legitimate\n    development of the union of religion and morality in the\n    Hebrew mind. \"For the Israelite morality, righteousness,\n    is simply doing the will of God, which from the earliest\n    age is assumed to be ascertainable, and indeed\n    ascertained. The Law in its simplest form was at once\n    the rule of morality and the revealed will of God.\" \"The\n    central feature of O.T. morality is its religious\n    character\" (Alexander, _Ethics of St. Paul_, p. 34). In\n    the religious system we have been occupied with,\n    religion can only be reckoned as one of the factors in\n    the growth of morality; it supplied the sanction for\n    some acts of righteousness, but (in historical times at\n    least) by no means for all.\n\n    Prof. Gwatkin, in his _Early Church History_, vol. i. p.\n    54, states the relation of early Christianity to\n    morality thus: \"Christ's person, not His teaching, is\n    the message of the Gospel. If we know anything for\n    certain about Jesus of Nazareth, it is that He steadily\n    claimed to be the Son of God, the Redeemer of mankind,\n    and the ruler of the world to come, and by that claim\n    the Gospel stands or falls. Therefore, the Lord's\n    disciples went not forth as preachers of morality, but\n    as witnesses of his life, and of the historic\n    resurrection which proved his mightiest claims. Their\n    morality is always an inference from these, never the\n    forefront of their teaching. They seem to think that if\n    they can only fill men with true thankfulness for the\n    gift of life in Christ, morality will take care of\n    itself.\" I cannot but think that this is expressed too\n    strongly, or baldly; but it is in the main in keeping\n    with the impression left on my mind by a study of St.\n    Paul. It must, however, be remembered that the Pauline\n    spirit is not exactly that of early Christianity in\n    general: see Gwatkin, vol. i. p. 98. In the _Didache_,\n    _e.g._, there is no trace of St. Paul's influence (104).\n\n    [991] In a book which had just been published when I was\n    delivering these lectures at Edinburgh (_The Ethics of\n    St. Paul_, by Archibald Alexander), I found a very\n    interesting chapter on \"The Dynamic of the New Life,\" p.\n    126 foll. The word which for the author best expresses\n    that dynamic is _faith_, which is \"the spring of all\n    endeavour, the inspiration of all heroism\" (p. 150). \"It\n    brings the whole life into the domain of spiritual\n    freedom, and is the animating and energising principle\n    of all moral purpose.\" What exactly is here understood\n    by faith is explained on p. 151 to the end of the\n    chapter, of which I may quote the concluding words:\n    \"Faith in Christ means life in Christ. And this complete\n    yielding of self and vital union with the Saviour, this\n    dying and rising again, is at once man's supreme ideal\n    and the source of all moral greatness.\"\n\n    [992] Doellinger, _The First Age of Christianity and the\n    Church_ (Oxenham's translation), p. 344 foll.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX I\n\nON THE USE OF HUTS OR BOOTHS IN RELIGIOUS RITUAL\n\n\nThis may be taken as an addendum to Lecture II. on taboo at Rome; but\nowing to the uncertainty of the explanation given in it, I reserved it\nfor an Appendix. The custom here dealt with is found both in the public\nand private worship of the Romans, and also in Greece and elsewhere, but\nhas never, so far as I know, been investigated by anthropologists.\n\nOn the Ides of March, at the festival of Anna Perenna, a deity explained\nas representing \"the ring of the year,\" whose cult is not recognised in\nthe ancient religious calendar, the lower population came out of the\ncity, and lay about all day in the Campus Martius, near the Tiber. Ovid,\nfortunately, took the trouble to describe the scene in the third book of\nhis _Fasti_, as he had witnessed it himself. Some of them, he says, lay\nin the open, _some constructed tents, and some made rude huts of stakes\nand branches, stretching their togas over them to make a shelter_.\n\n  plebs venit ac virides passim disiecta per herbas\n    potat, et accumbit cum pare quisque sua.\n  sub Iove pars durat, pauci tentoria ponunt,\n    sunt quibus e ramis frondea facta casa est,\n  pars, ubi pro rigidis calamos statuere columnis,\n    desuper extentas imposuere togas.\n  sole tamen vinoque calent, annosque precantur,\n    quot sumant cyathos, ad numerumque bibunt.[993]\n\nIt appears also from Ovid's account that there was much drunkenness and\nobscene language; this was, in fact, a _festa_ very different in\ncharacter from those of the Numan calendar; and that there was a magical\nelement in the cult of the deity seems proved by the mysterious allusion\nto \"virgineus cruor\" in connection with her grove not far from this\nscene of revelry, in Martial iv. 64. 17 (cp. Pliny, _N.H._ xxviii. 78,\nand Columella x. 558). Tibullus describes something of the same kind at\na rustic festival,[994] though he does not make it clear what time of\nyear he is speaking of; a few lines before he had mentioned the drinking\nand leaping over the fire at the Parilia, the shepherd's festival in\nApril, though I cannot feel sure that the following lines are also meant\nto refer to it:--\n\n  tunc operata deo pubes discumbet in herba,\n    arboris antiquae qua levis umbra cadit,\n  aut e veste sua tendent umbracula sertis\n    vincta, coronatus stabit et ipse calix.\n\nHere it is too much to suppose that the _umbracula_ were contrived\nto make up for the want of shade in a country so covered\nwith woodland as Italy was then; and the words \"_sertis vincta_\"\nshow that there was some special meaning in the practice. I\nthink we may guess that in both instances the extemporised huts\nhad some forgotten religious meaning. Yet another passage of\nTibullus, which also describes a rural festival, alludes to a similar\ncustom.[995] I have given reasons in the _Classical Review_ for\nthinking that this was a summer festival, accompanied as it was,\nlike many midsummer rites all over Europe, by bonfires and\nrevelry, though the usual interpretation ascribes it to the winter.[996]\n\n  tunc nitidus plenis confisus rusticus agris\n    ingeret ardenti grandia ligna foco,\n  turbaque vernarum, saturi bona signa coloni,\n    ludet et ex virgis exstruet ante casas.\n\nThe slaves can here hardly be playing at building houses of\ntwigs, like the children in Horace's _Satire_,[997] unless we are to\nsuppose that Tibullus is thinking of slave children only, which\nis indeed possible; but even if that were so, how are we to\naccount for the popularity of this curious form of sport?\n\nThere was, however, at Rome a public summer festival,\nincluded in the calendar, in which we find this same custom.\nAt the Neptunalia, on July 23, huts or booths were erected,\nmade of the foliage of trees. \"Umbrae vocantur Neptunalibus\n_casae frondeae pro tabernaculis_,\" says Festus[998] (following Verrius\nFlaccus), where the last word is one in regular use for military\ntents. This is the only thing that is told us about this festival,\nand we may assume that even this would not have come down\nto us if it had not been a survival rigidly adhered to, _i.e._ the\nconstruction of shelters from the foliage of trees, instead of\nusing tents, which could easily have been procured in the city.\nAs the festival was in the hot month of July, we might suppose\nthat shelter from the sun was the real object here; but we do\nnot hear of it at other summer festivals, and the parallel practices\nI shall now mention make the rationalising explanation very\ndoubtful. It is unlucky that we know hardly anything about\nthe older and un-Graecised Neptunus, and nothing about his\nfestival except this one fact; the comparative method is here\nour only hope.\n\nThe Jewish feast of tabernacles will, of course, occur at once to every\none; this was in the heat of the summer, and the booths were here, as at\nthe Neptunalia, made of the branches of trees;[999] the explanation\ngiven to the Israelites was not that they were thus to shelter\nthemselves from the heat, but to be reminded of their homeless\nwanderings in the wilderness, plainly an aetiological account, as in the\ncase of the passover. There are distinct examples in Greece of the same\npractice, _e.g._ the [Greek: skiades] at the Spartan Carneia,[1000] and\ntents ([Greek: skenai]) in several cases, as at the mysteries of\nAndania, where the peculiar regulations for the construction of the\ntents points to a ritualistic origin almost unmistakably.[1001] But\nperhaps the most striking parallel is to be found in the famous letter\nof Gregory the Great, preserved by Bede, about the British converts to\nChristianity, who were to be allowed to use their heathen temples as\nchurches:\n\n\"Et quia boves solent in sacrificio daemonum multos occidere,\ndebet iis etiam hac in re aliqua solemnitas immutari: ut die\ndedicationis, vel natalicii sanctorum martyrum quorum illic\nreliquiae ponuntur, _tabernacula sibi circa easdem ecclesias quae ex\nfanis commutatae sunt, de ramis arborum faciant_, et religiosis conviviis\nsollemnitatem celebrent: nec diabolo iam animalia immolent,\net ad laudem Dei in esu suo animalia occident,\" etc.[1002]\n\nWhy should Gregory here take the trouble to describe the\nmaterial out of which these huts were to be made? Surely\nbecause the custom was one which had been described to him\nby Augustine or Mellitus as part of the heathen practice, and\none which he was willing to condone as harmless (possibly with a\nrecollection of the Jewish feast), since the Britons set great store\nby it.\n\nIf these examples from Europe and Palestine are sufficient to\nsuggest that there was originally a religious or mystic meaning in\nthe custom, we must look for its explanation in anthropological\nresearch. Robertson Smith was,[1003] I think, the first to suggest a\npossible explanation of the Feast of Tabernacles, by comparing\nwith it the rule, stated in Numbers xxxi. 19, that men might not\nenter their houses after bloodshed: \"Do ye abide without the\ncamp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever\nhath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your\ncaptives on the third day and on the seventh day.\" He also\npointed out that pilgrims are subject to the same rule, or\ntaboo, in Syria and elsewhere. Since then an immense mass of\nevidence has been collected showing that all the world over\npersons in a holy or unclean state are placed under this or some\nsimilar restriction;[1004] and if this be the case with pilgrims and\nwarriors after a battle, it may also have been so with worshippers\nat some particular festival, even if we are quite unable to recover\nthe special character of the worship which produced the\nrestriction.[1005] In the Feast of Tabernacles, which was a harvest\nfestival, the cause seems to have been the great sanctity of the\nfirst-fruits, which are regarded with extreme veneration in many\nparts of the world. In the now famous festival of the first-fruits\namong the Natchez Indians of Louisiana, of which the details\nhave been recorded with singular care and obvious accuracy,[1006] we\nfind that the chief, the Great Sun, and all the celebrators, have\nto live in huts two miles from their village, while the corn, grown\nfor the purpose in a particular spot, is sacramentally eaten. It\nis quite impossible, without further evidence, which is not likely\never to be forthcoming, to explain either the Greek, Roman, or\nBritish customs in this way; we must be content with the\ngeneral principle that the holiness of human beings at particular\ntimes is liable to carry with it the practice of renouncing your\nown dwelling and living in an extemporised hut or booth. The\ntents that we hear of in the Greek rites I look upon as late\ndevelopments of this primitive practice. The inscription of\nAndania, which is the best Greek evidence we possess, dates\nonly from 91 B.C.; and by that time there would have been\nevery opportunity for the rude huts to become civilised tents.\nThe _casae_ made by the _vernae_ in Tibullus' poem were, I would\nsuggest, a kind of unconscious survival of the same feeling and\npractice, the real religious meaning being almost entirely lost.\n\nLastly, I will venture to suggest that the _casae_ of the Roman\ncustom, made of branches at the Neptunalia and the feast of\nAnna Perenna, and of _virgae_ by the slaves on the farm, are\na reminiscence of the earliest form of Italian dwelling, which\nsurvived to historical times in the round temple of Vesta, and of\nwhich we have examples in the hut-urns discovered in the\nnecropolis at Alba.[1007] The earliest form of all was probably\na round structure made of branches of trees stuck into the\nground, bent inwards at the top and tied together.[1008] Just as\nbronze instruments survived from an earlier stage of culture in\nsome religious rites at Rome, so, I imagine, did this ancient\nform of dwelling, which really belongs to an age previous to\nthat of permanent settlement and agricultural routine. The hut\ncircles of the neolithic age, such as are abundant on Dartmoor,\nwere probably roofed with branches supported by a central\npole.[1009]\n\n    [993] _Fasti_, iii. 525 foll. See _R.F._ p. 50 foll.\n\n    [994] Tibull. ii. 5. 89 foll. Mr. Mackail has pointed\n    out to me a passage in the _Pervigilium Veneris_, line\n    5, which seems to contain a hint of the same practice\n    (cp. line 43).\n\n    [995] Tibull. ii. 1. 1-24.\n\n    [996] _Classical Review_, 1908, p. 36 foll. My\n    conclusions were criticised by Dr. Postgate in the\n    _Classical Quarterly_ for 1909, p. 127.\n\n    [997] Hor. _Sat._ ii. 3. 247.\n\n    [998] Festus, ed. Mueller, p. 377.\n\n    [999] Leviticus xxiii. 40-42. Cp. Plutarch, _Quaest.\n    conviv._ 4. 2. This was a feast of harvest and\n    first-fruits (Exodus xxiii. 16). Nehemiah viii. 13 foll.\n    gives a graphic account of the revival of this festival\n    after the captivity.\n\n    [1000] Athenaeus iv. 41. 8 F. Cp. Farnell, _Cults of the\n    Greek States_, vol. iv., p. 260.\n\n    [1001] Dittenberger, _Sylloge inscript._ (ed. 2), 653,\n    lines 34 foll. Cp. p. 200 (Teos).\n\n    [1002] Baeda, _Hist. eccl._ i. 30 (ed. Plummer). There\n    is a curious case of isolation in a hut in a process by\n    which the sacrificer of the _soma_ in the Vedic religion\n    becomes divine, quoted by Hubert et Mauss, _Melanges_,\n    p. 34. This may possibly afford a clue to the mystery.\n\n    [1003] _Religion of the Semites_, notes K and N at the\n    end of the volume.\n\n    [1004] See _e.g._ Frazer, _G. B._ ed. 2, index, _s.v._\n    \"Seclusion.\"\n\n    [1005] It has occurred to me that the shedding of blood\n    in animal sacrifice may possibly be the reason in some\n    of these rites. The last words of the passage quoted\n    above from Baeda suggest this explanation in the case of\n    the Britons. In the first-fruits festivals the \"killing\n    of the corn\" may be a parallel cause of taboo. See _G.\n    B._ i. 372.\n\n    [1006] Du Pratz, translated in _G. B._ ii. 332 foll.\n\n    [1007] See _e.g._ Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_,\n    p. 50 foll. Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of Ancient\n    Rome_, p. 132. It is worth noting that in a passage\n    quoted by Helbig, Plutarch (_Numa_ 8) uses for some of\n    the most ancient Roman attempts at temple building the\n    same word by which he describes the booths at the feast\n    of tabernacles ([Greek: kaliades]).\n\n    [1008] Whether there was in later days any special\n    religious signification in the use of green foliage and\n    branches I will not undertake to say, but I have been\n    struck by the constant use of them in cases of\n    religious seclusion, even where the person is secluded\n    in some part of the house, and not outside it. See _e.g.\n    G. B._ ii. pp. 205-214.\n\n    [1009] Prof. Anwyl, _Celtic Religion_ (Constable's\n    series), p. 10. Mr. Baring-Gould told Mr. Anwyl that he\n    had seen in some of the Dartmoor circles central holes\n    which seemed meant for the fixing of this pole. I will\n    add here that it has occurred to me that these huts\n    must, in one sense at least, be a survival (like other\n    points of ritual), from the days of pastoral life, and\n    of the migration of the Aryans. Temporary huts are\n    characteristic of pastoral as contrasted with\n    agricultural life, and must have been used during the\n    wanderings, as by the Israelites. See Schrader,\n    _Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_ (Eng.\n    Trans., London, 1890), p. 404.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX II\n\nPROF. DEUBNER'S THEORY OF THE LUPERCALIA\n(See pp. 34 and 106)\n\n\nIn the _Archiv fuer Religionswissenschaft_, 1910, p. 481 foll., Prof.\nDeubner has published an interesting study of this puzzling festival, to\nwhich I wish to invite attention, though it has reached me too late for\nuse in my earlier lectures.\n\nIt has long been clear to me that any attempt to explain the details of\nthe Lupercalia on a single hypothesis must be a failure. If all the\ndetails belong to the same age and the same original festival, we cannot\nrecover the key to the whole ceremonial, though we may succeed in\ninterpreting certain features of it with some success. Is it, however,\npossible that these details belong to _different_ periods,--that the\nwhole rite, as we know it, with all the details put together from\ndifferent sources of knowledge, was the result of an accretion of\nvarious features upon an original simple basis of ceremonial? Prof.\nDeubner answers this question in the affirmative, and works out his\nanswer with much skill and learning.\n\nHe begins by explaining the word _lupercus_ as derived from _lupus_ and\n_arceo_, and meaning a \"keeper off of wolves.\" The _luperci_ were\noriginally men chosen from two gentes or families to keep the wolves\nfrom the sheepfolds, in the days when the Palatine was a shepherd's\nsettlement, and they did it by running round the base of the hill in a\nmagical circle (if I understand him rightly). If that be so, we need not\nassume a deity Lupercus, nor in fact any deity at all, nor need we see\nin the runners a quasi-dramatic representation of wolves as\nvegetation-spirits, as Mannhardt proposed (see my _Roman Festivals_, p.\n316 foll.). This view has the advantage of making the rite a simple and\npractical one, such as would be natural to primitive Latins; and the\netymology is apparently unexceptionable, though it will doubtless be\ncriticised, as in fact it has been long ago.\n\nBut in course of time, Prof. Deubner goes on, there came to be engrafted\non this simple rite of circumambulation without reference to a deity, a\nfestival of the rustic god Faunus; and now there was added a sacrifice\nof goats, which seem to have been his favourite victims (kids in Hor.\n_Odes_, iii. 18). The _luperci_, who had formerly run round the hill\nquite naked, as in many rites of the kind (see p. 491), now girt\nthemselves with the skins of the goats, in order to increase their\n\"religious force\" in keeping away the wolves, with strength derived from\nthe victims.\n\nBut the _luperci_ also carried in their hands, in the festival as we\nknow it, strips of the skins of the victims, with which they struck at\nwomen who offered themselves to the blows, in order to make them\nfertile. This, Prof. Deubner thinks, was a still later accretion. Life\nin a city had obliterated the original meaning of the rite--the keeping\noff wolves; but a new meaning becomes attached to it, presumably growing\nout of the use of the skins as magical instruments of additional force.\nHere, too, Juno first appears on the scene as the deity of women, for\nthe strips were known as _amicula Iunonis_ (_R.F._ 321 and note). The\nstrips may have been substituted for something carried in the hand to\ndrive away the wolves; the goat, it should be noted, is prominent in the\ncult of Juno, _e.g._ at Lanuvium. The mystical meaning of striking or\nflogging has been sufficiently explained in this instance by Mannhardt\n(_R.F._ p. 320), and is now familiar to anthropologists in other\ncontexts.\n\nIn the period when the fertilisation of women became the leading feature\nof the rite, the State took up the popular festival, and it gained\nadmittance to the religious calendar, which was drawn up for the city of\nthe four regions (see above, Lect. IV., p. 106). The State was\nrepresented, as we learn from Ovid, by the Flamen Dialis (_Fasti_, ii.\n282).\n\nBut we still have to account for some strange detail, which has never\nbeen satisfactorily explained in connection with the rest of the\nceremony. The runners had their foreheads smeared with the blood of the\nvictims, which was then wiped off with wool dipped in milk; after which,\nsays Plutarch (_Romulus_, 21), they were obliged to laugh. These\ndetails, as Prof. Deubner remarks, seem very un-Roman; we have no\nparallel to them in Roman ritual, and I have remarked more than once in\nthese lectures on the absence of the use of blood in Roman ceremonial. I\nhave suggested that they were allowed to survive in the religion of the\ncity-state, though actually belonging to that of a primitive population\nliving on the site of Rome. Prof. Deubner's explanation is very\ndifferent, and at first sight startling. These, he thinks, are Greek\ncathartic details added by Augustus when he re-organised the Lupercalia,\nas we may guess that he did from Suet. _Aug._ 31. They can all be\nparalleled from Greek religion. We know of them only from Plutarch, who\nquotes a certain Butas as writing Greek elegiacs in which they were\nmentioned; but of the date of this poet we know nothing. Ovid does not\nmention these details, nor hint at them in the stories he tells about\nthe festival. (It is certainly possible that Augustus's revision may\nhave been made after Ovid wrote the second book of the _Fasti_; it could\nnot have been done until he became Pont. Max. in 12 B.C., and perhaps\nnot till long after that, and the _Fasti_ was written some time before\nOvid's banishment in A.D. 9.) That Augustus should insert Greek\ncathartic details in the old Roman festival is certainly surprising, but\nnot impossible. We know that in the _ludi saeculares_ he took great\npains to combine Greek with Roman ritual.\n\nThe above is a mere outline of Prof. Deubner's article, but enough, I\nhope, to attract the attention of English scholars to it. Whether or no\nit be accepted in whole or part by learned opinion, it will at least\nhave the credit of suggesting a way in which not only the Lupercalia,\nbut possibly other obscure rites, may be compelled ultimately to yield\nup their secrets.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX III\n\nTHE PAIRS OF DEITIES IN GELLIUS xiii. 23 (see page 150)\n\n\nThe first paired deity mentioned by Gellius is _Lua Saturni_, also known\nas _Lua Mater_, of whom Dr. Frazer writes (p. 412), \"In regard to Lua we\nknow that she was spoken of as a mother, which makes it not improbable\nthat she was also a wife.\" We are not surprised to find him claiming\nthat because Vesta is addressed as Mater in the _Acta Fratr. Arv._\n(Henzen, p. 147), that virgin deity was also married. This he does in\nhis lectures on Kingship (p. 222), quoting Ennius and Lactantius as\nmaking Vesta mother of Saturnus and Titan. No comment on this is needed\nfor any one conversant with Graeco-Roman religion and literature from\nEnnius onward. The title Mater here means simply that Vesta was to her\nworshippers in a maternal position: \"quamvis virginem, indole tamen\nquadam materna praeditam fuisse nuper exposuit Preunerus,\" says Henzen,\nquoting Preuner's _Hestia-Vesta_, an old book but a good one (p. 333).\nBut to return to Lua: I freely confess that I cannot explain why she was\nstyled Mater. We only know of her, apart from the list in Gellius and\none passage of Servius, from the two passages of Livy quoted without\ncomment by Dr. Frazer. The first of these (viii. 1), which may be taken\nfrom the pontifical books, seems to let in a ray of light on her nature\nand function. In 338 B.C. the Volscians had been beaten, and \"armorum\nmagna vis\" was found in their camp. \"Ea Luae Matri se dare consul dixit,\nfinesque hostium usque ad maritimam oram depopulatus est.\" That is, as I\nunderstand the words, he dedicated the enemy's spoils to the _numen_ who\nwas the enemy of his own crops.[1010] For if Lua be connected\netymologically with _lues_, she may be the hurtful aspect of Saturnus,\nlike _Tursa_ Cerfia Cerfii Martii as Buecheler explains it (_Umbrica_,\np. 98).\n\nA curious passage of Servius may be quoted in support of this view, in\nwhich Luae is an almost certain correction for Lunae (see Jordan's\nedition of Preller's _Rom. Mythol._ vol. ii. p. 22). Commenting on\nVirgil's \"Arboribusque satisque lues\" (_Aen._ iii. 139), he writes:\n\"quidam dicunt, diversis numinibus vel bene vel male faciendi potestatem\ndicatam, ut Veneri coniugia, Cereri divortia, Iunoni procreationem\nliberorum: sterilitatem horum tam Saturno quam Luae, hanc enim sicut\nSaturnum orbandi potestatem habere.\" Whatever Lua may originally have\nbeen, she seems to have been regarded as a power capable of working for\nevil in the crops and in women; if you could get her to work on your\nenemy's crops (cp. the _excantatio_, above p. 58), so much the better,\nand the better would her claim be to the title of Mater (but Dr. Frazer\nsupplies us with examples of a _hostile_ spirit being called by a\nfamily name, _e.g._, Grandfather Smallpox, _G.B._ iii. p. 98). When the\nconsul had dedicated the spoils to her he proceeded to assist her in her\nfunctions by ravaging the crops of the enemy; thus she became later on a\ndeity of spoils. In the Macedonian triumph of B.C. 167 we find her in\ncompany with Mars and Minerva as one of the deities to whom \"spolia\nhostium dicare ius fasque est\" (Livy xlv. 33).\n\nI may add here that Dr. Frazer has another arrow in his quiver to prove\nthat Saturnus was married: if Lua was not his wife (which no Roman\nasserts) certainly (he says) Ops was. He quotes a few words from\nMacrobius (i. 13. 19) in which these two are mentioned as husband and\nwife. If he had quoted the whole passage, his reader would have been\nbetter able to judge of the value of the writers of whom Macrobius says\nthat they \"crediderunt\" that Ops was wife of Saturn. For it appears that\nsome of them fancied that Saturnus was \"a satu dictus _cuius causa de\ncaelo est_\"--(a desperate attempt to make the old spirit of the seed\ninto a heaven-god), while Ops, whose name speaks for itself, was the\nearth. But the real companion deity to Ops was not Saturnus, but Consus.\nThis has been placed beyond all reasonable doubt by Wissowa in his _de\nFeriis_ (reprinted in _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, p. 154 foll.). See also\nmy _R.F._ p. 212. The names Ops and Consus obviously refer to stored\ncorn, and everything in their cult points the same way. Saturnus'\nconnection with Ops is a late and a mistaken one, derived from the\nGraecising tendency, which brought Cronos and Rhea to bear on them.\n\nNext a word about Hora Quirini. As this coupling of names is followed by\nVirites Quirini, in the characteristic method explained in the text (cp.\nCic. _Nat. Deor._ ii. 27 of Vesta, \"_vis_ eius ad aras et focos\npertinet\"), it is hardly necessary to comment on it. Hora is perhaps\nconnected with Umbrian Heris (cp. Buecheler, _Umbrica_, index), which\nwith kindred forms means will, willingness. Thus in \"Nerienem Mavortis\net Herem\" (Ennius, fragm. 70, in Baehrens, _Fragm. Poet. Lat._) we may\nsee the strength and the will of Mars (cp. Herie Iunonis). Hora is also\nconnected in legend with Hersilia (Ov. _Met._ 14. 829), and this helps\nto show how the Alexandrian erotic legend-making faculty got hold of\nher. But, says Dr. Frazer, Ennius regarded her as wife of Quirinus:\n\"Teque Quirine pater veneror, Horamque Quirini\" (fragm. 71 of the\n_Annales_). This is Dr. Frazer's interpretation of the words, but Ennius\nsays nothing of conjugal relations; and even if he had, his evidence as\nto ancient Roman conceptions would be worthless. Ennius was not a Roman;\nhe came from Magna Graecia; and if Dr. Frazer will read _all_ that is\nsaid about him, _e.g._ in Schanz's history of Roman literature, he will\nallow that every statement of such a man about old Roman ideas of the\ndivine must be regarded with suspicion and subjected to careful\ncriticism.\n\nNext we come to Salacia Neptuni. Of this couple Dr. Frazer says that\nVarro plainly implies that they were husband and wife, and that this is\naffirmed by Augustine, Seneca, and Servius. The accumulation of evidence\nseems strong; but Varro implies nothing of the kind (_L.L._ v. 72). He\nis indulging in fancy etymologies, and derives Neptunus from _nubere_,\n\"quod mare terras obnubit ut nubes caelum, ab nuptu id est opertione ut\nantiqui, a quo nuptiae, nuptus dictus.\" If he had meant to make Salacia\nwife of Neptunus, this last sentence would surely have suggested it; but\nhe goes on after a full stop, \"Salacia Neptuni a salo.\" It is only the\nlater writers, ignorant of the real nature of Roman religious ideas, who\nmake Salacia into a wife. It is worth noting that Varro adds another\nfeminine deity in his next sentence, Venilia, whom Virgil makes the\nmother of Turnus (_Aen._ x. 76); and Servius, commenting on this line,\ngoes one better, and says she was identical with Salacia. Perhaps both\nwere sea or water spirits, connected with Neptunus as _famulae_ or\n_anculae_ (see Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 19), but they are lost to us, and\nspeculation is useless. In _R.F._ p. 186, I suggested an explanation of\nSalacia which I am disposed to withdraw. But for anyone wishing to study\nthe treatment of old Roman _numina_ by the mythologists and philosophers\nof the Graeco-Roman period, I would recommend an attentive reading of\nthe whole chapter of Augustine from which Dr. Frazer quotes a few words\n(_C.D._ vii. 22); and further a careful study of the Graeco-Roman\nmethods of fabricating myths about Roman divine names, for which he will\ndo well to read the passages referred to by Wissowa in _R.K._ pp. 250\nand 251, and notes.\n\nLastly, comes Maia Volcani. Here for once we get a fact of cult, which\nis a relief, after the loose and reckless statements of non-Roman and\nChristian writers. The flamen Volcanalis sacrificed to Maia on May 1st,\nwhich proves that there was a real and not a fancied connection between\nVolcanus and Maia, but certainly not that they were husband and wife.\nDr. Frazer, however, quotes Cincius \"on the _Fasti_\" as (ap. Macrob. i.\n12. 18) stating this, and refers us to Schanz's _Gesch. der roem. Lit._\nfor information about him. In the second edition of that work he will\nfind a discussion of the very doubtful question as to whether the\nCincius he quotes is the person whom he asserts him to be, viz., the\nannalist of the second Punic War. The writer of the article \"Cincius\" in\nPauly-Wissowa _Real-Encycl._ is very confident that the one who wrote on\nthe _Fasti_ lived as late as the age of Augustus. But putting that\naside, what are we to make of the fact that another annalist, L.\nCalpurnius Piso (famous as the author of the first lex de repetundis,\n149 B.C.), said that the wife of Volcanus was not Maia, but Maiestas?\nPiso was not a good authority (see above, p. 51), but he seems here to\nbring the \"consort\" of the fire-god into line with such expressions of\nactivity as Moles, Virites, and so on; and it seems that as early as the\nsecond century B.C., sport and speculation with these names were\nbeginning. I have quoted the whole pedantic passage from Macrobius in my\n_Roman Festivals_, p. 98, where the reader may enjoy it at leisure. I\nshall not be surprised if he comes to the conclusion that neither\nMacrobius nor his learned informers knew anything about Maia. When he\nreads that she was the mother of Mercurius, he will recollect that\nMercurius was not a Roman deity of the earliest period, and did not\nbelong to the _di indigetes_; and when he finds that she is identified\nwith Bona Dea, he must not forget that that deity, as scholars are now\npretty well agreed, was introduced at Rome from Tarentum in the age of\nthe Punic Wars. The one fact we know is the sacrifice by the flamen\nVolcanalis on May 1. Someone went to work to explain this and another,\nviz. that the Ides of the month was the dedication day of the first\ntemple of Mercurius (B.C. 495), and also the fact that the temple of the\nBona Dea on the Aventine was dedicated on the Kalends. The result was an\nextraordinary jumble of fancy and myth, which has been recognised as\nsuch by those who have studied closely the methods of Graeco-Roman\nscholarship. The unwary, of course, are taken in. A student of these\nmethods might do well to take as an exercise in criticism the three\n\"specimens of Roman mythology\" which Dr. Frazer says (p. 413) have\n\"survived the wreck of antiquity\"--the loves of Vertumnus and Pomona, of\nJupiter and Juturna, of Janus and Cardea. In the last of these\nespecially he will find one of the most audacious pieces of charming and\nwilful invention that a Latin poet could perpetrate, in imitation of\nHellenistic love tales, and to suit the taste of a public whose\neducation was mainly Greek.\n\nThe above lengthy note was written before I had seen von Domaszewski's\npaper on this subject (\"Festschrift fuer O. Hirschfeld\") reprinted in\n_Abhandlungen zur roem. Religion_, p. 104 foll. cp. p. 162.) His\nexplanations are different in detail from mine, but rest on the same\ngeneral principle that the names Salacia, etc., indicate functions or\nattributes of the male deity to whom they are attached.\n\n    [1010] For the taboo on such spoils, and their\n    destruction, see M. S. Reinach's interesting paper\n    \"Tarpeia,\" in _Cultes, mythes, et religions_, iii. 221\n    foll.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX IV\n\n(LECTURE VIII., PAGE 169 FOLL.) IUS AND FAS\n\n\nIn historical times the two kinds of _ius_, _divinum_ and _humanum_,\nwere strongly distinguished (see Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 318, who quotes\nGaius ii. 2: \"summa itaque rerum divisio in duos articulos diducitur,\nnam aliae sunt divini iuris, aliae humani\"). But it is almost certain\nthat there was originally no such clear distinction. The general opinion\nof historians of Roman law is thus expressed by Cuq (_Institutions\njuridiques des Romains_, p. 54): \"Le droit civil n'a eu d'abord qu'une\nportee fort restreinte. Peu a peu il a gagne du terrain, il a entrepris\nde reglementer des rapports qui autrefois etaient du domaine de la\nreligion. Pendant longtemps a Rome le droit theocratique a coexiste avec\nle droit civil.\" (See also Muirhead, _Introduction to Roman Law_, ed.\nGoudy, p. 15.) Possibly the formation of an organised calendar, marking\noff the days belonging to the deities from those which were not so made\nover to them, first gave the opportunity for the gradual realisation of\nthe thought that the set of rules under which the citizen was\nresponsible to the divine beings was not exactly the same as that under\nwhich he was responsible to the civil authorities. The distinction took\nmany ages to realise in all its aspects, and is not complete even under\nthe XII. Tables or later, because the sanction for civil offences\nremained in great part a divine one; on this point Jhering is certainly\nwrong (_Geist des roem. Rechts_, i. 267 foll.). As Cuq remarks (p. 54,\nnote 1), one institution of the _ius divinum_ kept its force after the\ncomplete secularisation of law, and retains it to this day, viz. the\noath.\n\nIf there was originally no distinction between religious and civil rules\nof law, it follows that there were originally no two distinguishing\nterms for them. The earliest passage in which they are distinguished as\n_ius divinum_ and _humanum_ (so far as I know) is Cicero's speech for\nSestius (B.C. 56), sec. 91, quoted by Wissowa, p. 319: \"domicilia\nconiuncta quas urbes dicimus, _invento et divino iure et humano_,\nmoenibus cinxerunt.\" But by all British writers on Roman law, and by\nmany foreign ones, the word _fas_ is used as equivalent to the ius\ndivinum, and sharply distinguished from _ius_. Thus the late Dr.\nGreenidge, in his useful work on Roman public life (p. 52 and\nelsewhere), makes this distinction; he writes of the _rex_ as the chief\nexpounder of the divine law (_fas_), and of the control exercised by\n_fas_ over the citizen's life. Cp. Muirhead, ed. Goudy, p. 15 foll.,\nwhere Mommsen is quoted thus: \"Mommsen is probably near the mark when he\ndescribes the _leges regiae_ as mostly rules of the _fas_.\" But Mommsen,\nlike Wissowa in his _Religion und Kultus_, does not use the word _fas_,\nbut speaks of \"Sakralrecht.\" Sohm, on the other hand (_Roman Law_,\ntrans. Ledlie, p. 15, note), compares _fas_ with Sanscrit _dharma_ and\nGreek _themis_, as meaning unwritten rules of divine origin, which\neventually gave way before _ius_, as in Greece before [Greek: dikaion].\n(Cp. Binder, _Die Plebs_, p. 501.) But it is safer in this case to leave\netymology alone, and to try to discover what the Romans themselves\nunderstood by _fas_, which is indeed a peculiar and puzzling word. (For\nits possible connection with _fari_, _effari_ (ager effatus), _fanum_,\nand _profanum_, etc., see H. Nettleship's _Contributions to Latin\nLexicography_, s.v. \"Fas.\")\n\n_Fas_ was at all times indeclinable, and is rarely found even as an\naccusative, as in Virg. _Aen._ ix. 96:\n\n  mortaline manu factae immortale carinae\n  fas habeant?\n\nIn the oldest examples of its use, _i.e._ in the ancient calendar QRCF,\non March 24 and May 24, _i.e._ \"quando rex comitiavit fas\" (Varro,\n_L.L._ vi. 31), and QStDF on June 15, _i.e._ \"Quando stercus delatum\nfas\" (Varro, _L.L._ vi. 32), it is hard to say whether it is a\nsubstantive at all, and not rather an adverb like _satis_. So, too, in\nthe antique language of the _lex templi_ of Furfo (58 B.C.) we read,\n\"Utii tangere sarcire tegere devehere defigere mandare ferro oeti\npromovere referre _fasque esto_\" (_liceat_ should probably be inserted\nbefore _fasque esto_). See _CIL._ i. 603, line 7; Dessau, _Inscript.\nLat. selectae_, ii. 1. 4906, p. 246. In these examples _fas_ simply\nmeans that you may do certain acts without breaking religious law; it\ndoes not stand for the religious law itself. To me it looks like a\ntechnical word of the _ius divinum_, meaning that which it is lawful to\ndo under it; thus a _dies fastus_ is one on which it is lawful under\nthat _ius_ to perform certain acts of civil government, \"sine piaculo\"\n(Varro, _L.L._ vi. 29). _Nefas_ is, therefore, in the same way a word\nwhich conveys a prohibition under the divine law. By constant\njuxtaposition with _ius_, _fas_ came in course of time to take on the\ncharacter of a substantive, and so too did its opposite _nefas_. The\ndictionaries supply many examples of its use as a substantive and as\nparalleled with _ius_, but the only one I can find that is earlier than\nCicero is Terence, _Hecyra_, iii. 3. 27, _i.e._ in the work of a\nnon-Roman.\n\nI cannot find that it is so used by Varro, where we might naturally have\nexpected it. Cicero does not call his imaginary ius divinum a _fas_, but\niura religionum, constitutio religionum (_de Legibus_ ii. 10-23, 17-32).\n_Ius_ is the word always used technically of particular departments of\nthe religious law, _e.g._ ius pontificium, ius augurale, and ius fetiale\n(_CIL._ i. p. 202, is preimus ius fetiale paravit). The notion that\n_fas_ could mean a kind of code of religious law is probably due to\nVirgil's use of the word in \"Quippe etiam festis quaeddam exercere\ndiebus Fas et iura sinunt,\" _Georg._ i. 269, and to the comment of\nServius, \"id est, divina humanaque iura permittunt: nam ad religionem\nfas, ad homines iura pertinent.\"\n\nIt is strange to find it personified as a kind of deity in the formula\nof the fetiales, used when they announced the Roman demands at an\nenemy's frontier (Livy i. 32): \"Audi Iuppiter, inquit, audite Fines\n(cuiuscunque gentis sunt nominat), _audiat Fas_.\" Whence did Livy get\nthis formula? We have no record of a book of the fetiales; if this came\nfrom those of the pontifices, as is probable, the formula need not be of\nancient date, and the personification of Fines also suggests a doubt as\nto the genuineness of the whole formula.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX V\n\nTHE WORSHIP OF SACRED UTENSILS (page 436)\n\n\nThere can be no doubt that some kind of worship was paid by the Arval\nBrethren to certain _ollae_, or primitive vessels of sun-baked clay used\nin their most ancient rites. This is attested by two inscriptions of\ndifferent ages which are printed on pp. 26 and 27 of Henzen's _Acta\nFratrum Arvalium_. After leaving their grove and entering the temple \"in\nmensa _sacrum fecerunt ollis_\"; and shortly afterwards, \"in aedem\nintraverunt et _ollas precati sunt_.\" Then, to our astonishment, we read\nthat the door of the temple was opened, and the _ollae_ thrown down the\nslope in front of it. This last act seems inexplicable; but the worship\nfinds a singular parallel in the dairy ritual of the Todas of the\nNilghiri hills.\n\nDr. Rivers, in his work on the Todas (Macmillan, 1906, p. 453), in\nsumming up his impressions of their worship, observes that \"the attitude\nof worship which is undoubtedly present in the Toda mind is becoming\ntransferred from the gods themselves to the material objects used in the\nservice of the gods.\" \"The religious attitude of worship is being\ntransferred from the gods themselves _to the objects round which centres\nthe ritual of the dairy_.\" These objects are mainly the bells of the\nbuffaloes and the dairy vessels; and an explicit account of them, the\nreverence in which they are held, and the prayers in which they are\nmentioned, will be found in the fifth, sixth, and eighth chapters of Dr.\nRivers' work, which, as an account of what seems to be a religion\natrophied by over-development of ritual, is in many ways of great\ninterest to the student of Roman religious experience. The following\nsentence will appeal to the readers of these Lectures:--\n\n\"The Todas seem to show us how the over-development of the ritual aspect\nof religion may lead to atrophy of those ideas and beliefs through which\nthe religion has been built up; and then how, in its turn, the ritual\nmay suffer, and acts which are performed mechanically, with no living\nideas behind them, may come to be performed carelessly and incompletely,\nwhile religious observances which involve trouble and discomfort may be\nevaded or completely neglected.\"\n\nWhether the worship of the _ollae_ was a part of the original ritual of\nthe Brethren, or grew up after its revival by Augustus, it is impossible\nto determine. But if we can allow the dairy ritual of the Todas to\nhelp us in the matter, we may conclude that in any case it was not\nreally primitive, and that it was a result of that process of\nover-ritualisation to which must also be ascribed the _piacula_ caused\nby the growth of a fig-tree on the roof of the temple, and the three\nSondergoetter Adolenda Commolenda Deferunda. (See above p. 161 foll.,\nand Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 147.)\n\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAcca Larentia, 67\n\nAcolytes, 177\n\nAdolenda, 162\n\nAddenda Commolenda Deferunda, 162, 490\n\nAedes Vestae: _see_ Vesta\n\nAediles, plebeian, 255\n\nAemilius Paulus, 340, 362, 433\n\n_Aeneid_, the, 119, 206, 230, 250, 251;\n  as a means of understanding the spirit of the Roman religion, 254;\n  a poem of religion and morals, 409-425\n\nAesculapius, 260\n\n_Ager paganus_: lustration, 80, 213\n  _Romanus_: lustration, 78, 100\n\nAgriculture, the economic basis of Roman life, 99;\n  festivals, _see_ Festivals\n\nAgrippa, 442, 443\n\nAlba Longa, 109, 128\n\nAlban Mount: Latin festival, 172;\n  temple of Jupiter Latiaris, 237, 238, 245\n\nAlexander, Archibald, on faith, 472\n\nAmbarvalia, procession of the, 214, 218, 442\n\nAmburbium, 214, 218, 332\n\nAmulets, 42, 59, 60, 74, 84\n\nAncilia, 97;\n  lustration, 96, 217;\n  moving, 36\n\nAngerona, 117\n\nAnimism, 65, 122, 148, 164, 287\n\nAnna Perenna: festival, 65, 105, 346;\n  Ovid's account of, 473\n\nAntoninus Pius, 429\n\nApollo, 257, 449;\n  cult of, 268;\n  associated with Diana, 443, 446;\n  with Latona, 262;\n  the Pythian, 323;\n  temple, 443-445;\n  institution of Apolline games, 326\n\nAppius Claudius, 300\n\nAquaelicium, ceremony of the, 50, 52\n\n_Ara_, meaning of, 146\n\nAra Maxima in the Forum Boarium 29, 230\n\nAra Pacis of Augustus, 177, 437, 448\n\nArgei: festival, 36, 65;\n  puppets thrown into the Tiber, 54, 105, 321, 322;\n  chapels called, 321, 322\n\nArmilustrium, 97\n\nArmy: lustration of, 96, 100, 215, 217\n\nArnobius, 51, 52, 459, 461, 465\n\nArtemis, 235, 443\n\nArval Brethren: _see_ Fratres Arvales\n\nAsclepios, 260\n\nAstrology, 396-398, 401\n\nAteius Capito, 441\n\nAthene Polias, 234\n\nAttalus, king of Pergamus, 330\n\nAtticus, Cicero's letters to, 385\n\nAttus Navius, soothsayer, 297\n\n_Augurium canarium_, 310\n\nAugurs, 174-176, 193, 271, 276;\n  and the art of divination, 292-309;\n  in relation to the Rex, 301;\n  art strictly secret, 301;\n  compared with pontifices, 303\n  lore preserved in books, 303;\n  political importance, 305\n\nAugustus, 35, 133, 213, 344;\n  revival of religion, 428-447;\n  his connection with Virgil, 428;\n  pontifex maximus, 433;\n  restoration of temples, 433-434;\n  revival of ancient ritual, 434-436;\n  restorer of the _pax deorum_, 438\n\nAurelius, Marcus, 456\n\n_Auspicia_, 175, 214;\n  in life of family, 299;\n  in State operations, 300;\n  indissolubly connected with _imperuim_, 301\n\nAust, on religion of the family, 68;\n  on Roman deities, 157;\n  on prayer, 198;\n  on reaction against the _ius divinum_, 349\n\nAventine: plebeian quarter, 255;\n  temples, 95, 147, 233, 234, 237, 244, 484\n\nAxtell, Harold L., on Fortuna, 245\n\n\nBacchic rites, introduction of, 344-348\n\nBailey, Cyril, cited, 400\n\nBeans, used to get rid of ghosts, 85, 107;\n  taboo on eating, 91, 98\n\nBellona, connection with Mars, 166\n\nBibulus, 305\n\nBinder, Dr., on the plebs, 23, 86, 242, 289, 393\n\nBirds, used in augury, 293, 296, 299, 302\n\nBirth, spirits invoked at, 83, 84, 164\n\nBlood: taboo on, 33;\n  mystic use of, 33, 34, 82;\n  not prominent in Roman ritual, 180-181;\n  consecration through, 194;\n  wine as substitute for, 196\n\nBoissier, G., 391;\n  on the _Aeneid_, 414, 427\n\nBona Dea, 484\n\nBouche-Leclercq, M., on divination, 310\n\nBoundary festivals: _see_ Terminalia\n\nBoundary stones, 81-82, 212;\n  sprinkled with blood of victims, 34, 82, 196\n\n_Bulla_ worn by children, 60, 74\n\nBurial places _loca religiosa_, 37, 385\n\nBussell, F. W., cited, 366, 367\n\n\nCaesar, Julius: belief in spells, 59;\n  calendar, 95;\n  pontifex maximus, 305;\n  and the priesthood, 343\n\nCaesar-worship, 437, 438, 456\n\nCaird, Professor, 357;\n  on Reason in man, 368, 373\n\nCakes: honey, 82;\n  sacred, 83, 130, 141, 180, 183, 184, 274, 449;\n  _see also_ Salt-cake\n\nCalendar, the ancient religious, 12, 14, 34, 38, 55, 65, 217, 225;\n    described, 94-109;\n    in relation to agricultural life, 100-102, 282, 295;\n    festivals necessarily fixed, 102;\n    a matter of routine, 103;\n    its psychological result, 104-105;\n    a document of religious law, 106;\n    exclusion of the barbarous and grotesque, 107;\n    attributed to Numa Pompilius, 108\n  Julian, 95\n\nCalpurnius Piso, L.: _see_ Piso\n\n_Camilli_ and _camillae_, 177, 195\n\nCampus Martius, 34, 447;\n  lustrum of censors, 203, 210, 215, 219\n\nCannae, religious panic after the battle of, 319\n\nCantorelli, on the _annales maximi_, 290\n\nCapitolium, 238, 239, 246, 339;\n  _Carmen saeculare_ sung, 444-445;\n  temples, 95, 115, 146, 203, 239, 242, 245, 254, 266, 433, 443, 447\n\nCaprotinae, Nonae, 143\n\nCardea, 76;\n  connection with Janus, 485\n\nCaristia, 418, 457\n\n_Carmen_, meaning of, 186;\n  used at siege of Carthage, 206, 219\n  _Arvale_, 78, 132, 186, 187, 436\n  used by _Attiedii_, 187\n  _saeculare_, 431, 432, 439, 443-447, 450, 451\n  _Saliare_, 186\n\nCarmenta, 36, 122, 297\n\nCarmentalia, 98\n\nCarna, 117\n\nCarter, J. B., on cult-titles, 153;\n  on the Latins, 229-230;\n  on Castor-cult, 232, 244;\n  on Diana, 236;\n  on Fortuna, 245;\n  on Hercules, 231;\n  on Janus, 141;\n  on Juno, 144;\n  on the Manes, 386;\n  on Mars, 133;\n  on Poseidon-Neptune, 260\n\nCassius Hemina, 349, 356\n\nCastor and Pollux, 231, 244;\n  temple, 231, 244\n\nCato, the Censor, 121, 132, 182-184, 251, 296, 298, 340\n\nCatullus, on death, 387\n\nCensors, lustrum of the, 203, 210, 215, 219\n\nCensus, 215, 218\n\nCerealia, 100, 121, 269\n\nCeres, 100, 121, 139, 161, 162, 260, 435, 446;\n  temple, 255, 269\n\nCerfius, or Cerus, 158\n\nChaldeans, 296;\n  expelled from Rome, 397, 402\n\nCharms, 59-62;\n  _see also_ Amulets\n\nChickens, sacred, as omens, 314, 315\n\nChildren: purificatory rites, 28;\n  naming of, 28-29, 42;\n  amulets and _bulla_ worn by, 42, 60, 74, 84;\n  dedication of, 204-205\n\nChristianity, early: contributions from the Roman religion, 452-467;\n  the Greek and Latin fathers compared, 458-459;\n  its relation to morality, 471\n\nCicero, 58, 178, 296, 309;\n  on religiousness of the Romans, 249-250;\n  on Titus Coruncanius, 281-282;\n  on divination, 299, 312;\n  on interest of the gods in human affairs, 360;\n  on Stoicism, 365-368, 377;\n  on relation of man to God, 370;\n  affected by revival of Pythagoreanism, 381, 383, 389;\n  turns to mysticism, 384, 388;\n  his letters to Atticus, 385;\n  his Somnium Scipionis, 383, 386, 412;\n  belief in a future life, 389;\n  definition of _religio_, 460\n\nClaudius, Emperor, 309, 438\n\nClaudius Pulcher, P., 315\n  Quadrigarius, 39\n\nCleanthes, hymn of, 368, 377\n\nClusius (or Clusivius), cult-title of Janus, 126\n\nCoinquenda, 162\n\nColonia, religious rites at founding of, 170\n\nCompitalia, 61, 78, 81, 88, 102\n\nConcordia, 285\n\nConditor, 161\n\n_Confarreatio_, marriage by, 83, 130, 274\n\n_Coniuratio_, 347, 348, 356\n\n_Consolatio_, 388\n\nConstantius, 430\n\nConsualia, 101, 139\n\nConsuls, annual ceremony at the Capitoline temple, 203, 219, 239-240\n\nConsus, 285;\n  connection with Ops, 482\n\nConvector, 161\n\nConway, Professor, on Quirinus and Quirites, 143\n\nCook, A. B., on Jupiter, 128, 141;\n  on Janus, 140;\n  on Quirinus and Quirites, 143\n\nCorn deities, Greek, 255, 259\n\n_Corpus Inscriptionum_, 13, 201\n\nCoruncanius, Titus, 271, 279, 281, 290\n\nCoulanges, Fustel de, on the Lar, 77\n\nCrawley, Mr., on the fatherhood of gods, 157;\n  on religion and morality, 227, 242\n\nCremation, 382, 395, 398, 401\n\nCrooke, Mr., on luck in odd numbers, 98\n\nCult-titles, invention of, 153\n\nCumont, Professor, on the religion of the Romans, 2;\n  on Jupiter, 246\n\nCunina, 159\n\nCuq, on civil and religious law, 486\n\n_Cura et caerimonia_, Cicero's expression, 81, 104, 106, 108, 145,\n  162, 170, 270, 282, 343, 434, 460\n\nCuria, 138\n\nCuriatius, 126\n\nCynics, the, 372\n\n\nDays, lucky and unlucky, 38-41;\n  _see also_ Dies\n\nDe Marchi, on votive offerings, 201, 202\n\nDea Dia, 146;\n  description of rites, 435-436;\n  veneration for utensils used, 436;\n  temple, 161, 436\n\nDead: disposal of the, 45, 84, 121, 395, 401;\n  cult, 91, 102, 457, 470;\n  festivals, 40, 112, 418;\n  contrast between Lemuria and Parentalia, 107, 393-395\n\nDecemviri, 259, 317, 318, 326\n\nDecius Mus, self-sacrifice of, 206-207, 220, 286, 320\n\nDeities, Roman: _see also_ Numen _and_ Spirits;\n  sources of our knowledge of, 114-115;\n  mental conception of the Romans regarding, 115-117, 122-123,\n    139-140, 145, 147, 157, 224-225;\n  _di indigetes_, 117, 139, 149, 180, 214;\n  functional spirits with will-power, 119;\n  the four great gods, 124-134;\n  epithets of Pater and Mater applied to, 137, 155-157;\n  the question of marriage, 148-152, 166, 350, 481-485;\n  fluctuation between male and female, 148-149;\n  nomenclature, 118, 149-156, 163;\n  compared with Greek gods, 158;\n  presence of, at meals, 172-173, 193;\n  introduction of new, 96, 229-242, 255-262;\n  women's, _see_ Women\n\nDelphic oracle consulted during Hannibalic war, 323-324, 326\n\nDemeter, 255;\n  supersession of Ceres by, 100\n\nDeubner, Professor, his theory of the Lupercalia, 138, 478-480\n\n_Devotio_, 206-209, 219-221;\n  formula, 207-208, 220;\n  sacrificial nature, 207, 220\n\nDi Manes: _see_ Manes\n\nDi Penates: _see_ Penates\n\nDiana: associated with Janus, 76, 125, 166;\n  connection with Artemis, 235, 443;\n  with Apollo, 443, 446;\n  with Hercules, 262;\n  functions, 234-236;\n  temples, 95, 147, 234, 237, 244\n\n_Dies comitiales_, 103\n  _endotercisi_, 181\n  _fasti_, 98, 103, 181\n  _lustricus_, 28, 42, 90\n  _nefasti_, 38, 40, 98, 103, 181\n  _postriduani_, 39, 40\n  _religiosi_, 38-40, 105\n\nDieterich, on disposal of the dead, 401\n\nDill, Professor, on Roman worship, 200\n\nDionysius of Halicarnassus, 130, 193, 215, 234, 250\n\nDionysus: identified with Liber, 255, 344;\n  ritual, in Greece, 344-345;\n  outbreak of Dionysiac orgies in Italy, 344\n\nDis, black victims sacrificed to, 440\n\nDius Fidius, connection with Jupiter, 130, 142\n\nDivination, 56, 180;\n  a universal instinct of human nature, 292, 306;\n  connection with magic, 293, 310;\n  views on the origin of, 293;\n  formalised by State authorities, 295, 300;\n  private, 295;\n  quack diviners, 296-298;\n  _auspicia_ of family religion, 298-300;\n  public, 301;\n  duties of the Rex, 302;\n  lore preserved in books, 303;\n  divination by lightning, 51, 52, 304, 305, 307, 309;\n  no lasting value in sphere of religion, 306;\n  a clog on progress, 307;\n  sinister influence of Etruscan divination on Rome, 307\n\nDobschuetz, on Christianity, 455\n\nDogs: sacrifices: _see_ Sacrifices\n\nDolabella, Cornelius, 342\n\nDoellinger, Dr., on the Flamen Dialis, 112;\n  on prayer, 468\n\nDomaszewski, von, cited, 99, 110, 154, 167;\n  definition of _numen_, 119;\n  on the cult epithets of Janus, 140;\n  on Juno, 144;\n  on evolution of _dei_ out of functional _numina_, 165\n\nDuhn, Professor von, cited, 31, 89\n\nDynamic theory of sacrifice, 177, 184, 190, 194\n\n\nEarthquakes, expiation of, 339\n\nEilithyia, Greek deity of childbirth, 442, 446, 449\n\nEnnius, cited, 65, 152, 183, 298, 322, 350, 351, 356\n\nEpictetus, 369, 372\n\nEpicurism, 352, 358, 360, 361, 375, 376, 381, 404, 453\n\nEpicurus, 359\n\nEpulum Iovis: _see_ Jupiter\n\nEquirria, 96, 99, 217\n\nEschatology, Christian: preparation of the Roman mind for, 454\n\nEsquiline, 87, 395\n\nEtruscans, 17;\n  domination in Rome, 237, 239, 245, 258;\n  art of divination, 299, 304;\n  sinister influence on Rome, 307, 346, 347, 391\n\nEvil spirits, 11, 29, 75, 76, 84, 93;\n  wolf's fat as a charm against, 90\n\n_Evocatio_, 58, 206\n\n_Excantatio_, 58, 482\n\n_Extipicina_, Etruscan rite of, 180\n\n\nFabius Pictor, 161, 261, 318, 320, 323, 326\n\nFalacer, 122\n\nFamily (_familia_): origin and meaning of, 70, 86;\n  religion in the, 68, 70, 73, 92, 116, 224, 226-228, 251, 270, 274,\n    298-300;\n  description of the house, 72-73, 87;\n  its holy places, 73;\n  spirits of the household: _see_ Spirits;\n  the Lar familiaris, 77;\n  position of slaves, 78;\n  _religio terminorum_, 82;\n  marriage, 83;\n  childbirth, 83;\n  burial of the dead, 73, 92;\n  maintenance of the _sacra_, 274-275\n\n_Fanum_, meaning of, 146\n\n_Far_, sacred cakes of, 45, 83, 130, 141, 180, 274\n\nFarnell, Dr., cited, 19, 27, 160, 161, 205;\n  on the vow of the _ver sacrum_, 219;\n  on Dionysiac ritual, 345, 355\n\nFarreus, connection with Jupiter, 130\n\n_Fas_, early usage of, 487-488\n\nFasti: _see_ Calendar\n\nFaunalia, 137\n\nFaunus, 81, 89, 297, 479;\n  connection with Lupercalia, 117\n\n_Februum_, meaning of, 210, 222\n\nFeretrius, cult-title of Jupiter: _see_ Jupiter\n\nFeriae Iovis, 129\n  Latinae, 40, 61, 172\n\nFeronia, 284, 318\n\nFerrero, on the _Carmen saeculare_, 431, 450;\n  on the _ludi saeculares_, 440\n\nFertility, customs to produce, 100, 106, 143, 210, 222, 479\n\nFestivals, 78-81, 97, 105;\n  agricultural, 34, 82, 98, 100, 120;\n  harvest, 98, 101, 121;\n  vintage, 100, 129;\n  of the dead: _see_ Dead;\n  Latin festival on Alban mount, 172;\n  in calendar, necessarily fixed, 95, 99, 102;\n  women's: _see_ Women\n\nFestus, 33, 61, 141, 217\n\nFetiales, 31, 130, 143, 157, 251, 434, 488\n\nFides, 154, 446, 450;\n  connection with Jupiter, 167\n\nFig-tree: sprouting of, on roof of temple, 162;\n  _piacula_ offered to various deities, 436, 490\n\nFlamen Cerealis, 161, 163\n  Dialis, 32, 112, 124, 129, 193, 239, 246, 327, 342, 479;\n    insignia, 177;\n    taboos on, 33-35, 44, 45, 108, 109, 327, 342, 343\n  Martialis, 124, 131, 142, 341\n  Quirinalis, 124, 131, 134, 139, 142, 181, 197, 342, 434\n  Volcanalis, 484\n\nFlamines, 113, 122, 123, 175, 193, 280, 341, 434;\n  insignia, 177;\n  personal purity essential, 178, 195\n\nFlaminica Dialis, 135, 144;\n  insignia, 177;\n  taboos on, 35-36\n\nFlaminius, 315, 317, 338, 340\n\nFlora, 122\n\nFons, 117, 285\n\nForculus, the door spirit, 76\n\nFordicidia, 100, 120, 121\n\nFornacalia, 173\n\nFortuna (Fors Fortuna), 201, 235, 245, 284, 297, 396, 401\n\nForum Boarium, human sacrifices, 112, 320\n\nFratres Arvales: Acta Fratrum Arvalium, 161, 213, 435;\n    altar, 164;\n    carmen, 78, 132, 186, 187, 436;\n    ritual of, 35, 100, 146, 149, 157, 162, 182, 191, 195, 213;\n    revived by Augustus, 434;\n    duties of the Brethren, 435;\n    worship of sacred utensils, 489-490\n  Attiedii, 157, 187, 215\n\nFrazer, Dr. J. G., his definition of religion, 8;\n  his theory of divine kingship, 19, 20, 49, 51, 52, 115, 128, 140;\n  on totemism, 25, 26;\n  on taboo, 30, 34, 47;\n  on _oscilla_, 61, 62, 67;\n  on the Parilia, 100, 222;\n  on marriage of gods, 144, 149, 150, 152, 155, 156, 165, 350, 481-485;\n  on cult of Jupiter, 167;\n  on appointment of _camillae_, 177, 195;\n  on Diana, 235;\n  on superstition, 264\n\nFulgur, cult-title of Jupiter, 129\n\nFurrina, 18, 117, 122\n\n\nGallus, Aelius, on _religiosum_, 37\n\nGames instituted to divert attention in times of trouble, 262-263;\n   Apolline, 326;\n  _see also_ Ludi\n\nGardner, Professor E., cited, 355\n\nGardner, Professor P., on Christianity, 452;\n  on prayers for the dead, 457;\n  cited, 465\n\nGellius, Aulus, on the conjunction of divine names, 150-152;\n  story of Scipio, 240;\n  on religiousness of the Romans, 250\n\nGenius: the male principle of life, 30, 92, 154, 317, 332;\n  of the paterfamilias, 30;\n  doubtful identification of Hercules with, 30;\n  in combination with Hercules and Juventas, 332;\n  Juno the feminine counterpart of, 87\n\nGennep, M. van, on taboo, 42, 44;\n  on religious ceremonies, 65, 90, 442;\n  on lustrations, 211, 212\n\n_Gentes_, 69, 259\n\n_Georgics_, the religious spirit of the, 407\n\nGhosts, 75, 85, 91, 92, 107\n\nGilds, trade, 230\n\nGlover, Mr., on Christianity, 456\n\nGod, as represented in the _Aeneid_, 426\n\nGods: _see_ Deities\n\nGratitude, not a prominent characteristic of the Roman, 252, 267\n\nGreek comedy, influence on Roman religion, 351-353\n  gods, compared with Roman, 158;\n    introduced into Rome, 230-242\n  literature, 296\n  philosophy, influence on Roman religion, 357-375\n\nGreenidge, Dr., on the _auspicia_ and the _imperium_, 301\n\nGregory the Great, 475\n\nGwatkin, Professor, on Augustine, 469;\n  on the relation of early Christianity to morality, 471\n\n\nHaddon, Professor, on supernaturalism, 21\n\nHades, 390, 391\n\nHannibalic War: revival of _religio_, 315, 317;\n  Sibylline books consulted, 316-319, 329;\n  sacrifices and offerings made to deities, 318;\n  religious panic after battle of Cannae, 319;\n  human sacrifices, 320;\n  Delphic oracle consulted, 323, 324, 326;\n  outbreak of _lascivia_, 324;\n  institutio$1 $2 Apolline games, 326;\n  religious history of last years, 327-329;\n  gratitude to deities, 329;\n  the Magna Mater of Pessinus brought to Rome, 330\n\nHardie, Professor, and the double altar in connection with funeral\n  rites, 425\n\nHariolus, 297, 298, 311\n\nHarrison, Miss, on covering the head at sacrifices, 195\n\nHaruspices, 296, 313, 337, 338, 397;\n  history of the, 307-309\n\nHebe, 332\n\nHeinze, on the _Aeneid_, 413-415, 419, 426, 427\n\nHeitland, Mr., on Bacchanalia, 346, 356\n\nHeracleitus, 257\n\nHercules: associated with Diana, 262;\n  with Juno, 17;\n  in combination with Juventas and Genius, 317, 332;\n  doubtful identification with Genius, 30;\n  identified with the Greek Heracles, 230, 243;\n  Victor or Invictus, 230, 231, 236, 243, 244;\n  cult of, 231, 244;\n  festival, 243;\n  worship confined to men, 29\n\nHermes, 260\n\nHirtzel, Mr., cited, 426\n\nHomer, religion of, compared with that of Roman patricians, 392\n\nHoney cakes, 82\n\nHonos et Virtus, 285, 446;\n  temple, 328\n\nHorace, 81, 299, 403, 405;\n  _Carmen saeculare_, 431-432, 439, 443-447, 450, 451\n\nHora Quirini, 482-483\n\nHorses: lustrations, 96, 215;\n  races, 97;\n  sacrifice of, _see_ Sacrifices\n\nHowerth, Ira W., his definition of religion, 8\n\nHubert et Mauss, on magic, 64, 65;\n  on sacrifice, 190, 194, 195, 198\n\nHuman sacrifice, 33, 44, 107, 112, 226, 320, 440\n\nHut-urns, sepulchral, 87, 477\n\nHuts or booths, use of, in religious ritual, 473-477\n\nHuvelin, M., on magic, 64\n\n\nIdes, 39, 65, 95, 251, 484;\n  sacred to Jupiter, 129\n\nIguvium: ritual, 22, 138, 181, 197;\n  lustration of the _arx_, 187, 214, 215;\n  of the people, 31, 208, 215-216\n\nImages and statues of gods, 146, 147, 165, 239, 262, 264, 336, 337;\n  statue of Athene, 355\n\nImmortality, belief in, 69, 386-387, 389, 424\n\nImporcitor, 161\n\n_Inauguratio_ of the priest-king Numa, 174-175, 193\n\nIncense, 164, 180, 330, 458\n\nIndigetes, di, 117, 139, 149, 180, 214\n\nIndigitamenta, 76, 84, 88, 130, 138, 153, 159-161, 163, 165, 168, 281,\n  286, 291\n\nIndividualism, growth of, 240, 266, 287, 340, 358, 411, 456\n\nInnocent, Bishop of Rome, 309\n\nIron, tabooed in religious ceremonies, 32, 35, 45, 214\n\nIsis: religion, 455, 456;\n  temple, 433\n\n_Ius_, early usage of, 486-487\n  _augurale_, 296\n  _civile_, 5, 169;\n    and the _ius divinum_, 58, 276-279\n  _divinum_, 13, 24, 33, 38, 49, 68, 104, 106, 107, 128, 146, 227, 228,\n    241, 271-273, 286, 287, 296, 345;\n    and the _ius civile_, 58, 276-279;\n    ritual, 169-191, 467;\n    the pontifical books the pharmacopoeia of, 286;\n    decay and neglect, 203, 314, 327, 352, 353;\n    reaction against, 324, 340-344, 348;\n    Augustan revival, 429\n  _hospitii_, 31, 32\n  _Manium_, 387\n\n\nJanus: the door spirit, 76, 127, 146;\n  bifrons of the Forum, 77;\n  speculations regarding, 125, 140, 141;\n  cult-titles, 126;\n  worship, 183, 212;\n  connection with Cardea, 485;\n  with Diana, 76, 125, 166;\n  with Juno, 126, 135;\n  with Vesta, 140, 145;\n  temple, 126\n\nJebb, Professor, on poetry of the Greeks, 424\n\nJevons, Dr., 19;\n  on totemism, 26;\n  on taboo, 28, 41;\n  on magic, 48, 186;\n  on priests, 176\n\nJews, proselytising, expelled from Rome, 139 B.C., 397, 402\n\nJhering, von, on origin of Roman divination, 293, 294, 311\n\nJordan, H., 13;\n  on pairing of deities, 152\n\nJunius, 315\n\nJuno, 121, 479;\n  Caprotina, 143;\n  Curitis, 144;\n  Moneta, 135;\n  Populonia, 144;\n  Regina, (of Ardea) 318,\n    (of the Aventine) 318, 329,\n    (of Veii) 135, 206, 284;\n  Sospita, 318, 354;\n  connection with Hercules, 17;\n  with Janus, 126, 135;\n  with Jupiter, 136, 144, 166, 443, 444, 446;\n  one of the Etruscan trias, 94, 237;\n  representative of female principle, 17, 87, 135, 144;\n  temples, 135, 172, 237, 328, 329, 354\n\nJunonius, cult-title of Janus, 126\n\nJupiter, 115, 118, 124, 127, 128, 141, 143, 147, 159, 183, 212;\n  difference between Jupiter and Zeus, 141;\n  connection with Diana, 76;\n  with Dius Fidius, 130, 142, 167, 450;\n  with Juno, 136, 144, 166, 443, 444, 446;\n  with Juturna, 485;\n  with Tellus, 121;\n  with Terminus, 82;\n  Capitolinus, 120, 129, 204, 205, 237, 238, 240, 241, 318, 319, 333,\n    367;\n  Dapalis, 141;\n  Elicius, 36, 50-52, 129, 137;\n  Fagutalis, 141;\n  Farreus, 130;\n  Feretrius, 129, 433;\n  Fulgur, 129;\n  Grabovius, 187;\n  Latiaris, 237, 238;\n  Lucetius, 129;\n  Sabazius, 402;\n  Summanus, 129;\n  one of the Etruscan trias, 94, 172, 237, 336;\n  cult at Praeneste, 167;\n  cult-titles Optimus Maximus, 129, 238;\n  Ides sacred to, 129;\n  worshipped on Alban Mount, 109, 128, 172;\n  epulum Iovis, 172, 263, 268, 336, 338, 353;\n  temples, 95, 115, 129, 146, 172, 237-238, 241, 245, 246, 254, 266,\n    433, 443\n\nJuturna, 284, 285;\n  connection with Jupiter, 485\n\nJuventas, in combination with Genius and Hercules, 317, 332\n\n\nKalends, 39, 95, 126, 135, 251, 484\n\nKobbert, Maximilianus, on _religio_, 46\n\nKronos, identified with Saturnus, 118\n\n\nLactantius, 156, 165, 388, 459, 461, 462, 469\n\nLang, Mr., 19;\n  cited in connection with the calendar of Numa, 105\n\n_Lapis_: _see_ Stones\n\nLaralia: _see_ Compitalia\n\nLarentia, Acca, 67\n\nLar familiaris, 77, 78, 92, 251\n\nLares compitales, 61, 117, 132, 186\n\nLatin Festival: _see_ Feriae Latinae\n\nLatins, the, 10, 23, 25, 86, 123, 130, 172, 193, 229\n\nLatona, associated with Apollo, 262\n\nLaughing, in ritual of Lupercalia, 106, 111\n\nLaurel branches carried in procession, 265\n\nLawson, J. C., on burial and cremation, 91, 400, 401\n\nLeather, tabooed in the worship of Carmenta, 36\n\nLecky, Mr., on Stoicism, 362, 377\n\nLectisternium, 263-266, 268, 317-319, 327\n\n_Leges regiae_, connection with the _ius divinum_, 272\n\nLeland, C. G., 67\n\nLemuria, 40, 85, 98, 107, 401;\n  compared with the Parentalia, 393-395\n\nLepidus, pontifex maximus, 433, 438\n\nLiber, 158, 260, 332;\n  identified with Dionysus, 255, 344;\n  temple, 255\n\nLibera, 260;\n  identified with Persephone, 255\n\nLiberalia, 332\n\nLibitina, 159\n\nLicinius Imbrex, 151\n\nLicinius, P., pontifex maximus, 342\n\nLightning, divination by, 51, 52, 304, 305, 307, 309\n\nLimentinus, spirit of the threshold, 76\n\nLivius Andronicus, 328\n\nLivy, cited, 170, 174, 204, 205, 216, 217, 252, 261, 264, 269, 280,\n  300, 316, 324, 405;\n  on Bacchanalia, 346-348\n\nLua, 165, 481, 482\n\nLucaria, 98\n\nLucetius, cult-title of Jupiter, 129\n\nLucilius, 156, 183\n\nLucretius, cited, 352, 359, 360, 376, 387, 394, 396, 403-406, 453;\n  his contempt for _superstitio_, 361, 367;\n  on Roman belief in Hades, 390;\n  his use of _religio_, 460\n\n_Lucus_, meaning of, 146\n\n_Ludi_, 44, 95, 122, 204: _see also_ Games\n  _magni_, vowed to Jupiter during Hannibalic war, 319, 333\n  _saeculares_, 34, 431, 480;\n    prayers used in, 198, 468;\n    ritual described, 438-447;\n    discovery of inscriptions, 439\n  _scenici_, 261, 263, 350\n\nLupercalia, 20, 34, 53, 65, 106, 118, 179, 194, 210, 393;\n  whipping to produce fertility, 54, 479;\n  Prof. Deubner's theory, 137, 478-480\n\nLuperci, 34, 54, 106, 434, 479\n\nLupercus, 478\n\nLustrations: meaning of _lustrare_, 209-210;\n  lustration of the _ager paganus_, 80, 213;\n  of the _ager Romanus_, 78, 100;\n  of _ancilia_, 96, 217;\n  of the army, 96, 100, 215, 217;\n  of the _arx_ of Iguvium, 187, 199;\n  of cattle and sheep, 100;\n  of the city, 214, 317;\n  of the farm, 132, 212;\n  of horses, 96, 215;\n  of people, 31, 216;\n  of trumpets, 96, 215;\n  animistic conception of, 211;\n  ultimately adapted by Roman Church to its own ritual, 211, 218, 457\n\nLuthard, on Roman religion, 288\n\n\nMacrobius, cited, 28, 196, 206, 208, 219, 220, 484\n\n_Macte esto_, meaning of the phrase, 182, 183, 197, 442\n\nMagic: allied to taboo, 27, 47;\n  contagious and homoeopathic, 48;\n  and divination, 293, 309;\n  harmless, 59;\n  prayers and incantations, 185, 186, 198;\n  private, 57, 68;\n  in purificatory processes, 210;\n  and religion, 47-49, 56, 224, 253;\n  rigorously excluded from State ritual, 49, 57, 105, 107, 224;\n  sympathetic, 50, 55\n\nMagna Mater of Pessinus, brought to Rome, 330, 344, 348\n\nMaia, 165, 166;\n  connection with Volcanus, 151, 484\n\nMaiestas, 151, 484\n\n_Mana_, the positive aspect of taboo, 27, 30, 42, 48, 60\n\nManes, 39, 50, 75, 85, 92, 102, 106, 121, 208, 320, 341, 391, 392;\n  individualisation of, 386;\n  Di Manes, 341, 386\n\nMania, mother of the Lares, 61\n\nManilius, his poem on astrology, 396\n\nMannhardt, his theory of the Vegetation-spirit, 19-20, 478;\n  on laughing in ritual of the Lupercalia, 111-112\n\nMarcellus, 315, 328\n\nMarcius, Latin oracles supposed to be written by, 326\n\nMarcius Rex, praetor, 339\n\nMarcus Aurelius, 369, 429\n\nMarett, Mr., on taboo, 42, 45;\n  on _sacrificium_, 192;\n  on divination, 310\n\nMarquardt, on Roman religion, 13, 16;\n  on naming of children, 42\n\nMarriage: a religious ceremony, 83, 177, 274, 279;\n  Tellus an object of worship at, 121;\n  among deities, 148-152, 166, 350, 481-485\n\nMars, 124, 129, 147, 204, 208, 215, 246, 319;\n  various forms of his name, 131;\n  as a married god, 150-152, 166;\n  invocations to, 186, 212;\n  connection with Bellona, 166;\n  with Nerio, 150-151, 166;\n  with Quirinus, 134, 150;\n  pater, 212;\n  Silvanus, 29, 132, 142;\n  cult of, 132-134;\n  festival, 96-97;\n  temple, 133\n\nMartianus Capella, 308\n\nMasson, Dr., 357, 395;\n  on Roman fear of future torments, 391\n\nMastarna, Etruscan name of Servius Tullus, 237, 246\n\nMasurius Sabinus, 90\n\nMatutinus, cult-title of Janus, 126\n\nMeals, sacrificial, 172, 173, 193, 436;\n  epulum Iovis: _see under_ Jupiter\n\nMegalesia, 330\n\nMens, 285\n\nMercurius (Hermes), 260, 262, 268, 484\n\nMessor, 161\n\nMildew, spirit of the: _see_ Robigus\n\nMinerva, one of the Etruscan trias, 94, 237;\n  name Italian, not Etruscan, 234, 245;\n  associated with trade gilds, 233, 234, 236;\n  Capta, 284;\n  temples, 172, 233, 234, 244\n\nMinium, faces painted with, 82, 115, 336\n\nMinucius Felix, 461\n\nMithras, religion of, 455, 456, 464\n\nMoirae (Parcae), 442, 446\n\n_Mola salsa_: _see_ Salt-cake\n\nMoles, 150, 154, 158\n\nMommsen, cited, 200, 440;\n  and the religion of the Romans, 2;\n  on the _Fasti anni Romani_, 95, 96, 111;\n  on _Carmen saeculare_, 444\n\nMucius Scaevola: _see_ Scaevola\n\n_Murus_, 94\n\nMysticism, 380-398, 404;\n  in the form of astrology, 396, 401;\n  not native to the Roman, 454\n\n\nNeo-Pythagoreanism: _see_ Mysticism\n\nNeptunalia, 474\n\nNeptunus, 117;\n  identified with Poseidon, 118, 260;\n  connection with Salacia, 150, 483;\n  with Mercurius, 262\n\nNerio: connection with Mars, 150-151, 166;\n  meaning of Nerio Martis, 150, 154\n\nNettleship, Professor, on the phrase _macte esto_, 197;\n  on the character of Aeneas, 410, 427;\n  on _sanctus_, 470\n\nNigidius Figulus, 299, 384, 397\n\nNones, 39, 95, 251;\n  Nonae Caprotinae, 143\n\nNuma Pompilius, priest-king: Livy's account of his _inauguratio_,\n  174-175;\n  legends, 108, 115, 170, 180, 233, 322;\n  Calendar described, 92-109;\n  spurious books found in stone coffin, 349, 381\n\nNumbers, mystic, 98, 328, 334, 441, 449\n\n_Numen_, 34, 111, 250, 264, 364, 365, 367, 407;\n  meaning of the word, 118;\n  von Domaszewski's definition of, 119;\n  evolution of _dei_ out of functional _numina_, 165;\n  _see also_ Spirits _and_ Deities\n\n\nOak-gods, 125, 129, 141, 143\n\nOaths: connection of Castor and Pollux with, 232;\n  of Hercules, 231;\n  of Jupiter, 130;\n  taken in open air, 141-142;\n  the religious, in public life, 358, 375;\n  used by women, 244;\n  taboo on, 343, 355\n\nOberator, 161\n\nOctober horse, 20, 34, 65, 106;\n  sacrifice of, 45, 105, 179\n\nOdd numbers, luck in, 98\n\n_Ollae_, worship of, 489-490\n\nOpalia, 101\n\nOpiconsiva, 101\n\nOps, 156;\n  connection with Consus, 482;\n  with Saturnus, 482\n\nOracles, 339, 354;\n  _see also_ Delphic oracle\n\nOrcus, 166;\n  the old name for the abode of the Manes, 391, 392;\n  sacrifice of captives to, 44\n\nOrosius, 333\n\nOrphic doctrine, 381;\n  tablets, 398\n\nOscilla, 61, 67;\n  Dr. Frazer's theory, 61;\n  _see also_ Puppets\n\nOtto, W., on connection of _religio_ with practice of taboo, 46\n\nOvid, on Roman gods, 22;\n  his picture of the Sementivae, 79, 80;\n  rite of pagus, 82;\n  on the Lemuria, 107, 112, 394;\n  on Janus, 125;\n  on images of gods, 147;\n  on the Robigalia, 181, 196, 197, 434;\n  on meals at sacrifices, 193;\n  on the word _februum_, 210;\n  on annual ceremony by consuls, 219;\n  on the festival of Anna Perenna, 346, 473\n\n\nPaganalia, 61, 62, 67, 102\n\nPagus: the _familia_ in relation to, 71;\n  meaning of the word, 87;\n  festival of the Lar, 78;\n  other festivals, 79;\n  the _religio terminorum_, 81-82;\n  lustrations of the, 213, 214\n\nPais, on Acca Larentia, 67;\n  on the Tarquinii and Mastarna, 245\n\nPalatine: _Carmen saeculare_ sung on the, 443-447, 450;\n  temple of Apollo, 443-445\n\nPales, 122, 149\n\nPanaetius: and the Scipionic circle, 363-364, 453;\n  his theology, 365;\n  and Platonic psychology, 382, 398\n\nPantheism, Stoic, 366-368\n\nPapirius, the consul, 314, 315, 331\n\nParentalia, 40, 107, 387, 401, 418, 457;\n  compared with the Lemuria, 393-395\n\nParilia, 100, 120, 193, 222, 474\n\nPater and Mater, as applied to deities, 155-157\n\nPatricians, 259, 304;\n  religious system a monopoly of, 229\n\nPatulcius, cult-title of Janus, 126\n\nPax (deity), 446, 451\n\n_Pax deorum_, 169, 224, 261, 264, 272, 276, 286, 302, 328, 329;\n  means towards maintenance of, 171, 180, 273, 300;\n  violation of, 320;\n  re-established by Augustus, 429, 431, 433\n\nPebble-rain, 316, 329, 332\n\nPenates, 73, 74, 86, 92, 116, 193\n\nPersephone, 255\n\nPeter, R., on Indigitamenta, 160\n\nPetronius, on ceremony of the aquaelicium, 64\n\nPhilodemus, 359, 375\n\nPicus, 297\n\n_Pietas_, 174, 227, 250, 254, 387, 405, 409-412, 466;\n  meaning of, 462-463;\n  Virgil's word for religion, 412\n\nPiso, L. Calpurnius, 51-53, 484\n\n_Pius_, 63, 462;\n  see _Pietas_\n\nPlague, Sibylline books consulted at outbreak of, 261\n\nPlato, 258, 381\n\nPlautus, 151, 351-352\n\nPlaywrights, their influence on Roman religion, 240, 351, 353\n\nPlebeians, 105, 170;\n  aediles, 255;\n  the Plebs as the original inhabitants of Latium, 242, 259, 268, 289;\n  emotional tendency of, 263-264;\n  opening of priesthoods to, 268, 271, 279;\n  increase of importance under the Etruscan dynasty, 275;\n  first plebeian praetor, 279;\n  pontifex maximus: _see_ Coruncanius, Titus\n\nPliny, 51, 256;\n  on spells and charms, 53, 57, 59, 60, 65, 66, 90, 186;\n  on human sacrifice, 320;\n  on death, 388, 400\n\nPolybius, cited, 250, 253, 316, 363, 369, 390;\n  on religion, 336\n\n_Pomoerium_, 94, 214, 225, 230, 231\n\nPomona (or Pomunus), 122, 149;\n  connection with Vertumnus, 485\n\nPompeianus, prefect of Rome, 309\n\nPomponius, 278, 289\n\nPons sublicius: no iron used in building, 35;\n  Argei thrown from, 54, 105, 321\n\nPontifex Maximus, 175, 271, 280, 341;\n  _tabula_ kept by, 283;\n  compelling power of, 342, 355\n\nPontifices, 120, 177, 200, 341;\n  share in festivals, 106, 139;\n  the question of their origin, 180, 195, 271;\n  insignia of, 193;\n  College of, 271;\n  open to plebeians, 268, 271, 279;\n  legal side of their work, 272-276;\n  the XII. Tables, 58, 276-278, 289;\n  self-elected, 276;\n  abolition of legal monopoly, 279;\n  work of, in third century B.C., 282;\n  admission of new deities, 284;\n  compilation of annals, 285;\n  collection of religious formulae, 287;\n  the Pontifical books, 76, 159, 182, 197, 283, 285-286\n\n_Porca praecidanea_, rite of the, 121, 183, 191\n\nPortunus, 118, 122\n\nPoseidon, identified with Neptunus, 118\n\nPosidonius, 250, 365, 367, 382-384, 398\n\nPrayers, 76, 106, 126, 153, 215, 224, 225, 251;\n  at the _inauguratio_ of the priest-king Numa, 175;\n  at making of new clearing, 169, 182;\n  at sacrifices, 181-191;\n  at flowering of the pear-trees, 182;\n  when wine is offered, 182;\n  for the ceremony of lustration, 183;\n  form and manner of Roman, 185, 189, 196;\n  magical survivals in, 188-189;\n  in ritual of _Ludi saeculares_, 442, 449, 468\n\n_Precatio_, 53, 166\n\nPriests: _see_ Pontifices\n\nProcessions: of _lustratio_, adapted to the ritual of the Roman\n  Church, 211, 218, 457;\n  of the _triumphus_, 217, 239-240;\n  Roman fondness for, 263;\n  _see also_ Lustrations\n\n_Procuratio_, 316, 328;\n  _fulminis_, 115\n\n_Prodigia_, 281, 316, 324, 325, 328, 338, 339, 354\n\nPromitor, 161\n\nPropertius, 22, 147, 403\n\nProserpina, black victims sacrificed to, 440\n\nPudor, 446\n\n_Pulvinaria_, 337, 338\n\nPunic War: _see_ Hannibalic War\n\nPuppets: Argei thrown into Tiber, 54, 105, 321;\n  oscilla, 61, 67\n\nPurification: _see_ Lustrations\n\n_Puticuli_, 395, 401\n\nPythagoras, legend of a religious connection between Numa and, 349, 381\n\nPythagoreanism, 349, 380-381\n\nPythagoreans, 98\n\n\nQuindecemviri, 440, 442\n\nQuinquatrus, 217\n\nQuirinal, 134\n\nQuirinus, 94, 118, 124, 143, 147, 246;\n  identified with Mars, 134;\n  with Romulus, 135\n\nQuirites, 134, 143\n\n\nRain-making: _see_ Aquaelicium\n\nRamsay, Sir W. M., 465\n\nRed colouring in sacred rites and its connection with blood, 89, 177,\n  194\n\nRedarator, 161\n\nRegia, 45, 105, 106, 271, 288;\n  sacrarium Martis in, 133, 208\n\nRegifugium, 99\n\nReinach, M. Salomon, cited, 26, 42, 114, 131, 481\n\n_Religio_, 9, 28, 30, 36, 38, 72, 76, 83, 85, 93, 104, 106, 174, 223,\n  227, 241, 248, 261, 263, 267, 270, 273, 282, 287, 294, 364, 405, 407;\n  meanings and uses of the word, 21, 37, 41, 186, 192, 198, 249, 254,\n    385, 462, 470;\n  Cicero's definition of, 460;\n  and taboo, 34, 36, 40, 46;\n  revival of, during Hannibalic war, 315, 317, 336-339\n\n_Religio Larium_, 79\n  _terminorum_, 81, 82\n\nReligion, definitions of, 7-9;\n  and magic, 47-49, 56, 224, 253;\n  and morality, 227, 242, 292, 466, 471;\n  primitive, 25-28, 63, 69;\n  real, a matter of feeling, 406\n\nRoman: a highly formalised system, 3, 63, 103-104, 200, 226, 248-249,\n  340;\n  compared with Roman law, 5;\n  a technical subject, 6;\n  its difficulties, 13;\n  aid from archaeology and anthropology, 16-20, 25;\n  primitive survivals in, 24, 30;\n  examples of real magic in, 50, 53-54;\n  a reality, 62-63, 103, 249;\n  in the family, _see_ Family;\n  of the State, 93, 105, 226-228, 270;\n  the Calendar of Numa the basis of our knowledge of, 94-109;\n  moral influence mainly disciplinary, 108, 228;\n  Greek influence, 120, 255-262, 346, 350-353;\n  Roman ideas of divinity, 115-117, 122-123, 145-164;\n  ritual of the _ius divinum_, 169-222;\n  personal purity essential in all worshippers, 178;\n  discouraged individual development, 226;\n  introduction of new deities, 96, 229-242, 255-262;\n  priesthoods limited to patrician families, 229;\n  religious instinct of the Romans, 249;\n  neglect and decay, 263-265, 287, 314, 429;\n  growth of individualism, 240, 266, 287, 340, 358, 411, 456;\n  Sibylline influence, 242, 255-262;\n  secularisation of, 270-291;\n  sinister influence of Etruscan divination, 307-309, 346;\n  _see_ Divination;\n  used for political purposes, 336;\n  attempt to propagate Pythagoreanism, 349-350, 381;\n  destitution of Romans in regard to idea of God and sense of duty,\n    357-358;\n  no remedy in Epicurism, 361;\n  arrival of Stoicism: _see_ Stoicism _and_ Mysticism;\n  belief in future torments, 390;\n  religion compared with that of Homer, 392;\n  early Christianity, 396;\n  religious feeling in Virgil's poems, 403-427;\n  Augustan revival, 428-451;\n  contributions to the Latin form of Christianity, 452-472;\n  _see also_ Prayer _and_ Sacrifice\n\nRenan, cited, 185\n\nRenel, M., cited, 26\n\nReville, M. Jean, on the formalism of the Roman religion, 3;\n  his definition of religion, 8\n\nRex Nemoreusis, 235\n  sacrorum, 128, 174, 175, 180, 193, 207, 229, 271, 273, 341, 434;\n    relation of the Rex to the augurs, 301-302\n\nRidgeway, Professor, on the Flamen Dialis, 112;\n  on Janus, 140;\n  on original inhabitants of Latium, 242, 393\n\nRivers, Dr., on the ritual aspect of religion among the Todas, 489-490\n\nRobertson Smith, Professor, 19, 26, 27, 172, 221;\n  on the Feast of the Tabernacles, 476\n\nRobigalia, 139, 196\n\nRobigus, 100, 117, 122, 146, 179, 434;\n  Ovid's version of prayer to, 197\n\nRoman Church, survival of old religious practices in the, 25, 211, 218,\n  456-458, 469\n\nRomulus, 51, 130, 135\n\nRoscher, Dr., 141\n\n\n_Sacellum_, meaning of, 146\n\n_Sacer_ and _sacramentum_, 36, 277, 464\n\nSacred utensils, worship of, 436, 489-490\n\nSacrifices, 29, 90, 224, 225;\n  description of the act, 179-181;\n  honorific, 172, 173;\n  piacular, 35, 172, 173, 182, 189, 191, 208, 273, 436;\n  sacramental, 141, 172;\n  vicarious, 208;\n  dynamic theory of, 177, 184, 190, 194;\n  meals in connection with, 172, 173, 193, 436;\n  mystic use of blood, 34, 82;\n  victim must be acceptable to the deity, 179;\n  women and strangers excluded from rites, 29-31;\n  prayers at, 181-191;\n  sacrifice of cakes, 82, 83, 180, 183, 184;\n  cow, 100, 120, 436;\n  dog, 181, 197, 216, 434;\n  goat, 54, 106, 179, 479;\n  horse, 34, 97, 105, 179;\n  lamb, 37, 82, 436;\n  ox, 132, 179, 212, 215, 444;\n  pig, 82, 132, 170, 179, 212, 215, 436;\n  red dog, 179, 310;\n  salt-cake, 73, 207;\n  sheep, 132, 179, 181, 212, 215, 434;\n  sow, 121, 183;\n  white heifer, 172, 177, 239;\n  wine, 82, 180, 182-184, 196;\n  _see also_ Human sacrifice\n\n_Sacrificium_, meaning of, 171, 464\n\n_Sacrum_, 171, 254\n\n_Saeculum_, the old Italian idea of a, 440\n\nSt. Augustine, cited, 58, 76, 120, 149, 159, 163, 297, 430, 458;\n  on Decius, 220\n\nSainte Beuve, on Virgil, 404\n\nSt. Paul, 455, 466-468\n\nSalacia, 165;\n  connection with Neptunus, 483\n\nSalii, 40, 96, 110, 132, 133, 143, 176, 182, 217, 229, 434;\n  ritual, 97\n  Collini, 134\n  Palatini, 134\n\nSallust, 405\n\nSalt-cake, 73, 207\n\nSalus, 154, 285\n\n_Sanctus_, meaning of, 463-464, 470\n\nSarritor, 161\n\nSaturnalia, 81, 99, 101-103, 107, 112\n\nSaturnus, 101, 111, 118, 318;\n  identified with Kronos, 118;\n  connection with Consus, 482;\n  with Ops, 482\n\nSayce, Professor, 155\n\nScaevola, P. Mucius, 283\n  Q. Mucius, 73, 86, 338, 353, 371\n\nScipio, the elder, 240, 247, 267, 340, 354;\n  receives the Magna Mater at Rome, 330\n  Aemilianus, 198, 203-204, 340;\n    his friendship with Polybius and Panaetius, 362-364, 369, 371\n\nScott, Sir Walter, compared with Virgil, 408\n\nSellar, Professor, on Virgil, 404, 406\n\nSementivae, festival, 79, 89\n\n_Senatusconsultum de Bacchanalibus_, 347, 348, 356\n\nSeneca, 369, 378, 438, 455\n\nSeptimontium, 110\n\nServius, cited, 58, 62, 119, 120, 134, 138, 142, 143, 146, 183, 184,\n  194, 210\n  Sulpicius, 371, 387\n  Tullius, 235;\n    his Etruscan name Mastarna, 237\n\nSibyl of Cumae, 257-258\n\nSibylline books, 173, 242, 255-257, 261, 323;\n  consulted during the Hannibalic war, 316-319, 329;\n  used for personal and political purposes, 339\n\nSilvanus, 76, 81, 89, 132, 142\n\nSlaves, 53, 78, 395, 401, 474;\n  Greek, buried alive in the _Forum boarium_, 112, 320\n\nSodales Titienses, 434\n\nSol, image of, on the Palatine, 445, 447, 450\n\nSondergoetter, Usener's theory of, 161-164, 168\n\nSpells, 48, 53, 57-59, 208, 221;\n  origin of prayer in, 185, 189\n\nSpes, 285\n\nSpirits, 34, 58;\n  agricultural, 161, 251, 285;\n  dead, _see_ Ghosts;\n  of the doorway, 75-76, 92, 127;\n  evil, _see_ Evil spirits;\n  household, 11, 68, 73, 74, 77, 83, 84, 86, 92, 104, 193;\n  spring, 92;\n  water, 285;\n  woodland, 76, 81, 83, 92, 132;\n  development into _dei_, 116, 117, 119, 120, 123-124, 161, 165;\n  _see also_ Deities _and_ Numen\n\nSpolia opima, 138, 141, 288;\n  dedicated at temple of Jupiter Feretrius, 130, 433\n\nStanley, on religion and morality, 292\n\nStatues and busts at Rome, first mention of, 340, 354;\n  _see also_ Images\n\nStoicism, 359, 377, 381-383;\n  introduced into Rome, 362;\n  its influence on the Roman mind, 370-372, 404, 453;\n  weak points in Roman, 372-374;\n  failed to rouse an \"enthusiasm of humanity,\" 375, 454\n\nStones: lapis manalis, 50;\n  silex, 130;\n  stone representing Magna Mater, 330;\n  _see also_ Boundary stones\n\nStrangers, fear of, 30-32\n\nStubbs, Bishop, 103\n\nSubrincator, 161\n\nSubterranean altar, black victims offered at, 440, 445\n\n_Suffimenta_, 441, 442, 449\n\nSulpicius, consul 211 B.C., 337\n\nSummanus, cult-title of Jupiter, 129\n\n_Suovetaurilia_, 132, 212, 215\n\n_Superstitio_, 106, 355, 361, 405;\n  temple of Isis condemned as a centre of, 433\n\n_Supplicatio_, 262, 265, 269, 337;\n  ordered during Hannibalic war, 317, 319, 323, 325, 329\n\n\nTabernacles, Feast of the, 475, 476\n\nTaboo, 25, 83, 223;\n  definition of, 27;\n  its ethical value, 28;\n  on children, 28;\n  on women, 29;\n  on strangers, 30-32;\n  on criminals, 32;\n  on inanimate objects, 32;\n  on places, 36;\n  on times and seasons, 38-41;\n  on iron, 35, 44, 214;\n  on leather, 36;\n  on the Flamen Dialis, 33-35, 44, 45, 108, 109, 327, 342, 343;\n  on the Flaminica Dialis, 35\n\nTacitus, 398\n\nTarentum, sacrifices on subterranean altar, 440, 445\n\nTarquinii, the, 146, 237, 245\n\nTellus (Terra Mater), 100, 120, 122, 136, 138, 139, 156, 158, 161,\n  162, 320, 435, 442, 446;\n  an object of worship at marriage, 121;\n  connection with Jupiter, 121;\n  temple, 285\n\nTempestates, 285\n\nTemples: absence of, in earliest Rome, 146;\n  restored by Augustus, 343; Aesculapius, 260;\n  Apollo, on the Palatine, 443-445;\n  Bona Dea on the Aventine, 484;\n  Castor, 231, 244;\n  Ceres, Liber, and Libera, 255-257, 269, 344;\n  Consus, 285;\n  Dea Dia, 161;\n  Diana, on the Aventine, 95, 147, 234, 237, 244;\n  Isis, 433;\n  Janus, 126;\n  Juno Moneta, 135, 328-329;\n  Juno Sospita, 354;\n  Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, 146, 172, 237-238, 246, 254, 443;\n  Jupiter Feretrius, on the Capitol, 95, 115, 129-130, 146, 147, 203,\n    245, 266, 433;\n  Jupiter Latiaris, on the Alban Hill, 237, 238, 245;\n  Mars, 133;\n  Minerva, on the Aventine, 233, 234, 244;\n  Pales, 285;\n  Tellus, 285;\n  Vertumnus, 285;\n  Vesta, _see_ Vesta: aedes\n\nTerminalia, 34, 193, 196\n\nTerminus, 82, 117, 239\n\nTerra Mater, _see_ Tellus\n\nTertullian, cited, 159, 163, 459, 461, 465\n\nTheodosian code, 430\n\nTiberius, 429, 438, 447\n\nTibicines, 180, 195, 233, 445\n\nTibullus, cited, 22, 80, 147, 178, 403;\n  on use of huts at rural festivals, 474\n\nTime, religious or mystical conception of, 440-441, 449\n\n_Toga praetexta_, worn by priests and children, 29, 42, 50, 61, 74, 84,\n  175-177, 194-195, 436\n  _virilis_, 42\n\nTombstones, memorial, first mention of, 341\n\nTotemism, 25-27\n\nToutain, M., 26\n\nTozer, Mr., on Dante, 419\n\nTrade: deities brought to Rome by, 230;\n  connection of Hercules with, 231;\n  gilds, 233\n\nTrasimene, outbreak of _religio_ after the battle of, 318\n\nTreaties, Jupiter's connection with, 130\n\n_Tripodatio_, 187, 198\n\nTubilustrium, 96, 217\n\nTuriae, Laudatio, cited, 389\n\nTurnus, 483\n\nTylor, Dr., 26, 49, 74, 293\n\n\nUsener, H., 19, 138, 160;\n  his theory of the Sondergoetter, 161-164, 168\n\n\nVacuna of Reate, 284, 290\n\nValerius Antias, 52, 115, 137\n  Flaccus, C., 342-343, 355\n  Maximus, 203-204, 299, 378\n\nVarro, cited, 16, 59, 76, 79, 81, 89, 103, 120, 125, 142, 143, 149, 156,\n  159, 168, 210, 222, 235, 251, 321\n\n_Vates_, meaning of, 297-298\n\nVedic ritual, 185\n\nVegetation-spirit, Mannhardt's theory, 19, 20, 478\n\nVenilia, 483\n\nVenus, connection with Volcanus, 166\n\n_Ver sacrum_, 196, 204-205, 318\n\n_Verbenarius_, 31, 43\n\nVerrius Flaccus, 16, 30\n\nVertumnus, 147, 291;\n  connection with Pomona, 485;\n  temple, 285\n\nVervactor, 161\n\nVesta, 73, 74, 76, 92, 116, 126, 136, 137, 140, 147, 481;\n  aedes, 39, 40, 126, 136, 146, 477;\n  penus Vestae, 36, 73, 101, 136, 442\n\nVestal virgins, 53, 113, 120, 139, 175, 177, 194, 320;\n  at the ceremony of the Argei, 54, 55, 106, 321;\n  salt-cake baked by, 73;\n  representative of daughters of the family, 136;\n  statues of, 144\n\n_Vicus_, 71\n\nVilicus, 78\n\nVinalia, 100\n\nVirgil, on _religio_, 37;\n  on the Paganalia, 62, 67;\n  on _lustratio_, 80, 213, 221;\n  on the Manes, 386, 399;\n  religious feeling in his poems, 403-427, 455;\n  compared with Wordsworth, 407-408; with Scott, 408;\n  his idea of _pietas_, 409;\n  his connection with Augustus, 428;\n  see also _Aeneid_\n\nVirites, 150, 158\n\nVirtus, 446\n\nVolcanalia, 98, 101\n\nVolcanus, 118, 122, 124;\n  connection with Maia, 151, 484;\n  with Venus, 166\n\nVolturnus, 117, 118, 122, 124\n\nVortumnus, 165, 284\n\nVows, 188, 226, 286;\n  private, 201-202;\n  public, 200, 202-204;\n  extraordinary, 204-208;\n  see also _Devotio_ and _Evocatio_\n\n\nWaltzing, on Roman trades, 233\n\nWestcott, Bishop, on Augustine, 458\n\nWestermarck, Dr., cited, 31, 44, 123, 179;\n  on magic, 47;\n  on religion of primitive man, 63, 394;\n  on Roman prayers, 185;\n  on religion and morality, 227\n\nWilliamowitz-Moellendorf, on Hercules, 243\n\nWine, used at sacrifices, 82, 180, 182-184;\n  as a substitute for blood, 196\n\nWinter, J. G., cited, 243\n\nWissowa, Georg, cited, 13, 14, 16-18, 33, 36, 112, 122, 146, 193, 199,\n  319, 440;\n  on _dies religiosi_, 38-40;\n  on the Argei, 54, 55, 65, 111, 321, 322;\n  on the ritual of the Salii, 97;\n  his list of _di indigetes_, 117, 139;\n  on Faunus, 118;\n  on Janus, 126, 141;\n  on Mars, 142;\n  on the Indigitamenta, 159, 161-163, 168;\n  on cult of Jupiter, 167;\n  on prayer, 198;\n  on Hercules, 243;\n  on Hebe, 332;\n  on _Carmen saeculare,_ 444, 450\n\nWolf's fat, used as a charm against evil spirits, 83, 90\n\nWomen, 264, 265;\n  taboo on, 29;\n  excluded from certain sacrificial rites, 29-30;\n  at the ceremony of the aquaelicium, 64;\n  rites to produce fertility, 54, 106, 143, 479;\n  oaths used by, 244;\n  excitement among, during Hannibalic war, 324;\n  rebellion against the _ius divinum,_ 344;\n  festivals, 143, 346, 443, 450;\n  deities, 135, 235, 272, 297, 318, 332, 479\n\nWordsworth, compared with Virgil, 407\n\n\nZeller, cited, 351, 356;\n  on human law and divine law, 371\n\nZeus, 367\n\nZosimus, cited, 309, 439, 449, 450\n\n\n\nTHE END\n\n_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.\n\nWORKS ON ROMAN HISTORY\n\nROMAN SOCIETY DURING THE LAST CENTURY\nOF THE EMPIRE OF THE WEST. By Sir\nSAMUEL DILL, M.A. New Edition, Revised. Extra Crown\n8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\nROMAN SOCIETY FROM NERO TO MARCUS\nAURELIUS. By Sir SAMUEL DILL, M.A. Second\nEdition. 8vo. 15s. net.\n\nLIFE IN THE ROMAN WORLD OF NERO AND\nST. PAUL. By Prof. T. G. TUCKER, Litt.D. Illustrated.\n8vo. 12s. 6d. net.\n\nTHE AMAZING EMPEROR HELIOGABALUS.\nBy J. STUART HAY, St. John's College, Oxford. With\nIntroduction by Prof. J. B. BURY, Litt.D. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n\nBy Prof. THEODOR MOMMSEN.\n\nTHE HISTORY OF ROME, FROM THE\nEARLIEST TIMES TO THE PERIOD OF ITS\nDECLINE. Translated by WILLIAM PURDIE DICKSON,\nD.D., LL.D. A Newer and Cheaper Edition, Revised,\nand embodying all the most recent alterations and additions\nmade by Dr. MOMMSEN. In Five vols. Crown 8vo.\n7s. 6d. each.\n\nABRIDGED EDITION OF THE ABOVE for the use of Schools\nand Colleges. By C. BRYANS and F. J. R. HENDY. One\nvol. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.\n\nTHE PROVINCES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE\nFROM CAESAR TO DIOCLETIAN. Translated by\nDr. W. P. DICKSON. Second Impression. Revised by\nProf. B. F. HAVERFIELD. Two vols. 8vo. 21s. net.\n\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON\n\nWORKS ON ROMAN HISTORY\n\n\nROMAN PUBLIC LIFE.\n\nBy A. H. J. GREENIDGE, M.A. Extra Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.\n\n\nTHE ROMAN ASSEMBLIES FROM\nTHEIR ORIGIN TO THE END OF THE\nREPUBLIC.\n\nBy GEORGE WILLIS BOTSFORD, Ph.D. 8vo. 17s. net.\n\n\nCIVIL WAR AND REBELLION IN THE\nROMAN EMPIRE, A.D. 69-70.\n\nBy BERNARD W. HENDERSON, M.A. With Maps and\nIllustrations. 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n\nRELIGION OF NUMA, AND OTHER\nESSAYS ON THE RELIGION OF ANCIENT\nROME.\n\nBy JESSE BENEDICT CARTER. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net.\n\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF WEALTH IN IMPERIAL\nROME.\n\nBy Professor W. S. Davis. Extra Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.\n\n\nTHE ROMANS ON THE RIVIERA AND\nTHE RHONE.\n\nBy W. H. Bullock Hall, F.R.G.S. Illustrated. 8vo. 6s.\n\n\nA HISTORY OF ROME TO THE BATTLE\nOF ACTIUM.\n\nBy E. S. Shuckburgh, M.A. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.\n\n\nBy W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A.\n\n8_vo._ 10_s. net._\n\n\nSOCIAL LIFE AT ROME\n\nIN THE AGE OF CICERO\n\n_TIMES._--\"In a series of interesting and not overcrowded chapters it\npresents this age in its form and habit, as it lived and moved, its\nsocial and intellectual atmosphere and the material conditions which\nsurrounded it.... There is not a dull page in the book.\"\n\n_OXFORD MAGAZINE._--\"A book which will be of the highest value to all\nwho wish to gain an insight into the reality of life and character in\nthe Rome of Cicero's day.\"\n\n_ATHENAEUM._--\"A very readable as well as learned monograph on an\nattractive subject.... We have found the book excellent reading.\"\n\n_DAILY NEWS._--\"A work of brilliant scholarship and an admirable piece\nof writing.\"\n\n_Extra Crown_ 8_vo._ 6_s._\n\n\nTHE ROMAN FESTIVALS\n\nOF THE PERIOD OF THE REPUBLIC\n\nAN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE\nRELIGION OF THE ROMANS\n\n_SPECTATOR._--\"This work is intended as an introduction to the study of\nthe religion of the Romans, and a very faithful and accurate piece of\nwork it is, as indeed might be expected by those who know Mr. Fowler's\nprevious studies of ancient life.\"\n\n_GUARDIAN._--\"A delightful volume which will attract and interest any\neducated and thoughtful reader.\"\n\n_ACADEMY._--\"A book with which every student of Roman religion will have\nto make his account.... Alike as a storehouse of critically-sifted facts\nand as a tentative essay towards the synthetic arrangement of these\nfacts, Mr. Fowler's book seems to us to mark a very distinct advance\nupon anything that has yet been done.\"\n\nBy W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A.\n\n_Crown_ 8_vo._ 5_s._\n\n\nTHE CITY-STATE\n\nOF THE\n\nGREEKS AND ROMANS\n\nA SURVEY INTRODUCTORY TO THE\nSTUDY OF ANCIENT HISTORY\n\n_TIMES._--\"The purpose is excellent, and Mr. Warde Fowler executes it in\na very skilful and scholarly fashion.\"\n\n_CLASSICAL REVIEW._--\"This little book is excellent both in design and\nin execution, and it supplies a want which has been much felt by those\nengaged in teaching ancient history.... A book which will have a most\nstimulating effect on the teaching of ancient history, and which ought\nto become familiar to every schoolboy and undergraduate.\"\n\n_WESTMINSTER GAZETTE._--\"It is impossible within any available limits to\ngive an adequate account of Mr. Fowler's treatment of his subject. We\ncan but commend his treatise to our readers; and this we can do without\nreserve.\"\n\n_OXFORD MAGAZINE._--\"One of those charming books which by their\nexcellence are able to commend themselves to entirely different\npersons.... The man beginning work for 'Greats' will always be told that\nhe must read this; and if he do so, will be rewarded by having the\nrelations of the different parts of his reading marked out with masterly\nclearness; and the student who has been over most of the ground himself\nin original authorities, will find with pleasure fresh light thrown on\nmany points by Mr. Fowler's grace of style and power of illustration....\nWe cordially recommend it as at once charmingly written, and accurate,\nuseful and stimulating.\"\n\nTALES OF THE BIRDS. Illustrated. Uniform Edition.\nCrown 8vo. 3s. 6d. Prize Editions. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.\nExtra gilt, gilt edges. 3s. 6d. School Edition. Globe 8vo. 1s. 6d.\n\nMORE TALES OF THE BIRDS. Illustrated. Crown\n8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nA YEAR WITH THE BIRDS. Illustrated. Crown\n8vo. 3s. 6d. Prize Editions. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.\nExtra gilt, gilt edges. 3s. 6d.\n\nSUMMER STUDIES OF BIRDS AND BOOKS\nCrown 8vo. 3s. 6d.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON.","title":"The Religious Experience of the Roman People: From the Earliest Times to the Age of Augustus","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":193189}