The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic An...

972. ‘Orceria·Numeri·nationu·cratia·Fortuna·Diovo·filei·primocenia·donom dedi’ (C. I. L. xiv. 2863). There are later inscriptions in which she appears as ‘Iovis (or Iovi) puero,’ in the sense of female child (C. I. L. xiv. 2862, 2868). The subject is discussed by Mommsen in Hermes for 1884, p. 455, and by Jordan op. cit. See also Lex. s. v. Fortuna, 1542 foll., and s. v. Iuppiter, 648.

973. Symbolae, i. p. 8, and cp. 12. For the apparent parallel in the myth of the birth of Mars see on March 1.

974. Hermes, 1884, p. 455 foll.

975. Gellius, N. A. 5. 12; Ovid, Fasti, 3. 429 foll.; and see above on May 21. For Hercules, Jordan l. c. and his note on Preller, ii. 298. For Caeculus, Wissowa, in Lex. s. v.

976. C. I. L. xiv. 2862 and 2868.

977. The tria signa of Liv. 23. 19, placed ‘in aede Fortunae’ by M. Anicius after his escape from Hannibal, with a dedication, may possibly have been those of Fortuna and the two babes (Preller, ii. 192. note 1): but this is very doubtful.

978. Jordan, Symbolae, 10; Lex. s. v. Fortunae, 1543; Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, 78.

979. Gerhard, Antike Bildwerke, Tab. iv. no. 1, gives an example: the children here, however, are not babes, and the mother has her arms round their necks. It seems more to resemble the types of Leto with Apollo and Artemis as infants (Lex. s. v. Leto, 1973), as Prof. Gardner suggests to me.

980. Ad Aen. 7. 799.

981. Lex. s. v. Iuppiter, 640.

982. See Fernique, Étude sur Préneste, pp. 79-81.

983. Fernique, op. cit. p. 79.

984. Fernique, 139 foll. Wissowa writes of Praeneste as ‘a special point of connexion between Latin and Etruscan culture’ (Lex. s. v. Mercurius, 2813).

985. Plutarch, Parallela, 41.

986. See at end of April, p. 95.

987. Liv. 1. 31. 3 ‘visi etiam audire vocem ingentem ex summi cacuminis luco, ut patrio ritu sacra Albani facerent.’

988. e. g. the vases of very primitive make (Henzen, Acta Fratr. Arv. 30).

989. Liv. 27. 11 (B.C. 209).

990. Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, ii. 37. Strong arguments are urged against this view by Aust, Lex. 696.

991. Paul. Diac. 87. The lucus is mentioned in the corrupt fragments of the Argean itinerary (see on May 15) in Varro, L. L. 5. 50 (see Jordan, Topogr. ii, 242): where I am inclined to think the real reading is ‘Esquiliis cis Iovis lucum fagutalem’; ‘Iuppiter Fagutalis’ in Plin. N. H. 16. 37; a ‘vicus Iovis Fagutalis,’ C. I. L. vi. 452 (110 A.D.).

992. For Iuppiter Viminius and his ara, Fest. 376.

993. Liv. 1. 10; Dionys. 2. 34; Propert. 5. (4.) 10.

994. For other examples of this practice see Bötticher, Baumkultus, pp. 73 and 134; Virgil, Aen. 10. 423, and Servius, ad loc.; Statius, Theb. 2. 707.

995. Corn. Nep. Atticus, 20; cf. Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, p. 53; Dion. Hal. 2. 34. 4. This is apparently what Livy alludes to in 1. 10, attributing it, after Roman fashion, to Romulus: ‘Templum his regionibus, quas modo animo metatus sum, dedico sedem opimis spoliis.’ For a discussion of the shape of this temple see Aust, in Lex. s. v. Iuppiter, 673. He is inclined to attribute it (679) to the A. Cornelius Cossus who dedicated the second spolia opima in B.C. 428 (Liv. 4. 20).

996. The meaning of the cult-title is obscure; Lex. s. v. Iuppiter, 673.

997. Paul. Diac. 92; Serv. Aen. 12. 206.

998. Aust, in Lex. 676. The idea is that of Helbig in his Italiker in der Poebene, 91 foll. Cp. Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. i. 681, and Preller, i. 248 foll. H. Nettleship, Essays in Latin Literature, p. 35, and Strachan-Davidson (Polybius, Prolegomena, viii) discuss the oath per Iovem lapidem usefully. Nettleship saw that the passage of Servius is the only one which ‘gives any real support’ to the notion that the god was represented by a stone; and Strachan-Davidson notes the aetiological method of Servius.

999. Cp. his note on the ‘sceptrum’ (Aen. 12. 206), which he explains as being the substitute for a ‘simulacrum’ of Jupiter. Was this ‘simulacrum’ a stone? If so he would have said so. Obviously he knew little or nothing about these cult-objects.

1000. de Civ. Dei 2. 29. S. Augustine couples it with the focus Vestae, as something well known: and this could not be said at that time of any object in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. The epithet Capitolinus would suit the stone of Terminus far better; and this is, in fact, made almost certain by Servius’ language when speaking of Virgil’s ‘Capitoli immobile saxum’ (Aen. 9. 448), which he identifies with the ‘lapidem ipsum Termini.’ Doubtless if we could be sure that such a stone existed, we might guess that it was an aerolite (Strachan-Davidson, p. 76, who quotes examples).

1001. So Nettleship, l. c.: and Strachan-Davidson, l. c.

1002. He quotes Plin. N. H. 37. 135 ‘cerauniae nigrae rubentesque et similes securibus.’

1003. Communicated to Mr. Strachan-Davidson, and mentioned by him in a note (op. cit. p. 77). An instance in Retzel, History of Mankind, vol. i. p. 175. The other suggestion, that it was a meteoric stone, is also quite possible: for Greek examples, see Schömann, Griech. Alterthümer, ii. 171 foll.

1004. Liv. 30. 43.

1005. We may compare the ‘orbita’ of the cult of Jupiter Sancius at Iguvium: Bücheler, Umbrica, 141. See above, p. 139.

1006. It may be as well to say, before leaving the subject, that I certainly agree with Mr. Strachan-Davidson that the ordinary oath, ‘per Iovem lapidem,’ where the swearer throws the stone away from him (described by Polybius, 3. 25), has nothing to do with the ritual of the Fetials.

1007. Festus, p. 2. Cp. 128, where this stone is distinguished from the other, which was the ‘ostium Orci.’ Serv. Aen. 3. 175.

1008. Serv. l. c. Marquardt, and Aust following him, add the matrons with bare feet and the magistrates without their praetexta: but this rests on the authority of Petronius (Sat. 44), who surely is not writing of Rome, where the ceremony was only a tradition, to judge by Fest. p. 2.

1009. Varro, L. L. 6. 94.

1010. O. Gilbert, ii. 154: adopted by Aust, 658, who adds some slight additional evidence: e. g. the ‘Iovem aquam exorabant’ of the passage from Petronius.

1011. Tylor, Prim. Cult. ii. 235-7: for the Greek Zeus, Farnell, Cults, i. 44 foll.