Chapter XIII: Part 13

All we know of the cult of the _montani_ on this day is as follows: (1) There was a sacrifice on the Palatium (which seems to have been the first in dignity of the _montes_) by the Flamen Palatualis[1166]; but we do not know to what deity, and can only guess that it was Pales, or Palatua[1167]. (2) On this day no carts or other vehicles drawn by beasts of burden were allowed in the city, as we learn from Plutarch, who asks the reason of this, and gives some quaint answers[1168]. But the explanations are useless to us, and we cannot even guess whence Plutarch drew his knowledge of the fact, unless it was from personal observation. Let us remember, however, that this was a feast of _montani_: is it not likely that this was a survival from a time when the farm-waggons of the _pagani_ really never ascended to the ‘hills’?

PRID. ID. DEC. (DEC. 12). EN.

CONSO IN AVENTIN[O]. (AMIT.)

XVIII (ANTE CAES. XVI[1169]) KAL. IAN. (DEC. 15). NP.

CONS[UALIA]. (MAFF. PRAEN. AMIT. ANT.) FERIAE CONSO

(PRAEN. AMIT.)

For these see on Aug. 21. If the conclusions there arrived at are sound we might guess that these winter rites of Consus arose from the habit of inspecting the condition of the corn-stores in mid-winter[1170]. It is this day that has the note attached to it in the Fasti Praenestini, ‘Equi et [muli floribus coronantur] quod in eius tu[tela] ... itaque rex equo [vectus?],’ which was commented on under Aug. 21. See also under Aug. 25 (Opeconsivia); Wissowa, s. v. Consus, in _Lex. Myth._; and _de Feriis_, vi foll.

XVI (ANTE CAES. XIV[1171]) KAL. IAN. (DEC. 17). NP.

SATURNALIA. (MAFF. AMIT. GUID. RUST. PHILOC.)

FERIAE SATURNO. (MAFF. AMIT.)

SATURN[O] AD FO[RUM]. (AMIT.)

FERIAE SERVORUM. (SILV.)

This was the original day of the Saturnalia[1172], and, in a strictly religious sense, it was the only day. The festival, in the sense of a popular holiday, was extended by common usage to as much as seven days[1173]: Augustus limited it to three in respect of legal business, and the three were later increased to five[1174].

Probably no Roman festival is so well known to the general reader as this, which has left its traces and found its parallels in great numbers of mediaeval and modern customs[1175], occurring about the time of the winter solstice. Unfortunately, it is here once more a matter of difficulty to determine what features in the festival were really of old Latin origin, in spite of information as to detail, which is unusually full; for both Saturnus himself and his cult came to be very heavily overlaid with Greek ideas and practice.

That Saturnus was an old agricultural god admits, however, of no doubt; the old form of the word was probably Săĕturnus, which is found on an inscription on an ancient vase[1176], and this leads us to connect him with _serere_ and _satio_; and popular tradition attributed to him the discovery of agricultural processes[1177]. But the Roman of the historical age knew very little about him, and cared only for his Graecized festival; like Faunus, he is the object of no votive inscriptions in Rome and its neighbourhood[1178]; and this conclusively proves that he was never what may be called popular as a deity. As the first king of Latium there were plenty of legends about him, or as the first civilizer of his people, the representative of a Golden Age[1179]; but no one has as yet thoroughly investigated these[1180], with a view to distinguish any Italian precipitate in the mixture of elements of which they certainly consist. We are still without the invaluable aid of the contributors to Roscher’s _Lexicon_.

More promising at first sight is the tradition which connects him in Rome itself with the Capitoline hill. Varro tells us positively that this hill was originally called Mons Saturnius; and that there was once an _oppidum_ there called Saturnia, of which certain vestiges survived to his own time, including a ‘fanum Saturni in faucibus,’ i. e. apparently the ara Saturni of which Dionysius records that it was at the ‘root of the hill,’ by the road leading to the summit[1181], in fact on the same spot where stood later the temple of which eight columns are still standing. Close to this, it may be noted, was a sacellum of Dis Pater[1182], the Latinized form of Plutus; in the temple was the aerarium of later Rome[1183], and built into the rock behind, the chambers of records (tabularia). But it would be idle to found upon these facts or traditions any serious hypothesis as to the original nature of the Roman cult of Saturn; all attempts must fail in the bewildering fog of ancient fancy and ancient learning. Saturnus belongs, like Janus, with whom he was closely connected in legend[1184], to an age into whose religious ideas we cannot penetrate, and survived into Roman worship only through Greek resuscitation[1185], and in the feast of the Saturnalia. All we seem to see is that he is somehow connected with things that are put in the earth[1186]—seed, treasure, perhaps stores of produce; to which may just be added that the one spot in Rome at all times associated with him is close to the _market_, and that market-days (nundinae) were said to be sacred to him[1187]. The temple of Janus is also close by, and it is not impossible that both these ancient gods had some closer relation to the Forum and the business done there than we can at present understand with our limited knowledge. Neither of them, it may be noted, had a flamen attached to his cult; from which we may infer that they did not descend from the primitive household or the earliest form of community, but rather represented some place or process common to several communities, such as a forum and the business transacted there[1188]. It is precisely such gods who figure in tradition as kings, not of a single city, but of Latium.

But to turn to the festival; if the god was obscure and uninteresting, this was not the case with his feast. It seems steadily to have gained in popularity down to the time of the empire, and still maintained it when Macrobius wrote the dialogue supposed to have taken place on the three days of the Saturnalia, and called by that name. Seneca tells us that in his day all Rome seemed to go mad on this holiday[1189]. Probably its vogue was largely due merely to the accident of fashion, partly perhaps to misty ideas about the Golden Age and the reign of Saturn[1190]; but it seems to be almost a general human instinct to rest and enjoy oneself about the time of the winter solstice, and to show one’s good-will towards all one’s neighbours[1191]. In Latium, as elsewhere, this was the time when the autumn sowing had come to an end, and when all farm-labourers could enjoy a rest[1192]. Macrobius alludes also to the completion of all in-gathering by this date: ‘Itaque omni iam fetu agrorum coacto ab hominibus hos deos (Saturnus and Ops) coli quasi vitae cultioris auctores[1193].’ The close concurrence of Consualia, Opalia, and Saturnalia at this time seems to show that some final inspection of the harvest work of the autumn may in reality have been coincident with, or have immediately preceded, the rejoicings of the winter solstice.

There are several well-attested features of the Saturnalia as it was in historical times[1194]. On Dec. 17 there was a public sacrifice at the temple (formerly the _ara_) of Saturn by the Forum[1195], followed by a public feast, in breaking up from which the feasters shouted ‘Io Saturnalia’[1196]. During the sacrifice Senators and Equites wore the toga, but laid it aside for the convivium, which reminds us of the ritual of the Fratres Arvales, except that the toga was in the latter case the praetexta[1197]. These proceedings of the first and original day of the festival might seem pretty clearly to descend from the religion of the farm, yet the convivium is said by Livy to have been introduced as late as 217 B.C.[1198].

On the 18th and 19th, which were general holidays, the day began with an early bath[1199]; then followed the family sacrifice of a sucking pig, to which Horace alludes in familiar lines:

Cras genium mero
Curabis et porco bimenstri
Cum famulis operum solutis[1200].

Then came calls on friends, congratulations, games, and the presentation of gifts[1201]. All manner of presents were made, as they are still at Christmas: among them the wax candles (_cerei_) deserve notice, as they are thought to have some reference, like the yule log, to the returning power of the sun’s light after the solstice. They descended from the Saturnalia into the Christmas ritual of the Latin Church[1202]. The sigillaria, or little paste or earthenware images which were sold all over Rome in the days before the festival[1203], and used as presents, also survived into Christian times; thus, in the ancient Romish Calendar, we find that all kinds of little images were on sale at the confectioners’ shops, and even in England the bakers made little images of paste at this season[1204]. What was the original meaning of the custom we do not know; but it reminds us of the oscilla of the Latin festival and the Compitalia[1205].

But the best known feature of the Saturnalia is the part played in it by the slaves, who, as we all know, were waited on by their masters, and treated as being in a position of entire equality. The earliest reference to this is in a fragment of Accius, quoted by Macrobius[1206]:

Iamque diem celebrant, per agros urbesque fere omnes
Exercent epulas laeti, famulosque procurant
Quisque suos: nostrique itidem, et mos traditus illine
Iste, ut cum dominis famuli epulentur ibidem.

But even this custom, as Marquardt points out, may not have been of genuine Latin origin: ‘Though the Romans looked on it as a reminiscence of the Golden Age when all men were equal, it may have begun with the lectisternium of 217 B.C., for such entertainments were a characteristic of lectisternia.’ When we turn, however, to the same author’s account[1207] of the Greek forms of religion introduced through the Sibylline oracles, of which the lectisternium was one, we do not find slaves included in the ritual of any of them. There was no general exclusion of outsiders or women, but nothing is said of slaves. And on the whole we may still perhaps consider the other explanation possible, that the slaves here represent the farm-servants of olden time, whatever social position they may have held, who at the end of their year’s work were allowed to enjoy themselves ‘exaequato omnium iure.’

XIV (ANTE CAES. XII) KAL. DEC. (DEC. 19). NP.

OPAL[IA]. (MAFF. AMIT.)

FERIAE OPI: OPI AD FORUM. (AMIT.)

For Ops see on Aug. 25, when the sacrifice was in the Regia, the significance of which I endeavoured to explain. Here it is ‘ad forum,’ which has lately aroused a little unfruitful dispute. Is the temple of Saturn meant, which was also described as ‘ad forum’ in the same calendar? This is still the view of Mommsen[1208], who seems to hold the old opinion that there was a sacellum Opis attached to the aedes Saturni, or that this aedes was dedicated to both deities[1209]. H. Jordan made up his mind that ‘ad forum’ meant the Regia[1210]; but this is not supported by any similar entry in the _Fasti_. Aust and Wissowa believe that Ops had a separate temple ‘ad forum,’ of which all traces are lost, as has happened with many others[1211]; and the latter, as we have already seen, disbelieves in any connexion between Saturnus and Ops, attributing it entirely to Greek influence.

However this may be, the one interesting fact about the temple—or whatever it was—is that it was ‘ad forum.’ The conjunction of Saturnus and Ops at this place and time must surely indicate some connexion of function between the two. But what it was is not discoverable; under Saturnalia I have merely suggested the direction in which we may look for it.

XII (ANTE CAES. X). KAL. IAN. (DEC. 21). NP.

DIVA[LIA]. (MAFF. PRAEN.)

Praen. adds a terribly mutilated note, which Mommsen thus fills up from stray hints in Varro, Pliny (following Verrius), and Macrobius[1212]:

FERIAE DIVA[E ANGERONAE, QUAE AB ANGINAE MORBO] APPELL[ATUR, QUOD REMEDIA EIUS QUONDAM] PRAE[CEPIT. STATUERUNT EAM ORE OBLIGATO] IN AR[A VOLUPIAE, UT QUI NO]SSET N[OMEN] OCCUL[TUM URBIS, TACERET. S]UNT TAMEN, [QUI FIERI ID SACRU]M AIUNT OB AN[NUM NOVUM; MANI]FESTUM ESSE [ENIM PRINCIPIU]M [A]NNI NOV[I].

The date given by Pliny and Macrobius proves that Angerona was the deity of the Divalia; but the etymology of the latter is useless, and the statement of Pliny as to the statue with the mouth gagged and sealed fails to give us any clue to the nature or function of the goddess[1213]. Angerona is, in fact, the North Pole of our exploration: no one has ever reached her, and probably no one ever will. The mention of Volupia by Macrobius gives no help; she is only elsewhere mentioned as one of the numina of the Indigitamenta by Augustine[1214]. The only possible clue is that of which Mommsen has taken advantage in the very clever completion of Verrius’ last words, viz. the fact that this day (21st) is the centre one of the winter solstice. He here even allows himself an etymology, and derives Angeronalia ‘ab angerendo, id est ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀναφέρεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον’: quoting Plutarch (_de Iside_, ch. 52) for similar Egyptian ideas of the sun’s birth at this time. Though the etymology may be doubtful, the inference from the date of the festival is certainly acceptable, in the absence of anything more definite: and the ‘Praenestine fragments’ clearly suggest the word ‘annus.’

X (ANTE CAES. VIII) KAL. IAN. (DEC. 23). NP.

LAR[ENTALIA]. (MAFF. PRAEN.)

Here again Praen. has a valuable note, which, in this case, is fairly well preserved: FERIAE IOVI. ACCAE LARENTIAE. ... HANC ALII REMI ET ROM[ULI NUTRICEM ALII] MERETRICEM, HERCULIS SCORTUM [FUISSE DIC]UNT: PARENTARI EI PUBLICE, QUOD P[OPULUM] R[OMANUM] HE[REDEM FECE]RIT MAGNAE PECUNIAE, QUAM ACCEPE[RAT TESTAME]NTO TARUTILI AMATORIS SUI[1215].

As regards the feriae Iovi we are utterly in the dark. Macrobius explains it thus: ‘Iovique feriae consecratae, quod aestimaverunt antiqui animas a Iove dari et rursus post mortem eidem reddi,’ which is obviously a late invention. I can see no possible connexion of Jupiter with the Larentalia, and believe the conjunction to be accidental.

Mommsen writes: ‘De origine Larentalium ipsiusque Larentinae indole ac natura parum constat.’ He himself has investigated the myth of Acca Larentia in a memorable essay[1216], and we may take his opinion on the Larentalia as at present conclusive. It is to be noted, however, that the view he formerly held as to the impossibility of connecting Lārentia and Lāres[1217] is not re-asserted in the new edition of the _Corpus_ (vol i); the connexion, he says, may be right, but does not help us to explain the ‘feriae Iovi’ or the parentatio (performance of funeral rites) at the grave of Larentina (or Larentia).

This parentatio seems to me the one thing known to us about the Larentalia which can possibly aid us. We are told by Varro that it took place in the Velabrum, ‘qua in Novam viam exitur, ut aiunt quidam, ad sepulcrum Accae[1218].’ The Flamen Quirinalis took part in it, and the Pontifices[1219]. Now the Parentalia took place in February. Is it possible that this is a survival from a time when it was in December—a survival, because it was at the tomb of a semi-deity, and was a public function[1220]? It is very curious that we have a record of a private parentatio wilfully transferred from February to December, and probably to this day. Cicero, in a mutilated passage from which Plutarch has apparently drawn one of his ‘Roman Questions,’ seems to have stated that Dec. Brutus (consul 138 B.C.) used to do his parentatio in December[1221]. Whether Cicero was here alluding to the Larentalia we do not know; but Plutarch notes the fact of the parentatio of Larentia in December, and is led thereby to write the quaestio next in order on the story of Larentia[1222]. Was the learned Brutus simply a pedant, changing his parentatio to a date which he believed to be the real original one, or had he some special reason for connecting his family with December and Larentia?

However we may answer this question, there is, perhaps, a bare possibility that the Larentalia was originally a feast of the dead of the old Rome on the Palatine, preserved in the calendar of the completed city only through the reputed survival of the tomb of Larentia in the Velabrum at the foot of the rock.

Footnote 1110:

_R. R._ 1. 35. 2; Colum. 2. 8. 2.

Footnote 1111:

xi. 2.

Footnote 1112:

Cp. Hor. _Od._ 3. 18, 9-12. Ovid (_Fasti_, 3. 57) says of
December—Vester (i. e. Faustuli et Larentiae) honos veniet, cum
Larentalia dicam; _Acceptus Geniis_ illa December habet.

Is this only an allusion to Larentia and Faustulus, or also to the
general character of the month and its festivals?

Footnote 1113:

Plut. _Cic._ 19; Dio Cass. 37. 35.

Footnote 1114:

Cic. _ad Att._ 1. 12, and 15. 25.

Footnote 1115:

Cic. _de Harusp. resp._ 17. 37 ‘fit per Virgines Vestales, fit pro
populo Romano, fit in ea domo quae est in imperio.’ In 62 B.C. it was
in Caesar’s house, and apparently in the Regia, if as pontifix maximus
he resided there. See Marq. 346, note 1; 250, note 2.

Footnote 1116:

Fest. 245 _publica sacra_ are ‘quae _publico sumptu_ pro populo
fiunt.’ See my article ‘Sacra’ in _Dict. of Antiquities_.

Footnote 1117:

Juvenal, 2. 86.

Footnote 1118:

2. 83 foll.; 6. 314 foll.

Footnote 1119:

Probus on Virg. _Georg._ 1. 10 ‘In Italia quidam annuum sacrum, quidam
menstruum celebrant.’

Footnote 1120:

The word is ‘odore,’ i.e. sweet herbs of the garden (Marq. 169 and
note).

Footnote 1121:

See on Lupercalia, p. 312.

Footnote 1122:

Lev. 33. 42.

Footnote 1123:

The earliest hint of the connexion of Faunus with Evander and the
Palatine legend is found in a fragment of Cincius Alimentus, who wrote
at this time (H. Peter, _Fragm. Hist. Lat._ 41, from Servius, _Georg._
1. 10).

Footnote 1124:

Dion. Hal. 1. 31; Suet. _Vitell._ 1. Cp. for a more truly Italian
view, Virgil, _Aen._ 8. 314 foll.

Footnote 1125:

_Aen._ 7. 45 foll. The order was Saturnus, Picus, Faunus, Latinus.

Footnote 1126:

Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Faunus, 1458: who, however, does not
sufficiently explain the contrast. Silvanus became _tutor finium_, and
_cusios hortuli_ (cp. _Gromatici Veteres._ p. 302). It was probably
this turn given to his cult which saved him from the fate of Faunus.
He takes over definite duties to the cultivator, while Faunus is still
roaming the country in a wild state.

Footnote 1127:

Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. de la Divination_, iv. 122.

Footnote 1128:

Ad _Georg._ 1. 10.

Footnote 1129:

Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 351.

Footnote 1130:

Varro, _L. L._ 7. 36 ‘Faunos in silvestribus locis traditum est
solitos fari futura.’ Servius identifies Faunus and Fatuus; ad _Aen._
6. 775.

Footnote 1131:

‘Versibus quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant.’ Ennius in Varro, _L. L._
7. 36. See Nettleship, _Essays in Latin Literature_, p. 50 foll.

Footnote 1132:

Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 113 foll.

Footnote 1133:

_L. L._ 7. 36.

Footnote 1134:

_Georg._ 1. 10. The introduction of the Greek Dryads may be thought to
throw suspicion upon the Latinity of these Fauni of Virgil. But in
_Aen._ 8. 314, the similar conjunction of Fauni and Nymphae is
followed by words which seem to mark a true Italian conception.

Footnote 1135:

_Lex._ s. v. Faunus, 1454.

Footnote 1136:

_Aen._ 8. 314.

Footnote 1137:

Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 315 ‘Di sumus agrestes et qui dominemur in altis
Montibus,’ &c. Cp. Preller, i. 386.

Footnote 1138:

_Monumenti Antichi_, vol. v. (Barnabei). Von Duhn, translated in
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1896, p. 120 foll.

Footnote 1139:

_Röm. Myth._ i. 104 foll.

Footnote 1140:

Virg. _Aen._ 8. 601, and Serv.’s note: ‘Prudentiores dicunt eum esse
ὑλικὸν θέον, hoc est deum ὕλης.’ Silvanus may have been a true
tree-spirit; Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 118 foll.; Preller, i. 392.

Footnote 1141:

Vol. i. 335, ed. Hauthal.

Footnote 1142:

See above, p. 126. It may be noticed that the Bona Dea, whose solemn
rite occurs also at the beginning of this month, was identified with
Fauna, the female form of Faunus (R. Peter, in _Lex._ s. v. Fauna); i.
e. their powers for good and evil were thought to be much alike.

Footnote 1143:

Preller, i. 381 and reff.

Footnote 1144:

See under Lupercalia, p. 320.

Footnote 1145:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 291 foll. I am glad to see that Wissowa accepts this
story as genuine Italian (_Lex._ s. v. 1456).

Footnote 1146:

Cic. _de Div._ 1. 101; Livy, 2. 7 (Silvanus), and Dion. Hal. 5. 16
(Faunus) of the battle by the wood of Arsia.

Footnote 1147:

_Fasti_, 4. 649 foll.

Footnote 1148:

_Aen._ 7. 81 foll.

Footnote 1149:

Calpurnius, _Ecl._ 1. 8 foll.

Footnote 1150:

Cp. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i. 341 foll.; Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic
Studies_, ch. 2.

Footnote 1151:

_Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, p. 152.

Footnote 1152:

See the cuts of two bronze statuettes which Wissowa, following
Reifferscheid, believed to represent the un-Graecized Italian Faunus,
at the end of the article ‘Faunus’ in _Lex._ 1460. But it is at least
very doubtful whether Reifferscheid was right in his opinion.

Footnote 1153:

By an error Silvius has entered it on the 12th.

Footnote 1154:

For Inuus see on Lupercalia, and Livy, i. 5.

Footnote 1155:

_de Feriis_, xii. His other argument, that Inuus is not a nomen, but a
cognomen, is less satisfactory. Can we always be sure which is which?
(e. g. Saturnus, Janus).

Footnote 1156:

Festus, p. 340.

Footnote 1157:

_de Mensibus_, p. 118, ed. Bekk.; quoted by Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i 2,.
336.

Footnote 1158:

_L. L._ v. 41.

Footnote 1159:

Ibid. vi. 24.

Footnote 1160:

Antistius Labeo, ap. Festum, 348: ‘Septimontio, ut ait Antistius
Labeo, hisce montibus feriae. Palatio, cui sacrificium quod fit
Palatuar dicitur. Veliae, cui item sacrificium, Fagutali, Suburae,
Cermalo, Oppio, Cispio monti.’ Before ‘Cispio’ the MS. has ‘Caelio
monti,’ which must be a copyist’s blunder. The Subura is by courtesy a
_mons_; also a _pagus_ (Festus, 309), a _regio_ (ib.), and a _tribus_
(ib.).

Footnote 1161:

_Staatsrecht_, iii. 112. O. Gilbert has made a great to-do about the
development of these communities; _Gesch. u. Topogr._ i. 39 foll. But
where else will he find three distinct settlements in a space as small
as that of the Palatine? The discoveries at Falerii and Narce would
have saved him the labour of much web-spinning. Plutarch, _Q. R._ 69,
has (accidentally perhaps) expressed the matter rightly.

Footnote 1162:

_Monumenti Antichi_, vol. v. p. 15 foll.

Footnote 1163:

_Mon. Ant._ p. 110 foll. (Barnabei).

Footnote 1164:

Cic. _de Domo_, 28. 74.

Footnote 1165:

At Ariminum, and Antioch in Pisidia (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 113,
note).

Footnote 1166:

Festus, 348, cp. 245.

Footnote 1167:

Preller, i. 414.

Footnote 1168:

_Q. R._ 69. Plutarch does not say in what parts of the city the
vehicles were forbidden. The feast existed in his day, and indeed long
afterwards (Tertull. _Idololatr._ 10). It seems to have become a
general feast of the whole people.

Footnote 1169:

Macrob. i. 10. 2.

Footnote 1170:

See below on Saturnalia, p. 271.

Footnote 1171:

Macrob. 1. 10. 2. Macr. tells us that after the change some people in
error held the festival on the 19th, i. e. on the day which was now
xiv K. Ian.

Footnote 1172:

Hartmann, _Der Röm. Kalender_, p. 203 foll., thinks it was originally
one of the _feriae conceptivae_, like the Compitalia, Paganalia, &c.,
and only became fixed (_stativae_) when it was reorganized in 217 B.C.
But if so, why is it marked in the calendars in large letters? And
Hartmann himself points out (p. 208) that Dec. 17 is the first day of
Capricornus, i. e. the coldest season, which in the oldest natural
reckoning would be likely to fix the day (Colum. 11. 2. 94).

Footnote 1173:

Macr. l. c.; Cic. _Att._ 13. 52.

Footnote 1174:

Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i. 337.

Footnote 1175:

Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 172; Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, ch. 13;
Usener, _Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen_, 1. 214 foll. See for
Italy, _Academy_, Jan. 20, 1888.

Footnote 1176:

_C. I. L._ i. 48. But Prof. Gardner tells me that the reading Saet. is
not certain.

Footnote 1177:

Macrob. 1. 10. 19 foll.; 1. 7. 24 and 25; Marq. p. 11 note 3. The
conjunction of Ops with him in this function is rejected (rightly, I
think) by Wissowa, _de Feriis_, iv. But see below on Opalia.

Footnote 1178:

Jordan’s note on Preller, ii. 10.

Footnote 1179:

e. g. Virg. _Aen._ 8. 321.

Footnote 1180:

See, however, Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 223 foll.

Footnote 1181:

Varro, _L. L._ 5. 42; Dion. Hal. i. 34 (cp. 6. 1); Fest. 322; Solinus,
1. 13; Servius, _Aen._ 2. 115; Middleton, _Rome in 1885_, p. 166.

Footnote 1182:

R. Peter, s. v. Dis in _Lex._ 1181; Macr. 1. 11. 48.

Footnote 1183:

Lucan, 3. 153; Middleton, op. cit. 167.

Footnote 1184:

Preller, ii. 13; i. 182.

Footnote 1185:

The temple was traditionally dated B.C. 497 (Livy, 2. 21); cp. Aust,
_de Aedibus sacris_, p. 4: so too the festival, though both had an
older origin (Ambrosch. _Stud._ 149). The latter was reorganized in
Greek fashion in obedience to a Sibylline oracle in B.C. 217 (Livy,
22. 1).

Footnote 1186:

Plut. _Q. R._ 34 notes the cult of such gods when all fruits have been
gathered.

Footnote 1187:

Macr. 1. 8. 3 and 1. 16. 30 (also, but probably in error, attributed
to Jupiter). Plut. _Q. R._ 42, and _Poplic._ 12, states it distinctly;
but there is no indication of the source from which he drew.

Footnote 1188:

Cp. the legendary connexion of both with ship-building and the coining
of money; though it is of course possible that this was simply
suggested by the Janus-head and the ship of early Roman coins.

Footnote 1189:

Seneca, _Ep._ 18. 1. Martial is full of Saturnalian allusions; e. g.
12. 62.

Footnote 1190:

Popularized, of course, by the poets: Virg. _Georg._ ii. 538; Tibull.
i. 3. 35; &c.

Footnote 1191:

Was this one of the reasons why Christmas was fixed at the winter
solstice? Cp. John Chrysostom, tom. iii. 497e: quoted by Usener, op.
cit. p. 217.

Footnote 1192:

Varro, _R. R._ 1. 35. 2 ‘Dum in xv diebus ante et post brumam ut
pleraque ne facias.’ Columella, 2. 8. 2, seems to follow Varro. Virg.
_Georg._ 1. 211 extends the time ‘usque sub extremum brumae
intractabilis imbrem’ (cp. Serv. ad loc.).

Footnote 1193:

_Sat._ i. 10. 19 and 22, and Dion. Hal. 3. 32; Plut. _Q. R._ 34.

Footnote 1194:

See Marquardt’s excellent summary in _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 357, and
Preller, ii. 15 foll.

Footnote 1195:

Dion. Hal. 6. 1. Fasti Amit. Dec. 17. We do not know who was the
sacrificing priest; perhaps the Rex Sacrorum, or a magistrate.

Footnote 1196:

Macrob. 1. 10. 18.

Footnote 1197:

Martial, 14. 1; at least this seems to be the inference from
‘Synthesibus dum gaudet eques dominusque senator.’ Cp 6. 24.

Footnote 1198:

Livy, 22. 1. 19 ‘lectisternium imperatum et convivium publicum.’

Footnote 1199:

Tertull. _Apol._ 42.

Footnote 1200:

_Odes_, 3. 17. Cp. Martial, 14. 70. The pig-offering indicates an
earth-deity: Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 22; Marq. 173.

Footnote 1201:

Martial, bk. 14, is the _locus classicus_ for all this.

Footnote 1202:

Brand, _Pop. Ant._ 183.

Footnote 1203:

Macr. i. 10. 24; 11. 49. In the latter passage he says ‘quae homines
pro se atque suis piaculum pro Dite Saturno facerent.’

Footnote 1204:

Brand, 180.

Footnote 1205:

Marq. 192, and the passages there quoted.

Footnote 1206:

_Sat._ 1. 7. 37. For later evidence see Marq. 588.

Footnote 1207:

p. 50, and note 13.

Footnote 1208:

_C. I. L._ i 2. 337.

Footnote 1209:

O. Gilbert (1. 247 note) holds this latter view.

Footnote 1210:

_Ephem. Epigr._ 1. 37. Wissowa (_de Feriis_, v) points out that all
such entries, in which the god’s name in the dative is followed by the
place of sacrifice, apply to consecrated temples only—and the Regia
was not one.

Footnote 1211:

Aust, _de Aedibus sacris Populi Romani_, p. 40. Wissowa, l. c., who
should not, I think, write of an aedes _in foro_.

Footnote 1212:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 23 ‘Angeronalia ab Angerona, cui sacrificium fit in
curia Acculeia et cuius feriae publicae is dies.’ Pliny, _N. H._ 3. 5.
65 ‘Nomen alterum dicere [nisi] arcanis caerimoniarum nefas habetur;
... non alienum videtur hoc loco exemplum religionis antiquae ob hoc
maxime silentium institutae; namque diva Angerona, cui sacrificatur
a.d. xii Kal. Ian., ore obligato obsignatoque simulacrum habet.’ Macr.
_Sat._ i. 10 ‘xii (Kal. Ian.) feriae sunt divae Angeroniae, cui
pontifices in sacello Volupiae sacrum faciunt; quam Verrius Flaccus
Angeroniam dici ait, quod angores ac sollicitudines animorum
propitiata depellat.’

Footnote 1213:

See Wissowa, s. v. Angerona, _Lex._ 350.

Footnote 1214:

_Civ. Dei_, 4. 8.

Footnote 1215:

Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 10. 11; Fest. 119; and Lact. _Inst._ 1. 20. 4
mention the Larentalia.

Footnote 1216:

_Röm. Forschungen_, vol. ii. p. 1 foll. See also Roscher, s. v. in
_Lex._ 5.

Footnote 1217:

Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 55.

Footnote 1218:

_L. L._ 6. 23. The passage is in part hopelessly corrupt.

Footnote 1219:

Gellius, _N. A._ 7. 7; for the Flamen Quir. cf. Gilbert, 1. 88. Cic.
_Ep. ad Brut._ 1. 15. 8. Varro, l. c. says vaguely ‘sacerdotes
nostri.’ Plut. _Romulus_, 4, gives ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεος ἱερεύς, wrongly.

Footnote 1220:

‘Sacerdotes nostri publice parentant’ (Varro, l. c.).

Footnote 1221:

Cic. _de Legibus_, 2. 21. 54; Plut. _Q. R._ 34.

Footnote 1222:

Plutarch is often led on in this work from one question to another by
something he finds in the book he is consulting for the first.

MENSIS IANUARIUS.

The period of winter leisure which began for the agriculturist in December continued into January. From the solstice to Favonius (i. e. Feb. 7) is Varro’s eighth and last division of the agricultural year, in which there is no hard work to be done out of doors (_R. R._ i. 36: cf. Virg. _Georg._ 1. 312; Colum. xi. 2). So too the rustic calendars; ‘palus aquitur, salix harundo caedetur.’ Columella tells us, however, that if the weather be favourable, it may be possible from the Ides of January ‘auspicari culturarum officia.’ We have seen that in December this easy time was occupied with a series of religious rites of such extreme antiquity that their meaning was almost entirely lost for the Roman of later ages. After the solstice this series cannot be said to continue: the calendars have only three festivals in January marked with large letters, the Agonia on the 9th, and the two Carmentalia on the 11th and 15th. On the other hand, there were two _feriae conceptivae_ in this month which do not appear in the calendars; the Compitalia (which might, however, fall before the beginning of the month), and the Paganalia towards the end of it. Both these were originally festive meetings in which rural folk took part together, and seem to indicate that agricultural labours had not yet really begun.

KAL. IAN. (JAN. 1). F.

[AESCU]LAPIO, VEDIOVI IN INSULA. (PRAEN.)

This temple of Vediovis was vowed by the praetor L. Furius Purpureo in 200 B.C., and dedicated six years later[1223]. For this obscure deity see on May 21. The connexion between him and Aesculapius (if there were any) is unexplained. The latter was a much older inhabitant of the Tiber island (291 B.C.), and became in time the special deity of that spot[1224], which is called by Dionys. (5. 13) νῆσος εὐμεγέθης Ἀσκληπιοῦ ἱερά. Is it possible that an identification of Vediovis with Apollo[1225]—so often a god of pestilence—brought the former to the island seat of the healing deity? The connexion between Apollo and Aesculapius is well known.

Another invasion of the island took place almost at the same time. In 194 B.C. a temple of Faunus was dedicated there which had been vowed two years earlier[1226]; and it may be worth noting that Faunus also had power to avert pestilence and unfruitfulness, as is seen in the story of Numa and the Faunus-oracle. (Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 641 foll.)

On Jan. 1, under the later Republic, i. e. after the year 153 B.C., in and after which the consuls began their year of office on this day, it was the custom to give New Year presents by way of good omen, called _strenae_[1227]; a word which survives in the French _étrennes_. It is likely enough that the custom was much older than 153 B.C.: the word was said to be derived from a Sabine goddess Strenia, whose sacellum at the head of the Via Sacra is mentioned by Varro (_L. L._ v. 47[1228]), and from whose grove certain sacred twigs were carried to the arx (in procession along the Sacred Way?) at the beginning of each year[1229]. But we are not told whether this latter rite always took place on Jan. 1, or was transferred to that day from some other in 153 B.C.

III NON. IAN.-NON. IAN. (JAN. 3-5). C.

3 LUDI } LUDI } 4 LUDI }(PHILOC.) LUDI COMPITALES } (SILV.) 5 LUDI } (COMITALIS, MS.)

The Compitalia were not _feriae stativae_ until late in the Empire, and then perhaps only so by tradition[1230]. They took place at some date between the Saturnalia (Dec. 17) and Jan. 5; and we may infer from Philocalus and Silvius as quoted above that the tendency was to put them late in that period. Not being a great state-festival, they could be put between Kalends and Nones.

The original meaning of _compitum_ is explained by the Scholiast on Persius, 4. 28[1231] ‘Compita sunt loca in quadriviis, quasi turres, ubi sacrificia, finita agricultura, rustici celebrabant.... Compita sunt non solum in urbe loca, sed etiam viae publicae ac diverticulae aliquorum confinium, ubi aediculae consecrantur patentes. In his fracta iuga ab agricolis ponuntur, velut emeriti et elaborati operis indicium[1232].’ From this we gather that where country cross-roads met, or where in the parcelling out of agricultural allotments one semita crossed another[1233], some kind of altar was erected and the spot held sacred. This is quite in keeping with the usage of other peoples: the ‘holiness’ of cross-roads is a well-known fact in folk-lore[1234]. It may be doubted, however, whether the Scholiast is right in his explanation of the ‘fracta iuga,’ which may rather have been used as a spell of some kind, than as ‘emeriti operis indicium.’ Thus Crooke[1235] mentions an Indian practice of fixing up a harrow perpendicularly where four roads met, apparently with the object of appeasing the rain-god.

In the city of Rome the _compita_ were the meeting-places of _vici_ (streets with houses), where sacella were erected to the Lares compitales[1236]—two in each case. For the inhabitants of the vici which thus crossed each other, the compitum was the religious centre; and thus arose a quasi-religious organization, which, as including the lowest of the population and even slaves[1237], became of much importance in the revolutionary period in connexion with the machinery of electioneering. The ‘collegia compitalicia’ were abolished by the Senate in B.C. 64, and reconstituted in B.C. 58 by a bill of Clodius _de collegiis_. Caesar again prohibited them, and the ludi compitalicii with them; but the latter were once more revived by Augustus and made part of his general reorganization of the city and its worship[1238].

The Compitalia, which the Romans ascribed to Servius Tullius or Tarquinius Superbus[1239], was probably first organized as part of the religious system of the united city in the Etruscan period, though it doubtless had its origin in the rustic ideas and practice of which we get a glimpse in the passage quoted from the Scholiast on Persius. Two features of it seem to fit in conveniently with this conjecture: (1) that already mentioned, that even the slaves had a part in it, as well as the plebs; (2) the fact that the _magistri vicorum_, who were responsible for the festival, wore the _toga praetexta_ on the day of its celebration[1240]—which looks like a Tarquinian innovation in an anti-aristocratic sense.

V ID. IAN. (JAN. 9). NP?

AGON. (MAFF. PRAEN.) A mutilated note in Praen. gives the word Agonium.

It may be doubted whether the Roman scholars themselves knew for certain what was meant by AGON, and whether the explanations they give are anything better than guesses based on analogy[1241]. Ovid calls the day ‘dies agonalis’:

Ianus agonali luce piandus erit (_Fasti_, 1. 318).
Nomen agonalem credit habere diem (Ibid. 1. 324).

and gives a number of amusing derivations which prove his entire ignorance. Festus[1242] gives Agonium as the name of the day (which agrees with Verrius in Fast. Praen.), and says that _agonia_ was an old word for hostia. Varro calls the day ‘agonalis’[1243]; Ovid in another place Agonalia[1244]. A god Agonius mentioned by St. Augustine[1245] is probably only an invention of the pontifices. The fact is that the Romans knew neither what the real form of the word was, nor what it meant. The attempt to explain it by the apparitor’s word at a sacrifice, _agone_? (shall I slay?) is still approved by some, but is quite uncertain[1246].

The original meaning of the word, if it ever were in common use, must have vanished long before Latin was a written language. The only traces of it, besides its appearance in the calendars, are in the traditional name for the Quirinal hill, Collis Agonus, in its gate, ‘porta agonensis,’ and its college of Salii agonenses[1247]. It would seem thus to have had some special connexion with the Colline city.

The same word appears in the calendars for three other days, March 17 (Liberalia), May 21 (Agon. Vediovi), Dec. 11 (Septimontium); but it is impossible to make out any connexion between these and Jan. 9. Nor can we be sure that the sacrifice (if such it was), indicated by Agon, had any relation to the other ceremonies of the days thus marked[1248]. On Jan. 9 Ovid does indeed say that Janus was ‘agonali luce piandus,’ and on May 21 the Fasti Venusini add a note ‘Vediovi’ to the letters AGON; but there is no distinct proof that the agonium was a sacrifice to Janus or to Vediovis. We are utterly in the dark[1249].

On this day the Rex sacrorum offered a ram (to Janus?) in the Regia. Ovid says[1250] that though the meaning of Agon is doubtful,

ita rex placare sacrorum
Numina lanigerae coniuge debet ovis.

It is provokingly uncertain whether this ram was actually sacrificed to Janus: Varro does not say so, and Ovid only implies it[1251]. But we may perhaps assume it on the ground that once at least in the ritual of the Fratres Arvales[1252] the ram is mentioned as Janus’ victim.

If this be so, we are carried back by this sacrifice to the very beginnings of Rome, and get a useful clue to the nature of the god Janus. The Rex sacrorum was the special representative in later times of the king; the king, living in the Regia, was the equivalent in the State of the head of the household. The two most important and sacred parts of the house are the door (ianua, ianus), and the hearth (vesta)[1253], and the numina inhabiting and guarding these are Janus and Vesta, who, as is well known, were respectively the first and the last deities to be invoked at all times in Roman religious custom. The whole house certainly had a religious importance, like everything else in intimate relation to man; and Macrobius is not romancing when he says (quoting _mythici_) ‘Regnante Iano omnium domos religione et sanctitate fuisse munitas[1254].’ But the door and the hearth were of special importance, as the folk-lore of every people fully attests; and it is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that we must look for the origin of Janus in the ideas connected with the house-door, just as we have always found Vesta in the fire on the hearth. Whatever be the true etymology of Janus, and however wild the interpretations of his nature and cult both in ancient and modern times, we shall always have firm ground to stand on if we view him in relation to the primitive worship of the house[1255]. There is hardly an attribute or a cult-title of Janus that cannot be deduced with reason from this root-idea.

The old Roman scholars, who knew as little about Janus as we do, started several explanations of a cosmical kind, which must have been quite strange to the average Roman worshipper. He was a sun-god[1256], and his name is the masculine form of Diana (= moon); he was the _mundus_, i. e. the heaven, or the atmosphere[1257]. These were, of course, mere guesses characteristic of a pedantic age which knew nothing of the old Roman religious mind. If Janus ever had been a nature-deity, his attributes as such were completely worn away in historical times, or had lost their essential character in the process of constant application to practical matters by a prosaic people. How far the Roman of the Augustan age understood his great _deorum deus_ may be gathered from Ovid’s treatment of the subject, itself no doubt a poetical version of the learned speculation of Varro and others. The poet ‘interviews’ the deity with the object of finding out the lost and hidden meaning of his most obvious peculiarities, and the old god condescends to answer with a promptness and good temper that would do credit to the victims of the modern journalist. The curious thing is that the real origin, humble, simple, and truly Latin, escaped the observation both of the interviewer and the deity.

Before I state more definitely the grounds on which this simple explanation of Janus is based, it will be as well to deal shortly with the more ambitious ones.

1. The theory that Janus was a sun-god has the support of Roman antiquarians[1258], and was probably suggested by them to the moderns. Nigidius Figulus, the Pythagorean mystic, seems to have been the first to broach the idea: we have no evidence that Varro gave his sanction to it. It was Nigidius who first suggested the idea of the relation of Janus to Diana (Dianus, Diana = Janus, Jana), which found much favour with Preller and Schwegler[1259] at a time when neither comparative philology nor comparative mythology were as well understood as now. But the common argument, both in ancient and modern times, has been that which Macrobius quotes from certain speculators whom he does not name: ‘Ianum quidam solem demonstrari volunt, et ideo geminum quasi utriusque ianuae coelestis potentem, qui exoriens aperiat diem, occidens claudat,’ &c. It is obvious that this is pure speculation by a Roman of the cosmopolitan age: it is an attempt to explain the Janus geminus as the representation of one of the great forces of nature. But it has nothing to do with the ideas of the early Italian farmer.

2. The theory that Janus was a god of the ‘vault of heaven’ was also started by the ancients, as may be seen from the chapter of Macrobius quoted above. Recently it has been adopted by Professor Deecke in his Etruscan researches[1260]. He seems to hold that Janus in Etruria, as a god of the arch of heaven, was represented on arches and gates in that country, and came to Rome when the Romans learnt the secret of the arch from the Etruscans. That the Romans were the pupils of the Etruscans in this particular seems to be true; but if Janus only came to Rome with the arch (Deecke says in Numa’s time) it is hard to see how he could have so quickly gained his peculiar place in Roman worship and legend. I cannot think that Deecke has here improved on the conclusions of his predecessor.

Speculations about Janus as a heaven-god have been pushed still further. Here is a passage from a book which is almost a work of genius[1261], yet embodies many theories of which its author may by this time have repented: ‘He who prayed (in ancient Italy) began his prayer looking to the East, but ended it looking to the West. Herein we find expressed the conception of the unity and indivisibility of Nature; whose symbol is the most characteristic figure of the Italian religion, the double-headed Janus, the highest god, and the god of all things, all times, and all gods. He unites the dualistic opposites which complete the world—beginning and end, morning and evening, outgoing and ingoing. He is the god of the year, which finds its completion in its own orbit, and as he is the god of time, so he is the god of the Kosmos, which like a circle displays both beginning and end at once.’ He then quotes a passage from Messalla, which Macrobius has preserved, in support of this astonishing product of the rude mind of the primitive Roman[1262]. Of this Messalla we only know that he was consul in 53 B.C., and that (as Macrobius tells us) he was augur for fifty-five years, in the course of which period, after the fashion of his day, he wrote works of which the object was to find a philosophic basis for the quaint phenomena of the Roman religion. His speculations on the double head of Janus cannot help us to discover the primitive nature of our deity; Janus may have been the ancient heaven-god of the Latins, but these guesses are the product of a spurious and eclectic Greek philosophy.

3. There is another possible explanation of Janus, which is not mentioned in Roscher’s article, but is perhaps worth as much consideration as the two last. Professor Rhys, in his _Hibbert Lectures on Celtic Mythology_[1263], somewhat casually identified Janus with the Celtic god Cernunnos, whom he considers to be the Gallic deity called by Caesar _Dis Pater_. The one striking fact in favour of this equation is that Cernunnos was represented as having three faces, and like Janus, as a head without a body—the lower portion of the block being utilized for other purposes[1264]. He seems to have been a chthonic deity, and is compared to and even identified by Rhys with Heimdal of the Norsemen and Teutons, who was the warder or porter of the gods, and of the underworld[1265], who sits as the ‘wind-listening’ god, whose ears are of miraculous sharpness, who is the father of man, and the sire of kings. Both Cernunnos and Heimdal are thought further to have been like Janus, the _fons et origo_ of all things. According to Caesar the Gauls believed themselves to be descended from their deity; and both the Celtic and Scandinavian gods seem to have had, like the Roman, some connexion with the divisions of time.

It must be allowed that these two gods taken together supply parallels to Janus’ most salient characteristics; and even to one or two of the less prominent and more puzzling ones, such as the connexion with springs[1266]. It is not impossible that all three may have grown out of a common root; but in the cases of Cernunnos and Heimdal it does not seem any longer possible to trace this, owing to heavy incrustations of poetical mythology. In the case of the Roman, the chance is a better one, in spite of philosophical speculation, ancient and modern.

We return from philosophers and mythologists to early Rome. The one fact on which we must fix our attention is that on the north-east of the forum Romanum was the famous Janus geminus, which from representations on coins[1267] we can see was not a temple, but a gateway, with entrance and exit connected by walls, within which was, we may suppose, the double-headed figure of Janus which is familiar on Roman coins. The same word janus is applied to the gate and to the numen who guarded it, lived in it, and was as inseparable from it as Vesta from the fire on the hearth[1268]. The word does not seem to have been used for the gate of a city, but for the point of passage into a space within a city, such as a market, or a street. At Rome there were several such jani[1269]; probably two or more leading into the forum, as well as the more famous one, which alone appears to have had a strictly religious signification[1270]. The connexion of the god with entrances is thus a certainty, though we are puzzled by his apparent absence from the gates of the city[1271]. The double head would signify nothing transcendental, but simply that the numen of the entrance to house or market was concerned both with entrance and exit. It is not peculiar to Italy, or to Janus, but is found on coins in every part of the Mediterranean (Roscher, _Lex_. 53 foll.): in no case, it is worth noting, does the double head represent any of the great gods of heaven, such as Zeus, Apollo, &c., but Dionysus, Boreas, Argos, unknown female heads[1272], &c. Its history does not seem to have been worked out; but we can be almost sure that it does not represent the sun, and has no relation to the arch of heaven.

Now keeping in mind the fact that Janus is the guardian spirit of entrances, let us recall again the fact that he was the first deity in all invocations both public and private[1273], and that Vesta was the last[1274]. Vesta in the house was, as Cicero expresses it, ‘rerum custos intimarum’; she presided over the penetralia—the _last_ part of the house to which any stranger could be admitted; exactly the opposite position to that of Janus at the entrance[1275]. Both deities retained at all times the essential mark of primitive ideas of the supernatural: they resided in and in a sense were, the doorway and the hearth respectively. What we know of the priests who served them tells the same tale of an origin in the house, and the family—the foundation of all Italian civilization. Vesta was served by her sacred virgins, and these, we can no longer doubt, were the later representatives of the daughters of the head of the family, or the headman of the community[1276]; the innermost part of the house was theirs, the care of the fire, the stores (penus), and the cooking. To the father, the defender of the family, belonged naturally the care of the entrance, the dangerous point, where both evil men and evil spirits might find a way in. And surely this must be the explanation of the fact that no priest is to be found for Janus in the Roman system but the Rex sacrorum[1277], the lineal representative of the ancient religious duties of the king, and therefore, we may infer with certainty, of those of the primitive chief, and of the head of the household[1278]. In the most ancient order of the priesthoods, the Rex sacrorum came first, just as Janus was the first of all the gods[1279]: then came the three great Flamines, and then the Pontifex maximus, in whose care and power were the Vestals. Translating the order into terms of the primitive family, we have first the head of the house, next the sons, and lastly (as women do not appear in these lists), the daughters represented by the later priesthood, to which they were legally subordinated. The order of the gods, the order of the priests, and the natural position of the entrance to the house, all seem to lead us to the same conclusion, that the beginning of Janus and his cult are to be sought, and may be found, in the early Italian family dwelling.

We may agree with Roscher, who has worked out this part of the subject with skill, that this position of Janus in the worship of the family and the state is the origin of all the practices in which he appears as a god of beginnings. For these the reader must be referred to Roscher’s article[1280], or to Preller, or to Mommsen, who sees in this aspect of the god, and rightly no doubt, that which chiefly reflects the notion of him held by the ordinary Roman. He was himself the oldest god, the beginner of all things, and of all acts[1281]; to him in legend is ascribed the introduction of the arts, of agriculture, ship-building, &c.[1282]. He is an object of worship at the beginning of the year, the month, and the day[1283]. All this sprang, not from an abstract idea of beginning—an idea which has no Roman parallel in being sanctified by a presiding deity, but from the concrete fact that the entrance of the house was the _initium_, or beginning of the house, and at the same time the point from which you started on all undertakings.

Such developments of the original Janus were no doubt as old as the State itself. In the Salian hymn he is already ‘deorum deus’[1284], and ‘duonus cerus’[1285], which Festus tells us meant creator bonus. But even in the State there are, as we have seen, sufficiently clear traces of his original nature to forbid us to attribute these titles to any lofty and abstract philosophical ideas of religion.