[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]
Bill Thayer

[image ALT: Cliccare qui per una pagina di aiuto in Italiano.]

[Link to a series of help pages]
[Link to the next level up]
[Link to my homepage]

[image ALT: link to previous section]
Chapter 5
This webpage reproduces a chapter of
The Lupercalia

by Alberta Mildred Franklin

New York, 1921

The text is in the public domain.

This page has been carefully proofread
and I believe it to be free of errors.
If you find a mistake though,
please let me know!

[image ALT: link to next section]
Chapter 7

p53 Chapter VI
The Sacred Goat in Italy

In Italy the deities affiliated with the goat are far less numerous than in Greece. Outside the cult of the obscure Veiovis, of Faunus, and of Juno Caprotina, the goat plays only an insignificant part. Consequently the importance of the goat-skin as employed by the Luperci is the more remarkable. As we review the goat-cults of Italy, the question before us will be, "Did the cult of the goat in Italy have a similar history and significance to that which it had in Greece?"

The goat was sacrificed to Veiovis ritu humano, and the statue of Veiovis had a goat standing by his side.1 The expression ritu humano is often taken to mean that an animal victim was substituted for a human sacrifice. If this is true, the sacrifice to Veiovis passed through the phases which we saw in the Greek cults. Very little is known about Veiovis, but he is regarded as unquestionably an underworld deity.2

A god having a far more intimate relation to the goat, and also much better known, was Faunus, an ancient deity of Latium, who is constantly mentioned with the aborigines of Italy.3 The antiquity and character of Faunus comes out most clearly in his double, Fauna, the older deity, whom Faunus later displaced. She was known by many descriptive epithets: Fenta Fatua, Tellus, Ops, Maia, Bona Dea, or Dea Dia.4 The kinship of this goddess to other earth-mothers was recognized by Macrobius, who considered her identical with Proserpina, Hecate, Semele, and Cybele.5 She was, therefore, one of the numerous forms of the chthonic deity of the Mediterranean people.

Faunus was a god whose importance became shadowy as civilization advanced. The numerous legends of Faunus, god of oracles,6 and mysterious creature of the wilds,7 show how important a place he had in early days among the gods of Italy. But to the people of later times he lost much of his mystic power, and was merely a god of the herds. Out in the country districts sacrifice continued to be offered to him;8 yet even there the almost total lack of votive inscriptions to Faunus shows how little real hold he had upon the p54 people by the time writing was in general use.9 Ultimately he came to be little more than a mythical king. Varro, in seeking to explain him, reversed the order of development, saying that Faunus belonged to the class of gods who, originally mortals, were deified after death.10 This shows how vague he had become by Varro's day. Cicero says that he does not know at all what Faunus is.11 In Rome Faunus won scant recognition; it was not until 194 B.C. that a temple was erected to him. Even then he was not admitted within the Pomoerium, but was established on the Tiber Island.12 The temple once built, we hear nothing more of it.13 Faunus owes most of his fame to the Alexandrian poets, who identified him with Pan.14

Faunus is the god whom many modern scholars believe to have been the deity of the Lupercalia.15 They explain his lack of a temple within the Pomoerium by saying that the Lupercal was his shrine. The statue erected there, showing the god naked and girded with a goat-skin,16 they regard as a representation of Faunus. But the goat-skin girdle is not enough to show that Faunus was the deity portrayed. The artist who carved the image set up at the Lupercal, being obliged to represent a god who was but little known, met the difficulty by making him like the priests who bore his name. Justin makes this perfectly clear, for he states that the statue of Lupercus at the foot of the Palatine represented the god in the garb which the Luperci wore.17

Another reason which is offered for regarding Faunus as the god of the Lupercalia is that the temple of Faunus on the Tiber Island was dedicated February 13, two days before the Lupercalia.18 This naturally seems to indicate a connection between the god and the festival; and it may, indeed, easily be true that the priests chose to associate this half-forgotten god, to whom they had just erected a temple, with a festival that was as ancient as he was, and in which the goat had a prominent part. Such syncretism is common enough in Roman religion. But this late association does not prove that Faunus was the original deity of the Lupercalia; and the common people seem never to have regarded him as such.19

In the country districts Faunus was not worshipped in February, but on the Nones of December, and in his rites there appears nothing that is akin to the Lupercalia. A kid, a ewe, or a lamb was offered to him, then the shepherds danced in triple measure.20 It was a cheery rustic celebration, directed toward the protection and the fecundity p55of the herds.21 There was no suggestion of the lustral race and the life-giving blows by which the Luperci assured fertility and purification to human beings. In the cult of Fauna the offering of milk and the administering of blows22 give a slight suggestion of the features of the Lupercalia. But milk was frequently used as a libation in early cults, and as an offering to Fauna it shows none of the mysticism which dominates its use in the Lupercalia. The blows were dealt by myrtle rods instead of by goat-skin thongs. It was, moreover, the statue of Fauna, not the worshippers, that was struck. The cult of neither Faunus nor Fauna, therefore, offers any basis for connecting Faunus with the Lupercalia.

Is there in the attributes of Faunus anything which might link him with that festival? Most frequently of all Faunus is spoken of as the god of prophecy and of oracles.23 But there is not a suggestion of oracular inspiration in the Lupercalia. Very rarely Faunus is given the power of purification,24 but it seems to be too undeveloped in him to account for the significance of the Lupercalia as a lustral ceremony.

If Faunus was worshipped in the Lupercalia, it must have been because he was the god of the flocks.25 This is the basis upon which many assume his connection with the ceremony, the race of the Luperci around the Palatine being regarded as a measure of protection for the cattle that in early times were herded there.26 This view depends largely on the passage in which Servius says that Lupercus may be so named because he keeps the wolves from attacking the flocks.27 As we have already seen,28 this is merely an attempt to explain in the regulation hackneyed way the origin of the name Lupercus. A point deserving of more consideration is the statement of Gaius Acilius, that Romulus, when his cattle were stolen, invoked the aid of Faunus and ran forth naked in pursuit.29 Possibly Acilius means to indicate by this that Faunus was the god of the festival. Acilius lived at the time when the temple of Faunus was built on the Tiber Island, and may have accepted the connection between Faunus and the Lupercalia which, it seems, the priests sought to establish. But if such was his view, it had little support; we hear no earlier suggestion of the sort, nor was it accepted by later writers.30 But the words of Acilius do not necessarily point to Faunus as the god of the Lupercalia. He does not go on to say, as we might expect, that upon recovery of the cattle the Lupercalia p56was instituted in honor of Faunus. He says, instead, that, because Romulus cast aside his garments to gain speed in running, the Luperci are now naked when they race about the city. The point of the story, therefore, is to explain the origin of the race and its ritualistic nakedness. Faunus seems to be mentioned merely because he was a natural god to invoke in seeking the lost cattle. The Lupercalia certainly must have meant more to the people than a festival for the protection of the flocks. Centuries after the urban populace of Rome had lost all interest in the raising of cattle, the Lupercalia continued. The impassioned denunciation of Pope Gelasius shows how vital it was as late as 450 A.D.31

As god of the herds and incarnate in the goat, Faunus, together with his doubles Incubo and Inuus,32 was the giver of fertility.33 That is another reason frequently offered for associating him with the Lupercalia. But there is no suggestion that Faunus gave to the thongs carried by the Luperci their life-giving potency. That was due, according to legend, to another deity of goat-form, Juno.34

Many scholars connect Faunus with the Lupercalia through the medium of Evander, whom they regard as a Hellenized Faunus, manufactured by ancient scholars to explain the existence in Rome of a cult very like that of Lycaean Pan.35 But Evander seems to be something more than a scholarly fabrication. He is strongly localized in Arcadia, appearing in Tegea, in Parrhasion, in Pheneos, near Messenia, and, most frequently of all, in Pallanteum, where there was in the temple of Demeter a statue of Evander.36 Thus Evander seems to have been a local deity. His cult in Arcadia is believed to have antedated Roman times.37 The constant association of Evander with Pan, and the belief that Evander, like Pan, was the son of Hermes,38 indicates that he belonged to Pan's circle.39 Evander may have been an obscure local god, later absorbed by Pan, or his name may have been a cult-title which attained a vague individuality. He was recognized by the Romans as a deity, for we hear of sacrifices offered to him and a shrine in his honor on the Aventine.40 We must, therefore, account for Evander and his connection with the Lupercalia on other grounds than as a mere double of Faunus.

Evander seems to have been transplanted into Italy through the activity of Alexandrian scholars. When they had identified Pan p57 with Faunus, they rationalized Evander into the exile who established the cult of Pan, or, in other words, of Faunus, in Italy. In this way only was he known to the earliest annalists.41 There we have the germ of the Evander legend.42 Other details were soon added: Evander and his Arcadians offered an easy explanation of the Ligurians who had dwelt in the vicinity of Rome,43 the chance likeness of the names Palatium and Pallanteum giving support to this idea. Consequently as early as Fabius Pictor we find the tale of Evander's hamlet on the Palatine.44 Ultimately Evander was made to typify the whole stream of Greek civilization which, as early as the regal period, influenced Rome so profoundly. He was accordingly said to have been the one who had brought to the Romans the alphabet and the arts of civilization.45 Pliny was content to say that the service was performed by the Pelasgians.46 The mention of the alphabet draws our attention at once to Cumae, whence in all probability the knowledge of writing was brought to Rome. Furthermore, Evander was said to have imported the gods whom the traders of Cumae and of southern Italy introduced into Rome in early days, Heracles, Demeter, Hermes, Castor and Pollux.47 The tale that Evander was guided to Rome by Apollo48 points again to Cumae, the seat of Apollo's worship, and the active force in the Hellenizing of Roman religion. Evander is the poetic figure typifying that activity.49

Ancient scholars went still further and made Evander the founder of certain Roman cults, those of Victory, Consus, and Carmenta. The latter, ancient Roman goddess though she was, was made the mother of Arcadian Evander.50 Once recognized as the bringer of ancient cults, Evander almost inevitably became the founder of the Lupercalia, akin as it was to the Arcadian Lycaea.51 But Evander was said to have established the Lupercalia, not because he was a double of Faunus, but because he wished to honor his native god Pan Lycaeus. All the writers make this explicit.52

We do not find, therefore, in the cult or the attributes of Faunus, nor yet in his connection with Evander, a valid reason for accepting him as the god of the Lupercalia.

The goat-Juno had a more vital association with the Lupercalia than had Faunus. She, like Faunus, was primarily the giver of fertility. But she was honored by cults which offered a marked correspondence to the Lupercalia, and she was even connected with p58that festival by legend and by title.53 In the study of Juno, therefore, we shall seek an explanation of the goat-element in the Lupercalia.

Very significant for our purpose is the cult of Juno Sospita, of Lanuvium. That town, which was devoted to a religion of the most ancient type, venerated Juno Sospita as the oldest of all its deities. Her cult was, in fact, the most famous of all the Juno-cults in Latium.54 Juno Sospita was a warrior goddess, as was the earth-mother of Crete.55 The goat regularly furnished a part of Juno's martial equipment; the head, with the horns still attached, formed her helmet, and the skin fell down her back, or sometimes over her breast like the aegis worn by Athena.56 We may naturally believe that the goat-skin endowed Juno with its magic power of protection from harm. This Juno of Lanuvium was said by Cicero to be distinctly different from the Roman Juno.57 Her Ligurian origin is indicated by her bearing the figure-eight shield, a form which is characteristically Mediterranean.58

It is for our purpose worthy of note that Juno Sospita was originally embodied in, or at least associated with, the serpent, a creature belonging to a still more ancient religious stratum than the goat. Constantly the goddess is attended by a serpent,59 which, in a story told by Propertius, is all‑important. The guardian of ancient Lanuvium, he says, was a serpent. Once a year a maiden descended trembling to the awesome cavern where the creature dwelt, and bore to it an offering of cakes. If the maid were unchaste, she was instantly devoured by the monster; but if she were pure, the serpent accepted and ate the gift which she brought, an act which was hailed by the farmers as the omen of a fruitful year.60 This chthonic serpent, having oracular power, merciless, yet giving bountiful harvests, is a typical form of the Mediterranean earth-deity, and must have been the oldest embodiment of Juno Sospita. The scene described by Propertius is portrayed on a coin which bears on the obverse the head of Juno wearing her goat-skin helmet,61 thus showing the union of the two conceptions of the goddess.

The cult of Juno Sospita gives us a parallel of what may have occurred in the evolution of the Lupercalia. In the one festival the wolf, in the other an equally primitive serpent was worshipped; but as the goat‑god gained influence among the shepherd folk of Latium, both wolf and serpent were thrust into the background. Juno Sospita arrogated to herself a share of the goat's power by p59 wearing its skin; in the Lupercalia the priests of the wolf‑god did the same, and also carried strips of the goat-skin, which conveyed to the people its magic potency. Thus in each case the goat-cult seems to have been grafted upon a more ancient worship.

The veneration of Juno Sospita became important in Rome when, at the close of the Latin War, Rome stipulated that she should share on equal terms in the cult at Lanuvium.62 A temple of Juno Sospita was built in Rome in 194 B.C., the same year in which temples were dedicated to two other goat-deities, Faunus and Veiovis.63 This interest in the primitive goat-gods is characteristic of that period, for during the war with Hannibal and the years immediately afterward the terror of the people caused them to turn to many chthonic gods as a means of succor.64

Rome itself was the site of another goat-cult, that of Juno Caprotina. In her ritual the element of blows was very prominent. As the blows dealt by the Luperci were the most noted feature of the Lupercalia, we shall, before beginning the study of Juno Caprotina, examine the use of blows in other cults of Greece and of Rome.

In Greece the religious stratum to which that rite belongs is shown by the fact that the Arcadia affords the greatest number of instances.65a A detailed study of the use of blows has been made by Dr. Mannhardt;65b he cites numerous cases in which the blows, being directed against a person or a statue which represents either a deity or some power of fertility or of evil, are designed to drive out evil or to rouse the latent power of a god by freeing him from some nullifying influence. Though similar to the blows which smote the statue of Fauna,66 they are not typical of those delivered in the Lupercalia, where it was the worshippers who were struck. Other rites afford a closer parallel: at an Arcadian festival to Dionysus the women celebrating it were smitten;67 at another Arcadian ceremony, in honor of Demeter, the worshippers struck one another with twisted bark;68 the mysteries of Eleusis included, as a means of purification, a mock fight in which the celebrants hurled stones at one another;69 and the Spartans, in honor of Artemis Orthia, practiced a rite in which youths often died under the lash.70 The deities of all these ceremonies were chthonic. In every case, Professor Reinach believes, the blows served to purify the worshipper and to act as a fertility-charm.71

We are now ready to interpret the ritualistic significance of the p60blows in the festival of Juno Caprotina, which occurred on the Nones of July. At the Caprae Palus, in the Campus Martius, the women of Latium, together with the female slaves, exchanged taunts and threw stones at one another in a sort of mock battle. Then, under a wild fig‑tree — or goat‑fig, the caprificus — they feasted and paid homage to Juno Caprotina, offering her the milky juice of the tree.72 Varro says that they cut branches from this tree,73 a statement which it is tempting to associate with the sham battle, as indicating that the women belabored one another with these switches as a fertility charm.74 We have no direct statement to this effect; yet the prominence in the ceremony of the goat and the caprificus, which was also an emblem of fertility,75 give us good reason to believe that the purpose of the rite was to increase productivity.

Preliminary to this festival was the Poplifugia, which occurred either on the same day or two days earlier.76 Its distinctive feature was a hasty and disorderly flight of the people away from the Caprae Palus.77 Legend told, in explanation of this rite, that, when Romulus was holding a lustratio of the citizens, he disappeared during a sudden storm, and the people fled in terror.78 Following the suggestion of this legend, Schwegler interpreted the Poplifugia as a lustral rite.79 This view has won considerable favor.80 As a lustral, or expiatory ceremony, the Poplifugia is wholly intelligible. Dr. Fowler compares it with the Bouphonia, which we have already examined,81 and conjectures that the priest and the people at Rome may have fled after some similar sacrifice, and for the same reason. Such a rite, he notes, was especially appropriate in July, at the beginning of the unhealthy season, when the people were seeking to protect themselves from evil powers.82 That protection gained, they were ready to receive the gift of fertility by the celebration of the Caprotine Nones.

If this interpretation is correct, the Poplifugia and Nonae Caprotinae are similar to the Lupercalia both in meaning and in ritual acts.83 Each festival occurred at a time of year when the powers of evil were abroad; each had a ritual flight and blows as a prominent feature. At the Lupercalia was sacrificed a goat, which was the sacred animal of Juno Caprotina. The rite of the Nonae Caprotinae was celebrated under a caprificus; and hard by the Lupercal was another ancient and venerated fig‑tree, the Ficus p61Ruminalis. Is it possible that any of the cult-acts of the Lupercalia were suggested by the ancient festival of Juno at the Caprae Palus?

According to the legends, the blows of the goat-skin did not become a part of the Lupercalia until after the Romans had united with the Sabines, when an addition was made to the ceremony under the influence of Juno Lucina. She, like Juno Caprotina, was a goddess of fecundity.84 Her sacred grove on the Esquiline was one of the oldest and most venerated shrines in the whole city.85 To this grove, Ovid says, Romulus and his people repaired for help when their Sabine wives proved unfruitful. As they bent in supplication before the shrine, there came from the depths of the forest the strange words, "Let the sacred goat enter into the Italian women." Thereupon an Etruscan augur slew a goat, cut the hide into pieces, and bade the women submit to blows from the strips. Thus their curse of barrenness was removed, and thanks were given to Juno Lucina.86 Evidently she had availed herself, as did her sister of Lanuvium, of the life-giving power of the goat-skin, and by blows from it assured to her devotees the hope of children.

Ovid tells this story at the conclusion of his account of the Lupercalia, in which, by a series of questions, he clearly suggests the development of the festival. He begins, "Tell me, ye Muses, what was the origin of this sacred rite?" and replies that it was founded by Evander in honor of Pan.87 Ovid then inquires what caused the race: "Why do the Luperci run naked?" and tells in answer the story of Romulus and Remus pursuing the lost cattle.88 He then explains the names Lupercal and Lupercalia by telling of the rescue of Romulus and Remus by the wolf.89 About the rite of the blows, Ovid says to a young wife: "Oh bride, why are you waiting? Not by potent herbs, nor by prayers, nor by magic incantations shall you become a mother. Receive with patience the blows of the fecund hide, and your husband's father shall become a grandsire."90 Thus Ovid introduces the fourth point in his description of the Lupercalia — the use and the power of the goat-skin. He explains that point by telling the story given above of Romulus's visit to the shrine of Juno Lucina. In this tale, Ovid follows the same version as Livy and Servius, who also state that p62 Romulus initiated the rite of blows in order to free the Sabine women from barrenness.91

As the narration of an actual fact, Ovid's tale is worthless; but as an indication of kinship between the festivals of Juno and the Lupercalia, and of a possible early transference of cult-practices, it is illuminating. It is in accord with what we have seen in Greek religion that the cult of the wolf‑god should have been in time partially overlaid by the ritual of the goat‑god. Since the Lupercalia and the ceremonials of Juno had, as we have seen, many points of likeness, it would have been very natural for the Romans to seek to make their goat-sacrifice more potent by adding to it the practices of the near‑by shrines of Juno.

If such was the development of the festival, the change did not obliterate the original ceremonial, but brought into more direct contact with the people the potency of the sacrificial goat: the Luperci now wore girdles cut from the skin of the victim, and carried in their hands strips of the same skin, with which they smote the women.92 Hence their race about the city no longer seemed a lustral flight, but a means of carrying fertility to the people. The old ceremonial was thus overlaid by the new ritual. The ancient cult-acts continued, but their meaning was largely changed.93

The fundamental character of Juno would have made it very natural for her to win a place in the Lupercalia, for she was in essence and in origin closely akin to Luperca. Juno was, Varro tells us,94 "the earth," hence she was merely another form of that chthonic power which was also embodied in the wolf. But, whereas the wolf early sank to a secondary rôle, Juno became highly honored through the whole of central Italy, and, in her triumphant progress, must have assimilated many deities like herself, but less powerful. Such was the fate of Valeria Luperca. Juno's invasion of the Lupercalia, therefore, is merely a characteristic incident of her career.

The month in which the Lupercalia was celebrated, February, was sacred to the chthonic gods,95 among others, to Juno.96 Juno was also associated with February, the month of purification, by her title of Februata, "the Purifier".97 The goat-skin thongs with which the Luperci gave fertility to the people were also thought of as a means of purification, and were called amicula Junonis.98a That name, surely, gives the clearest possible evidence of Juno's p63 place in the Lupercalia. Yet many scholars are content to say that the thongs were so named because the festival was of especial concern to women, and that Juno was the goddess of women. Paulus leaves room for no such vague connection as that. He says outright that the Lupercalia was the festival of Juno Februata.98b

When searching for a possible connection of Faunus with the Lupercalia, we found nothing in the legends concerning that god, in his cult, or in his character, which was significant enough to allow us to associate with him the goat-element of the Lupercalia. In the case of Juno, on the contrary, legend attributed to her command the blows with the goat-skin, and the thongs were called "Juno's thongs." The Lupercalia was the most important purificatory rite among the Romans, and Juno, with the title Februata, was a goddess of purification. The month in which the Lupercalia occurred was sacred to Juno, and the Lupercalia itself was called Juno's festival. Upon this evidence, we conclude that Juno won for herself a place in the ritual of Lupercus, and grafted upon that ancient rite a ceremony that was distinctively her own.

The goat-deities in Italy seem to have been a product of the Ligurians, and played a rôle similar to that of the Pelasgian goat-gods. In each country the ritual of the goat often found a place in other cults, and imprinted its own peculiar stamp upon them. Thus it influenced the Lupercalia, which, in its original form as a rite to the wolf-deity, was apotropaic, being designed to ward off the whispers of evil, and emphasizing the negative power of the earth-spirit. The goat‑god, on the other hand, was especially the giver of fertility; hence his cult stressed the positive side of the earth-spirit. Therefore with the incorporation into the Lupercalia of the goat's fructifying power, the festival had a twofold function: to protect the people from evil, and to set free the forces of fertility.

The Author's Notes:

1 Ov., Fast., 3.443; Gell., 5.12.12.

2 Wissowa, R. K., 238.

3 Dionys., 1.43; Suet., Vitell., 1.1; Gell., 5.21.7; Serv. ad Verg., Aen., 8.314.

4 Dr. Pais (Anc. Leg., 63‑80) has shown in detail the identity of these deities. See also Fowler, R. F., 74.

5 Macr., 1.12.23, 24.

p64 6 Verg., Aen., 7.81; Serv. ad Verg., Aen., 7.4781; Prob. ad Verg., Georg., 1.10; Just., 43.1.8; Isid., Orig., 8.11.87.

7 Corp. Gloss., V.198,19, 20; Otto, in Pauly-Wissowa, VI.2058.

8 Prob. ad Verg., Georg., 1.10.

9 Wissowa, R. K., 213; Fowler, R. F., 258.

10 Ap. Serv. ad Verg., Aen., 8.275.

11 N. D., 3.15.

12 Vitr., 3.2.3.

Thayer's Note: Fuller details and other citations in the ancient sources are given in the article Aedes Fauni in Platner & Ashby's Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.

13 Fowler, R. F., 258.

14 Wernicke, in Roscher, III.1407.

15 Schwegler, I.232 n. 27; Preller, I.380; Mommsen, H. R., I.208; Wissowa, R. K., 210‑12. Marquardt (III.439) identifies Lupercus with Faunus. Lupercus is regarded as an epithet of Faunus by Otto (in Pauly-Wissowa, VI.2056). Roscher (I.1455), and Hild (in Daremberg-Saglio, III.1399). Dr. Fowler, however, does not believe that Faunus was the deity of the Lupercalia (R. F., 313, Roman Ideas of Deity, 94).

16 Just., 43.1.7.

17 Just., 43.1.7. Though Justin mentions Faunus in the sections immediately before and immediately after the one cited, he speaks of him only as the king of Italy who welcomed Evander.

18 Ov., Fast., 2.193.

19 In this explanation, I have closely followed Dr. Warde Fowler (R. F., 258).

20 Hor., Od., 3.18, omnis.

21 Roscher, I.1455.

22 Arnob., adv. Gent., 5.18; Lact., de Fals. Relig., 1.22.1; Macr., 1.12.25.

23 Vitr., 3.2.3;º Verg., Aen., 7.81; Ov., Fast., 4.649‑66; Plut., Num., 15; Prob. ad Verg., Georg., 1.10; Serv. ad Verg., Aen., 7.81; Isid., Orig., 8.11.87; Corp. Gloss., V.199.15, 16.

24 Ov., Fast., 3.291; Plut., Num., 15.

25 Porphyr. ad Hor., Od., 3.18.13.

26 See the authorities cited in note 15.

27 Serv. ad Verg., Aen., 8.343.

28 See p37.

29 Ap. Plut., Rom., 21.

30 Ovid's use of the name Faunus as the equivalent of Pan Lycaeus has already been considered (see p38).

31 Gelas., adv. Androm., in Corp. Script. Eccles. Lat., XXXV.453‑64.

32 Wissowa, R. K., 211.

33 Rutil. Nam., 1.234; Isid., Orig., 8.11.103, 104; Hieron. ad Is., 1.13.21.

34 See p61.

35 Marquardt, III.439; Preller, I.387; Roscher, II.2822; Schwegler, I.354.

36 Verg., Aen., 8.51; Ov., Fast., 1.545; Liv. I.5.1; Dionys. 1.60.3; 2.1.3; Paus. 8.43.2; 8.44.5; Plut., Philop., 18.

37 De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, I.191.

38 Dionys., 2.1.3; Paus. 8.43.2; Tzetzes, ad Lycoph., 772.

39 Robert, in Pauly-Wissowa, VI.839‑40.

p65 40 Dionys., 1.32.2.

41 Serv., ad Verg., Georg., 1.10

42 Lübkers, Reallexikon des klassischen Altertums, 348; Fowler, R. F., 258 n. 1.

43 De Sanctis, I.192.

44 Dionys., 1.79. See also 1.3189.

45 Liv. I.7.8; Dionys., 1.33.4; Tac., Ann., 11.14; Mar. Vict., G. L., VI.23.14; VI.194.16.

46 N. H., 7.193.

47 Liv., I.7.3; Verg., Aen., 8.102; Dionys., 1.33; Fest., 269.

48 Verg., Aen., 8.336.

49 Schwegler, I.359; Preller, II.341.

50 Liv., I.7.8; Ov., Fast., 1.479‑500; Dionys., 1.32, 33; Paul. ex Fest., 101.

51 See p46, n. 88.

52 Liv., I.5; Verg., Aen., 8.344; Dionys., 1.79.

53 See p61.

54 Ihm, in Roscher, II.595; Wissowa, R. K., 188.

55 Graillot, 4.

56 Daremberg-Saglio, III., Fig. 4185‑88; Roscher, II, Fig. on pp606‑9.

57 N. D., 1.82.

58 Daremberg-Saglio, III., Fig. 4186, 4188; Mackenzie, Crete, 159‑60.

59 Daremberg-Saglio, III., Fig. 4186, 4188; Roscher, II, Fig. on pp608, 609.

60 Prop., 4.8.3‑14.

61 Daremberg-Saglio, III, Fig. 4187.

62 Liv., 8.14.

63 Liv., 32.30.10; 34.53.3.

64 For a survey of this period, see p87‑9.

65a 65b Mannhardt, Myth. Forsch., 113‑40.

66 See p55.

67 Paus. 8.23.1.

68 Hesych., Μόροττον.

69 Mannhardt, Myth. Forsch., 209.

70 Paus. 3.16.7.

71 Cultes, I.180‑3. This view is also expressed by Farnell (V.163), and by Jevons (Hist. Rel., appendix to ch. 24).

72 Polem. Silv., CIL I.269; Var., L. L., 6.18; Plut., Rom., 29; id. Cam., 33; Auson. de Fer., 9; Macr., 1.11.3640.

73 Var., L. L., 6.18.

74 Fowler, R. F., 179; Frazer, II.317.

75 Schwegler, I.234; Frazer, II.317.

76 Plut., Rom., 29; Gilbert, I.291; Hild, in Daremberg-Saglio, IV.579.

77 Var., L. L., 6.18.

78 Liv., 1.16; Dionys., 2.56; Plut., Rom., 29; id. Cam., 33.

79 R. G.I.532‑5.

80 It is accepted by Gilbert (I.290), by Marquardt (III.325), and by Fowler (R. F., 175‑6).

81 See p23.

p66 82 R. F., 176.

83 The similarity of ritual acts between these two festivals and the Lupercalia has been noted by Schwegler (I.533), by Hild (in Daremberg-Saglio, IV.579), and by Ihm (in Roscher, II.599).

84 Hild, in Daremberg-Saglio, III.685.

85 Var., L. L., 5.49; Preller, I.273.

86 Ov., Fast., 2.429‑49.

87 Fast., 2.269‑79.

88 Fast., 2.283‑380. See also p46 n. 91.

89 Fast., 2.381‑422.

90 Fast., 2.425.

91 Liv. ap. Gelas., adv. Androm., 12; Serv. ad Verg., Aen., 8.343.

92 Plutarch (Rom., 21) and Valerius Maximus (2.2.9) say that the Luperci smote all whom they met. This may well have been the original practice; but, since the rite had especial significance for women, they were often thought of as the only celebrants.

93 It is quite possible that at this time the stoning of the Luperci (see pp40, 41) was discontinued. Since the race of the priests seems now directed wholly toward the gift of fertility, the act of stoning no longer has any point.

94 L. L., 5.65, 67.

95 Lyd., de Mens., 4.25; Macr., 1.13.7; Solin., 1.40.

96 Lyd., de Mens., 4.25; Wissowa (R. K., 185) remarks on the significance of the dedication days of Juno's temples, the one in the Forum Holitorium being dedicated on the first of February, and the one to Juno Lucina on the first of March. Wissowa considers it more than a coincidence that these two dedication days fell on the two Kalends that were nearest to the Lupercalia.

97 Paul. ex Fest., 85; Mart. Cap., 2.149.

98a 98b Paul. ex Fest., 85.

[image ALT: Valid HTML 4.01.]

Page updated: 6 Mar 14