an umbrian-latin correspondence

8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence

1/18

Department of the Classics, Harvard University

An Umbrian-Latin CorrespondenceAuthor(s): Brent VineSource: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 90 (1986), pp. 111-127Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/311464.

Accessed: 11/04/2011 15:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Department of the Classics, Harvard Universityis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311464?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311464?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu


2/18

AN

UMBRIAN-LATINCORRESPONDENCE

BRENTVINE

I

LMOST

as soon

as Aeneas

and

his

men take

shelter

in the

Strophades

(Aeneid

3.209

ff.),

the foul

and

ravenous

Harpies

swoop

down

and defile

the

banquet

that had been

set

up.

There

is

a

second

attempt

to

eat

(instruimus

mensas,

Aen.

3.231),

again

frustrated

by

the

attacking

Harpies,

followed

by

a

hopeless

counterattack ed

by

Aeneas: the

filthy

birds

are

apparently

nvulnerable to the

Trojans'

flailings

and

merely fly

off. The

Harpy

seeress

Celaeno,

as

spokesper-

son of her vile sisterhood, remains behind perched on a crag and

utters

a

chilling

prophecy:

he

Trojans

will

indeed reach

Italy,

but

they

will not

settle their

city

until

a

frightful

famine

(or famishment)

in

recompense

for

injury

done to

the

Harpies-forces

them

to consume

their

very

tables:

Italiam

cursu

petitis ventisque

vocatis:

ibitis

Italiam

portusque

ntrare icebit.

Sed non ante datam

cingetis

moenibus urbem

quamvos dirafames nostraeque niuriacaedis

ambesas

subigat

malis

absumere

mensas.

(Aen. 3.253-257)

Aeneas' men

panic,

and

Anchises

dramatically

nvokes

the

gods,

beg-

ging

them to

avert such

a

horrible

threat.

As

often,

the

prophecy

turns

out

to

be

correct,

but with a

twist.

Having

landed in

Italy,

Aeneas and

his men

set

up

a

ritual

feast,

consisting

of

sacrificial

pelt

cakes

(adorea

iba),

which

serve as

platters

or

various fruits:

Instituuntque

dapes

et

adorea iba

per

herbam

subiciunt

epulis

(sic

luppiter ipse

monebat)

et

Cereale

solum

pomis

agrestibusaugent.

(Aen. 7.109-111)


3/18

112 Brent

Vine

But

the

fruit fails

to

satisfy

their

hunger,

and so

they

devour

the

sacrificialcakes

themselves.

At

this,

young

lulus

quips:

Heus,

etiam

mensasconsumimus?

7.116),

which leads Aeneas to recall Celaeno's

prophecy.

As the ancients

knew,

there was more to the

prophecy

and

its

denouement

than the

circumstance

of

using

liba

somewhat

in

the

manner

of

tables: Celaeno's

central term mensa

was in fact

a

double

entendre,

since

the

word

originally designated

precisely

a

round

sacrificial

cake on which

offerings

were

heaped.'

Confirmation of

a

most

interesting

sort comes

from the ancient

Umbrian ritual

texts,

in

which

sacrificial

cakes

of

various

sorts

figure prominently.

Here

one

finds the well-attestedterm mefa/mefa, which is the exact etymologi-

cal

equivalent

of Latin

mensa,

and

which

designates

a

(probably

broad,

flat)

sacrificial

cake.

A

similar Umbrian-Latin

orrespondence

has

recently

been discovered

by

C.

Sandoz,

in

his

analysis

of

U.

(mefa)

vestigia

(mefa) uestisia,

cf. Lat.

(panis)

depsticius

Cato

R.R.

74).2

The

following

study

addresses

just

such

a

correspondence

between Latin

and Umbrian terms for sacrificial

akes.

Let me

begin

by

citing

Poultney's

comments

on the Umbrian

sacrificial

ficla

cake,

in

his

comprehensive

edition of the

Iguvine

Tables:

ficla:

this

type

of

cake,

the

exact

nature of which

is

unknown,

is

added to the

prosecta

n

the

sacrificesbefore

and

behind

the

three

gates

and

at

the

other

stops

during

the

purification

of the

Mount,

and also

in

the lustration of the

people

...

It

may

have been

similar

to

the

L.

fertum,

since

fertum

and

strues

are

associated

together

in

Cato R.R.

134,

the former

as

an

offering

to

Jupiter,

the

latter to

Janus,

while

ficla and strubla, he equivalentof L. strues,are associatedin

several

Iguvine

passages.3

1

Cf.

Servius

ad Aen.

3.257: Maiores

nimnostri

has

mensas

habebantn

honore

deorum,

paniceas

scilicet

and

the formulaic oath

preserved

in

Paulus

ex

Festo

112.6L: Mensa

frugibusque

urato

significat

per

mensamet

fruges.

See

further

A.

Ernout

and

A.

Meillet,

Dictionnaire

&tymologique

e la

langue

latine4

(Paris

1967) 397.

2

Le nom

d'une offrande

'i

Iguvium:

ombr.

vestigia,

BSL

74

(1979)

339-346.

3

J.

W.

Poultney,

The

BronzeTables

of

Iguvium

Baltimore

1959)

249.


4/18

An

Umbrian-Latin

orrespondence

113

Thus

Poultney

tentatively

correlates

U.

ficla

and Lat.

fertum

based

on

the

fact that

both

are associated

with

the

cognate

terms

U.

strusla

Lat. strues. This

penetrating

and

important

observation

has

never

been

pursued

to its

logical

conclusion

in terms

of Common

Italic

ritual

practice.4

One

must

begin

with more

precise

accounts

of the

parallel

associations

Lat. strues

fertum

and U.

strubla

ficla.

The

association

between the

Latin

terms struesand

fertum,

both

designating

sacrificial

cakes,

extends far

beyond

Poultney's

reference

to a single passagein Cato. Althoughmost of the evidence has been

assembled,

the extent and

significance

of

this

association

have

perhaps

not

been

adequately

appreciated;

or

this

reason

alone,

the

following

survey

may

be of

some use.

1.

Paulus

ex

Festo

75.17L.

s

Ferctum

enus

libi

dictum,

quod

crebrius

ad

sacra

ferebatur,

nec

sine

strue,

altero

genere

libi,

quae

qui

adferebant

struferctarii

ppellabantur.

Note

in

particular

he

phrase

nec

sine

strue,

as

well

as

the

compound

struferctarius,

which

appears

elsewhere in

Paulus'

extractsfrom

Festus,

in a

slightly

altered form:

2. Paulusex Festo377.2L (corrected rom Gloss.Lat.4.394): Scruf-

ertarios

dicebant,

qui quaedam

acrjficia

d

arbores

ulguritas

aciebant,

a

ferto

scilicet

quodam acrficii

genere.

As

already

seen

by

Stolz,8

strufer-

tarius

is

a

dvandva

compound

similar in

formation to

the

archaic

sacrificial

erm

suovitaurilia,

both

motivated

by

patterns

of

ritual

co-

occurrence.

(See

also

below

on strues

fertum

in

the

suovitaurilia

4For

the

general

comparison,

ee

already

J.

Savelsberg,

KZ

20

(1872)

443-444.

5CitationsromFestus(and PaulusDiaconus x Festo)afterSextiPompei

Festi

de

verborum

ignjficatu

quae

supersunt,

ed.

W. M.

Lindsay

(Leipzig

[Teubner]

913),

supplemented

y

Lindsay's

nnotations

n his

later

edition,

Glossaria

Latina4

(Paris

1930)

71-467.

6

On

the

spelling

irctum

of

nearly

all

manuscripts

also

firectum

T),

see

O.

MUller,

Sexti

Festi

de

verborum

ignjficatu

uae

supersunt

Leipzig

1839)

85,

and

esp.

A.

Ernout,

Les

elbments

ialectaux

u

vocabulaire

atin

(Paris

1928)

60,

165,

who

takes

the

form to

be

dialectal.

The

spelling

with

-c-

is

discussed

below.

On the

strues

cake,

cf.

Festus

408.21L:

Strues

genera

iborum

unt,

digi-

torum

coniunctorum

on

dissimilia,

ui superiecta

anicula

n

transversum

ontinen-

tur.

7

See

Lindsay

(Gloss.

Lat.

4.394)

for

the

confusion

involving

scrufertarii

Gloss.

Abol.

SC

38

anda

conflation

ith

a

gloss

scrutarii,

nd

or a

possible

es-

toration

f

Festus'

mutilated

ntry

or

strufertarios.

8

F.

Stolz,

IF 1

(1892)

332.


5/18

114

Brent

Vine

ceremony

itself.)

3.

Fabius

Pictor

(apud

Aul. Gell.

10.15.14).

In a

list

of

detailed

regulations

concerning

the Flamen Dialis

(10.15.1-25),

including

injunctions

concerning

priestly

garb

and

other

paraphernalia

e

was

to

have on or about

him

at all

times,

we find the

statement:

apud

eius

lecti

fulcrum

capsulam

esse cum strue

atque

ferto

oportet.

Although

these

regulations, including

the

injunction

concerning

the two

sacred

cakes

strues and

fertum,

have on occasion

been listed without com-

ment

in

standard

treatments

of Roman

religion,9

Dum6zil

has

observed

that the

intentof the

rules

concerning

the

appurtenances

of

the

Flamen Dialis is

to make of him

l'8tre

pur

et

sacr6

par

excel-

lence, une incarnationdu sacr6. 10

4. Cato

RR

134.2-4.

The archaic

pre-harvest

porca

praecidanea

sacrifice

involves

a

complex

double

ceremony

for Janus and

Jupiter,

in which ritual

strues

offerings

directed toward

Janus

are

then

repeated

for

Jupiter

with

the

fertum.

Note the

parallel

phrasing-always

with

the

sequence

strues

(for

Janus)

followed

by fer(c)tum

(for

Jupiter)

both

in

Cato's

instructions

and

in

the

prayers

hemselves:

2.

lano

struem

ommoveto sic:

lane

pater,

te

hac strue

ommovenda bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius

mihi

liberisque

meis

domo

familiaeque

meae.

Fertum

lovi

ommoveto

et mactato

sic

lupiter,

te

hoc fercto

obmovendo

bonas

preces

precor,

uti

sis

volens

propitius

mihi

liberisque

meis

domo

familiaequae

meae

mactus hoc

fercto. 3.

Pos-

tea

lano

vinum dato

sic:

lane

pater,

uti te

strue

ommo-

venda

bonas

preces

bene

precatus

sum,

eiusdem

rei

ergo

macte

vino inferio

esto.

Postea

lovi

sic:

lupiter,

macte

isto fercto

esto,

macte vino

inferio esto.

Postea

porcam

praecidaneam mmolato. 4. Ubi exta prosecta erunt, lano

struem ommoveto

mactatoque

item,

uti

prius

obmoveris;

lovi ferctum

obmoveto

mactatoque

item,

uti

prius

feceris.

Item

lano vinum

dato et

lovi

vinum

dato,

item

uti

prius

datum ob struem

obmovendam et fertum

libandum.

Postea

9

E.g.,

G.

Wissowa,

Religion

undKultus

der

R'omer

Munich

1912)

506-507.

10

G.

Dum6zil,

La

religion

omaine

archaiiiue

Paris

1966)

159.

Cf.

also

H.

Le

Bonniec,

Le

cultede

Ctrss

'i

Rome

(Paris

1958)

153,

who

emphasizes

the anti-

quityof this particularradition: Il n'y a pas d'offrandeplus ancienneque les

deux

sortes

de

gateaux

sacr6s

(strues

et

fertum)

qui

sont ici

[i.e.,

at

Cato

RR

134]

presentes

a

Janus et

Jupiter:

e

plus

archaique

des

pretres

romains,

le

flamine de

Jupiter,

devait en avoir

toujours

a

sa

disposition

dans un

coffret

auprds

de

son

lit.


6/18

An

Umbrian-Latin

orrespondence

115

Cereri exta et vinum

dato.l

5. Cato RR 141.4. The suovitaurilia

ceremony

and sacrifice

accom-

panying

the

lustratio

agri

begins

with an invocation to

Janus

and

Jupiter

and

continues

with a

prayer

to

Mars

(Mars

pater,

te

precor

quaesoque,

uti

sies

volens

propitius

mihi

domo

amiliaeque nostrae, etc.;

cf.

the

prayers

to

Janus

and

Jupiter,

134.2, just

cited).

Directly

after

the

prayer,

Cato

enjoins

the

sacrificer

to have

the

strues

and

fertum

available,

and then to offer them:

item cultro

facito

struem

et

fertum

uti

adsiet: nde

obmoveto.

6. Acta

fratrum

Arvalium.12

Various

expiatory

sacrifices

(piacula)

described in the Acta fratrum Arvalium are accompanied with cake

offerings,

including

strues

and

fertum

The

typically

incomplete

refer-

ences

in

the

handbooks13

to

strues

and

fertum

as used in the Acta

fra-

trum

Arvalium

give

a

very

imperfect impression

of the

frequency

of

this collocation

and

of

its

formulaic

appearance

in

virtually

all of

the

extant

descriptions

of

piacula

in

these texts.

It

occurs no

less than

sixteen

times

in

Henzen's

corpus, always

in

piacula.

In

piacula

per-

formed

ob

ferri

inlationem or

ob

ferri

elationem,14

the

most

frequent

version

(6x )

is PIACULUM

FACTUM

...

PORCIS

ET

AGNIS

STRUIBUS

FERTISQUE;15

otherwise, the paired victims are singular: PIACULUM

FACTUM

...

PORCA

ET

AGNA STRUIBUS

FERTISQUE 3x),16

PIACU-

LUM

FACTUM ...

PORCAMPIACULARSTRUIBUS

FERTISET

AGNAM

QUORUM

[sic]

EXTAE REDDITAE

SUNT,17

PIAC[ULUM

FACTUIM...

STRUIB

E[T]

FERT

PORCILIAM

ALB[AM]

PIACULAR,18

and

P.F. ...

PORCAMET

AGNAM

STRUIB

EFFERTIS

[sic]

ET

EXTAS REDDID

AD

11

Citations

rom

Cato after

M.

Porci

Catonis

de

agri

cultura,

d. A.

Mazzarino

(Leipzig

[Teubner]

1962).

12References to the Acta fratrumArvalium(AFA) will be given after

W.

Henzen,

Acta

ratrum

Arvalium

uae supersunt

Berlin

1874), by year,

page,

and

line;

in the case of

material

discovered after

1874

and before

1945,

refer-

ence will

be made to

E.

Pasoli,

Acta

fratrum

Arvalium

quae

post

annum

MDCCCLXXIV

eperta

unt

(Bologna

1950),

by

page, number,

and line.

13

In

addition to OLD

and

ThLL,see,

e.g., Pauly-Wissowa

099

(Orth)

and

Wissowa

(above,

n.

9)

412

n.

4.

14

These

instancesare

cataloguedby

Henzen

135.

15

With

minor

variations

in

abbreviation and

state of

preservation:

PI]AC

FACT,

[PIORCIS

ET

AGNIS,

STRUIB

FERTI[SQUE,

etc.;

AFA

a.

119, p.

155,

lines

65-70 (bis, including he certainrestorationSTRUIBUSIERT[ISQUE);. 121,

p.

160,

lines 57-61

(bis);

a.

130, p.

165,

lines

2-7

(bis).

16

Ibid.,

a.

156,

p.

171,

lines

70-75

(bis);

a.

184,

p.

189,

lines

23-24.

17

Ibid.,

a.

221,

p. 210,

lines 7-13.

18

bid.,

a.

222,

p. 212,

lines

5-8.


7/18

116

Brent Vine

ARAM.19

imilarly,

n

other

piacula

(for

trees

that have

fallen either

ob

vetustatem

r

tempestatibus),20

ne

finds

(3x)

PIACULUMACTUM

..

PORCIS ET AGNIS STRUIBUS

FERTISQUE,

1

and

[PIACULUM

FACT]UM

..

[PORCAIM

T

AGNAM

STRUIBUS

ERCTISQ.22

Pasoli's additions

to

Henzen's

corpus yield

still

another

instance:

ET

LUCUM

ASCENDER

T

PROMAG

TFLAMSTRUIB T

FERFECERET

IMMOL GNAOP

ALBAAD LITATIONE

XTA NSPEXERUNT

T

REDDIDERANT

3

Although the phrasing s somewhat different from that of previously

known

texts

(note

also

the abbreviation

STRUIB

ET

FER,

otherwise

unexampled

in

Henzen's

material),

this

description

does form

part

of

a

complex

and detailed

piaculum.24

Note

in

this connection

that

in

terms

of Roman

religious

practice,

the

porca

praecidanea

sacrifice,

even

in

Cato's

purely

agrarian

version

(as

distinct from

funerary

ver-

sions),

is

essentially

expiatory

in

character,

that

is,

a form of

piacu-

lum,

as

Le Bonniec

has discussed

at

some

length.25

Le

Bonniec has

also noted26 the

apotropaic

character of the invocation

to

Mars

in

Cato's version of the ceremony. But one can observe more

19

Ibid.,

a.

225,

p. 215,

lines

21-23.

20

These instances

are

cataloguedby

Henzen 139-140.

21

AFA a.

101,

p.

143,

lines

1-2;

a.

105,

p. 146,

lines

38-40;

a.

118, p.

152,

lines

41

-43.

22

Ibid.,

a.

155, p.

171,

lines 59-60.

23

Pasoli

47,

no.

100,

lines

14-17

(a. 225).

24The

fragments

of

the

Acta

published

since

Pasoli's edition

have

nothing

more to

offer:

even

though

several new

piacula

have

been

discovered,

the

parts

which

probably

ontained

phrases

ike

struibus

ertisque

re

broken

off;

thus

the

text

reportedby

A.

Ferrua,

Nuovi

frammenti

degli

atti

degli

Arvali,

Bulletino

della

commissione

rcheologica

omunale i

Roma

78

(1961-62

[19641)

116-129,

contains

several

piacula,

one

of

which

Ferrua

restores

(in

part)

as follows

(118,

lines

22- 23

of

the

tablet):

IN

LUCO

DEAE

DI]AE

PIACULUMACTUM B

FERRUM

NLA[TUM

FERTISQUE

ER

KALIATOREM

TPUBLICOS

RATRUM

RVALIUM

Similarly

he

fragment

n J.

Scheid,

Un

nouveau

fragment

des actes

arvalesde

l'ann6e

186/7,

ZPE43

(1981)

343-352,

restored n

part

(345)

as

follows:

STRUIBUS

FERTISQUE]

ERT.

FLAVIU[M

25H. Le

Bonniec

(above,

n.

10)

93

ff.,

150,

154

ff.

On

piacula,

see

in

general

S.

P. C.

Tromp,

De

Romanorum

iaculis

Amsterdam1921).

26148,

with n.

5.


8/18

An

Umbrian-Latin

orrespondence

117

specifically

that the

ceremony

is a

potential

piaculum operis

faciendi27

comparable

to the

porca

praecidanea

offering:

if

favorable

omens are not received, the offering becomes an explicit piaculum:

Mars

pater,

...

te hisce suovitaurilibus

iaculo

.

..

te

hoc

porco

piaculo

(141.4).

28

7. Ovid

Fasti

1.275-276.

Janus describes

the establishment

of

his

altar,

and

the

ritual

offerings

appropriate

o

him:

ara

mihi

posita

est

parvo

coniuncta

sacello:

haec adolet flammis cum

strue

farra

suis.

Since Neapolis,29commentatorshave traditionallycited one or more

of the relevant

passages

from

Festus,

Cato

(134,

but not

141),

and

the

Acta

fratrum

Arvalium,

o

explain

strues n

its rare

usage

here as

(heap

of)

sacrificial

akes,

and not

heap, pile

in

general. Among

twentieth-century

editions,

Frazer's

fairly

full

discussion is

noteworthy--and

yet

he

omits all reference to the

fertum

cake.

30

Nea-

polis,

in

contrast,

had

commented

explicitly

on the

association of

strues

and

fertum,

as

seen

in

Festus and the ritual

phraseology

of the

Acta

ratrum

Arvalium:

Strues

ibi

genus,

de

quo

vide

Festum. Solita

haec in sacrificiismisceri cum fercto; immo fere numquamhoc sine

illa.

Idem: Ferctum

enus

libi

dictum,

quod

crebrius d sacra

erebantur,

nec

sine

strue,

altero

genere

libi,

quae qui adferebant

truferctarii

ppella-

bantur.

Inde in

veteri

lapide:

PORCAMET

AGNAM

STRUIBUS T

FERTIS. 31

It

was

Burman,

the

compiler

of the

great eighteenth-

century

variorum

edition of

Ovid,32

who

first

drew a

further

inference:

on the

basis

of

Neapolis'

comments

(which

he

cites)

and some

27

Ibid.,

156

and

Tromp

(above,

n.

25)

90

ff.

28

See also Henzen 143 ff. on the expiatorysuovitaurilian the Acta ratrum

Arvalium.

29

C.

Neapolis

(Carlo

di

Neapoli),

Anaptyxis

ad

Fastos P.

Ovidii

Nasonis

(Antwerp

1639),

in J. F.

Palesius,

Caroli

Neapolis

Anaptyxis

d

Fastos

Ovidianos

cum

additamentis

o.

Felicis

Palesii

Palermo

1735)

101.

30

Publii Ovidii

Nasonis

Fastorum

ibri

sex:

The Fasti

of

Ovid,

ed.

J.

G.

Frazer

(London

1929)

2.129-130.

F.

Btomer,

P.

Ovidius

Naso:

Die

Fasten

(Heidelberg

1957)

is

silent

at

this

point.

31

EchoingNeapolis,

also M.

Bayeux,

in the

notes to

his Traduction

es Fastes

d'Ovide

Rouen

and Paris

1783)

1.173:

Le Strues

6toit

une

espece

de

gateau

que

l'on

n'offroitgueres qu'avecun gateaud'une autreesp6ce,appell6Ferctum.

Une

ancienne

inscription

rapport6e

par

Neapolis,

est ainsi

conque:

Porcam

&

agnam

Struibus

&

Ferctis.

32

P.

Burman,

Publii

Ovidii

Nasonis

Fastorum ibri VI

(vol.

3

of

Opera

omnia

[Amsterdam

17271)

27.


9/18

118

BrentVine

variation

in

the

manuscript

tradition for

Fasti

1.276

(especially

the

variant

cum strue

tura

for

cum

strue

arra),

Burmanwrote: dubito

an

ex

iis, quae

affert

Neapolis, legendum

sit,

Haec adolet

flammis

cum

strue

ercta

suis.

Merkel, apparently

ndependently

of

Burman, pro-

posed virtually

the

same

emendation

in

his

pioneering

critical edition

of the

Fasti: cum

strue

erta

suis;

ita enim

legendum

esse

existimo,

quamquam

mutavi

nihil. 33

Burman's

conjecture

deserves

more careful

scrutiny.34

Whether or

not

it

is

correct

(in

the narrow

sense

of

producing

a

more

accurate

text),

the

association

on which

it

is based is

an

importantone;

indeed,

to the extent

that the

Burman/Merkel emendation

cumstrue

er(c)ta

is motivated by this association, the weight of the evidence, as it

appearsabove,

is

considerably tronger

than either Burman

or Merkel

supposed.

Manuscript

support

for

this

conjecture

is

admittedly

not

strong,

although

certain

points

are

suggestive,

and

in

any

event,

the

mixed

manuscript

tradition of the

Fasti

allows

for

a

certain

latitude:

long

before

Peeters' extended

treatment,35

t

was

clear that

the

best

manuscripts

are often

seriously corrupt

and that the

numerous

codices

recentiores

ot

infrequentlypreserve important

readings.36

Apart from haec adolet(for which some manuscriptsread hancor

adolent),

manuscript

variation

for the

remainder of the line

is

not

indicated

in

any

modern edition

and

must

be

sought

in

Merkel's criti-

cal

apparatus

of

1841;

some

of

this material

is also

available,

in

less

precise

form,

in

the

editions

of

Krebs

(1826)

and Burman

(1727,

cit-

ing

material rom

Heinsius'

edition of

1652).

The

second

half of

the

pentameter

in

Fasti 1.276

(cum

strue

arra

suis)

has

the

following

variants:

33

R. Merkel,P. OvidiiNasonisFastorumibri ex (Berlin 1841) xcvi. Merkel's

insistence on the

fert-

variants

n

Festus

may imply

knowledge

of

Burman's

dis-

cussion,

since

Burman

quoted only

the

ferct-

variants

throughout.

The

conjec-

ture,

in

any case,

had

been

correctly

attributed

o

Burman

by

J. P.

Krebs,

P.

Ovidii

NasonisFastorum

ibri

ex

(Wiesbaden

1826)

16.

34

The

last

edition

of the Fasti

to

take note of it

was that of F. A.

Paley,

P.

Ovidii

NasonisFastorum

ibri

ex

(London

1864)

23,

who

attributed

t

to

Merkel.

It

has

been

accepted

only

by

ThLL

6.1.589

(s.v.

fertum), again

with

attribution

to

Merkel.

35

F.

Peeters,

Les

Fastes

d'Ovide

Brussels

1939);

see also G.

Luck,

Unter-

suchungenurTextgeschichtevids Heidelberg1969)49-53.

36

For an

early appreciation

of

this state of

affairs,

see H.

Peter,

P.

Ovidi

Nasonis

Fastorum

ibri

sex3

(Leipzig

1889)

vii-viii.

Similarly

Le

Bonniec,

P.

OvidiusNaso:

Fastorum

iber

primus

Paris

1961)

14-15.


10/18

An

Umbrian-Latin

orrespondence

119

cum sale

farra

suis: Merkel's

codices recentiores

and

g.37

According

to Heinsius

(see

Burman,

loc.

cit.),

Pro

cum

strue

duo Vaticani,cumsale, ut molam salsamintelligit. 38

cum strue

thura turra uis:

thura

Merkel's

3

(along

with

an

unnamed second

manuscript),

turra

p.39

Cf.

Burman,

who

notes cum strue

tura

Excerpt.

Vossii et duo

alii. 40

cum

strue

arta

suis:

Merkel's

codexrecentior

(ma.

pr.).41

None of

these

codicesrecentiores

eterioresque

igures

in

the

recent

Teubner edition

of Alton

et

al.,42

but the

testimony

of

P,

at

least,

is

frequently

useful.43

Without

presenting

formal

arguments

in

favor

of

Burman'semendation,let me simplyraise certaintextualparallels.

Janus

had

already,

n

fact,

referredto

his

own ritual

offerings:

Inde vocor

Ianus;

cui cum

Ceriale

sacerdos

imponit

libum

farraque

mixta

sale

(Fasti

1.127

-128)

37Merkel's

s

(see

his

description,

cclxxxii)

is the

Codex

Petri

Servii,

Bodl.

Auct. F. 4.28

(received

from

Petrus

Servius

by

Heinsius);

see further

Peeters

167,

and E.

H.

Alton

et

al.

BICS 24

(1977)

53

(no.

108);

Merkel's

g

is the

so-

called Gallicus

Mazarinianus

or

Mazarinianus

lter )

of

Heinsius

(Bodl.

Auct. F.

4.24,

Alton et

al.

53

no.

105),

which

is

not,

as both Merkel

and

Frazer

supposed,

Paris. 7992

(Heinsius'

Codex

Sarravianus );

n

this

confu-

sion,

see Peeters

155, 158,

179 n.

7

and

esp.

Alton et

al.

53

and D. E.

W.

Wor-

mell,

Hermathena3

(1959)

38.

38Krebs

(above,

n.

33) records

cum sale

in

two of the 58

manuscripts

he

examined,withoutspecifyingwhichones.

39

For

the

closely

related

3

( Excerpta

Douzae )

and

P

(=

Peeters's

Pa,

Paris.

8239,

the

so-called Puteanus

primus

of

Heinsius),

see

Merkel

cclxxx

and

cclxxxiii,

Peeters

156

and

202

n.

1,

and Alton

et

al.

54

(no. 117).

On the

Excerpta

Douzae,

see

M.

D.

Reeve,

RhM 117

(1974)

165

and 119

(1976)

75.

40

On the

varied sources

of the

Excerpta

Vossii

of

Heinsius,

see

Peeters

153,

165,

Merkel

ccxciii,

and

Reeve,

RhM

117,

164,

and

119,

74.

Krebs

(above,

n.

33)

again

records

tura

rom a

single

unspecified

ource.

41

The

so-called Codex

Relandinus

(Berol.

Diez B.

Sant.

25,

Peeters's

Berol.

2 );

see

Merkel's

description

(cclxxxii),

Peeters

157,

and

Alton

et

al.

39 (no. 5).

42

P.

Ovidi

Nasonis

Fastorum

ibri

ex,

ed.

E.

H.

Alton,

D. E.

W.

Wormell,

and

E.

Courtney

(Leipzig

[Teubner]

1978).

43

On

the

affiliations f

P

with

both AUD

and

G,

see

Peeters

343

ff.


11/18

120

Brent Vine

Here

the

priest

sets

out

the

offering

cake

(Ceriale

libum), together

with

far

and the archaic

offering

of

mola

salsa.

These last

two items

are

again

coupled

laterin Book 1:

Ante,

deos

homini

quod

conciliare

valeret,

far erat et

puri

lucida

mica

salis.

(Fasti

1.337

-338)

In

1.276, then,

the

farra

of

the best

manuscripts

s

a clear

lectio

aci-

lior: strues

plus farra

is

equivalent

to

libum

plus

farra

in 1.128. More-

over,

the

variant

cum sale

farra

need not

have

any bearing

on the

status of farra in the text: it may simply show that the unfamiliar

meaning

of

strues

has led

to the

word's

displacement,

with

correction

to

sale

after

1.128

and

1.338,

where

far

and

sal

appear ogether.

But

if,

then,

farra

seems

secure,

how are we to

explain

cum

strue

turra,

the

reading

of

P? At

first

glance,

turra

ooks like

a trivial

misreading

of

farra;

but for tura thura

incense,

P otherwise

(e.g.,

at

1.172, 1.341,

1.719)

never

spells

turra

(which

in

any

case is

an

unusual,

if

not

unique,

spelling).

One

wonders

whether

turra

is

a

corrected

(or

garbled)

version

not of

farra

(which

would have been

eminently transparent, to judge from the above parallels), but of

something unintelligible,

for

which the rare

sacrificial erm

ferta

would

indeed be

a

good

candidate.

If

so,

correction to

(or

inadvertent

replacement

by)

turra

thura

could

have

been

suggested

by

1.341

and

1.343,

with

line-initial

tura

and

Ara,

respectively

(cf.

Ara

...,

1.275);

by

1.172

lane,

tibi

primum

tura

merumque

ero;

and

by

1.719

Tura,

sacerdotes,

pacalibus

addite

lammis,

cf.

1.276

haec

adolet

lammis.

As

for

farta:

the

Codex Relandinus

(which

is

of

very

mixed

provenance)

is

not otherwise known

to

preserve precious

readings;

it

is therefore

unlikely (although perhaps not impossible) that farta continues an

ancient

reading

erta.

In the final

analysis,

Burman's

conjecture

cannot be

accepted

without

a

great

deal of

reservation.

But

the

pervasive

association of

strues

and

fertum

in

archaic Roman

liturgy-which

is

a

fact

of Roman

ritual

practice

whether or not one

believes

in

Burman'semendation-

has

surely

been

insufficiently appreciated

by

commentators

on

the

Fasti,44

and it

is worth

considering

whether

Ovid

may

have

had such

an

association

in

mind;

for

this

reason,

the

emendation

ought

not

have been treatedwith the neglect it has received.

44

This

despite

the

fact that

virtually

all

of the material

cited above

had

been

assembled

by

Savelsberg

([above,

n.

4]

443)

as

early

as

1872.


12/18

An Umbrian-Latin

orrespondence

121

Before

examining

some

consequences

of the association

strues

fer-

tum

or Umbrian and Italic

ritual,

I

offer some

remarks

on the

etymol-

ogy

of

fertum.

Meillet

(in

Ernout-Meillet)

seems

to favor the

etymology

from

fero

implied

by

Festus

(75.17L,

cited above:

Ferctum

enus

libi

dictum,

quod

crebrius

ad

sacra

ferebatur)

and

attested

in

other ancient

commenta-

tors.45

But

he

admits

that

l'explication

par

fero

n'est

peut-atrequ'une

6tymologie

populaire,

partly

because

cette

6tymologie

ne

rend

pas

compte

de la

graphie ferctum, qui

est

aussi

fr6quente que

fertum.

Meillet's intuition

was correct:

indeed,

the

traditional

etymology

presented

by

Walde-Hofmann46

ccounts

perfectly

for

the

spelling

ferctumand should be retained. The crucialpoint, as Walde-Hofmann

notice,

is

not that

the

spelling

ferctum

s

as

frequent

as

fertum

but

that it

is

restricted

to

(and

attested

with

certainty

in)

archaic

and

archaizing

contexts

(Cato,

Festus,

Acta

fratrum

Arvalium).

The

velar

is

real,

and

the

chronology

of

its

disappearance

within

Latin

is

regular

and

has

good

parallels.47

er(c)tum

s

thus

a

substantivized

*bher'-to-

to a

to-participle

*bhrh-tb-

cooked, roasted, cf.

Rig-Vedic

bh.jicti

he

roasts

(*bhhr-skb/6-).48

t

is

significant

(and

this has not

been

pointed

out before

in

this

connection)

that the

Rig-Vedic

hapax

bh~cti (3 sg. pres. subj.

bhVjjcti

4.24.7b) occurs in a ritual context,

referring

o

the

roasting

of

barleycorns

or Indra

as

an

adjunct

offering

in

the

soma ritual:

yca

ndrdya

sunctvat

6mam

ady6c

phcct

paktFr

t6c

hygjtidhacncah

(RV

4.24.7ab)

He

who

will

press

soma for

Indra

today,

cook

cookings

and

roast

barleycorns

..

45

E.g.,

schol.

ad

Pers.

2.48:

Genus

panis

vel

libi,

quod

diis

irtfertur

ponttficibus

in

sacrjficio;

ictum

utem

ertum

a

ferendo;

Isidore

Orig.

6.19.24:

ertum

enim

dici-

tur

oblatio

quae

altari

offertur

t

sacrificatur

ponttficibus,

quo offertorium

omina-

tur

quasipropter

ertum.

See

Ernout-Meillet

above,

n.

1)

230

and

also

Lindsay,

Gloss.Lat. 4

(above,

n.

5)

for

Isidore's

probable

dependence

on

Festus.

46

A.

Walde

and J. B.

Hofmann,

Lateinisches

etymologisches

W6rterbuch

(Heidelberg

1938-54)

486-487,

with earlier

references.

47

See M.

Leumann,

Lateinische

aut-und

Formenlehre

Munich

1977)

217.

48

In

later

Sanskrit,

bl'ji-

and

its

derivatives

continue to

apply

most

character-

isticallyto the roastingor parchingof grain,e.g., byrjiyatiEpic), causat.bhar-

jayati

(Sutruta,

Apastamba

trautasotra;

grammarians

also

bhrajiayati),

bahu-

b/lyj-

roasting

much

(Vopadeva),

bharjana-

dj.

roasting

or

n.

(the

act

of)

roasting

(Bhagavata

Purana,Katyayana

rautasotra),

etc.


13/18

122

Brent

Vine

The recent

etymological

non

liquet

accorded

ertum

by

the

Oxford

Latin

Dictionary

[dub.] )

is therefore

quite

unwarranted.49

III

As with

strues

and

fertum,

the behavior of U.

strudla

nd

ficla

can

also be described

more

accurately.

In

point

of

fact,

these two terms

are associated

with

each other not in

several

Iguvine passages,

but

no

less than nine

times

in

the text of the

Iguvine

Tables.

50

n

eight

of

these

nine

passages (i.e.,

all

but

VIb

5), they

occur

in an

asyndetic

sequence

strusla

icla.

Moreover,

seven of

the nine

occurrences

of

juxtaposed strudlaand ficla appear in seven different sacrificial

ceremonies,

in

the ritual

formula

prusektu

struhqla

fikla

arveitu /

prosesetir

trula

ficla

arsueitu,

add the

struMla

and)

ficla

to

the cut-off

(parts).

51

The two

instances of

juxtaposed

strusla

and

ficla

that

do

not

appear

in

this formula are

themselves

instructive of the

intimacy

and anti-

quity

of this

juxtaposition.

They

both

appear, together

with

prusektu

struhyla

fikla

arveitu

IIa

28-29,

in

the

ceremony

describing

the

sacrifice of

a

dog

to

Hondus

Jovius,

one of the

oldest

and most

detailed portions of the Tables (IIa 15-44). After designatingthe

proper

time for

the festival

of the

Hondia,

the

instructions ist

various

paraphernalia

he

adfertor

s to

have at

hand:

huntia

ertu

katlu

arvia

struhqla

ikla

pune

vinu

salu

maletu

mantrahklu

veskla

snata

asnata umen

fertu.

(IHa

7-19)

He shall bringthe thingspertaining o the Hondia;he shall bring

the

dog, grain,

a

strusla

ake,

a

ficla cake,

mead,

wine,

ground

salt,

a

maniple,

wet

and

dry vessels,

and

unguent.

52

49The more

distant

etymological relationship

of

fer(c)tum

with

Lat.

frgod,

Greek

4bpiyw,

Umbrian

rehtef

/ frehtu

is

not

excluded,

but

awaits

clarification

of

the

differing

root

vocalisms

of

these

forms. Oscan

ertalis

s

discussed

below.

011a

18,

IIa

28-29,

IIa

41,

VIa

59,

VIb

5,

VIb

23,

VIIa

8,

VIIa

42,

VIIa

54.

Strubla

therwise

occurs

only

three

times,

while

ficla

otherwiseoccurs

six

times.

51Variations:arueitun VIb 23, ficlamin VIIa42, orderstruila icla prosesetir

arsueitu

n

VIIa

54

and

prosesetirficla

truilaarsueitu

n

VIb

5.

52Poultney's

translation

(178).

The

meanings

of

some of

these

items

are

controversial;

ee

Poultney's

notes

ad

loc.


14/18

An Umbrian-Latin

orrespondence

123

Here

we find

that

the

only

sacrificial akes to be offered

are the

strubla

cake and the

ficla

cake,

listed

in that order.

The

slaughter

and

sacrificeof the victim at the altar follows

directly,

during

which the

strusla

cake

and

the

ficla

cake are

added

to the cut-off

parts

as

part

of

a

burnt

offering

(IIa

28-29,

cited

above).

After

some

ceremonies

performed

away

from the

altar,

the

adfertor

eturns

to the altar

and

concludes the

ceremony;

before

extinguishing

the

fire,

he is to

grind

(a

portion

of)

the

struIla

cake

and

the

ficla

cake:

struhlas

fiklas ...

kumaltu

(IIa

41).

IV

Both

religious traditions, then,

show

a

well-attested

double cake

offering,

of

which

the

first

member involves the

cognate

terms

Lat.

strues/

U.

strubla.

In

both

traditions, moreover,

the

double cake

offering

is associated not

only

with animal

sacrifice

in

general

but

more

specifically

with

ceremonies

involving

the

exta:

with the

Umbrian formula

prosesetir

truIla

icla

arsueitu,

cf. Cato

RR

134.4 ubi

exta

prosecta

erunt,

ano

struemommoveto..

lovi

fertum

obmoveto,

s

well

as

the

specific

mention of

exta

in

several of

the

sacrificial

passages

from the Acta ratrumArvaliumited above. We finda similarassocia-

tion in

the

only

other

literary

attestation of

fertum

in

Latin

beyond

those

already

cited,

in Persius'

sarcastic

description

of

a

religious

hypocrite:

et

tamenhic

extis et

opimo

vincere

erto

/

intendit

2.48 -49).

One

can also

observe that in both

traditions,

these

offerings

are

pri-

marily

associated with

expiatory

or

purificatory

ceremonies.

As

already noted,

the Umbrian

collocation

struila

ficla

occurs in

three

major

contexts: the

dog

sacrificeto

Hondus

Jovius,

the

purification

of

the

citadel,

and

the

lustratio

opuli.

The

purificatory

ature

of

the

dog

sacrificehas been discussed in some detailby I. Rosenzweig,53 nd the

purification

of

the citadel

is

explicitly

styled

a

pihaclu

(=

Lat.

piacu-

lum).

Note

also

that the

central

deity

of

the Umbrian

lustratio

opuli

is

Mars,

in his

guise

as

the

divinity

who

presides

over the

well-being

and

increase of

fields and cattle

and men

(Rosenzweig

87);

he is

thus to

be

compared

(cf.

Rosenzweig

88)

precisely

with

the

Mars of

Cato's

lustratio

gri

in

RR

141,

where the

ceremony

again

involves the

cake

offering

of strues

and

fertum.

54

53Ritual ndCults fPre-RomanguviumLondon 937)50ff.

54

That

the collocation

tru.la

icla,

in

these latter

wo

ceremonies,

ccurs

only

in

the later

Tables

VI

and VII

(and

not in

the

earlier

accounts of

these

same

ceremonies

n

Table

)

does

not

argueagainst

he

antiquity

f

this ritual

phrase,

ince

(1)

it

appears

n

the

dog

sacrifice

n

IIa

(on

Table

I

as

the

oldest


15/18

124

Brent

Vine

In view

of the

above

facts,

I

suggest

not

only

that the

ficla

cake

may

be similar to the

Latin

fertum

(as

Poultney

had

surmised)

but,

more

important,

that the cultic associationsstrues +

fertum

and

struIla

+

ficla

are

ritually

cognate,

reflecting

a

two-member

phrase

assignable

to

Common Italic

ritual

practice.55

For sacrificialcake

vocabulary

in

particular,

he

correspondence

U.

struIla

ficla:

Lat. strues

fertum

is

thus

comparable

to the

correspondences

U.

mefa/mefa:

Lat.

mensa

and

U.

(mefa)

vestioia

/(mefa)

uestisia:

Lat.

(panis) depsticius

with

which we

began.

The

question

as to

which

of

the two

second terms-Lat.

fertum

or

U.

ficla-is

the

innovation

cannot

be answered with

certainty;

there

are nevertheless reasons to believe that Lat. strues fertum preserves

the older

form of this formulaic

phrase,

with

ficla

a

purely

Umbrian

replacement.

Umbrian

fikla

ficla

(

an umbrian-latin correspondence

Documents