Martianus Capella and the Cosmic System of the EtruscansAuthor(s): Stefan WeinstockReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 36, Parts 1 and 2 (1946), pp. 101-129Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/298044 .Accessed: 28/10/2011 16:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS

By STEFAN WEINSTOCK'

PART I. THE LIST OF MARTIANUS CAPELLA

i. The Text and its Interpreters. 2. The Demons. 3. The Celestial Gods. 4. The Creative Powers. 5. The Regions 7-IO. 6. The Author and his Sources.

PART II. THE SYSTEM OF THE SIXTEEN REGIONS

i. The Four Cardinal Points and the Octotropos. 2. Divination and Greek Science. 3. The Etruscan Tradition. 4. Summary.

NOTES A-G

What the Roman tradition, literary and artistic, has to tell us of the heavenly spheres is of Greek and Oriental origin, and it would be futile to go behind hellenized Rome: early Roman religion, though it had an extensive worship of heavenly gods, ignored the universe entirely. An examination of the Etruscan tradition leads to different conclusions. It offers, roughly speaking, three larger complexes to such an examination. One is the bronze model of a liver from Piacenza, used for extispicy and divided into many sections. The second is the doctrine about lightning, mainly to be found in Pliny and Seneca. The third is a list of gods, distributed among the sixteen regions of the heavens, in Martianus Capella (fourth-fifth century A.D.). The aim of this paper in its first part is to analyse this third complex (with occasional reference to the other two). Since much will be found in it that is neither Roman nor Greek but Etruscan, a second part will inquire into the origin and development of what is the principal problem of this Etruscan stratum-the system of the sixteen regions. The argument is helped here by another, eightfold, division of the heavens, the octotropos of the Greeks. Its relevance to the Etruscan system was discovered by Bouche-Leclercq 2 and taken into account by Thulin 3; but it was Cumont's 4 article that first presented it in its real historical perspective. Cumont has shown that this division is of remote antiquity and is still discernible beneath the complicated superstructure of Hellenistic astrology. Confirming Cumont's conclusions, we shall follow on a parallel line the history of the sixteen regions. It will be found that they were similarly archaic and used in Etruria for centuries, before, under the influence of Greek theological speculations, they reached that stage which we meet in the list of Martianus.

PART I. THE LIST OF MARTIANUS CAPELLA

i. The Text and its Interpreters.-The framework of the encyclopaedia of Martianus Capella is the story of the marriage of Mercury and Philologia (Book I-2). The gods are called from the sixteen regions in the heavens to an assembly

1 I am indebted to Professor Cumont and Professor Last for valuable advice and criticism and I must gratefully acknowledge the help I have received from the Craven Committee and the Jowett Copyright Trustees, who have made it possible for me to carry out the work of which some of the results are presented in this paper.

2 Astrologie grecque 279. 3 ' Die Gotter des Martianus Capella,' 68 ff.: see

p. 103, n. 13. " Rev. phil. 42, I9I8, 70: see below, p. i i8, n. IOI,

102 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

to decide about the marriage, and the passage in which the list of these gods is given 5 is our main source of information on Etruscan theology:

(i) in quarum prima sedes habere memorantur post ipsum Iovem dii Consentes Penates, Salus ac Lares, Ianus, Favores opertanei Nocturnusque. (46)

(ii) in secunda itidem mansitabant praeter domum Iovis, quac ibi quoque sublimis est, ut est in omnibus praediatus, Quirinus Mars, Lars militaris; Iuno etiam ibi domicilium posside- bat, Fons etiam, Lymphae diique Novensiles. (47)

(iii) sed de tertia regione unum placuit corrogari. nam Iovis Secundani et Iovis Opulentiae Minervaeque domus illic sunt constitutae; sed omnes circa ipsum Iovem fuerant in praesenti. Discordiam vero ac Seditionem quis ad sacras nuptias corrogaret, praesertimque cum ipsi Philologiae fuerunt semper inimicae ? de eadem regione solus Pluton, quod patruus sponsi est, convocatur. (48)

(iv) tunc Lynsa Silvestris, Mulciber, Lar caelestis nec non etiam militaris Favorque ex quarta regione venerunt. (49)

(v) corrogantur ex proxima transcursis domibus Coniugum regum Ceres, Tellurus Terracque pater Vulcanus et Genius. (50)

(vi) vos quoque, Iovis filii, Pales et Favor cum Celeritate, Solis filia, ex sexta poscimini; nam Mars, Quirinus et Genius superius postulati. (50)

(vii) sic etiam Liber ac Secundanus Pales vocantur ex septima. Fraudem quippe ex eadem post longam deliberationem placuit adhiberi, quod crebro ipsi Cyllenio fuerit obsecuta. (52)

(viii) octava vero transcurritur, quoniam ex eadem cuncti superius corrogati, solusque ex illa Veris Fructus adhibetur. (53)

(ix) Iunonis vero Hospitae Genius accitus ex nona. (54) (x) Neptune autem, Lar omnium cunctalis, ac Neverita tuque Conse ex decima con-

venistis. (55) (xi) venit ex altera Fortuna et Valitudo Favorque pastor, Manibus refutatis, quippe ii in

conspectum Iovis non poterant advenire. (56) (xii) ex duodecima Sancus tantummodo devocatur. (57) (xiii) Fata vero ex altera postulantur; ceteri quippe illic dii Manium demorati. (58) (xiv) bis septena Saturnus eiusque Caelestis Iuno consequenter acciti. (59) (xv) Veiovis ac dii publici ter quino ex limite convocantur. (6o) (xvi) ex ultima regione Nocturnus Ianitoresque terrestres similiter advocati.

The first impression one gains from this passage is bewildering: one is discouraged from the attempt to find reason in the list by coming across divinities like Favores, Lynsa Silvestris, Neverita, Lar omnium cunctalis, or genealogies which call Pales and Favor sons of Iuppiter, Celeritas daughter of the Sun, or Vulcan father of the Earth, Iuno wife of Saturn. Accordingly modern scholars avoid the list whenever they can, although they often have to quote one group of divinities or another. Muller devoted little space to it, although he believed it to be a fragment of the Etruscan libri fulgurales, mixed with some foreign teachings.6 He considered the regions from the point of view of his theory of a templum- a space in the sky or on the earth, limited and orientated for the purpose of divination.7 That Muiller's theory could be badly misused can be seen in Nissen's speculations, which do not deserve consideration.8 A fresh start was made possible in I877, when a bronze object was found near Piacenza, with its margin divided into sixteen parts and names of Etruscan deities inscribed in each. Deecke was prompted by this find to examine again the list of Martianus,

' Mart. Cap. I, 45 ff.

8 Muller, Die Etrusker 2 Z, I33 ff. Much useful work was done before Muller in the interpretation of details (collected in Kopp's edition of I836); but the question as to the meaning of the whole was not asked.

I M.uller observed that the chief gods are in the first regions, that is in the north; the Manes, in accordance with the current views, in the west

Veiovis is in one of the worst regions, and the Ianitores in the last, which is the gate leading from the heavens to the earth. Unfortunately he did not carry this analysis further.

8 Nissen, Templum 184 ff., finds that the unity of Italic ' Gottesbewusstsein ' reveals itself in this document with ' victorious clarity ', but fails to substantiate this clatm,

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I03

although his main attention was naturally centred on the bronze, which he first considered to be a model of a temp him with its sixteen regions.9 Much of Deecke's long and learned commentary may be doubtful or even wrong; but he did show that some divinities appear both on the bronze object and in Martianus. Having later discovered that the bronze is the model of a liver, he returned to the subject and added ample evidence on Greek hepatoscopy.10 Yet he still upheld Muiller's theory of a templum with its orientation and limitation and so was unable to throw any fresh light on our list. It is the merit of Bouche-Leclercq 11 that he compared the sixteen regions not with the hypothetical templuim but with the real terms of astrology such as ' houses ', loca, sortes in the heavens 12 which, in his opinion, influenced the formation of the regions. He then raised the question how and when such foreign doctrines could have been brought into connection with Etruscan divinities.

Present-day scholars usually turn for information to Thulin's monograph published in i906.13 It combines and continues the research on both the Piacenza liver and the astrological doctrines. Concerning the liver, he uses Korte's new readings,14 and in addition to many interpretations of details he asserts that originally both liver and list agreed even in the order of the regions; and that at a secondary stage, when the regions in Martianus were moved by two, this agreement was disturbed. As to the astrological elements, Thulin goes beyond the suggestions of Bouche-Leclercq by applying the doctrine of correspondence between opposite regions, the system of the dodecatropos, and by believing in the existence of an exclusively Italic brand of astrology, found on the liver and in Martianus on the one hand and in Manilius and Firmicus on the other.15 One may admit that the two lines followed by Thulin were in fact worth following; that he knew how to make use of the progress of Etruscan and astrological studies in the past ; and that his study is, notwithstanding his predecessors, independent and full of ingenious suggestions. Yet the longer I examine the list, the more convinced I am that the traditional position as developed by Thulin is not tenable. For what is really proved is no more than that the liver and Martianus have the sixteen regions and some divinities in common; and that, secondly, Martianus and astrology are at one point in partial agreement, inasmuch as Mars-Lars militaris in reg. 2, Coniuges reges in reg. 5, and Valitudo in reg. ii, correspond with similar arrangements in the system of the twelve sortes (see below p. io8). The rest remains obscure, despite illuminating conjectures in certain details. The few established points suffice to show that the list is not fanciful ; but the proportion of what is unexplained is so overwhelming that the bewilderment of which I spoke at the beginning is increased rather than cleared away.

It seems to me impossible to explain all details, or even one, in such a way as to be absolutely convincing; but probability can be claimed for a few such explanations of detail provided that they lead to the reconstruction of something like

9 Deecke, ' Das Templum von Piacenza,' Etr. Forsch. 4, i88o.

10 Etr. Forsch u. Stud. 2, i882, 65 ff. I Hist. de la divination 4, 24 ff. 12 Of these, the analogy of the twelve sortes is the

most valuable (see below). It is remarkable that he ignored the Piacenza liver, although his book was printed in I882.

13 ' Die Gotter des Martianus Capella u. der Bronzeleber von Piacenza,' Rel.-gesch. Vers, u Vorarb. 3, I,

14 Cf. Rom. Mitt. 20, I905, 348 ff. A few new readings have recently been contributed by E. Vetter, Etrziskische Wortdeutungen I, I937, I6, the most important of which is nee in reg. 28-29, as before Korte, who read n,O; see below p. I22.

15 Here he had first Boll's support, Berl. philol. Woch. I908, 1377; but see id. Wochenschr. f. klass, Philol. 1913, I23 ff.

I04 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

a system. Thus a fresh study may be justified if it throws light on the ' fabric ' of the system and subordinates the interpretation of details to this principal task.

So our first question concerns the fabric: why are there i6 regions, the number i6 (instead of 4, 7, or I2 for instance) being unusual ? Cicero says that the Etruscans arrived at this number by doubling the four cardinal points and doubling again the resulting eight.16 It will be argued in the second part of this paper that this is the real genesis of the Etruscan system: here it is only necessary to show that the four points were in fact marked in the liSt.17 (a) Nocturnus is situated in reg. i and i6, that is on both sides of the starting point, which was as we infer from the nature of Nocturnus and from other evidence, the north. (b) Vulcan appears in reg. 4 (here he is named by his epithet Mulciber) and 5, that is in the regions between which the eastern point, the point of sunrise, would fall. This is natural, if we assume that Vulcan stands here for the Sun, and we shall see that this identification is not isolated (below p. iii). (c) It is a wide- spread belief that the souls of the dead dwell in the west. Accordingly we find the Manes and the heroes (the Semones-Semidei) in the regions of the western point, II-I3. (d) Nothing can be said about the southern point, to which regs. 8 and 9 belong. In them Martianus, as often (see below p. io6), omits all names except one for each (Veris Fructus and Junonis Hospitae Genius), and these are not helpful. Nevertheless, having established three of the four points, we are furnished with some guidance as to the arrangement of the whole. We may presume that the regions of Martianus are vertical segments, constructed around the skeleton of the four points. The next task is to show that the relevant parts of the list conform to this skeleton. This task can be done with the help of material supplied by Martianus himself and, as this material covers reg. ii-i6, I shall begin with this part of the list.

2. The Demons.-In the second book (2, I50-I68), there is another system of gods, shown and described by Juno to Philologia.18 The first region, that from the aether to the sphere of the sun, is occupied by the gods proper (ipsi di or caelites or suiperiores), under the rule of luppiter. The second region between the

16 Cic. de div. 2, 42: ' caelum in sedecim partis diviserunt Etrusci. facile id quidem fuit, quattuor quas nos habemus duplicare, post idem iterum facere, ut ex eo dicerent fulmen qua ex parte venisset ... Pliny 2, I43; Serv. ad Aen. 8, 427.

17 That Nocturnus belongs to the north (cf. Plaut. Amnph. 272: 'credo ego hac noctu Nocturnum obdor- muisse ebrium ') and the Manes to the west, was seen already by Muller, Ioc. cit. 2, I35 f. The function of Vulcan at the Eastern point is not yet explicitly stated though the necessary details are given by Thulin, 10c. cit. 53 f. and Rose, YRS XXiii, I933, 49.

18 The isolation of the list from its surroundings deprives us of an important clue to its character, and of some parallels. It is generally (and I think, rightly) assumed that Cornelius Labeo is the immediate source of the list (see below, p. ii6 n. 87) : he must be, for the same reasons, the principal source of Books I-2 as far as the gods are concerned. They appear in not less than four variations. The first system is that which precedes and follows our list, I, 4I-4 and 6I-3; the second is our list, I, 45-60 the third is the order of the entrance of the gods, I, 70-88; ancl the fourth is that which is described above in the text, 2, I50-i68. Different as they are, they have some features in common. Thus the first system has in common with our list the' di consentes ' Vulcan and the ' deorum populus' (identical, as will

be seen below, p.. I05 f., with the ' di publici ' of reg. I5). This same first system has in common with the system of the second book the gods proper, called

caelites' in both cases (I, 43; 2, I5o) and the 'deorum populus' just mentioned who appear in 2, I67 as the ' longaevorum chori ' (see below, p. I05).

Moreover, an item of the first system can be under- stood only with the help of its parallels. In i, 62, the Iutilitatis publicae mentiumque cultores' appear- who are these ? In I, 94, Martianus speaks of men who, because of their exceptional life and achievements deserved, and were granted, divine honours, by the Nile or in Thebes, Aeneas or Romulus or others. This is not fully illuminating, and the instances sound strange. The solution comes in 2, I56, where the Semones-Semidei are defined: ' hi animas caelestes gerunt sacrasque mentes atque sub humana effigie in totius mundi commoda procreantur.' This is, even in its wording, a new verson of i, 62 * the instances which follow supplement the strange allusions of I, 94: Dionysus of Thebes and Osiris of Egypt are instanced among others, together with the particular commodity that the world owes to them. These instances show a certain unity of concept (which is natural, if the source is the same) and justify, I hope, my procedure of seeking support from the system of the second book,

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS 105

spheres of Sun and Moon is that of the Genii of Daemones or' di medioximi' or Lares, who convey the messages of the gods to the earth in the various forms of divination. The third region from the Moon to the Earth consists of two parts, the upper as far as the middle of the air is that of the Hemithei or Semones, the lower, from the middle of the air to the Earth is that of the Heroes and the good and evil Manes, the latter under the rule of Vedius (Pluto, Dis, Veiovis). The fourth is on the Earth proper, where the long-lived spirits dwell, the Panes, Fauni, Fontes, Satyri, etc.

In our list from Book i we find that the Manes occupy two regions, i i and I3, divided by Sancus in I2. I suggest that the first are the good Manes (Lares, Lemures) of the second system, divided from the evil Manes by the Semones, if we may assume that Sancus, that is Semo Sancus, stands for the generic notion of the Semones- Semidei.19 Thus the Manes of reg. I3 could be identified with the evil spirits, the Larvae and Maniae of the second system. If the neighbouring reg. I4 is occupied by Saturn, then we may presume that here he is the dethroned king of the gods,20 and his ' celestial Juno ' is his wife (see below p. I07). The gods of reg. I5 are more revealing again. Here we have Veiovis who, in the second book, holds judgment upon the evil spirits.21 There are further the ' di publici', at first sight a puzzling term. They cannot be, in contrast to the private cult, all public gods of the Romans or Etruscans, that is those who have already appeared in the list. I would identify them with the lowest kind of spirits, the Panes, Fauni, Fontes, etc., who in the second book dwell in the lowest sphere, on the earth itself.22 My argument rests on three considerations. (a) This is one of the last regions, so we must expect divinities of the lowest rank. (b) In the first book, in a third, more summary, list of gods, the lowest category is the ' deorum omnis populus '.23 (c) Ovid calls ' plebs deorum ' roughly those from the second book

19 Mart. Cap. 2, I 56: ' dehinc a lunari circulo usque in terram . . . superior portio eos . . . claudit, quos hemitheos dicunt quosque latine Semones aut Semideos convenit memorare. hi animas caelestes gerunt sacrasque mentes . . ., etc.' (Professor Cumont draws my attention to Lucan 9, 6 ff., who is using the same doctrine : ' quodque patet terras inter lunaeque meatus, I Semidei manes habitant, quos ignea virtus I innocuos vita patientes aetheris imi I fecit', etc. - cf. Cumont Recherches sur7^ le sy mbolisme fu,n&raire des Romains, I93). As the connection of Sancus of reg. I2 with these Semones-Semidei constitutes an important (though not decisive) link in the above conjectures, a short comment appears appropriate. We possess the following variations of the name. (i) Semunu in the Paelignian inscription of Corfinium (Conway 2i6) and Semunis conctos in the Carmen Arvale. (2) Sancus or Sangus: Varr. ap. Pliny 8, I94; Livy 8, 20, 8; 32, I, IO; Lyd. mens. 4, 90 (SANQUUOS on a rock carving of Genicai, Val Camonica, early first century B.C.: Altheim, Wdrter i. Sachen N.F. I, I938, 29). (3) Semo Sancus: Livy 8, 20, 8; CIL I4, 2458. (4) Sancus Dius Fidius: Fest. 24I; Dion. Hal. 4, 58, 4; Tab. Iguiv. I A, I4; VI B, 8 (Fisos or Fisovios Sansios). (5) Semo Sancus Dius Fidius: CIL 6, 567; 30994. (6) Dius Fidius alone (evidence in Wissowa 2 I29). This instability of the name (which is not yet explained), together with Martianus' predilection for variation (to which we shall have to return below, p. I07, n. 34), justifies, I think, the above conjectures. It is not necessary to inquire into the real nature of Semo Sancus (cf. Schwegler, J?G 1, 364 ff.; Wissowa 2 I 3o; Norden, Aus altr6m.

Priesterbiichern 204 if.), because the arbitrary ety- mology (also used by Fulg. Serm. ant. II, p. II5 H.) is the sole link between Martianus and the old Italic deity. His source used this term like others (Genii, Lares, Larvae, etc.) in order to give a Roman appearance to his Platonic theology. Sancus was used for other speculations as well. Cato, frg. 50 P. (Dion. Hal. 2, 49, 2), stated that he was a Sabine god, father of Sabus (see also Varro ap. Aug. CD i8, i9; Lyd. mens. 4, 9O). Aelius Stilo (Varr. LL 5, 66 * cf. Fest. 229) identified him with Hercules and, because of his explanation of Dius Fidius as Dioskouros, with Castor. There is not much more truth in these explanations than in that of Martianus.

20 The myth was used in a speculative sense also by Varro in his Antiqtuitates rer. div. i6, frg. 20-28 Ag.

21 Mart. Cap. 2, i65: 'circa ipsum vero terrae circulum . . . (i66) . . . in eo perenni strepitu (of the Pyriphlegethon) volutata colliditur animarum, quas Vedius adiudicarit, impietas, id est Pluton, quem etiam Ditem Veiovemque dixere' (the words id est . dixere, are wrongly, I think, deleted by Dick).

22 Mart. Cap. 2, I67: 'ipsam quoque terram, qua hominibus invia est, referciunt longaevorum chori, qui habitant silvas, nemora, lucos, lacus, fontes ac fluvios appellanturque Panes, Fauni, Fontes (Grotius: Fones codd.), Satyri, Silvani, Nymphae, Fatui Fatuaeque. . . . ' On Aristotelian (frg. 679 R.) evidence for this doctrine see Bidez, Un singulier naiufrage litteraire dans 1'antiquite I943, 36 f.

23 Mart. Cap. I, 43: ' post hos quam plures, alti pro suis gradibus, caelites ac deorum omnis populus absque impertinentibus convocandi.'

io6 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

which are quoted above.24 That is to say, ' plebs deorum,"' deorum populus ' and ' di publici ' mean the same, the lowest class of divine society (we shall meet the senators of the gods in reg. i). Passing to reg. I6, the term ' Janitores terrestres ' well concludes the comparison.25 For, it means that we have in fact descended from the sphere of the heroes in reg. i i to the earth in reg. i6.

What do we learn from this comparison ? (i) The system of the second book is well known. It is a system of concentric spheres, of Platonic origin 26 which, shortly described in the Epinomis,27 owes its elaborated form to Xenocrates.28 From the first century B.C. onwards, probably under the influence of Posidonius, who wrote T?rpi TiKpc Kcov xa1 5au6vcov,29 this doctrine was applied by Varro,30 Cornelius Labeo 31 and others to the Roman theology. So the doctrine of Martianus comes from Greek philosophy, his terms from Roman religion; but it remains to be found whose gods are thus interpreted. (2) The vertical segments of our list, in spite of their origin from the four points, do not remain on the same level proceeding means, as in the Platonic system, descent.

Before examining the other half of the list, it will be useful to add a few observations as to the technique of Martianus and his source. If there is originality in Martianus, it exhausts itself in carrying traditional features to excess. It was traditional to describe an assembly of gods in the Platonic manner. Plato had said that !eo0vos was not admitted to such an assembly.32 This is not enough for Martianus. He has a list of those who are not invited (Seditio, Discordia, etc.), but unfortunately more often he omits these names altogether and thus renders the list of his source incomplete.33 It was traditional again to use Roman gods instead of Greek, Juppiter and Saturn for Zeus and Kronos, Juno and Minerva for Hera and Athena. Where such equations were not available, a deity was supplied with the help of playful etymologies of the Varronian type : the Semones appearing for the Hemithei-Semidei are a good instance, and others will be met presently. Some of them, like the Favores in not less than four regions, we cannot explain because the key to them has not yet been found. Finally, with Augustan poetry, in particular with Ovid, a certain mannerism intruded itself into the mythological terminology. Names of divinities served as metaphors, epithets stood for proper names, Tonans for luppiter, Cyllenius for Mercury,

24 Ovid. lb. 8i : 'vos quoque plebs superum, Fauni Satyrique Laresque/Fluminaque et Nymphae Semi- deumque genus'; cf. Martial. 8, 49, 3: 'qua (sc. nocte) bonus accubuit genitor cum plebe deorum/et licuit Faunis poscere vina Jovem'; 5, 425 7, 729,

'nonnulli terrestres silvicolaeque divi . . .' Aug. CD 7, 2 . . . inter illam quasi plebeiam numinum multitudinem . . . '; 7, 3 Preller-Jordan i, 69; Norden, Auls altrom. Priester-biichern 22I, I.

25 One could identify them with Forculus, Limentinus and Cardea, in accordance with Varro's arbitrary explanations, Ant. div. I4, frg. Io4a Ag. (Aug. CD 6, 7). It is not impossible that Janus in reg. i and the ' Ianitores terrestres' in reg. i6 also indicate the two doors of the heavens; on this old lore see E. L. Highbarger, The Gates of Dreams (Baltimore, I940), 72 ff.; Cumont, Symbolisme ftundraire, 200 f.

26 Symp*p. 202e. 27 Epin. 984d; cf. Heinze, Xenokr. 92 f.; Jaeger,

Aristoteles I46 f.; Cumont, Oriental. Relig.3 288, n. 54; Fraenkel, CQ 36, I942, I2. Professor Cumont tells me that the Eastern sources of this doctrine has been discussed by the late Prof. Bidez in his book Platon et l'Orient not yet accessible to me,

28 The main passage is Plut. def. orac. I 3-I5; on Xenocrates as its source see Heinze, Xenokr. 8i ff.

29 Macrob. I, 23, 7: 'nomen autem daemonum cum deorum appellatione coniungit' (sc. Plato, Phaedr. 246a) ' aut quia di sunt &xiapovEs id est scientes futuri, aut ut Posidonius scribit in libris quibus titulus est -rrEpi pcbcov Kai atpo6vcv, quia ex aetheria substantia parta atque divisa qualitas illis est, sive &ar6 roC 5aiopEvov id est Yalop"vov seu &Tr6 TOrJ 5atouEvov hoc est pEP'30pv0vo'. Cf. Rein- hardt, Kosmos u . Sy mpathie 353 ff.; Reitzenstein, Hermes 65, I930, 87 ; R. M. Jones, Class. Phil. 27, I932, I32; Edelstein, AYP 57, I936, 298; Cumont, Symbolisme ftiunraire I22.

30 Ant. div. i6, frg. 3 Ag. (=Aug. CD 7, 6). Cf. Aetius Plac. I, 7, 30, p. 304 Diels ( Stob. Ecl. phys. I, p. 36 W.). Cf. also Cic. ND 2, 42 f.

31 Cf. Arnob. 7, i9, and the passages quoted below, p. I28, n. E.

32 Phaedr. 247a. 3 3 Consequently some of the regions contain five

or six names, others one or two.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I07

Mulciber for Vulcan, and perhaps Sancus for Semo; Juno could mean the wife of a god (Saturn, Neptune).34

The ' celestial ' gods might be expected to occur in the first part of the list. As they were dismissed with one word in the system of the second book, no ready parallel is at our disposal. I shall use the term ' celestial ' provisionally with reference to those gods whom Varro and the mythological handbooks of his time would have classified as ' di superi ' or Olympian gods ; a further differentiation will later be found necessary. It will be observed that no such god appears beyond reg. 6 except Neptune in reg. io, Saturn in I4, and Juno in 9 and I4, for whose appearance in these places, as will be seen below, special reasons exist; and there is a similar reason for the presence of the ' non-celestial ' Pluto in reg. 3. For the sake of clarity I review the regions in three groups (I-3, 4-6, 7-IO); but these groups were certainly not planned in this form by the source of Martianus.

3. The Celestial Gods.-The term ' celestial ' is so vague that the source of Martianus must have been guided by further principles in his selection of gods. Are such principles still discernible ?

(i) The Etruscan doctrine of lightning is perhaps responsible for the facts (a) that luppiter appears in the first three regions 35; (b) that his advisers, the ' di Consentes Penates', are with him in reg. I 36; (c) that the 'di Novensiles', the nine gods who also send lightning on his behalf,37 are with him in reg. 2. But speculative or antiquarian spirit, and not Etruscan doctrine, is responsible for placing these three items side by side when in fact they belong to different periods and systems, one excluding or superseding the other.

(2) It was observed by Muller that the Capitoline triad is distributed among reg. I-3.38 It must be added, however, that this was not done in order to honour the Capitoline Temple or any of its Etruscan or Italic antecedents but either because the three divinities were considered saviours and heavenly guarantors of the Roman State, or because Stoic interpretation identified luppiter with the aether, Juno with the air, and Minerva with the Moon.39 I would prefer the latter

34 Martianus' strong desire to vary his expression may be illustrated by three instances. He numbers his regions as follows: ' . . . ex duodecima . . .. ex altera . . . , bis septena . . ., ter quino ex limite . . . ex ultima regione.' To express possession of a region he uses the verbs: ' sedes habere, mansitare, esse praediatus, domicilium possidere, domus constituere.' Invitation or its acceptance is expressed by ' corrogare, convocare, venire, poscere, postulare, vocare, adhibere, accire, convenire, advenire, devocare, advocare.'

35 Ps.-Acr. in Hor. carm. I, I2, I9: ' secundum aruspicum dicta vel disputationes, qui Iovem primam, secundam et tertiam partem caeli solum volunt in fulminibus tenere '; cf. Pliny 2, I38: ' Tuscorum litterae . . . existimant . .. Iovem . . . trina (fulmina) iaculari.'

36 Arnob . 3, 40: ' (Penates) Varro qui sunt introrsus atque in intimis penetralibus caeli deos esse censet quos loquimur nec eorum numerum nec nomina sciri. hos Consentes et Complices Etrusci aiunt et nominant, quod una oriantur et occidant una, sex mares et totidem feminas, nominibus ignotis et miserationis parcissimae; sed eos summi Iovis, consiliarios ac participes (Scaliger: principes cod.) existimari '; Mart. Cap. I, 4I; Aug. CD 4, 23 Sen. NQ 2, 4I, I.

37 Arnob. 3, 38: Novensiles ... deos novrem (esse credit) Manilius (the writer of the Sullan veriod),

quibus solis Iuppiter potestatem iaciendi sui permiserit fulminis.' Goldmann, CQ xxxvi, I942, 43 ff., explains the ' di Novensides' (and the ' di Indigetes ') as water deities, mainly because irn our list they are in the company of Lymphae and Fons. Could not one then argue that the other figures of the region, e.g. Iuno and Mars, are equally water demons ? G.'s further arguments do not seem to me better founded than this (cf. also n. 78).

38 Muller, Die Etrusker 2 2, I36. 39 Arnob. 3, 30: 'nam quid de ipso dicemus Iove,

quem Solem esse dictitavere sapientes, agitantem pinnatos currus turba consequente divorum, aethera nonnulli flagrantem . . . si aer illa (sc. Iuno) est ... (3i) Aristoteles (Pseudepigr. p. 6i6 R.), ut Granius memorat . . . Minervam esse Lunam probabilibus argumentis explicat . . . eandem hanc alii aetherium verticem et summitatis ipsius esse summam dixerunt memoriam nonnulli.' Similar speculations in Varro, Ant. div. I5, frg. 3-5 Ag., e.g. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 2, 296 ' nonnulli Penates esse dixerunt, per quos penitus spiramus et corpus habemus et animi rationes possidemus; eos autem esse Iovem aetherem medium Iunonem imum aera cum terra, summum aetheris cacumen Minervam. quos Tarquinius Demarati Corinthii filius, Samothraciis religionibus mystice imbutus, uno templo et sub eodem tecto coniunxit.' These passages agree in using the methods of allegory,

Io8 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

interpretation because it releases the triad from its Roman surroundings and assigns to them heavenly spheres.

(3) luppiter in reg. i and Pluto in reg. 3 recall the three brothers who rule the world, even if Neptune is missing in reg. 2. I suggest that Neptune was originally there and subsequently removed to reg. io for the sake of another doctrine in which he represented one of the elements.40 I would justify this conjecture by the following facts. (a) Fons and Lymphae, who apparently belong to the entourage of Neptune (on such secondary divinities see below under 4) are present in reg. 2. (b) The presence of Pluto in reg. 3 among the ' celestial ' gods would be accounted for by this mythical speculation to which Martianus obviously alludes by calling Pluto ' uncle ' of Mercury: it may also be observed that Pluto is unnecessary in reg. 3 because his Roman counterpart, Veiovis, appears in reg. I5, where he really belongs. (c) The relegation of Saturn, the dethroned father, to reg. I4 is, as it seems, part of the same story of the three brothers. (d) The story also appears in Varro (whose theological work, the Antiquitates rerum divinarutm, will furnish the chief parallels in the following pages).41 (e) The Etruscan discipline did the same in assigning Penates to the empires of the three brothers, to Juppiter, Neptune and the inferi (and added a fourth group, that of the mortals).42

(4) Some of the minor divinities, such as the Favores, Lares, Genii, are distributed all over the upper regions, but without a visible principle. It is easier to find an explanation for those among them who are more differentiated. So Discordia and Seditio are settled in reg. 3-a puzzling appearance in the celestial regions. The puzzle is solved, if they are to accompany Pluto, as Pluto's presence was explained above. Similarly, I suggest that Salus and the Lares in reg. i belong to the ' house ' of Juppiter, together with his ' Penates ', the ' di Consentes and in the same way Fons and Lymphae are in reg. 2 because of Neptune.

(5) Of the many astrological parallels suggested by Thulin, loc. cit. 6o ff., that of the twelve sortes seems sound, inasmuch as Mars and Lars Militaris of our reg. 2 correspond with militia in reg. 2 of the latter system, and the Coniuges Reges of our reg. 5 and Valitudo of i i, with coniugium and valetuido in the same regions on the other side.43 The difficulty arises from the fact that we know less of the twelve sortes than of the sixteen regions, our sole source being Manilius. That system has the twelve parts and their invariable sequence in common with the constant dodecatropos and the moving zodiac, but the position of those parts in the heavens does not depend on the cardinal points nor on the movement of the stars but on the moment of nativity. Some of the twelve sortes have identical functions with the dodecatropos, but they are not in the corresponding places. If we exclude coincidence, the only conjecture that can be made is that the source of Martianus and the astrologers used, in part, a common source which, in view of the character of the astrological system, cannot be earlier than the third-second century B.C.

while in details they contradict one another: but allegorical interpretations are always full of incon- sistencies. Another allegorical concept of the triad is found on some Roman sarcophagi (Colini, Buill. Comuin. 53, I926, i88, I ; Cumont, Sy7nbolisrne

funeraire 77, I; for a detailed discussion see pp. 77 if., 325, 4).

40 See below, p. II 4. 41 Varr. Ant. div. I, frg. 2i Ag. (Aug. CD 7, 28):

Dis pater, qui Graece MoITCYv dicitur, etiam ipse

frater amborum terrenus deus perhibetur' (sc. a Varrone) ...

42 Arnob. 3, 40' Nigidius ... in libro sexto exponit et decimo (" de diis ", frg. 68 Sw.) disciplinas Etruscas sequens genera esse Penatium quattuor et esse Io-vis ex his alios, alios Neptuni, inferorum tertios, mortalium hominum quartos, inexplicabile nescio quid dicens'.

4 Manil. 3, I02, I20, I38; on the difficult doctrine of the sortes see Housman's preface to vol. iii, pp. v ff.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I0o

A brief review of the regions may show what is elicited and what remains unexplained.44

Reg. i. domain of luppiter; the ' di Consentes ', as his advisers in his company, also the Lares, the demons of his house (and perhaps Salus).45 Janus is there because he is the god of all beginnings, and Nocturnus as marking the northern point. Unexplained: ' Favores opertanei.' 46

Reg. 2. Juppiter reappears in conformity with Etruscan doctrine; the ' di Novensiles ' in his company, corresponding to the ' di Consentes ' of reg. i.

Juno is the second of the (allegorized) Capitoline triad. Neptune, the second of the three brothers who rule the world, is moved to reg. io, but his associates, Fons and Lymphae, remain. Mars Quirinus and Lars Militaris represent an astrological system which attributed reg. 2 to mnilitia.

Reg. 3. luppiter appears again because of the Etruscan doctrine, but his epithet ' Secundanus '47 also points to some theological speculation. Minerva is the third of the Capitoline triad. Pluto is the third brother ruling the world Discordia and Seditio are his associates. Unexplained: lovis Opulentia.48

What do we learn from this survey ? We have seen that the gods of regs. i i-i6 were either deified heroes or spirits of the earth or of the ' underworld '. Compared with them, the gods of the first three regions are celestial indeed. Stoicizing allegory placed the Capitoline triad high up in the sphere of the aether. The gods of lightning (' di Novensiles ') are at a distance that cannot be reached, and so are the gods of the signs of the zodiac (' di Consentes '). Less can be said about the method of their selection. It appears arbitrary to us, since there is no Platonic or other system to be copied and translated into Roman terms. As to the provenance of the gods, some can, despite the interpretatio Roniana, be traced back to the Etruscans. This provenance, even if it is not more than a possibility, is significant because the system of the sixteen regions is Etruscan.

4. The Creative Powers.-Turning to regs. 4-6, I repeat that all explanations of details are tentative, but I feel more confident about the general meaning of the whole, and that we are proceeding from the celestial gods to those who have their part in the world and its creation.

Of the divinities of reg. 4, I cannot explain Lar Caelestis et Militaris 49 and

I add a few further conjectures on secondary points in notes 45-8. They are now^here conclusive nor indeed indispensable for the understanding of the whole.

45 The house of luppiter with its domestic cults is also described by Ovid. Met. i, 170 ff.

46 The ' opertanea sacra' (Pliny io, I56), the cult of the Bona Dea which took place 'in operto' (Paul. Fest. 68; Cic. Parad. 4, 32; Ascon ad Cic. Milon. 46; Schol. Bob., Clod. et Cur. frg. i9, p. 88 St.), and the ' di superiores vel involuti' (Sen. NQ 2, 41) used to be compared (Thulin, 10c. cit. 33). Only the last group is suitable for a comparison, but the name Favores is much in contrast to their destructive character * see also below, p. I I3, n. 68.

4 This epithet of Iuppiter and of Pales in reg. 7 does not occur elsewhere. One could cite passages such as Varr. Ant. div. i6, frg. 52 Ag. (Aug. CD 7, i6)

luno secundarum causarum domina', or Arnob. 2, 25 ... anima . . . immortalis ... post deum principem rerum et post mentes geminas locum optinens quartum et affluens ex crateribus vivis' (on the Oriental and Neoplatonic versions of this doctrine see Zoroastr. frg. 0 ioga B.-C.; Procl. in Tim. 28c, I, p. 303 D.; 30c, I, p. 425 D. ; Psell.

Patrol. Gr. i22, 1140c) * or of mythological lists, no doubt of Hellenistic origin, which registered for instance three loves, three Apollines, five Soles, etc. (cf., e.g. Cic. ND 3, 53 ff.; Bobeth, De indicibuis deorurm, Diss. Lips. 1904).

48 The nearest parallel is Plaut. Pers. 251 (and Cist. 515): ' Ops opulenta, illius (sc. Minervae) avia . . .', but this is Greek inasmuch as Ops ( Rhea) is called mother of luppiter. The epithet does not occur elsewhere in Roman poets nor is Opulentia (as Copia or Abundantia, see Wissowa 332) personified. One might think of Hor. CS 31: I nutriant fetus et aquae salubres et lovis aurae,' and accordingly of Varro's agricultural gods Lympha and Bonus Eventus (RR i, i, 6), or of luppiter's epithets Almus, Frugifer, Pecunia. But how could all this be explained within a theological system ?- Thulin connects Opulentia with the third region of the astrological dodekatropos but his argument is very thin.

49 Thulin, 10c. cit. 44 ff. tries ' lasl ' of the Piacenza liver and ' lasa ', but with little success. The difficulty is that a reason cannot be found for the frequent occurrence of the Lares in the list. It seems clear that they do not necessarily represent the old Roman

I IO STEFAN WEINSTOCK

Favor. Mulciber is an epithet which stands for Vulcan, who appears himself in reg. 5, and the two together mark the two sides of the eastern point. As to his further functions, there is more information in reg. 5 to which discussion is postponed (p. iii).

Lynsa Silvestris remains. I have no suggestion to make as to the form Lynsa, which is unique and perhaps corrupt.50 But the epithet ' Silvestris ' lends itself to two alternative explanations. The more obvious meaning is a goddess of the woods, a companion to Silvanus, related to, and perhaps inspired by, the pair Faunus and Fauna. But it would be difficult to explain why she is placed in one of the upper regions. Such spirits have their place in the more terrestrial regions, unless they are, as Fons and Lymphae in reg. 2, in the company of- a principal god. In the system of the second book, the spirits of the woods, groves, springs and rivers appear in the last region, on the earth itself as is to be expected.51 I would prefer, therefore, the other alternative, though it may sound rather far- fetched. It is known that (Aq is rendered in Latin normally by materia but occasionally by silva. It thus served as a collective word, silva dolorum, silva rerum, meaning much the same as the plural of the subordinate noun.52 It further became a literary term, designating mixed prose 53 or, as in Statius' Silvae, poems.54 Thirdly, it was used in philosophical texts in the sense of ' primary matter '.5 Finally, this philosophical term had its part in theological speculations and also affected the character of Silvanus.56 With all reserve due to our ignorance of the proper name itself, I would identify Lynsa Silvestris with the goddess of primary matter. Reg. 4, which is beneath the celestial gods, would be a fitting place for such a divinity. But the conjecture is too weak to stand by itself. We must look for further traces of such theological speculations in the list-the mythical and allegorical matter of the first regions would not suffice. And good support, I think, will be found presently in Vulcan of reg. 5, who is the creator of everything, and in other divinities who mark the process of creation, and above all in ' Lar omnium cunctalis' of reg. io, who will represent the world soul and is thus the counterpart of our ' primary matter '.

The first two regions excepted, no part of the list seems to contain so much information as reg. 5.57 Not counting the Coniuges Reges (who were considered above, p. io8), there appear Ceres, Vulcan, Genius, and the unknown Tellurus.58

Lares (cf. what is said belowa, p. I14, on the ' Lar omnium cunctalis '). Further, strictly speaking, the epithet ' Caelestis would point to the goddess of Carthage, and this would lead us nowhere. It may well be that a cosmic demon is meant; but, if so, why is it also called ' militaris' ?

50 Grotius proposed ' Lympha' instead, and Deecke, Etr. Forsch. 4, 53, identified it with ' lvsl' on the Piacenza liver (accepted by Thulin, loc. cit. 52 f.), meaning the wife of Vulcan, perhaps Maia. There is nothing that can prove, or render probable, these suggestions.

51 Mart. Cap. 2, I67; see above, p. I05. 52 Cic. de or. 3, 93: 'rerum est silva magna'

2, 65; 3, I03; 3, II8 Suet. Gramm. 24. 53 Gell. praef. 5: 'nam quia variam et miscellam

et quasi confusaneam doctrinam conquisiverant, eo titulos quoque ad eam sententiam exquisitissimos indiderunt. (6) namque alii Musarum inscripserunt, alii silvarum . . . '; cf. Quint. IO, 3, I 7.

54 Cf. Vollmer's ed., p. 24 f. (Lucan, too, wrote Silvae).

55 Chalcid. Tim. 294 ' Stoici ' (Zeno frg. 87 A.): deum scilicet hoc esse quod silva sit vel etiam

inseparabilem deum silvae, eundemque per silvam meare, velut semen per membra genitalia'; 2z80; 290.

56 Macrob. Somnn. I, 12, 7: 'anima ergo cum trahitur ad corpus, in hac prima sui productione silvestrem tumultum, id est OXnv influentem sibi incipit experiri .' Serv. ad Aen. 8, 6oI .. . pru- dentiores tamen dicunt esse eum (sc. Silvanum) 0AIK6V eE6v, hoc est deum ATs . . .'; cf. Wissowa 2 2I6, and for representations Cumont, Monum. myst. de Mithra i, I 47 f . * Saxl, Mithras 48.

5 Cf. Altheim, Terra Mater I22 ff. and A History of Roman Religion I70; Rose, 3RS 23, I933, 49.

58 Altheim, loc. cit. coupled Ceres with 'Tellurus Terraeque pater', identifying Ceres with Demeter, and ' Terrae pater ' with Poseidon, in accordance with Kretschmer's view (Glotta I, 27) that Poseidon .(VToT-;as) originally was the ' Husband ' of the Earth (A&). I do not regret having opposed this view and would add that now it appears to me even more dangerous to seek in the highly speculative list of Martianus a proof for a ' prehistoric' stage of Greek religion to which our sole access is by linguistic methods.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I I I

In order to make sense of this set, we must begin with the central figure which is, I believe, Vulcan. About Vulcan, Martianus gives the following information. (a) In the system that precedes our list, ? 42, Vulcan is seated on a glittering seat and is so important that Juppiter himself invites him to the assembly. (b) In our list he appears twice, in reg. 4 and 5, and thus marks the point of sunrise. (c) In reg. 5 he is called ' Terrae pater '. That is to say, Martianus, in accordance with a certain tradition, identifies Hephaestus-Vulcan with the Sun; 59 and calling the Sun ' Father of the Earth ', he gives him a privileged position. What is its import for the character of the region ?

Contrary to expectations, the Sun was, Egypt excepted, nowhere the principal deity. In Babylonia the cult of the Moon was the stronger, and in Athens of the fifth century B.C. Helios was declared to be a god of the barbarians.60 This does not mean that Helios was not worshipped but that his cult was of minor importance. A change was brought about by Eastern astronomy and Greek science jointly. They were responsible amongst other things for the helio- centric system and for systematic astrology, and they led to the solar theology too, which, through Stoic mediation, became one of the most powerful religious ideas of the Roman empire.

Seeing this development, it is surprising to find evidence in Italy 61 which appears to be stronger than that found in the East. As there is no reason to believe that the Italic races had any advanced views of the cosmic system (on which an extensive solar cult depends), there must be another explanation for this curious phenomenon. It is probable that there was some solar cult at an early date in Italy. But this cult was transformed, I think, by a genealogy in Hesiod's Theogony 62 which made Helios. the ancestor of Italic races by calling him father of Circe and grandfather of Latinos, king of the Tyrrheni. The further genealogies, of the Marsi, Ausones, even of the Aurelii, were made ho doubt, to this pattern, and it seems to be the ultimate source of the cult of Sol Indiges as

Cf. Hesych. s. 'HypaiaTos 6TE v?v 6 eE65 ... OTE 5?

PE?TrWUvpIK3J5 TO TRTp. wapa TriO 8E 6 O \ios; Lyd. Mens. 4, 86, p. I35, I3 W.: 6 'HyaiarToS, C5 qpoi NouuvioS, y6vipov lTTUp ?CJTIV, 1 TOU HAiov 3COyovIKn eEpp6rTls 5io 5 Kai XcoA6v TOIOVOI TOV `HpaiaTov, Kae, 6 XCOAEEl Kae, EaUTflV f TOU 7TUpO6S yUOIS, OTaV p[ OUyKEKpOTflTai TroS a&UoiS. 6 5? rrap& Pcopaiois KiYKIOS MyEI XcoAOv TrC Tr68E TOV

HyaiaTov Aa[PPavEaeai 8i& TO 6viaov Trs MAfou TrOpEias; Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 3, 35: '(Mars pater) . . . nonnulli eundem Solem et Vulcanum dicunt, sed Vulcanum generis esse omnis principem, Martem vero Romanae tantum stirpis auctorem Paulin. Nol. 32, I38:

nunc omnis credula turba I suspendunt Soli per Volcanalia vestes cf. Rose, loc. cit. Koch, Ge- stirnverehrung im alten Italien I933, I03 f.-The Sun is connected with the east also in the apocryphal Etruscan passage in Lyd. Mens. frg. inc. sed. 2

(p. I78 W.): . . . 6 Tys ... .aio! .. . .roJ s 5? -p6s Tn kba eEpP[OS r TiVaS Kai XpUcoU Ep&)VTaS Kai TTEpi TOV TOCJTOV 'TTpOV

aypUTrvo0vTas, ola fl2aKOTS 8aipo0lv EyKEIWV0US Kai ?TEpi

TfV ~Aiy &VaKEwIPVnV (ATVava?pEpOVOUS. 60 The statement of Aristophanes (Pax 406 ff.;

cf. Plato, Cratyl. 397c) that Helios and Selene were gods of the barbarians remains true, even if some scattered evidence made Helios the highest among the gods (Aesch. Choeph. 984 ff.; Soph. frg. I0I7 N.: <ov> 01 Co0p0i MyOUCOI yEVVfTfV eE6V I Kai TraTEpa naVT6cv; cf. Achill. Comm. Arat. p. 82 M.). On the cult of Helios, cf. e.g. Nilsson, Gr. Feste 427 f. - Eitrem, Beitrdge z. griech. Rel.gesch. 3, I31 ff.,

it seems overestimated by Notopoulos, Class. Phil. 39, 1944, I63 ff.

61 For a full discussion see Koch, loc. cit., passir. There is little that I can accept of Koch's conclusions, but I am much indebted to his stimulating argument.

62 Hes. Theog. i ci ff.: KipKfl 8' 'HEMou euy&aTfp 'Y1E-

piovi5ao I yEiva-r' 'Ouaaio r TaAaoippoVos ?v piA6TnTi I 'Aypiov i& Aa-Trvov ftJuPOV& TE KpaTEpOv TE I . . . I ol 5rTOi ,uaAa TflAE P[X"@. ViCacV tEp&WVI | &aciv Tupa:vocaiv

ayaKAErrToaO aivaaaov. The passage is dated by Wilamowitz (Herm. 34, i899, 6i i) to the sixth century

c.C. A safe terminuis ante querm is the time of Aeschylus, who is the first to call Italic races experts in herbs and poisons, the sole foundation of this lore being their descent from Circe (so already Muller, Etr. 2,

32I), cf. Theophr. 9, I 5, I: qpap[IaKcM5EIS 5? 80KOUcIV Eivai

TOT6Ol ... of -lEpi Tupprlviav Kai T-V Aaxrivnv, ?V Kai T-rV

KipKlV E?ivai MEyOUOIV. Kai yap AkYXujAos ?V TOIS ?AEyEiO1 CbS TTOA?U-

(pappaKOVMyE1 T-rV Tuppnviav- 'Tupprv6v yEvE&v, pappaKo-ToToV gevosI (frg. I Diehl); Pliny 25, I I; Mart. Cap. 6, 637. The paternity of the Sun is further mentioned by Plaut. Epid. 604; Cic.ND 3,48 ; Tert. Spect.8. TheRoman version of the legend is that the sons of Odysseus and Circe were Romos, Antias, Ardeas (Xenagoras frg. 6, FHG 4, 527 - Dion. Hal. I, 72), or Romanos alone (Plut. Rorm. 2), or that Latinos'was the son of Telemachus and Circe, and his and Rhome's sons, Rhomos and Romulus (Kallias of Syracuse, fourth century B.C., ap. Fest. 269; Dion. Hal. I, 72). For other genealogies see Preller-Jordan 2, 308 f.

I I2 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

well.63 Yet this cult of Sol is mainly created by a myth and contains nothing of the religious power on which his paternity of the Earth must depend. So the idea must come from the East and consists, roughly speaking, of two elements. One is the old philosophical doctrine, brought by the Stoics to Italy (and known e.g. to Varro), that made fire the primary element which created the others, also the earth: 64 the other, and more important, is the solar theology of the Hellenistic world that made the renewal of this doctrine and its religious application possible.

Now if ' Father of the Earth 'means that Vulcan-Sol is creator of everything, then it is natural that Genius, the creative power of man, and Ceres, the goddess of vegetation should be associated with him. The next figure, Tellurus, is one of the most troublesome of the list.65 There is no agreement whether this appellation is a noun or adjective, nominative or genitive, and if the latter, archaic or corrupt genitive, nor what it really means. I suggest that the form was invented by Martianus. Hellenistic theology held that the vegetative power of the earth consisted of male and female elements.66 Varro identified them with Tellus and Tellumo, and the source of Martianus, I believe, with Ceres and the male deity whom Martianus calls Tellurus.

Passing to reg. 6, we find Pales and Favor, sons of Iuppiter, Celeritas, daughter of Sol, Mars, Quirinus and Genius. The first impression is embarrassing: no theological system can explain, so it seems, this strange combination of the divine shepherd, the goddess of swift motion, the Roman and Sabine gods of war, and Genius.67 On the other hand, the genealogical references, ' sons of Iuppiter' and ' daughter of Sol' are such obvious links between this region and those preceding it that an attempt must be made to understand these gods as part of the same system.

It will be safer to begin with the better known gods, Mars and Quirinus. As we have already met them in reg. 2 as celestial gods, they may be present

63 See the preceding note; Ausones: Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 8, 328. The gens Aurelia, deriving its name from the Sun (Sabin. ausel, Varr. LL 5, 68 ; sceptical Koch 35 ; Etr. ulsil), had the task of performing public sacrifices to Sol (Paul. Fest. 23). Of Sol Indiges the following evidence exists: (a) Pliny 3, 56, mentions a ' lucus Solis Indigitis' at Laurentum, obviously the same place where according to Dion. Hal. I, 55, Aeneas offered his first sacrifice to' Helios '. (b) The Calendars contain the entry on Aug. 9, ' Soli(s) Indigiti(s) in colle Quirinale (sacrificium publicum).' (c) His Greek form YEV&PX1S 'HAios occurs in the Oath of Philippus (Diod. 37, ii) and in the Calendar of Lydus on Dec. ii (Mens. 4, I55) for which date in the Calendars there is only the mysterious entry, IN or IND, no doubt IND(igiti). Koch has proved, I believe, that Wissowa's system of two contrasting groups, the ' di indigetes ' and ' di novensides ' as in- digenous and foreign gods, was wrong, and that Indiges (whatever its etymology) must mean something like ' ancestor'.

64 Kopp was, I think, on the right track when he recalled ad loc. this philosophical doctrine; cf. e.g., Varro LL 5, 59: ' . . . ut Zenon Citieus (frg. I26 A.) animalium semen ignis is qui anima ac mens, qui caldor e, caelo, quod huic innumerabiles et immortales ignes...' 5, 6i; 5, 70; Cic. ND 2,

57; Serv. ad Aen. 6, 265 ; Tert. Ad nat. 2, 2- Aug. CD 8, 5.-Macrob. I, 23, 2I: 'postremo poten- tiam solis ad omnium potestatum summitatem referri indicant theologi, qui in sacris hoc brevissima pre-

catione demonstrant dicentes "HAIE TavTOKpaTop, K6apoU

TTVEU[pa, KO6[OU 5Uvap[S, KOO[OU p. Solem esse omnia et Orpheus testatur his versibus (frg. 236 K.): . . . &yAa? ZEi AI6VUOE, raTsp T6vTOU, TraTEp a;S, I HAlE nTayyEvrTOp, TaaVTaiOAE, XpVUEO(?YY)S.

65 Cf. Thulin, loc. cit. 46 f.; Wissowa, Myth. Lex. 5, 333; Altheim, Griechische Gotter i8i f. id., Terra Mater I23, I; H. J. Rose, 10c. cit. 49, I8; my note in P-W 5 A, 802 f.

6G Cf. Apollodorus of Athens, -rEpi eE65V, FGrHist. 244, F.IO2 Jac. (ap. Stob. Ecl. I, 49; I, p. 4I9 W.); Varro, Ant. div. i6 frg. 4sa Ag. (Aug. CD 7, 23): 'una eademque terra habet geminam vim, et masculi- nam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat atque nutriat; inde a vi feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem . . .' I6 frg. 4ib Ag. (Aug. CD 7, i6): 'Liberum et Cererem praeponunt seminibus, vel illum masculinis, illam femininis . . .'; cf. Reinhardt, De Graecorurm theo- logia I9I0, II3.

"I Thulin, 10c. cit. 49 ff., presents much of the pertinent evidence but does not attempt an explana- tion of the whole.-Genius must be understood, I think, in the sense of (the unknown) Aufustius, quoted by Verrius Flaccus, Paul. Fest. p. 94: 'Genius ... est deorum filius et parens hominum, ex quo homines gignuntur.' That this view was shared by the Etruscans can be inferred from the fact that Tages is called son of Genius and grandson of luppiter (Fest. p. 359).

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I I3

here in a different function. Judging by the position of the region, it is likely that Mars is here the divine ancestor of the Romans, and Quirinus the deified Romulus: Genius would then be the creative spirit of the coming generations. Thus the creation of the human race would be expressed in the terms of Roman ' mythology '. How can the descendants of Juppiter and Sol serve this scheme ? The two sons of Juppiter 68 recall the Dioskouroi who, as founders of cities for instance, would be suitable to this region 69: some analogies could be found even for their appearance as divine shepherds. 70 The same applies to Celeritas. Unique as she is,71 it seems certain that, even if the name was invented by Martianus, the concept was not.72 It is hazardous to make any positive suggestions. We should have to choose among the daughters of Helios, and it would not be impossible to find a figure who could well complete the company of this region.73 One might sum up the position by saying that, as we are slowly descending from the sphere of the celestial gods, reg. 6 is a suitable place for the ancestors of mankind ; that Mars and Quirinus can easily be fitted into this picture; and that the mention of divine children, the only ones in the list, may well refer to such a mediating role. The more detailed suggestions do not go beyond a vague possibility because they are made in the spirit of Varro but without his explicit support.

With regard to the wvhole of reg. 4-6, our conclusions can be more positive again. These regions obviously differ from the sphere of the celestial gods in that more than one term points to a cosmogonical narrative with the Sun as its principal figure. It seems to have told how the earth, its vegetative life, and perhaps also the human race, came into being. It consisted of philosophical commonplaces, mostly of Stoic colouring, translated into the terms of Roman (or what seems to be Roman) religion.

5. The Regions 7-10.-I cannot assign any general function to reg. 7-IO (in the same way as to the three other groups) because the interpretation of details does not bring out a sufficient number of safe points. Part of the blame falls upon Martianus himself, who omits more and more names as he proceeds. The presence of most of the divinities must remain unexplained, whether they are well known, as Liber, Pales, Fraus in reg. 7, or mysterious, as Veris Fructus in

68 The male Pales is obsolete: he is known to us (a) from a short notice of Varro, Serv. ad Georg. 3, I

(Ant. div. 14, frg. 84 Ag.) (b) from Caesius as one of the Etruscan ' Penates ', that is a minister and vilictus of Iuppiter, Arnob. 3, 40 cf. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 3, 325; (c) from being coupled here with Favor, in Arnobius 3, 23, with Inuus, and from Pales Secundanus of the following region, and this suggests the possibility that we are dealing with identically named twins; (d) finally from the surprising entry in the pre-Caesarian Calendar of Anzio for 7th July (cf. Mancini, Not. d. Scavi 1921, IOI f.): ' Palibus II ' which may mean, as suggested by Deubner, Rom. Mitt. 36-7, 1921-2, 28 ff., the male and female Pales or (as it seems equally possible) the two male Pales.-If the male Pales is known from these scanty fragments, Favor remains entirely mysterious. To be sure, the name Favor does occur elsewhere (Martial IO, 50, 2 - CIL I3, 8 I 89), but I believe with Wissowa, P-W 6, 2078, that this has nothing to do with the Favor of our passage. Thulin's interpretation (loc. cit. 39; 64) as Fortuna, arrived at by combina- tion with Bonus Daemon and Bona Fortuna in the astrological system of the twelve loca does not, in common with most of his astrological conjectures, stand up to closer scrutiny. What I would expect to

find is the equivalent of a Graeco-Roman theological term.

69 Cf. Eitrem, Beitrdge z. griech. Religionsgesch. 3, I54; 190 f. One is further tempted to think of the long association of the Dioskouroi with a female deity (which would correspond to Celeritas of our list), particularly with their sister, Helena. These three also occur on Etruscan mirrors: see F. Chapouthier, Les Dioscures azi service d'une de'esse I935, 293 ff.

70 Cf. Varro, RR 2, I, 9.

71 I do not count Mythogr. Vatic. (3, 8, 17: 'quod autem dea Celeritas, id est agilitas, Solis filia dicitur, sive inde fictum est quod nihil corporale Sole est celerius; sive quod ferunt mathematici Solis con- stellatione afflatos pulchros et celeres fore'), because this passage depends on Martianus, and perhaps on his medieval commentators.

72 Cf. Tertull. Apol. 22: 'Velocitas divinitas creditur, quia substantia ignoratur'; Plato, Cratyl. 397d; Aristot. frg. 23 R. ( de philos. frg. 21

Walzer; Cic. ND 2, 42), de Caelo 2, 3, p. 286ag- Bidez, Un singulier naufrage litteraire dans l'antiquite I943, 37 f.

73 The most suitable figure would be, of course, Circe: see above, p. i i i, n. 62.

114 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

reg. 8 74 and Neverita in reg. IO.75 Yet two gods, Neptune and ' Lar omnium cunctalis ' in reg. io, can be interpreted in the sense of the speculations about the former regions.

It was suggesteld above, p. io8, that Neptune was removed from his original place in reg. 2, right down to reg. io, because here he represents the element of water. This conjecture may be recommended first by the general consideration that the elements always have a part in such cosmogonical speculations, including Varro's Antiquitates,76 and secondly because in the list itself it is possible to distinguish the four elements: the Capitoline triad of reg. I-3 may point to air, Vulcan in reg. 5 to fire, and in reg. 14-I6 earth is marked clearly enough.77

More can be said about the ' Lar omnium cunctalis '. It looks one of the most mysterious terms of the list and cannot be explained as it stands. But we may presume that ' cunctalis ' (which is otherwise unknown) 78 is coined by Martianus or his source and must mean much the same as ' omnium '. Further, it is possible that Lar stands here for another term: the confusion between Lares and Penates, Genii and Manes, was of long standing 79 and led more and more to a promiscuous use of the terms, above all of course in poetry. The solution is then found in the second book where the Lares and Genii are mixed together. In 2, 152, there occurs the ' Genius universalis ', in contrast to the Genius of a single person (' . . . et generalis omnium praesul et specialis singulis mortalibus Genius ammovetur. . . nam et populi Genio, cum generalis poscitur, supplicatur . . . ).80 So I suggest that Genius corresponds to Lar, ' populi ' to 'omnium ', and ' generalis ' to ' cunctalis'. ' Lar omnium cunctalis ' would then represent the world soul of Platonizing cosmogonical narratives.81 In our list it would be the counterpart of the ' primary matter', Lynsa Silvestris, in reg. 4, and would be in harmony with the creator of everything and the other generative powers of reg. 5. Outside our list, Varronian evidence serves again as the best recommendation of this conjecture. Varro, too, used the universal spirit in his system:

74 This is the sole term in the list that recalls the natural symbolism connecting the cardinal points with the seasons. What Thulin, loc. cit. 65 ff., further suggests is vague, and his whole chapter on the agree- ment between the list and the Roman Calendar most ingenious but certainly wrong (cf. W. F. Otto, DLZ I909, 1039). I do not know what is meant by this divinity of the season. The marginal scholion I found in cod. Mertonensis 291, saec. xii (' Veris Fructus id est fertilitas vernalis quam sicut numen aliquod vocatum intromittit; sive Veris Fructus numen quod vernalibus floribus praeest ') is worth- less. Martianus mentions a 'Veris deus' (I, 27: ' . . . Tellus floribus luminata quippe veris deum conspexerat subvolare Mercurium . . . '), and Varro a goddess Fructesea (Ant. div. 14, frg. 70b Ag. Aug. CD 4, 21 : 'quid necesse erat . . . commendare ... diis agrestibus ut fructus uberrimos caperent, et maxime ipsi divae Fructeseae '). But all this will not make sense, nor should I expect a spring divinity at the southern point.

75 Medieval glosses (Deecke, loc. cit. i8, i8) explain it by 'timor et reverentia', and (Iohannes Scotus, Annotationes in Marcianum, ed. C. E. Lutz 1939, p. 28, 12), ' que nihil veretur,' that is both with the verb ' vereri . Modern scholars suggested Nerita, Nerina, Reverita; Thulin, 10c. cit. 4, 8, thought of an Etruscan form for Amphitrite.

76 Varro, Ant. div. I frg. i6; I9 Ag. (Tert. Ad nat. 2 3; 2, 5).

7See n. A, below p. I27. 7 8 The explanation of Iohannes Scotus (loc. cit.

28, 12) is without ancient authority and thus worth- less.-Goldmann, CQ 36, 1942, 47, 4, would explain the divinity, after changing omnium into amnium, as Oceanus: there is nothing that can be said in favour of this conjecture.

7 9Cato, de agr. 2, I ; Colum. I, 8, 20 * Lucan 7, 394; Censor. 3, 2; Arnob. 3, 41 (=Varro, Ant. div. 15, frg. 8 Ag.); Fest. 129; Serv. ad Aen. 5, 64; 6, 152 ; 6, 743 ; Apul. de deo Socr. 15 ; Fries, Rhein. Mus. 55, 1900, 28 ff.

80 This parallel of the second book was first noted by Grotius in his edition of 1599 (thence quoted by Kopp and Thulin): ' videtur Larem cunctalem 5aipova TraYKOIVOV familiari opponere. Sic alibi: " Et generalis omnium praesul et specialis singulis mortalibus Genius admovetur." Vide quae ad Onomacritum.' But he does not say how he under- stands this agreement, nor can I find his passage with 5aipwv -rayKoIvos and his other treatment of the subject in connection with Onomacritus.

81 Cf. Plato, Tim. 34b (Taylor ad loc.); 'Philol.' frg. 2I D.; Diels, Doxogr. 302; E. Frank, Plato u. die sog. Pythagoreer 282 ff.; Cumont, Symbolisme funeraire 395.-Another vestige of the Etruscan doctrine is contained in Sen. NQ 2, 45.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I I5

. . . genium dicit (sc. Varro) esse uniuscuiusque animum rationalem et ideo esse singulos singulorum, talem autem mundi animum deum esse: ad hoc utique revocat, ut tamquam universalis genius ipse mundi animus esse credatur. Ant. div. i6, frg. 4 Ag. - Aug. CD 7, I3.

We are at the end. We cannot from these two instances reconstruct the group, but we may be satisfied that they too confirm the existence of the system as outlined above.

6. The Author and his Sources. The sixteen regions of Martianus are based on the four cardinal points and begin in the north. Proceeding from north through east, towards south, we pass from the upper spheres of the celestial gods to the Sun and the generative powers of the world and then to the ancestors of the human race. With the regions of the west, we come to the lower spheres where the heroes and the souls of the dead dwell, and with the last regions the earth with its spirits is reached.

This is the summary of what we have found. And we found it with the help of Martianus himself, of passages from Roman antiquarians, above all from Varro's Antiquitates, and from the Greek sources of these antiquarians. What is this doctrine and who is its author ? The theology is ultimately Platonic, the terms are Roman, but it is the Etruscan religion to which this theology is applied. The first point has been made probable above, the second does not need anv proof, and as to the third, there is agreement amongst all students of the subject 82

(except Nissen), and that for the following reasons.83 (i) The division of the heavens into sixteen regions for the sake of divination is exclusively Etruscan. (2) The ' di Consentes Penates ' can be doubly claimed for the Etruscans. First, it was their doctrine that the twelve ' di Consentes ' were the counsellors of Juppiter; secondly, they alone had, to our knowledge, Penates assigned to Juppiter who were the first of four groups, the others being the Penates of Neptune, those of the inferi, and of the mnortales hornines. (3) One of the more convincing explanations of the ' di Novensiles ' is that they were those nine Etruscan gods who could send lightning. (4) luppiter's presence in the first three regions is in accordance with the doctrine of the haruspices. (5) The male Pales, who appears in reg. 5 and 7, is called by Caesius one of the Etruscan Penates. 83a

As to the ultimate source of Martianus, we have to choose between Nigidius Figulus and Varro,84 and of these two, I think Nigidius the more likely, in spite of the extensive agreement between the list and the Antiquitates.85 The reasons that have been advanced in favour of Nigidius are not, indeed, strong, and amount to no more than that he was more interested than Varro in both the heavenly spheres and the Etruscans. As a matter of fact, this problem cannot really be solved nor is its solution of prime importance. Both Nigidius and Varro were compilers without real individuality. Translations of Etruscan texts 86 on the

82 Cf. above, p. ioi ff., and the notes 2-I I. 83 For the evidence see above, p. 107 ff. 83a Cf. Arnob., Adv. nat. 3, 40.

84 Nigidius Figulus was proposed by Eyssenhardt in his edition of Martianus, praef. xxxv, and accepted by Swoboda, P. Nigidii Figuli . . reliquiiae 28 ff. (who ascribes our list as frg. 79 to the work De diis) Wissowa, Ges. Abh. 125; Thulin, Ioc. cit. 82 ff.; B. Boehm, De Cornelii Labeonis aetate 1913, 46; Kroll, P-W I7, 210. Varro was proposed by Nissen, Temiplurtz 184.

85 The Varronian parallels are as follows (I quote the fragments from Agahd's collection): the Platonic system occurs in 15, 7; i6, 3; interpretations of the

Capitoline triad 15, 3-4; the three brothers I, 21;

the creative fire i, 13 ; the four elements i, I9; the cosmic spirit I, 14. In addition, some of the more curious details which could not fully be explained above, are also found in Varro with interpretations of a similar, speculative, character: ' di Consentes' I5, 6 ; ' di Nov-ensiles ' I 5, i i (the fragment is wrongly, I think, shortened by Agahd) ; Pales 14, 84; di Coniugales' I5, 50; Sancus 15, 17; lanitores terrestres ' ( ?) 14, 104a.

86 Such translations were made from the beginning of the first century B.C. by Tarquitius Priscus, Caesius, Caecina and others who remain for us anonymous.

i i6 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

one hand were available to any writer who cared to use them, and on the other hand what we call Varronian theology was to a great extent common property in the first century B.C. since the times of, say, Q. Mucius Scaevola and Aelius Stilo. 87

So what we have is Etruscan doctrine and, as intermediary, a Roman antiquarian. How has he treated the Etruscan doctrines ? Here, again, the comparison with Varro is helpful. Varro used Roman religious tradition for his own theological speculations. I suggest that the source of Martianus did the same with Etruscan gods. And just as we have to distinguish in Varro between real tradition and his interpretation, so we have to face the same task in our dealings with the list. Thus in order to find out what the author had at his disposal and what he made of it, we must turn to the principal problem of the list, which is the system of the sixteen regions itself. The second part of this paper is devoted to the origins and history of this system.

PART II. THE SYSTEM OF THE SIXTEEN REGIONS

We return to the view of Cicero and others that the sixteen regions are based on the four cardinal points, and to our suggestion that three of them can be identified in the list of Martianus (above, p. 104). Next we have to consider (i) how the four points were used in early divination and were further used to create first four, then eight, segments ; (z) how Greek theory combined the four points with other conceptions for the purposes of elementary divination, such as up and down, right and left, and this will enable us (3) to analyse the pertinent Etruscan tradition and (4) to assign to the list of Martianus its place within this tradition.

i. The four Cardinal Points and the ' Octotropos '.-It is not necessary to prove the assertion that (besides the principles of right and left) the simplest and most popular orientation in the sky is by the four cardinal points. We first meet it in Babylonia, the homeland of divination in the ancient East. The little evidence I have been able to examine leads to the following observations. The four points were taken into account for explanations of lightning,88 winds,89 rainbows,90 but not of thunder, earthquakes, or astral phenomena and their peculiarities.

87 Martianus certainly did not use Nigidius directly, and the intermediary was (as was often suggested) probably Cornelius Labeo. Unfortunately, his date is unknown. Of recent scholars, B. Boehm, De Cornelii Labeonis aetate I9I3, 75 ff., dates him to the first part of the second century A.D., Kroll, Rhein. Muis. 7I, I9I6, 309 ff., and W. A. Baehrens, Herm. 52, I9I7, 39 ff., to the fourth century A.D. The former view (which is now almost unanimously adopted, cf. e.g. Scott-Ferguson, Hermetica 4, 474 ff.) would have to meet the difficulty arising from a wide, and occasionally verbal, agreement between Martianus and Apuleius, whose activity falls in the second part of the second century A.D. (I, 4I '-Apul. MVet. 6, 22; I, 42 - Apul. de deo Socr. 2; 2, I 51 f. - Apul. Socr. 6 and Apol. I6; 2, I57 f. - Apul. Socr. 7; 2, 152-9 - Apul. Socr. I5).

88 Cf. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens 2, 724 ff. According to an apocryphal Apocalypse of Daniel, the present form of which dates from the thirteenth century A.D., but still contains old

Babylonian material, lightning announces a cut in the territory of the &va-ro\lKoi, who will then move westwards, and oi Ev 8scsI will be afraid (c. I4 in Catal. codd. astrol. 8, 3, I76; cf. Cumont, ibid. I7I) ; the four points are often considered significant in Greek astrological texts but it is not necessary to add here further instances.-J. Friedrich, OLZ 39, I936, 135 ff. quotes an Egyptian inscription (c. I450 B.C.) which records that when a star appeared from the S., the enemy fell down dead. Friedrich further quotes the Annals of the Hittite king, Mursilis II (c. I350 B.C.): a thunderbolt coming from the side of the Hatti towards Arzawa brings destruction and pestilence.

89 Cf. Jastrow, Ioc. cit. 732. 90 Cf. Jastrow, Ioc. cit. 740: 'Donnert es stark und

gliinzt ein Regenbogen sehr dunkelrot, von Osten nach Westen sich spannend, so werden die Gotter . . . dem Lande gnaidig sein . . . etc.' One would expect the same for the flight of birds, but in this only right and left are observed, the former being lucky : see jastrow, loc. cit. 804.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I I7

The signs were registered with their provenance (and this in the order S., N., E., W.), with their time (day or night), their course, their appearance (in the case of lightning, fiery, glowing, green),91 etc. The signs were sent by various gods and were to announce various events. Further instances are found in the Old Testament, which uses a cosmic system similar to that of the Babylonians.92 Its prognostics are mainly meteorological. In the O.T. each of the points has a meaning of its own. The wind from the E. brings heat and locusts, from the S. storms and warmth, from the W. clouds and rain, from the N. cold and calm.93 There are a few exceptions. The wind from the E. carries away the wicked 94; the kings of S. and N. divide a kingship among themselves 95;

the wind from the E. is once called the wind of the Lord that shall dry the fruits and fountains.96 The most explicit is a passage in the Revelation of St. John-a work whose cosmic system is in many particulars akin to that of the O.T.-where four angels are placed at the four corners of the earth to restrain the four winds. 97

We proceed from these casual fragments to an elaborate theory, known to us from Manilius, which shows the varying significance of the four regions 98 in their relation to the four ages of man. There are four systems. The first considered the four points, the second four regions into which these points made it possible to divide the sky, the third eight regions, subdividing the four, the fourth (which is of no interest for our subject) twelve regions, by an artificial increase from eight. (i) Of the four points,99 the Ascendant (or E.) rules over the first period of life and the character; the second, the Zenith (or S.), is the point of fame and success ; the third, the Occident, is the point of marriage, and brings life, as also all undertakings, to an end ; the fourth, the lowest point, controls wealth and the foundation of things. (2) Of the four regions,100 the first quarter of the heavens, from the ascending to the culminating point (or from E. to S.) represents the prima aetas; the second from the zenith to the W., the iuventa; the third from W. to the lowest point in the heavens (or N.) the maturae tempora vitae; and the fourth from the lowest point to the E., the senecta. (3) The system of

91 These colours contribute additional matter for the divination. For they presuppose the old doctrine which held that the planets were the source of lightning, and that these missiles had the specific colour, as well as the nature, of their source cf. Jastrow 2, 7I4; Lyd. Ost. 22; Or. Sib. 5, 5I2 f. ; Boll, Auis der Offenbarzng Johannis 22; id. ' Antike Beobachtung farbiger Sterne,' Abh. Akad. Miinchen 30, I9I6, I40. This view also occurs in the Etruscan discipline (cf. Pliny 2, I39 ; Ps.-Acro ad Hor. Carm. I, 2, I); I intend to treat it more fully elsewhere.

92 Cf. Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the Old Testament I905, 33 ff. We may speak here of the O.T. as a whole because the concept in which we are interested appears unchanged in the various parts of the O.T.

93 Exod. x, I3; Ezek. xix, I2; Yob xxxvii, 9; I7-

Isa. xxi, I; 3; Kings xviii, 44; Prov. XXV, 23; for further passages see Schiaparelli, loc. cit.

94 Job xxvii, 2I. 95 Dan. xi, 4 ff.-On Babylonian conceptions of this

kind see Boll-Bezold, Sternglaibe3 9; on the King of the ' four regions ', Lewy, OLZ 36, I923, 539 Peterson, Els 0E6s 24I ff.

96 Hos. xiii, I5. 97 Apocal. 7, 2; cf. Mc. I3, 27. Cf. Ptol., Tetrab.

i, i i TEpi rirs TrCv TSEaapcov ycoviCv 8wUV&ECOs. Boll, Aus der Offenbarzng Yohannis 39 f.; the Egyptian gods of the four cardinal points are treated by Brugsch,

Drei Festkalender des Tempels von Apollonopolis I877, 13.-For further evidence concerning the religious function of the winds see Cumont, Sym- bolisme funeiraire I 04 ff.

98 Cf. in general Bouche-Leclercq, L'astrol. gr. 270 ff., and Boll, ' Die Lebensalter,' Ne2e Jahrb. 3I, I9I3, I04. The number four is so frequent in such a function that further evidence does not seem necessary. The material for the number eight is collected by W. Schultz, ' Das System der Acht im Lichte des Mythos,' Memnon 4, I19o, III-I72, and F. Rock, Memnon 6, I9I2, I49 ff.: they are useful as far as the bare facts are presented, though even these need careful selection. I do not agree with their method and cannot therefore accept any of their conclusions. For the theological speculations with the ogdoas see Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages hellenises i, i73 f. ; Cumont, Symbolisme f2neraire 30I f. Add the ' seculum octavum' in a Latin liturgical fragment of the third to fourth century A.D., Rylands Pap. 472, and the evidence quoted ad loc. by C. H. Roberts, Ryl. Pap. 3, 55.-A glass disk of the fourth century A.D. from Cologne, in the British Museum, contains in eight sections the vision of Ezekiel: Dalton, Guide I92I,

I4I; Leveen, Hebrew Bible in Art I944, I9 50; pI. I5, i-.On the number i6 see below, p. I27, n. B.

99 Manil.2,844ff. 100 Ibid. 788 ff.

i I8 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

eight regions, the octotropos,101 too, was concerned with the fate of man from his birth to his death (i, birth ; ii, life ; iii, brothers ; iv, parents ; v, children vi, illness; vii, marriage; viii, death). This is what we learn from Manilius, who follows Greek sources, ultimately, no doubt, the revelations of ' Petosiris ', of about I 50 B.C. But bearing in mind the evidence of the ancient East, fragmentary as it is, one need scarcely emphasize the fact that these systems were not invented by Hellenistic astrology. So it has been rightly suggested that, in addition to the four points, the four and eight regions must have been established at an early date. What is added by Hellenistic astrology is their application to the life of individuals: the divination of the ancient East (and of the Romans and thus presumably of the Etruscans) is concerned with kings and states and statesmen.

These conjectures may find some support in the tradition concerning an ogdoas of gods.102 This tradition is not homogeneous. Xenocrates identified the eight gods with the five planets, the starred heaven, Sun and Moon; the Orphics with the four elements, Moon, Sun, Day, and Night; and the list of the Hermetics is even more speculative. All this sounds late, influenced perhaps by Pythagorean speculations as to the meaning of the number eight, and is therefore of little value. But there are some vestiges of an earlier stage of the doctrine. According to Herodotus 103 the Egyptians worshipped eight gods before the twelve. As these twelve represent a twelvefold division of the sky (and later the twelve signs of the zodiac), in the same way the ogdoas suggests the existence of an earlier, eightfold division which would then be the earlier form of the octotropos of the Hellenistic astrologers. This Egyptian ogdoas is mentioned in indigenous tradition,104 and in Greek, in a Leyden magical papyrus 105; it is a good augury for our inquiries that in the similar context of a Berlin magical papyrus 106

sixteen giants appear instead of these eight gods. The upshot of this section is that in Babylonia lightning and other signs

coming from the four points, and in the Old Testament the four winds, are divine messengers; and that Hellenistic astrologers examined the four points for signs which concerned the four ages of man. The points further helped first to demarcate four segments and then to subdivide them into eight, preserved in the ogdoas of the Egyptians and the octotropos of the astrologers.

These are the necessary preliminaries of the sixteen Etruscan regions. The sixteen indeed remain unique as before,107 but still we can assign them their place in the history of divination and can date them. They cannot come from the Romans, who here, as everywhere, ignored theory, nor from the Greeks, who occasionally used the four points but never made a system of them for the sake of divination. In short, it is a system of the East, that is, ultimately, of Babylonia.

101 The octotropos was first known from Manilius (2, 84I-970) and Firmicus (Math. 2, I4) only, and after a short reference to it by Bouch6-Leclercq, L'astrol. gr-. 279, T'hulin compared it with the I6 Etruscan regions, believing that the octotropos was exclusively Italian, but it is not so (above, n. i5) nor has it anything to do with the zodiac (as F. Rock in OLZ I5, 385 ff.) and is, as suggested bv Cumont, earlier than the dodehatr-opos (Rev. philol. 42, 19I8, 70, and Swynb. fiin. 37 ff.; cf. Housman, loc. cit.; Kroll, P-W I7, 210 ; i8, 5I9). It is tlle best parallel to the Etruscan regions, because it is equally based on the four points and, contrary to the signs of the zodiac, its regions remain constant.

102 Orphics: frg. 300 K. ; Xenocrates: Cic. ND I, 34; cf. Heinze, Xenokhr. 72 (these eight gods are

represented on Roman sarcophagi by the eight Muses, see Cumont, Sy mnbolisrnefztneraire 30I f.); Hermetics Psell. ed. Bidez, in Catal. alchini. 6, 2I8.

103 Herod. 2, 46; 2, 4 and I45. 104 Cf. Sethe, ' Amun u. die acht Urg6tter von

Hermopolis', Abh. Akad. Ber-lin I929, Nr. 4, passimn. 105 P. Leidens. J 395 -PGM I 3, 762: 5EOp6 poI, O EK

T^)v 5' &vEpwv, 6 WaVTOKp&Trcp. .. (787) .. . ov SopuTopoiaIv oi

Ti' 9XJAaKES, H, U, Xco, XouX, Nouv, Nauvi, 'Apoiv, 'Apauvv.. (-PGM 2I, i9 f. [P. Ber-ol. 9566]).

106 p. Berol. o26 -PGM 2, IOI (I, p. 26 Pr.): 0J KaACOC TOV 6v pya EV OUpvo .avJ C0EpO , aOTE,o0jaioV,

TE-yTC1f TTaOa (PUIl5, O5 KarTOlKEI5 TfV O6AlV OiKOXPJEYVfV, OV

SopVapopouiJav 0oi 50KaE2 yiyavTOES, ETri ?coTCp Kae0pEVOS K ai

Aa1TrvUpi3Cv rV 6ATuv OiKOUPEMTV. 107 See n. B below, p. I27.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS II9

Its date must be earlier than Hellenism because it presupposes the eight regions and their use for non-individual divination.

Babylonia is far away from Etruria, and its evidence is IOOO-2ooo years older than the Etruscan (which, with perhaps one exception, is not earlier than the first century B.C.). In order to fill the gap in time and space, a further preliminary task must be accomplished, namely to follow the fate of elementary orientation amongst the Greeks.

2. Divination and Greek Science. In this section I propose to show (i) that primitive divination took into account, besides the cardinal points, the even more simple principles of orientation, right and left ; (2) that any attempt to equate right and left with certain points of the heavens depends on Greek science ; (3) that the further principles, up and down, were similarly fixed in the heavens and used for religious speculation.

(i) The Babylonians explained signs according to their provenance from one of the four points or declared them lucky, if they appeared to the right of the observer, and unlucky, if to his left.108 Homeric divination did not consider the four points but was in complete agreement with the latter practice,109 with one exception to which I shall return presently. The same applies also to the augural discipline of the Romans, with the difference that they, apparently following the Etruscans, considered left lucky and right unlucky. So the archaic augural formula in Varro (LL 7, 8) defines left and right (in this order) but not their relation to the heavenly regions (as do, for instance, Varro himself, loc. cit., and Livy i, i8, in a similar context).

(2) The fundamental change was initiated, so it seems, by the early Pythagoreans. It may well be that a Homeric passage 110 identifying right with the E. and left with the W. was used as the point of departure by them, as it frequently was by later writers.111 Anyway they introduced the same orientation and added that, as to the difference between right and left, the heavens are subject to the same rules as is the human organism.112 What we possess of relevant speculations in Plato and Aristotle is, at least in the latter, suggested by polemics against the Pythagoreans. Aristotle criticizes 113 them (a) because they consider only right and left, whereas four other principles are equally significant in every living organism: up and down, front and back; (b) because in the heavens they identify up with right, and down with left. One further point must be quoted from this difficult chapter, namely that Aristotle, as Plato and perhaps the

108 Cf. Jastrow, Ioc. cit. 2, 242 ; 635; 763 ff.; 828 ; the sign could also be observed to the right and left of the Sun or Moon, Jastrow 2, 714 ; but this is of course not yet identical with a definite fixing of right and left in the heavens. Cf. M\'c. I4, 62: Kai 6OEcJeE

r6v uiroy ToiJ &vepcCTrou EK 5Eg1COV KaelipEvOv T-r s 5wV6pEcos

Kal EpX6pEvov pETQ TCov VEpE2ECov TotJ ovipavov; 16, I 9; Ps. cix (cx), i; Dan. vii, 13.

109 Cf. II. 2, 353; 9, 236; 24, 319 ; Od. 15, i6o; 525; 20, 242; 24, 31 1.

1 II. 12, 239 f.: ElT' ETri 5Eti' lCOJui TrpOs iCo T' ilEi6v TE I ElT' ETr' QpiarEp -roi yE TroTr 36pov IlEp6EvT.a

"' The best pertinent study is Lobeck's Aglaoph. 2, 914 ff. I owe to him much of the following evidence; cf. also Boll, Sphaer-a 383, I; 565 f. ; Guthrie's note on Arist. De caelo 2, 2; A. F. Braunlich, AYP 57, I936, 245 ff. It will be noticed that little of the great topic ' right and left' is illuminating for my subject;

for instance the common folklore practice (on which cf., e.g. Gornatowski, Rechts u. links inm antiken Aber- glauiben, Diss. Breslau, 1936) remains outside its scope.

112 Cf. Stob. Eel. 1, 1s, 6 (Doxogr. 339): Uveuay6pas, VIATcov, 'ApiaroToATfs 5EtI& To-r KOUiCOU T-ra cvarToAuK ppT,

6Pp' -

vl apXfl Tris KmvlUcEcs, &plicuEp& 52 Ta &vTlKa (according to Empedocles S. was r., and N. was 1.: Doxogr. ibid.); Simplic. in Arist. de caelo p. 386, ii Heibg.: T6 yoXv 5EtI6v ... Kai &yaeo6v EK&AOUV (sc. ol lvueayopEoic), -r6 5 apl-TEpOv . . . Kai KaKOv AE-yov.-Aclhill.

Isag. 28, p. 62 M., records another division of the Pythagoreans : N. -- r., and S. = 1.-A detailed ap- plication of this doctrine is found as early as Hippocr. TEpi SliaiTfS 4, 89 (6,650 L.; c. 370 B.C.: cf. Rehm Parapegmnastudien, I941, 38) where the significance of dreams is discussed.

113 De caelo 2, 2.

I 20 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

Pythagoreans, gave the preference to the E. because it is the ascending side of the heavens and the starting point of every movement.114 The later discussion, as far as it remained scientific, followed the line of Aristotle, e.g. the Commentaries on Aratus, which often quoted the Homeric passage, considered all dimensions and developed a variety of orientations and explanations.115 The details are less important for this context than the existence of these debates and their scientific character.

(3) Up and down, too, have their history in Greek science, as well as in religion. We are interested only in the latter, i.e. when these terms mark parts of a cosmic system in the service of religious speculation. It was an early idea to place the dead in the regions of sunset and to call that part of the world the dominion of Hades.116 What one expects to find is a statement concerning the opposite side, but the contrast was not elaborated at once. It first appears in Plato (who probably owes it to the Pythagoreans): when the souls are judged, the just are sent to the right and up through the heavens, the unjust to the left and down.1"7 We notice that, by this seemingly simple means of co-ordination of right and up, a wide field is opened to religious imagination; also that the two sides are not on the same level in the terms of the conception of concentric spheres. The next step was to assign these two sides to different divinities, as in a passage of Lactantius (who reproduces, no doubt, much earlier doctrines) :118

when the world was divided, Zeus' share was to rule in the E., Pluto's in the W. It is clear that this view includes old and new elements. It would appear more natural to have the Sun at the point of sunrise (as was in fact presumed later), and not Zeus; but Zeus'was strong enough to maintain even in such a context his privileged position as the supreme god of the heavens. A further step (of some relevance to the Etruscan doctrine) was made when astral religion began to spread, and it concerned the planet of Kronos-Saturn. The view that this planet was the Sun of the night occurs as early as the Epinomis.119 Epigenes, who seems to belong to the third century B.C., stated that it was the ' Chaldaeans ' who ascribed the greatest power to Kronos and did so because his sphere was the

114 Arist. De caelo 2, 2, p. 285bI5. But he mentions all other definitions as well, also that of the religious practice, 285 a3 . . . fi yap Ka-Ta rT lLPETEpa 8Eila (MyoPEv),

c,oJrap ol p&v-rElS...

11 E.g. Anon. Isag. i8, p. 132 M. KaAEIY-ai 8E rT ,UEv

p6pEia ,UEpfn 8EtII TE Kai a6vco EV VYEI PAAov rr6pXovra, Ta& 8 v6-ria Evui6cVP rE Kai1 K-rwC: Aclhill. Isag. 35, p. 72 M. ToYv 5E iinyOxJ,EVOV EV xpE l T6v P6pEIOV Tr6Aov EXEIV

Kal Ev aplaTEpa T6v v6TIov V. . . TIVS E TSV EnyOlyUEvcov poIJAovTat ElpTrpoaeEv ,UEV as "APKTOvs, 6lTiaco) 5E T6v v6rov, 5E~I&S 5E Fs waOToXrAs, aplaTEpwV 5E -ryv 5OATIV EXEIV, Iacas aTr6 -r6v 'OIplpIK63V E1TCaV KIVleEVrEs (II. 12, 239 f.) . . . the former view is further shared in Anon. Comm., p. 96, 3I M.; Schol. Arat. 69, p. 352 M. ; the latter in Anon. Isag., p. 1o2, I; 319, i M.; Aclhill. 28, p. 62 M.; Schol. A II. 12, 239. S. is identified with r., N. with 1. in Schol. T II. 12, 239; Hygin. Astron. 4, 8.

116 II. 5, i9i ; 'Ai5s 5' EAaXE 36qpov TEpoErTa: 23, 5' ; VEKpOV EXov-ra vtEaegi C,r6 36qov gEp&EvTa (cf. I 2, 239 f ., quoted above, n. I Io): Soph. OR 177; OKTYV Trp6s

;aTirpoU eEOso: Plato, Epigr. 5 Diehl (Anth. Pal. 7, 670).

117 Plato, Rep. IO, 614c; . . . btKac-aTs 5E . . . gTEtbi

iasSlKcsaEIav, ToIJS ,UEV SIKaiOOS KEMEAIEV TrOpEIJEaealt TrV EiS 5E TIE Kai avIco Sio Too ocipavou . . . ToIs 51 6abiKOVS -TrV

ElS 1aTp6EPv TE Kai K&Tco .. . : Legg. 76od; TO6 5. l 8sEit

ytyvEaeco T6 Trp6s E@co: Epin. 987b; rpE1s 5' -ri yop6s AkycoiEv

Erri 8Et&I -OrEUOpVopV pETa aEAvns TE Kai Aiovou: cf. Tim. 36c; Gorg. 524a; Bidez, Bull. Acad. de Belgique 1933, 277 f.-Up and down were often omitted so that right and left remained, e.g. Verg. Aen. 6, 540; Orph. frg. 32 K.; for later evidence see Dieterich, Nekhja i26, I; id. Mithrasliturgie i98 f. * Brink- mann, Rhein. Mus. 66, i9ii, 6i9; H. W. Thomas, 'ETrEKEIva, Diss. MIunich 1938, 132 ; Cumont, Sym- bolismefuineraire 50, I ; 371; 377 422 ff.

118 Lact. Div. Inst. I, II, 31 . . . regnum orbis ita partiti sortitique sunt, ut orientis imperium lovi cederet, Plutoni . .. pars occidentis optingeret, eo quod plaga orientis ex qua lux mortalibus datur, superior, occidentis autem inferior esse videatur.' A Christian version of this story is (at the same time influenced by Iranian dualism) when E. is assigned to God because he is the source of light and makes us rise to eternal life; W. is ascribed to the evil spirit that brings darkness and makes men fall and perish by their sins (ibid. 2, 9, 5); cf. Apocal. 7, 2; Clem. Alex. Protr. 114, 4; Strom. 7, 43, 6; Boll, Offen- barung Joh. 20.

119 987c; cf. Bidez, Rev.phil. 29, 1905,3I9; Cumont, Syria 9, i928, I04; id. Ant. Class. 4, 1935, i i, 6; 14, 2.-The doctrine is apparently Babylonian in origin, see Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube3 5.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I2I

highest in the heavens. This view was strongly held by later writers 120 and took an interesting turn in Egypt. The Egyptians put the birth of Kronos to the left, which was the S., and his death to the right, which was the N.12' They further held that thunder coming from the left and S., that is from Kronos, the superviser of the earth, was more significant than that coming from the right and N., from (the unfortunately unnamed god), the originator of life.122 So we find up and down combined with the other principles of orientation and fixed in the heavens: (a) in Greece, E. and W. were up and down, right and left, dominion of Zeus and Pluto respectively; (b) in ' Egypt' N. and S. were identified with up and down, left and right (with reversed significance), seat of Kronos and of the complementary divinity. As to the chronological development, it will be convenient to connect the former concept roughly with the name of Plato and his followers, the latter with Hellenized Orientals of the third century B.C., the date of the ' Chaldaean ' order of the planets 123 on which this concept depends, though parts of the Egyptian story are no doubt much later.

3. The Etruscan Tradition. (i) The first place undoubtedly belongs to the Piacenza liver-whatever its date.124 It is divided into two halves, each containing on its margin eight regions and marked on the back with usils (' of the Sun') and tivs (' of the Moon ') respectively, and meaning probably day and night: the time of the signs was important in Etruria as well as in the East. The sixteen regions of the heavens thus reproduced on the liver reflect an elaborate belief in the ' sympathy ' between cosmic and terrestrial life, and there are other vestiges of this belief in the fragments of the Etruscan discipline. We cannot be more explicit about this cosmic system so long as we do not know the order of the regions, their relation to the inner divisions and the function of the gods. Deecke began his numbering with the regions where ani (Janus) and uni (Juno) are inscribed; and it would in fact be convenient to have these principal gods at the beginning (in order to include tin (Juppiter), one ought to start perhaps with Deecke's reg. I5 and i6).125 The formal evidence, however, is against Deecke because these regions are in the middle, not at the beginning, of the day-side. Korte began therefore with its lower end; 126 but this order, too, remains conjectural, and moreover it does not produce any safe point of departure. Secondly, framed by these marginal regions are inner segments, sixteen on the day-side and eight on the night-side. It is not clear what they are intended to

120 Diod. 2, 30, 3 (ol Xa8Saioi); pEyi Tcrv 8E qaaiv Elval

6ECE)paV Kai 8iVaplv TrEpi TOUS TTEivE acTEpaS ToUS 1T?MaVfTraS

Ka?AoUvEvoUS. . . i8ia c E TOY JiTO T&)V E?OSvwv Kp6vov 6vOpa3OpEVOV bnIpaVEUTaTOV 8E Kai -ITMIUra Kai pEylaTa

TpoarlpjaivovTa: Sen. NO 7, 4, 2; Sarapio Alex- andrinus (first century B.C. ?), Catal. codd. astrol. 8, 4, 229, 3I; Hystasp. frg. i9 B.-C.; Tac. Hist. 5, 4; Mart. Cap. 2, I97 ; Diod. Tars. (Christian of the fourth century A.D.) ap. Phot. Bibl. 223, p. 2IIb29; cf. Bouche-Leclercq, Astrol. gr. 94, 2; Reitzenstein, Poimandres II2; Cumont, Ant. Class. 4, I935, I4.-Kronos is called PpovToKEpaUvo1TaT&c)p in the great magical papyrus of Paris, v. 3104 (Preisen- danz, Pap. gr. mag. I, p. I74); cf. Eitrem, Melanges Bidez 1934, 358.

121 Plut. Is. 32, 363e.-The birth of Kronos was celebrated in the third century A.D. in Oxyrhynchos on the ioth day of an unknown month, P. Oxy. 7, 1025 (Wilcken, Chrestomathie 493); . . . COUVEOpT&cOVTES

EV T1) -aTpcxa ~pcwv EopT- yEEVEMCic TO) Kp6vov OEOU PEyicToU:

cf. Bilabel, Neue Heidelberger 3ahrb. I929, 43. 122 Lyd. Ost. 22: Taaca8E PpOVTr .. . .cOTpaivoUci TI, Kai

5iaqPEpovTcos ai EK TOU aplcTEpOU PEpOUS TOU KOcpOU' TOUTO 8' av E'ln TO VOT6Ov (ai y&p iTp6s v6TOU EiCi QElOTEpal KaTa

TOv 1TOlTfrV <Od. I4, III)),T ElTEl Kai 1TPOS TOU TflS yflS

EcpOpOU bTIlTpOTEOETal, Xs AiyuTr-riols 5OKE!, TOU Kp6vov ?Myco, C&)ClTEp T0 POpEIOV 0rrT6 rTOU TTlS yEVEC&ES aiTiou 66EV Kai TTp6S v6ov T Ta iEp& alTEUOUVECOiat EppaiOls Kai AiyulTrTiOlS OKEI.

Another passage (Procl. Tim. I, 77 D) ascribing the view to the Egyptians that W. is the place of the evil demons is nothing but the commonplace Greek tradition (see above): in such a context a reference to the Egyptians is seldom to genuine lore, more often to the astrologers ' Nechepso' and ' Peto- siris', or to the Hermetics, or to later philosophers. A different tradition seems to be represented by Porph. Antr. nymph. 3.

123 On this cf. Boll, P-W 7, 2567 ; Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages hellenises I, I *o 249.

124 See note C below, p. i27. 125 Deecke, Ioc. cit. 24 f.; his numbering is

accepted by Thulin, loc. cit. I O ff. 126 Korte, loc. cit. 362 ff.

I22 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

represent. One might compare the Babylonian and Hittite livers with their many divisions,127 but this comparison would merely confirm what is in any case most likely-that the origin of the Etruscan (and the Greek) hepatoscopy lies in the East.128 Our problems of Etruscan theology would not be furthered by this comparison. Greek hepatoscopy gave many names to the parts of the liver and assigned them to various divinities; 129 but I am unable to identify any of these divisions and divinities on our liver, with the exception of reg. 28 and 29 (in Korte's numbering) which fall on the bladder and contain the letters n and i; if these letters stand for n(e)O(uns), then it might be true that the view according to which the bladder was dedicated to Neptune, representing the element of water,130 was known to those who worked with the liver. Thirdly, the names of the gods tell us little. They include one Greek, herc(le Heracles) in reg. 30,131 and a few Roman, ani, uni, vetisl, selva (as to neouns and satres the Roman origin is not certain). But with the origin of these names the doctrine itself is not illuminated. Nor can it be illuminated by our other evidence, to say nothing of Martianus. So the liver remains isolated and only serves in a general way to confirm the early existence of the sixteen regions.132

(2) Pliny, reproducing Etruscan writers of the first century B.C., states 133

that of the sixteen regions, eight on the E. side of N.-S. axis were left and lucky, and the other eight on its W. side right and unlucky; left means luck, because it is on the ascending side of the heavens; the luckiest region is the first from N. to E., the unluckiest the last from W. to N. It is obvious that Pliny's source knew a good deal of the cosmic system of the Greeks. We have seen that it is Greek to fix right and left in their relation to the cardinal points: it is Greek too to connect the lucky side with the ascending point. The difference between Pliny's Etruscan system and the Greek is that Pliny assumes an observer facing S., whereas Greek theory assumed an observer facing N. The reason for this is that while both Greeks and Etruscans thought of the ascending point (E.) as lucky, for the Greeks the right was the lucky side, but for the Etruscans the left, so that the Etruscans to get the lucky ascending point on their left side had to face S. If this is so, we have to notice a second difficulty: it is not the eastern point that is the most important but the first regions in the N. The orientation towards S. is thus meaningless. The third difficulty arises if we introduce the terms ' up ' and ' down'. 134 For it is without analogy and against all probability that the two regions around the northern point, i and i6, should have served as the best and worst respectively. This arrangement is sensible only if the two regions are

127 Cf. Thulin, loc. cit. 9. 128 Cf., e.g. Jastrow, Religion Babyloniens 2, 223 if.

Furlani, Studi e materiali 4, 2928, 243 ff. ; Schileico, Arch. f. Orientfor-sch. 5, 1928-9, 214 ff.; S. A. Cook, Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of Archaeologj, I930, pl. 23, 2; J. Denner, Wiener Zeitschr. f. d. Kunde d. Morgenl. 4I, I934, I80 ff.; J. Nongayrol, Rev. assyrol. 38, 194I, 67 ff.

129 The parts are called God, Dioskouroi, charioteer, head, tongues, nail, sword, doors, table, hearth, mirror, basket, knot, river, tornb, etc. ; for the evidence see Deecke, Etr. Forsch. it. Stutd. 2,

1882, 68 ff. ; Blecher, De extispicio 1905, 3 ff. The ' head ' was dedicated to the hypercosrnic gods, the lobes to the five planets, and the ViKpcoWva to Hades and Persephone: Psell. De daemnon. 2 (Patr. Gr. I22, 877) ; id. Trepi vJT1Kis ed. Bidez, Cat. alchirn. gr. 6, I928, p. I58, i. Do the 24 segments representthe hours of the day, each under a divinity ?

130 Pliny ii, 195: ' taurorum felle aureus ducitur color. haruspices id Neptuno et umoris potentiae dicavere . . . Plut., fac. lun. 15: yi, 5E Kai eaA&aac xp-ral KaTa (picriv 6 K6ogos, ova KOlAia Kai K1JgTE1 3Gov.

131 Cf. Bayet, Hercle, 1926, 224 ff.; I do not, however, believe in the orientation and limitation of the liver and therefore I cannot agree with the argurnent in general.

1' 2 For another instrument see note D below, p. 128.

133 Pliny 2, I42ff.

134 It might be argued that this step is somewhat conjectural or even not legitirnate: Pliny does not mention the elements of up and down, and whatever I say about sense and probability stands and falls with the axiom that the Etruscan system must be sensible in all its parts. Other passages, however, containing those elements will, I hope, justify my procedure.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS 123

not side by side but belong to two different spheres, i to the highest and i6 to the lowest, the former housing the celestial gods, the latter those of the ' under- world '. If this is correct, then the two sides represent in fact up and down, i.e. we meet in Pliny the same combination of vertical segments and concentric spheres as in Martianus. Bearing therefore in mind what we have learnt above (p. i i9 f.) of Greek science, I would distinguish in the Pliny passage (a) an old Etruscan stratum to which the division into sixteen regions and the view, concerning N., left and lucky, belong; and (b) a Hellenized stratum which fixed those principles in their relation to one another, added the pair up and down, and attempted to give prominence to the point of sunrise.

(3) Varro remarks 135 that with our back to the seat of the gods (N.), and facing S., one has E. on the left and W. on the right. Though he speaks of auspices, he must have in mind the Etruscan doctrine because (a) to the best of our knowledge, the atugutres had no elaborate doctrine as to the seat of the gods in the regions of the sky 136 nor as to the varying meaning of lightning (and the main purpose of the regions was to establish this meaning) ; (b) Varro believes (as does Pliny) that signs coming from the left are the luckier; and (c) again in accordance with Pliny, he considers N. the chief region. Thus there is full agreement with Pliny, and the additional information that N. is the seat of the gods is welcome, as far as it concerns the ' celestial ' gods. On the other hand, the above diagnosis remains unchanged: this passage consists of the same Etruscan and Hellenized elements.

(4) According to Servius 137 the atugutres identified left with N., and held that signs from the N. were more significant because they came from a higher sphere and from the neighbourhood of the seat of Juppiter. We can substitute the Etruscans for the azigutres without hesitation for the same reason as in the Varro passage. Other difficulties however remain. If N. is on the left, we are facing E., and this is indeed the most popular orientation. But although it is not that of the Etruscans as described by Pliny and Varro, I do not feel disturbed by this difference, for the orientation in Servius serves the purpose of concentrating, in true Etruscan sense, all important qualities, up, left, and lucky, in the N. I would pay more attention to the principle of ' up '. It was implied by Pliny when he said that the luckiest signs come from the N., and more by Varro, who put in the N. the seat of the gods. It will be observed that the nearest analogy to this view is found in the Egyptian tradition quoted above, p. 121. The analogy consists in the location of the principal divinity who sends the lightning at a -cardinal point, of calling this point ' up ', ' left,' and ' lucky ', and of classifying the contrary signs in the same way. The Etruscans and ' Egyptians ' differ on the other hand in that the Egyptian doctrine made the S. the supreme sphere,

135' Fest. 339: Sinistrae aves . . . Varro lib. V epistolicarum quaestionum ait: "A deorum sede cum in meridiem spectes, ad sinistram sunt partes mundi exorientes, ad dexteram occidentes; factum arbitror ut sinistra meliora auspicia quamn dextra esse existimentur." idem fere sentiunt Sinnius Capito et Cincius.'

136 They followed the Etruscans in calling left lucky and right unlucky (e.g. Enn. A. 90 V. [Cic. Div. 2, 43] ; Fest. 35I ; Dion. Hal. 2, 5, 4; Cic. Div. 2, 82), and often used the orientation for which E. was to the left, W. to the right, S. was in front, and N. at the back (Varro, LL 7, 7; cf. Serv. ad Ecl. 9, I5). But they also used the Greek method of facing

E. and having W. at the back, N. to the left, and S. to the right (Livy i, i8; Isid. I5, 4, 7). Some years ago I was rash enough to accept the view of Wissowa (Religion 2 525) that in Rome there were no rules with regard to orientation, the choice being left to the discretion of the augur (Rirn. Alitt. 47, I932, I I4 f.). It is perhaps safer to say that they followed at one time the Etruscan custom, at another the Greek, and we do not know the reason for the change.

137 Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 2, 693; ' . . . sinistras autem partes septentrionales esse augurum disciplina con- sentit, et ideo ex ipsa parte significatiora esse fulmina, quoniam altiora et viciniora domicilio Iovis.'

I24 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

and depends on Hellenistic astrology, inasmuch as it derives the lightning from the planets and ascribes an exceptional place amongst these to the planet Kronos. What is then of importance for the Etruscan doctrine in this comparison ? The terms of orientation, N., up and left, belong to a non-astral period of divination, as do the sixteen regions with the divinities seated in them. So far as the Etruscans agree with the Egyptians in this, they must have had a common Eastern source. It is true that the Etruscan discipline was not free from astral features, e.g. when it derived lightning from some planets, Saturn included'138 But these features, as they did not diminish the supremacy of luppiter or give any prominence to Saturn, must belong to a different, later, stratum of the discipline. So we might ignore it in this context, distinguishing (a) an early stock of Etruscan divination which, in common with the Eastern practice, made use of the four points, right and left, and up and down; (b) a Hellenized stock which fixed these principles in their relation to one another within a stable cosmic system; (c) a latest stratum which is of astrological character and conwes from Hellenized Oriental sources.

(5) Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserts 139 that the Romans regarded lightning moving from left to right as lucky, because the best orientation was towards E., the starting point of the movement of all heavenly bodies. From this position N. is on the left and S. on the right. The former is more favourable than the latter because the axis of the celestial sphere rises up in the N., and also because the arctic cycle is always visible to us, while the antarctic cycle in the S. is down and invisible to us. As the strongest signs come from the strongest parts, E. is better than W., and on the eastern side N. better than S. Our comment on this is that neither Roman nor Greek divination is concerned with the course of lightning, which is Etruscan; that the Romans had no theory of the motion of the stars nor of the North and South Pole, etc., which is Greek science; and that what remains is Etruscan again, i.e. left is the lucky side, and N. is the most important of the cardinal points. In passing, Dionysius speaks of an identical Etruscan doctrine. This can be true only in regard to the details just mentioned which are on the whole in harmony with our other evidence.

(6) According to anonymous information 140 the hartuspices, dealing with lightning, assigned the first three regions to Juppiter. This information is not isolated : lartianus mentions Juppiter in the same regions, and the two passages (served p. 107) to confirm one another. There is agreement also with the above passages. The first regions are of course in the N., which is the highest point. Servius too says that Juppiter is seated there. Varro differs slightly in placing all the gods in the N.

(7) Seneca, following Caecina, mentions 141 among others the ' di superiores et involuti 'who advise Juppiter in sending his lightning. This passage is relevant here only as far as it contains the element of ' up '. But, contrary to our other evidence, in Seneca the effect of these upper gods was always destructive.

138 See Pliny 2, 82; I39.

139 Dion. Hal. 2, 5, 2: -riOEv-ral ? PTcwalot- T&S ?K 7&3V paplaTEp&)V ?lTi T& 8EgI& a-TpaiTTS aiaioUS, ElTE JTTpa

TvppTvG$v 8I8aXOEVTES, ElTE wa-rgpcoV KaOTryTcapbcVv KT\.

Another version follows, alleging that lightning from the left was considered favorable since an incident in the war between Ascanius and Mezentius. The passage was excerpted by Juba, FGrHIist. 275, F 93 (Plut., QR 78).

140 Ps.-Acr. ad Hor. Carm. I, I2, I9 (quoted above p. 107, n. 35).

141 Sen. NQ 2, 41, 2: ' tertiam manubiam idem luppiter mittit, sed adhibitis in consilium diis, quos superiores et involutos vocant, quia vastat in quae incidit et utique mutat statum privatum et publicum, quem invenit : ignis enim nihil esse quod fuit pati- tur.'-Thulin, loc. cit. 15 ff. would identify these ' di involuti' with the ' Favores opertanei' of reg. i.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS 125

(8) Arnobius, whose source is here Cornelius Labeo, speaks of a division into right and left gods.142 The former, the ' di superi ' receive gay offerings of white colour, lectisternia, games and meals destined to elicit their lucky signs. The left and evil gods, the ' di inferi ', their rivals, receive bloody victims of black colour, and supplications to propitiate them; such gods are for instance Discordia, Bellona, Furiae, Febris, Laverna. Arnobius does not say that this is Etruscan doctrine, but it is generally supposed to be,143 and, I think, rightly. As we have seen, it is Etruscan to have gods to the right and left, up and down, propitious and harmful. It does not much matter that here the sides are changed in conformity with Greek usage: above we had to consider constantly the possibility of Greek influence, and here it is perhaps not even the Etruscans but Labeo who is responsible for the change. Propitious and harmful signs were ascribed to the gods by the Etruscans as by other people. According to Pliny, the Etruscans went even farther in establishing a scale which depended on the various regions in the heavens. But what we find here in Arnobiuls is an elaborate dualistic doctrine of good and evil spirits, and this is ultimately Iranian.'44 I do not think, however, that here the responsibility rests again with Labeo. The Etruscans and Iranians had some doctrines in common, such as that of the four- sided god of the heavens, 145 or of the ages of the world, of the means of propitiating the gods or forcing them by magic. So our passage belongs to a greater complex. It is not within the scope of this paper to answer the question when and how these doctrines were adopted by the Etruscans; but we are protected by these related items from hasty conclusions. What we learn from Arnobius is that right and left in the heavens were in fact given to the ' di superi ' and ' inferi '. No other passage confirms so explicitly the halving of the heavens recorded by Pliny and, to some extent, by Martianus.'46

4. Summary.-The four cardinal points were the foundations of the systems of primitive divination. They also served in the East to demarcate eight regions in the heavens which survived in the octotropos of the Hellenistic astrologers. If it is correct to suggest that the sixteen regions depend on the eight as do the eight on the four, then the Etruscan system had in fact its roots in the divination of the ancient East. The further principles of orientation, up and down, right and left, also belong to the common stock of primitive divination. It is the fixing of these principles in their relation to one another which marks a fundamental change, and this was done in the cosmic system of the Greeks and the East after Plato and Aristotle. All our evidence concerning the Etruscan system belongs to this Hellenized stage of its development. To state that N. is at the same time up, left, and lucky is to use Greek terms, even if it is the reverse of the Greek view. The details must have been fluctuating. If we are told that it is Juppiter or all the gods who dwell in the N., this cannot be the whole story: we must assume with Pliny, Arnobius and Martianus that all regions around the compass contain gods, and that with the increasing distance from the N. their favour to mankind diminishes and finally turns into hostility.

142 See note E below, p. I28. 143 Cf. Kettner, Corn. Labeo, Progr. Pforta I877,

32; Kahl, Philol. Supp1. 5, i889, 783; Boehm, De Cornelii Labeonis aetate, 1913, 46; Bousset, Arch. Rel. Wiss. i8, 1915, 136, i. That such concepts did exist in the East as well appears from the evidence about the planet, Saturn (above p. 121, nf. 122);

but there are also more direct passages: Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 71, 2: 81&pOpOI 8' E?iaV Kai of a-TrpES Kal

ai w6cVipag, &yaOorroioi KaKorroloi, 8E?ioi &piul-poi . . .:

Zoroastr. frg. D I3 B.-C. (Hippol. Refut. 5, 14, 8): 8vvapig 8E?Ia ti0ovual3? Kap1-Trv TO-JTOv T &yvcoia EKaEaE

Miva,....

144 Cf. Bousset, loc. cit. 136 ff.; Cumont, Oriental. Rel.3 286 f. ( French ed.4 279 f.) Bidez-Cumont Les Mages hellenises I, 179 * 2, 275 f.

145 See note F below, p. I28. 146 See note G below, p. I29.

126 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

Lastly, we must return once more to the author used by Martianus. He inherited from early divination the sixteen regions and with them a celestial religion connecting the gods with the four points. We have seen that he went far beyond this. He distributed the gods according to a plan which had its origin in Platonic theology, and he substituted Roman terms for the Greek in the manner of the Roman antiquarians of the first century B.C. To fix his place in the tradition we have examined our other evidence. The most important piece of evidence (after the Piacenza liver, which has not yielded any results), that of Pliny, has a scale of regions measured by their distance from the northern point and represents the same combination of vertical and concentric regions as does the list of Martianus. Or if we compare the left and right gods of Arnobius, identical with the ' di superi ' and ' inferi ', we find again the tendency to ascribe different levels to parts of the heavens. So as to the fabric of the system the source of Martianus does not stand alone. As to its details, parallels enable us to check it at two points. One is the position of Juppiter in the N. and in the first three regions ; the other is the position of the ' di inferi ' in the regions of the W. On the other hand, our list differs from Pliny and Arnobius in that it has some evil gods on its good side and some good spirits on its evil side. It would appear, however, that this difference is due to arbitrary interpolation rather than to genuine doctrine. We were able to find the reason for the change in the case of Seditio, Discordia, and Pluto ; in others the evidence is lacking. The good spirits on the opposite side are apparently inherited from a system which was not made to serve divination.

Examining the list by itself, one would be inclined to conclude that it was the source of Martianus which used the Etruscan regions and Etruscan gods for a scheme devised by Platonizing Roman antiquarians. Other passages, however, especially those of Pliny and Arnobius, show that this view would be wrong. So we have to conclude that the Etruscan religion was subject to the same currents of Hellenistic doctrines as the Roman, with the difference that while the official Roman religious practice remained unchanged, the outlook of the haruspices was constantly modernized by such doctrines.

The list of Martianus, however important, is only one piece in our Etruscan religious tradition. It would not be appropriate to use it by itself as a bridge to greater issues such as the character and origin of the Etruscan religion, still less as the sole basis for speculation about the origin of the Etruscans themselves. But it would be even less appropriate to ignore these problems altogether. It would be wrong to assume that the Etruscan discipline is in all its parts of remote antiquity, conserving in the West for over a thousand years the doctrines of the ancient East. It would be equally wrong to see in the Etruscan religion nothing but silly and worthless imitations of Graeco-Roman patterns. If the method and conclusions of this paper should prove correct, other pieces of the tradition ought to be analysed in a similar way, distinguishing its various strata, early and late, until there became visible in its outlines a doctrine which (varying the term of a successful example in a related field) was developed by the ' haruspices hellenises '.

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I27

NOTES

A. Consus and 'Iunonis Hospitae Genius' (p. II4). With the help of Neptune two further divinities can be explained, Consus in reg. io and lunonis Hospitae Genius in reg. 9. Consus is also called Neptunus Equester (ToGE186V 'ITTriTos), and it is possible that he appears in the region of Neptune because of this arbitrary equation (cf. already Deecke, loc. cit. 6o). The Genius of luno Hospita contains a difficulty in all his parts. First, it is not usual to speak of the Genius of a Iuno. It was an old custom to worship the Genius of a god and the Iuno of a goddess (for the evidence see Wissowa2 i8o, i i). At a secondary stage, however, Genius became more vague, meaning much the same as numen, and could thus be added to female deities. So we have a Genius Victoriae, CIL ii, 2407, with which Wissowa, loc. cit., rightly compares our Genius of Iuno. That is to say, this Genius may mean little more than the numen of Iuno Hospita or Iuno Hospita herself. Secondly, this luno cannot be the real Iuno who appeared in reg. 2: more likely she stands here for the wife of a god, as does the ' celestial ' Iuno of reg. I4 for the wife of Saturn (above p. I05). Thirdly, what does the epithet' Hospita ' mean ? Sospita has often been suggested instead (rejected by Thulin, loc. cit. 6i, 2), but the appearance of the Lanuvine Iuno would present to me an insoluble puzzle. As a matter of fact, hospita, a feminine form to hospes, was known to Plautus and was a favourite epithet of Vergil and Ovid (unda, terra, tellus, domus, etc. : the evidence is collected by Neue, Formenlehre 2, 34 f.; cf. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen 2, 55). It was applied by poets to goddesses once or twice, just as was (this more often) hospes to gods (see Carter, Epitheta deorum s.v.). Thus the epithet is less isolated than it appears at first sight, and its function is found in Martianus himself. In another passage, i, 8i, he uses it of the wife of Poseidon-Neptune (' hic nudus omnium nutricem deorumque hospitam secum ducit '). Whether this is Amphitrite or another goddess we cannot tell. But it might be conjectured that Iuno Hospita of reg. 9, too, stands for the wife of Neptune.

B. The division into sixteen (p. i i8). This division itself, but not its use for divination, is less singular than is thought: (i) A diagram 'Op130VTWV KaTaypacp at the end of the first volume of Ptolemy's Syntaxis (ed. Heiberg) and described in 6, 11-13, consists of seven concentric circles representing the seven klimata, which are divided into sixteen segments, twelve marked with the signs of the zodiac and the remaining four with the cardinal points ; an eighth, the innermost, circle contains the twelve winds. (2) Two sundials (from Rome and Cret-Chatelard: see Diels, Antike Technik2 i88, I9I) have their backs divided into sixteen sections which contain the names of sixteen provinces, with their latitude given in figures. (3) Mtillenhoff, Deutsche Altertumskunde 42, 651 if., 693, collects the evidence for the sixteenfold division of the sky amongst the Germans (apparently borrowed from the Graeco-Roman world). (4) An instrument of a related kind is mentioned below, n. D. A few words must be added on the number i6. It occurs once in Aristophanes (Ran. 55I: EKKaic&K' apToUs KaTEpcy'

` IjCov). Radermacher ad loc. quotes other passages (e.g. Plaut. Rud. 1422' comisatum omnes venitote ad me ad annos sedecim'; Cas. 39) in order to show that it was a round figure. But as most of his instances come from comedy I prefer to believe that we owe this ' round ' figure to the fancy of Aristophanes and then to his imitators. The case of the sixteen giants of the Egyptians (above p. ii8, n. io6) is different : they are clearly connected with the celestial regions. Further Pliny 2, IIO, estimates the number of the stars at i,6oo, that is no doubt 1OO X I6 (as Hipparchus's I,o8o, Comm. Arat. 128 M., mean 90 X 12), and thus a speculative figure (Boll, Offenbarung Joh. 39, 5, suggests that the i,6oo stadia of Apocal. 14, 20, are derived from such speculations). Another speculative figure, 112 years, was mentioned by Epigenes as the age limit of man and explicitly ascribed to the ' sideralis scientia ' (Pliny 7, I60 ; Censor. 17, 4): it belongs to this context because it seems to mean 7 x I6. Burrows, The Oracles of Jacob 1938, 5 f., mentions sixteen constellations of the Hittites and Babylonians (cf. also Gressmann, Die hellenist. Gestirnreligion 1925, 4 f.): they would be relevant here, if this division proved to be constant, and not a matter of chance. On the other hand, that the Sabine gods, mentioned by Varro, LL 5, 75, are sixteen in number, is, I think, fortuitous. I cannot place the Egyptian amulet consisting of sixteen threads (quoted by Abt, Apologie des Apuleius I49). The sixteen cXyIpara in geomancy (cf. e.g. A. Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia I, I05 ff., 557 ff.) are much too late to be relevant here. Late also is the division of the day into sixteen parts in Java : Ginzel, Handbuch der Chronologie i, 425. In the Liber aggregationis, ascribed to Albertus Magnus, which deals with the virtues of sixteen plants, forty-five stones, and eighteen animals (cf. Thorndyke, History of Magic 2, 727), the number sixteen does not seem to have a special significance.

C. The bronze liver (p. I2i). The bronze is dated by Deecke, loc. cit. 22, to the end of the Republic or the beginning of the imperial period, by Kdrte, loc. cit. 370, to the third or second century B.C. ; the experts I approached declined to take sides. This particular date is not so important as it appears because earlier Etruscan representations prove that the doctrine must have been much

I 28 STEFAN WEINSTOCK

older. These representations are (collected by Blecher, De extispicio 69 f., and pl. 2 and 3): (i) A mirror from Vulci, in the Vatican, fourth century B.C., with the winged Xalxas examining a liver (Gerhard, Etr. Spiegel pI. 223 ; Giglioli, Arte etrusca pl. 298, i). (2) A reclining figure on the cover of an alabaster urn with a liver in his hand, in Volterra Museum (Korte, Rom. Mitt. 20, 1905, pl. I4). A gem in Berlin (Furtwangler, Ant. Gemmen, pl. i9, 8; Blecher, pl. 2, 4) seems doubtful to me, and the bronze ' Asklepios ' in Avignon (Blecher, pl. 3, I; Reinach, Rep. stat. 3, II, no. 8) wrong. As new instances to be added: (3) A bronze statue with a liver in the left hand, from Paterno, in the Museo Archeologico, Florence (Dragendorff, Studi Etr. 2, 1928, pl. 38, 3-4). It dates, as Professor Jacobsthal kindly tells me, to the second century B.C.: he compares a bronze statuette in the Villa Giulia, Rome, Goldscheider, Etr. Sculpture pl. 78 with its correct date, given by Beazley, JRS xxxiv, 1944, 148. (4) and (S) Two fragments of Arretine vases, Augustan period, in Tilbingen and Berlin (Dragendorff, loc. cit. 177 ff. and pl. 38).

D. A marble instrument (p. 122). The fragment of a marble instrument, found in Rome, now in Prague, dated in the first-second century A.D., has been published by A. Biedl, Philol. 86, I931, 199 if. It originally contained in the twelve segments of two parallel dodecagons the names of the twelve winds in Greek and Latin respectively. Within these dodecagons two concentric circles were divided into smaller, that is (as Biedl saw) into sixteen, sections in which Roman numerals were inscribed, three of them xii, xiii, and xiIII, being preserved. It is an ingenious suggestion of Biedl's that these sixteen sections are the regions of the Etruscans; but after long hesitation I would reject this suggestion. For there is no instance of a scientific instrument, Greek or Roman, which was to serve at the same time the esoteric doctrine of Etruscan priests. And Biedl's chief argument that the division by sixteen is exclusively Etruscan is, in view of the instances quoted above (note B), wrong; I would therefore class the Prague instrument with these and not with the Etruscan tradition.

E. Arnobius on 'right' and ' left' gods (p. IZ1). Arnob. 4, 5: 'dii laevi et laevae sinistrarum tantum regionum sunt praesides et inimici partium dexterarum . . . (disputed) . . . iam primum enim muhdus ipse per se sibi neque dexteras neque laevas neque superas regiones neque imas neque anticas habet neque posticas . . . etc.' ; 7, 23 ' . . . esse quosdam ex diis bonos, alios autem malos et ad nocendi libidinem promptiores . . . dextrarum sinistrarumque rerum deos esse fautores, ulla nec sic ratio est, cur alios alliciatis ad prospera, alios vero ne noceant sacrificiis conmulceatis et praemiis . . . atque ita perducitur res eo, ut neque hi dexteri neque illi sint laevi, aut quod fieri non potest, utrique ipsi sint dexteri et utrique iterum laevi . . .'; 7, 19 . . . quia superis diis, inquit, atque ominum dexteritate pollentibus color laetus acceptus est ac felix hilaritate candoris. at vero diis laevis sedesque habitantibus inferas color furvus est gratior et tristibus suffectus e fucis'; 3, 26: ' non commemorabimus hoc loco deam Lavernam furum, Bellonas, Discordias, Furias et laeva illa quae constituitis numina taciturnitatis silentio praeteribimus. . . .' That this controversy is directed against Cornelius Labeo can be seen in the following passages: Aug., CD 2, Il: ' . .. Cum praesertim Labeo, quem huiusce modi rerum peritissimum praedicant, numina bona a numinibus malis ista etiam cultus diversitate distinguat, ut malos deos propitiari caedibus et tristibus supplica- tionibus asserat, bonos autem obsequiis laetis atque iucundis, qualia sunt, ut ipse ait, ludi convivia lectisternia' ; 3, 25: ' . . . an ulla ratio redditur, cur Concordia dea sit, et Discordia dea non sit, ut secundum Labeonis distinctionem bona sint ista, illa vero mala ? nec ipse aliud secutus videtur, quam quod advertit Romae etiam Febri, sicut Saluti, templum constitutum. eo modo igitur non solum Concordiae, verum etiam Discordiae constitui debuit . . .' ; 8, I3: ' Labeo numina mala victimis cruentis atque huiusmodi supplicationibus placari existimat, bona vero ludis et talibus quasi ad laetitiam pertinentibus rebus.'-Cf. also Amm. Marc. I4, II, I2: I . . . egressus Antiochia numine laevo ductante prorsus ire tendebat . . .'; 3 I, 4, 9, ' . . . quasi laevo quodam numine deligente in unum quaesiti potestatibus praefuere castrensibus homines maculosi . . .' ; Serv., Aen. 3, 63: ' ... quidam Manes deos infernos tradunt eosque inter numina laeva numerant placarique putant sacrificiis ne noceant.' The words ' eosque . . . noceant ' are relegated by Thilo to the app. crit., as taken by Masvicius from late MSS. of not sufficient authority. It is true that this scholion could have been produced by combining Arnob. 7, I9, and Aug., CD 8, 13, but it would mean a recon- struction of Labeo, and I doubt if any scholar of the fifteenth century was interested in such reconstructions.

F. Ianus Quadrifrons as a god of the heavens (p. I5). We are told that ' Ianus' was a god of the heavens in Etruria (Lyd., Mens. 4, 2, p. 64 W.: . . . 6 8' B&ppcov Ev T1n TECuapaKal-

6aKcTI TCV iciV lpcy[cTCv (frg. io6 Ag.) qpaiv aO,T6v (= Ianum) rrap&a EoKOV S OUpav6V Myweal Kaci cxtE pOPOV Taxcns 1Tpc(?E5 . . .); that his four-sided figure was transferred from Falerii to Rome in 24I B.C. (Serv., Aen. 7, 607: . . . postea captis Faleriis, civitate Tusciae, inventum est simulacrum Iani cum frontibus quattuor. unde quod Numa instituerat, translatum est ad forum transitorium et quattuor portarum unum templum est institutum . . .'; Macrob. I , 9, I 3:

MARTIANUS CAPELLA AND THE COSMIC SYSTEM OF THE ETRUSCANS I 29

... . ideo et apud nos in quattuor partes spectat ut demonstrat simulacrum eius Faleriis advec- tum ; cf. Deecke, Etr. Forschungen 2, I 26; Wissowa, Religion2 io6; Reitzenstein, Iran. Erl5sungsmysterium 2I5); and that his four faces represent the four heavenly regions-and we might find here some indirect support for the doctrine of the sixteen regions-(Aug., CD 7, 8 Varro, Ant. divin. i6 frg. I2 Ag.: 'cum vero eum faciunt quadrifrontem et Ianum geminum appellant, ad quattuor mundi partes hoc interpretantur'). The complementary divinity of the East is, of course, more developed: he is Zervan of the Persians, the god of Time, o TeTpcXpTrp6acoTros Trca-rp TO pEyEOOUS (Ps. Clem., Recogn. 4, 27 [Patr. Gr. I, I46I] ; cf. Iren., Haeres. 3, II, 8: Kaxi yap T& Xepov.ip -r TTFprp6'OucTra . . .; Peterson, Ei' ee6& 24I ff. ; Schaeder, Studien Bibl. Warburg I924-5 [I927], I39 ff.; id. Gnomon 9, I933, 357, I ; Nock, Harv. Theol. Rev. 27, I934, 95 Nyberg, Relzgion d. alt. Iran I938, 380; Bidez-Cumont, Les Mages hellenises I, 69 f.).

G. The doctrine of orientation (p. I 25). This reappears in a varied form in connection with the limitation of land. According to Varro the haruspices divided the earth by an E.-W. line into two parts, calling the N. right and the S. left; secondly, they divided it by a N.-S. line into front and b ck. The S. side is called left because Sun and Moon are turned towards it (Frontin., Limit. p. IO Th. -27 L: ' limitum prima origo, sicut Varro descripsit, a disciplina Etrusca; quod aruspices orbem terrarum in duas partes diviserunt, dextram appellaverunt quae septentrioni subiaceret, sinistram quae a meridiano terrae esset ab oriente ad occasum, quod eo sol et luna spectaret, sicut quidam carpiunt architecti delubra in occidentem recte spectare scripserunt. aruspices altera linea a septen- trione ad meridianum diviserunt terram et a meridiano ultra antica, citra postica nominaverunt . . ., hence the terms of limitation, cardo, decumanus', etc.; cf. Paul. Fest. 220 S.V. Posticum). Another passage speaking of varying practice adds that at a later stage everything was orientated towards the E., the source of light (Hygin., Grom. p. I34 Th. - i69 L: ' secundum antiquam consuetudinem limites diriguntur. quare non omnis agrorum mensura in orientem potius quam in occidentem spectat. in orientem sicut aedes sacrae. nam antiqui architecti in occidentem templa recta spectare scripserunt: postea placuit omnem religionem eo convertere, ex qua parte caeli terra inluminatur. sic et limites in orientem constituuntur. multi ignorantes mundi rationem solem sunt secuti, hoc est ortum et occasum. . .' [practice different]). These rules reflect, if I am not mistaken, the same idea of parallelism between universe and earthly life that made the Etruscans reproduce the sixteen regions on the Piacenza liver: on the other hand, they seem to depend on the same amount of post-Aristotelian Greek doctrine as does the system of the heavenly regions. But these rules are the outcome of theological speculation, and gromatical practice rightly ignored them: Fabricius, P-W i3, 685 if., could not find in the remains of limitation one instance of orientation. So I believe that modern research (see. e.g. Thulin, Etr. Disciplin 3, 26 ff.) was misled by the Agrimensores, who speak more often of these alleged rules than I have quoted above. I further believe that the doctrine of orientation of temples depends on similar speculation and is equally fragile.