This theory, resting as it does on a very wide induction from
unquestionable facts, beyond doubt explains many of the conceptions of
primitive agricultural man; whether it can be applied satisfactorily to
the Italian Faunus is perhaps less evident. At present I rather prefer
to think of the Fauni as arising from the contact of the first clearers
and cultivators of Italian soil with a wild aboriginal race of the hills
and woods. But on such questions certainty is impossible, and dogmatism
entirely out of place.
III ID. DEC. (DEC. 11). NP.
AG. IN.... (AMIT.). AG[ONIA] (MAFF. PRAEN. ANT.)
SEPTIMONTIA (PHILOC.). SEPTIMONTIUM, GUID. SILV.[1153]
For Agonia see on Jan. 9. This (Dec. 11) is the third day on which this
mysterious word appears in the calendars. The AG. IN. of the Amiternian
calendar was conjectured by Mommsen in the first edition of _C. I. L._,
vol. i, to indicate ‘Agonium Inui’[1154]; but in the new edition he
withdraws this; ‘ab incertis coniecturis abstinebimus.’ This is done in
deference to Wissowa, who has pointed out that there is no other case in
the calendars of a festival-name inscribed in large letters being
followed immediately by the name of a deity[1155]. We must fall back on
the supposition that AG. IN. ... is simply a cutter’s error for the
AGON. of three other calendars.
It is impossible to determine what was the relation between this
agonium, or solemn sacrifice, and the Septimontium or Septimontiale
sacrum, which appears only in very late calendars, or whether indeed
there was any relation at all. It is not absolutely certain that the
so-called Septimontium took place on this day. It was only a conjecture
of Scaliger’s (though a clever one) that completed the gloss in Festus
on the word ‘Septimontium’[1156] [_Septimontium dies ap_]_pellatur
mense_ [_Decembri qui dicitur in f_]_astis agonalia._ The word
Septimontium suggested itself, as the gloss occurred under letter S.
Other support for the conjecture is found in the two late calendars, and
in a fragment of Lydus[1157], who connects the two ceremonies.
But even if Scaliger’s conjecture be right, it does not follow that the
Agonium was identical with or was part of the Septimontiale sacrum. The
latter does not appear in the old calendars, as it was not ‘pro populo,’
but only ‘pro montibus’ (see below); and if it was there represented by
the word Agonium, it is not easy to see how the latter should have found
its way into the calendar. It seems better to conclude that the two were
distinct.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account