¹ Such an exegesis of 7.1–135 is provided by Boas, H., Aeneas' Arrival in Latium (Amsterdam, 1938).Google Scholar

² All line references are to Aeneid 7 unless indicated otherwise.

³ The paucity of sources earlier than or contemporary with Vergil makes it extremely difficult to determine the exact nature of the material available to him, but the several variants attested in the details of the Laurentine king list suggest that the version of the genealogy used by Vergil, even if the most popular, was not canonical. (It cannot be excluded that Vergil's use of this version also contributed to its popularity in later sources.) For ancient sources for the king list and some variants see Schwengler, A., Rontiscbe Geschichte i. 212 ff.;Google ScholarRhode, G., ‘Picus’, RE xx. 1214 f.;Google ScholarBalk, C., Die Gestalt des Latinus in Vergils Aeneis (Dortmund, 1968), pp. 105 ff.Google Scholar The king list may not be that old: G. Wissowa (RKR 66) dates its actual systemization no earlier than the second century B.C., though Altheim, F. (Röntiscbe Religionsgeschichte ii. 87Google Scholar) places it in the sixth century B.C.

⁴ Even Marica could have been human once; cf. the nymph Juturna (Aen. 12.139 ff.).

⁵ Even in Ovid's account of an oracle of Faunus to Numa (Fast. 4. 649 ff.), an account derived in large measure from Vergil's description of Faunus' oracle to Latinus in the grove of Albunea (Aen. 7. 81 ff.), Faunus is identified with Pan (cf. ‘Maenalio … deo’, Fast. 4. 650).

⁶ Aen. 12. 766 and 777 may refer either to a rustic deity or to the divinized king of Latium. In either case they do not refer to an oracular Faunus.

⁷ Palmer, R. E. A., Roman Religion and Roman Empire (Philadelphia, 1974), pp. 79 ff., assumes that there actually was a grove of Albunea with an incubation oracle but to the best of my knowledge the only evidence for this is Vergil's account of Faunus' prophecy to Latinus (Aen. 7. 81 ff.); Ovid gives no specific location for the ‘silua uetus’ in which Faunus prophesies to Numa (Fast. 4. 649), while Calpurnius' grove of oracular Faunus (1. 8 ff., probably also inspired by Vergil's grove of Albunea) lies in the nevernever land of the pastoral landscape. Without confirmation from other independent sources we cannot assume that the grove of Albunea and its oracle were not Vergil's own poetic invention.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ On the cult of Faunus see further Fowler, W. W., Roman Festivals, pp. 256 ff.Google Scholar On the temple of Faunus and its history see Platner, S. B. - Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, pp. 205 f.Google Scholar

⁹ In some contexts (notably as leader of the uer sacrum) picus may even be considered as the theriomorphic manifestation of Mars himself.

¹⁰ For the ancient sources for these three forms of picus/ficus see Roscher, W. H., Lexicon iii ². 2494 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Picus (‘brother of Ninus’) is also syncretically identified with Zeus (e.g. D.S. 6, frag. 6 LCL); for explanations of this identification see Halliday, W. R., ‘Picus-who-is-also-Zeus’, CR 36 (1922), 110 ff.Google Scholar, and Cook, A. B., Zeus ii. 693 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Arnobius (adv. gen. 5. 1) does call him ‘Martius Picus’ but this seems nothing more than stylistic elaboration suggested by the name of a common woodpecker (picus Martius, probably the black woodpecker) and not an attempt to relate the present story to Mars. For picus Martius = black woodpecker see Andre, J., Les Noms d'oiseaux en latin (Paris, 1967), p. 130.Google Scholar

¹³ Indeed the versions of Ovid and Arnobius agree so closely that we may assume that Antias is Ovid's source as well.

¹⁴ Plutarch (Numa 15.3) likens Picus and Faunus to the Idaean Dactyls for their playing of tricks. These Dactyls, from Mt. Ida in Phrygia, invented the art of working iron. They also had a reputation as wizards and as casters of spells (cf. Strab. 10. 3. 22; D.S. 5. 64. 3 ff.). Plutarch probably uses the analogy of the Dactyls to describe Faunus and Picus because of the spells which the latter used to call down Jupiter.

¹⁵ The grove is specifically mentioned by Ovid (Fast. 3. 295) and by Plutarch (Numa 15. 3); Arnobius speaks only of a fountain but this does not exclude the possibility that there was also a grove in his source, Antias.

¹⁶ For Saturn as a god of agriculture see, e.g. Preller, L.-Jordan, H., Römische Mythologie ii. 10 ff.Google Scholar The objections (nicely summarized by Rose, H. J., ‘Saturnus’, OCD ²) which have been raised against the theory that Saturn was in origin an agricultural god do not alter the fact that later generations perceived him to.be one. It is this general perception rather than the modern scholar's reconstruction which must be kept in mind when reading Vergil.Google Scholar

¹⁷ At Geor. 2. 500 ff. the Golden Age is already an agricultural one (although one of relative ease not far removed from the Hesiodic version) but the principal contrast is still with the ‘Iron Age’ activities of commerce, war, etc. This view of the Golden Age in the Georgics thus differs from the second view where the principal contrast is between agriculture and the previous brutish non-agricultural life. On these two versions see further Taylor, M. E., ‘Primitivism in Virgil’, AJP 76 (1955), 261 ff.;Google ScholarReckford, K. J., ‘Some Appearances of the Golden Age’, CJ 54 (1958), 79 ff.;Google ScholarGatz, B., Welt-alter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vor-stellungen (Hildesheim, 1967), esp. pp. 114 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Aeneid 8. 314 ff. are discussed in detail by Binder, G., Aeneas und Augustus (Meisenheim am Glan, 1971), pp. 84 ff.Google Scholar Traces of this second version of the Golden Age myth are also found, e.g. in Ovid (Fast. 1. 235 ff.) and in Plutarch (Q.R. 42).

¹⁹ The name of Saturn was particularly associated with the Capitoline hill in Rome, at the foot of which the god's temple stood (for sources see Fowler, , op. cit., p. 269Google Scholar). Vergil has Saturn settle on the Capitoline when he flees from Jupiter (Aen. 8. 357 f.).

²⁰ For Saturn as the inventor of agriculture see also Plut. Q.R. 42; Macr. Sat. 1. 7.21.

²¹ The same language also finds its echo in Anchises' prophecy of the Golden Age of Augustus (‘Augustus Caesar, diui genus, aurea condet saecula qui rursus Latio regnata per arua Saturno quondam …’, 6. 792 ff.), another Golden Age especially for Latium, and again an agricultural one, as the word arua, ‘plowed fields', implies. Latinus’ relation to Saturn as Friedens-herrscher is discussed in detail by Balk, , op. cit., pp. 8 ff.Google Scholar The relation of Saturn, Aeneas and Augustus is discussed by Binder, , loc. cit. 21Google Scholar

²² Cf. Saturn as lawgiver for the primitive Latins (Aen. 8. 322).

²³ For the rituals associated with the Saturnalia see Fowler, , op. cit., pp. 270 ff.Google Scholar

²⁴ The absence of Greek Olympians from Latinus' genealogy should be noted.

²⁵ There are a very few inscriptions to Saturn from Rome (see Preller-Jordan, , op. cit. ii. 10 n. 1Google Scholar) but most of the inscriptions to Saturn are from North Africa where he is a quite different god, viz. a Latinized version of the Punic Baal. There are to my knowledge no inscriptions to Faunus from Rome and none at all to Picus. There are, on the other hand, at least two inscriptions to Marica, ILS 2976 (from Pisaurum) and ILS 9264 (from the Liris near Minturnae).

²⁶ The impressiveness of the description is enhanced by the five spondees and the asyndeton in line 170.

²⁷ There is also an initial anachronism in Vergil's calling Picus ‘Laurentine’ since the Laurentes are said by Vergil to have received this name two generations after Picus when his grandson so named them in honour of the laurel tree which he had preserved in his palace (59 ff.). But the anachronism is a minor one since despite the tale of Latinus and the laurel (which may well be Vergil's own invention; see Boas, , op. cit., pp. 96 ff.Google Scholar) ‘Laurentes’ is regularly used by Vergil and others as an early name for the people later called Latin, e.g. ‘Laurente Marica’ (47), ‘regis Dercenni … antiqui Laurentis’ (11. 850 f.), ‘Laurente diuo’ (sc. Faunus, 12. 769). On the use of ‘Laurentes’ see further Carcopino, J., Virgile et les origines d'Ostie ² (Paris, 1968), pp. 186 ff., p ff.Google Scholar

²⁸ e.g. Bailey, C., Religion in Virgil (Oxford, 1935), p. 70;Google Scholarvan Essen, C. C., ‘L'architecture dans VEneide de Virgile’, Mnemosyne, ser. 3, 7 (1930), 230 f.Google Scholar

²⁹ e.g. Heyne, C. G. – Wagner, G. P. E., Publius Virgilius Maro ⁴ iii. 34 ff.;Google ScholarPlessis, F.-Lejay, P., Oeuvres de Virgile, p. 576;Google ScholarWilliams, R. D., The Aeneid of Virgil ii. 179.Google Scholar

³⁰ In the one certain imitation of our passage, Thyest. 641 ff., Seneca describes the domus of Pelops, while the less certain imitation of Silius Italicus 1. 181 f. describes a temple.

³¹ As does Lewis-Short, s.v. ‘colonus’.

³² The reminiscence is not listed by Knauer, G. N., Die Aeneis und Homer (Gottingen, 1964).Google Scholar

³³ The subject of ‘castis adolet dum altaria taedis’ (71) is unclear and could be either Latinus or Lavinia (Serv. ad loc. says that Latinus is performing a sacrifice, but this is probably only his interpretation of a passage which puzzled him enough that he felt obliged to make some comment on it). See also following note.

³⁴ Historically, during the period of kingship the domestic religion of the royal family was also public, i.e. it was involved in the general welfare of the community as a whole, but it is possible that Vergil's readers would not realize this here. Boas, , op. cit., pp. 150 ff.,Google Scholar assumes that Lavinia is the subject of ‘adolet’ (71) and argues that she is here a proto-Vestal Virgin tending the royal/state hearth fire. On the other hand, Latinus can also be the subject of ‘adolet’ (see preceding note), and daughters did assist their fathers at simpler domestic sacrifices (cf. Ovid, Fast. 2. 645 ff.; Tibull. 1. 10. 24). If Vergil is ambiguous at 70 f. he is probably intentionally so, to leave us with a nebulous picture combining elements of both domestic and state religion.

³⁵ On the Roman Regia see Platner-Ashby, , op. cit., pp. 440 ff.Google Scholar

³⁶ For sources see Platner-Ashby, , op. cit., p. 441.Google Scholar

³⁷ The religious connotation is equally present whether ‘templum’ here refers to a sacred precinct or to a sacred building (‘temple’) within the precinct.

³⁸ ‘Augustus’ can also mean ‘majestic’ with no religious connotation (cf. ‘augusta ad moenia regis’, 153) and something of this meaning is probably present here as well, but in the generally religious context of the present passage the religious conno tation, the primary connotation of the word, would be most strongly felt.

³⁹ Cf. Ovid, Am. 3. 1. 1, Fast. 3. 295 f.; Plin. N.H. 12. 2. 3; Sen. Ep. 41. 1 f.; Quint. 10. 1. 88. See in general Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. ‘lucus’.

⁴⁰ Trees were also found around private houses (cf. 2. 299 f.).

⁴¹ The fasces were a particularly Roman symbol said to date back to Romulus (Livy 1. 8. 3) and apart from the claim that they were imported from Vetulonia in Etruria (Sil. Ital. 8. 484 f.; cf. Livy, loc. cit.) they are not to my knowledge mentioned in connection with any other city.

⁴² Conington, J.-Nettleship, H., P. Vergili Maronis Opera ³, iii. 19.Google Scholar

⁴³ Camps, W. A., An Introduction to Virgil's Aeneid (London, 1969), pp. 153 f. n. 14,Google Scholar with sources for the Capitoline parallels; see also Camps (CQ N.S. 9 (1959), 54). The earlier view of Rowell, H. T. (AJP 62 (1941), 261 ff.Google Scholar) that the regia Ptci was modelled on the Forum of Augustus is chronologically improbable: see Degrassi, A. (Epigraphica 7 (1945), 88 ff.).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ On inter duos lucos see Platner-Ashby, , op. cit., p. 283.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ As did, e.g., the sacred grove between the atrium Vestae and the Palatine (see Platner-Ashby, , op. cit., p. 58).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The two images of domestic residence (palace) and of civil/religious centre are not antithetical. In the primitive royal state the domestic residence of the king would also be the civil and religious centre of the community. Cf. also above, n. 34.

⁴⁷ Statues of the kings stood near the door of the Capitoline temple (App. B. C. 1. 16).

⁴⁸ See further the discussion of Norden, E., P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI ² (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 212 f., on 6. 273 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On the imagines see RE s.v. ‘imagines maiorum'; Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. ‘imago’.

⁵⁰ The effigies were made of wood (178) and hence were not, in the technical sense of the word, imagines which were made of wax. Rather through their genealogical nature and their location they suggest imagines, and the suggestion is furthered by Vergil's non-technical use of the word imago in 179 and 180.

⁵¹ Significantly Faunus has been dropped from this second list of Latinus' ancestors. In the context of war and victory there is no place for a frivolous Panlike nature spirit.

⁵² The phrase ‘alii ab origine reges’ (181) may perhaps also suggest rule over the Aborigines, the primitive inhabitants of Italy, but cf. 1. 642 where ‘antiqua ab origine gentis’ refers to the Carthaginians.

⁵³ For the augur's trabea see Serv. ad 7. 612. For the woodpecker as a bird of augury cf. e.g. Plaut. Asin. 260; Plin. N.H. 10. 20. 40 f.; Serv. ad 7. 190 (where he associates Picus' trabea like his ancile with ‘Diali uel Martiali sacerdote’).

⁵⁴ The augur's (purple and yellow) trabea was a different colour from the royal (purple and white) trabea which Quirinus would presumably wear (Serv. ad 7. 612, citing Suet, ‘in libro de genere uestium’), but the absence of colour terms in the present passage minimizes the difficulty.

⁵⁵ On what kind of woodpecker see Mackay, T. S., ‘Three Poets Observe Picus’, AJP 96 (1975), 272 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For this and other negative notes in the descriptions of Latium see Reckford, K. J., ‘Latent Tragedy in Aeneid VII, 1–285’, AJP 82 (1961), 252 ff.Google Scholar