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 Götter des Martianus Capella,’ 68 ff.: see p. 103, n. 13.

⁴ Rev. phil. 42, 1918, 70Google Scholar: see below, p. 118, n. 101.

⁵ Mart. Cap. 1, 45 ff.

⁶ Müller, , Die Etrusker² 2, 133 ffGoogle Scholar. Much useful work was done before Müller in the interpretation of details (collected in Kopp's edition of 1836); but the question as to the meaning of the whole was not asked.

⁷ Müller 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 claim.

⁹ Deecke, , ‘Das Templum von Piacenza,’Etr. Forsch. 4, 1880Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Etr. Forsch u. Stud. 2, 1882, 65 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ 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 1882.

¹³ ‘Die Götter des Martianus Capella u. der Bronzeleber von Piacenza,’ Rel.-gesch. Vers. u. Vorarb. 3, 1.

¹⁴ Cf. Röm. Mitt. 20, 1905, 348 ffGoogle Scholar. A few new readings have recently been contributed by Vetter, E., Etruskische Wortdeutungen 1, 1937, 16Google Scholar, the most important of which is neθ in reg. 28–29, as before Körte, who read n,θ; see below p. 122.

¹⁵ Here he had first Boll's support, Berl. philol. Woch. 1908, 1377; but see id. Wochenschr. f. klass. Philol. 1913. 123 ff.

¹⁶ Cic. de div. 2, 42Google Scholar: ‘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, 143; Serv. ad Aen. 8, 427Google Scholar.

¹⁷ That Nocturnus belongs to the north (cf. Plaut. Amph. 272: ‘credo ego hac noctu Nocturnum obdormuisse ebrium’) and the Manes to the west, was seen already by Müller, loc. cit. 2, 135 f. The function of Vulcan at the Eastern point is not yet explicitly stated though the necessary details are given by Thulin, loc. cit. 53 f. and Rose, , JRS xxiii, 1933, 49Google Scholar.

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. 116 n. 87): he must be, for the same reasons, the principal source of Books 1–2 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, 1, 41–4 and 61–3; the second is our list, 1, 45–60; the third is the order of the entrance of the gods, 1, 70–88; and the fourth is that which is described above in the text, 2, 150–168. 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. 105 f., with the ‘di publici’ of reg. 15). This same first system has in common with the system of the second book the gods proper, called ‘caelites’ in both cases (1, 43; 2, 150) and the ‘deorum populus’ just mentioned who appear in 2, 167 as the ‘longaevorum chori’ (see below, p. 105). Moreover, an item of the first system can be under stood only with the help of its parallels. In 1, 62, the ‘utilitatis publicae mentiumque cultores’ appear; who are these? In 1, 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, 156, 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 1, 62; the instances which follow supplement the strange allusions of 1, 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.

¹⁹ Mart. Cap. 2, 156: ‘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, ∣ Semidei manes habitant, quos ignea virtus ∣ innocuos vita patientes aetheris imi ∣ fecit’, etc.; cf. Cumont Recherches sur le symbolisme funéraire des Romains, 193). As the connection of Sancus of reg. 12 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. (1) Semunu in the Paelignian inscription of Corfinium (Conway 216) and Semunis conctos in the Carmen Arvale. (2) Sancus or Sangus: Varr. ap. Pliny 8, 194; Livy 8, 20, 8; 32, 1, 10; Lyd. mens. 4, 90Google Scholar (SANQUUOS on a rock carving of Genicai, Val Camonica, early first century B.C.: Altheim, Wörter u. Sachen N.F. 1, 1938, 29Google Scholar). (3) Semo Sancus: Livy 8, 20, 8; CIL 14, 2458. (4) Sancus Dius Fidius: Fest. 241; Dion. Hal. 4, 58, 4; Tab. Iguv. 1 A, 14; VI B, 8 (Fisos or Fisovios Sansios). (5) Semo Sancus Dius Fidius: CIL 6, 567; 30994. (6) Dius Fidius alone (evidence in Wissowa² 129). 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. 107, n. 34), justifies, I think, the above conjectures. It is not necessary to inquire into the real nature of Semo Sancus (cf. Schwegler, , RG 1, 364 ff.Google Scholar; Wissowa² 130; Norden, Aus altröm. Priesterbüchern 204 ff.), because the arbitrary etymology (also used by Fulg. Serm. ant. 11, p. 115 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 18, 19Google Scholar; Lyd. mens. 4, 90). Aelius Stilo (Varr. LL 5, 66Google Scholar; 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 Antiquitates rer. div. 16, frg. 20–28 Ag.

²¹ Mart. Cap. 2, 165: ‘circa ipsum vero terrae circulum … (166) … 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, 167: ‘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 naufrage littéraire dans l'antiquité 1943, 36 f.

²³ Mart. Cap. 1, 43: ‘post hos quam plures, alti pro suis gradibus, caelites ac deorum omnis populus absque impertinentibus convocandi.’

²⁴ Ovid. Ib. 81: ‘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 Iovem’; 5, 425; 7, 729, ‘nonnulli terrestres silvicolaeque divi …’; Aug. CD 7, 2Google Scholar … inter illam quasi plebeiam numinum multitudinem …'; 7, 3 Preller-Jordan 1, 69; Norden, , Aus altröm. Priester-büchern 221, 1Google Scholar.

²⁵ One could identify them with Forculus, Limentinus and Cardea, in accordance with Varro's arbitrary explanations, Ant. div. 14, frg. 104a Ag. (Aug. CD 6, 7Google Scholar). It is not impossible that Ianus in reg. 1 and the ‘Ianitores terrestres’ in reg. 16 also indicate the two doors of the heavens; on this old lore see Highbarger, E. L., The Gates of Dreams (Baltimore, 1940), 72 ff.Google Scholar; Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire, 200 f.

²⁶ Symp. 202e.

²⁷ Epin. 984d; cf. Heinze, Xenokr. 92 f.; Jaeger, Aristoteles 146 f.; Cumont, Oriental. Relig. ³ 288, n. 54; Fraenkel, , CQ 36, 1942, 12Google Scholar. 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. 13–15; on Xenocrates as its source see Heinze, Xenokr. 81 ff.

²⁹ Macrob. 1, 23, 7: ‘nomen autem daemonum cum deorum appellatione coniungit’ (sc. Plato, Phaedr. 246a) ‘aut quia di sunt δαήμονες id est scientes futuri, aut ut Posidonius scribit in libris quibus titulus est περὶ ἡρώων καὶ δαιμόνων, quia ex aetheria substantia parta atque divisa qualitas illis est, sive ἀπὸ τοῦ δαιομένου id est καιομένου seu ἀπὸ τοῦ δαιομένου hoc est μεριӡομένου’. Cf. Rein hardt, Kosmos u. Sympathie 353 ff.; Reitzenstein, , Hermes 65, 1930, 87Google Scholar; Jones, R. M., Class. Phil. 27, 1932, 132Google Scholar; Edelstein, , AJP 57, 1936, 298Google Scholar; Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire 122.

³⁰ Ant. div. 16, frg. 3 Ag. (=Aug. CD 7, 6Google Scholar). Cf. Aetius Plac. 1, 7, 30Google Scholar, p. 304 Diels ( = Stob. Ecl. phys. 1, p. 36 W.). Cf. also Cic. ND 2, 42 fGoogle Scholar.

³¹ Cf. Arnob. 7, 19, and the passages quoted below, p. 128, n. E.

³² Phaedr. 247a.

³³ Consequently some of the regions contain five or six names, others one or two.

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 Iimite…, 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. 1, 12, 19Google Scholar: ‘secundum aruspicum dicta vel disputationes, qui Iovem primam, secundam et tertiam partem caeli solum volunt in fulminibus tenere’; cf. Pliny 2, 138: ‘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 nee 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. 1, 41; Aug. CD 4, 23Google Scholar; Sen. NQ 2, 41Google Scholar, 1.

³⁷ Arnob. 3, 38: ‘Novensiles… deos novem (esse credit) Manilius (the writer of the Sullan period), quibus solis Iuppiter potestatem iaciendi sui permiserit fulminis.’ Goldmann, , CQ xxxvi, 1942, 43 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, explains the ‘di Novensides’ (and the ‘di Indigetes’) as water deities, mainly because in 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 Müller, , Die Etrusker² 2, 136Google Scholar.

³⁹ Arnob. 3, 30: ‘nam quid de ipso dicemus love, quem Solem esse dictitavere sapientes, agitantem pinnatos currus turba consequente divorum, aethera nonnulli flagrantem… si aer ilia (sc. Iuno) est… (31) Aristoteles (Pseudepigr. p. 616 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. 15, frg. 3–5 Ag., e.g. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 2, 296Google Scholar ‘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, while in details they contradict one another: but allegorical interpretations are always full of inconsistencies. Another allegorical concept of the triad is found on some Roman sarcophagi (Colini, , Bull. Comun. 53, 1926, 188Google Scholar, 1; Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire 77, 1; for a detailed discussion see pp. 77 ff., 325, 4).

⁴⁰ See below, p. 114

⁴¹ Varr. Ant. div. i, frg. 21 Ag. (Aug. CD 7, 28Google Scholar): ‘Dis pater, qui Graece Πλούτων 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 Iovis ex his alios, alios Neptuni, inferorum tertios, mortalium hominum quartos, inexplicable nescio quid dicens’.

⁴³ Manil. 3, 102, 120, 138; on the difficult doctrine of the sortes see Housman's preface to vol. iii, pp. v ff.

⁴⁴ I add a few further conjectures on secondary points in notes 45–8. They are nowhere conclusive nor indeed indispensable for the understanding of the whole.

⁴⁵ The house of Iuppiter with its domestic cults is also described by Ovid. Met. 1, 170 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ The ‘opertanea sacra’ (Pliny 10, 156), the cult of the Bona Dea which took place ‘in operto’ (Paul. Fest. 68; Cic. Parad. 4, 32Google Scholar; Ascon ad Cic. Milon. 46; Schol. Bob., Clod, et Cur. frg. 19, p. 88 St.), and the ‘di superiores vel involuti’ (Sen. NQ 2, 41Google Scholar) used to be compared (Thulin, loc. 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. 113, n. 68.

⁴⁷ This epithet of Iuppiter and of Pales in reg. 7 does not occur elsewhere. One could cite passages such as Varr. Ant. div. 16, frg. 52 Ag. (Aug. CD 7, 16Google Scholar) ‘Iuno 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. O 109a B.-C.; Procl. in Tim. 28c, 1, p. 303 D.; 30c, 1, p. 425 D.; Psell. Patrol. Gr. 122, 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.Google Scholar; Bobeth, , De indicibus deorun, Diss. Lips. 1904Google Scholar).

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 Iuppiter. 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: ‘nutriant fetus et aquae salubres et Iovis aurae,’ and accordingly of Varro's agricultural gods Lympha and Bonus Eventus (RR 1, 1, 6), or of Iuppiter'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, loc. cit. 44 ff. tries ‘lasl’ of the Piacenza iver 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 hat they do not necessarily represent the old Roman Lares (cf. what is said below, p. 114, on the ‘Laromnium 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, 53Google Scholar, 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, 167; see above, p. 105.

⁵² Cic. de or. 3, 93Google Scholar: ‘rerum est silva magna’; 2, 65; 3, 103; 3, 118; Suet. Gramm. 24.

⁵³ Gell. praef. 5: ‘nam quia variam et miscellam et quasi confusaneam doctrinam conquisiverant, eo titulos quoque ad earn sententiam exquisitissimos indiderunt. (6) namque alii Musarum inscripserunt, alii silvarum …’; cf. Quint, 10, 3, 17.

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’; 280; 290.

⁵⁶ Macrob. Somn. 1, 12Google Scholar, 7: ‘anima ergo cum trahitur ad corpus, in hac prima sui productione silvestrem tumultum, id est ὔλην influentem sibi incipit experiri…’; Serv. ad Aen. 8, 601: ‘…prudentiores tamen dicunt esse eum (sc. Silvanum) ὑλἱκóνθεóν, hoc est deum ὔληϛ …’; cf. Wissowa² 216, and for representations Cumont, Monum. myst. de Mithra 1, 147 f.; Saxl, Mithras 48.

⁵⁷ Cf. Altheim, Terra Mater 122 ff. and A History of Roman Religion 170; Rose, , JRS 23, 1933, 49Google Scholar.

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 1, 27) that Poseidon (Ποτιδᾶϛ) originally was the ‘Husband’ of the Earth (Δᾶ). 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.

⁵⁹ Cf. Hesych. s. ὅτε μὲν ὁ θεός…ὅτε δὲ μετωνυμικῶς τὸ πῦρ. παρά τισι δὲ ὁ ἥλιος; Lyd. Mens. 4, 86, p. 135, 13 W.: ὁ Ἤφαιστος, ὥς φησι Νουμήνιος, γόνιμον πῦς ἐστιν, ἡ τοῦ Ἡλίου ӡωογονικὴ θερμότης· διὸ δὴ καὶ χωλὸν ποιοῦσι τὸν Ἥφαιστον, καθ᾿ ὃ χωλεύει καθ᾿ ἑαυτὴν ἡ τοῦ πυρὸς φύσις, ὅταν μὴ συγκεκρότηται τοῖς ἄλλοις. ὁ δὲ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις Κίγκιος λέγει χωλὸν τὼ πόδε τὸν Ἥφαιστον λαμβάνεσθαι διὰ τὸ ἄνισον τῆς ἡλίου πορείας; Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 3, 35Google Scholar: ‘(Mars pater)…nonnulli eundem Solem et Vulcanum dicunt, sed Vulcanum generis esse omnis principem, Martem vero Romanae tantum stirpis auctorem’; Paulin. Nol. 32, 138: ‘nunc omnis credula turba ∣ suspendunt Soli per Volcanalia vestes’Rose, loc. cit.; Koch, Gestirnverehrung im alten Italien 1933, 103 f.—The Sun is connected with the east also in the apocryphal Etruscan passage in Lyd. Mens. frg. inc. sed. 2 (p. 178 W.): …ὁ Τάγης…ἀξιοῖ…τοὺς δὲ πρὸς τῇ ἑώᾳ θερμούς τινας καὶ χρυσοῦ ἐρῶντας καὶ περὶ τὸν τούτου πόρον ἀγρυπνοῦντας, οἶα ἡλιακοῖς δαίμοσιν ἐγκειμένους καὶ περὶ τὴν ἡλίῳ ἀνακειμέην ὕλην ἀναφερομένους.

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. 9845.; Soph. frg. 1017 N.: 〈ὃν〉 οἱ σοφοὶ λέφουσι γεννητὴν θεῶν | καὶ πατέρα πάντων; cf. Achill. Comm. Arat. p. 82 M.). On the cult of Helios, cf. e.g. Nilsson, Gr. Feste 427 f.; Eitrem, , Beiträge z. griech. Rel.gesch. 3, 131 ff.Google Scholar; it seems overestimated by Notopoulos, , Class. Phil. 39, 1944, 163 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

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

⁶² Hes. Theog. 1011 ff.: Κίρκη δ᾿ Ἠελίου θυγάτηρ Ὑπεριονίδαο | γείνατ᾿ Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος ἐν φιλότητι | Ἄγριον ἠδὲ Λατῖνον ἀμύμονά τε κρατερόν τε | …| οἵ δήτοι μάλα τῆλε μυχῷ νήσων ἱεράων | πᾶσιν Τυρσηνοῖσιν ἀγακλειτοῖσι ἄνασσον. The passage is dated by Wilamowitz, (Herm. 34, 1899, 611Google Scholar) to the sixth century B.C. A safe terminus ante quem 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 Müller, , Etr. 2, 321Google Scholar), cf. Theophr. 9, 15, 1: φαρμακώδεις δὲ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι τόποι…οἱ περὶ Τυρρηνίαν καὶ τὴν Λατίνην, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τὴν Κίρκην εἶναι λέγουσιν. καὶ γὰρ Αἰσχύλος ἐν τοῖς ἐλεγείοις ὡς πολυφάρμακον λέγει τὴν Τυρρηνίαν· ῾Τυρρηνῶν γενεάν, φαρμακοποιὸν ἔθνος ᾿ (frg. 1 Diehl); Pliny 25, 11; Mart. Cap. 6, 637. The paternity of the Sun is further mentioned by Plaut. Epid. 604; Cic. ND 3, 48Google Scholar; Tert. Spect. 8. The Roman version of the legend is that the sons of Odysseus and Circe were Romos, Antias, Ardeas (Xenagoras frg. 6, FHG 4, 527 = Dion. Hal. 1, 72), or Romanos alone (Plut.Rom. 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. 1, 72). For other genealogies see Preller-Jordan 2, 308 f.

⁶³ See the preceding note; Ausones: Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 8, 328Google Scholar. The gens Aurelia, deriving its name from the Sun (Sabin. ausel, Varr. LL 5, 68Google Scholar; sceptical Koch 35; Etr. usil), 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. 1, 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 γενάρχης Ἥλιος occurs in the Oath of Philippus (Diod. 37, 11) and in the Calendar of Lydus on Dec. 11 (Mens. 4, 155) 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 indigenous 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, 59Google Scholar: ‘…ut Zenon Citieus (frg. 126 A.) animalium semen ignis is qui anima ac mens, qui caldor e caelo, quod huic innumerabiles et immortales ignes …’; 5, 61; 5, 70; Cic. ND 2, 57Google Scholar; Serv. ad Aen. 6, 265Google Scholar; Tert. Ad nat. 2, 2Google Scholar; Aug. CD 8, 5Google Scholar.—Macrob. 1, 23, 21: ‘postremo potentiam solis ad omnium potestatum summitatem referri indicant theologi, qui in sacris hoc brevissima precatione demonstrant dicentes Ἥλιε παντοκράτορ, κόσμου πνεῦμα, κόσμου δύναμις, κόσμου φῶς. Solem esse omnia et Orpheus testatur his versibus (frg. 236 K.): … … ἀγλαὲ Ζεῦ Διόνυοσε, πάτερ πόντου, πάτερ αἴης, Ι Ἥλιε παγγενέτορ, πανταίολε, χρυσεοφεγγές.

⁶⁵ Cf. Thulin, loc. cit. 46 f.; Wissowa, , Myth. Lex. 5, 333Google Scholar; Altheim, Griechische Götter 181 f.; id., Terra Mater 123, 1; H. J. Rose, loc. cit. 49, 18; my note in P-W 5 A, 802 f.

⁶⁶ Cf. Apollodorus of Athens, Περὶθεῶν, FGrHist. 244, F.102 Jac. (ap. Stob. Ecl.. 1, 49; 1, p. 419 W.); Varro, Ant. div. 16 frg. 45a Ag. (Aug. CD 7, 23Google Scholar): ‘una eademque terra habet geminam vim, et masculinam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat atque nutriat; inde a vi feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem…’; 16 frg. 41b Ag. (Aug. CD 7, 16Google Scholar): ‘Liberum et Cererem praeponunt seminibus, vel ilium masculinis, illam femininis …’; cf. Reinhardt, De Graecorum theoogia 1910, 113.

⁶⁷ Thulin, loc. cit. 49 ff., presents much of the pertinent evidence but does not attempt an explanaion 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 Iuppiter (Fest. p. 359).

⁶⁸ The male Pales is obsolete: he is known to us (a) from a short notice of Varro, Serv. ad Georg. 3, 1Google Scholar (Ant. div. 14, frg. 84 Ag.); (b) from Caesius as one of the Etruscan ‘Penates’, that is a minister and vilicus of Iuppiter, Arnob. 3, 40; cf. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 3, 325Google Scholar; (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, 101 f.): ‘Palibus II’ which may mean, as suggested by Deubner, Röm. 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 10, 50, 2; CIL 13, 8189), 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 combination 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, , Beiträge z. griech. Religionsgesch. 3, 154Google Scholar; 190 f. 190f. 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 au service d'une déesse 1935, 293 ff.

⁷⁰ Cf. Varro, RR 2, 1, 9Google Scholar.

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 constellatione 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, 42Google Scholar); de Caelo 2, 3, p. 286a9; Bidez, Un singulier naufrage littéraire dans l'antiquité 1943, 37 f.

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

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 agreement between the list and the Roman Calendar most ingenious but certainly wrong (cf. W. F. Otto, DLZ 1909, 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 worthless. Martianus mentions a ‘Veris deus’ (1, 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. 18, 18) 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, loc. cit. 4, 8, thought of an Etruscan form for Amphitrite.

⁷⁶ Varro, Ant. div. 1 frg. 16; 19 Ag. (Tert. Ad nat. 2, 3Google Scholar; 2, 5).

⁷⁷ See n. A, below p. 127.

⁷⁸ The explanation of Iohannes Pcotus (loc. cit. 28, 12) is without ancient authority and thus worthless.—Goldmann, , CQ 36, 1942, 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 4, would explain the divinity, after changing omnium into amnium, as Oceanus: there is nothing that can be said in favour of this conjecture.

⁷⁹ Cato, de agr. 2, 1Google Scholar; Colum. 1, 8, 20; Lucan 7, 394; Censor. 3, 2; Arnob. 3, 41 (=Varro, Ant.div. 15, frg. 8 Ag.); Fest. 129; Serv. ad Aen. 5, 64Google Scholar; 6, 152; 6, 743; Apul. de deo Socr. 15; Fries, , Rhein. Mus. 55, 1900, 28 ffGoogle Scholar.

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 δαίμονα πάγκοινον 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 understands this agreement, nor can I find his passage with δαίμων πάγκοινος and his other treatment of the subject in connection with Onomacritus.

⁸¹ Cf. Plato, Tim. 34b (Taylor ad loc.); ‘Philol.’ frg. 21 D.; Diels, Doxogr. 302; E. Frank, Plato u. die sog. Pythagoreer 282 ff.; Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire 395.—Another vestige of the Etruscandoctrine is contained in Sen. NQ 2, 45Google Scholar.

⁸² Cf. above, p. 101 ff., and the notes 2–11.

⁸³ For the evidence see above, p. 107 ff.

^83a Cf. Arnob., Adv. nat. 3, 40Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Nigidius Figulus was proposed by Eyssenhardt in his edition of Martianus, praef. XXXV, and accepted by Swoboda, P. Nigidii Figuli … reliquiae 28 ff. (who ascribes our list as frg. 79 to the work De diis); Wissowa, Ges. Abh. 125; Thulin, loc. cit. 82 ff.; B. Boehm, De Cornelii Labeonis aetate 1913, 46; Kroll, P-W 17, 210. Varro was proposed by Nissen, Templum 184.

⁸⁵ The Varronian parallels are as follows (I quote the fragments from Agahd's collection): the Platonic system occurs in 15, 7; 16, 3; interpretations of the Capitoline triad 15, 3–4; the three brothers 1, 21; the creative fire 1, 13; the four elements 1, 19; the cosmic spirit 1, 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’ 15, 6; ‘di Novensiles’ 15, 11 (the fragment is wrongly, I think, shortened by Agahd); Pales 14, 84; ‘di Coniugales’ 15, 50; Sancus 15, 17; ‘Ianitores 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.

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 1913, 75 ff., dates him to the first part of the second century A.D., Kroll, , Rhein. Mus. 71, 1916, 309 ff.Google Scholar, and Baehrens, W. A., Herm. 52, 1917, 39 ff.Google Scholar, to the fourth century A.D. The former view (which is now almost unanimously adopted, cf. e.g. Scott-Ferguson, , Hermetica 4, 474 ff.Google Scholar) 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. (1, 41 ∼Apul. Met. 6, 22; 1, 42 ∼ Apul. de deo Socr. 2; 2, 151 fGoogle Scholar. ∼ Apul. Socr. 6 and Apol. 16; 2, 157 f. ∼ Apul. Socr. 7; 2, 152–9Google Scholar ∼ Apul. Socr. 15).

⁸⁸ Cf. Jastrow, , Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens 2, 724 ffGoogle Scholar. 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 ἀνατολικοί, who will then move westwards, and οἱ ἐν δύσει will be afraid (c. 14 in Catal. codd. astrol. 8, 3, 176; cf. Cumont, ibid. 171); the four points are often considered significant in Greek astrological texts but it is not necessary to add here further instances.—Friedrich, J., OLZ 39, 1936, 135 ffGoogle Scholar. quotes an Egyptian inscription (c. 1450 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. 1350 B.C.): a thunderbolt coming from the side of the Hatti towards Arzawa brings destruction and pestilence.

⁸⁹ Cf. Jastrow, loc. cit. 732.

⁹⁰ Cf. Jastrow, loc. cit. 740: ‘Donnert es stark und glänzt ein Regenbogen sehr dunkelrot, von Osten nach Westen sich spannend, so werden die Götter … dem Lande gnädig 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.

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, 714; Lyd. Ost. 22; Or. Sib. 5, 512 f.; Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johannis 22; id. ‘Antike Beobachtung farbiger Sterne,’ Abh. Akad. München 30, 1916, 140. This view also occurs in the Etruscan discipline (cf. Pliny 2, 139; Ps.-Acro ad Hor. Carm. 1, 2Google Scholar, 1); I intend to treat it more fully elsewhere.

⁹² Cf. Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the Old Testament 1905, 33 ff. We may speak here of the O.T. as a whole because the concept in which we are interested appear s unchanged in the various parts of the O.T.

⁹³ Exod. x, 13; Ezek. xix, 12; Job xxxvii, 9; 17; Isa. xxi, 1; 3; Kings xviii, 44; Prov. xxv, 23; for further passages see Schiaparelli, loc. cit.

⁹⁴ Job xxvii, 21.

⁹⁵ Dan. xi, 4 ff.—On Babylonian conceptions of this kind see Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube ³ 9; on the King of the ‘four regions’, Lewy, , OLZ 36, 1923, 539Google Scholar; Peterson, ΕΙς θεός 241 ff.

⁹⁶ Hos. xiii, 15.

⁹⁷ Apocal. 7, 2; cf. Mc. 13, 27. Cf. Ptol., Tetrab. I, II Περὶ τῆς τῶν τεσσάρων γωνιῶν δυνάμεως. Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johannis 39 f.; the Egyptian gods of the four cardinal points are treated by Brugsch, Drei Festkalender des Tempels von Apollonopolis 1877, 13.—For further evidence concerning the religious function of the winds see Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire 104 ff.

⁹⁸ Cf. in general Bouché-Leclercq, L'astrol. gr. 270 ff., and Boll, , ‘Die Lebensalter,’ Neue Jahrb. 31, 1913, 104Google Scholar. 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 Schultz, W., ‘Das System der Acht im Lichte des Mythos,’ Memnon 4, 1910, 111–172Google Scholar, and Röck, F., Memnon 6, 1912, 149 ff.Google Scholar: 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 hellênisés 1, 173 f.; Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire 301 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 Roberts, C. H., Ryl. Pap. 3, 55Google Scholar.—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 1921, 141; Leveen, Hebrew Bible in Art 1944, 19; 50; pl. 15, 1.—On the number 16 see below, p. 127, n. B.

⁹⁹ Manil. 2, 844 ff.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid. 788 ff.

¹⁰¹ The octotropos was first known from Manilius (2, 841–970) and Firmicus, (Math. 2, 14Google Scholar) only, and after a short reference to it by Bouché-Leclercq, L'astrol. gr. 279, Thulin compared it with the 16 Etruscan regions, believing that the octotropos was exclusively Italian, but it is not so (above, n. 15) nor has it anything to do with the zodiac (as Rock, F. in OLZ 15, 385 ff.Google Scholar) and is, as suggested by Cumont, earlier than the dodekatropos (Rev. philol. 42, 1918, 70, and Symb. fun. 37 ff.; cf. Housman, loc. cit.; Kroll, P-W 17, 210; 18, 519). It is the 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 1, 34Google Scholar; cf. Heinze, Xenokr. 72 (these eight gods are represented on Roman sarcophagi by the eight Muses, see Cumont, Symbolisme funéraire 301 f.); Hermetics: Psell. ed. Bidez, , in Catal. alchim. 6, 218Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Herod. 2, 46; 2, 4 and 145.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Sethe, ‘Amun u. die acht Urgötter von Hermopolis’, Abh. Akad. Berlin 1929, Nr. 4, passim.

¹⁰⁵ P. Leidens. J 395 = PGM 13, 762: δεῦρό μοι, ὁ ἐκ τῶν δ᾿ ἀνέμων, ὁ παντοκράτωρ… (787) … ὃν δορυφοροῦσιν οἱ η'φύλακες, Η, Ѡ, Χω, Χουχ, Νουν, Ναυνι, Ἀμοῦν, Ἀμαυνι … ( = PGM 21, 19 f. [P. Berol. 9566]).

¹⁰⁶ P. Berol. 5026 = PGM 2, 101 (1, p. 26 Pr.): σὲ καλῶ τὀν μέγαν ἐν οὐρανῷ ἀεροειδῆ, αὐτεξούσιον, ᾧ ὑπετάγη πᾶσα φύσις, ὃς κατοικεῖς τὴν ὅλην οἰκουμένην, ὃν δορυφοροῦσιν οἱ δεκαὲξ γίγαντες, ἐπὶ λωτῷ καθήμενος καὶ λαμπυφίӡων τὴν ὅλην οἰκουμένην.

¹⁰⁷ See n. B below, p. 127.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Jastrow, loc. 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. Mc. 14, 62: καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ; 16, 19; Ps. cix (cx), I; Dan. vii, 13.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Il. 2, 353; 9, 236; 24, 319; Od. 15, 160; 525; 20, 242; 24, 311.

¹¹⁰ Il. 12, 239 f.: εἴτ᾿ ἐπὶ δεξί’ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾿ ἠέλιόν τε Ι ἔτ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀριστερὰ τοἰ γε ποτὶ ӡόφον ἠερόεντα.

¹¹¹ The best pertinent study is Lobeck's Aglaoph. 2, 914 ff. I owe to him much of the following evidence; cf. also Boll, Sphaera 383, 1; 565 f.; Guthrie's note on Arist. De caelo 2, 2; A. F. Braunlich, AJP 57, 1936, 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 im antiken Aberglauben, Diss. Breslau, 1936Google Scholar) remains outside its scope.

¹¹² Cf. Stob. Ecl. 1, 15Google Scholar, 6 (Doxogr. 339): Πυθαγόρας, Πλάτων, Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη, ἀφ᾿ ὧν ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά (according to Empedocles S. was r., and N. was 1.: Doxogr. ibid.); Simplic. in Arist. de caelo p. 386, II Heibg.: τὸ γοῦν δεξιὸν…καὶ ἀφαθὸν ἐκάλουν (sc. οἱ Πυθαγορεῖοι), τὸ δὲ ἀριστερὸν.—Achill. Isag. 28, p. 62 M., records another division of the Pythagoreans: N. = r., and S. = 1.—A detailed application of this doctrine is found as early as Hippocr. Περὶ διαίτης 4, 89 (6,650 L.; c. 370 B.C.: cf. Rehm Parapegmastudien, 1941, 38) where the significance of dreams is discussed.

¹¹³ De caelo 2, 2.

¹¹⁴ Arist. De caelo 2, 2, p. 285b15Google Scholar. But he mentions all other definitions as well, also that of the religious practice, 285 a3 … ἢ γὰρ κατὰ τὰ ἡμέτερα δεξιὰ (λέγομεν), ὥσπερ οἱ μάντεις …

¹¹⁵ E.g. Anon. Isag. 18, p. 132 M. καλεῖται δὲ τὰ μὲν βόρεια μέρη δεξιά τε καὶ ἄνω ἐν ὕψει μᾶλλον ὑπάρχοντα, τὰ δὲ νότια εὐώνυμά τε καὶ κάτω: Achill. Isag. 35, p. 72 M. τὸν δὲ ἐξηγούμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ χρὴ τὸν βόρειον πόλον ἔχειν καὶ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ τὸν νότιον … τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐξηγουμένων βούλονται ἔμπροσθεν μὲν τὰς Ἄρκτους, ὀπίσω δὲ τὸν νότον, δεξιὰς δὲ τὰς ἀνατολάς, ἀριστερὰν δὲ τὴν δύσιν ἔχειν, ἴσως ἀπὸ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν ἐπῶν κινηθέντες (Il. 12, 239 f.) …: the former view is further shared in Anon. Comm., p. 96, 31 M.; Schol. Arat. 69, p. 352 M.; the latter in Anon. Isag., p. 102, 1; 319, 1 M.; Achill. 28, p. 62 M.; Schol. A Il. 12, 239. S. is identified with r., N. with l. in Schol. T Il. 12, 239; Hygin. Astron. 4, 8.

¹¹⁶ Il. 15, 191; Ἀίδης δ᾿ ἔλαχε ӡόφον ἠερόεντα: 23, 51; νεκρὸν ἔχοντα νέεσθαι ὑπὸ ӡόφον ἠερόεντα (cf. 12, 239 f., quoted above, n. 110): Soph. OR 177; ἀκτὰν πρὸς ἑσπέρου θεοῦ: Plato, Epigr. 5 Diehl (Anth. Pal. 7, 670).

¹¹⁷ Plato, Rep. 10, 614cGoogle Scholar; … δικαστὰς δὲ … ἐπειδὴ διαδικάσειαν, τοὺς μὲν δικαίους κελεύειν πορεύεσθαι τὴν εἰς δεξιάν τε καὶ ἄνω διὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ … τοὺς δὲ ἀδίκους τὴν εἰς ἀριστεράν τε καὶ κὰτω …: Legg. 760d; τὸ δ᾿ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ γιγνέσθω τὸ πρὸς ἔω: Epin. 987b; τρεῖς δ᾿ ἔτι φορὰς λέγωμεν ἐπὶ δεξιὰ πορευομένων μετὰ σελήνης τε καὶ ἡλίου: 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, , Nekyia 126, 1Google Scholar; id. Mithrasliturgie 198 f.; Brinkmann, , Rhein. Mus. 66, 1911, 619Google Scholar; Thomas, H. W., Έπέκεινα, Diss. Munich 1938, 132Google Scholar; Cumont, , Symbolisme funéraire 50, 1Google Scholar; 371; 377; 422 ff.

¹¹⁸ Lact. Div. Inst. I, 11Google Scholar, 31: ‘… regnum orbis ita partiti sortitique sunt, ut orientis imperium Iovi 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, 4Google Scholar; Strom. 7, 43, 6; Boll, Offenbarung Joh. 20.

¹¹⁹ 987c; cf. Bidez, , Rev. phil. 29, 1905, 319Google Scholar; Cumont, , Syria 9, 1928, 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id. Ant. Class. 4, 1935, 11, 6; 14, 2.—The doctrine is apparently Babylonian in origin, see Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube ³ 5.

¹²⁰ Diod. 2, 30, 3 (οἱ Χαλδαῖοι); μεγίστην δέ φασιν εἶναι θεωρίαν καὶ δύναμιν περὶ τοὺς πέντε ἀστέρας τοὺς πλάνητας καλουμένους, … ἰδίᾳ δὲ τὸν ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων Κρόνον ὀνομαӡόμενον ἐπιφανέστατον δὲ καὶ πλεῖστα καὶ μέγιστα προσημαίνοντα: Sen. NQ 7, 4, 2Google Scholar; Sarapio Alexandrinus (first century B.C.?), Catal. codd. astrol. 8, 4, 229, 31; Hystasp. frg. 19 B.-C.; Tac. Hist. 5, 4Google Scholar; Mart. Cap. 2, 197; Diod. Tars. (Christian of the fourth century A.D.) ap. Phot. Bibl. 223, p. 211b29; cf. Bouché-Leclercq, , Astrol. gr. 94, 2Google Scholar; Reitzenstein, Poimandres 112; Cumont, Ant. Class. 4. 1935. 14.—Kronos is called βροντοκεραυνοπάτωρ in the great magical papyrus of Paris, v. 3104 (Preisendanz, , Pap. gr. mag. 1, p. 174Google Scholar); cf. Eitrem, Mélanges Bidez 1934, 358.

¹²¹ Plut. Is. 32, 363eGoogle Scholar.—The birth of Kronos was celebrated in the third century A.D. in Oxyrhynchos on the 10th day of an unknown month, P. Oxy. 7, 1025 (Wilcken, Chrestomathie 493); … συνεορτάσοντες ἐν τῇ πατρῴᾳ ἡμῶν ἑορτῇ γενεθλίῳ τοῦ Κρόνου θεοῦ μεφίστου: cf. Bilabel, Neue Heidelberger Jahrb. 1929, 43.

¹²² Lyd. Ost. 22: πᾶσα δὲ βροντὴ…σημαίνουσι τι, καὶ διαφερόντως αἱ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριστέρου μέρους τοῦ κόσμου· τοῦτο δ᾿ ἂν εἴη τὸ νότιον (αἱ γὰρ πρὸς νότου εἰσὶ θειοτέραι κατὰ τὸν ποιητήν) <Od. 14, 111>), ἐπεὶ καὶ πρὸς τ´οῦ τῆς γῆς ἐφόρου ἐπιτροπεύεται, ὡς Αἰγυπτίοις δοκεῖ, τοῦ Κρόνου λέγω, ὥσπερ τὸ βόρειον ὑπὸ τοῦ τῆς γενέσεως αἰτίου· ὅθεν καὶ πρὸς νότον τὰ ἱερὰ ἀπευθύνεσθαι Ἑβραίοις καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις δοκεῖ. Another passage (Procl. Tim. i, 77Google Scholar 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 ‘Petosiris’, 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 hellénisés 1, 110Google Scholar; 249.

¹²⁴ See note C below, p. 127.

¹²⁵ Deecke, loc. cit. 24 ff.; his numbering is accepted by Thulin, loc. cit. 10 ff.

¹²⁶ Körte, loc. cit. 362 ff.

¹²⁷ Cf. Thulin, loc. cit. 9.

¹²⁸ Cf., e.g. Jastrow, , Religion Babyloniens 2, 213 ff.Google Scholar; Furlani, , Studi e materiali 4, 1928, 243 ff.Google Scholar; Schileico, , Arch. f. Orientforsch. 5, 1928–1929, 214 ff.Google Scholar; S. A. Cook, Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of Archaeology, 1930, pl. 23, 2; Denner, J., Wiener Zeitschr. f. d. Kunde d. Morgenl. 41, 1934, 180 ff.Google Scholar; Nongayrol, J., Rev. assyrol. 38, 1941, 67 ffGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁹ The parts are called God, Dioskouroi, charioteer, head, tongues, nail, sword, doors, table, hearth, mirror, basket, knot, river, tomb, etc.; for the evidence see Deecke, , Etr. Forsch. u. Stud. 2, 1882, 68 ff.Google Scholar; Blecher, De extispicio 1905, 3 ff. The ‘head’ was dedicated to the hypercosmic gods, the lobes to the five planets, and the νέκρωμα to Hades and Persephone: Psell. De daemon. 2 (Patr. Gr. 122, 877); id. περὶ θυτικῆς ed. Bidez, , Cat. alchim. gr. 6, 1928, p. 158Google Scholar, 1. Do the 24 segments represent the 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: γῇ δὲ καὶ θαλάσσῃ χρῆται κατὰ φύσιν ὁ κόσμος, ὅσα κοιλίᾳ καὶ κύστει ӡῷον.

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

¹³² For another instrument see note D below, p. 128.

¹³³ Pliny 2, 142 ff.

¹³⁴ It might be argued that this step is somewhat conjectural or even not legitimate: 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.

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 quam 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, 43Google Scholar]; Fest. 351; 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, 7Google Scholar; cf. Serv. ad Ecl. 9, 15Google Scholar). 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 1, 18; Isid. 15, 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 (Röm. Mitt. 47, 1932, 114 f.Google Scholar). 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, 693Google Scholar: ‘… sinistras autem partes septentrionales esse augurum disciplina consentit, et ideo ex ipsa parte significatiora esse fulmina, quoniam altiora et viciniora domicilio Iovis.’

¹³⁸ See Pliny 2, 82; 139.

¹³⁹ Dion. Hal. 2, 5, 2: τίθενται δὲ Ῥωμαῖοι τὰς ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ ἀστραπὰς αἰσίους, εἴτε παρὰ Τυρρηνῶν διδαχθέντες, εἴτε πατέρων καθηγησαμένων κτλ. 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, FGrHist. 275, F 93 (Plut., QR 78).

¹⁴⁰ Ps.-Acr. ad Hor. Carm. 1, 12, 19Google Scholar (quoted above p. 107, n. 35).

¹⁴¹ Sen. NQ 2, 41Google Scholar, 2: ‘tertiam manubiam idem Iuppiter 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 patitur.’—Thulin, loc. cit. 15 ff. would identify these ‘di involuti’ with the ‘Favores opertanei’ of reg. 1.

¹⁴² See note E below, p. 128.

¹⁴³ Cf. Kettner, Corn. Labeo, Progr. Pforta 1877, 32; Kahl, , Philol. Suppl. 5, 1889, 783Google Scholar; Boehm, De Cornelii Labeonis aetate, 1913, 46; Bousset, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 18, 1915, 136Google Scholar, 1. That such concepts did exist in the East as well appears from the evidence about the planet, Saturn (above p. 121, n. 122); but there are also more direct passages: Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 71, 2Google Scholar: διάφοροι δ᾿ εἰσὶν καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις, ἀγαθοποιοὶ κακοποιοί, δεξιοὶ ἀριστεροί…: Zoroastr. frg. D 13 B.-C. (Hippol. Refut. 5, 14Google Scholar, 8): δύναμις δεξιὰ ἐξουσιάӡει καρπῶν· τοῦτον ἡ ἀγνωσία ἐκάλεσε Μῆνα….

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

¹⁴⁵ See note F below, p. 128.

¹⁴⁶ See note G below, p. 129.