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.
About the Septimontium itself we have just enough information to divine its nature, but without details. The word is used by Varro both in a topographical and a religious sense: ‘Ubi nunc est Roma, erat olim Septimontium; nominatum ab tot montibus, quos postea urbs muris comprehendit[[1158]].’ Here he implies that the old name for Rome was Septimontium; but this is only a guess based on the name of the festival: ‘Dies Septimontium nominatur ab his septem montibus, in quis sita urbs est; feriae non populi sed montanorum modo, ut Paganalia, quae sunt aliquoius pagi[[1159]].’
The montes here meant are the three divisions of the Palatine, viz. Palatium, Cermalus, Velia; the three of the Esquiline, viz. Mons Oppius, Mons Cispius, and the Fagutal, together with the lower ground of the Subura[[1160]]. I believe that Mommsen is right in thinking that these were never political divisions—in other words, that they were not originally distinct communities[[1161]], but probably religious divisions of a city which began on the Palatine, and gradually took in new ground on the Esquiline. The same process can be traced at Falerii, and at Narce a few miles above it; what we seem to see is not the accretion of villages—not συνοικισμός—but the extension of a city from one strong position to another[[1162]]. This is especially clear at Narce, where it is distinctly proved by the pottery found in the excavations, that the hill (Monte li Santi) subsequently added to the original city was not co-eval with the latter as a settlement; i. e. that it was the absorption by an older settlement of a probably uninhabited position which here took place, and not the synoecizing of distinct political communities[[1163]]. In the later Rome the montani of the seven districts, together with the pagani, or inhabitants of what had originally been the farm-country around Rome, formed the united city[[1164]]. It is most interesting to find that the earliest divisions, i. e. of the montes, were imitated in the foundation of some colonies—we should find them probably in many if we had the necessary information[[1165]].
All we know of the cult of the montani on this day is as follows: (1) There was a sacrifice on the Palatium (which seems to have been the first in dignity of the montes) by the Flamen Palatualis[[1166]]; but we do not know to what deity, and can only guess that it was Pales, or Palatua[[1167]]. (2) On this day no carts or other vehicles drawn by beasts of burden were allowed in the city, as we learn from Plutarch, who asks the reason of this, and gives some quaint answers[[1168]]. But the explanations are useless to us, and we cannot even guess whence Plutarch drew his knowledge of the fact, unless it was from personal observation. Let us remember, however, that this was a feast of montani: is it not likely that this was a survival from a time when the farm-waggons of the pagani really never ascended to the ‘hills’?
Prid. Id. Dec. (Dec. 12). EN.
Conso in Aventin[o]. (Amit.)
xviii (Ante Caes. xvi[[1169]]) Kal. Ian. (Dec. 15). NP.
CONS[UALIA]. (MAFF. PRAEN. AMIT. ANT.) FERIAE CONSO
(PRAEN. AMIT.)
For these see on Aug. 21. If the conclusions there arrived at are sound we might guess that these winter rites of Consus arose from the habit of inspecting the condition of the corn-stores in mid-winter[[1170]]. It is this day that has the note attached to it in the Fasti Praenestini, ‘Equi et [muli floribus coronantur] quod in eius tu[tela] ... itaque rex equo [vectus?],’ which was commented on under Aug. 21. See also under Aug. 25 (Opeconsivia); Wissowa, s. v. Consus, in Lex. Myth.; and de Feriis, vi foll.
xvi (Ante Caes. xiv[[1171]]) Kal. Ian. (Dec. 17). NP.
SATURNALIA. (MAFF. AMIT. GUID. RUST. PHILOC.)
FERIAE SATURNO. (MAFF. AMIT.)
SATURN[O] AD FO[RUM]. (AMIT.)
FERIAE SERVORUM. (SILV.)
This was the original day of the Saturnalia[[1172]], and, in a strictly religious sense, it was the only day. The festival, in the sense of a popular holiday, was extended by common usage to as much as seven days[[1173]]: Augustus limited it to three in respect of legal business, and the three were later increased to five[[1174]].
Probably no Roman festival is so well known to the general reader as this, which has left its traces and found its parallels in great numbers of mediaeval and modern customs[[1175]], occurring about the time of the winter solstice. Unfortunately, it is here once more a matter of difficulty to determine what features in the festival were really of old Latin origin, in spite of information as to detail, which is unusually full; for both Saturnus himself and his cult came to be very heavily overlaid with Greek ideas and practice.
That Saturnus was an old agricultural god admits, however, of no doubt; the old form of the word was probably Săĕturnus, which is found on an inscription on an ancient vase[[1176]], and this leads us to connect him with serere and satio; and popular tradition attributed to him the discovery of agricultural processes[[1177]]. But the Roman of the historical age knew very little about him, and cared only for his Graecized festival; like Faunus, he is the object of no votive inscriptions in Rome and its neighbourhood[[1178]]; and this conclusively proves that he was never what may be called popular as a deity. As the first king of Latium there were plenty of legends about him, or as the first civilizer of his people, the representative of a Golden Age[[1179]]; but no one has as yet thoroughly investigated these[[1180]], with a view to distinguish any Italian precipitate in the mixture of elements of which they certainly consist. We are still without the invaluable aid of the contributors to Roscher’s Lexicon.
More promising at first sight is the tradition which connects him in Rome itself with the Capitoline hill. Varro tells us positively that this hill was originally called Mons Saturnius; and that there was once an oppidum there called Saturnia, of which certain vestiges survived to his own time, including a ‘fanum Saturni in faucibus,’ i. e. apparently the ara Saturni of which Dionysius records that it was at the ‘root of the hill,’ by the road leading to the summit[[1181]], in fact on the same spot where stood later the temple of which eight columns are still standing. Close to this, it may be noted, was a sacellum of Dis Pater[[1182]], the Latinized form of Plutus; in the temple was the aerarium of later Rome[[1183]], and built into the rock behind, the chambers of records (tabularia). But it would be idle to found upon these facts or traditions any serious hypothesis as to the original nature of the Roman cult of Saturn; all attempts must fail in the bewildering fog of ancient fancy and ancient learning. Saturnus belongs, like Janus, with whom he was closely connected in legend[[1184]], to an age into whose religious ideas we cannot penetrate, and survived into Roman worship only through Greek resuscitation[[1185]], and in the feast of the Saturnalia. All we seem to see is that he is somehow connected with things that are put in the earth[[1186]]—seed, treasure, perhaps stores of produce; to which may just be added that the one spot in Rome at all times associated with him is close to the market, and that market-days (nundinae) were said to be sacred to him[[1187]]. The temple of Janus is also close by, and it is not impossible that both these ancient gods had some closer relation to the Forum and the business done there than we can at present understand with our limited knowledge. Neither of them, it may be noted, had a flamen attached to his cult; from which we may infer that they did not descend from the primitive household or the earliest form of community, but rather represented some place or process common to several communities, such as a forum and the business transacted there[[1188]]. It is precisely such gods who figure in tradition as kings, not of a single city, but of Latium.
But to turn to the festival; if the god was obscure and uninteresting, this was not the case with his feast. It seems steadily to have gained in popularity down to the time of the empire, and still maintained it when Macrobius wrote the dialogue supposed to have taken place on the three days of the Saturnalia, and called by that name. Seneca tells us that in his day all Rome seemed to go mad on this holiday[[1189]]. Probably its vogue was largely due merely to the accident of fashion, partly perhaps to misty ideas about the Golden Age and the reign of Saturn[[1190]]; but it seems to be almost a general human instinct to rest and enjoy oneself about the time of the winter solstice, and to show one’s good-will towards all one’s neighbours[[1191]]. In Latium, as elsewhere, this was the time when the autumn sowing had come to an end, and when all farm-labourers could enjoy a rest[[1192]]. Macrobius alludes also to the completion of all in-gathering by this date: ‘Itaque omni iam fetu agrorum coacto ab hominibus hos deos (Saturnus and Ops) coli quasi vitae cultioris auctores[[1193]].’ The close concurrence of Consualia, Opalia, and Saturnalia at this time seems to show that some final inspection of the harvest work of the autumn may in reality have been coincident with, or have immediately preceded, the rejoicings of the winter solstice.
There are several well-attested features of the Saturnalia as it was in historical times[[1194]]. On Dec. 17 there was a public sacrifice at the temple (formerly the ara) of Saturn by the Forum[[1195]], followed by a public feast, in breaking up from which the feasters shouted ‘Io Saturnalia’[[1196]]. During the sacrifice Senators and Equites wore the toga, but laid it aside for the convivium, which reminds us of the ritual of the Fratres Arvales, except that the toga was in the latter case the praetexta[[1197]]. These proceedings of the first and original day of the festival might seem pretty clearly to descend from the religion of the farm, yet the convivium is said by Livy to have been introduced as late as 217 B.C.[[1198]].
On the 18th and 19th, which were general holidays, the day began with an early bath[[1199]]; then followed the family sacrifice of a sucking pig, to which Horace alludes in familiar lines:
Cras genium mero
Curabis et porco bimenstri
Cum famulis operum solutis[[1200]].
Then came calls on friends, congratulations, games, and the presentation of gifts[[1201]]. All manner of presents were made, as they are still at Christmas: among them the wax candles (cerei) deserve notice, as they are thought to have some reference, like the yule log, to the returning power of the sun’s light after the solstice. They descended from the Saturnalia into the Christmas ritual of the Latin Church[[1202]]. The sigillaria, or little paste or earthenware images which were sold all over Rome in the days before the festival[[1203]], and used as presents, also survived into Christian times; thus, in the ancient Romish Calendar, we find that all kinds of little images were on sale at the confectioners’ shops, and even in England the bakers made little images of paste at this season[[1204]]. What was the original meaning of the custom we do not know; but it reminds us of the oscilla of the Latin festival and the Compitalia[[1205]].
But the best known feature of the Saturnalia is the part played in it by the slaves, who, as we all know, were waited on by their masters, and treated as being in a position of entire equality. The earliest reference to this is in a fragment of Accius, quoted by Macrobius[[1206]]:
Iamque diem celebrant, per agros urbesque fere omnes
Exercent epulas laeti, famulosque procurant
Quisque suos: nostrique itidem, et mos traditus illine
Iste, ut cum dominis famuli epulentur ibidem.
But even this custom, as Marquardt points out, may not have been of genuine Latin origin: ‘Though the Romans looked on it as a reminiscence of the Golden Age when all men were equal, it may have begun with the lectisternium of 217 B.C., for such entertainments were a characteristic of lectisternia.’ When we turn, however, to the same author’s account[[1207]] of the Greek forms of religion introduced through the Sibylline oracles, of which the lectisternium was one, we do not find slaves included in the ritual of any of them. There was no general exclusion of outsiders or women, but nothing is said of slaves. And on the whole we may still perhaps consider the other explanation possible, that the slaves here represent the farm-servants of olden time, whatever social position they may have held, who at the end of their year’s work were allowed to enjoy themselves ‘exaequato omnium iure.’