There is, however, another explanation of conceptions of this kind to which I must briefly allude, which was based by Dr. Mannhardt on an exhaustive examination of the attributes of creatures like the Fauni, as they occur in various parts of Europe and elsewhere[[1151]]. The general result of his investigation may be stated thus. Spirits which seem to have their origin in woods and mountains find outward expression for their being in the wind; so also do those which seem to have their origin in corn and vegetation generally. We thus find three ingredients in their composition: (1) trees, (2) corn, (3) wind. We have only to think how the invisible wind moves the branches of the trees, or bows the corn before it, to see how closely, in the eyes of men used to attribute life to inanimate things, the idea of the wind might run together with that of objects to which it seems to give motion and life. The result of its mysterious agency is the growth of a variety of creatures of the imagination, often half bestial, like Pan and the Russian Ljeschi, sometimes entirely animal, like the Rye-wolf and many another animal corn-spirit now familiar to readers of Frazer’s Golden Bough; sometimes entirely human, like Silvanus, perhaps Faunus himself[[1152]], or the Teutonic ‘wild man of the woods.’ Mannhardt endeavours, not wholly without success, to bring the attributes of Faunus into harmony with this theory. His prophetic vox comes from the forest in which the wind raises strange noises; his relation to crops and flocks is parallel to that of many other spirits who can be traced to a woodland origin; and the word Favonius, used for the western moist and fertilizing breeze, is kindred, if not identical, with Faunus; and so on.
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.
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]].