an umbrian-latin correspondence
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
1/18
Department of the Classics, Harvard University
An Umbrian-Latin CorrespondenceAuthor(s): Brent VineSource: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 90 (1986), pp. 111-127Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/311464.
Accessed: 11/04/2011 15:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu..
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Department of the Classics, Harvard Universityis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access toHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311464?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311464?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu -
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
2/18
AN
UMBRIAN-LATINCORRESPONDENCE
BRENTVINE
I
LMOST
as soon
as Aeneas
and
his
men take
shelter
in the
Strophades
(Aeneid
3.209
ff.),
the foul
and
ravenous
Harpies
swoop
down
and defile
the
banquet
that had been
set
up.
There
is
a
second
attempt
to
eat
(instruimus
mensas,
Aen.
3.231),
again
frustrated
by
the
attacking
Harpies,
followed
by
a
hopeless
counterattack ed
by
Aeneas: the
filthy
birds
are
apparently
nvulnerable to the
Trojans'
flailings
and
merely fly
off. The
Harpy
seeress
Celaeno,
as
spokesper-
son of her vile sisterhood, remains behind perched on a crag and
utters
a
chilling
prophecy:
he
Trojans
will
indeed reach
Italy,
but
they
will not
settle their
city
until
a
frightful
famine
(or famishment)
in
recompense
for
injury
done to
the
Harpies-forces
them
to consume
their
very
tables:
Italiam
cursu
petitis ventisque
vocatis:
ibitis
Italiam
portusque
ntrare icebit.
Sed non ante datam
cingetis
moenibus urbem
quamvos dirafames nostraeque niuriacaedis
ambesas
subigat
malis
absumere
mensas.
(Aen. 3.253-257)
Aeneas' men
panic,
and
Anchises
dramatically
nvokes
the
gods,
beg-
ging
them to
avert such
a
horrible
threat.
As
often,
the
prophecy
turns
out
to
be
correct,
but with a
twist.
Having
landed in
Italy,
Aeneas and
his men
set
up
a
ritual
feast,
consisting
of
sacrificial
pelt
cakes
(adorea
iba),
which
serve as
platters
or
various fruits:
Instituuntque
dapes
et
adorea iba
per
herbam
subiciunt
epulis
(sic
luppiter ipse
monebat)
et
Cereale
solum
pomis
agrestibusaugent.
(Aen. 7.109-111)
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
3/18
112 Brent
Vine
But
the
fruit fails
to
satisfy
their
hunger,
and so
they
devour
the
sacrificialcakes
themselves.
At
this,
young
lulus
quips:
Heus,
etiam
mensasconsumimus?
7.116),
which leads Aeneas to recall Celaeno's
prophecy.
As the ancients
knew,
there was more to the
prophecy
and
its
denouement
than the
circumstance
of
using
liba
somewhat
in
the
manner
of
tables: Celaeno's
central term mensa
was in fact
a
double
entendre,
since
the
word
originally designated
precisely
a
round
sacrificial
cake on which
offerings
were
heaped.'
Confirmation of
a
most
interesting
sort comes
from the ancient
Umbrian ritual
texts,
in
which
sacrificial
cakes
of
various
sorts
figure prominently.
Here
one
finds the well-attestedterm mefa/mefa, which is the exact etymologi-
cal
equivalent
of Latin
mensa,
and
which
designates
a
(probably
broad,
flat)
sacrificial
cake.
A
similar Umbrian-Latin
orrespondence
has
recently
been discovered
by
C.
Sandoz,
in
his
analysis
of
U.
(mefa)
vestigia
(mefa) uestisia,
cf. Lat.
(panis)
depsticius
Cato
R.R.
74).2
The
following
study
addresses
just
such
a
correspondence
between Latin
and Umbrian terms for sacrificial
akes.
Let me
begin
by
citing
Poultney's
comments
on the Umbrian
sacrificial
ficla
cake,
in
his
comprehensive
edition of the
Iguvine
Tables:
ficla:
this
type
of
cake,
the
exact
nature of which
is
unknown,
is
added to the
prosecta
n
the
sacrificesbefore
and
behind
the
three
gates
and
at
the
other
stops
during
the
purification
of the
Mount,
and also
in
the lustration of the
people
...
It
may
have been
similar
to
the
L.
fertum,
since
fertum
and
strues
are
associated
together
in
Cato R.R.
134,
the former
as
an
offering
to
Jupiter,
the
latter to
Janus,
while
ficla and strubla, he equivalentof L. strues,are associatedin
several
Iguvine
passages.3
1
Cf.
Servius
ad Aen.
3.257: Maiores
nimnostri
has
mensas
habebantn
honore
deorum,
paniceas
scilicet
and
the formulaic oath
preserved
in
Paulus
ex
Festo
112.6L: Mensa
frugibusque
urato
significat
per
mensamet
fruges.
See
further
A.
Ernout
and
A.
Meillet,
Dictionnaire
&tymologique
e la
langue
latine4
(Paris
1967) 397.
2
Le nom
d'une offrande
'i
Iguvium:
ombr.
vestigia,
BSL
74
(1979)
339-346.
3
J.
W.
Poultney,
The
BronzeTables
of
Iguvium
Baltimore
1959)
249.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
4/18
An
Umbrian-Latin
orrespondence
113
Thus
Poultney
tentatively
correlates
U.
ficla
and Lat.
fertum
based
on
the
fact that
both
are associated
with
the
cognate
terms
U.
strusla
Lat. strues. This
penetrating
and
important
observation
has
never
been
pursued
to its
logical
conclusion
in terms
of Common
Italic
ritual
practice.4
One
must
begin
with more
precise
accounts
of the
parallel
associations
Lat. strues
fertum
and U.
strubla
ficla.
The
association
between the
Latin
terms struesand
fertum,
both
designating
sacrificial
cakes,
extends far
beyond
Poultney's
reference
to a single passagein Cato. Althoughmost of the evidence has been
assembled,
the extent and
significance
of
this
association
have
perhaps
not
been
adequately
appreciated;
or
this
reason
alone,
the
following
survey
may
be of
some use.
1.
Paulus
ex
Festo
75.17L.
s
Ferctum
enus
libi
dictum,
quod
crebrius
ad
sacra
ferebatur,
nec
sine
strue,
altero
genere
libi,
quae
qui
adferebant
struferctarii
ppellabantur.
Note
in
particular
he
phrase
nec
sine
strue,
as
well
as
the
compound
struferctarius,
which
appears
elsewhere in
Paulus'
extractsfrom
Festus,
in a
slightly
altered form:
2. Paulusex Festo377.2L (corrected rom Gloss.Lat.4.394): Scruf-
ertarios
dicebant,
qui quaedam
acrjficia
d
arbores
ulguritas
aciebant,
a
ferto
scilicet
quodam acrficii
genere.
As
already
seen
by
Stolz,8
strufer-
tarius
is
a
dvandva
compound
similar in
formation to
the
archaic
sacrificial
erm
suovitaurilia,
both
motivated
by
patterns
of
ritual
co-
occurrence.
(See
also
below
on strues
fertum
in
the
suovitaurilia
4For
the
general
comparison,
ee
already
J.
Savelsberg,
KZ
20
(1872)
443-444.
5CitationsromFestus(and PaulusDiaconus x Festo)afterSextiPompei
Festi
de
verborum
ignjficatu
quae
supersunt,
ed.
W. M.
Lindsay
(Leipzig
[Teubner]
913),
supplemented
y
Lindsay's
nnotations
n his
later
edition,
Glossaria
Latina4
(Paris
1930)
71-467.
6
On
the
spelling
irctum
of
nearly
all
manuscripts
also
firectum
T),
see
O.
MUller,
Sexti
Festi
de
verborum
ignjficatu
uae
supersunt
Leipzig
1839)
85,
and
esp.
A.
Ernout,
Les
elbments
ialectaux
u
vocabulaire
atin
(Paris
1928)
60,
165,
who
takes
the
form to
be
dialectal.
The
spelling
with
-c-
is
discussed
below.
On the
strues
cake,
cf.
Festus
408.21L:
Strues
genera
iborum
unt,
digi-
torum
coniunctorum
on
dissimilia,
ui superiecta
anicula
n
transversum
ontinen-
tur.
7
See
Lindsay
(Gloss.
Lat.
4.394)
for
the
confusion
involving
scrufertarii
Gloss.
Abol.
SC
38
anda
conflation
ith
a
gloss
scrutarii,
nd
or a
possible
es-
toration
f
Festus'
mutilated
ntry
or
strufertarios.
8
F.
Stolz,
IF 1
(1892)
332.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
5/18
114
Brent
Vine
ceremony
itself.)
3.
Fabius
Pictor
(apud
Aul. Gell.
10.15.14).
In a
list
of
detailed
regulations
concerning
the Flamen Dialis
(10.15.1-25),
including
injunctions
concerning
priestly
garb
and
other
paraphernalia
e
was
to
have on or about
him
at all
times,
we find the
statement:
apud
eius
lecti
fulcrum
capsulam
esse cum strue
atque
ferto
oportet.
Although
these
regulations, including
the
injunction
concerning
the two
sacred
cakes
strues and
fertum,
have on occasion
been listed without com-
ment
in
standard
treatments
of Roman
religion,9
Dum6zil
has
observed
that the
intentof the
rules
concerning
the
appurtenances
of
the
Flamen Dialis is
to make of him
l'8tre
pur
et
sacr6
par
excel-
lence, une incarnationdu sacr6. 10
4. Cato
RR
134.2-4.
The archaic
pre-harvest
porca
praecidanea
sacrifice
involves
a
complex
double
ceremony
for Janus and
Jupiter,
in which ritual
strues
offerings
directed toward
Janus
are
then
repeated
for
Jupiter
with
the
fertum.
Note the
parallel
phrasing-always
with
the
sequence
strues
(for
Janus)
followed
by fer(c)tum
(for
Jupiter)
both
in
Cato's
instructions
and
in
the
prayers
hemselves:
2.
lano
struem
ommoveto sic:
lane
pater,
te
hac strue
ommovenda bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius
mihi
liberisque
meis
domo
familiaeque
meae.
Fertum
lovi
ommoveto
et mactato
sic
lupiter,
te
hoc fercto
obmovendo
bonas
preces
precor,
uti
sis
volens
propitius
mihi
liberisque
meis
domo
familiaequae
meae
mactus hoc
fercto. 3.
Pos-
tea
lano
vinum dato
sic:
lane
pater,
uti te
strue
ommo-
venda
bonas
preces
bene
precatus
sum,
eiusdem
rei
ergo
macte
vino inferio
esto.
Postea
lovi
sic:
lupiter,
macte
isto fercto
esto,
macte vino
inferio esto.
Postea
porcam
praecidaneam mmolato. 4. Ubi exta prosecta erunt, lano
struem ommoveto
mactatoque
item,
uti
prius
obmoveris;
lovi ferctum
obmoveto
mactatoque
item,
uti
prius
feceris.
Item
lano vinum
dato et
lovi
vinum
dato,
item
uti
prius
datum ob struem
obmovendam et fertum
libandum.
Postea
9
E.g.,
G.
Wissowa,
Religion
undKultus
der
R'omer
Munich
1912)
506-507.
10
G.
Dum6zil,
La
religion
omaine
archaiiiue
Paris
1966)
159.
Cf.
also
H.
Le
Bonniec,
Le
cultede
Ctrss
'i
Rome
(Paris
1958)
153,
who
emphasizes
the anti-
quityof this particularradition: Il n'y a pas d'offrandeplus ancienneque les
deux
sortes
de
gateaux
sacr6s
(strues
et
fertum)
qui
sont ici
[i.e.,
at
Cato
RR
134]
presentes
a
Janus et
Jupiter:
e
plus
archaique
des
pretres
romains,
le
flamine de
Jupiter,
devait en avoir
toujours
a
sa
disposition
dans un
coffret
auprds
de
son
lit.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
6/18
An
Umbrian-Latin
orrespondence
115
Cereri exta et vinum
dato.l
5. Cato RR 141.4. The suovitaurilia
ceremony
and sacrifice
accom-
panying
the
lustratio
agri
begins
with an invocation to
Janus
and
Jupiter
and
continues
with a
prayer
to
Mars
(Mars
pater,
te
precor
quaesoque,
uti
sies
volens
propitius
mihi
domo
amiliaeque nostrae, etc.;
cf.
the
prayers
to
Janus
and
Jupiter,
134.2, just
cited).
Directly
after
the
prayer,
Cato
enjoins
the
sacrificer
to have
the
strues
and
fertum
available,
and then to offer them:
item cultro
facito
struem
et
fertum
uti
adsiet: nde
obmoveto.
6. Acta
fratrum
Arvalium.12
Various
expiatory
sacrifices
(piacula)
described in the Acta fratrum Arvalium are accompanied with cake
offerings,
including
strues
and
fertum
The
typically
incomplete
refer-
ences
in
the
handbooks13
to
strues
and
fertum
as used in the Acta
fra-
trum
Arvalium
give
a
very
imperfect impression
of the
frequency
of
this collocation
and
of
its
formulaic
appearance
in
virtually
all of
the
extant
descriptions
of
piacula
in
these texts.
It
occurs no
less than
sixteen
times
in
Henzen's
corpus, always
in
piacula.
In
piacula
per-
formed
ob
ferri
inlationem or
ob
ferri
elationem,14
the
most
frequent
version
(6x )
is PIACULUM
FACTUM
...
PORCIS
ET
AGNIS
STRUIBUS
FERTISQUE;15
otherwise, the paired victims are singular: PIACULUM
FACTUM
...
PORCA
ET
AGNA STRUIBUS
FERTISQUE 3x),16
PIACU-
LUM
FACTUM ...
PORCAMPIACULARSTRUIBUS
FERTISET
AGNAM
QUORUM
[sic]
EXTAE REDDITAE
SUNT,17
PIAC[ULUM
FACTUIM...
STRUIB
E[T]
FERT
PORCILIAM
ALB[AM]
PIACULAR,18
and
P.F. ...
PORCAMET
AGNAM
STRUIB
EFFERTIS
[sic]
ET
EXTAS REDDID
AD
11
Citations
rom
Cato after
M.
Porci
Catonis
de
agri
cultura,
d. A.
Mazzarino
(Leipzig
[Teubner]
1962).
12References to the Acta fratrumArvalium(AFA) will be given after
W.
Henzen,
Acta
ratrum
Arvalium
uae supersunt
Berlin
1874), by year,
page,
and
line;
in the case of
material
discovered after
1874
and before
1945,
refer-
ence will
be made to
E.
Pasoli,
Acta
fratrum
Arvalium
quae
post
annum
MDCCCLXXIV
eperta
unt
(Bologna
1950),
by
page, number,
and line.
13
In
addition to OLD
and
ThLL,see,
e.g., Pauly-Wissowa
099
(Orth)
and
Wissowa
(above,
n.
9)
412
n.
4.
14
These
instancesare
cataloguedby
Henzen
135.
15
With
minor
variations
in
abbreviation and
state of
preservation:
PI]AC
FACT,
[PIORCIS
ET
AGNIS,
STRUIB
FERTI[SQUE,
etc.;
AFA
a.
119, p.
155,
lines
65-70 (bis, including he certainrestorationSTRUIBUSIERT[ISQUE);. 121,
p.
160,
lines 57-61
(bis);
a.
130, p.
165,
lines
2-7
(bis).
16
Ibid.,
a.
156,
p.
171,
lines
70-75
(bis);
a.
184,
p.
189,
lines
23-24.
17
Ibid.,
a.
221,
p. 210,
lines 7-13.
18
bid.,
a.
222,
p. 212,
lines
5-8.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
7/18
116
Brent Vine
ARAM.19
imilarly,
n
other
piacula
(for
trees
that have
fallen either
ob
vetustatem
r
tempestatibus),20
ne
finds
(3x)
PIACULUMACTUM
..
PORCIS ET AGNIS STRUIBUS
FERTISQUE,
1
and
[PIACULUM
FACT]UM
..
[PORCAIM
T
AGNAM
STRUIBUS
ERCTISQ.22
Pasoli's additions
to
Henzen's
corpus yield
still
another
instance:
ET
LUCUM
ASCENDER
T
PROMAG
TFLAMSTRUIB T
FERFECERET
IMMOL GNAOP
ALBAAD LITATIONE
XTA NSPEXERUNT
T
REDDIDERANT
3
Although the phrasing s somewhat different from that of previously
known
texts
(note
also
the abbreviation
STRUIB
ET
FER,
otherwise
unexampled
in
Henzen's
material),
this
description
does form
part
of
a
complex
and detailed
piaculum.24
Note
in
this connection
that
in
terms
of Roman
religious
practice,
the
porca
praecidanea
sacrifice,
even
in
Cato's
purely
agrarian
version
(as
distinct from
funerary
ver-
sions),
is
essentially
expiatory
in
character,
that
is,
a form of
piacu-
lum,
as
Le Bonniec
has discussed
at
some
length.25
Le
Bonniec has
also noted26 the
apotropaic
character of the invocation
to
Mars
in
Cato's version of the ceremony. But one can observe more
19
Ibid.,
a.
225,
p. 215,
lines
21-23.
20
These instances
are
cataloguedby
Henzen 139-140.
21
AFA a.
101,
p.
143,
lines
1-2;
a.
105,
p. 146,
lines
38-40;
a.
118, p.
152,
lines
41
-43.
22
Ibid.,
a.
155, p.
171,
lines 59-60.
23
Pasoli
47,
no.
100,
lines
14-17
(a. 225).
24The
fragments
of
the
Acta
published
since
Pasoli's edition
have
nothing
more to
offer:
even
though
several new
piacula
have
been
discovered,
the
parts
which
probably
ontained
phrases
ike
struibus
ertisque
re
broken
off;
thus
the
text
reportedby
A.
Ferrua,
Nuovi
frammenti
degli
atti
degli
Arvali,
Bulletino
della
commissione
rcheologica
omunale i
Roma
78
(1961-62
[19641)
116-129,
contains
several
piacula,
one
of
which
Ferrua
restores
(in
part)
as follows
(118,
lines
22- 23
of
the
tablet):
IN
LUCO
DEAE
DI]AE
PIACULUMACTUM B
FERRUM
NLA[TUM
FERTISQUE
ER
KALIATOREM
TPUBLICOS
RATRUM
RVALIUM
Similarly
he
fragment
n J.
Scheid,
Un
nouveau
fragment
des actes
arvalesde
l'ann6e
186/7,
ZPE43
(1981)
343-352,
restored n
part
(345)
as
follows:
STRUIBUS
FERTISQUE]
ERT.
FLAVIU[M
25H. Le
Bonniec
(above,
n.
10)
93
ff.,
150,
154
ff.
On
piacula,
see
in
general
S.
P. C.
Tromp,
De
Romanorum
iaculis
Amsterdam1921).
26148,
with n.
5.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
8/18
An
Umbrian-Latin
orrespondence
117
specifically
that the
ceremony
is a
potential
piaculum operis
faciendi27
comparable
to the
porca
praecidanea
offering:
if
favorable
omens are not received, the offering becomes an explicit piaculum:
Mars
pater,
...
te hisce suovitaurilibus
iaculo
.
..
te
hoc
porco
piaculo
(141.4).
28
7. Ovid
Fasti
1.275-276.
Janus describes
the establishment
of
his
altar,
and
the
ritual
offerings
appropriate
o
him:
ara
mihi
posita
est
parvo
coniuncta
sacello:
haec adolet flammis cum
strue
farra
suis.
Since Neapolis,29commentatorshave traditionallycited one or more
of the relevant
passages
from
Festus,
Cato
(134,
but not
141),
and
the
Acta
fratrum
Arvalium,
o
explain
strues n
its rare
usage
here as
(heap
of)
sacrificial
akes,
and not
heap, pile
in
general. Among
twentieth-century
editions,
Frazer's
fairly
full
discussion is
noteworthy--and
yet
he
omits all reference to the
fertum
cake.
30
Nea-
polis,
in
contrast,
had
commented
explicitly
on the
association of
strues
and
fertum,
as
seen
in
Festus and the ritual
phraseology
of the
Acta
ratrum
Arvalium:
Strues
ibi
genus,
de
quo
vide
Festum. Solita
haec in sacrificiismisceri cum fercto; immo fere numquamhoc sine
illa.
Idem: Ferctum
enus
libi
dictum,
quod
crebrius d sacra
erebantur,
nec
sine
strue,
altero
genere
libi,
quae qui adferebant
truferctarii
ppella-
bantur.
Inde in
veteri
lapide:
PORCAMET
AGNAM
STRUIBUS T
FERTIS. 31
It
was
Burman,
the
compiler
of the
great eighteenth-
century
variorum
edition of
Ovid,32
who
first
drew a
further
inference:
on the
basis
of
Neapolis'
comments
(which
he
cites)
and some
27
Ibid.,
156
and
Tromp
(above,
n.
25)
90
ff.
28
See also Henzen 143 ff. on the expiatorysuovitaurilian the Acta ratrum
Arvalium.
29
C.
Neapolis
(Carlo
di
Neapoli),
Anaptyxis
ad
Fastos P.
Ovidii
Nasonis
(Antwerp
1639),
in J. F.
Palesius,
Caroli
Neapolis
Anaptyxis
d
Fastos
Ovidianos
cum
additamentis
o.
Felicis
Palesii
Palermo
1735)
101.
30
Publii Ovidii
Nasonis
Fastorum
ibri
sex:
The Fasti
of
Ovid,
ed.
J.
G.
Frazer
(London
1929)
2.129-130.
F.
Btomer,
P.
Ovidius
Naso:
Die
Fasten
(Heidelberg
1957)
is
silent
at
this
point.
31
EchoingNeapolis,
also M.
Bayeux,
in the
notes to
his Traduction
es Fastes
d'Ovide
Rouen
and Paris
1783)
1.173:
Le Strues
6toit
une
espece
de
gateau
que
l'on
n'offroitgueres qu'avecun gateaud'une autreesp6ce,appell6Ferctum.
Une
ancienne
inscription
rapport6e
par
Neapolis,
est ainsi
conque:
Porcam
&
agnam
Struibus
&
Ferctis.
32
P.
Burman,
Publii
Ovidii
Nasonis
Fastorum ibri VI
(vol.
3
of
Opera
omnia
[Amsterdam
17271)
27.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
9/18
118
BrentVine
variation
in
the
manuscript
tradition for
Fasti
1.276
(especially
the
variant
cum strue
tura
for
cum
strue
arra),
Burmanwrote: dubito
an
ex
iis, quae
affert
Neapolis, legendum
sit,
Haec adolet
flammis
cum
strue
ercta
suis.
Merkel, apparently
ndependently
of
Burman, pro-
posed virtually
the
same
emendation
in
his
pioneering
critical edition
of the
Fasti: cum
strue
erta
suis;
ita enim
legendum
esse
existimo,
quamquam
mutavi
nihil. 33
Burman's
conjecture
deserves
more careful
scrutiny.34
Whether or
not
it
is
correct
(in
the narrow
sense
of
producing
a
more
accurate
text),
the
association
on which
it
is based is
an
importantone;
indeed,
to the extent
that the
Burman/Merkel emendation
cumstrue
er(c)ta
is motivated by this association, the weight of the evidence, as it
appearsabove,
is
considerably tronger
than either Burman
or Merkel
supposed.
Manuscript
support
for
this
conjecture
is
admittedly
not
strong,
although
certain
points
are
suggestive,
and
in
any
event,
the
mixed
manuscript
tradition of the
Fasti
allows
for
a
certain
latitude:
long
before
Peeters' extended
treatment,35
t
was
clear that
the
best
manuscripts
are often
seriously corrupt
and that the
numerous
codices
recentiores
ot
infrequentlypreserve important
readings.36
Apart from haec adolet(for which some manuscriptsread hancor
adolent),
manuscript
variation
for the
remainder of the line
is
not
indicated
in
any
modern edition
and
must
be
sought
in
Merkel's criti-
cal
apparatus
of
1841;
some
of
this material
is also
available,
in
less
precise
form,
in
the
editions
of
Krebs
(1826)
and Burman
(1727,
cit-
ing
material rom
Heinsius'
edition of
1652).
The
second
half of
the
pentameter
in
Fasti 1.276
(cum
strue
arra
suis)
has
the
following
variants:
33
R. Merkel,P. OvidiiNasonisFastorumibri ex (Berlin 1841) xcvi. Merkel's
insistence on the
fert-
variants
n
Festus
may imply
knowledge
of
Burman's
dis-
cussion,
since
Burman
quoted only
the
ferct-
variants
throughout.
The
conjec-
ture,
in
any case,
had
been
correctly
attributed
o
Burman
by
J. P.
Krebs,
P.
Ovidii
NasonisFastorum
ibri
ex
(Wiesbaden
1826)
16.
34
The
last
edition
of the Fasti
to
take note of it
was that of F. A.
Paley,
P.
Ovidii
NasonisFastorum
ibri
ex
(London
1864)
23,
who
attributed
t
to
Merkel.
It
has
been
accepted
only
by
ThLL
6.1.589
(s.v.
fertum), again
with
attribution
to
Merkel.
35
F.
Peeters,
Les
Fastes
d'Ovide
Brussels
1939);
see also G.
Luck,
Unter-
suchungenurTextgeschichtevids Heidelberg1969)49-53.
36
For an
early appreciation
of
this state of
affairs,
see H.
Peter,
P.
Ovidi
Nasonis
Fastorum
ibri
sex3
(Leipzig
1889)
vii-viii.
Similarly
Le
Bonniec,
P.
OvidiusNaso:
Fastorum
iber
primus
Paris
1961)
14-15.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
10/18
An
Umbrian-Latin
orrespondence
119
cum sale
farra
suis: Merkel's
codices recentiores
and
g.37
According
to Heinsius
(see
Burman,
loc.
cit.),
Pro
cum
strue
duo Vaticani,cumsale, ut molam salsamintelligit. 38
cum strue
thura turra uis:
thura
Merkel's
3
(along
with
an
unnamed second
manuscript),
turra
p.39
Cf.
Burman,
who
notes cum strue
tura
Excerpt.
Vossii et duo
alii. 40
cum
strue
arta
suis:
Merkel's
codexrecentior
(ma.
pr.).41
None of
these
codicesrecentiores
eterioresque
igures
in
the
recent
Teubner edition
of Alton
et
al.,42
but the
testimony
of
P,
at
least,
is
frequently
useful.43
Without
presenting
formal
arguments
in
favor
of
Burman'semendation,let me simplyraise certaintextualparallels.
Janus
had
already,
n
fact,
referredto
his
own ritual
offerings:
Inde vocor
Ianus;
cui cum
Ceriale
sacerdos
imponit
libum
farraque
mixta
sale
(Fasti
1.127
-128)
37Merkel's
s
(see
his
description,
cclxxxii)
is the
Codex
Petri
Servii,
Bodl.
Auct. F. 4.28
(received
from
Petrus
Servius
by
Heinsius);
see further
Peeters
167,
and E.
H.
Alton
et
al.
BICS 24
(1977)
53
(no.
108);
Merkel's
g
is the
so-
called Gallicus
Mazarinianus
or
Mazarinianus
lter )
of
Heinsius
(Bodl.
Auct. F.
4.24,
Alton et
al.
53
no.
105),
which
is
not,
as both Merkel
and
Frazer
supposed,
Paris. 7992
(Heinsius'
Codex
Sarravianus );
n
this
confu-
sion,
see Peeters
155, 158,
179 n.
7
and
esp.
Alton et
al.
53
and D. E.
W.
Wor-
mell,
Hermathena3
(1959)
38.
38Krebs
(above,
n.
33) records
cum sale
in
two of the 58
manuscripts
he
examined,withoutspecifyingwhichones.
39
For
the
closely
related
3
( Excerpta
Douzae )
and
P
(=
Peeters's
Pa,
Paris.
8239,
the
so-called Puteanus
primus
of
Heinsius),
see
Merkel
cclxxx
and
cclxxxiii,
Peeters
156
and
202
n.
1,
and Alton
et
al.
54
(no. 117).
On the
Excerpta
Douzae,
see
M.
D.
Reeve,
RhM 117
(1974)
165
and 119
(1976)
75.
40
On the
varied sources
of the
Excerpta
Vossii
of
Heinsius,
see
Peeters
153,
165,
Merkel
ccxciii,
and
Reeve,
RhM
117,
164,
and
119,
74.
Krebs
(above,
n.
33)
again
records
tura
rom a
single
unspecified
ource.
41
The
so-called Codex
Relandinus
(Berol.
Diez B.
Sant.
25,
Peeters's
Berol.
2 );
see
Merkel's
description
(cclxxxii),
Peeters
157,
and
Alton
et
al.
39 (no. 5).
42
P.
Ovidi
Nasonis
Fastorum
ibri
ex,
ed.
E.
H.
Alton,
D. E.
W.
Wormell,
and
E.
Courtney
(Leipzig
[Teubner]
1978).
43
On
the
affiliations f
P
with
both AUD
and
G,
see
Peeters
343
ff.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
11/18
120
Brent Vine
Here
the
priest
sets
out
the
offering
cake
(Ceriale
libum), together
with
far
and the archaic
offering
of
mola
salsa.
These last
two items
are
again
coupled
laterin Book 1:
Ante,
deos
homini
quod
conciliare
valeret,
far erat et
puri
lucida
mica
salis.
(Fasti
1.337
-338)
In
1.276, then,
the
farra
of
the best
manuscripts
s
a clear
lectio
aci-
lior: strues
plus farra
is
equivalent
to
libum
plus
farra
in 1.128. More-
over,
the
variant
cum sale
farra
need not
have
any bearing
on the
status of farra in the text: it may simply show that the unfamiliar
meaning
of
strues
has led
to the
word's
displacement,
with
correction
to
sale
after
1.128
and
1.338,
where
far
and
sal
appear ogether.
But
if,
then,
farra
seems
secure,
how are we to
explain
cum
strue
turra,
the
reading
of
P? At
first
glance,
turra
ooks like
a trivial
misreading
of
farra;
but for tura thura
incense,
P otherwise
(e.g.,
at
1.172, 1.341,
1.719)
never
spells
turra
(which
in
any
case is
an
unusual,
if
not
unique,
spelling).
One
wonders
whether
turra
is
a
corrected
(or
garbled)
version
not of
farra
(which
would have been
eminently transparent, to judge from the above parallels), but of
something unintelligible,
for
which the rare
sacrificial erm
ferta
would
indeed be
a
good
candidate.
If
so,
correction to
(or
inadvertent
replacement
by)
turra
thura
could
have
been
suggested
by
1.341
and
1.343,
with
line-initial
tura
and
Ara,
respectively
(cf.
Ara
...,
1.275);
by
1.172
lane,
tibi
primum
tura
merumque
ero;
and
by
1.719
Tura,
sacerdotes,
pacalibus
addite
lammis,
cf.
1.276
haec
adolet
lammis.
As
for
farta:
the
Codex Relandinus
(which
is
of
very
mixed
provenance)
is
not otherwise known
to
preserve precious
readings;
it
is therefore
unlikely (although perhaps not impossible) that farta continues an
ancient
reading
erta.
In the final
analysis,
Burman's
conjecture
cannot be
accepted
without
a
great
deal of
reservation.
But
the
pervasive
association of
strues
and
fertum
in
archaic Roman
liturgy-which
is
a
fact
of Roman
ritual
practice
whether or not one
believes
in
Burman'semendation-
has
surely
been
insufficiently appreciated
by
commentators
on
the
Fasti,44
and it
is worth
considering
whether
Ovid
may
have
had such
an
association
in
mind;
for
this
reason,
the
emendation
ought
not
have been treatedwith the neglect it has received.
44
This
despite
the
fact that
virtually
all
of the material
cited above
had
been
assembled
by
Savelsberg
([above,
n.
4]
443)
as
early
as
1872.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
12/18
An Umbrian-Latin
orrespondence
121
Before
examining
some
consequences
of the association
strues
fer-
tum
or Umbrian and Italic
ritual,
I
offer some
remarks
on the
etymol-
ogy
of
fertum.
Meillet
(in
Ernout-Meillet)
seems
to favor the
etymology
from
fero
implied
by
Festus
(75.17L,
cited above:
Ferctum
enus
libi
dictum,
quod
crebrius
ad
sacra
ferebatur)
and
attested
in
other ancient
commenta-
tors.45
But
he
admits
that
l'explication
par
fero
n'est
peut-atrequ'une
6tymologie
populaire,
partly
because
cette
6tymologie
ne
rend
pas
compte
de la
graphie ferctum, qui
est
aussi
fr6quente que
fertum.
Meillet's intuition
was correct:
indeed,
the
traditional
etymology
presented
by
Walde-Hofmann46
ccounts
perfectly
for
the
spelling
ferctumand should be retained. The crucialpoint, as Walde-Hofmann
notice,
is
not that
the
spelling
ferctum
s
as
frequent
as
fertum
but
that it
is
restricted
to
(and
attested
with
certainty
in)
archaic
and
archaizing
contexts
(Cato,
Festus,
Acta
fratrum
Arvalium).
The
velar
is
real,
and
the
chronology
of
its
disappearance
within
Latin
is
regular
and
has
good
parallels.47
er(c)tum
s
thus
a
substantivized
*bher'-to-
to a
to-participle
*bhrh-tb-
cooked, roasted, cf.
Rig-Vedic
bh.jicti
he
roasts
(*bhhr-skb/6-).48
t
is
significant
(and
this has not
been
pointed
out before
in
this
connection)
that the
Rig-Vedic
hapax
bh~cti (3 sg. pres. subj.
bhVjjcti
4.24.7b) occurs in a ritual context,
referring
o
the
roasting
of
barleycorns
or Indra
as
an
adjunct
offering
in
the
soma ritual:
yca
ndrdya
sunctvat
6mam
ady6c
phcct
paktFr
t6c
hygjtidhacncah
(RV
4.24.7ab)
He
who
will
press
soma for
Indra
today,
cook
cookings
and
roast
barleycorns
..
45
E.g.,
schol.
ad
Pers.
2.48:
Genus
panis
vel
libi,
quod
diis
irtfertur
ponttficibus
in
sacrjficio;
ictum
utem
ertum
a
ferendo;
Isidore
Orig.
6.19.24:
ertum
enim
dici-
tur
oblatio
quae
altari
offertur
t
sacrificatur
ponttficibus,
quo offertorium
omina-
tur
quasipropter
ertum.
See
Ernout-Meillet
above,
n.
1)
230
and
also
Lindsay,
Gloss.Lat. 4
(above,
n.
5)
for
Isidore's
probable
dependence
on
Festus.
46
A.
Walde
and J. B.
Hofmann,
Lateinisches
etymologisches
W6rterbuch
(Heidelberg
1938-54)
486-487,
with earlier
references.
47
See M.
Leumann,
Lateinische
aut-und
Formenlehre
Munich
1977)
217.
48
In
later
Sanskrit,
bl'ji-
and
its
derivatives
continue to
apply
most
character-
isticallyto the roastingor parchingof grain,e.g., byrjiyatiEpic), causat.bhar-
jayati
(Sutruta,
Apastamba
trautasotra;
grammarians
also
bhrajiayati),
bahu-
b/lyj-
roasting
much
(Vopadeva),
bharjana-
dj.
roasting
or
n.
(the
act
of)
roasting
(Bhagavata
Purana,Katyayana
rautasotra),
etc.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
13/18
122
Brent
Vine
The recent
etymological
non
liquet
accorded
ertum
by
the
Oxford
Latin
Dictionary
[dub.] )
is therefore
quite
unwarranted.49
III
As with
strues
and
fertum,
the behavior of U.
strudla
nd
ficla
can
also be described
more
accurately.
In
point
of
fact,
these two terms
are associated
with
each other not in
several
Iguvine passages,
but
no
less than nine
times
in
the text of the
Iguvine
Tables.
50
n
eight
of
these
nine
passages (i.e.,
all
but
VIb
5), they
occur
in an
asyndetic
sequence
strusla
icla.
Moreover,
seven of
the nine
occurrences
of
juxtaposed strudlaand ficla appear in seven different sacrificial
ceremonies,
in
the ritual
formula
prusektu
struhqla
fikla
arveitu /
prosesetir
trula
ficla
arsueitu,
add the
struMla
and)
ficla
to
the cut-off
(parts).
51
The two
instances of
juxtaposed
strusla
and
ficla
that
do
not
appear
in
this formula are
themselves
instructive of the
intimacy
and anti-
quity
of this
juxtaposition.
They
both
appear, together
with
prusektu
struhyla
fikla
arveitu
IIa
28-29,
in
the
ceremony
describing
the
sacrifice of
a
dog
to
Hondus
Jovius,
one of the
oldest
and most
detailed portions of the Tables (IIa 15-44). After designatingthe
proper
time for
the festival
of the
Hondia,
the
instructions ist
various
paraphernalia
he
adfertor
s to
have at
hand:
huntia
ertu
katlu
arvia
struhqla
ikla
pune
vinu
salu
maletu
mantrahklu
veskla
snata
asnata umen
fertu.
(IHa
7-19)
He shall bringthe thingspertaining o the Hondia;he shall bring
the
dog, grain,
a
strusla
ake,
a
ficla cake,
mead,
wine,
ground
salt,
a
maniple,
wet
and
dry vessels,
and
unguent.
52
49The more
distant
etymological relationship
of
fer(c)tum
with
Lat.
frgod,
Greek
4bpiyw,
Umbrian
rehtef
/ frehtu
is
not
excluded,
but
awaits
clarification
of
the
differing
root
vocalisms
of
these
forms. Oscan
ertalis
s
discussed
below.
011a
18,
IIa
28-29,
IIa
41,
VIa
59,
VIb
5,
VIb
23,
VIIa
8,
VIIa
42,
VIIa
54.
Strubla
therwise
occurs
only
three
times,
while
ficla
otherwiseoccurs
six
times.
51Variations:arueitun VIb 23, ficlamin VIIa42, orderstruila icla prosesetir
arsueitu
n
VIIa
54
and
prosesetirficla
truilaarsueitu
n
VIb
5.
52Poultney's
translation
(178).
The
meanings
of
some of
these
items
are
controversial;
ee
Poultney's
notes
ad
loc.
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
14/18
An Umbrian-Latin
orrespondence
123
Here
we find
that
the
only
sacrificial akes to be offered
are the
strubla
cake and the
ficla
cake,
listed
in that order.
The
slaughter
and
sacrificeof the victim at the altar follows
directly,
during
which the
strusla
cake
and
the
ficla
cake are
added
to the cut-off
parts
as
part
of
a
burnt
offering
(IIa
28-29,
cited
above).
After
some
ceremonies
performed
away
from the
altar,
the
adfertor
eturns
to the altar
and
concludes the
ceremony;
before
extinguishing
the
fire,
he is to
grind
(a
portion
of)
the
struIla
cake
and
the
ficla
cake:
struhlas
fiklas ...
kumaltu
(IIa
41).
IV
Both
religious traditions, then,
show
a
well-attested
double cake
offering,
of
which
the
first
member involves the
cognate
terms
Lat.
strues/
U.
strubla.
In
both
traditions, moreover,
the
double cake
offering
is associated not
only
with animal
sacrifice
in
general
but
more
specifically
with
ceremonies
involving
the
exta:
with the
Umbrian formula
prosesetir
truIla
icla
arsueitu,
cf. Cato
RR
134.4 ubi
exta
prosecta
erunt,
ano
struemommoveto..
lovi
fertum
obmoveto,
s
well
as
the
specific
mention of
exta
in
several of
the
sacrificial
passages
from the Acta ratrumArvaliumited above. We finda similarassocia-
tion in
the
only
other
literary
attestation of
fertum
in
Latin
beyond
those
already
cited,
in Persius'
sarcastic
description
of
a
religious
hypocrite:
et
tamenhic
extis et
opimo
vincere
erto
/
intendit
2.48 -49).
One
can also
observe that in both
traditions,
these
offerings
are
pri-
marily
associated with
expiatory
or
purificatory
ceremonies.
As
already noted,
the Umbrian
collocation
struila
ficla
occurs in
three
major
contexts: the
dog
sacrificeto
Hondus
Jovius,
the
purification
of
the
citadel,
and
the
lustratio
opuli.
The
purificatory
ature
of
the
dog
sacrificehas been discussed in some detailby I. Rosenzweig,53 nd the
purification
of
the citadel
is
explicitly
styled
a
pihaclu
(=
Lat.
piacu-
lum).
Note
also
that the
central
deity
of
the Umbrian
lustratio
opuli
is
Mars,
in his
guise
as
the
divinity
who
presides
over the
well-being
and
increase of
fields and cattle
and men
(Rosenzweig
87);
he is
thus to
be
compared
(cf.
Rosenzweig
88)
precisely
with
the
Mars of
Cato's
lustratio
gri
in
RR
141,
where the
ceremony
again
involves the
cake
offering
of strues
and
fertum.
54
53Ritual ndCults fPre-RomanguviumLondon 937)50ff.
54
That
the collocation
tru.la
icla,
in
these latter
wo
ceremonies,
ccurs
only
in
the later
Tables
VI
and VII
(and
not in
the
earlier
accounts of
these
same
ceremonies
n
Table
)
does
not
argueagainst
he
antiquity
f
this ritual
phrase,
ince
(1)
it
appears
n
the
dog
sacrifice
n
IIa
(on
Table
I
as
the
oldest
-
8/12/2019 An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
15/18
124
Brent
Vine
In view
of the
above
facts,
I
suggest
not
only
that the
ficla
cake
may
be similar to the
Latin
fertum
(as
Poultney
had
surmised)
but,
more
important,
that the cultic associationsstrues +
fertum
and
struIla
+
ficla
are
ritually
cognate,
reflecting
a
two-member
phrase
assignable
to
Common Italic
ritual
practice.55
For sacrificialcake
vocabulary
in
particular,
he
correspondence
U.
struIla
ficla:
Lat. strues
fertum
is
thus
comparable
to the
correspondences
U.
mefa/mefa:
Lat.
mensa
and
U.
(mefa)
vestioia
/(mefa)
uestisia:
Lat.
(panis) depsticius
with
which we
began.
The
question
as to
which
of
the two
second terms-Lat.
fertum
or
U.
ficla-is
the
innovation
cannot
be answered with
certainty;
there
are nevertheless reasons to believe that Lat. strues fertum preserves
the older
form of this formulaic
phrase,
with
ficla
a
purely
Umbrian
replacement.
Umbrian
fikla
ficla
(