FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162  
163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   >>   >|  
e; but Wissowa, who has a prejudice against the view that Mars was connected with agriculture, insists on taking Marti Silvano as a case of asyndeton, _i.e._ as two deities. [272] See, _e.g._, Varro, _L.L._ v. 36, "quos agros non colebant propter silvas aut id genus, ubi pecus possit pasci, et possidebant, ab usu salvo saltus nominarunt." [273] Cato, _R.R._ 141. Mars is there invoked as able to keep off (_averruncare_) evil influences and to make the crops grow, etc.; he has become in the second century B.C. a powerful deity in the actual processes of husbandry, just as he became in the city a powerful deity of war. But as he was not localised either on the farm or in the city, I prefer to think that he was originally conceived as a Power outside the boundary in each case, but for that very reason all the more to be propitiated by the settlers within it. [274] See below, p. 235. [275] So Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 131. Cp. _R.F._ p. 39, note 4. Deubner in _Archiv_, 1905, p. 75. [276] Servius, commenting on line 3 of _Aen._ viii. (_utque impulit arma_) writes: "nam is qui belli susceperat curam, sacrarium Martis ingressus, primo ancilia commovebat, post hastam simulacri ipsius, dicens, Mars vigila." The mention of a statue shows that this account belongs to a late period. But Varro seems to have stated that there was originally only a spear; see a passage of Clement of Alexandria in the fragments of the _Ant. rer. div._, Agahd, p. 210, to which Deubner (_l.c._) adds Arnobius vi. 11. Deubner calls this spear a fetish, which is not the right word if the deity were immanent in it in the sense suggested by "Mars vigila." See above, p. 116. If Servius correctly reports the practice, it must be compared with the clashing of shields and spears by the Salii, which may thus have had a positive as well as negative object. [277] Livy v. 52. [278] Mr. A. B. Cook (_Classical Review_, 1904, p. 368) has tried to connect both names with the Greek word [Greek: prinos], and Professor Conway, quoted by him, is inclined to lend the weight of his great authority to the conjecture. Thus Quirinus would be an oak-god, and Quirites oak-spearmen. We must, however, remember that Mr. Cook is, so to speak, on an oak scent, and his keenness as a hunter leads him so
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162  
163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Deubner
 

Wissowa

 
Servius
 

vigila

 
originally
 

powerful

 

Quirites

 
fragments
 

fetish

 

Quirinus


Alexandria
 

Arnobius

 

dicens

 

mention

 

statue

 
ipsius
 

simulacri

 
ancilia
 
commovebat
 

hastam


remember

 

account

 

stated

 

spearmen

 

passage

 

belongs

 

period

 

Clement

 

immanent

 

weight


inclined
 

hunter

 

negative

 
object
 

keenness

 

quoted

 

prinos

 

Professor

 
connect
 
Classical

Review

 

positive

 
correctly
 

reports

 

practice

 

conjecture

 

Conway

 

suggested

 

compared

 

clashing