Part 29
Cic. _de Harusp. resp._ 17. 37 ‘fit per Virgines Vestales, fit pro populo Romano, fit in ea domo quae est in imperio.’ In 62 B.C. it was in Caesar’s house, and apparently in the Regia, if as pontifix maximus he resided there. See Marq. 346, note 1; 250, note 2.
Footnote 1116:
Fest. 245 _publica sacra_ are ‘quae _publico sumptu_ pro populo fiunt.’ See my article ‘Sacra’ in _Dict. of Antiquities_.
Footnote 1117:
Juvenal, 2. 86.
Footnote 1118:
2. 83 foll.; 6. 314 foll.
Footnote 1119:
Probus on Virg. _Georg._ 1. 10 ‘In Italia quidam annuum sacrum, quidam menstruum celebrant.’
Footnote 1120:
The word is ‘odore,’ i.e. sweet herbs of the garden (Marq. 169 and note).
Footnote 1121:
See on Lupercalia, p. 312.
Footnote 1122:
Lev. 33. 42.
Footnote 1123:
The earliest hint of the connexion of Faunus with Evander and the Palatine legend is found in a fragment of Cincius Alimentus, who wrote at this time (H. Peter, _Fragm. Hist. Lat._ 41, from Servius, _Georg._ 1. 10).
Footnote 1124:
Dion. Hal. 1. 31; Suet. _Vitell._ 1. Cp. for a more truly Italian view, Virgil, _Aen._ 8. 314 foll.
Footnote 1125:
_Aen._ 7. 45 foll. The order was Saturnus, Picus, Faunus, Latinus.
Footnote 1126:
Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Faunus, 1458: who, however, does not sufficiently explain the contrast. Silvanus became _tutor finium_, and _cusios hortuli_ (cp. _Gromatici Veteres._ p. 302). It was probably this turn given to his cult which saved him from the fate of Faunus. He takes over definite duties to the cultivator, while Faunus is still roaming the country in a wild state.
Footnote 1127:
Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. de la Divination_, iv. 122.
Footnote 1128:
Ad _Georg._ 1. 10.
Footnote 1129:
Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 351.
Footnote 1130:
Varro, _L. L._ 7. 36 ‘Faunos in silvestribus locis traditum est solitos fari futura.’ Servius identifies Faunus and Fatuus; ad _Aen._ 6. 775.
Footnote 1131:
‘Versibus quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant.’ Ennius in Varro, _L. L._ 7. 36. See Nettleship, _Essays in Latin Literature_, p. 50 foll.
Footnote 1132:
Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 113 foll.
Footnote 1133:
_L. L._ 7. 36.
Footnote 1134:
_Georg._ 1. 10. The introduction of the Greek Dryads may be thought to throw suspicion upon the Latinity of these Fauni of Virgil. But in _Aen._ 8. 314, the similar conjunction of Fauni and Nymphae is followed by words which seem to mark a true Italian conception.
Footnote 1135:
_Lex._ s. v. Faunus, 1454.
Footnote 1136:
_Aen._ 8. 314.
Footnote 1137:
Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 315 ‘Di sumus agrestes et qui dominemur in altis Montibus,’ &c. Cp. Preller, i. 386.
Footnote 1138:
_Monumenti Antichi_, vol. v. (Barnabei). Von Duhn, translated in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1896, p. 120 foll.
Footnote 1139:
_Röm. Myth._ i. 104 foll.
Footnote 1140:
Virg. _Aen._ 8. 601, and Serv.’s note: ‘Prudentiores dicunt eum esse ὑλικὸν θέον, hoc est deum ὕλης.’ Silvanus may have been a true tree-spirit; Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 118 foll.; Preller, i. 392.
Footnote 1141:
Vol. i. 335, ed. Hauthal.
Footnote 1142:
See above, p. 126. It may be noticed that the Bona Dea, whose solemn rite occurs also at the beginning of this month, was identified with Fauna, the female form of Faunus (R. Peter, in _Lex._ s. v. Fauna); i. e. their powers for good and evil were thought to be much alike.
Footnote 1143:
Preller, i. 381 and reff.
Footnote 1144:
See under Lupercalia, p. 320.
Footnote 1145:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 291 foll. I am glad to see that Wissowa accepts this story as genuine Italian (_Lex._ s. v. 1456).
Footnote 1146:
Cic. _de Div._ 1. 101; Livy, 2. 7 (Silvanus), and Dion. Hal. 5. 16 (Faunus) of the battle by the wood of Arsia.
Footnote 1147:
_Fasti_, 4. 649 foll.
Footnote 1148:
_Aen._ 7. 81 foll.
Footnote 1149:
Calpurnius, _Ecl._ 1. 8 foll.
Footnote 1150:
Cp. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i. 341 foll.; Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic Studies_, ch. 2.
Footnote 1151:
_Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, p. 152.
Footnote 1152:
See the cuts of two bronze statuettes which Wissowa, following Reifferscheid, believed to represent the un-Graecized Italian Faunus, at the end of the article ‘Faunus’ in _Lex._ 1460. But it is at least very doubtful whether Reifferscheid was right in his opinion.
Footnote 1153:
By an error Silvius has entered it on the 12th.
Footnote 1154:
For Inuus see on Lupercalia, and Livy, i. 5.
Footnote 1155:
_de Feriis_, xii. His other argument, that Inuus is not a nomen, but a cognomen, is less satisfactory. Can we always be sure which is which? (e. g. Saturnus, Janus).
Footnote 1156:
Festus, p. 340.
Footnote 1157:
_de Mensibus_, p. 118, ed. Bekk.; quoted by Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i 2,. 336.
Footnote 1158:
_L. L._ v. 41.
Footnote 1159:
Ibid. vi. 24.
Footnote 1160:
Antistius Labeo, ap. Festum, 348: ‘Septimontio, ut ait Antistius Labeo, hisce montibus feriae. Palatio, cui sacrificium quod fit Palatuar dicitur. Veliae, cui item sacrificium, Fagutali, Suburae, Cermalo, Oppio, Cispio monti.’ Before ‘Cispio’ the MS. has ‘Caelio monti,’ which must be a copyist’s blunder. The Subura is by courtesy a _mons_; also a _pagus_ (Festus, 309), a _regio_ (ib.), and a _tribus_ (ib.).
Footnote 1161:
_Staatsrecht_, iii. 112. O. Gilbert has made a great to-do about the development of these communities; _Gesch. u. Topogr._ i. 39 foll. But where else will he find three distinct settlements in a space as small as that of the Palatine? The discoveries at Falerii and Narce would have saved him the labour of much web-spinning. Plutarch, _Q. R._ 69, has (accidentally perhaps) expressed the matter rightly.
Footnote 1162:
_Monumenti Antichi_, vol. v. p. 15 foll.
Footnote 1163:
_Mon. Ant._ p. 110 foll. (Barnabei).
Footnote 1164:
Cic. _de Domo_, 28. 74.
Footnote 1165:
At Ariminum, and Antioch in Pisidia (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 113, note).
Footnote 1166:
Festus, 348, cp. 245.
Footnote 1167:
Preller, i. 414.
Footnote 1168:
_Q. R._ 69. Plutarch does not say in what parts of the city the vehicles were forbidden. The feast existed in his day, and indeed long afterwards (Tertull. _Idololatr._ 10). It seems to have become a general feast of the whole people.
Footnote 1169:
Macrob. i. 10. 2.
Footnote 1170:
See below on Saturnalia, p. 271.
Footnote 1171:
Macrob. 1. 10. 2. Macr. tells us that after the change some people in error held the festival on the 19th, i. e. on the day which was now xiv K. Ian.
Footnote 1172:
Hartmann, _Der Röm. Kalender_, p. 203 foll., thinks it was originally one of the _feriae conceptivae_, like the Compitalia, Paganalia, &c., and only became fixed (_stativae_) when it was reorganized in 217 B.C. But if so, why is it marked in the calendars in large letters? And Hartmann himself points out (p. 208) that Dec. 17 is the first day of Capricornus, i. e. the coldest season, which in the oldest natural reckoning would be likely to fix the day (Colum. 11. 2. 94).
Footnote 1173:
Macr. l. c.; Cic. _Att._ 13. 52.
Footnote 1174:
Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i. 337.
Footnote 1175:
Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 172; Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, ch. 13; Usener, _Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen_, 1. 214 foll. See for Italy, _Academy_, Jan. 20, 1888.
Footnote 1176:
_C. I. L._ i. 48. But Prof. Gardner tells me that the reading Saet. is not certain.
Footnote 1177:
Macrob. 1. 10. 19 foll.; 1. 7. 24 and 25; Marq. p. 11 note 3. The conjunction of Ops with him in this function is rejected (rightly, I think) by Wissowa, _de Feriis_, iv. But see below on Opalia.
Footnote 1178:
Jordan’s note on Preller, ii. 10.
Footnote 1179:
e. g. Virg. _Aen._ 8. 321.
Footnote 1180:
See, however, Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 223 foll.
Footnote 1181:
Varro, _L. L._ 5. 42; Dion. Hal. i. 34 (cp. 6. 1); Fest. 322; Solinus, 1. 13; Servius, _Aen._ 2. 115; Middleton, _Rome in 1885_, p. 166.
Footnote 1182:
R. Peter, s. v. Dis in _Lex._ 1181; Macr. 1. 11. 48.
Footnote 1183:
Lucan, 3. 153; Middleton, op. cit. 167.
Footnote 1184:
Preller, ii. 13; i. 182.
Footnote 1185:
The temple was traditionally dated B.C. 497 (Livy, 2. 21); cp. Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 4: so too the festival, though both had an older origin (Ambrosch. _Stud._ 149). The latter was reorganized in Greek fashion in obedience to a Sibylline oracle in B.C. 217 (Livy, 22. 1).
Footnote 1186:
Plut. _Q. R._ 34 notes the cult of such gods when all fruits have been gathered.
Footnote 1187:
Macr. 1. 8. 3 and 1. 16. 30 (also, but probably in error, attributed to Jupiter). Plut. _Q. R._ 42, and _Poplic._ 12, states it distinctly; but there is no indication of the source from which he drew.
Footnote 1188:
Cp. the legendary connexion of both with ship-building and the coining of money; though it is of course possible that this was simply suggested by the Janus-head and the ship of early Roman coins.
Footnote 1189:
Seneca, _Ep._ 18. 1. Martial is full of Saturnalian allusions; e. g. 12. 62.
Footnote 1190:
Popularized, of course, by the poets: Virg. _Georg._ ii. 538; Tibull. i. 3. 35; &c.
Footnote 1191:
Was this one of the reasons why Christmas was fixed at the winter solstice? Cp. John Chrysostom, tom. iii. 497e: quoted by Usener, op. cit. p. 217.
Footnote 1192:
Varro, _R. R._ 1. 35. 2 ‘Dum in xv diebus ante et post brumam ut pleraque ne facias.’ Columella, 2. 8. 2, seems to follow Varro. Virg. _Georg._ 1. 211 extends the time ‘usque sub extremum brumae intractabilis imbrem’ (cp. Serv. ad loc.).
Footnote 1193:
_Sat._ i. 10. 19 and 22, and Dion. Hal. 3. 32; Plut. _Q. R._ 34.
Footnote 1194:
See Marquardt’s excellent summary in _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 357, and Preller, ii. 15 foll.
Footnote 1195:
Dion. Hal. 6. 1. Fasti Amit. Dec. 17. We do not know who was the sacrificing priest; perhaps the Rex Sacrorum, or a magistrate.
Footnote 1196:
Macrob. 1. 10. 18.
Footnote 1197:
Martial, 14. 1; at least this seems to be the inference from ‘Synthesibus dum gaudet eques dominusque senator.’ Cp 6. 24.
Footnote 1198:
Livy, 22. 1. 19 ‘lectisternium imperatum et convivium publicum.’
Footnote 1199:
Tertull. _Apol._ 42.
Footnote 1200:
_Odes_, 3. 17. Cp. Martial, 14. 70. The pig-offering indicates an earth-deity: Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 22; Marq. 173.
Footnote 1201:
Martial, bk. 14, is the _locus classicus_ for all this.
Footnote 1202:
Brand, _Pop. Ant._ 183.
Footnote 1203:
Macr. i. 10. 24; 11. 49. In the latter passage he says ‘quae homines pro se atque suis piaculum pro Dite Saturno facerent.’
Footnote 1204:
Brand, 180.
Footnote 1205:
Marq. 192, and the passages there quoted.
Footnote 1206:
_Sat._ 1. 7. 37. For later evidence see Marq. 588.
Footnote 1207:
p. 50, and note 13.
Footnote 1208:
_C. I. L._ i 2. 337.
Footnote 1209:
O. Gilbert (1. 247 note) holds this latter view.
Footnote 1210:
_Ephem. Epigr._ 1. 37. Wissowa (_de Feriis_, v) points out that all such entries, in which the god’s name in the dative is followed by the place of sacrifice, apply to consecrated temples only—and the Regia was not one.
Footnote 1211:
Aust, _de Aedibus sacris Populi Romani_, p. 40. Wissowa, l. c., who should not, I think, write of an aedes _in foro_.
Footnote 1212:
Varro, _L. L._ 6. 23 ‘Angeronalia ab Angerona, cui sacrificium fit in curia Acculeia et cuius feriae publicae is dies.’ Pliny, _N. H._ 3. 5. 65 ‘Nomen alterum dicere [nisi] arcanis caerimoniarum nefas habetur; ... non alienum videtur hoc loco exemplum religionis antiquae ob hoc maxime silentium institutae; namque diva Angerona, cui sacrificatur a.d. xii Kal. Ian., ore obligato obsignatoque simulacrum habet.’ Macr. _Sat._ i. 10 ‘xii (Kal. Ian.) feriae sunt divae Angeroniae, cui pontifices in sacello Volupiae sacrum faciunt; quam Verrius Flaccus Angeroniam dici ait, quod angores ac sollicitudines animorum propitiata depellat.’
Footnote 1213:
See Wissowa, s. v. Angerona, _Lex._ 350.
Footnote 1214:
_Civ. Dei_, 4. 8.
Footnote 1215:
Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 10. 11; Fest. 119; and Lact. _Inst._ 1. 20. 4 mention the Larentalia.
Footnote 1216:
_Röm. Forschungen_, vol. ii. p. 1 foll. See also Roscher, s. v. in _Lex._ 5.
Footnote 1217:
Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 55.
Footnote 1218:
_L. L._ 6. 23. The passage is in part hopelessly corrupt.
Footnote 1219:
Gellius, _N. A._ 7. 7; for the Flamen Quir. cf. Gilbert, 1. 88. Cic. _Ep. ad Brut._ 1. 15. 8. Varro, l. c. says vaguely ‘sacerdotes nostri.’ Plut. _Romulus_, 4, gives ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεος ἱερεύς, wrongly.
Footnote 1220:
‘Sacerdotes nostri publice parentant’ (Varro, l. c.).
Footnote 1221:
Cic. _de Legibus_, 2. 21. 54; Plut. _Q. R._ 34.
Footnote 1222:
Plutarch is often led on in this work from one question to another by something he finds in the book he is consulting for the first.
MENSIS IANUARIUS.
The period of winter leisure which began for the agriculturist in December continued into January. From the solstice to Favonius (i. e. Feb. 7) is Varro’s eighth and last division of the agricultural year, in which there is no hard work to be done out of doors (_R. R._ i. 36: cf. Virg. _Georg._ 1. 312; Colum. xi. 2). So too the rustic calendars; ‘palus aquitur, salix harundo caedetur.’ Columella tells us, however, that if the weather be favourable, it may be possible from the Ides of January ‘auspicari culturarum officia.’ We have seen that in December this easy time was occupied with a series of religious rites of such extreme antiquity that their meaning was almost entirely lost for the Roman of later ages. After the solstice this series cannot be said to continue: the calendars have only three festivals in January marked with large letters, the Agonia on the 9th, and the two Carmentalia on the 11th and 15th. On the other hand, there were two _feriae conceptivae_ in this month which do not appear in the calendars; the Compitalia (which might, however, fall before the beginning of the month), and the Paganalia towards the end of it. Both these were originally festive meetings in which rural folk took part together, and seem to indicate that agricultural labours had not yet really begun.
KAL. IAN. (JAN. 1). F.
[AESCU]LAPIO, VEDIOVI IN INSULA. (PRAEN.)
This temple of Vediovis was vowed by the praetor L. Furius Purpureo in 200 B.C., and dedicated six years later[1223]. For this obscure deity see on May 21. The connexion between him and Aesculapius (if there were any) is unexplained. The latter was a much older inhabitant of the Tiber island (291 B.C.), and became in time the special deity of that spot[1224], which is called by Dionys. (5. 13) νῆσος εὐμεγέθης Ἀσκληπιοῦ ἱερά. Is it possible that an identification of Vediovis with Apollo[1225]—so often a god of pestilence—brought the former to the island seat of the healing deity? The connexion between Apollo and Aesculapius is well known.
Another invasion of the island took place almost at the same time. In 194 B.C. a temple of Faunus was dedicated there which had been vowed two years earlier[1226]; and it may be worth noting that Faunus also had power to avert pestilence and unfruitfulness, as is seen in the story of Numa and the Faunus-oracle. (Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 641 foll.)
On Jan. 1, under the later Republic, i. e. after the year 153 B.C., in and after which the consuls began their year of office on this day, it was the custom to give New Year presents by way of good omen, called _strenae_[1227]; a word which survives in the French _étrennes_. It is likely enough that the custom was much older than 153 B.C.: the word was said to be derived from a Sabine goddess Strenia, whose sacellum at the head of the Via Sacra is mentioned by Varro (_L. L._ v. 47[1228]), and from whose grove certain sacred twigs were carried to the arx (in procession along the Sacred Way?) at the beginning of each year[1229]. But we are not told whether this latter rite always took place on Jan. 1, or was transferred to that day from some other in 153 B.C.
III NON. IAN.-NON. IAN. (JAN. 3-5). C.
3 LUDI } LUDI } 4 LUDI }(PHILOC.) LUDI COMPITALES } (SILV.) 5 LUDI } (COMITALIS, MS.)
The Compitalia were not _feriae stativae_ until late in the Empire, and then perhaps only so by tradition[1230]. They took place at some date between the Saturnalia (Dec. 17) and Jan. 5; and we may infer from Philocalus and Silvius as quoted above that the tendency was to put them late in that period. Not being a great state-festival, they could be put between Kalends and Nones.
The original meaning of _compitum_ is explained by the Scholiast on Persius, 4. 28[1231] ‘Compita sunt loca in quadriviis, quasi turres, ubi sacrificia, finita agricultura, rustici celebrabant.... Compita sunt non solum in urbe loca, sed etiam viae publicae ac diverticulae aliquorum confinium, ubi aediculae consecrantur patentes. In his fracta iuga ab agricolis ponuntur, velut emeriti et elaborati operis indicium[1232].’ From this we gather that where country cross-roads met, or where in the parcelling out of agricultural allotments one semita crossed another[1233], some kind of altar was erected and the spot held sacred. This is quite in keeping with the usage of other peoples: the ‘holiness’ of cross-roads is a well-known fact in folk-lore[1234]. It may be doubted, however, whether the Scholiast is right in his explanation of the ‘fracta iuga,’ which may rather have been used as a spell of some kind, than as ‘emeriti operis indicium.’ Thus Crooke[1235] mentions an Indian practice of fixing up a harrow perpendicularly where four roads met, apparently with the object of appeasing the rain-god.
In the city of Rome the _compita_ were the meeting-places of _vici_ (streets with houses), where sacella were erected to the Lares compitales[1236]—two in each case. For the inhabitants of the vici which thus crossed each other, the compitum was the religious centre; and thus arose a quasi-religious organization, which, as including the lowest of the population and even slaves[1237], became of much importance in the revolutionary period in connexion with the machinery of electioneering. The ‘collegia compitalicia’ were abolished by the Senate in B.C. 64, and reconstituted in B.C. 58 by a bill of Clodius _de collegiis_. Caesar again prohibited them, and the ludi compitalicii with them; but the latter were once more revived by Augustus and made part of his general reorganization of the city and its worship[1238].
The Compitalia, which the Romans ascribed to Servius Tullius or Tarquinius Superbus[1239], was probably first organized as part of the religious system of the united city in the Etruscan period, though it doubtless had its origin in the rustic ideas and practice of which we get a glimpse in the passage quoted from the Scholiast on Persius. Two features of it seem to fit in conveniently with this conjecture: (1) that already mentioned, that even the slaves had a part in it, as well as the plebs; (2) the fact that the _magistri vicorum_, who were responsible for the festival, wore the _toga praetexta_ on the day of its celebration[1240]—which looks like a Tarquinian innovation in an anti-aristocratic sense.
V ID. IAN. (JAN. 9). NP?
AGON. (MAFF. PRAEN.) A mutilated note in Praen. gives the word Agonium.
It may be doubted whether the Roman scholars themselves knew for certain what was meant by AGON, and whether the explanations they give are anything better than guesses based on analogy[1241]. Ovid calls the day ‘dies agonalis’:
Ianus agonali luce piandus erit (_Fasti_, 1. 318). Nomen agonalem credit habere diem (Ibid. 1. 324).
and gives a number of amusing derivations which prove his entire ignorance. Festus[1242] gives Agonium as the name of the day (which agrees with Verrius in Fast. Praen.), and says that _agonia_ was an old word for hostia. Varro calls the day ‘agonalis’[1243]; Ovid in another place Agonalia[1244]. A god Agonius mentioned by St. Augustine[1245] is probably only an invention of the pontifices. The fact is that the Romans knew neither what the real form of the word was, nor what it meant. The attempt to explain it by the apparitor’s word at a sacrifice, _agone_? (shall I slay?) is still approved by some, but is quite uncertain[1246].
The original meaning of the word, if it ever were in common use, must have vanished long before Latin was a written language. The only traces of it, besides its appearance in the calendars, are in the traditional name for the Quirinal hill, Collis Agonus, in its gate, ‘porta agonensis,’ and its college of Salii agonenses[1247]. It would seem thus to have had some special connexion with the Colline city.
The same word appears in the calendars for three other days, March 17 (Liberalia), May 21 (Agon. Vediovi), Dec. 11 (Septimontium); but it is impossible to make out any connexion between these and Jan. 9. Nor can we be sure that the sacrifice (if such it was), indicated by Agon, had any relation to the other ceremonies of the days thus marked[1248]. On Jan. 9 Ovid does indeed say that Janus was ‘agonali luce piandus,’ and on May 21 the Fasti Venusini add a note ‘Vediovi’ to the letters AGON; but there is no distinct proof that the agonium was a sacrifice to Janus or to Vediovis. We are utterly in the dark[1249].
On this day the Rex sacrorum offered a ram (to Janus?) in the Regia. Ovid says[1250] that though the meaning of Agon is doubtful,
ita rex placare sacrorum Numina lanigerae coniuge debet ovis.
It is provokingly uncertain whether this ram was actually sacrificed to Janus: Varro does not say so, and Ovid only implies it[1251]. But we may perhaps assume it on the ground that once at least in the ritual of the Fratres Arvales[1252] the ram is mentioned as Janus’ victim.
If this be so, we are carried back by this sacrifice to the very beginnings of Rome, and get a useful clue to the nature of the god Janus. The Rex sacrorum was the special representative in later times of the king; the king, living in the Regia, was the equivalent in the State of the head of the household. The two most important and sacred parts of the house are the door (ianua, ianus), and the hearth (vesta)[1253], and the numina inhabiting and guarding these are Janus and Vesta, who, as is well known, were respectively the first and the last deities to be invoked at all times in Roman religious custom. The whole house certainly had a religious importance, like everything else in intimate relation to man; and Macrobius is not romancing when he says (quoting _mythici_) ‘Regnante Iano omnium domos religione et sanctitate fuisse munitas[1254].’ But the door and the hearth were of special importance, as the folk-lore of every people fully attests; and it is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that we must look for the origin of Janus in the ideas connected with the house-door, just as we have always found Vesta in the fire on the hearth. Whatever be the true etymology of Janus, and however wild the interpretations of his nature and cult both in ancient and modern times, we shall always have firm ground to stand on if we view him in relation to the primitive worship of the house[1255]. There is hardly an attribute or a cult-title of Janus that cannot be deduced with reason from this root-idea.