Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 August 2011
Some time ago I wrote a little book on Roman religion which was favored with a courteous and thoughtful review by a scholar from whom I have learned much, S. Weinstock. My central contention was that the Romans had an idea corresponding closely to the Melanesian and Polynesian mana, the North American orenda or wakanda, and similar notions elsewhere, and that they denoted it by the word numen; that is to say, that numen signifies a superhuman force, impersonal in itself but regularly belonging to a person (a god of some kind) or occasionally to an exceptionally important body of human beings, as the Roman senate or people. This force, I argued, the Romans supposed could be to some extent directed to serve their own ends; a god could be induced to employ his numen for such things as giving fertility or victory to his worshippers, and on occasion an inanimate object, such as a boundary-mark, could have numen put into it by the appropriate ceremonial. Also, the numen of a god could be and was increased by offering him a sacrifice of the proper kind.
1 Rose, H. J., Ancient Roman Religion, London, Hutchinson, 1949 Google Scholar. Reviewed in J.R.S. xxxix (1949), 166–67Google Scholar.
2 Primitive Culture in Italy (London, Methuen, 1926), 7 Google Scholar.
3 Realenc. xvii, 1273–91. I had independently reached conclusions very like his in this Review, xxviii (1935), 237 sqq., neither of us being then aware that the other was working on this subject.
4 A.i, 8; ii, 623.
5 Especially G.ii, 493.
6 Rohde, G., Die Kultsatzungen der römischen Pontifices, Berlin, Töpelmann, 1936, p. 177 Google Scholar.
7 A 42.
8 Cf. Cato, de agricult. 141, 2.
9 Another very good instance is Lucretius i, 13.
10 See Schmidt, Father W., Origin and Growth of Religion (London, 1931), p. 161 Google Scholar, and refs. there.
11 Ovid, Fasti ii, 641–42. He is not there describing the erection of a terminus but the annual rites held at it.
12 Varro, L. L. v, 21: in Latio aliquot locis dicitur, ut apud Accium, non terminus sed termen.
13 See L.S.J.s.u. It is of course true that they sometimes, but not in classical prose, took the first step towards personifying the mark and called it a limiter (τέρμων) not a limit. But apart from a passage or two which discuss Roman matters, no one is said to regard a τέρμων as anything like a god.
14 De condicionibus agrorum, p. 141 Lachmann.
15 See C.Q. xxxii, 57 sqq., 220 sqq.; xxxv, 52 sqq.; xxxvi, 15 sqq.
16 Festus p. 505, 20 Lindsay.
17 2 Chron. 6, 18. The prayer put into Solomon's mouth is of course part of a late document. That the omnipresence of Yahweh was not an idea accepted by all and sundry is plain, e.g., from Jonah's attempt to run away from him, Jon. 1,3; it belongs to the higher developments of Hebrew religion.
18 Guil. Henzen, Acta fratrum arualium (Berlin 1874), pp. cciii, 1 (text complete), ccxxv 11, 13 (text restored). Summary of the ritual on p. 11.
19 Henzen, op. cit., p. cciii, 15 and elsewhere.
20 The chief passages are collected in Marquardt-Mau, Privatleben d. Römer, i, p. 84 and notes.
21 Varro, de ling. Lat. vii, 97.
22 Ibid., 107.
23 XII Tabulae, viii, 1 and 8 (Bruns, in Fontes iuris Romani).
24 Ovid, Met. xiv, 257; Verg., A. xii, 396.
25 Cicero, Phil, iii, 32; post red. ad Quirit., 18.
