You are on page 1of 18

Department of the Classics, Harvard University

An Umbrian-Latin Correspondence
Author(s): Brent Vine
Source: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 90 (1986), pp. 111-127
Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard University
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.
Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
AN UMBRIAN-LATIN CORRESPONDENCE
BRENT VINE
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 led
by
Aeneas: the
filthy
birds are
apparently
invulnerable 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:
the
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
intrare licebit.
Sed non ante datam
cingetis
moenibus urbem
quam
vos dira fames
nostraeque
iniuria caedis
ambesas
subigat
malis
absumere mensas.
(Aen. 3.253-257)
Aeneas' men
panic,
and Anchises
dramatically
invokes 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
spelt
cakes (adorea
liba),
which serve as
platters
for various fruits:
Instituuntque dapes
et adorea liba
per
herbam
subiciunt
epulis
(sic
luppiter ipse
monebat)
et Cereale solum
pomis agrestibus augent.
(Aen. 7.109-111)
112 Brent Vine
But the fruit fails to
satisfy
their
hunger,
and so
they
devour the
sacrificial cakes themselves. At
this, young
lulus
quips: Heus,
etiam
mensas consumimus?
(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-attested term
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
correspondence
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 cakes.
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
in the sacrifices before 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,
the
equivalent
of L.
strues,
are associated in
several
Iguvine passages.3
1
Cf. Servius ad Aen. 3.257: Maiores enim nostri has mensas habebant in honore
deorum,
paniceas
scilicet and the formulaic oath
preserved
in Paulus ex Festo
112.6L: Mensa
frugibusque iurato significat per
mensam et
fruges.
See further
A. Ernout and A.
Meillet,
Dictionnaire
&tymologique
de 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 Bronze Tables
of Iguvium (Baltimore 1959) 249.
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence 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 strues and
fertum,
both
designating
sacrificial
cakes,
extends far
beyond Poultney's
reference
to a
single passage
in Cato.
Although
most of the evidence has been
assembled,
the extent and
significance
of this association have
perhaps
not been
adequately
appreciated;
for this reason
alone,
the
following
survey may
be of some use.
1. Paulus ex Festo 75.17L.
s
Ferctum
genus
libi
dictum,
quod
crebrius
ad sacra
ferebatur,
nec sine
strue,
altero
genere libi,
quae qui adferebant
struferctarii appellabantur. 6
Note in
particular
the
phrase
nec sine
strue,
as well as the
compound struferctarius,
which
appears
elsewhere in
Paulus' extracts from
Festus,
in a
slightly
altered form:
2. Paulus ex Festo 377.2L
(corrected from Gloss. Lat. 4.394):
Scruf-
ertarios
dicebant, qui quaedam sacrjficia
ad arbores
fulguritas faciebant,
a
ferto
scilicet
quodam sacrficii genere.
7
As
already
seen
by Stolz,8 strufer-
tarius is a dvandva
compound
similar in formation to the archaic
sacrificial term
suovitaurilia,
both motivated
by patterns
of ritual co-
occurrence. (See also below on strues /
fertum
in the suovitaurilia
4For the
general comparison,
see
already
J.
Savelsberg,
KZ 20 (1872)
443-444.
5 Citations from Festus (and Paulus Diaconus ex
Festo) after
Sexti Pompei
Festi
de verborum
signjficatu quae supersunt,
ed. W. M.
Lindsay (Leipzig
[Teubner] 1913), supplemented by Lindsay's
annotations in his later
edition,
Glossaria Latina 4 (Paris 1930) 71-467.
6
On the
spelling firctum
of
nearly
all
manuscripts (also
firectum T),
see
O. MUller,
Sexti
Festi
de verborum
signjficatu quae supersunt (Leipzig
1839)
85,
and
esp.
A.
Ernout,
Les
elbments
dialectaux du vocabulaire
latin (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
liborum
sunt, digi-
torum
coniunctorum non
dissimilia,
qui superiecta panicula
in transversum continen-
tur.
7
See
Lindsay
(Gloss. Lat. 4.394) for the confusion
involving scrufertarii
Gloss. Abol. SC 38 and a conflation with a
gloss scrutarii,
and for a
possible
res-
toration of Festus' mutilated
entry
for
strufertarios.
8
F.
Stolz,
IF 1
(1892) 332.
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
he 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 intent of the rules
concerning
the
appurtenances
of
the Flamen Dialis is to make of him
"l'8tre pur
et sacr6
par
excel-
lence,
une incarnation du 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
themselves:
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
immolato. 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
und Kultus der
R'omer
(Munich 1912) 506-507.
10
G.
Dum6zil,
La
religion
romaine
archaiiiue
(Paris 1966) 159. Cf. also H. Le
Bonniec,
Le culte de
Ctrss 'i Rome (Paris 1958)
153,
who
emphasizes
the anti-
quity
of this
particular
tradition: "Il
n'y
a
pas
d'offrande
plus
ancienne
que
les
deux sortes de
gateaux
sacr6s (strues et
fertum) qui
sont ici
[i.e.,
at Cato RR
134]
presentes
a Janus et
Jupiter:
le
plus archaique
des
pretres romains,
le
flamine de
Jupiter,
devait en avoir
toujours
a sa
disposition
dans un coffret
auprds
de son lit."
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence
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
familiaeque 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: inde 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 ... PORCAM PIACULAR STRUIBUS FERTIS ET AGNAM
QUORUM [sic] EXTAE REDDITAE
SUNT,17
PIAC[ULUM
FACTUIM...
STRUIB
E[T]
FERT PORCILIAM
ALB[AM]
PIACULAR,18
and P.F. ...
PORCAM ET AGNAM STRUIB EFFERTIS [sic] ET EXTAS REDDID AD
11
Citations from Cato after M.
Porci Catonis de
agri cultura,
ed. A. Mazzarino
(Leipzig [Teubner] 1962).
12
References to the Acta
fratrum
Arvalium (AFA) will be
given
after
W.
Henzen,
Acta
fratrum
Arvalium
quae 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
reperta
sunt
(Bologna 1950), by page, number,
and line.
13
In addition to OLD and
ThLL, see, e.g., Pauly-Wissowa
2099 (Orth) and
Wissowa
(above,
n. 9) 412 n. 4.
14
These instances are
catalogued by
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
the certain restoration STRUIBUS
FIERT[ISQUE);
a.
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
Ibid.,
a.
222, p. 212,
lines 5-8.
116 Brent Vine
ARAM.19
Similarly,
in other
piacula
(for trees that have fallen either ob
vetustatem or
tempestatibus),20
one
finds
(3x)
PIACULUM FACTUM
...
PORCIS ET AGNIS STRUIBUS
FERTISQUE,
21
and
[PIACULUM
FACT]UM
... [PORCAIM
ET AGNAM STRUIBUS
FERCTISQ.22
Pasoli's additions to Henzen's
corpus yield
still another instance:
ET LUCUM
ASCENDER ET PROMAG ET FLAM STRUIB ET FER FECER ET
IMMOL AGNA OP ALBA AD LITATIONE EXTA INSPEXERUNT ET
REDDIDERANT
23
Although
the
phrasing
is 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
catalogued by
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
contained
phrases
like struibus
fertisque
are broken
off;
thus the
text
reported by
A.
Ferrua,
"Nuovi frammenti
degli
atti
degli Arvali,"
Bulletino
della commissione
archeologica
comunale di
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 PIACULUM FACTUM OB FERRUM INLA[TUM
FERTISQUE
PER KALIATOREM ET PUBLICOS FRATRUM ARVALIUM
Similarly
the
fragment
in J.
Scheid,
"Un nouveau
fragment
des actes arvales de
l'ann6e
186/7,"
ZPE43
(1981)
343-352,
restored in
part
(345) as follows:
STRUIBUS
FERTISQUE]
PER T.
FLAVIU[M
25H. Le Bonniec
(above,
n. 10) 93
ff., 150,
154
ff.
On
piacula,
see in
general
S. P. C.
Tromp,
De
Romanorum piaculis (Amsterdam 1921).
26148,
with n. 5.
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence
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
piaculo
.
..
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
to him:
ara mihi
posita
est
parvo
coniuncta sacello:
haec adolet flammis cum strue farra suis.
Since
Neapolis,29
commentators
have
traditionally
cited one or more
of the relevant
passages
from
Festus,
Cato
(134,
but not
141),
and
the Acta
fratrum Arvalium,
to
explain
strues in its rare
usage
here as
"(heap
of) sacrificial
cakes,"
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
fratrum
Arvalium: "Strues libi
genus,
de
quo
vide Festum. Solita
haec in sacrificiis misceri cum
fercto;
immo fere
numquam
hoc sine
illa. Idem: Ferctum
genus
libi
dictum, quod
crebrius ad sacra
ferebantur,
nec sine
strue, altero genere libi, quae qui adferebant struferctarii appella-
bantur. Inde in veteri
lapide:
PORCAM ET AGNAM STRUIBUS ET
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
expiatory suovitaurilia in the Acta
fratrum
Arvalium.
29
C.
Neapolis (Carlo di
Neapoli), Anaptyxis
ad Fastos P.
Ovidii Nasonis
(Antwerp 1639),
in J. F.
Palesius,
Caroli
Neapolis Anaptyxis
ad Fastos Ovidianos
cum additamentis Jo. Felicis Palesii (Palermo 1735) 101.
30
Publii Ovidii
Nasonis Fastorum libri 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
Echoing Neapolis,
also M.
Bayeux,
in the notes to his Traduction des Fastes
d'Ovide
(Rouen and Paris 1783) 1.173: "Le Strues
6toit
une
espece
de
gateau
que
l'on
n'offroit
gueres qu'avec
un
gateau
d'une autre
esp6ce,
appell6
Ferctum.
Une ancienne
inscription
rapport6e
par Neapolis,
est ainsi
conque:
Porcam &
agnam
Struibus & Ferctis."
32
P.
Burman, Publii Ovidii
Nasonis Fastorum libri VI
(vol. 3 of
Opera
omnia
[Amsterdam 17271) 27.
118 Brent Vine
variation in the
manuscript
tradition for Fasti 1.276
(especially
the
variant cum strue tura for cum strue
farra),
Burman wrote: "dubito an
ex
iis, quae
affert
Neapolis, legendum sit,
Haec adolet
flammis
cum
strue
fercta
suis. "
Merkel, apparently independently
of
Burman, pro-
posed virtually
the same emendation in his
pioneering
critical edition
of the Fasti: "cum strue
ferta 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
important one; indeed,
to the extent that the Burman/Merkel emendation cum strue
fer(c)ta
is motivated
by
this
association,
the
weight
of the
evidence,
as it
appears above,
is
considerably stronger
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
it was clear that the "best"
manuscripts
are often
seriously corrupt
and that the numerous codices
recentiores not
infrequently preserve important readings.36
Apart
from haec adolet (for which some
manuscripts
read hanc or
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 from Heinsius' edition of 1652).
The second half of the
pentameter
in Fasti 1.276 (cum strue
farra
suis) has the
following
variants:
33
R.
Merkel,
P.
Ovidii
Nasonis Fastorum libri sex (Berlin 1841) xcvi. Merkel's
insistence on the
fert-
variants in 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 to Burman
by
J. P.
Krebs,
P.
Ovidii Nasonis Fastorum libri sex (Wiesbaden 1826) 16.
34 The last edition of the Fasti to take note of it was that of F. A.
Paley, P.
Ovidii Nasonis Fastorum
libri
sex (London 1864)
23,
who attributed it 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-
suchungen
zur
Textgeschichte
Ovids
(Heidelberg
1969) 49-53.
36 For an
early appreciation
of this state of
affairs,
see H.
Peter,
P.
Ovidi
Nasonis Fastorum
libri sex3
(Leipzig
1889) vii-viii.
Similarly
Le
Bonniec,
P.
Ovidius Naso: Fastorum liber
primus (Paris 1961) 14-15.
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence
119
cum sale
farra
suis: Merkel's codices recentiores s and
g.37
According
to Heinsius (see
Burman, loc. cit.),
"Pro cum strue
duo
Vaticani,
cum
sale, ut molam salsam
intelligit."38
cum strue thura / turra suis: 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
farta
suis:
Merkel's codex recentior r (ma.
pr.).41
None of these codices recentiores
deterioresque figures
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's
emendation,
let me
simply
raise certain textual
parallels.
Janus had
already,
in
fact,
referred to 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 alter") 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");
on this confu-
sion,
see Peeters
155, 158,
179 n. 7 and
esp.
Alton et
al. 53 and D. E. W. Wor-
mell,
Hermathena 93 (1959) 38.
38Krebs
(above,
n. 33) records cum sale in two of the 58
manuscripts
he
examined,
without
specifying
which ones.
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 from a
single unspecified
source.
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
libri
sex,
ed. E. H.
Alton,
D. E. W.
Wormell,
and
E.
Courtney (Leipzig
[Teubner] 1978).
43 On the affiliations of P with both AUD and
G,
see Peeters 343 ff.
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
later in 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
is a clear lectio
faci-
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 together.
But
if, then, farra
seems
secure,
how are we to
explain
cum strue
turra,
the
reading
of P? At first
glance,
turra looks 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 term
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 fero;
and
by
1.719
Tura,
sacerdotes, pacalibus
addite
flammis,
cf.
1.276 haec adolet
flammis.
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 ferta.
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's emendation-
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 treated with 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.
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence
121
Before
examining
some
consequences
of the association strues
/fer-
tum
for 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
genus
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-atre qu'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 accounts
perfectly
for the
spelling
ferctum
and should be retained. The crucial
point,
as Walde-Hofmann
notice,
is not that the
spelling ferctum
is "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 Fer(c)tum
is
thus a substantivized *bher'-to-
to a
to-participle
*bhrh-tb-
"cooked, roasted," cf. Rig-Vedic
bh.jicti
"he roasts"
(*bhhr-skb/6-).48
It
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
to the
roasting
of
barleycorns
for Indra as an
adjunct offering
in the soma ritual:
yca indrdya
sunctvat
s6mam
ady6c
phcct paktFr ut6c
bhygjti dhacncah
(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
a
ponttficibus
in
sacrjficio;
dictum autem
fertum
a
ferendo;
Isidore
Orig.
6.19.24:
fertum
enim
dici-
tur
oblatio
quae
altari
offertur
et
sacrificatur
a
ponttficibus,
a
quo offertorium
nomina-
tur
quasi propter fertum.
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 Laut- und Formenlehre (Munich 1977) 217.
48
In later
Sanskrit,
bl'ji-
and its derivatives continue to
apply
most character-
istically
to the
roasting
or
parching
of
grain, e.g.,
byrjiyati
(Epic),
causat. bhar-
jayati (Sutruta, Apastamba trautasotra; grammarians
also
bhrajiayati),
bahu-
b/lyj-
"roasting
much"
(Vopadeva), bharjana- adj. "roasting"
or n. "(the act
of)
roasting" (Bhagavata Purana, Katyayana trautasotra),
etc.
122 Brent Vine
The recent
etymological
non
liquet
accorded
fertum by
the
Oxford
Latin
Dictionary ("[dub.]")
is therefore
quite unwarranted.49
III
As with strues and
fertum,
the behavior of U.
strudla
and
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
In
eight
of
these nine
passages (i.e.,
all but VIb
5), they
occur in an
asyndetic
sequence
strusla
ficla. Moreover,
seven of the nine occurrences of
juxtaposed
strudla
and
ficla appear
in seven different sacrificial
ceremonies,
in the ritual formula
prusektu
struhqla fikla
arveitu /
prosesetir
strula
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
designating
the
proper
time for the festival of the
Hondia,
the instructions list various
paraphernalia
the
adfertor
is to have at hand:
huntia fertu
katlu
arvia
struhqla
fikla pune
vinu
salu
maletu
mantrahklu veskla snata asnata umen fertu.
(IHa 17-19)
He shall
bring
the
things pertaining
to the
Hondia;
he shall
bring
the
dog, grain,
a
strusla
cake,
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 frehtef / frehtu is not
excluded,
but awaits clarification
of the
differing
root vocalisms of these forms. Oscan
fertalis
is discussed below.
011a
18,
IIa
28-29,
IIa
41,
VIa
59,
VIb
5,
VIb
23, VIIa
8, VIIa
42, VIIa 54.
Strubla
otherwise occurs
only
three
times,
while
ficla
otherwise occurs six times.
51 Variations: arueitu in VIb
23, ficlam
in
VIIa 42,
order
struila
ficla prosesetir
arsueitu in
VIIa
54 and
prosesetirficla
struila arsueitu in VIb 5.
52Poultney's
translation (178). The
meanings
of some of these items are
controversial;
see
Poultney's
notes ad
loc.
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence
123
Here we find that the
only
sacrificial cakes to be offered are the
strubla
cake and the
ficla
cake,
listed in that order. The
slaughter
and
sacrifice of 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
returns 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 struIla
ficla arsueitu,
cf. Cato RR 134.4 ubi
exta
prosecta
erunt,
lano
struem ommoveto ...
lovi
fertum obmoveto,
as
well as the
specific
mention of exta in several of the sacrificial
passages
from the Acta
fratrum
Arvalium cited above. We find a similar associa-
tion in the
only
other
literary
attestation of
fertum
in Latin
beyond
those
already cited,
in Persius' sarcastic
description
of a
religious
hypocrite:
et tamen hic extis et
opimo
vincere
ferto
/
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
sacrifice to Hondus
Jovius,
the
purification
of
the
citadel,
and the
lustratio populi.
The
purificatory
nature of the
dog
sacrifice has been discussed in some detail
by I.
Rosenzweig,53
and the
purification
of the citadel is
explicitly styled
a
pihaclu
(= Lat.
piacu-
lum). Note also that the central
deity
of the Umbrian
lustratio
populi
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
agri
in RR
141,
where the
ceremony again
involves the
cake
offering
of strues and
fertum.
54
53
Ritual and Cults
of Pre-Roman Iguvium (London 1937) 50 ff.
54 That the collocation
stru.la ficla,
in these latter two
ceremonies,
occurs
only
in the later Tables VI and VII (and not in the earlier accounts of these
same ceremonies in Table
I)
does not
argue against
the
antiquity
of this ritual
phrase,
since (1) it
appears
in the
dog
sacrifice in
IIa
(on Table II as the oldest
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 associations strues +
fertum
and
struIla
+
ficla
are
ritually cognate, reflecting
a two-member
phrase assignable
to Common Italic ritual
practice.55
For sacrificial cake
vocabulary
in
particular,
the
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
(<
*fig-kl
<
*fig-tl)
is
formally
almost identi-
cal to Latin
fitilla,
"sacrificial cake." But it would be difficult to claim
that within
Latin, fertum
has
replaced fitilla
in an
original phrase
*strues
(et) Jitilla: although rare, fertum clearly belongs
to an
early
stage
of Roman
religious practice
(witness
Cato, AFA,
Fabius
Pictor),
and its association with strues is
undeniably
ancient (as
shown,
in
par-
ticular, by
the dvandva
compound strufertarius).
In
contrast,
the still
more rare
Jitilla
(attested twice in
glosses,
once in
Seneca,
once in
Pliny
the
Elder,
twice in Arnobius) is not in fact native
Latin,
but
of the
Tables,
see
Poultney 22-23);
(2) numerous differences of detail
between Tables I and VI/VII in the instructions for the same ceremonies need
not be
interpreted chronologically, including
(3) the
general
fact that details of
any
cake
offerings
are
systematically
absent from the somewhat more laconic
Table I (with a
single exception,
see
Poultney 158),
and (4) the fact that VI and
VII
occasionally
show more archaic forms than
corresponding portions
of
I. On
the
relationship
between I and
VI-VII,
which no doubt involves an
archetype
on which
they
both
depend,
see further A.
Nussbaum, "Benuso, couortuso,
and
the
Archetype
of Tab.
Ig.
I and
VI-VIIa,"
JIES
1 (1973) 356-369.
55On
important correspondences
between the ancient ritual of the Atiedian
Brethren and Roman
religious practice,
see
Rosenzweig (above,
n. 53)
passim,
esp. chap.
4 (102
ff.),
with
specific
discussion of
correspondences
with the Fra-
tres Arvales
(110-111),
and A.
J: Pfiffig, Religio Iguvina (Vienna 1964)
esp.
113-115 on
parallels
in Roman and Umbrian
prayer language.
From the
standpoint
of
comparative methodology,
note R. Bloch's
important essay
"Parent6
entre
religion
de Rome et
religion
d'Ombrie: Themes de
recherches,"
REL 41 (1963)
115-122, esp.
118 on similarities in ritual
practice
and 120-122
for
arguments
in favor of Common Italic
ancestry-as opposed
to
borrowing
from Etruscan or intercultural
(Umbrian-Roman) contact-as the
preferred
explanation
for Umbrian-Latin ritual
correspondences.
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence
125
precisely
a dialectal form (for
*fictilla)
that
may
well
be,
as Ernout
thinks,
"un mot dialectal introduit
"
Rome en mame
temps qu'un
culte
italique,
et dont les Romains
ignoraient
eux-memes
l'emploi
et
le sens exacts." 56
Br6al,
in an
important early
discussion of U.
ficla
and Lat.
Jitilla,57
adduced certain
important
facts about
fingo
and its derivative
Jictor:
in
archaic
Latin,
fingo
was
regularly applied
to the
preparation
of
sacrificial cakes (cf.
fingito
in Cato RR
74, 76.3, 77, 82);58
its deriva-
tive
fictor, moreover,
could refer
specifically
to
priestly
assistants
responsible
for
baking
sacrificial cakes (cf. Varro LL 7.43:
Apud
Ennium--'Mensas
constituit
idemque ancilia;
...
libaque Jictores Argeos
et tutulatos' [= Ann. 120-121
V2,
114-115 SI ...
Jictores
dicti a
fingendis
libis.
).59
Given this
pan-Italic
use of
IE
*dhei~h-,
"fashion,"
as a
baking
term (in this
usage already specialized,
in
Italic,
toward sacrificial
contexts--unlike,
e.g.,
Germanic: cf.
Eng. dough),
it would be
quite
plausible
to claim that in
Umbrian,
an
opaque,
or
obsolete,
or other-
wise unstable
*ferhtu
or the like could have been
replaced by
a
"gen-
eric"
cake term
ficla.
60 Indeed,
a
secondary development may
also be
indicated
by
the suffixal
rhyme
in the
pair strula
ficla,
which other-
wise
appears
in the similar (and
similarly frequent) rhyming
cake
56
Ernout
(above,
n. 6) 165-166.
57
M.
Br6al,
Les tables
eugubines
(Paris 1875)
101, building
on
Savelsberg
(above,
n. 4) 443.
58 Despite Poultney
(161) and
others,
U.
fiktu
and
afiktu
in the
phrases
vestigam
... fiktu
(Ia
28) and
vestiga
afiktu
(Ia
31)
belong
with
fingo
rather
than
figo,
and are thus
directly comparable
to Cato's
panem depsticium ...
defingito,
RR
74,
as Sandoz has observed
(above,
n. 2) 343.
59
Note also Cicero De domo 139 (sacerdos ... sine
fictore),
FICTORES PONTI-
FICUM
(CIL
5.3352),
FICTORES
V(IRGINUM) V(ESTALIUM) (CIL
6.2134),
and
other references cited
by Savelsberg
and
Br6al,
as well as Wissowa
(above,
n. 9) 519 n. 1 and Sandoz 343-344.
60
Part of the motivation for
replacing
an
original *ferhtu may
have involved
avoidance of
near-homonymy
and confusion with the
frequent
ritual
imperative
fertu
(cf.
struhgla
fikla
... fertu
IIa
18-19
above,
in the
dog
sacrifice) and/or
the controversial
(participle?)
frehtu (IV
31,
cf. frehtef
IIa
26, precisely
in the
phrase
frehtef
fertu,
also in the
dog sacrifice),
which
may
well be related to
Lat.
fertum,
but which seems to mean "boiled" rather than "roasted" or
"baked" in
Umbrian;
see
Poultney
ad
loc.,
183 and
217,
and for an
entirely
different
explanation
of
frehtu,
see W.
Borgeaud,
Fasti Umbrici: Etudes sur
le
vocabulaire
et
le rituel des Tables
eugubines (Ottawa 1982) 126
-
130.
126 Brent Vine
phrase mefa spefa.
61 The
tendency
of Umbrian ritual
language
toward
marked effects based on
rhyme, alliteration,
and
rhythm
is well docu-
mented and
may
also be
thought
of as a
contributing factor, together
with the
high frequency
of ritual terms based on
*-tlo/a- (< U.
-klu
-clu -clo /
-kla -cla:
ehvelkldu,
naraklum, muneklu, pihaclu,
mandra-
clo, etc.),
and on a number of other formations with suffixal
-1-.
62
Although
a cake term related to Lat.
fertum
does not survive in
Umbrian,
there is some evidence for
just
such a term in Oscan
fer-
talis,
found on one of the archaic
iovilae
inscriptions.63
Since the time
of von Planta's first
analysis
of this
inscription,64
and in
spite
of con-
tinuing controversy
over the nature of these somewhat
enigmatic
documents,
scholars have
generally
assumed that
fertalis refers,
in one
way
or
another,
to ceremonies or
offerings involving
sacred cakes
comparable
to Lat.
fertum.65 Heurgon, moreover,
has
convincingly
analyzed
the double
figuration
on these
inscriptions (pigs
and various
circular
figures)
as
representations
of the sacrificial animal
par
61
The association between
mefa
and
stru'la (and their
rhyming
doublets
mefa
spefa
and
stru'la
ficla)
is in fact
quite
intimate and involves a number of
paral-
lels and
significant oppositions, only
some of which have been noted before.
Thus
Pfiffig (above,
n. 55) 75 observes that while the
mefa
cake is
regularly
offered to the
great
celestial
deities,
the stru'la cake is
typically
offered to
chthonic or
quasi-chthonic
divinities. A
particularly
close
correspondence
appears
in the
phrase mefa spefa ficla
(VIa
56,
VIb
20, VIIa 4),
which is
always
followed
by
a
contrasting stru'la
ficla offering. Although
I cannot
pursue
detailed
argumentation here,
the close association between the
phrases mefa
spefa
+
ficla
and
stru'la
+
ficla may help explain
the
replacement
of a
hypothetical
*stru'la +
ferhtu
with struila +
ficla.
62 See
Poultney
90. Lat.
fingo
itself is known to have exerted
pressure
of a
similar
sort,
in
generating
the
rhyming pair fingo
/
pingo
(for
*pinco),
in an
association that
may
be of
Indo-European date,
as W. Schulze has discussed
with reference to Tocharian A
tsekesi pekesi,
Kleine
Schriften (Gottingen
1934)
257-261.
63
Despite
F.
Ribezzo,
RIGI 14 (1930)
81, Paelignian firata
and
fertlid prob-
ably
have
nothing
to do with Lat.
fertum, especially
since the
inscription
in
which
they
occur
(E. Vetter,
Handbuch der italischen Dialekte
[Heidelberg
19531
145,
no. 213) is almost
certainly funerary
and not a votive
offering,
as Ribezzo
thought.
(In addition to Vetter 146 [". .. kann kein Zweifel dariber sein...
dass wir eine
poetische
Grabschrift vor uns
haben"]
see G.
Bottiglioni,
Manu-
ale
dei
dialetti
italici
[Bologna 1954]
333.)
64R.
von
Planta,
IF 4 (1894)
255-264, esp.
261-262 and
264;
for the
inscription,
see C. D.
Buck,
A Grammar
of
Oscan and Umbrian (Boston 1928)
249 (no.
26),
Vetter 75 (no.
81), Bottiglioni
218 (no.
37),
and most
recently
A. Franchi de
Bellis,
Le
iovile
capuane
(Florence 1981) 179-185 (no. 24).
65
See Franchi de Bellis 184 for a review of earlier literature on
fertalis.
An Umbrian-Latin
Correspondence
127
excellence in ancient
Italy, accompanied by
its associated ritual
offering
par excellence,
that
is,
sacred cakes.66 Whether
fertalis
is a sacrificial
term or (as Franchi de Bellis has
recently
argued67)
a calendrical
term,
reference to sacred cakes remains an attractive
possibility.
A final
point favoring
a reconstructed Common Italic collocation of
reflexes of IE *stru- and *bher^- (as
opposed
to *stru- and
*dhigh-)
is
that the ritual
usage
of IE
*dhejih-
(in Lat.
fingo, Jictor,
dial. Lat.
fitilla,
U.
fiktu
and
ficla)
appears
to be an Italic
innovation,
whereas
*bher^-
may already
have had this sense in
Indo-European,
to
judge
from the ritual contexts of both Lat.
fertum
and
Rig-Vedic
bhajj'ti.
68
YALE UNIVERSITY
66
J. Heurgon,
Etude sur les
inscriptions osques
de
Capoue
dites Iivilas (Paris
1942) 55
ff., esp. 58-59;
followed
by
Franchi de Bellis 46-47.
67
See her extended
discussion,
35
ff.
68 On the
position
of the
Rig-Vedic passage
within
Indo-European grain
offerings generally,
see C.
Watkins,
Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 122 (1978) 13.