No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Iovilae-Dedications from S. Maria di Capua
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
A Famous group of heraldic dedications, with inscriptions in the Oscan dialect, the iovilae-inscriptions as, in the uncertainty that prevails as to their real character, scholars have generally been content to call them (from the recurrence of the word d i u v i l a- or [in a later form] i ῧ v i l a-, presumed to be the name of the object dedicated, in all or nearly all of the dedicatory inscriptions), have long been a standing puzzle to students of the Italic dialects. A visit made in the spring of 1922 to the Museo Nazionale at Naples, where a number of the iovilae are now preserved, provided an opportunity of reconsidering, with the actual objects before me, a new explanation of these most interesting dedications which I now venture to publish.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1922
References
page 181 note 1 Vol. I., pp. 101–110; cf. Buck, , Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian, p. 247Google Scholar.
page 181 note 2 Conway, , l.c., p. 109Google Scholar, with footnote.
page 181 note 3 See the Guida del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, Vol. I. (Antichità), pp. 146 sq.Google Scholar, e.g. Nos. 20298, ‘una divinità matronale con putto; arte e provenienza capuana;’ 20267, ‘statuetta di divinità, madre con due infanti, capuana.’
page 182 note 1 Cohen, , Med. Imp., ed. 2, Vol. III. 147Google Scholar, cf. Serv. Aen. I, 75.
page 182 note 2 Fowler, Warde, Rel. Fest., p. 226Google Scholar.
page 182 note 3 Conway, , I.D., Nos. 102, 104, 105, III (and possibly 112)Google Scholar.
page 182 note 4 Id. ibid., Nos. 124 sqq.
page 182 note 5 E.g. by Buck, , O.U. Gram., p. 247Google Scholar, Lindsay, Lett. Lang., p. 250Google Scholar.
page 183 note 1 Cf. Conway's article in the Enc. Brit.(ed. II), s.v. lovilae.
page 183 note 2 Or perhaps, considering the gender (fem.), even ‘a miniature statue of Juno;’ if so, the stones which we have would perhaps be the pedestals. (Cf. Buck, l.c.)
page 183 note 3 E.g. Osc. vesulliais; vesulias beside Umb. vesune; Planta, von, Grammatik, i. p. 302Google Scholar. Cf. p. 186 infr.
page 183 note 4 Etym. Wtb., ed. 2. s.v., Schulze, , Lat. Eigenn., pp. 469 sqGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Otto, , Philologos LXIV. (1905), pp. 117 sqGoogle Scholar.
page 183 note 5 Cf. Iunone Locina (dat.), CIL. I., ed. 2, 371, also from Norba.
page 183 note 6 Cf. Zimmermann, . Woch. f. klass. Phil, XXII., 1905. PP. 990 sqqGoogle Scholar. His explanations, however, though ingenious, are not convincing. They are concerned chiefly with the effects of hypo-thetical forms postulated by Zimmermann (e.g. *Iouina, *Iouo f. sg. nom.) upon one another.
page 184 note 1 Cf. the strange spellings Iiuvi-, Iiovi-, Ioui- for Ikuvin in the Iguvine tables; Conway, , I.D. I., p. 405 nGoogle Scholar.
page 184 note 2 Macr. Sat. I. 12, 30 sq. It may be noted in passing that since ō becomes ū in the dialects (von Planta, I., pp. 117 sqq.), διώ-νη, if borrowed into Italy from Epirus (Dione was worshipped at Dodona), as 'Hρακλς, Eΰκολος ॥ίστιος ɩσтɩος, 'Aπέλλων, 'OσνσσηÚς were borrowed (Buck, , O. U. Gram., p. 20Google Scholar, Conway, , I.D. I., p. 361)Google Scholar, it would there regularly pass into (D)iūn-, and this form might affect the pureItalic one.
page 184 note 3 Paul. ex. Fest., p. 92 Agroecius, L. in Keil, , Gram. Lat. VII., p. 124, 9Google Scholar, and Beda, , ib p. 276, 16Google Scholar seem to show that the connexion was already recognized in libris fastorum.
page 184 note 4 Cf. Lindsay, , Lat. Lang., p. 247Google Scholar.
page 184 note 5 Buck, , O. U. Gram., P. 84Google Scholar, cf. Conway, . I.D.I., P. 107Google Scholar. Even on the vase of the Quirinal CIL. I., ed. 2, 4, iou- (if connected with (Iouis lacks the initial d-. Cf. Sommer, Hbd p. 217Google Scholar.
page 184 note 6 In dius (n. eg.), e.g. in me dius fidius, -i- has become vocalized by ‘samprasarana’, perhaps under the influence of dius. diuus, and does not therefore affect my statement about forms with d. Iuppiter (earlier Iūpiter) is strictly speaking vocative.
page 184 note 7 Brugmann, , K.V.G., pp. 85. 312Google Scholar.
page 184 note 8 Conway, I.D., Nos. 101–103.
page 184 note 9 CIL. V. 783 (Aquileia), Ioui Diano.
page 184 note 10 I may refer here to the sections on these words, with Gk. Gk. Zάν, in the forthcoming second volume of Mr. A. B. Cook's Zeus.
page 184 note 11 Cf. dialis, dius (e.g. in dius fidius).
page 185 note 1 In the examples occurring in the native alphabet (here denoted by spaced type), u stands for ō.
page 185 note 1 Cf. Brugmann, , K.V.G., pp. 332, 330Google Scholar; and words like praedo, nebulo, silo, susurro, or, amongst proper names, Rufo, Strabo, Naso, Furfo.
page 185 note 3 Conway, No. 108.
page 185 note 4 Cf., perhaps, , CIL. X. 157Google Scholar (Puteoli?), Ioui Flazzio (Flazzo) uotum.
page 185 note 5 Cf. Dubois, , Pouzzoles, p. 138Google Scholar.
page 185 note 6 Fast. Arv., Paul., 7 Oct.: ‘Ioui Fulguri Iunoni Curriti.’
page 185 note 7 Mart. Cap. 2, 149 (Lucet-), Myth. Vat. 3, 4 (Leucesia).
page 185 note 8 There can be little doubt that Lucina, like Lucetius, meant originally ‘goddess of the light (or of the sky).’ The epithet was only later restriced to ‘giver of the light (of day), i.e. of birth, to children’ (Varro, L.L. 5, 69. Cic. n.d. 2, 68 sq., Serv. Aen. 2, 610. cf. Ovid, , Fasti, 2, 449 sqq.)Google Scholar, with reference to the special character which Juno had developed as goddless of women in general. and of the wife and mother in particular.
page 185 note 9 Serv. Aen. 9, 570, and others qouted by Conway, , I.D. I., pp. 218 sqGoogle Scholar.
page 185 note 10 Macrob. 1, 15, 14 (lucet.), cf Ter. Scaur. (Keil), 7, p. 28 (Leucesie).
page 185 note 11 Cf. Wissowa, , R.K., ed. 2, p. 114Google Scholar.
page 186 note 1 See Conway, p. 109.
page 186 note 2 See Lommatzsch, (with Buecheler's note) on C1L. I., ed. 2, 360Google Scholar for meaning of diouis castud ‘feriis eis quae Iouis castus uocantur.’
page 186 note 3 Conway, 104, 113 eiduis mamertiais ‘idibus Martiis’, 101 eiduis luisarifs (i.e. Februariis?, cf. Conway, Glossary s.v.).
page 186 note 4 Conway, 243 (c. 250 B.C).
page 186 note 5 Mommsen, , Unterital. Dial., p. 341Google Scholar. Cerie cannot be translated by anything narrower than ‘genetrici’. It is not simply the Roman Ceres. lambs were to be sacrificed, just as at Rome by the rex sacrorum and his wife to Juno (Macrob. 15, 19, cf. 16, Cell. 4, 3; cf. Fest., p. 248 L.)
page 186 note 6 Conway, 109, 110, 111. This last I take to be, ‘The festivals of the Clovatii are the Vesulliae festivals.’
page 186 note 7 Conway, 253. 264, 361, Tab. Iguv. IV. 3, 6, 10, 12, 25. Cf. p. 183 n. 3 supr., and reference to von Planta given there. Buck, O.U. Gram., par. 107, 3.) From Vesul(l)ia (the festival) was formed a gentile nomen, Vesulliais, ‘Vesul-liaeus,’ after the method with became very common a little later. of fashioning human names on the pattern of divine or heroic ones; see CIL. passim. and in the dialects, e.g., Mamercus. Conway, 7. note xi, 7 (p. 97), and 205A.
page 186 note 8 Conway, , 264=CIL. I., ed. 2, 391, IX. 3813Google Scholar.
page 186 note 9 Unterital. Dial. (1850), p. 347, cf, CIL. I., ed. I (1865), p. 34, n. ad No. 182.
page 186 note 10 Gell. 13, 23, I sq.
page 187 note 1 Italic stem her- ‘uelle, optare, capere’ (pf. ptc. errtu for heretu, Conway, 358 ii. a 4), cf. also Osc. Hcrentas (i.e. Venus), id. 87, 216, 7, who, however, is to be compared rather with Fortuna (as a fertility goddess) than with Venus (= Aphrodite); cf. also Wissowa in Roscher's Lex. and Otto in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v.v. Heries Iunonis, Herts Martea. Preller, , Roem. Myth., Vol. I., ed. 3, p. 275Google Scholar, was certainly Wrong in pressing the idea of desire (Venus).
page 187 note 2 Herine Conway, , note xi. 5 (p. 97)Google Scholar.
page 187 note 3 Conway, p. 109.
page 187 note 4 The identity of pumperias with the Nones, though not absolutely certain, is very probable: see Conway, Glossary, s.v.; and Dial. Ital. Exempt. Sel., pp. 14 sq.
page 187 note 5 ‘The closeof 101 (iiuk destrst “eadextra est”), like that of 109 (nessimas staiet veru luvkei ‘proximae stant a foribus in luco’), seems to imply that there were several such monuments standing together and needing to be distinguished, with suggests a temple rather than a graveyerd. The mere question of fact is difficult to settle, for (Beloch, , Campanien, ed. 2, p. 471)Google Scholar “the necropolis begins immediately outside the walls all round the city, so that every building outside it necessarity stood in the midst of graves” (Conway, pp. 109 sq.).
page 187 note 6 Conway (see p. 103), Nos. 88, 101, 103, 105, 110, 111, 113–116 (perhaps 107); 117 a and h, are mutilated at the point where information of this kind might have been given.
page 188 note 1 Id., p. 102.
page 188 note 2 Id., p. 106, No. 120. This iovila is at Naples; I examined it there, and have no doubt that Ridgeway's identification is correct.
page 188 note 3 Serv. Am. 4, 518; Ovid, , Fast. 3, 257 sqqGoogle Scholar., Paul. ex. Fest, p. 248 L., Gell. 4, 3, 3. We do not hear of locks of hair being offered to Juno; but this custom is recorded for Hercules (Ovid, , Fast. 6, 799)Google Scholar, and there is a certain connexion between Hercules and Juno as representatives of the male and female types respectively. See Fowler, Warde, R.F., p. 143Google Scholar.
page 188 note 4 Conway, No. 103.
page 188 note 5 Compare Juno Regina at Lanuvium clad in a goat's the head being thrown over her head to serve as a helmet, and armed with a spear and shield. Cic. n.d. 1, 29, 82.
page 188 note 6 Conway, pp. 105 sq.
page 188 note 7 Id. ibid.
page 188 note 8 Aen. 8, 84.
page 188 note 9 Cf. Fowler, Warde, R.E., pp. 274 sqGoogle Scholar.
page 188 note 10 Conway, No. 109.
page 188 note 11 Id., Nos. 101, 115, 116. But see Conway, p. 681.
page 188 note 12 On this aspect of Juno (Fluonia, etc.) I must refer to the essay on Juno above mentioned.
page 188 note 13 Fast. 2, 435 sq.
page 188 note 14 Wissowa, , R.K., ed. 2, p. 177Google Scholar.
page 189 note 1 R.E., pp. 74 sq.
page 189 note 2 See Conway in Enc. Brit. (ed. II), articles Osci, Sabini.
page 189 note 3 Cf. Ridgeway, , Who were the Romans ? P. 15Google Scholar.
page 189 note 4 Serv. Ecl. 4, 62.
page 189 note 5 CIL. I., ed. 2, 1581.