Preserved chant of the Arval priests of ancient Rome
Inscription of theCarmen ArvaleSculpture of the emperorLucius Verus in the costume of an Arval Brother (ca. 160 AD)
TheCarmen Arvale is the preserved chant of theArval priests orFratres Arvales ofancient Rome.[1] TheCarmen Arvale is preserved on an inscription discovered in 1778 during the construction of asacrarium forPope Pius VI, which—according to the classicistArthur E. Gordon—is perhaps to be identified with theSagrestia ofSt. Peter's Basilica.[2] On the back of the inscription, there is mention of the emperor and the consulMarcus Oclatinius Adventus, thereby implying a date of 218 CE.[3] The song is only a component of the broader inscription, which also describes the proceedings of a celebration of the goddessDea Dia.[4]
Although the inscription was probably created in 218, it is possible that the song itself may date back to the 4th-century BCE, as it is written in an archaic form ofOld Latin.[5] The text includes numerous archaic Latin forms, such as "lases" instead of "lares," though still contains later forms such as "iuvate." Furthermore, the text contains multiple separate forms of the same word, such as the varying formspleores andpleoris.[4] It is perhaps possible that the song was orally transmitted for centuries before eventually being codified at a later date,[6] perhaps with a series of successive alterations to the text, thereby explaining the mixture of archaic and later Latin forms.[4] It is alternatively possible that the text may have been created by anAugustan scholar, who perhaps modeled the song after other ancient Latin writings, such as theCarmen Saliare. However, the philologistZoa Alonso Fernández considers such a hypothesis to be "almost impossible to prove."[6] Fernández does, however, suggest the possibility that the inscription may have served to legitimize the rule ofEmperor Elagabalus (r. 218–222), who is mentioned in the accompanying text as a new member of the Arval Brotherhood and who, historically, had only recently overthrown the previous emperorMacrinus.[4]
According to Gordon, throughout the inscription, the majority of the letters assume various different shapes, and they are often easily confused with other. Due to these discrepancies, Gordon suggests that the stonecutter must have copied from ahandwritten source, thereby incurring the natural stylistic variation of handwriting. Moreover, Gordon argues that the craftsman himself probably did not fully understand the contents of the text.[7] While passages of this text are obscure, Gordon nevertheless considers the correct reading of much of the inscription to be "clear."[7] Likewise, the classicist Philip Baldi, despite agreeing that the general meaning of the text is clear, states that interpretations of the song can "vary wildly."[8] The traditional interpretation makes the chant a prayer to seek aid ofMars and theLares (lases), beseeching Mars not to let plagues or disasters overtake in the fields, asking him to be satiated, and dance, and call forth the "Semones."[9]
The request for the protection of Mars is consistent with a general characterization of Mars as a guardian deity.[10] Similarly, in another text—a prayer recorded byCato the Elder—a peasant performs alustration around their fields and calls upon Mars to protect their land from a variety of misfortunes.[11][12] The term "Semunis" is probably to be connected with the nameSemo,[13] which appears as an epithet ofSancus in other Roman writings.[14] According to the philologist Michael Weiss, the text of the song indicates that Mars was summoning forth theSemones. In particular, Weiss notes the usage of the term "advocapit," which Weiss to compares to a passage fromSeneca the Younger in which the verbadvoco is utilized to describe Jupiter summoning a group of deities.[15][16] Weiss concludes that theSemones—within this song—were connected with the god Mars and may have served as his retinue.[17]
Oh ! Help us, ye Household Gods! Oh! help us; ye Household Gods! Oh help us, ye Household Gods. And let not bane and bale, O Marmar, assail more folk. And let not bane and bale, O Marmar, assail more folk. And let not bane and bale, O Marmar, assail more folk. Be full satisfied, fierce Mars. Leap the threshold! Halt! Beat the ground! Be full satisfied, fierce Mars. Leap the threshold! Halt! Beat the ground! Be full satisfied, fierce Mars. Leap the threshold! Halt! Beat the ground! By turns address ye all the Half-Gods. By turns address ye all the Half-Gods. By turns address ye all the Half-Gods. Oh! Help us, Marmor! Oh! Help us, Marmor! Oh! Help us, Marmor! Bound, bound, and bound again, bound and bound again!
The term "enos" may consist of the Latin pronounnos ("we") and the same prefixe- found in terms such asedepol ("byPollux").[20] In the edition of the text for theCorpus Inscriptionum Latinarum byErnst Lommatzsch, the word is rendered as a single unified term "enos."[21] However, other authors—such as Gordon—separate the sequence into two separate words: "e" and "nos."[22]
The word "lases" is an unrhotacized form of the wordLares.[20] There are other examples of a similar preservation of intervocalic-s- in Old Latin, such as the archaic formasa for laterara ("altar").[9]
The forms "lue" and "rue" are generally separated by most editors and often emended to "luem" and "ruem" respectively.[22] These terms may be interpreted as the accusative singular forms of the Latin wordslues ("plague, pestilence") andrues, a word that is otherwise only known from a single gloss in which it is equated with the termruina ("ruin").[9]
Regarding the interpretation of the term "sins," the philologistsPhilip Baldi andFrederic de Forest Allen both consider it to be an inflected form of the verbsino ("to let, permit"). More particularly, Baldi suggests that it is equivalent to the Latin second-person singular present activesubjunctive formsinas ("to let, permit"),[20] whereas Allen allows for the additional possibility that the term may represent the second-person singular future active indicative formsines.[9] Baldi further suggests that the specific form "sins" perhaps reflects a mistake with the stone carving.[20]
The first two instances of the sequence "SINSINCURRERE" are sometimes split into the "sins" and "incurrere,"[21] though Gordon suggests that the inscription may instead showcase a break in the script between "in" and "currere."[3]
The text simultaneously utilizes the formpleores andpleoris, both of which are probably archaic forms of the Latincomparativeplures ("more, many").[20]
The phraselimen sali, sta means "jump over the beam of the threshold/door/lintel, stand" in standard Latin.[23]
In the original inscription, the first instance of the sequence "furere" is spelled with an initial "E-like F."[3][24] This is form is generally split into the terms "fu" and "fere."[3] Of these terms, the word "fu" probably derives from theProto-Indo-Europeanroot*bʰuH-, whence alsofui—thepast perfect form of the verb "sum" ("to be").[20] It is possible that the term may be an old imperative form that was eventually lost by the time ofClassical Latin.[9]
The exact meaning of "berber" is unclear, with Baldi stating that most analysis of this form is purely "speculative."[20] Baldi suggests that the term may be a reduplication of an otherwise unknown stem and de Forest Allen suggests that it may equate to the termverber ("whip, lash").[9] Another possibility, also advanced by Baldi, is that the word boundaries perhaps ought to be emended, allowing for a reading of the form as "taberer." If this theory is accepted, it may allow for a connection with the wordtabes ("melting, decay"), which itself may indicate that the form "taberer" means something akin to "war."[20]
The term "semunis" may be a laterImperial-era corruption rather than a genuinely archaic form.[25]
The term "alternei" ("by turns") may represent an oldlocative form.[20] Within the sequence "SIMVNISALTERNIE," the word may be alternatively spelled as "alternie."[3][26]
According to Baldi, the form "advocapit" may constitute a reduction of an older second-person plural imperative form*advocapite.[20] De Forest Allen additionally suggests that it may represent a hypothetical imperative form*advocabite, a type of future imperatives that—should it have existed—could perhaps parallel the future forms marked by the morpheme-b-.[27] Alternatively, Allen suggests that it may equate to Latinadvocabitis, labelling the form a "future in imperative sense."[27] However, Weiss argues that the interpretation of the term as a future form is incongruent with the imperative verbs in the other lines.[16] Likewise, Warmington argues that the term is best interpreted as an imperative considering the other lines of the song largely include imperative verbs.[28] According to Allen, the spelling with the letter⟨p⟩ is "unexampled" and likely an error for intended⟨b⟩.[27] However, according to the philologist Michael Weiss, since the inscription also contains words such as "berber," it was certainly written in an alphabet that utilized the letter⟨b⟩. For this reason, Weiss opts to explain the term as a combination ofadvocare and a variant of-pte, an emphaticparticle.[16]
^Seneca the Younger.Natural Questions.2.41. "Secundam mittit quidem Iupiter, sed ex consilii sententia, duodecim enim deos advocat" (Trans. Thomas H. Corcoran. "Jupiter also sends the second type but in accordance with the advice of his council, for he summons the twelve gods").
