the words sicut dixi in the prayer of the vilicus in Cato De agricultura 141. 2: "lustrique faciendi ergo, sicut dixi, macte hisce suovetaurilibus lactentibus esto"; and in the dedicatory prayer of Domitius Valens in CIL. III, 1933: "hisce legibus hisce regionibus sic, uti dixi, hanc tibi aram, Iuppiter optime maxime, do dico dedicoque." Less baldly stated but in effect the same are the prayers offered on the occasion of the ludi saeculares of 17 B.c. (CIL. VI, 32323). In Romulus' dedication of the spolia opima (Liv. i. 10. 6) the circumstances under which the present offering is made and the conditions which shall govern future dedications of the same kind are specifically set forth: "Iuppiter Feretri, haec tibi victor Romulus rex regia arma fero templumque . . . . dedico sedem opimis spoliis, quae regibus ducibusque hostium caesis me auctorem sequentes posteri ferent." In this as in other prayers the business-like attitude of the speaker is emphasized by the plain form of address, Iuppiter Feretri, without magnifying epithet or clause. Other illustrations of this style of address are furnished by the prayer of the fetialis in Liv. i. 32. 10: “audi Iuppiter et tu Iane Quirine," and by that of the fetialis, idem i. 24. 7: "audi Iuppiter, audi pater patrate populi Albani, audito populus Albanus." The element of adoration is conspicuously lacking, the nearest approach to it being a matter-offact acknowledgment of superior power, such as is found in a later part of the last prayer quoted: "tantoque magis ferito quanto magis potes pollesque."

But in many cases no condition or stipulation or consideration is expressed or implied. The suppliant merely appeals to the higher powers for assistance as in Liv. xxix. 27. 1. That a note of adoration is heard in this and in other prayers where nothing is said of the advantage to the god, and that we have such phrases as “divi divae, qui maria terrasque colitis, vos precor quaesoque," admits of simple psychological explanation. More or less unconsciously, perhaps, on that analogy of the relation of man and god to the relations of man and man, or, to put it another way, on the basis of the essentially social nature of prayer,' he who has nothing to offer tends to flatter his god with fair words. Another example of this occurs in the prayer in Velleius Paterculus ii. 131. 1 where Mars is addressed

1 See Strong The Psychology of Prayer, chap. i.

as "auctor ac stator Romani nominis Gradive Mars." That magnifying phrases are confined to this type of prayer is not claimed, but that they bulk larger here seems certain.

Other strictly mundane elements are found. A common one is that of the claim, as in the prayer of Romulus in Liv. i. 12. 4: "Iuppiter, tuis iussus avibus hic in Palatio prima urbi fundamenta ieci," and in that of Camillus (Liv. v. 21. 2.): "tuo ductu, Pythice Apollo, tuoque numine instinctus." The trend of the prayer in each of these cases is that the god, being in a sense responsible for the initial steps, should help his people through stress and crisis to the goal of success. The same suggestion of a claim upon the services of the god is discernible in Tac. Hist. iv. 58: "Te Iuppiter . . . quem per octingentos viginti annos tot triumphis coluimus." To this type belongs also the prayer in Cic. De dom. with all its elaborate rhetoric: "vos [i.e. dii] obtestor, quorum ego a templis atque delubris pestiferam illam et nefariam flammam depuli, teque Vesta mater, cuius castissimas sacerdotes ab hominum amentium furore et scelere defendi," and a few lines below: "si in illo paene fato reipublicae obieci meum caput pro vestris caerimoniis atque templis perditissimorum civium furori atque ferro." In other prayers the suppliant does not so much suggest claims as advance reasons why the god should grant his request. In the prayer of Spurius Postumius (Liv. ix. 8. 8) the humiliation of the Romans in being sent under the yoke by the Samnites is urged as a reason for the gods' assisting them in the further prosecution of the war with that people: "dii immortales. . . . vos satis habeatis vidisse nos sub iugum missos novos consules legiones Romanas ita cum Samnite gerere bellum velitis ut omnia ante nos consules bella gesta sunt." The plea here is that they had suffered enough. This same idea that there was a limit beyond which it was hardly reasonable that the displeasure of gods should go is found in the prayer of Vocula in Tac. Hist. iv. 58: "Iuppiter . . . . Quirine si vobis non fuit cordi me duce haec castra incorrupta et intemerata servari, at certe pollui foedarique a Tutore et Classico ne sinatis." In the long prayer in Verr. ii. 5. 184 ff. Cicero urges the crimes of Verres against the sanctuaries of the gods as a reason for their punishing him.

Another aspect of man's communion with his gods is seen in the

curse-tablets. In the case of many of these it is clear that the author of the curse believes that he can compel the gods or demons addressed to do his will. Many examples are given by Audollent. The content of these defixiones also is of great significance in determining the attitude of the ancients toward their gods, for it will be remembered that the authors of the tablets call down disasters of all kinds upon their enemies in no uncertain terms.2

So far the prayers examined have conformed more or less to the type of primitive prayer described at the beginning of this paper. It is clear that the Romans bargained with their gods, flattered them, reasoned with them, made claims upon them, and on occasion even attempted to force them. Of adoration, of contemplative prayer, of ethical concepts there are in the cases before us but few traces. Even in such a prayer as that in Valerius Maximus viii. 1. 5, where Tuccia, addressing Vesta, says, "si sacris tuis castas semper admovi manus," the significance of castas is probably ceremonial rather than ethical. Must we then assume that Roman prayer in general was of this primitive type, that it was confined for the most part to petitions for material blessings, and that it was without ethical content? Two questions must be answered before we can arrive at any satisfactory conclusions on this point: I, What is included under the term "ethical"? and II, Are these prayers that have been discussed, so many of which are formal vows, representative of the attitude of the Romans in their personal supplications to the gods? In regard to the first question I would refer to Jevons' remarks in his chapter on prayer, where he points out that even the appeal of an army of savages to their war-god for victory implies a species of group morality. Such an appeal is not merely a petition for personal or individual advantage, but springs from feelings of loyalty and patriotism. Whether patriotism is always a virtue is, I suppose, a debatable question, but it approaches closely enough to the moral to serve as an illustration of the too rigid exclusion of morality from primitive There is a distinct ethical element in such a prayer as prayers. that offered by one of the Osages to Wohkonda, the Master of Life:

1 Defixionum tabellae quotquot innotuerunt (p. 345).

2 Cf. Audollent op. cit. (p. 249).

Introduction to the Study of Comparative Religion, pp. 144 ff.

"Wohkonda, pity me, I am very poor; give me what I need; give me success against mine enemies, that I may avenge the death of my friends. May I be able to take scalps, to take horses." In the sense in which ethical content is predicated of prayers like this, even those Roman prayers that I have quoted are ethical. Whether the term "ethical" in the broader sense of "pertaining to right and wrong, to virtue and vice" may also be applied to Roman prayers can best be determined by answering the question propounded above under II, for that will involve a more thorough examination of the prayers and accounts of prayer given by Roman writers. Among others we must review the satirists and philosophers, for although it is to be remembered that the satirists exaggerate and the philosophers tend to the ideal, yet it cannot be doubted that we have in them indications of the character of contemporary prayer. They are for the purposes of this inquiry sources which must be treated warily but which can on no account be disregarded. I shall begin, however, neither with satirist nor philosopher but with some of the poets of the late Republican and early Imperial periods, only reminding the reader by way of preface that it is not always easy to distinguish between poetry and piety, between rhetoric and religion.

It is a curious fact that the first prayer breathing a spirit of adoration in Latin occurs in Lucretius, the exponent of Epicurean rationalism. I mean the famous invocation to Venus at the beginning of the first book. Many critics2 have commented on what they have been pleased to call Lucretius' inconsistency in prefacing his iconoclastic poem with lines permeated by a spirit of fervid devotion. But as Hadzsits in Classical Philology II, 187 ff., has shown, there is no real inconsistency. We have abundant testimony that Epicurus and his followers believed in prayer. They did not think that the gods could be induced by prayers and sacrifices to grant men's desires, and Lucretius in v. 1198 ff. speaks disdainfully of those who prostrate themselves before stone altars; but prayers of contemplation and adoration were a part of their system, and only he, they claimed, who was free from all fear of the gods was in a position

1 Tylor Primitive Culture II, 365, and Jevons op. cit. 143.

? The various explanations offered are given by Merrill in his edition of Lucretius, p. 260.

to open his mind to the images that flowed from that divine perfection. We find an approach to adoration also in Catullus' ode to Diana (34); her descent from Jove, her sovereignty over hills, woods, and rivers form the prelude to the prayer that she aid the Romans. Similar but much briefer is the appeal to Hymen at the beginning of 61. In this poem we find that device of repetition ("O Hymen Hymenaee io, O Hymen Hymenaee") so common in litanies of all ages, the earliest example of which in Latin is in the "Carmen Arvale." The same solemnity of style that characterizes Catullus' invocation of the gods in these odes is seen in vs. 91 of 63: "Dea magna, dea Cybelle, dea domina Dindymi." In 64. 193 ff. Ariadne strengthens her appeal to the Eumenides by referring to her helplessness ("inops . . . . amenti caeca furore") and to her sincerity ("quae quoniam verae nascuntur pectore ab imo"). The latter clause introduces an ethical element into the supplication which is found also in that most pathetic of all Catullus' poems, 76, where after throwing himself on the compassion of the gods ("O Di, si vestrum est misereri . . . me miserum adspicite"), he bases his petition for divine aid on the purity of his past life ("si vitam puriter egi"). What he means by puriter is made clear by vss. 3-4 ("nec sanctam violasse fidem nec foedere in ullo divum ad fallendos numine abusum homines"), and the ethical content of such a prayer as this can without doubt be assumed for all supplications addressed to Jupiter in his capacity of god of truth, to Fides, to Dius Fidius, and to all deified abstractions of moral ideas.

The communion of the shepherds with their gods in Virgil's Eclogues is on the basis of definite consideration. So Corydon in vii. 31 promises Diana that if his success in hunting continue, he will set up a marble statue of her; and in the next line Thyrsis, mocking his rival's words, assures Priapus that he shall have a statue of gold if the flocks show increase. The tone of the invocation at the beginning of the Georgics (i. 5 ff.) is one of devout reverence: "Vos o clarissima mundi lumina, labentem caelo quae ducitis annum." Sun and moon, Bacchus and Ceres, Fauns, Dryads, and other spirits of the woodlands are invoked in sonorous phrases setting forth their powers and attributes. Here and there we are reminded of the

1 See Masson Lucretius, Epicurean and Poet, pp. 284 ff.