LUPERCI
LUPERCI were the members of a very ancient, perhaps the most
ancient, corporation of priests at Rome, which also outlived the other
institutions of the old Roman religion. An account of the rites which they
superintended will be found in the preceding article [
LUPERCALIA]. As regards their
institution there are two separate legends; one ascribing their foundation
to the Arcadian Evander (
Liv. 1.5;
Ov. Fast. 2.423;
Plut. Rom. 21), the other to Romulus and Remus (
Ov. Fast. 2.361; Plut.
l.c.). It is probable that both are untrue. It seems that the idea
of a Greek institution is only an attempt of later times to connect this
priesthood with the worship of the Greek pastoral god Pan. They were said to
be priests of Faunus, the Italian deity of flocks and herds, and Evander is
perhaps merely a translation of Faunus, “the favourer” (see
Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, 3.439). It is probable, as
Marquardt points out, that the connexion with the legends of Romulus, though
much older than the Grecising legends, is more recent than the institution
of the priesthood, and arose from the fact that the neighbourhood of the
Lupercal was connected with many traditions about Romulus, the Ficus
Ruminalis, Casa Romuli, &c., and also from the compound
lupus in the word itself, just as those who adopted
Greek tradition found an argument in the word
Λύκαια. The name of Faustulus, it is to be noticed, in the
Romulean legends, has the same meaning as that of Faunus. We can have little
doubt that the priesthood belongs to the oldest tribal settlement on the
Palatine, and derives its name from neither of the above-mentioned legends.
Rejecting many improbable derivations, such as
luere-capra (Servius),
lupa-parcero
(Arnobius),
lues-parcere (Unger),
lupus-hircus (Schwegler), we may adopt as the most
likely origin of the name Luperci, that which Mommsen (
Hist. of
Rome, 1.176) and Marquardt prefer,
lupus-arceo: i.e. “the protectors of the flock from
wolves.” The priesthood was in the hands of two collegia, of which
the
sodales were called respectively
Luperci Quinctiliani (or
Quinctiales?) and
Luperci Fabiani, or sometimes Quinctilii
and Fabii. In other words, originally it was a gentile sacred rite, and was
in very ancient times under the exclusive charge of these two
gentes, although that attachment to a particular
gens lasted only in the name, and was
retained neither in respect of the members nor the organisation. So far as
regards the second collegium, there is no difficulty in understanding it of
the gens Fabia (cf. Propert. 5.1, 26), though Unger (
Rhein. Mus. 1881, pp. 50 ff.) seeks to connect the name with
februare; but there is more doubt about
assigning the other collegium to the gens Quinctilia. It may be assumed that
these Luperci ranked before the Fabian; for this priority of rank will
explain the legends which attribute the Quinctilii to Romulus and. the Fabii
to Remus (
Ov. Fast. 2.373; Vict.
de
Orig. 22), and the name might be regarded as fairly settled, if
we could satisfy ourselves whether the Quinctii or the Quinctilii were the
older. Mommsen (
Hist. of Rome, 1.51; and
Staatsrecht, 1.560, note) and Marquardt (
op. cit.) take the Quinctii to be the old gens, the Quinctilii a
later introduction from Alba (for which the authority is
Dionys. A. R. 3.29); and they cite also an
inscription (Orelli, 2253 =
C. I. L. 6.1932), “lupercus
Quinctialis vetus,” and the coincidence of the
praenomen
Kaeso belonging to the Quinctii and
Fabii
alone, and possibly derived from the
thongs with which the Luperci strike (
caedunt),
as proving that the name should be
Quinctianus
or
Quinctialis from the Quinctii, not
Quinctilianus, as though from the Quiinctilii. We have,
however, on the other hand, the fact that Livy (
1.30) gives just the opposite account to Dionysius, and makes the
Quinctii come from Alba; and that all ancient authorities, except the
inscription above, give the name Quinctilii or Quinctiliani to this
priesthood. We can hardly therefore take Mommsen's view as proved beyond a
doubt. We shall be on more certain ground in assuming that this gens,
whether the Quinctii or the Quinctilii, exercised the priesthood in this
worship on the Palatine for the
Montani, and
with them, when the tribal communities amalgamated, were joined the Fabii
for the same rites on behalf of the
Collini.
(That the Fabian gens belonged to the Collini is shown by their having their
sacra gentilicia on the Quirinal:
Liv. 5.46,
52.) Possibly
the Fabii used originally their separate sanctuary on this hill for the
Lupercalia, but there can be no doubt that the associated worship of the two
collegia of Luperci (as afterwards of the
third also) was in the Lupercal on the Palatine--the only Lupercal
[p. 2.101]mentioned--a cave in the western angle of the
Palatine, the site of which cannot be positively identified, where the rites
in the festival were begun. It was in later times adorned with some masonry,
perhaps a portico at the entrance; for it is stated in the inscription of
Ancyra that Augustus rebuilt it. (See Middleton's
Rome, p.
57; Burn's
Rome and Campagna, p. 156.) Julius Caesar, in the
beginning of the year 44, added a third corporation of priests called the
Luperci Julii (
D. C.
44.6;
Suet. Jul. 76), and assigned
to them revenues which the senate after his death took away (
Cic. Phil. 13.15,
32), and of this collegium Antonius was
magister. The assumption from this is that each of the
collegia had its own
magister, though in
inscriptions we find only “magister lupercorum” without
distinction. The word
vetus applied to a
lupercus (as in the inscription given above) means
no doubt that he belonged to one of the two older corporations. The members
(
sodales,
ἑταῖρολ) were ordinarily of the equestrian
rank, rarely senators (cf. Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, l.c.). Under
the Republic they were probably (like the
Fratres
Arvales) coopted into the body, but Mommsen thinks that under the
Empire they were appointed by the emperor. Some have asserted the office to
be terminable, on the authority of two inscriptions, which seem to give
“lupercus
iterum,”
“lupercus
ter” (
C. I.
L. 6.496; 2610), but the wording and significance of these are by no
means certain, and Marquardt believes the office to have been for life (as
was also the office of the Fratres Arvales). It is also questionable whether
this priesthood existed in any Italian town except Rome. The inscriptions
found in various municipia perhaps record merely the names of men who
belonged to one of the three collegia at Rome, and who kept the title in
their new domicile. At any rate, we have no mention of the festival being
held anywhere but at Rome. Of the manner in which the functions were
partitioned among the different collegia we have no record. For an account
of the rites which they celebrated, see
LUPERCALIA (In addition to the works cited above,
reference may be made to Preller,
Röm. Myth. 111.)
[
G.E.M]
