Noctes Atticae

On the names of the gods of the Roman people called Diovis and Vediovis.

IN ancient prayers we have observed that these names of deities appear: Diovis and Vediovis; furthermore, there is also a temple of Vediovis at Rome, between the Citadel and the Capitolium. [*](The two summits of the Capitoline Hill.) The explanation of these names I have found to be this: the ancient Latins derived Iovis from iuvare (help), and called that same god

father,

thus adding a second word. For Iovispater is the full and complete form, which becomes Iupiter [*](The correct spelling in Latin is Iuppiter.) by the syncope or change of some of the letters. So also Neptunuspater is used as a compound, and Saturnus— pater and Ianuspater and Marspater—for that is the original form of Marspiter—and Jove also was called Diespiter, that is, the father of day and of light. And therefore by a name of similar origin Jove is called Diovis and also Lucetius, because he blesses and helps us by means of the day and the light, which are equivalent to life itself. And Lucetius is applied to Jove by Gnaeus Naevius in his poem On the Punic war. [*](Fr. 55, Bährens.)

Accordingly, when they had given the names Iovis and Diovis from iuvare (help), they applied a lame of the contrary meaning to that god who had, not the power to help, but the force to do harm—for some gods they worshipped in order to gain their favour, others they propitiated in order to avert their hostility; and they called him Vediovis, thus taking away and denying his power to give help. For the particle ve which appears in different forms in different words, now being spelled with these two letters and now with an a inserted between the two, has two meanings which also differ from each other. For ve, like very many other particles, has the effect either of weakening or of strengthening the force of a word; and it therefore happens that some words to which that particle is prefixed are ambiguous [*](That is, it is uncertain what force ve- has in these words; but see the next note.) and may be used with either force, such as vescus (small), vemens (mighty), and vegrandis (very small), [*](Gellius is wrong in supposing that ve- strengthened the force of a word; it means without, apart from. Nonius cites Lucilias for vegrandis in the sense of very great, but wrongly; see Marx on Lucil. 631. Vescus means small, or, in an active sense, make small (Lucr. i. 326); Walde derives it from rescor in the sense of eating away, corroding (Lucr. i. 326) and from ve-escus in the sense of small Vemens, for vehemens, is probably a participle (vehemenos) from veho.) a point which I have discussed elsewhere [*](xvi. 5. 6.) in greater detail. But vesanus and vecordes are used with only one of the meanings of ve, namely, the privative or negative force, which the Greeks call kata\ ste/rhsin.

It is for this reason that the statue of the god Vediovis, which is in the temple of which I spoke above, holds arrows, which, as everyone knows, are devised to inflict harm. For that reason it has often been said that that god is Apollo; and a shegoat is sacrificed to him in the customary fashion, [*](Vediovis, or Veiovis, was the opposite of Jupiter, ve- having its negative force. He was a god of the nether world and of death; hence the arrows and the she-goat, which was an animal connected with the lower world (see Gell. x. 15. 12, and Wissowa Religion und Kultus,p. 237). Some regarded the god as a youthful (little) Jupiter and the she-goat as the one which suckled him in his infancy; others as Apollo, because of the arrows, but the she-goat has no connection with Apollo.)

and a representation of that animal stands near his statue.

It was for this reason, they say, that Virgil, a man deeply versed in antiquarian lore, but never making a display of his knowledge, prays to the unpropitious gods in the Georgics, thus intimating that in gods of that kind there is a power capable of injuring rather than aiding. The verses of Vergil are these: [*](Georg. iv. 6.)

1. A task of narrow span, but no small praise,
2. If unpropitious powers bar not my way

And favouring Phoebus grant a poet's prayer. And among those gods which ought to be placated in order to avert evil influences from ourselves or our harvests are reckoned Auruncus [*](Commonly called Averruncus, although the glosses give also the form Auruncus. From averrunco, to avert.) and Robigus. [*](Also called Robigo (f.), the god or goddess who averted mildew from the grain.)

On the rank and order of obligations established by the usage of the Roman people.

THERE was once a discussion, in my presence and hearing, of the rank and order of obligations, carried on by a company of men of advanced age and high position at Rome, who were also eminent for their knowledge and command of ancient usage and conduct. And when the question was asked to whom we ought first and foremost to discharge those obligations, in case it should be necessary to prefer some to others in giving assistance or showing attention, there was a difference of opinion. But it

was readily agreed and accepted, that in accordance with the usage of the Roman people the place next after parents should be held by wards entrusted to our honour and protection; that second to them came clients, who also had committed themselves to our honour and guardianship; that then in the third place were guests; and finally relations by blood and by marriage.

Of this custom and practice there are numerous proofs and illustrations in the ancient records, of which, because it is now at hand, I will cite only this one at present, relating to clients and kindred. Marcus Cato in the speech which he delivered before the censors Against Lentulus wrote thus: [*](xli. 1, Jordan.)

Our forefathers regarded it as a more sacred obligation to defend their wards than not to deceive a client. One testifies in a client's behalf against one's relatives; testimony against a client is given by no one. A father held the first position of honour; next after him a patron.

Masurius Sabinus, however, in the third book of his Civil Law assigns a higher place to a guest than to a client. The passage from that book is this: [*](Fr. 6, Huschke; 2 Bremer.)

In the matter of obligations our forefathers observed the following order: first to a ward, then to a guest, then to a client, next to a blood relation, finally to a relation by marriage. Other things being equal, women were given preference to men, but a ward who was under age took precedence of one who was a grown woman. Also those who were appointed by will to be guardians of the sons of a man against whom they had appeared in court, appeared for the ward in the same case.

Very clear and strong testimony on this subject

is furnished by the authority of Gaius Caesar, when he was high priest; for in the speech which he delivered In Defence of the Bithynians he made use of this preamble: [*](ii. p. 123, Dinter; O. R. F.2 p. 419.)

In consideration either of my guest-friendship with king Nicomedes or my relationship to those whose case is on trial, O Marcus Iuncus, I could not refuse this duty. For the remembrance of men ought not to be so obliterated by their death as not to be retained by those nearest to them, and without the height of disgrace we cannot forsake clients to whom we are bound to render aid even against our kinsfolk.