Numen

Template:Short description Template:Ancient Roman religion Numen (plural numina) is a Latin term for "divinity", "divine presence", or "divine will". The Latin authors defined it as follows: Cicero writes of a "divine mind" (), a god "whose numen everything obeys", and a "divine power" () "which pervades the lives of men". It causes the motions and cries of birds during augury. In Virgil's recounting of the blinding of the one-eyed giant, Polyphemus, from the Odyssey, in his Aeneid, he has Odysseus and his men first "ask for the assistance of the great numina" (). Reviewing public opinion of Augustus on the day of his funeral, the historian Tacitus reports that some thought "no honor was left to the gods" when he "established the cult of himself" () "with temples and the effigies of numina" (). Pliny the Younger in a letter to Paternus raves about the "power", the "dignity", and "the majesty"; in short, the "numen of history". Lucretius uses the expression , or "bidding of the mind", where "bidding" is numen, not, however, the divine numen, unless the mind is to be considered divine, but as simply human will.

Since the early 20th century, numen has sometimes been compared with mana and treated as a remnant of a pre-animistic phase; that is, a belief system inherited from an earlier time. However, these ideas are now largely rejected within the scholarly literature. Numen is also used by sociologists to refer to the idea of magical power residing in an object, particularly when writing about ideas in the Western tradition.

Etymology and origin

The 1st-century BCE Roman author Varro records that the term derives from ("nod, command, will"), and, similarly, the 2nd-century grammarian Festus defines as the "" ("the command and power of a god"). Michiel de Vaan, an Indo-Europeanist scholar, derives the term from the verb ("to nod") also underlying . If this proposal is accepted, the term is connected with the Proto-Indo-European root ("to nod"), whence also Ancient Greek ("Template:Grc-transl," "to nod"). On the basis of its etymology, the classical scholar H. J. Rose provides the following definition of :

The literal meaning is simply "a nod", or more accurately, for it is a passive formation, "that which is produced by nodding", just as flamen is "that which is produced by blowing", i.e., a gust of wind. It came to mean "the product or expression of power" — not, be it noted, power itself.

Thus, numen ("divinity") is not personified (although it can be a personal attribute) and should be distinguished from deus ("god").

According to the classicist Kurt Latte, the term is first attested in the works of Accius and Gaius Lucilius, which date to the second half of the 2nd-century BCE. It is, however, unattested in earlier writings, such as the works of Plautus, Ennius, or Cato the Elder, and it is also absent from ancient religious texts. On this basis, Latte proposed that—due to the influence of Stoic philosophy—the term may have emerged as a translation of Ancient Greek ("Template:Grc-transl"). However, the classicist Tamás Nótári argues that the lack of proper attestation in the works of Ennius and Cato is perhaps attributable to the incomplete state of their surviving writings and it also the comedic plays of Plautus were inherently incongruent with esoteric religious concepts. Moreover, as noted by Latte himself, it is impossible to explains why the specific word would be generated to translate the Greek term.

The historian Rebecca Denova has proposed that the concept of the parallels concepts known from Etruscan culture, where the divine was often envisioned as a vague and amorphous force. According to the Etruscologist Lammert Bouke van der Meer, the term is the semantic equivalent of the Etruscan word , which is also attributed to gods, such as in the phrase (" of Nethuns"). However, the Etruscan conceptualization of their deities as abstract forces does not necessarily align with the archaic Roman understanding of , which itself most likely never denoted any animistic entities. Moreover, the exact meaning of Etruscan is itself not undisputed—there is also evidence that it is actually better equated with Latin ("spring, fountain").

Imperial cult of the

Within the Imperial cult, the term perhaps referred to the divine power of a living emperor—in other words, it may have functioned as a means of worshiping a living emperor without literally calling him a god. Whereas the emperor possessed , they were not necessarily a themselves—Pliny the Younger, a 1st-century CE Roman author, explicitly warns against referring to the emperor as such, writing ("Nowhere should we flatter him [Domitian] as a god or as a " (""). According to the classicist Duncan Fishwick, the attribution of to the emperor likely represented a declaration that they served as a mediator between the divine and humanity, fulfilling a role comparable to the Ancient Greek . The classicist J. C. Mann argues that, if is understood to mean something akin to "divine power," it is unclear how it could be attributed to a living emperor, given that Roman citizens were barred from worshipping the emperor as a god. Mann argues that it was not the emperor personally, but their enormous political power, including the ability to impose regulations on the worship of certain deities, which accorded them . Mann also suggests that worship of the imperial proliferated amongst the , who were perhaps more willing to ascribe divinity to the emperor.

One inscription from the Forum Clodii describes a series of animal sacrifices performed for Augustus and his stepson Tiberius at an altar dedicated to the of Augustus. The text only specifies the animal sacrificed in honor Tiberius, for whom a bull-calf ("") was slaughtered, though the classicist Ittai Gradel suggests that it is likely that steers were offered for Augustus, as the dedication of adult animals for the father and calves for the son would be congruent with the Roman tendency to match some aspect of the sacrificial animal with the characteristics of the recipient. If this theory were accepted, it would imply that Augustus and Tiberius themselves were the beneficiaries of the sacrifice and not the , which—Gradel argues—is perfectly reasonable, as, given that all animals are either male or female, none were fit for sacrifice to the , a neuter entity.

Gradel ultimately suggests that worship of the emperor's was fundamentally synonymous with worship of the emperor personally, citing the aforementioned passage wherein Caligula built a temple honoring his "own ," as this temple is otherwise described by Cassius Dio and Josephus as merely a temple to Caligula personally. Moreover, there are examples wherein dedications to the imperial were surrounded by statues depicting the imperial family, such as one inscription dated to 160 CE from Ostia, which propitiates the of the ("Augustan house," I. e. imperial family), and is also situated near a bust depicting Lucius Verus. Additional evidence perhaps derives from a section of the that reads "Holiday by decree of the Senate, because on this day Tiberius Caesar dedicated the altar to his father Divus Augustus." This passage may indicate that worship of the alter of the Augustus was synonymous with worship of the emperor directly. However, Gradel concedes that this text is a later addition to the , not a snippet of the original version composed by Verrius Flaccus. Gradel suggests that, in the particular Praenestine community whence came this rendition of the calendar, the local authorities perhaps mistakenly assumed that a holiday was fashioned for this date, which was January 17th, on account of their local ritual, rather than the actual reason, which was probably the marriage of Augustus to Livia on that same date.

Fishwick argues that, in certain circumstances, the emperor's was identical with their . In support of this theory, he notes a passage from the 1st-century BCE poet Horace, who describes the swearing of altars specifically for swearing oaths in the name of the of Augustus, which may parallel a similar practice wherein oaths were taken by the genius of the emperor. Yet, there are other instances where the two concepts are clearly distinct. For instance, certain texts record simultaneous dedications to the and of a single individual, such as one inscription from Aquincum dated to 138 CE, which reads "to the Augustan and the of Emperor Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus" (""). Moreover, a stone from Narbo records a dedication on behalf of an imperial cult wherein the of the emperors Augustus and Tiberius are invited to the altar of the of Augustus, thereby implying that these and the were separate entities.

Dedicatory inscriptions

File:RIB 193, dedication to Mercury Andescociuoucos.png

Drawing of the now lost inscription honoring the imperial and Mercury Andescociuoucos

File:RIB 627, altar dedicated to Victoria Brigantia.png

Roman inscription from Greetland containing the abbreviation .

Inscriptions referencing the imperial appear primarily in the northwestern portions of the empire, such as Narbonensis and the formerly Celtic provinces as a whole. In Roman Britain, worship of the imperial exists even among individuals that likely had not yet been extensively Romanized, sometimes within inscriptions that include deities of Celtic origin. For instance, one inscription from Camulodunum dedicated by a freedman named Imilico honors the imperial and a deity named Mercury Andescociuoucus. Most dedications to the imperial utilize the plural form , though, in Roman Africa, where dedications to the are generally rare, they primarily attest to the formula ("to the of the Augusti"). According to Mann, the prevalence of the plural form in dedications probably reflects Celtic cultural influence, as the Celts worshipped other deities as pluralities, such the triple-goddess Coventina. Dedications to the are also infrequent in the eastern and northeastern sections of the empire, and the few surviving inscriptions primarily utilize the formula "," which is itself first attested in the early third century CE. Similarly, Spain provides limited evidence for direct dedication to the , yet it does provide a plethora of examples of the aforementioned formula.

Dedications to the imperial did not refer to any specific emperor, with the exception of Caligula, who supposedly—according to the 1st-century CE Roman historian Suetonius—built a temple honoring his "own " (""). Yet, according to the classicist Christophe Goddard, this specific incident is likely intended to represent a breach of Roman custom, and thus it ultimately further proves the otherwise generic nature of the . Following the early years of the empire, the applicability of broadened to include the entire imperial family. Dedications from this time mention the entire Imperial household, such as one inscription dated to 55 CE from a balneum in Coela is directed towards the " of the house of Augustus" ("").

In general, during the reign of Augustus, inscriptions—including those that do not mention —often avoided abbreviating the term ; it was usually rendered in full as , . or . Over time, as imperial titles became longer, the abbreviated forms also became more common. Certain inscriptions abbreviate the plural to or , wherein the double or triple three most likely represents a dedication to the multiple reigning emperors. For instance, one Roman inscription from Greetland dated to 208 CE is directed towards the "," which perhaps refers to the reigning emperors Severus and Caracalla. The meaning of the abbreviation —in the context of the imperial —is unclear, though the RIB suggests that it referred specifically to the of the deceased emperors treated collectively. However, according to Fishwick, there is no other corresponding evidence from the Celtic provinces indicating any worship of deified past emperors to the exclusion of the current living rulers. Fishwick further suggests that the particular worship of the of deceased emperors would constitute an implicit challenge to the legitimacy of the current ruler, which would render the practice politically irresponsible and therefore conflict with the ultimate purpose of the imperial cult as a political tool of the emperors.

Fishwick instead argues that title actually, designates both the living and the deceased emperors, citing certain inscriptions where the term is explicitly associated with a living emperor. For example, one inscription dated to 190 CE discovered at Lugdunum that mentions the also, since it is a , most likely began with a ("for welfare") formula, in which case the text most likely referred to the living emperor, as it would be redundant to pray for the welfare of the deceased. Additionally, the inscription also references the whole "divine household" (""), which implies reference to a specific member of the imperial family. Furthermore, Fishwick cites other instances of the term where it may denote both present and past rulers, such as in the title of the ("priest of Rome and of the Augusti""). Since the term ("Rome") is usually associated with the living emperor, presumably this priestly title included the current ruler of the empire. Moreover, in the particular case of this —according to Fishwick—it is impossible that the term could have denoted multiple concurrent emperors given the date of the text and it is unlikely that it refers to several successive rulers given that the provincial priest would only have served for one year.

According to Mann, however, it is completely impossible that the sequence usually refers to multiple, arguing that it would violate the known customs of Roman epigraphic convention. Mann notes that there are examples of the form referencing multiple emperors: One inscription dated to 164 CE from Aquincum contains the sequence "" ("of the two Augusti"), though this inscription does not mention the imperial . However, after 161 CE, a year when two co-emperors assumed the throne, the abbreviations or became increasingly popular as the standard means to denote multiple emperors. Mann argues that it is unreasonable to suppose that an ancient Roman stonecutter would spontaneously violate epigraphic standards specifically when the text pertained to the . Mann also suggests that the abbreviation could not include dead emperors, as other inscriptions attest to an epigraphic tendency to distinguish between the emperors that were and were not deified.

Fishwick, in contrast, argues that the sequence must be expanded, in every instance, to the plural . According to Fishwick, Roman customs mandated that an individual emperor or god can only possess one . For example, one 1st-century CE inscription from Ipagrum is dedicated to the singular of emperor Tiberius. There are examples of multiple being attributed to one specific deity, though all of these examples are poetic and perhaps result from the metrical needs of the writing. Moreover, there are also instances wherein one is attributed to a collection of deities, such as one 2nd-century CE inscription from Valle de Abdalajís which reads "" ("to the of the divine Augusti"). Fishwick suggests that the specific rules varied across each province. In Roman Africa, the formula was more common, whereas in Gaul, Germania, and Britain, the variant was more prevalent, with no instances of the alternative reading known from Roman Britain.

Characteristics

Animist hypothesis

Rose first compared the to the concept of mana in various Oceanic cultures, hypothesizing that the earliest layers of archaic Roman religion included a vast array of minor divine entities with little relevance beyond a single specific function. According to Rose, minor gods such as —who was associated with the belt worn by the bride in the Roman wedding ceremony—represented a specific manifestation of the . However, the supposition that a numinous presence in the natural world constituted an "animistic" element left over in historical Roman religion and especially in the etymology of Latin theonyms was criticized as "mostly a scholarly fiction" by McGeough (2004). Until the time of Augustus (r. 27 BCE – 14 CE), the term was never used to refer to any particular god. In fact, according to Gradel, given that the gender of the word was neuter, it simply could not have been personified. Moreover, the tern often appears in tandem with a genitive form of the words ("god") or ("goddess"), thus clearly distinguishing the from the deity themselves. There are instances where it is feasible to translate as denoting some resident divine entity as opposed to an abstract power, such as one inscription from Moesia which references the " of the ." Fishwick argues that it would be unusual for the , which was a type of tax, to possess "power," but it is also unlikely that the (" of Augustus") reference a deity dwelling within the emperor. To remedy this issue, Fishwick suggests that the and the had been conflated in this instance due overarching similarities between their functions, though he does not extend this notion so far as to conclude to the and the were in general completely identical entities.

Possession of

The term denoted some abstract concept possessed by a deity. For instance, the 1st-century CE Roman poet Horace recounts a myth wherein Jupiter forms a layer of ice over snow utilizing his "" ("unimpeded or unmixed "). Deities could also possess multiple : In the Aeneid, Virgil—a 1st-century BCE Roman poet—ascribes to the goddess Juno , in the plural, and Servius—a 4th-century CE Grammarian—writes, in his commentaries upon the Aeneid, that "" ("Juno has many "). It is possible that the usage of specifically the term solely served to accommodate the metrical demands of poetry, though it is alternatively possible that the plural form represents the various functions of a deity or the differing ways they could manifest their influence. Livy, a 1st-century BCE Roman historian, ascribes to the gods collectively rather than any specific deity, writing, for instance, of the "great will of the gods" ("").

was not reserved exclusively for gods; it was also available to humans—the Roman Senate, and later, the emperor themselves, were sometimes described as holding . Furthermore, Cicero, a 2nd-century BCE Roman statesman, ascribes to the Roman people collectively, stating in a publication oration that he "will always exhibit vis-à-vis the Roman people the same piety ("") that the most respectable men show to the gods" ("") and that their "power ("") will be as venerable and sacred as the one of the immortal gods" (""). Lucretius, a 1st-century BCE Roman author, attributes to the human mind, writing "The rest of the spirit, dispersed abroad through the whole body, obeys and is moved according to the and working of the intelligence" ("").

It was possible to transfer from a god to a human, as Ovid implores the god Mars and the emperor Augustus to grant to Gaius Caesar during his campaign against Parthia. was also evidently transferable onto an object, as Statius—a 1st-century CE Roman poet—recounts a story wherein Atalanta, a Greek mythological figure, made a tree numinous through her reverence of the site ("," "by reverencing it she had made its "). The classicist Alisa Hunt argues that Roman authors utilize the term to describe concepts that they personally considered significant. Thus, Cicero, the politician and statesman, assigns to the Senate and Roman people, whereas Ovid—the poet—ascribes to beauty ("," "and form [i.e. physical appearance, beauty] has "). As Hunt notes, in certain circumstances, the of an entity is explicitly attributable to some particular physical characteristic of the object in question. For instance, Statius, in his Thebaid, mentions a tree that "stands sacred by the of its old age" ("").

Hunt argues that the vagueness of the , and the plethora of distinct entities to which it could be applied, were essential components of its use within Roman culture—it allowed Roman authors to explore the boundaries of what could be considered divine. Hunt argues that, in Roman literature, the language surrounding the is often uncertain and unassertive. For instance, Ovid, a 1st-century BCE Roman poet, writes that "" ("there are those who even think we have the "). Moreover, Hunt cites two quotes from Lucan, a 1st-century CE Roman poet, who writes "" ("a quasi in his chest, which had been stabbed clean through") and "" ("O Rome, the likeness of a "). In particular, regarding these two passages, Hunt notes the choice of terms such as "" ("likeness") and "" ("like, as if"), both of which may reinforce the ambiguous nature of the concept.

Divine will or power

Cicero utilizes the phrase "" to translate Ancient Greek "" ("Template:Grc-transl"), a passage from the Odyssey meaning "will of the gods." Like Cicero, Varro also relates the term to a Homeric context, though Varro claims that Homer utilized the word in connection with Jupiter, whereas the Greek passage reference by Cicero is used to describe all gods and never specifically Jupiter. Elsewhere in his writings, Cicero equates the term with "" ("plan") and "" ("will"), writing "" ("Because you already know what is the will of the supreme ruler and master, what is his intention, what is his wish"). Other Ciceronian writings, however, appear to utilize the term to mean "power:" Cicero writes "" ("Great might is to be found, on the one hand, in the power of the immortal gods, and on the other hand, in the state itself"). In certain passages, both the translation as "power" and as "will" seem appropriate, such as "" ("All things yield to the will/power of the gods"). Cicero also states that human virtue ("") many "come nearer to the power of the gods" whilst "founding new cities" or "saving those already founded." Fenechlu suggests that this passage implies that, just as was an essential characteristic of a Roman man, was vital for the divine.

Varro writes that it was the general wisdom of his day that the term signified the ("power") of the divine, and that it derived from "" ("nod, command, will"), in reference to the power of a deity whose nod could command reality. According to the classicist Carmen Fenechlu, the particular choice of the term , which refers more specifically to judicial or political authority, as opposed to the term , which denotes more generic power, implies that Varro had intended to convey that the superiority and "special nature" of the . Cicero provides a passage wherein he directly compares the of the Quirites with the of the gods, writing "" ("Then I beg and implore you, citizens, whose might comes very near to the power of the immortal gods."). Within this passage, the term is associated with the mortal humans, whereas the term is specifically connected with the divine, perhaps reflecting the aforementioned equation of with , and the consequent implication that the represented a sort of higher authority. Furthermore, Cicero directly associates the power of the with the political institutions of Rome, writing "" ("Great is the force, great is the divine power ("") of the senate whose members hold one and the same opinion."). Martial, a 1st-century CE Roman pet, refers to the as "" ("sacred power").

Ovid associates the term with the adjective ("sacred"), describing a "" ("sacred fountain") that "many think holds " (""). Moreover, he writes of himself and poets in general that "" ("Yes, we bards are called , and the care of the gods; there are those who even think we have the "). According to the classicist L. R. Lind, this particular passage perhaps employs the original meaning of the term "," which was not sacred, but instead "taboo, cursed." Lind suggests that , as supernatural forces of the divine, could inspire fear and awe, and the usage of the denoted these emotions.

Ties to the natural world

Within his Fasti, Ovid describes a grove and a stream situated beneath the Aventine where, upon viewing, a spectator might declare "," which has been translated as "There is a spirit here." The classicist Ingrid Edlund-Berry suggests that this reference to a dwelling beside a water source may parallel the association between natural springs and other deities, such as Egeria or Juturna, itself an extension of the general sanctity of water in Roman culture. However, according to Hunt, Ovid does not frame this passage as a definitive theological statement; he only claims that—at the sight of the grove—one could utter this phrase, stating "" ("On seeing which you might say ‘there is a within!’"). This passage has been cited as evidence of an animistic conceptualization of the , though Ovid also refers to Picus and Faunus as both gods and , implying that he did not utilize the term to denote some animist force dwelling with the grove. Instead, according to Hunt, Ovid may have intended to communicate that some particular aspect of the grove invoked an emotional response that itself compelled the onlooker to declare the presence of a . Hunt notes that Ovid had preceded his mention of the with a description of the physical characteristics of the grove—that it was "" ("black with shady holm oaks").

In another, similarly phrased section of his , Ovid writes that "" ("A grove stands there, old and extremely gloomy with its dense trees; Look at it, you might concede that there is a within the place"). Likewise, Ovid utilizes hypothetical language within this passage; he employs the subjunctive form ("you may concede"), thereby portraying the declaration of a as only one possible response. Other Roman authors also mention arboreal —those being tied specifically to trees. The 1st-century CE Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder, for instance, records that "these [trees] were the temples of the " ("") and also that trees were dedicated to —he states "types of trees are kept perpetually dedicated to their own " (""). Seneca the Younger writes of a grove ("") that the "loftiness of the forest, the seclusion of the spot, and your marvel at the thick unbroken shade in the midst of the open spaces" ("") will all "make you believe in its " (""). Citing this Senecan passage, the classicist Valerie M. Warrior interprets as a "sense of the divine" inspired by the natural world and a feeling of "religious awe" ("").

Marcus Manilius, a 1st-century CE astrologer, perhaps implies that were sacred to the nymphs, as—in certain manuscripts of his work—he is recorded as having said "" ("The gods of the forests and the sacred to the Nymphs"). Nymphs are themselves often associated with natural locations, which parallels the grove Ovid describes with the phrase . The classicist H. J. Rose argues that this passage from Manilius implies that the functioned as a sort of supernatural force that dwelt within various natural , such as trees, streams, or caves. However, there are other versions of this text: The Loeb Classical Library edition, as edited by George Patrick Goold, alternatively reads "," which is translated as "the woodland deities and those retiring spirits, the Nymphs."

Numina and specific religions

The phrase "" appears on line 129 of the poem Metrum in Genesin, attributed to Hilary of Arles.

See also

• Animism
• Lares
• Numinous
• Penates
• Sacred (comparative religion)

References

Bibliography

• Altheim, Franz (1938). A History Of Roman Religion. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
• de Grummond, Nancy Thomson (2006). Etruscan myth, sacred history, and legend (1 ed.). Philadelphia, Pa: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropologie. ISBN 978-1-931707-86-2.
• Denova, Rebecca I. (2018-12-17). Greek and Roman Religions (1 ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119392552. ISBN 978-1-118-54290-3.
• de Vaan, Michiel (2008), Lubotsky, Alexander (ed.), Etymological Dictionary of Latin, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, vol. 7, Leiden: Brill, ISBN 978-90-04-16797-1, ISSN 1574-3586, OCLC 225873936, OL 23157929M
• Dumézil, Georges (1970) [1966]. La Religion romaine archaique suivi d'un appendice sur la religion des Etrusques [Archaic Roman religion, with an appendix on the religion of the Etruscans]. Translated by Krapp, Phillip. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-16968-5. LCCN 76-116981.
• Edlund-Berry, Ingrid (2006). "Hot, cold, or smelly: the power of sacred water in Roman religion, 400–100 bce". In Schultz, Celia E.; Harvey, Paul B. (eds.). Religion in Republican Italy. Yale Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511482816. ISBN 978-0-521-86366-7.
• Fenechiu, Carmen (2008). "The Term Numen in Cicero's Works". Les Études Classiques. 76 (1). ISSN 0014-200X.
• Fishwick, Duncan (1969). "Genius and Numen". The Harvard Theological Review. 62 (3): 356–367. ISSN 0017-8160.
• Fishwick, Duncan (1970). "Numina Augustorum". The Classical Quarterly. 20 (1): 191–197. ISSN 0009-8388.
• Fishwick, Duncan (2007). "Numinibus Domus Divinae". Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 159: 293–296. ISSN 0084-5388.
• Fishwick, Duncan (2012). Cult, Ritual, Divinity and Belief in the Roman World (1 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351219662. ISBN 978-1-351-21966-2.
• Frazer, James G. (1931), Ovid's Fasti, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674992795 {{citation}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
• Goddard, Christophe J. (2021-03-01). "Why the emperor had to be a god: Divine invisibility, imperial visibility, and the numen Augusti". Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics. 75–76: 145–153. doi:10.1086/717918. ISSN 0277-1322.
• Goold, G. P. (1977), Astronomica (PDF), Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674995161
• Gradel, Ittai (2002), Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford Classical Monographs, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 9780199275489
• Henig, Martin (2004-01-01), "Roman Religion and Roman Culture in Britain", in Todd, Malcolm (ed.), A Companion to Roman Britain, Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 220–241, doi:10.1002/9780470998861.ch12, ISBN 9780470998861, retrieved 2026-05-09
• Hunt, Ailsa (2016). Reviving Roman Religion: Sacred Trees in the Roman World. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-15354-7.
• Krauskopf, Ingrid (2013), "Gods and Demons in the Etruscan Pantheon", The Etruscan World, Routledge, ISBN 9780203526965, retrieved 2026-05-12
• Lind, L. R. (1976). "Primitivity and Roman Ideas : the Survivals". Latomus. 35 (2): 245–268. ISSN 0023-8856. JSTOR 41533565.
• Mann, J. C. (1991). "Numinibus Aug". Britannia. 22: 173–177. doi:10.2307/526637. ISSN 1753-5352.
• Nótári, Tamás (2005). "On Some Aspects of the Roman Concept of Authority". Acta Juridica Hungarica. 46 (1–2): 95–114. doi:10.1556/AJur.46.2005.1-2.6. ISSN 1216-2574.
• Pavlovskis, Zoja (1989). "The Pastoral World of Hilarius' "in Genesin"". The Classical Journal. 85 (2): 121–132. ISSN 0009-8353. JSTOR 329741.
• Rose, H. J. (1926). Primitive Culture in Italy. Methuen & Co.
• Rose, Herbert Jennings (1935). "Numen inest: 'Animism' in Greek and Roman Religion". Harvard Theological Review. 28 (4): 237–257. doi:10.1017/S0017816000023026. ISSN 1475-4517.
• Rose, H. J. (1948), James, E. O. (ed.), Ancient Roman Religion, London: Cheltenham Press
• Rüpke, Jörg (2024-03-04), "Divine Names and Naming the Divine in Livy", What’s in a Divine Name?, De Gruyter, pp. 121–138, doi:10.1515/9783111326511-007, ISBN 978-3-11-132651-1, retrieved 2026-05-13{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
• Scheid, John; Lloyd, Janet (2003). An Introduction to Roman Religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-34377-2.
• Tabolli, Jacopo (2025-12-01). "Qui Caput Supponere Fontibus Clusinis Audent. Rereading the Inscribed Bronze Votive Heads from Bagno Grande at San Casciano dei Bagni". Arys. Antigüedad, Religiones y Sociedades (23): 471–484. doi:10.20318/arys.2025.9246. ISSN 1575-166X.
• van der Meer, L. B. (2009). "Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend By Nancy Thomson de Grummond. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2006. Pp. xvi+270, 215 figures, CD‐ROM with 220 illustrations. $59.95 (cloth)". History of Religions. 48 (4): 315–317. doi:10.1086/599565. ISSN 0018-2710.
• Warrior, Valerie M. (2006). Roman Religion. Cambridge Introduction to Roman Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-53212-9.

Further reading

• Rudolf Otto (October 2004). The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry Into the Non Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine 1926. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4179-7875-5. Retrieved 9 April 2012.

External links

• Roman religion