Iii Id. Dec. (Dec. 11). Np
Ag. In.... (Amit.). Ag[onia] (Maff. Praen. Ant.)
SEPTIMONTIA (PHILOC.). SEPTIMONTIUM, GUID. SILV.1153
For Agonia see on Jan. 9. This (Dec. 11) is the third day on which this mysterious word appears in the calendars. The AG. IN. of the Amiternian calendar was conjectured by Mommsen in the first edition of C. I. L., vol. i, to indicate ‘Agonium Inui’1154; but in the new edition he withdraws this; ‘ab incertis coniecturis abstinebimus.’ This is done in deference to Wissowa, who has pointed out that there is no other case in the calendars of a festival-name inscribed in large letters being followed immediately by the name of a deity1155. We must fall back on the supposition that AG. IN.... is simply a cutter’s error for the AGON. of three other calendars.
It is impossible to determine what was the relation between this agonium, or solemn sacrifice, and the Septimontium or Septimontiale sacrum, which appears only in very late calendars, or whether indeed there was any relation at all. It is not absolutely certain that the so-called Septimontium took place on this day. It was only a conjecture of Scaliger’s (though a clever one) that completed the gloss in Festus on the word ‘Septimontium’1156 [Septimontium dies ap]pellatur mense [Decembri qui dicitur in f]astis agonalia. The word Septimontium suggested itself, as the gloss occurred under letter S. Other support for the conjecture is found in the two late calendars, and in a fragment of Lydus1157, who connects the two ceremonies.
But even if Scaliger’s conjecture be right, it does not follow that the Agonium was identical with or was part of the Septimontiale sacrum. The latter does not appear in the old calendars, as it was not ‘pro populo,’ but only ‘pro montibus’ (see below); and if it was there represented by the word Agonium, it is not easy to see how the latter should have found its way into the calendar. It seems better to conclude that the two were distinct.
About the Septimontium itself we have just enough information to divine its nature, but without details. The word is used by Varro both in a topographical and a religious sense: ‘Ubi nunc est Roma, erat olim Septimontium; nominatum ab tot montibus, quos postea urbs muris comprehendit1158.’ Here he implies that the old name for Rome was Septimontium; but this is only a guess based on the name of the festival: ‘Dies Septimontium nominatur ab his septem montibus, in quis sita urbs est; feriae non populi sed montanorum modo, ut Paganalia, quae sunt aliquoius pagi1159.’
The montes here meant are the three divisions of the Palatine, viz. Palatium, Cermalus, Velia; the three of the Esquiline, viz. Mons Oppius, Mons Cispius, and the Fagutal, together with the lower ground of the Subura1160. I believe that Mommsen is right in thinking that these were never political divisions—in other words, that they were not originally distinct communities1161, but probably religious divisions of a city which began on the Palatine, and gradually took in new ground on the Esquiline. The same process can be traced at Falerii, and at Narce a few miles above it; what we seem to see is not the accretion of villages—not συνοικισμός—but the extension of a city from one strong position to another1162. This is especially clear at Narce, where it is distinctly proved by the pottery found in the excavations, that the hill (Monte li Santi) subsequently added to the original city was not co-eval with the latter as a settlement; i. e. that it was the absorption by an older settlement of a probably uninhabited position which here took place, and not the synoecizing of distinct political communities1163. In the later Rome the montani of the seven districts, together with the pagani, or inhabitants of what had originally been the farm-country around Rome, formed the united city1164. It is most interesting to find that the earliest divisions, i. e. of the montes, were imitated in the foundation of some colonies—we should find them probably in many if we had the necessary information1165.
All we know of the cult of the montani on this day is as follows: (1) There was a sacrifice on the Palatium (which seems to have been the first in dignity of the montes) by the Flamen Palatualis1166; but we do not know to what deity, and can only guess that it was Pales, or Palatua1167. (2) On this day no carts or other vehicles drawn by beasts of burden were allowed in the city, as we learn from Plutarch, who asks the reason of this, and gives some quaint answers1168. But the explanations are useless to us, and we cannot even guess whence Plutarch drew his knowledge of the fact, unless it was from personal observation. Let us remember, however, that this was a feast of montani: is it not likely that this was a survival from a time when the farm-waggons of the pagani really never ascended to the ‘hills’?