The Religion of Numa | Page 5

a difficult problem. The family and the
state were destined to hold their own, merely exchanging places in the
course of time, so that the state came first and the family second; the
individual was to grow into ever increasing importance, but the clan is
already dying when history begins. It is a pleasant theory and one that
has a high degree of probability that there may have been a time when
the clan was to the family what the state is when history begins, and
that when the state arose out of a union of various clans, the immediate
allegiance of each family was gradually alienated from its clan and
transferred to the state, so that the clan gave up its life in order that the
state, the child of its own creation, might live. If this be so, we can see
why the social importance of the clan ceases so early in Roman history.
The centre therefore of early religious life is the family, and the state as
a macrocosm of the family; and the father of each family is its chief
priest, and the king as the father of the state is the chief priest of the
state. As for the individual the only god which he has for worship is his
"double," called in the case of a man his Genius and in that of a woman
her Juno, her individualisation of the goddess Juno, quite a distinct
deity, peculiar to herself. But even here the family instinct shows itself,
and though later the Genius and the Juno represent all that is
intellectual in the individual, they seem originally to have symbolised
the procreative power of the individual in relation to the continuance of
the family. The family and the state, however, side by side worshipped
a number of deities.
In the primitive hut, the model of which has come down to us in so
many little burial urns of early time (for example those that have
recently been dug up in the wonderful cemetery under the Roman
Forum), with its one door and no window, there were several elements
which needed propitiation; the door itself as the keeper away of evil,
the hearth, and the niche for the storage of food. The door-god was the

god-door Janus, the ianua itself; the hearth was in the care of the
womenfolk, the wife and daughters, so it was a goddess, Vesta, whom
they served; and the storage-niche, the penus, was in the keeping of the
"store-closet gods" (Di Penates). The state itself was modelled after the
house. It had its Janus, its sacred door, down in the Forum, and the king
himself, the father of the state, was his special priest; it had its hearth,
where the sacred fire burned, and its own Vesta, tended by the vestal
virgins, the daughters of the state; and it had its store-niche with its
Penates. At a later date but still very early there was added to the
household worship the idea of the general protector of the house, the
Lar, which gave rise to the familiar expression "Lares and Penates."
The origin of this Lar Familiaris, as he is called, is interesting, because
it shows the intimate connection between the farming life of the
community and its religion. The Lares were originally the group of
gods who looked after the various farms; they were in the plural
because they were worshipped where the boundary lines of several
farms met, but though several of them were worshipped together, each
farm had its one individual Lar. But the care of the farm included also
the protection of the house on the farm, so that the Lar of the farm
became also the Lar of the house, first of course of houses on farms,
and then of every house everywhere even when no farm was connected
with it.
Aside from Vesta, the Genius, the Lar, and the Penates, possibly the
most important element in family worship was the cult of the dead
ancestors. This cult is, of course, common to almost all religions, and
its presence in Roman religion is in so far not surprising, but the form
in which it occurs there is curious and relatively rare. Just as the living
man has a "double," the Genius, so the dead man also must have a
double, but this double is originally not the Genius, who seems to have
been thought of at first as ceasing with the individual. On the contrary
as death is the great leveller and the remover of individuality, so the
double of the dead was not thought of at first as an individual double
but merely as forming a part of an indefinite mass of spirits, the "good
gods" (Di Manes) as they were called because they were