Final Draft - Preview Matter - Florida State University

eproduction of animals. 376 These are characteristics that appear to be common to the liminal,
theriomorphic and therianthropic deities.
In the previous chapter, we encountered the problem of defining Faunus’ animal
associations. While examining many facets of Faunus’ character, I proposed that he was not
strictly the Roman equivalent of Pan and may even have originally taken the form of a lupine
deity. As Wiseman notes, “It was never clear to the Romans whether or not Pan and Faunus
were identical. Silvanus, too, was not easy to distinguish from either of them.” 377 This problem
is discussed by Pouthier and Rouillard, who proposed that a fixed iconography for Faunus,
including a horn of plenty and goat or panther skin, was an invention of nineteenth-century
classical scholars 378 and not a product of the ancient world. Thus we must be skeptical when
Schilling proposes that “Faunus is merely a Latin disguise for Pan” 379 or Palmer states, “Faunus,
of course, was a goat god.” 380 Palmer also asserts that Faunus’ caprid character is supported by
his association with other deities, which, as demonstrated earlier in Chapter Three, may instead
support a lupine nature for this god.
In our subsequent pursuit of the origins of Roman Vediovis, certain goatish
divinities of Gaulish influence will clarify the relationship and character of
incubation and the oracular gods Faunus, Vediovis, Jupiter, and Silvanus, as well
as the goddesses normally called Fauna and Silvana. 381
No other scholar indicates that Vediovis (Veiovis) was conceived of as a goat; he is generally
linked to wolves through his connection to Apollo Soranus. Thus, associating Latin divinities
such as Faunus and Veiovis with Gallic divinities does not really clear matters up. 382
376 Several of these ideas are embodied in the scene of Pan chasing the goatherd in Fig. IV.1. Perhaps we may look
upon the image of the young shepherd chased by Pan as comic, but Borgeaud’s description of the tension between
wild nature and civilization is surely closer to the mark. In this instance, the fleeing shepherd represents the effect
that goat-man hybrids have on those who face them; the shepherd runs in fear. The argument for the fearsome
nature of this scene is strengthened by the artist’s choice to paint a scene of the death of Actaeon on the other side of
this vase.
377 Wiseman 2005, 79-80. Nagy (1994, 769) notes that Silvanus can sometimes take the form of a goat-man hybrid,
but this phenomenon is sporadic and typically isolated to the region of Dalmatia.
378 Pouthier and Rouillard 1986, 105-6. Dorcey (1992, 34) seems to agree with this suggestion when he states,
“Further complicating matters is the complete lack of iconographical evidence for Faunus.”
379 Schilling 1992, 127.
380 Palmer 1974, 147. Palmer (1974, 167) also asserts that “Vediovis and Faunus were principally concerned with
Netherworld oracles, fertility and birth. Their bestial associations tended toward the goat after whom Faunus was
physically modeled.”
381 Palmer 1974, 139.
382 See Ch. 3 no. 32. Veiovis is sometimes interpreted as an infant Jupiter (Ov. Fas. 3.437-8, 447-8) who was
nursed by a goat, and a goat did sometimes accompany images of this god. See Aul. Gel. Att. Noct. 1-12 for a full
discussion of Veiovis’ name and his association with the goat. The presence of the goat in this god’s mythical
78