Final Draft - Preview Matter - Florida State University

anch, 397 objects that likely stress Faunus’ nature as a beneficent god who brings abundance and
fertility. One example provided by Pouthier and Rouillard represents Faunus holding a branch
and wearing the skin of a beast (perhaps that of a goat) is a bronze statuette of unknown
provenance currently housed in the Bibliothéque Nationale (Fig. IV.2). This iconographic type
reminds us of Faunus’ links to the forest god, Silvanus, who may be depicted in a similar
manner. 398
A bronze statuette (Fig. IV.2) depicts Faunus as a god of fertility. The right hand of the
figurine holds a poorly preserved drinking horn and the left a fruit-bearing branch. Faunus wears
a spiky head dress but is otherwise mostly nude, except for an animal skin draped across his
shoulders and a pair of rustic sandals or boots. J. Babelon did not identify the species of animal
skin, and it is not clear in any images of this statuette (both photos and line drawings) whether it
is that of a goat or some other animal. In this instance, he is shown as a bearded, regal male and
does not possess any of the comic overtones demonstrated in the literary accounts of Ovid. Nor
does he possess the same character as Pan represented in a fresco dating to the first quarter of the
first century CE in the House of Jason in Pompeii (Fig. IV.3).
Fig. IV.3 depicts a goat-man identified as Pan who is reminiscent of depictions of Faunus
in contemporary literature. Ling cites this painting as an example of the “restrained and
balanced” painting typical of Augustan classicism. 399 The representation of the nude Pan raising
his syrinx to lips as he calmly sits on a stone in the presence of three nymphs or maidens is
strikingly different from the scene of Pan pursuing the young shepherd boy on the name vase of
397
Pouthier and Rouillard (1997, 582-3) maintain the absence of a distinct iconography for this god but do note the
cornucopia and rhyton.
398
Dorcey, in The Cult of Silvanus, analyzes the evidence demonstrating that these two gods were often confused by
ancient authors; however, he is quite selective in which evidence he chooses to accept. He is also quick to make
statements that minimize evidence that does not support his argument and base his conclusions on his own
assumptions. In reference to the prophetic powers of Silvanus, Dorcey (1992, 35) states, “Silvanus does not share
much of Faunus’ ability to deliver prophecies and oracles, either in dreams or in forest settings. Livy (2.7.2) and
Valerius Maximus (1.8.5) do attribute the pronouncement of the defeat of Tarquinius Superbus in battle to Silvanus;
however Dionysius of Halicarnassus (5.16.2-3), in narrating the same episode, has Faunus announce the Roman
military victory.” Instead of interpreting this as evidence linking Silvanus and Faunus, Dorcey (1992, 35) assumes
that the ancient authors are “mistaken in this instance, since there are many sources for the oracular talents of
Faunus, and no other for those of Silvanus.” There are no other sources, except for the ones Dorcey has chosen to
doubt. Dorcey (1992, 42) goes so far as to state, “What is indeed interesting about Silvanus is how much he retained
his individuality vis-à-vis other rustic deities,” after he has collected a staggering amount of evidence that indicates
just the opposite. I believe that Dorcey is too ready to dismiss evidence which he views as exceptions to rules he has
established for his study. Both iconographic and literary sources point to the confusion of the identities of these
gods.
399
Ling 1991, 119.
82