Canna intrat: “Finding the infant Attis among the reeds”?

An interesting claim on twitter a few days ago began:

On this date in ancient Rome, the annual Festival of Attis and Cybele began with a procession of reed-bearers to commemorate the finding of the infant Attis among the reeds.

This instantly suggested a parallel with the baby Moses to me; and hence, the fear that this might be one of the “Jesus is really Attis” headbangers.  In fact there is more to this; and it is quite interesting to which bits of this are actually attested.

It isn’t hard to find the claim elsewhere, in respectable sources.  For instance Antonia Tripolitis, Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age, Eerdmans (2002) p.34 discusses a series of events celebrating Cybele in March and states:[1]

The festival began on the Ides of March, March 15. On this day, a six-year-old bull was sacrificed by the cult’s high priest, priestess, and cannophori, or reed-bearers, for the purpose of promoting the fertility of the mountain fields. The cannophori then carried reeds to the temple of the goddess. This is believed to be a commemoration of the early days of Attis based on an early version of the legend. According to the legend, Attis as a child was abandoned among the reeds by the banks of the Gallus River and was rescued by shepherds who raised him.[2]

Likewise Maria Grazia Lancellotti, Attis: Between Myth and History: King, Priest and God, Brill (2002), p.81 states (with references this time):

The calendar of these ceremonies, which we know from a late source (354 CE), is as follows [101]:

Id. Mart.    Canna intrat
XI K. Apr.  Arbor intrat
(etc)

The day of the Canna intrat marked the beginning of the ceremonies. The college of the cannophori – evidence for which at Ostia oscillates between the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries [102] – was connected specifically with this feast day in which, probably, were remembered the birth, the exposure and finally the rescue of little Attis on the banks of the river Sangarius [103].

102.  Cf. Vermaseren 1977-1989, III, nos. 398, 399, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 416, 417.
103.  Jul., Or. V 165b, and Sall., De diis et mundo IV. Two representations of Attis in connection with reeds are quoted by Graillot 1912, p. 117 n. 2.  [3]

There is actually a minor mistake here: the river is Gallos, not Sangarius, the name of Attis’ grandfather.

On the other hand Grant Showerman, “Canna Intrat and the Cannophori”, Classical Journal 2 (1906) 28-31 (JSTOR) makes plain that much of this is speculation.

The theory that the infant Attis was found among the reeds seems to be that of Decharme, in Rev. archeol. 1886, I, p.288 f.  Not everyone agrees.

So let’s proceed to the sources.  These are largely very late, and we know that the ceremonies of Cybele developed during the first few centuries AD.  So how much of this is representative of anything but 4th century paganism may be questioned.

The Chronography of 354, section 6, also known as the Philocalian calendar, simply states “Canna Intrat” – “the reed enters” against the 15th, the ides of March.  There is nothing associating this with Cybele here.  It’s just a list of events.

John the Lydian, De mensibus book 4, states:

49. On the Ides of March,[45] there is a festival of Zeus, on account of the mid-month, and public prayers that the year will be healthful.  And they would also sacrifice a 6-year-old bull on behalf of the mountain country, under the leadership of the high priest and the “reed-bearers”[46] of the Mother.  And [106] a man clothed with a goat-skin would be led in, and they would strike him with long, slender rods, calling him “Mamurius.”  …

This does associate “reeds” and “reed-bearers” (cannophori) with both the ides of March, and with Cybele, the Great Mother.  It is, therefore, reasonable to associate “canna intrat” with the rites of Cybele.

Julian the Apostate, in his Hymn to the Great Mother (Oration 5) states:

… we regard this Attis as the generative Power and the Gallos at one and the same time—-him who, as Fable tells, was exposed by the side of the streams of the river Gallos, and there grew up, and afterwards, when he had got tall and handsome, became the favourite of the Mother of the Gods, and she committed to his care all other things, and placed upon his head the star-bespangled cap.

Sallustius, On the gods and the world:

To take another myth, they say that the Mother of the Gods seeing Attis lying by the river Gallus fell in love with him, took him, crowned him with her cap of stars, and thereafter kept him with her. He fell in love with a nymph and left the Mother to live with her. For this the Mother of the Gods made Attis go mad and cut off his genital organs and leave them with the nymph, and then return and dwell with her.

Now the Mother of the Gods is the principle that generates life; that is why she is called Mother. Attis is the creator of all things which are born and die; that is why he is said to have been found by the river Gallus.

Both Julian and Sallustius are aware of a legend connecting the origins of Attis to the river Gallos, and even that he was exposed there.

A cista from Ostia, dedicated by the Archigallus M. Modius Maxximus is our next piece of data:

I copied the image from here.[4].  The inscription tells us that he was Archigallus of the colony of Ostia (CIL XIX, 385).  Although the image above does not show it, supposedly the head of Attis appears in the reeds alongside the head of a lion, and the head of Zeus, or possibly a river.  That said, Hepding says that while Decharme could see the head of Zeus Idaios; Visconti saw the head of a lion, and he could only see a plain head.[5]  According to Clement of Alexandria, Protrepicus 2.19 and scholium,[6] these items contained the severed genitals of the castrated Attis.[7]  Obviously if this does show the child Attis, reeds, and the river, then this is very interesting; but there seems more than a little doubt!  I shall look further into this.

A further item is “a bronze statuette at Toulouse, showing Attis holding in one hand the syrinx and in the other a sheaf of reeds.”[8].  This item is listed by Vermaseren in the Corpus cultus Cybelae attidisque (CCCA) 3, p.146:

It is noteworthy that Vermaseren thinks it is corn, not reed that is held here.  Here’s the item (click for a larger image) from here. Toulouse, Musée Saint-Raymond, inv. 25560:

Duncan Fishwick’s 1966 article[9] states:

What exactly was the significance of this parade is still very uncertain. Nothing final can be inferred from the Ostian cista of M. Modius Maximus, the archigallus or high priest of the Cybele cult, representing the head of Attis flanked by reeds (CIL XIV 385); nor from a bronze statuette at Toulouse showing Attis holding in one hand the syrinx and in the other a sheaf of reeds.10 The most likely interpretation is that the festival recalled the finding of the infant Attis by Cybele on the banks of the river Gallos, where he had been exposed at birth by order of his grandfather Sangarios.11

The finding of Attis by the river is attested.  The reed-bearers are attested as associated somehow with Attis and Cybele.  That reed is associated in the myth with the birth of Attis seems plausible, although nothing actually says so; only that he was found by the river.  Reeds are associated with him on the two monuments.

So we have to say that we simply do not know what the canna intrat actually signified.  The reed-bearers get up to something on that date.  What did they do?

Was it “the finding of the infant Attis among the reeds”?  Maybe.  But the sources do not say so.

Let’s be careful here, people.

Share
  1. [1]During the reign of Claudius, the cult gained new vigor and was one of the most popular and most favored of the foreign cults. By the end of the 1st century C.E., its popularity had spread throughout the Western world and in Asia Minor. The restrictions on Roman participation were removed. Roman citizens, both men and women, took part in the processions and Roman men were permitted into the ranks of the galli. In addition, although the Megalensia continued to be celebrated in April, a new annual cycle of events was established by Claudius. The new festival, which was held March 15-27, introduced Cybele’s consort Attis into the Roman cult. It is thought that this festival was the original Phrygian cycle initially ignored by the Romans.66 From that time on Attis was honored as a divinity together with Cybele. The significance of the rituals performed during the festival is not certain, and many hypotheses exist. The interpretations presented here are those most widely accepted and found in early literary works, artifacts, and inscriptions.67.  The main sources for the claims that follows is given as Grant Showerman, The Great Mother of the Gods (Chicago: Argonaut, 1969), chapter 4, and Maarten J. Vermaseren, Cybele and Attis: the Myth and the Cult (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977), chapter 5.  Unfortunately neither is accessible to me.
  2. [2]No specific reference is given.  The account continues, “A nine-day period of fasting and abstinence began on March 16. On March 22, a pine tree was cut, decorated, and carried to the temple, where it lay in state. This represents the pine tree next to which Attis is often depicted and under which it is believed he bled to death following his self-mutilation in service to the goddess. … (etc)”
  3. [3]Graillot = H. Graillot, Le culte de Cybele, Mère des dieux à Rome et dans l’Empire romain, Paris, 1912, online here.
  4. [4]This states that it is taken from Rieger 1994, Abb. 119a-b.  This would appear to be Anna-Katharina Rieger, “Der Isistempel von Pompeji”, MA Thesis, Munich, 1994, to which I do not have access
  5. [5]Hepding, Attis seine Mythen und sein Kult, p.148-9.  Online here.  See also Squarciapino, I Culto Orientali Ad Ostia, p.12.  Decharme, “Note sur les Cannophores”, Revue archeologique, 1886, vol. 1, online here, 288-9.
  6. [6]Hepding p.32. See also here.
  7. [7]Jurgen Blanssdorf, “The defixiones from the sanctuary of Isis”, in: R.L.Gordon &c, Magical Practice in the Latin West, p.168.
  8. [8]Fishwick, p.195
  9. [9]D, Fishwick, “The Cannophori and the March Festival of Magna Mater”, TAPA 97 (1966), 193-202. JSTOR.  P.195.

A new edition and translation of Hyginus, De munitionibus castrorum

An email from the editor, Duncan B. Campbell, tells me of a new edition, with facing translation, of an unusual text: ps.Hyginus, On fortifying a Roman camp (Liber de munitionibus castrorum).  He has self-published this, and it is available in eBook form for a trivial price through Amazon here (Amazon.co.uk here).

I must say when I received the email, my first question was “what on earth is this?”  It’s a rare author whom I have never heard of.

In fact this short text is one of a collection of ancient surveying texts, made in the 6th century, and preserved in the so-called Codex Arcerianus, preserved today and online in the Wolfenbüttel library in the Herzog August collection, under mysterious shelfmark “Codex Guelferbytensis 36.23 Aug. 2°”).  These are the “Gromatici” (groma-users), or “Agrimenores” (field measurers).  The groma is a Roman surveying stick, depicted on monuments. In fact part of one was found at Pompeii, I believe.

Few medieval surveyors would need to fortify a Roman camp.  The copies of the Arcerianus, therefore, always omit De munitionibus castrorum.

Top of folio 125r of the Codex Arcerianus – the title of Hyginus

Ps.Hyginus has been translated before.  Alan Richardson – Theoretical Aspects of Roman Camp and Fort Design (BAR, 2004), includes a 1925 translation of “De Munitionibus Castrorum” by Ian A. Richmond.  But few will have any access to this.

Likewise a translation is online: appendix 1 in Catherine M. Gilliver, “The Roman Art of War”, (PDF). PhD Thesis, is an English translation of De Munitionibus Castrorum, “based on the 1977 Teubner text of Grillone and the 1979 Budé text of Lenoir”.  No doubt this will do for many purposes.

Dr Campbell, however, has produced a new Latin text indicating all proposed emendations, and his version is no doubt superior.

Let us by all means encourage the production of translations at trivial prices online.

Share

New at Livius.org: a revised Zosimus translation

Zosimus, “Count of the fisc” in the 6th century, wrote an oddball history in 6 books, which only just reached us.  It was an oddball text because Zosimus was a pagan, and blamed Constantine for everything.  Although he wrote around 550, he had access to lost sources, which make him our only source for events in Britain after the death of Theodosius I in 396.  The sole surviving manuscript was kept on the closed shelves in the Vatican until modern times.

Long ago I placed online an English translation of this work, which I obtained with great difficulty.  My introduction to it is here.

Today I heard from the excellent Jona Lendering of Livius.org, who has tidied this up and added it to his marvellous site:

I have copied your scan of Zosimus and put it online. I have also

  • polished a part of the spelling (as you already indicated, it’s a bad reprint of a cheap book that does not even mention the name of the translator),
  • added chapters and sections according to the Budé edition (anchors for the page numbers have been inserted),
  • linked to relevant pages,
  • and wrote an introduction based on information from the Budé.

You will find it at

The public domain English translation appeared in 1814, but was itself a reprint of a 1684, probably very lax, translation.  A nice modern translation by Ridley exists, done for the Australian Byzantine series, but of course this is not public domain and so is known only to specialists.

Back in 2002 I requested a copy of Zosimus by interlibrary loan.  What arrived after a considerable delay was a bound photocopy of the openings, itself faint, and with the pages effectively back to front.  This I scanned.

A year later I discovered that a copy was in Oxford, in the Bodleian, and I mae a special trip there to find it.  It wasn’t in any normal part of the Bodleian.  I ended up going to a building that I’d never known about; and then being directed to an annex in a house in an obscure part of west Oxford.  The street was narrow and with quite peculiar architecture, and an odd roundabout-park at the end of the road.  I was the only visitor!  I photocopied what I needed, and left.  Years later I saw the street in an episode of Inspector Morse.

That was in 2003, I find.  Back then Google Books did not exist.  Today a copy of the 1814 printing can be found there, at this link.  But so can a copy of the 1684 volume, here!  An 1802 German translation is here.

Share

Notes and news

Here are a few items that I learned about over the last couple of weeks.

  •  De Gruyter have published an edition of the fragments of the Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Caesarea, ed. Martin Wallraff &c, with a translation by Nicholas Marinides.  The De Gruyter item is here.  A “teaser” extract is now available on the translators Academia.edu page here.  This is, of course, a very welcome addition to historical sources for the period, tho at $150 a pop I shall not i invest.
  •  Less expensive – indeed free for download online – is a translation of Book 3, chapters 1-30 of the Histories of John Cantacuzene (given as “John Kantakouzenos”; why not Ioannes Kantakouzenos, on the same logic?).  It’s a thesis by Brian McLaughlin, and it’s great to have available, and is online at Royal Holloway here.
  •  Another bunch of free translations can be found at the St George Orthodox Ministry blog, http://www.stgeorgeministry.com/category/translations/.  Homily 67 of Severus of Antioch; indeed quite a bit of Severus of Antioch.
  •  Finally another commercial item, which I happened to find quite useful in my work on Nicholas of Myra legends: John L. Hoh, Santa Claus: Is he for your child? 2011, eBook.  It’s padded out with all sorts of stuff, but I found it a useful version of many of the popular stories.  Not recommending it, you understand; but I didn’t know people were still publishing such things.

Apologies for slow correspondence.  I’ve had a winter bug.  Hopefully I can start catching up now!

Share

Some more notes on the Archko volume

Fake gospels have been composed continuously from the second century until our own times.  The object is either to convert Christians to something else, or to make money off them.

One interesting example, which I have discussed before, is the Archko Volume, a collection of “ancient documents” corroborating the events of the New Testament, but in reality composed by a rural American presbyterian minister named William Dennis Mahan and self-published in 1884.  It’s a fairly crude fake, but has remained in print since.  The intended victims appear to be rural American Christians with limited education, and it is still marketed to them now.  The author was caught and tried by his church, found guilty and suspended for a year.  But nobody was going to allow a money-spinner to go out of print, and after a quick revision to remove some of the more damning evidence, it went into a “second edition” which is what circulates today.

I’ve recently come across some more material about this item, telling us about the author, and also about why it is circulating today.

Firstly, I have always wondered if Mahan was an honest man who outsmarted himself.  Perhaps he tried to compose a historical novel, in epistolary form, and found his parishioners took it as real?  Once money changed hands, a poor clergyman might be trapped in the mistake.

Recently I came across a collection of materials from his presbytery, the Cumberland Presbytery, and this has an entry for W.D.Mahan, listing his appointments.

Until 1885 he was a minister of the New Lebanon Presbytery.  In that year we read:

1885
Suspended by New Lebanon Presbytery for one year.
[Source: Minutes of the New Lebanon Presbytery of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, September 25-29, 1885, pages 134-148]

1886
“Your committee to whom was referred the motion to grant W. D. Mahan a letter of dismission and recommendation after the term of his suspension expires, have had the subject under consideration, and in view of all the surrounding facts, and in view of the interests of the Church, we recommend the following:

Whereas, This Pres., at its session in Slater, Sept. 29th, 1885, did suspend from the functions of the ministry, for one year, W. D. Mahan; said one year terminating on the 29th of the present month; and

Whereas, The definite form of said suspension was more the result of sympathy for him and his family, than a desire for rigid administration of the law, and this sympathy being exercised under the hope that said W. D. Mahan would use all proper efforts to heal the wounds his course had inflicted; and,

Whereas, It now comes to the knowledge of this Pres., that he still occupies the same position, by the sale of his publications, and by negotiations to bring out new editions, therefore;

Resolved, That the suspension of the said W. D. Mahan, be, and the same is hereby declared indefinite, or, until he shall have complied with the law of the Church, as it applies in the case.”
[Source: Minutes of the New Lebanon Presbytery of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, September 10, 1886, pages 185-186]

I do not yet see online the source documents, but we need only wait.  A couple of other documents are reproduced at the same site, including the following:

After the suspension he made no effort to return to the pastorate, but lived quietly at the home of his son-in-law, a hotel keeper in Booneville. He declined to make any further statement regarding the part he had taken in the preparation of the book except to say when it was told him that the literary world pronounced it a forgery: ‘Well, I have been a much deceived and a much persecuted man.’

It would be interesting indeed to know what lies behind those words.  But even so, it is useful to hear this much.

The book has certainly been profitable.  I discovered today that an American TV preacher named Benny Hinn promoted its modern circulation until quite recently.  A blogpost by Tony Breeden of “Defending Genesis” in 2011 asked bluntly why.

Realizing that Mr. Hinn’s television broadcast reaches 200 countries worldwide and has hundreds of thousands if not millions of viewers, I hastily contacted his organization by phone…

But to no avail.  Breeden, who had no a-priori objection to Hinn, wrote a follow-up article at another blog later in the year here.  It seems that his experiences led him to conclude that Hinn also was a fraudster.  The correspondence does give the impression of dealing with a sales-oriented retail business organisation, rather than anything else.

Fortunately I find that the promotion has now vanished from Hinn’s site.  Mind you, at $50 a copy, the profit margin was pretty substantial.  Another blogger in 2011 remarked:

It’s a well-intentioned fraud, but it’s a fraud nonetheless. And you can buy it on Amazon (if you must) for $10, which is a fair bit less than Hinn’s $50.

I was just about to wrap-up, when I learned of something even more peculiar, on LinkedIn, of all places: the existence of a 38-minute film adaptation “Archko Confessions” made by someone named Douglas King.  According to IMDB he is a writer and director, known for Scrubbed (2014), A Second One Night Stand (2017) and This is Libby (2018).  Nice!  His LinkedIn profile says:

“Marketed to the Christian market”; of course.

But what did Christ say about all this?  Something about the love of money…?

Share

Please don’t contribute to Wikipedia

Another day, and another example of some quite interesting research which some intelligent person has inserted into a Wikipedia article.  I can only sigh.

Wikipedia is an example of the centralising trend of the internet, placing control in the hands of a handful of very rich men or companies.  All of them are of one background, outlook and politics.  All of them are terribly susceptible to pressure by certain political groups.  Not one of them has any attachment to any principle of free speech.  Not one of them has ever resisted attempts to silence people for their opinions or politics.  And all of those trends always go in one direction.

Tim Berners-Lee pointed out recently that all these sites, like Google or Facebook or Twitter, exist by sucking out the life of a previous free and varied internet.  If one website got a sudden urge to act like Hitler, it was easy enough to create another.  If one blogger went mad, there was always another.  Now we have monoliths, all under political control.

Don’t contribute.  If you have research, start a blog of notes and queries.  By all means get Wikipedia to point to it, to get the traffic.  But do not contribute to making the web centralised.

Suppression of information is endemic in our age.  Don’t make that easier.

Share