Numen (plural numina) is a Latin term for "divinity", "divine presence", or "divine will". The Latin authors defined it as follows:For a more extensive account, refer to Cicero writes of a "divine mind" (), a god "whose numen everything obeys", and a "divine power" () "which pervades the lives of men". It causes the motions and cries of birds during augury. In Virgil's recounting of the blinding of the one-eyed giant, Polyphemus, from the Odyssey, in his Aeneid, he has Odysseus and his men first "ask for the assistance of the great numina" ().3. 634. Reviewing public opinion of Augustus on the day of his funeral, the historian Tacitus reports that some thought "no honor was left to the gods" when he "established the cult of himself" () "with temples and the effigies of numina" (). Pliny the Younger in a letter to Paternus raves about the "power", the "dignity", and "the majesty"; in short, the "numen of history". Lucretius uses the expression ,T. Lucretius Carus, De Natura rerum, 3.144. or "bidding of the mind", where "bidding" is numen, not, however, the divine numen, unless the mind is to be considered divine, but as simply human will.
Since the early 20th century, numen has sometimes been compared with mana and treated as a remnant of a pre-animistic phase; that is, a belief system inherited from an earlier time. However, these ideas are now largely rejected within the scholarly literature. Numen is also used by sociologists to refer to the idea of magical power residing in an object, particularly when writing about ideas in the Western tradition.
Etymology and origin The 1st-century BCE Roman author Varro records that the term derives from ("nod, command, will"), and, similarly, the 2nd-century grammarian Festus defines as the "" ("the command and power of a god").Festus. De Verborum Significatione. p. 172. Michiel de Vaan, an Indo-Europeanist scholar, derives the term from the verb ("to nod") also underlying . If this proposal is accepted, the term is connected with the Proto-Indo-European root ("to nod"), whence also Ancient Greek ("," "to nod"). On the basis of its etymology, the classical scholar H. J. Rose provides the following definition of :
Thus, numen ("divinity") is not personified (although it can be a personal attribute) and should be distinguished from deus ("god")., freely available from Project Gutenberg
According to the classicist Kurt Latte, the term is first attested in the works of Accius and Gaius Lucilius, which date to the second half of the 2nd-century BCE. It is, however, unattested in earlier writings, such as the works of Plautus, Ennius, or Cato the Elder, and it is also absent from ancient religious texts. On this basis, Latte proposed that—due to the influence of Stoic philosophy—the term may have emerged as a translation of Ancient Greek (""). However, the classicist Tamás Nótári argues that the lack of proper attestation in the works of Ennius and Cato is perhaps attributable to the incomplete state of their surviving writings and it also the comedic plays of Plautus were inherently incongruent with esoteric religious concepts. Moreover, as noted by Latte himself, it is impossible to explains why the specific word would be generated to translate the Greek term.
The historian Rebecca Denova has proposed that the concept of the parallels concepts known from Etruscan culture, where the divine was often envisioned as a vague and amorphous force. According to the Etruscologist Lammert Bouke van der Meer, the term is the semantic equivalent of the Etruscan word , which is also attributed to gods, such as in the phrase (" of Nethuns"). However, the Etruscan conceptualization of their deities as abstract forces does not necessarily align with the archaic Roman understanding of , which itself most likely never denoted any animistic entities. Moreover, the exact meaning of Etruscan is itself not undisputed—there is also evidence that it is actually better equated with Latin ("spring, fountain").
Imperial cult of the Within the Imperial cult, the term perhaps referred to the divine power of a living emperor—in other words, it may have functioned as a means of worshiping a living emperor without literally calling him a god. Whereas the emperor possessed , they were not necessarily a themselves—Pliny the Younger, a 1st-century CE Roman author, explicitly warns against referring to the emperor as such, writing ("Nowhere should we flatter him [Domitian] as a god or as a " ("").Pliny the Younger. Panegyricus. 2.3. According to the classicist Duncan Fishwick, the attribution of to the emperor likely represented a declaration that they served as a mediator between the divine and humanity, fulfilling a role comparable to the Ancient Greek . The classicist J. C. Mann argues that, if is understood to mean something akin to "divine power," it is unclear how it could be attributed to a living emperor, given that Roman citizens were barred from worshipping the emperor as a god. Mann argues that it was not the emperor personally, but their enormous political power, including the ability to impose regulations on the worship of certain deities, which accorded them . Mann also suggests that worship of the imperial proliferated amongst the , who were perhaps more willing to ascribe divinity to the emperor.
One inscription from the Forum Clodii describes a series of animal sacrifices performed for Augustus and his stepson Tiberius at an altar dedicated to the of Augustus. The text only specifies the animal sacrificed in honor Tiberius, for whom a bull-calf ("") was slaughtered, though the classicist Ittai Gradel suggests that it is likely that steers were offered for Augustus, as the dedication of adult animals for the father and calves for the son would be congruent with the Roman tendency to match some aspect of the sacrificial animal with the characteristics of the recipient. If this theory were accepted, it would imply that Augustus and Tiberius themselves were the beneficiaries of the sacrifice and not the , which—Gradel argues—is perfectly reasonable, as, given that all animals are either male or female, none were fit for sacrifice to the , a neuter entity.
Gradel ultimately suggests that worship of the emperor's was fundamentally synonymous with worship of the emperor personally, citing the aforementioned passage wherein Caligula built a temple honoring his "own ," as this temple is otherwise described by Cassius Dio and Josephus as merely a temple to Caligula personally. Moreover, there are examples wherein dedications to the imperial were surrounded by statues depicting the imperial family, such as one inscription dated to 160 CE from Ostia, which propitiates the of the ("Augustan house," I. e. imperial family), and is also situated near a bust depicting Lucius Verus. Additional evidence perhaps derives from a section of the that reads "Holiday by decree of the Senate, because on this day Tiberius Caesar dedicated the altar to his father Divus Augustus."EDCS-38000281. This passage may indicate that worship of the alter of the Augustus was synonymous with worship of the emperor directly. However, Gradel concedes that this text is a later addition to the , not a snippet of the original version composed by Verrius Flaccus. Gradel suggests that, in the particular Praenestine community whence came this rendition of the calendar, the local authorities perhaps mistakenly assumed that a holiday was fashioned for this date, which was January 17, on account of their local ritual, rather than the actual reason, which was probably the marriage of Augustus to Livia on that same date.
Fishwick argues that, in certain circumstances, the emperor's was identical with their . In support of this theory, he notes a passage from the 1st-century BCE poet Horace, who describes the swearing of altars specifically for swearing oaths in the name of the of Augustus,Horace. Epistles. 2.1.15-16. which may parallel a similar practice wherein oaths were taken by the genius of the emperor. Yet, there are other instances where the two concepts are clearly distinct. For instance, certain texts record simultaneous dedications to the and of a single individual, such as one inscription from Aquincum dated to 138 CE, which reads "to the Augustan and the of Emperor Caesar Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus" (""). Moreover, a stone from Narbo records a dedication on behalf of an imperial cult wherein the of the emperors Augustus and Tiberius are invited to the altar of the of Augustus, thereby implying that these and the were separate entities.
Dedicatory inscriptions
Inscriptions referencing the imperial appear primarily in the northwestern portions of the empire, such as Narbonensis and the formerly Celtic provinces as a whole. In Roman Britain, worship of the imperial exists even among individuals that likely had not yet been extensively Romanized, sometimes within inscriptions that include deities of Celtic origin. For instance, one inscription from Camulodunum dedicated by a freedman named Imilico honors the imperial and a deity named Mercury Andescociuoucus. Most dedications to the imperial utilize the plural form , though, in Roman Africa, where dedications to the are generally rare, they primarily attest to the formula ("to the of the Augusti"). According to Mann, the prevalence of the plural form in dedications probably reflects Celtic cultural influence, as the Celts worshipped other deities as pluralities, such the triple-goddess Coventina. Dedications to the are also infrequent in the eastern and northeastern sections of the empire, and the few surviving inscriptions primarily utilize the formula "," which is itself first attested in the early third century CE. Similarly, Spain provides limited evidence for direct dedication to the , yet it does provide a plethora of examples of the aforementioned formula.
Dedications to the imperial did not refer to any specific emperor, with the exception of Caligula, who supposedly—according to the 1st-century CE Roman historian Suetonius—built a temple honoring his "own " ("").Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars 4. Gaius Caligula. 22.3. Yet, according to the classicist Christophe Goddard, this specific incident is likely intended to represent a breach of Roman custom, and thus it ultimately further proves the otherwise generic nature of the . Following the early years of the empire, the applicability of broadened to include the entire imperial family. Dedications from this time mention the entire Imperial household, such as one inscription dated to 55 CE from a balneum in Coela is directed towards the " of the house of Augustus" ("").
In general, during the reign of Augustus, inscriptions—including those that do not mention —often avoided abbreviating the term ; it was usually rendered in full as , . or . Over time, as imperial titles became longer, the abbreviated forms also became more common. Certain inscriptions abbreviate the plural to or , wherein the double or triple three most likely represents a dedication to the multiple reigning emperors. For instance, one Roman inscription from Greetland dated to 208 CE is directed towards the "," which perhaps refers to the reigning emperors Severus and Caracalla. The meaning of the abbreviation —in the context of the imperial —is unclear, though the RIB suggests that it referred specifically to the of the deceased emperors treated collectively., Commentary and notes. However, according to Fishwick, there is no other corresponding evidence from the Celtic provinces indicating any worship of deified past emperors to the exclusion of the current living rulers. Fishwick further suggests that the particular worship of the of deceased emperors would constitute an implicit challenge to the legitimacy of the current ruler, which would render the practice politically irresponsible and therefore conflict with the ultimate purpose of the imperial cult as a political tool of the emperors.