Picus Romana: A brief exegesis into the position of the Woodpecker of Mars in the Roman World

“Gaius Aelius Tubero bit the head off a live woodpecker out of respect for that woodpecker, respect for all woodpeckers, and for what the woodpecker represents in the the religious and civic Roman spheres.”

To ask anyone the question ‘Which animal raised Romulus and Remus?’, the answer will undoubtedly be that of ‘Lupa’, the She-Wolf. But there is another animal acting as parent to the mythic siblings in this story, less commonly featured in its tellings. Unlike Lupa the She-Wolf, it does not feature on the front cover of Latin textbooks, nor does it feature nearly as prominently upon the iconography of Rome. It is similarly absent from much of the historiography of Rome and accounts of Romulus’ life, even accounts written in antiquity1. At the time of writing, it does not appear in the Wikipedia entries for ‘Founding of Rome’ or ‘Romulus and Remus’, nor on relevant statues the world over. So I must conclude that this creature is overlooked in the popular telling of the story compared to the she-wolf. Nevertheless, Picus, the Woodpecker of Mars is still a worthy subject of study, revealing an intriguing relationship with the Roman worldview through a variety of stories. The study of this bird, which shared in the parental duties of Lupa, by bringing food to Romulus and Remus, in its literal, conceptual, and metaphorical forms, as viewed by the Roman people, is an underappreciated area of research in Roman studies, and begets questions, both wide and narrow in scope.

Taking Dionysius of Halicarnassus as an example source of mystery, referencing much of Lupa, and the more likely reality of being a human prostitute2, but remaining quiet in regards to Picus. This is made more interesting by Dionysius’ earlier story of an omen that appeared to Aeneas during the building of a town for the Roman settlers, in which a wolf and an eagle built a fire in the nearby forest, whilst a fox attempted to put the fire out3. Dionysius clearly does not object to including stories of woodland critters in his historical narrative, so his omission of the Picus is curious, and merits questions. Nevertheless, it is not yet possible to fully and correctly depict the formulation and development of the Romulus narrative, nor conclude with confidence the origins being either Greek or aboriginal in nature4, and further impossible to conclude the reasoning for each individual work we possess to have included and dwelled upon the divinity of the Picus. Nevertheless, it is apparent from preceding motifs of wolf motherhood5, woodpecker veneration, woodpecker symbolism and its placement in the Roman worldview, that the woodpecker of Mars is a significant, and scholarly neglected, feature of the myth that ties the Roman race to pre-Roman Italy, and holds a place in Roman faith and culture that warrants further study. This brief exegesis is only a principle step into that study.

While the Picus’ depiction in the narrative of Romulus’ childhood, is certainly not as prevalent as Lupa’s, our understanding of the attitudes of both Roman and aboriginal people of Italia towards the Picus can still come from a breadth of sources. We have what we could consider several lateral narratives, that mention and focus on, to varying degrees, its position in the mythos of the natural world the Romans regarded themselves to inhabit, most notably the stoic study and commentary on Nature by Gaius Plinius Secundus. Pliny the Elder associates the woodpecker with authoritative birds by referring to Pici as within the genus of ‘uncorum unguium’, the birds of hooked talons6. This would naturally include birds of prey, such as the kite and the aquila, with obvious connections within the Roman spheres of augury and divinity7, but the aquila particularly holding strong connections to power and authority. Pliny, in his iconic Stoicism-permeated style, meshes informative (Though often inaccurate) zoology, such as his factoid that there are some woodpeckers that build their nest in the shape of a ‘cyathus’, a Hellenic cup with a long ladle-like handle, with deeper ramifications into how the divine natural world functions. The divine forces that weave throughout the natural world are ruminated on by Pliny, as he informs us of his belief that for some supernatural reasons, the woodpecker is never found in the area surrounding Tarento.

“picus Martius in Tarentino agro negatur esse”8

At the time of Pliny’s writing, Tarento was a simple Greek colonial city, and surrounding fields or districts such as Maeca and Pollia, in the province of Apulia et Calabria in Southern Italy9, with efforts being made to improve the population of the ager Tarentinus being made for many years prior. This population growth plan, albeit not hugely successful, was, in no unsubstantial part, driven by the settling of military veterans, such as those of Emperors Trajanus and Nero, and others, including the veterans of the triumvirs, though Tacitus relates that the settling was limited, due to the clash of cultures, and non-domestic inclinations of the veterans10. It is an entertainable theory, that Pliny included this line as a sort of postcard, advertising the tranquillity of the Tarentine fields, by indicating that Mars has a limited presence in those lands. The possible connotations that fact could have in the mind of a military veteran seeking a retirement destination are self-evident, if at present unconfirmed.

Contextually, Pliny’s providings of this woodpecker factoid are within a section of his book that discusses the peculiarity of various species of bird being wholly absent from some geographic areas. So much so, that the importing of these species, which would include the woodpecker being imported into Tarento, the bird would immediately perish. Pliny stoically questions; from where did this invidia, this envy, from Nature come? He has no answer to give us, other than the implication that Nature has designed it so, for unknown mythic reasons. It is unfortunate that no augur seems to have given him a suitable answer.

Pliny often curates his knowledge from sources who are experts in their fields. Which in this following instance is the field of augury; divination of the will and plans the gods have made, through the study of birds. One such beginner’s lesson to provide highlighting of the woodpecker’s significance in augury featured in Pliny’s Natural History is that the woodpecker, among a select few other species, hatch from their egg tail first. He presents this ornithological factoid as if it comes from Hylas’ mouth, rather than his own.

Externorum de auguriis peritissime scripsisse Hylas nomine putatur. Is tradit…

“Of the foreigners, the most skilled work on the subject of augury to have been written is put together by one by the name of Hylas, he narrates…”11

This would appear to be one of many instances of Pliny reciting the opinions of his sources without lending them the legitimacy of his own authority, which in this case is just as well given the fact that woodpeckers, like seemingly all birds, pip and emerge from their eggs beak first. Though of course, the veracity of this factoid is inconsequential, when it is considered that its plausibility contributes to the supremacy of the woodpecker within the esteem of the augurs, particularly the most excellent and notable augur Hylas12.

Pliny tells us, with some excitement, that he cannot pass over a tale he has heard of these birds, which he believes are principle of all birds to augurs13, since the days of Latium and its first king, King Picus, son of Saturn, grandfather of Latinus, whence they receive their name. He relates a story of a Picus woodpecker landing upon the head of Gaius Aelius Tubero, a praetor of the city of Rome at some time preceding 216BC14, whilst he was carrying out justice in the forum. The bird was so docile, it could be gently grasped in his hand. At seeing this prodigious event, the nearby foretellers (vates) informed him that fate had thrust a dilemma upon him at this moment. If the bird were released from his hand (si dimitteretur), great misery would befall (the Republic). However, if the bird were killed (si exanimaretur), then the misery would only be felt by the praetor himself. At this, Tubero makes the difficult decision to rip the bird apart with his bare hands. Pliny’s record states:

“et ille avem protinus concerpsit.”

If anyone fainthearted would prefer to read the word ‘concerpsit’ as that he simply plucked the feathers from the bird, so as to craftily trick fate into affording ruin to neither him nor to the state, this story is given to us also, and indeed quite probably to Pliny himself15, from Valerius Maximus’ Facta Et Dicta Memorabilia, or Memorable Deeds and Sayings. Valerius’ preserved choice of words for this act of avicide is instead:

“morsu suo in conspectu senatus necavit”16

Which is the alternative narrative that rather than using his hands to murder the woodpecker, he instead bit its head off. It probably did not matter either way for woodpecker, but what both sources agree upon is that misery did indeed befall Tubero. As per Pliny’s surviving account, via ‘nec multo postimplevit prodigium’ , describes that, before long, the result of the prodigy had been implemented. While Valerius provides further details, being more explicit regarding the Republic falling into a terrible state, and adding the caveat that whichever party would not encounter ruin, would instead become very fortunate, adding further gallantry to this tale of woodpecker murder, he recounts the effects of the prodigy. Being that the Aelia family lost seventeen special men of ‘eximiae fortitudinis’ or exemplary fortitude at the Battle of Cannae. Valerius’ felt that the dictators of the early 1st Century BC mocked this sort of behaviour as stupid. This is a particular opinion demanding considerable further study, relating to the opinions of the dictators on haruspicy and Roman values.

We have the story of a second Praetor Urbanus also named Aelius, interacting with a Picus of Mars whilst he enforced the law in the city. This brief encounter featuring P. Aelius Paetus is from the woefully fragmented De Gente Populi Romani from M. Terentius Varro17. Unfortunately, we know nothing about this story, other than the status of the man involved, that the woodpecker’s species was specifically and deliberately referred to as Martian, and that the woodpecker flew towards and sat on the Praetor’s head. Nevertheless, what we can take from all of this is that the act of a woodpecker landing on the body of a magistrate is an event that is worth recording, or even instead, holds a strong poetic association with matters of law and fortune. Regardless of the veracity of the bird actually perching on a Praetor, it is an acceptable and meaningful notion to believe in the Roman mind.

Due to the ambiguity of the date of praetorship of Gaius Aelius Tubero, we know only that it occurred prior to the date of Cannae 216BC, it is unknown if Tubero was alive to be aware of the story of Publius Claudius Pulcher also murdering sacred birds some 33 years prior to Cannae. The story given is that prior to the naval Battle of Drepana, P. Claudius Pulcher would observe the tradition of inspecting the behaviour of the sacred chickens, particularly their willingness to feed. In this instance, however, the portent on this occasion was bad, as the chickens did not wish to leave their cages. On being told this, Pulcher threw the cages into the sea, suggesting, as they would not eat, perhaps they would prefer a drink181920. This, if it had any, had exceptionally negative consequences, given the poor outcome of the Battle of Drepana. Whilst in both instances, innocent fowl lost their lives, but the difference being that Pulcher drowned the birds in an act disrespectful to the practice of augury. Whereas Tubero bit the head of a live woodpecker off, out of respect for that woodpecker, respect for all woodpeckers, and for what the woodpecker represents in the religious and civic Roman spheres. However, it must be mentioned that many of the surviving sources of the Pulchers’ impiety each have their own unique reason for being fabricated, the separate reasons for Cicero and Suetonius to each wish to discredit the Claudian gens are obvious21, and it cannot be ruled out that this story may be an invention for that very purpose.

Remaining with our lateral anecdotes, we have inherited a small passage within Plutarch’s Roman Questions22, which is, when simply translated: “Why do the Latins revere the woodpecker, and strictly refrain from eating it?” We know that the Latins and Romans consumed other small birds, and that the woodpecker was even a delicacy to the Greeks for some time23, and so the fact that the flesh of the Picus was strictly prohibited for the Latins was a specific and deliberate practice. Plutarch provides four distinct possible explanations. First, due to reverence to King Picus who gives prophecies to those who seek his guidance in his avian form. He questions that this may be simply fantastical, and instead the reason is the second one: due to the tale of Romulus and Remus, and the woodpecker’s benevolent assistance to them in bringing them food. Thirdly being that simply the bird is sacred to Ares, and finally that the bird is distinctly virtuous, it is courageous (εὐθαρσὴς) and has an impressively strong beak. Plutarch, whilst not explicit, seems to consider the second answer to be the most influential in the reverence of the Picus by the Latins (Λατῖνοι), which is interesting, given the fact that this particular question within Plutarch’s Roman Questions is rather unique in that it concerns the Latins, rather than the Romans. Plutarch, elsewhere, within his Parallel Lives attests that the woodpecker is sacred to Mars, but also held in special veneration by the Latins, who took the woodpecker’s association with the children as confirmation of the virgin Rhea Silvia’s declaration that Mars was responsible for their immaculate conception24. There is a clear view from Plutarch, that the woodpecker of Mars is tied to the nature of Italy, so much the identity of Rome, but even the Roman race’s aboriginal ancestors. Which is a view that can be shown to pervade through more than just Plutarch’s numerous writings.

This pre-Roman connotation is an interesting revelation. It appears that the Romans not only took the woodpecker to be undeniably the sacred bird of Mars, but in some contexts, particularly that of the Sacred Spring (ver sacrum), the woodpecker may even arguably be regarded to be the zooanthropic manifestation of Mars, much as the eagle can be considered the animal form of Jupiter. It is arguable that the Romans took first, this avian facet of Mars, and individualized it into a deity in its own right. See the later Plutarch’s Life of Numa for a reference to the deity Picus, seen as a demi-god, something akin to a Satyr25. As a next step, they humanized this individual god, into making him one of their early kings. I argue that the sacred/zooanthropic bird almost certainly precedes the latter two facets (The king, and the god) as it seems to have been the sacred bird of Mars and its cognate gods of war across all of Italy. This is evidenced by its depiction on the Eugubine Tablets26, showing an association with the Umbri people, and with the Aequi of the ancient city of Tora (Sometimes given the attribute Matiena)27. Nevertheless, there is the compelling argument that the divine connotations of the woodpecker vastly precede Roman culture, particularly due to an association with not only Mars or Ares, but also Jove. The arguments are simple, given the woodpecker’s ever-enduring association with rain, and its thunderous sounds made against distant trees.

The Picus is a trinity in the Roman cultural fabric. First, it is the bird, an embodiment of Mars and related pagan deities. Second, the individual Picus deity. Third, it is the man, and either ancestor of the people of Rome. It is an important symbol for the cultural heritage of the Roman people, and never “Just a woodpecker”. This significance demands that the woodpecker receive prominence in the story of the founding of Rome, which resides in some tellings of the story, but has mostly been forgotten in the popular conception. While this sacred bird is overlooked en masse by people of today, and perhaps those of Roman antiquity, it is a fundamental feature that links Roman identity, through its heights, and its urban founding, to that of the aboriginal past of Italy.

Bibliography

Athenaeus of Naucratis. Deipnosophistae.

Dionysius of Harlicarnassus. Roman Antiquities.

Ennius. Annales.

Livy. Ab Urbe Condita Libri.

Marcus Tullius Cicero. De Natura Deorum.

Marcus Terentius Varro. De Vita Populi Romani.

Ovid. Fasti.

Pliny The Elder. Naturalis Historia.

Plutarch. De Fortuna Romanorum.

Plutarch. Parallel Lives.

Plutarch. Roman Questions.

Polybius. Histories.

Suetonius. De Vita Caesarum.

Tacitus. Annals.

Valerius Maximus. Facta Et Dicta Memorabilia.

Bloch, R. The Origins of Rome, London 1964, plate 6;

Harisson, Jane. “Bird and Pillar Worship in Connection with Ouranian Divinities”, in Trans. Third Intern. Congre. Hist. Relig., Oxford. 1908.

Scullard, H. The Etruscan Cities and Rome, London 1967, plate 92.

Tennant, P. M. W. The Lupercalia and the Romulus and Remus Legend. In Acta Classica XXXI. 81–93. University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg. 1988.

Themis. A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion. By Jane Ellen Harrison. Cambridge: at the University Press, 1912.

Wiseman, Timothy Peter. Clio’s cosmetics: three studies in Greco-Roman literature. Leicester: Leicester University Press. 1979.

Notes

1 Our fragments from Quintus Ennius’ annals do mention Lupa a number of times, but no Picus. Cassios Dio is the same. Dionysius features no woodpeckers. Livy mentions Lupa, but no Picus. Livy, as do others, goes on to mention the more rational and secular reading of the myth, that the she-wolf was actually a sobriquet of the human prostitute Laurentia. Book Three of Ovid’s Fasti mentions the woodpecker even before the She-wolf, and establishes it firmly as the bird of Mars, to whom the book, as it concerning the month of March, is dedicated (Ov. Fast. 3.37). Furthermore, Plutarch makes mention of the woodpecker and its sanctity held by Mars in three separate bodies of work, in De Fortuna Romanorum, Roman Questions, and his Parallel Lives. We have no idea regarding the inclusion of the Picus in the earliest known history of Rome, recorded by Pictor, due to his work being lost.

2 Dionysius. Roman Antiquities. I. 79–84

3 Dionysius. Roman Antiquities. I. 59

4 Tennant, 81–90.

5 For the earliest proof of the wolf mother motif, dating from the first half of the 4th Century BC, see Bloch, plate 6 H, and Scullard, plate 92. The remoteness from Rome, both geographically and depiction of a single child, is evidence that this relates to a predecessor to the Roman tradition.

6 See Plin. Nat. 10. 11 for Pliny’s distinction between the three genera of birds based on footshape.

7 The kite has connections to divinities preceding Rome and of foreign contemporaries, most famously Isis of Egypt, which is often a dire omen, should it feed on something other than meat. The aquila, or eagle, is one of the foremost symbols of Jupiter and, by extension, both auspicious wisdom and imperial strength.

8 Plin. Nat. 10. 41 “It is said that in the territory of Tarentum, the woodpecker of Mars is never found.”

9 It had overtaken a nearby, but originally separate Roman colony named Neptunia as it became a city under two centuries prior in 89BC

10 Tac. Ann. 14.27

11 Plin. Nat. 10. 18

12 Unfortunately, outside of Pliny’s mention of Hylas, we know nothing else of this author.

13 Plin. Nat. 10. 20

14 For the knowledge, or lack thereof regarding the date of his praetorship, see the corroboration/source of this story given by Valerius Maximus 5.6.4

15 We have to consider the arduous reading habits of Plinius, as noted by his nephew.

16 Valerius Maximus 5.6.4

17 Varro de vita pop. Rom. 3.

18 Valerius Maximus 1.4.6. Provided as a fragment by Januarius Nepotianus in likely the 5th century, but possibly earlier.

19 Cicero, de natura deorum, 2.7.

20 Suetonius, Tib. 2.

21 Cicero has a noteworthy rivalry with P. Clodius Pulcher, while Suetonius’ historical verdict on Tiberius, in the section where this story sits, is very clear, and famously negative.

22 Plut. Roman Questions. 21.

23 Athenaeus of Naucratis’ Deipnosophistae, Book 9, 369.

24 Plut. Life of Romulus. 4

25 Plut. Life of Numa. 15.

26 Eugebine Tablet VI. Line 3. as just one such example.

27 The historical basis for this is within Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.14, archaeologically speaking, the pelasgic walls that are described, upon which the woodpecker prophesied, have been unearthed.

Do you have a suggestion for a future topic? Do you have an idea to share with your friends? Send us a message and follow the Durham University Classics Society on Twitter (@DUClassSoc) and Facebook (@DUClassics Society) to keep up with this blog and our other adventures!