Morphology

Furor, -oris ➚ 1. Madness 2. Rage 3. Inspired frenzy

Abstract male noun derived from fŭro + the Latin suffix -or.

Etymology

Furo: intransitive verb meaning to be mad, to rage.

There are two possible reconstructive hypotheses.

1) A first hypothesis would derive the term from the Proto-Indo-European root *bheur-, indicating rapid movement. The same root gives rise to bhuráti (to move quickly) in Sanskrit and to φύρω (to mix, to mingle) in Ancient Greek.

2) A second derivational hypothesis is that the original root is *dhus-. This root gives rise to θυιάς (one of the names that maenads can have) and θυμός (life force, but with a polyform meaning) in Greek.

However, De Vaan has pointed out that the historical-phonetic law whereby *i,*u > e,o in front of *-rV- would prevent the root from ending in *-us- or *-ur-, ruling out both of the above-mentioned options. The etymology of the term therefore remains uncertain.

Testimonies

The term furor ➚ has a vast semantic scope. Speaking of meaning, the term is associated with the Greek word μανία ➚ ➚ and certain related terms, such as μένος ➚. Analysing the religious pertinence of furor ➚, it is useful to proceed by taking into account the Greek antecedent and their semantic correspondences.

As in the Homeric epics, the term μένος ➚ repeatedly appears to indicate warlike fury, furor ➚ in Latin is presented foremost as a sort of superhuman energy that seizes the warrior at the moment of combat. The furor ➚ of the warrior, just as in archaic Greece, is linked to the intervention of a deity. An emblematic case in this respect is what happens to Turnus in the Aeneid:

Verg. Aen. 12. 676-680 ➚

iam iam fata, soror, superant, absiste morari;
quo deus et quo dura vocat Fortuna sequamur.
stat conferre manum Aeneae, stat, quidquid acerbi est,
morte pati, neque me indecorem, germana, videbis
amplius. hunc, oro, sine me furere ante furorem.

(Now, my sister, now Fate triumphs: cease to hinder; where God and cruel Fortune call, let us follow! I am resolved to meet Aeneas, resolved to bear in death all its bitterness; no longer, sister, will you behold me shamed. Let me first, I beg, give vent to this madness)(transl. H.R. Fairclough)

In this case, Turnus asks to be allowed to give vent to his furor ➚, which had previously been placed in his soul by a Fury. It is interesting to see a second passage to note the similarities between Greek and Latin literature in the physical effects that furor ➚/μένος ➚ produces in heroes:

Verg. Aen. 7. 456-462 ➚>

Sic effata facem iuveni coniecit et atro
lumine fumantis fixit sub pectore taedas.
olli somnum ingens rumpit pavor, ossaque et artus
perfundit toto proruptus corpore sudor.
arma amens fremit, arma toro tectisque requirit;
saevit amor ferri et scelerata insania belli,
ira super

(So saying, she hurled at the youth a torch, and fixed in his breast the brand, smoking with lurid light. A monstrous terror broke his sleep, and the sweat, bursting from all his frame, drenched bone and limb. For arms he madly shrieks; arms he seeks in couch and chamber; lust of the sword rages in him, the accursed frenzy of war, and resentment crowning all)(transl. H.R. Fairclough)

It is interesting to note that the symptomatology of Turnus' fury closely resembles examples from Homeric poetry (see e.g. Hom. Il. 15. 607-608) and Greek tragedy (see e.g. Eur. HF. 931-934). Moreover, it is relevant to highlight that Turnus became furious due to the intervention of Allecto, the goddess who can etymologically and culturally be linked to the Greek Λύσσα ➚. The term Λύσσα ➚ appeared firstly in Homer as a synonym for μένος ➚ (see e.g. Hom. Il. 9. 237-239), and then it is personified into an actual deity in Euripides' Heracles, where she is responsible for Heracles' homicidal madness (see Eur. HF. 833-837). In this sense, a close correlation is also demonstrated between the Latin terminological pair Allecto - furor ➚ and the Greek terminological pair Λύσσα ➚ - μανία ➚ ➚/μένος ➚. The main difference between furor ➚ and μένος ➚, however, lies in the different moral meanings in the two cultures: whereas in the Homeric context μένος ➚ was an enhancement of the hero's strength without any ethical connotation, in the Latin texts it always leads to disaster. In this regard, the term furor ➚ often appears in correlation with the terms wrath (ira ➚) and violence (violentia ➚), giving it a profoundly negative connotation. In this sense, it is no coincidence that Horace poses as alternative pax ➚ and furor ➚, praising Augustus for having made the former triumph:

Hor. Carm. 4. 15. 17-20 ➚

custode rerum Caesare non furor
civilis aut vis exiget otium,
non ira, quae procudit ensis
et miseras inimicat urbis.

(With Caesar in charge of affairs, peace will not be driven out by civic madness or violence, or by the anger that beats out swords and makes cities wretched by turning them against one another)(transl. N. Rudd)

Moreover, furor ➚ linked to violence and murder could also be perceived as explicitly impious, as demonstrated by the case leading to the murder of Ti. Gracchus, a sacrosanctus ➚ tribune of the plebs. In the narration of the episode, Plutarch (Ti. Gracch. 21.3.) shows how the act was not simply a political matter but also a religious one: the murdered tribune is referred to as “inviolable and holy” (ἄσυλος ➚ καὶ ἱερός ➚), while the murderer is referred to as “accursed” (ἐναγής ➚). In the late republic then, when killing inconvenient political enemies became the norm, Cicero adopted a double ideological strategy. On the one hand, Cicero tried to untie the idea of political murder from the religious sphere. However, on the other hand, he tied his political enemies to the idea of impious furor ➚ to put them in a bad light. This is particularly clear about Catiline: even if Cicero is the one who sets out to kill the tribune Catiline, it is Catiline who is repeatedly associated with the idea of furor ➚ in the Catilinarians. This is particularly clear from the very incipit of the work:

Cic. Cat. 1. 1 ➚

Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

(In heaven’s name, Catiline, how long will you take advantage of our forebearance? How much longer yet will that madness of yours make playthings of us? When will your unbridled effrontery stop vaunting itself?) (transl. C. MacDonald)

Cicero in this context takes the idea of furor ➚ as an anti-religious – and anti-Roman – sentiment and uses it rhetorically against his political opponent. The idea of furor ➚ can thus be shifted as required, but it always identifies someone or something that must be negatively connoted on different levels. Moving on in the analysis, a further meaning that the term furor ➚ can have in the religious field is that of prophetic possession. Exactly like the Greek word μανία ➚ ➚, furor ➚ identifies the state of possession in which a prophetess falls while foretelling. In this regard, Cicero gives an accurate description of how furor ➚ worked in the prophetic sphere:

Cic. Div. 1. 4 ➚

Et cum duobus modis animi sine ratione et scientia motu ipsi suo soluto et libero incitarentur, uno furente, altero somniante, furoris divinationem Sibyllinis maxime versibus contineri arbitrati eorum decem interpretes delectos e civitate esse voluerunt. Ex quo genere saepe hariolorum etiam et vatum furibundas praedictiones, ut Octaviano bello Cornelii Culleoli, audiendas putaverunt.

(And since they thought that the human mind, when in an irrational and unconscious state, and moving by its own free and untrammelled impulse, was inspired in two ways, the one by frenzy and the other by dreams, and since they believed that the divination of frenzy was contained chiefly in the Sibylline verses, they decreed that ten three men should be chosen from the State to interpret those verses. In this same category also were the frenzied prophecies of soothsayers and seers, which our ancestors frequently thought worthy of belief—like the prophecies of Cornelius Culleolus, during the Octavian War) (transl. W.A. Falconer)

In this passage, Cicero explains clearly how prophecies can only be generated in an unconscious individual. Therefore, this person must be in a state either of sleep or in the grip of furor ➚. furor ➚ is thus that condition in which the prophetess finds herself when she is possessed by a deity. The deity in question uses the prophetess as an empty vessel to speak through her. A more vivid description of this state can be found in poetry. A good example can be found in the description of Apollo's possession of the Sibyl, in the Aeneid:

Verg. Aen. 6. 98-103 ➚

Talibus ex adyto dictis Cymaea Sibylla
horrendas canit ambages antroque remugit,
obscuris vera involvens: ea frena furenti
concutit et stimulos sub pectore vertit Apollo.
Ut primum cessit furor et rabida ora quierunt,
incipit Aeneas heros.

(In these words the Cumaean Sibyl chants from the shrine her dread enigmas and booms from the cavern, wrapping truth in darkness—so does Apollo shake the reins as she rages, and ply the goad beneath her breast. As soon as the frenzy ceased and the raving lips were hushed, Aeneas the hero begins) (transl. H.R. Fairclough)

In this passage, the Sybil of Cumae is in a state of possession that is called furor ➚. Even the reins are characterised by the adjective furens ➚. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the lexicon related to furor ➚ is often found in correlation with the lexical family of rabies ➚. This term has essentially the same meanings as furor ➚ and the semantic fields of the two words overlap. It is no coincidence that they are often used as synonyms, sometimes appearing together to give greater force to the enunciative situation. In this respect, two examples in Lucan are of note. About the furor ➚ linked to the violence of war, a sentence is particularly emblematic:

Luc., 7. 551 ➚

Hic furor, hic rabies, hic sunt tua crimina, Caesar.

(This place comprised the rage and madness and wickedness of Caesar)(transl. J.D. Duff)

In this sentence, the poet Lucan expresses all his contempt for Julius Caesar, connoting him with two terms that emphasise his unbridled violence. From this example, it is possible to conclude that the ethical negativity inherent in the term furor ➚ can be applied to the term rabies ➚ too. On the other hand, a second passage shows how the term rabies ➚ can also be substituted for the furor ➚ to indicate prophetic possession. In this specific case, it is Appius who questions the prophetess:

Luc. 5. 208-213 ➚

Tum pectore vatis
inpactae cessere fores, expulsaque templis
prosiluit; perstat rabies, nec cuncta locutae
quem non emisit superest deus. Illa feroces
torquet adhuc oculos totoque vagantia caelo
lumina, nunc voltu pavido, nunc torva minaci.

(Now the doors gave way when the priestess dashed her breast against them, and forth she rushed, driven from the temple. The frenzy abides; and the god, whom she has not shaken off, still controls her, since she has not told all her tale. She still rolls wild eyes, and eyeballs that roam over all the sky; her features are never quiet, now showing fear, and now grim with menacing aspect)(transl. J.D. Duff)

In addition to the semantic overlapping between furor ➚ and rabies ➚, this passage makes it possible to note how all descriptions of persons seized by furor ➚ are similar. This is not an innovation of Roman literature: descriptions of the symptoms of Greek μανία ➚ ➚ (drooling at the mouth, rolling eyes, heat in the body, etc.) are also repeated similar to each other as far back as Homer. Nevertheless, a difference can be found in the way possession occurs. In Greece, divine possession occurs through enthusiasm (ἐνθουσιασμός ➚): μανία ➚ ➚ is thus caused by the god entering the person's body. The term entheus ➚ exists in Latin, but it is mainly used to indicate possession of an initiatory-ritual type (see e.g. Mart. 11. 84. 3-4). Concerning the Sibyl, Virgil (Aen. 6. 50) prefers the use of the verb adflo ➚ as if the god inhaled a divine breath inside the possessed person rather than entering it himself. Moreover, an ἐνθουσιασμός ➚ did not take place about Turnus either: to make him mad, Allecto plunges an ember into his chest (Verg. Aen., 7. 445-457). In this sense, while the effects of μανία ➚ ➚ and furor ➚ are almost identical, how they are induced in humans may differ between the two cultures. Proceeding with the analysis of meanings, it is important to note how the term furor ➚ can also identify the passion that seizes individuals who are possessed during collective or initiatory deliriums. Again, there is an overlap with the meanings of the Greek word μανία ➚ ➚. In the field of poetry, three examples are given by Statius in the Thebaid:

1)Stat. Theb. 1. 328-329 ➚

Ogygiis ululata furoribus antra
deserit et pingues Baccheo sanguine colles.

(He leaves the glades where Ogygian madness howls and hills fat with Bacchic gore)

2)Stat. Theb. 3. 188-190 ➚

hic gemitus Thebis, nec tempore clarius illo
Phoenissae sonuere domus, cum lassa furorem
vicit et ad comitum lacrimas expavit Agave.

(Neither did Phoenician homes echo more loudly when weary Agave overcame her madness and took fright at her companions’ tears)

3)Stat. Theb. 7. 649-651 ➚

Quis tibi Baccheos, Eunaee, relinquere cultus,
quis lucos, vetitus quibus emansisse sacerdos,
suasit et assuetum Bromio mutare furorem?

(Who persuaded you, Eunaeus, to leave Bacchus’ worship and the groves away from which his priest must not pass a night and to change a madness used to Bromius?) (transl. D.R. Shackleton Bailey)

In the first passage the subject is Polynices. In this case, furor is used to indicate the places where the σπαραγμός ➚ (the Bacchic ritual of the dismemberment of a sacrificial victim) took place. In the second passage, the elder Aletes lists all the sufferings of the city of Thebes, among which he mentions the murder of King Pentheus by his mother Agave. Agave had been made insane by Dionysus and was in the grip of a Bacchic delirium when she killed her son. Agave’s delirium is rendered by the poet with the term furor ➚. In these verses, Agave regains consciousness from her furor ➚ and bursts into tears realising what she had committed. Finally, in the third passage, the narrator addresses Eunaeus, wondering who convinced him to abandon the cult of Bacchus. Once again, the Bacchic cult is identified by the word furor ➚. From all these examples, it emerges how the word furor ➚ can be associated with the possession of Dionysus and the ecstatic rites that ensued. It is relevant to point out that the term can also be found in prose authors who describe it as a historically attestable phenomenon. However, unlike in Greece, this kind of manifestation was explicitly forbidden (or strictly regulated) in Rome by the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus of 186 B.C. What happened in that period is narrated by Livy. Thanks to his description, it is possible to get an idea of what perception the Romans had of bacchic furor ➚. Livy (39. 16. 5.) defines, through the consul's words, the state of the participants in those rites as furor ➚ or libido ➚. Moreover, according to the historian's description, the participants in the Bacchanalia ➚ seized by these two sentiments were organising an unholy conspiracy (impia ➚ coniuratio ➚) against the state (39. 16. 3.). Although we cannot know how much of what Livy says was real and how much was propaganda, it is clear how bacchic furor ➚, associated with the idea of libido ➚ and impiety and the danger brought to the state, was not at all well regarded in Rome. In this sense, it is interesting to quote Livy's description of what took place at these gatherings:

Liv. 39. 8. 6-8 ➚

cum vinum animos mosset, et nox et mixti feminis mares, aetatis tenerae maioribus, discrimen omne pudoris exstinxissent, corruptelae primum omnis generis fieri coeptae, cum ad id quisque quo natura pronioris libidinis esset paratam voluptatem haberet. nec unum genus noxae, stupra promiscua ingenuorum feminarumque erant, sed falsi testes falsa signa testamentaque et indicia ex eadem officina exibant; 8venena indidem intestinaeque caedes, ita ut ne corpora quidem interdum ad sepulturam exstarent. multa dolo pleraque per vim audebantur. occulebat vim quod prae ululatibus tympanorumque et cymbalorum strepitu nulla vox quiritantium inter stupra et caedes exaudiri poterat.

(When drink had aroused passions, and darkness and the intermingling of males and females, older and younger, had eliminated all moral judgment, depravity of every kind first began to emerge, since they had laid on for them the gratification of that sexual desire to which they were by nature more inclined. Nor was promiscuous sex between freeborn men and women the only form of immorality. There was also perjured testimony in court, forged seals and wills, and manufactured evidence, all emanating from the same workshop; and from there, too, came cases of poisoning and murders within families, sometimes with the bodies not even coming to light to make burial possible. Many offenses involved swindles and most of them violence. The violence was hidden, however, because amid the fornication and bloodshed no outcry could be heard over the shouting and the beating of drums and cymbals)(transl. J.C. Yardley)

It is clear from this description that the Bacchanalia ➚ were foreign to the ideology of the Roman mos ➚ maiorum ➚. Therefore, while in Greece this kind of ritual were practised until at least Plutarch's time, in Rome they were always opposed and seen as a religious deviance. Moreover, the connotation of bacchic furor ➚ as dangerous for women's modesty is further confirmed by the fact that the term can be used to indicate uncontrolled amorous passion too. The most emblematic example of this is Dido's uncontrollable love for Aeneas:

Verg. Aen. 4. 66-69 ➚

est mollis flamma medullas
interea et tacitum vivit sub pectore vulnus.
uritur infelix Dido totaque vagatur
urbe furens, qualis coniecta cerva sagitta.

(All the while the flame devours her tender heartstrings, and deep in her breast lives the silent wound. Unhappy Dido burns, and through the city wanders in frenzy—even as a hind, smitten by an arrow)(transl. H.R. Fairclough)

As can be seen, Dido's status reminds of the descriptions of deliriously possessed women, whether prophetesses or maenads. In this regard, this furious love is not socially and religiously accepted: it is not regulated through marriage, and it threatens the women's pudicitia ➚. For this reason, the amorous furor is also a type of furor ➚ that must be avoided. In this sense, it may be noted that, on a religious level, the furor ➚ is always identified as something extremely negative: furor ➚ linked to violence leads to the killing of religiously protected individuals, amorous furor ➚ leads to the loss of modesty, and bacchic furor ➚ even risks leading to the subversion of state order. As far as the prophetic one is concerned, it should be noted that inductive inspired mantic in Rome was much less used than deductive rituals (such as the reading of animal entrails). Therefore, religion seems not to lean towards the uncontrolled states dictated by furious possession even in the prophetic field. In this respect, McDermott's definition whereby furor ➚ can be identified as “failed pietas ➚”, the Roman religious sentiment par excellence, perfectly sums up the Romans' approach to this term.

In conclusion, it is interesting to note the evolution of the term furor ➚ with the spread of Christianity as the main religion of the Roman Empire. Since the word furor ➚ was already negatively connoted in the pagan religion, the Christian religion simply took over the term and adapted it to its own polemical goals. In this sense, furor ➚ began to indicate both pagan cults and heresies in Christianity. An example of the former can be found in the work of St Augustine:

August. De civ. D. 18. 13 ➚

Tunc et Liber pater bellavit in India, qui multas habuit in exercitu feminas quae Bacchae appellatae sunt, non tam virtute nobiles quam furore. […] Eius velut dei nomine per inmundos daemones Bacchanalia sacra vel potius sacrilegia sunt instituta, de quorum rabiosa turpitudine post tam multos annos sic senatus erubuit ut in urbe Roma esse prohiberet.

(At that time also father Liber waged wars in India, and had many women in his army who were called Bacchae, less distinguished for valour than for madness. […] And yet in his name, as in that of a god, Bacchanalian religious rites, or rather sacrileges, were instituted by foul demons, and even after many years the senate was so ashamed of their mad indecency that they prohibited their celebration in the city of Rome) (transl. G.E. McCracken)

This passage condenses what has been said so far: the women practising the rites are not dignified, the rites are not sacred but sacrilegious, and rabies ➚ was problematic even for the non-Christian Roman Republicans. It is then clear how furor ➚ in Augustine retains its negative values and even increases them. A passage in which furor ➚ is instead linked to the madness of a heretic is found in Tertullian:

Tert. Anim. 50 ➚

Publica totius generis humani sententia mortem naturae debitum pronuntiamus. Hoc stipulata est dei uox, hoc spopondit omne quod nascitur, ut iam hinc non Epicuri stupor suffundatur negantis debitum istud ad nos pertinere, sed haeretici magi Menandri Samaritani furor conspuatur dicentis mortem ad suos non modo non pertinere, uerum nec peruenire.

(According to the general sentiment of the human race, we declare death to be "the debt of nature." So much has been settled by the voice of God; such is the contract with everything which is born: so that even from this the frigid conceit of Epicurus is refuted, who says that no such debt is due from us; and not only so, but the insane opinion of the Samaritan heretic Menander is also rejected, who will have it that death has not only nothing to do with his disciples, but in fact never reaches them) (transl. P. Holmes)

In this passage, Tertullian compares the views on the death of a pre-Christian thinker like Epicurus and a heretic one like Menander the Samaritan. In this context, it is noteworthy that Menander's heretical opinion is categorised precisely as furor ➚. In conclusion, even in Christianity the use of the term furor ➚ remains confined to cases of heterodoxy, retaining the negative connotation it already had in pre-Christian culture.

Catalogue of occurences

Literary sources

• August. De civ. D. 18. 13 ➚
• Cic. Cat. 1. 1 ➚
• Cic. Div. 1. 4 ➚
• Hor. Carm. 4. 15. 17-20 ➚
• Liv. 39. 8. 6-8 ➚
• Luc. 5. 208-213 ➚
• Luc., 7. 551 ➚
• Stat. Theb. 1. 328-329 ➚
• Stat. Theb. 3. 188-190 ➚
• Stat. Theb. 7. 649-651 ➚
• Tert. Anim. 50 ➚
• Verg. Aen. 4. 66-69 ➚
• Verg. Aen. 6. 98-103 ➚
• Verg. Aen. 7. 456-462 ➚
• Verg. Aen. 12. 676-680 ➚

Discussion/interpretation

It is evident that the term furor ➚, from a semantic point of view, is closely related to the term μανία ➚ ➚. Nevertheless, while the Greek term has accumulated all the reported meanings on itself over a long process of time, it is more likely that the term furor ➚ has inherited them from the Greek term (at least from a literary point of view).

Even more relevant is the fact that the term furor ➚ is strongly connoted by a negative value from an ethical point of view. In all the situations taken into consideration, furor ➚ connotes a madness resulting from extreme violence, possessions leading to disaster and cults deviating from the traditional religion.

The only more neutral case is the possession of the Sibyl, but it must be remembered that the Romans were rather sceptical of the divinatio ➚ naturalis typical of possessed prophetesses, preferring by far the divinatio ➚ artificiosa applied for instance to the flight of birds or the analysis of animal entrails.

Moreover, it must be noted that in Greece the practice of delusional cults is described in literature, but it has also a historical attested declination. In contrast, cults in which participants were possessed were always frowned upon or even banned in Rome, as in the case of Bacchanalia ➚.

In conclusion, one can see how the term furor ➚ indicates a wide range of different types of madness, but in each case gives its referent an ethically negative connotation.

Bibliography

Albrecht, J. (2022): "Sanguine non modo se non contaminarunt, sed etiam honestarunt: The Religious Deviance of Furor and the Death of the Gracchi in Cicero’s Works". In L. Gilhaus, A. Dorn, I. Herrad and M. Meurer (eds.), Transgression and Deviance in the Ancient World (85-109), Stuttgart: JB Metzler.

Belayche N., Rüpke J. (2007): “Divination et révélation dans les mondes grec et romain: Présentation”, Revue De L'histoire Des Religions, 224. 2, 139-147.

Camps, W. A. (1969) An introduction to Virgil's Aeneid. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cova, P. V. (1974): “Livio e la repressione dei Baccanali”, Athenaeum, 52, 82-109.

De Vaan, M. (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Boston: Brill.

Gruen, E. S. (1990) Studies in Greek culture and Roman policy. Leida: Brill.

Mac Góráin F. (ed) (2019) Dionysus and Rome: Religion and Literature. Vol. 93. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

McDermott, E. A. (2015): “'Furor' as Failed 'Pietas': Roman Poetic Constructions of Madness through the Time of Virgil”. In Perdicoyanni-Paléologou H. (ed), The Concept of Madness from Homer to Byzantium: Manifestations and Aspects of Mental Illness and Disorder (191-244), Amsterdam: Hakkert.

Monaca, M. (2008) Oracoli Sibillini (Vol. 199). Rome: Città Nuova.

Perseus Digital Library. Ed Gregory R. Crane. Tufts University. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu ➚ (accessed June 16, 2024).

Tucker, T. G. (1976) Etymological Dictionary of Latin. Chicago: Ares Publishers.