Fauna: Roman Goddess of Women and the Wild

Fauna was one of the most ambiguous figures in Roman religion — a goddess whose identity ancient writers could not fully agree on, whose relationship to other deities was variously described as wife, daughter, or simple equivalence, and whose most distinctive myth overlapped so completely with that of Bona Dea that the two were often treated as the same divine figure under different names.

She was understood as the female counterpart of Faunus — the ancient Italian god of forests, wild places, and prophetic inspiration — and through that pairing she acquired domains of prophecy, the protection of women, and the fertility of both the natural world and human communities. Whether she was Faunus’s wife in one tradition, his daughter in another, or an independent goddess who had become associated with him through the logic of divine pairing, her identity was never as clearly fixed as that of the major Olympian deities. She belonged to the older, more diffuse layer of Italian religion where divine identities were fluid and the same divine power could be addressed under multiple names depending on context.

The Ancient Sources and Their Disagreements

The ancient evidence for Fauna is relatively thin and inconsistent, which itself reflects her position in Roman religious history. She appears most substantially in Macrobius’s Saturnalia, written in the late fourth or early fifth century CE, where Macrobius discusses Bona Dea and presents Fauna as one of the traditions explaining that goddess’s identity.

Macrobius records three distinct ancient traditions about Fauna. In the first, she was a mortal woman — the wife of Faunus — of such exceptional chastity that she never looked at or was seen by any man other than her husband, and who was eventually deified for this virtue. In the second, she was Faunus’s daughter rather than his wife, loved by him with an inappropriate passion that he expressed, in the manner of myths that handle incest obliquely, by transforming himself into a snake to approach her. In the third, she was simply another name for Bona Dea — the Good Goddess — used when emphasizing her connection to the natural world and to Faunus’s domain rather than her function as a specifically female religious power.

The existence of three separate and partially contradictory traditions recorded in a single late antique source suggests that Fauna’s identity had been debated throughout Roman antiquity without resolution. She was old enough that the original nature of her cult had become obscure, and different communities or traditions had filled the obscurity with different explanatory myths.

Lactantius, the Christian writer of the third and fourth centuries CE, is another important source. He discusses Fauna in the context of attacking Roman religion, and his account reinforces the identification with Bona Dea: Fauna was a woman who had been beaten to death by her husband Faunus with myrtle branches for drinking wine, then deified as Bona Dea. This myth — the myrtle beating, the wine, the deification — is recognizable as the explanatory myth for Bona Dea’s ritual prohibitions, where myrtle was excluded from her sanctuary and wine was called by a different name. Fauna’s myth and Bona Dea’s myth were, in this tradition, the same myth.

Fauna, Faunus, and the Logic of Divine Pairing

The Roman tendency to create female counterparts for male deities was consistent and productive. Jupiter had Juno. Saturn had Ops. Faunus had Fauna. The pairing was grammatically expressed — the feminine form of the god’s name — and theologically expressed through shared domain. Where Faunus governed wild animals, forests, and prophetic inspiration in the male register, Fauna governed the same domains in the female register.

Faunus was one of the most genuinely ancient Italian gods — present in Italic religion before Rome’s systematic absorption of Greek mythology, associated with the fauns (woodland spirits) and with Pan, whose identification with Faunus was one of the earliest Roman-Greek divine equations. His domain was the uncultivated world: forests, wild animals, the sounds and movements of nature that could be interpreted as prophetic messages, the sudden irrational fear that comes over people in wild places (the Romans attributed this to Faunus, as the Greeks attributed panic to Pan).

Fauna as his counterpart governed the same territory from a female perspective. This meant she was associated with the fertility and nurturing aspects of the natural world — the productive wildness that sustained life — rather than the more threatening or oracular aspects that Faunus emphasized. She was, in the division of labor between male and female divine powers that Roman theology consistently applied, the generative and protective face of wild nature.

Her name’s etymology reinforced this. The most probable connection was to the Latin verb fari — to speak, to prophesy — rather than to favere (to favor) as some ancient writers suggested. Fari gave Latin the word fatum (fate, that which has been spoken by the divine), and the connection placed Fauna in the company of prophetic powers: the divine speech that announced the future, the prophetic voice that spoke through the natural world. Her counterpart Faunus derived from the same root, making the two names expressions of the same verbal concept — the divine speaking — in masculine and feminine form.

The Myth of the Myrtle and the Wine

The most specific myth attached to Fauna — the one that made her a deified mortal rather than an originally divine figure — was the story of her death at Faunus’s hands, told by Lactantius and alluded to in sources connected to Bona Dea’s ritual prohibitions.

The story ran as follows: Fauna had drunk wine — in some versions, a large amount of wine, in others simply wine at all — in violation of the Roman domestic norm that prohibited respectable women from drinking it. Faunus, discovering this, beat her with myrtle branches until she died. Overcome by remorse and recognizing that she had otherwise been a woman of exceptional virtue, he deified her and established the cult that honored her as Bona Dea.

This myth explained two specific features of Bona Dea’s ritual: the prohibition on myrtle in her sanctuary (myrtle being the instrument of her death) and the prohibition on wine being named by its proper name in her ceremonies (wine being called milk or honey because its real name was associated with her transgression and punishment).

The explanatory function of the myth was transparent — it was a story invented to account for existing ritual peculiarities — but this does not make it unimportant. It tells us that the ritual prohibitions were old enough and strange enough to require explanation, and that the explanation involved a figure called either Fauna or Bona Dea whose connection to Faunus and to wine and myrtle was the organizing principle of the account.

Whether Fauna was the original name and Bona Dea the title, or Bona Dea was the primary identity and Fauna the mythological elaboration, was debated in antiquity and remains unclear. What is clear is that by the time of the major Roman sources the two were functionally equivalent in this tradition: Fauna was the mortal woman who became Bona Dea, and Bona Dea was the deity whose cult preserved the memory of Fauna’s death.

Fauna and Women’s Religion

Whatever her precise relationship to Bona Dea, Fauna’s association with specifically female religious life was consistent across the sources. Her worship — like Bona Dea’s — was understood as belonging particularly to women, and the myths attached to her reinforced female domains: domestic virtue, the relationship between a wife and her household, the consequences of female transgression, and the subsequent deification that transformed a mortal woman’s story into divine authority.

The Roman religious world offered relatively few spaces where women’s religious experience was central rather than peripheral. The major state cults were administered by male priests. The most important sacrifices were performed by men. Women participated in many religious observances but typically in subordinate or auxiliary roles.

Fauna’s cult — to whatever extent it existed independently of Bona Dea’s — was part of the same female religious territory that Bona Dea occupied: a specifically female sacred space within a predominantly male-administered religious system. The myths that explained her identity — the virtuous wife, the woman who transgressed and was punished, the deified mortal who became a patron of female life — were myths that organized specifically female religious experience around specifically female concerns.

Fauna and the Natural World

Beyond her connection to Bona Dea and to specifically female religion, Fauna retained her original association with the wild and natural world through her pairing with Faunus. This aspect of her identity gave her a dimension that Bona Dea’s urban, domestic, and politically embedded cult did not emphasize.

Fauna in her aspect as Faunus’s counterpart was a deity of forests, wild animals, and the productive fertility of uncultivated nature. The same instinctive, non-rational knowledge that Faunus expressed through prophetic inspiration in wild places — the sense of divine presence that Romans felt in forests and at springs and in the movements of animals — was present in Fauna as a female version of the same sensitivity.

This made her name available as a general term for the animal life of a region: fauna in modern scientific usage means the animal species characteristic of a particular area or period, a usage that derives directly from the Roman goddess’s name through the eighteenth-century naturalist tradition that named flora and fauna as the plant and animal complements of a region’s natural life. The goddess who was Faunus’s female counterpart became, through this naming tradition, the collective term for all animal life — a posthumous expansion of her domain that the Romans would not have found surprising.

Fauna and Prophecy

The prophetic dimension of Fauna’s identity came primarily through her connection to Faunus, whose oracular aspect was well developed in Roman tradition. Faunus delivered prophecies through dreams — the incubatio tradition in which a worshipper slept in a sacred space and received divine communication during sleep — and through the mysterious sounds of the forest that could be interpreted as divine speech.

Fauna as his counterpart participated in this prophetic tradition. Ancient sources suggest that she too communicated through dreams and through the intuitive knowledge associated with the natural world. This was not the organized institutional prophecy of the Sibyl or the oracles — it was the diffuse, personal, instinctive form of divine communication associated with the older Italian religious tradition, the knowledge that came not from consulting a priest or a formal oracular institution but from attending to the natural world and the dreams it sent.

The connection between female prophetic knowledge and the natural world was consistent in Roman religion. Carmenta prophesied through inspired speech connected to forest traditions. Bona Dea’s sanctuary kept healing herbs that expressed a practical knowledge of nature’s medicinal properties. Fauna’s prophetic character expressed the same association: women’s religious knowledge, in the older Italian tradition that these figures preserved, was knowledge of nature — of the healing properties of plants, of the messages carried in dreams and animal behavior, of the productive and dangerous forces in the uncultivated world.

Fauna’s Place in Roman Religion

Fauna occupied the ambiguous, multiply-identified space that characterized the oldest layer of Roman religion. She was not a clearly defined major deity with a systematic theology, a dedicated priesthood, and an unambiguous cult history. She was a name — or several names — applied to divine powers associated with the natural world, with female religious experience, and with the prophetic and healing knowledge that those domains contained.

Her identification with Bona Dea was the most theologically significant thing about her, because it placed her at the center of one of Rome’s most formally observed female religious institutions. Whatever Fauna was in her own right, she was understood as the mortal woman whose story explained why Bona Dea’s worship took the form it did — the wine that could not be named, the myrtle that could not enter the sanctuary, the specifically female character of the December ceremonies in the magistrate’s house.

Understanding Fauna means understanding that Roman religious identity was layered and sometimes contradictory: the same divine power could be approached under different names by different communities, at different times, for different purposes. Fauna was Bona Dea’s mythological past, Faunus’s theological counterpart, and a representative of the Italian religious tradition that Rome had inherited and partially obscured through its subsequent Hellenization.

Final Take: Fauna

Fauna mattered because she preserved something about Roman religion that the major Olympian cults had largely replaced: the sense that divine power was distributed through the natural world, accessible through attention and instinct rather than through elaborate institutional ritual, and expressed in specifically female forms of knowledge that the official, male-administered state religion did not fully accommodate.

Her ambiguity — wife or daughter of Faunus? Bona Dea under another name? independent deity? — was not a failure of the tradition to preserve accurate information. It was the natural result of a divine figure old enough to predate the systematization of Roman religious identity, present in the tradition in multiple forms because she had been approached in multiple ways by multiple communities over a very long time.

She is, in that ambiguity, one of the most honestly Roman figures in the pantheon: a goddess whose identity was never quite fixed, whose worshippers understood her through different stories that emphasized different aspects of the same divine presence, and whose connection to the natural world and to female religious experience outlasted the official system that had tried to give her a single, clear identity.

Share This Page