{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_59007/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_59007","id":"gutenberg_59007","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/59007","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Cults -- Rome","Festivals -- Rome","Rome -- Religion"],"text":"Produced by Ted Garvin, David King, and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the underscore character as _italic_. Bold\nface type is delimited with the equals sign as =bold=.\n\nFootnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\nreferenced.\n\n The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic\n\n\n\n\n THE ROMAN FESTIVALS OF THE PERIOD OF THE REPUBLIC\n\n AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE RELIGION OF THE ROMANS\n\n BY\n\n W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A.\n\n FELLOW AND SUB-RECTOR OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD\n\n\n London\n MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY\n 1899\n\n _All rights reserved_\n\n OXFORD: HORACE HART\n\n PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY\n\n\n FRATRIS FILIIS\n\n I. C. H. F\n\n H. G. C. F\n\n BONAE SPEI ADOLESCENTIBUS\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n\nA word of explanation seems needed about the form this book has taken.\nMany years ago I became specially interested in the old Roman religion,\nchiefly, I think, through studying Plutarch\u2019s _Quaestiones Romanae_, at\na time when bad eyesight was compelling me to abandon a project for an\nelaborate study of all Plutarch\u2019s works. The \u2018scrappy\u2019 character not\nonly of the _Quaestiones_, but of all the material for the study of\nRoman ritual, suited weak eyes better than the continual reading of\nGreek text; but I soon found it necessary to discover a thread on which\nto hang these fragments in some regular order. This I naturally found in\nthe _Fasti_ as edited by Mommsen in the first volume of the _Corpus\nInscriptionum Latinarum_; and it gradually dawned on me that the only\nscientific way of treating the subject was to follow the calendar\nthroughout the year, and to deal with each festival separately. I had\nadvanced some way in this work, when Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon of Greek and\nRoman Mythology_ began to appear in parts, and at once convinced me that\nI should have to do my work all over again in the increased light\nafforded by the indefatigable industry of the writers of the Roman\narticles. I therefore dropped my work for several years while the\nLexicon was in progress, and should have waited still longer for its\ncompletion, had not Messrs. Macmillan invited me to contribute a volume\non the Roman religion to their series of _Handbooks of Archaeology and\nAntiquities_.\n\nHaving once set out on the plan of following the _Fasti_, I could not\nwell abandon it, and I still hold it to be the only sound one:\nespecially if, as in this volume, the object is to exhibit the religious\nside of the native Roman character, without getting entangled to any\nserious extent in the _colluvies religionum_ of the last age of the\nRepublic and the earlier Empire. The book has thus taken the form of a\ncommentary on the _Fasti_, covering in a compressed form almost all the\npublic worship of the Roman state, and including incidentally here and\nthere certain ceremonies which strictly speaking lay outside that public\nworship. Compression has been unavoidable; yet it has been impossible to\navoid stating and often discussing the conflicting views of eminent\nscholars; and the result probably is that the book as a whole will not\nbe found very interesting reading. But I hope that British and American\nstudents of Roman history and literature, and possibly also\nanthropologists and historians of religion, may find it useful as a book\nof reference, or may learn from it where to go for more elaborate\ninvestigations.\n\nThe task has often been an ungrateful one\u2014one indeed of\n\n Dipping buckets into empty wells\n And growing old with drawing nothing up.\n\nThe more carefully I study any particular festival, the more (at least\nin many cases) I have been driven into doubt and difficulty both as to\nreported facts and their interpretation. Had the nature of the series\npermitted it, I should have wished to print the chief passages quoted\nfrom ancient authors in full, as was done by Mr. Farnell in his _Cults\nof the Greek States_, and so to present to the reader the actual\nmaterial on which conclusions are rightly or wrongly based. I have only\nbeen able to do this where it was indispensable: but I have done my best\nto verify the correctness of the other references, and have printed in\nfull the entries of the ancient calendars at the head of each section.\nProfessor Gardner, the editor of the series, has helped me by\ncontributing two valuable notes on coins, which will be found at the end\nof the volume: and I hope he may some day find time to turn his\nattention more closely to the bearing of numismatic evidence on Roman\nreligious history.\n\nIt happens, by a curious coincidence, that I am writing this on the last\nday of the old Roman year; and the lines which Ovid has attached to that\nday may fitly express my relief on arriving at the end of a very\nlaborious task:\n\n Venimus in portum, libro cum mense peracto,\n Naviget hinc alia iam mihi linter aqua.\n\nW. W. F.\n\nOxford: _Feb. 28, 1899_.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n Introduction 1\n\n Calendar 21\n\n Festivals of March 33\n\n Festivals of April 66\n\n Festivals of May 98\n\n Festivals of June 129\n\n Festivals of July 173\n\n Festivals of August 189\n\n Festivals of September 215\n\n Festivals of October 236\n\n Festivals of November 252\n\n Festivals of December 255\n\n Festivals of January 277\n\n Festivals of February 298\n\n Conclusion 332\n\n Notes on Two Coins 350\n\n Indices 353\n\n\n\n\n ABBREVIATIONS.\n\n\nThe following are the most important abbreviations which occur in the\nnotes:\n\n_C. I. L._ stands for _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_. Where the volume\nis not indicated the reference is invariably to the _second_ edition of\nthat part of vol. i which contains the _Fasti_ (Berlin, 1893).\n\nMarquardt or Marq. stands for the third volume of Marquardt\u2019s _R\u00f6mische\nStaatsverwaltung_, second edition, edited by Wissowa (Berlin, 1885). It\nis the sixth volume of the complete _Handbuch der R\u00f6mischen Alterth\u00fcmer_\nof Mommsen and Marquardt.\n\nPreller, or Preller-Jordan, stands for the third edition of Preller\u2019s\n_R\u00f6mische Mythologie_ by H. Jordan (Berlin, 1881).\n\n_Myth. Lex._ or _Lex._ stands for the _Ausf\u00fchrliches Lexicon der\nGriechischen und R\u00f6mischen Mythologie_, edited by W. H. Roscher, which\nas yet has only been completed to the letter N.\n\nFestus, or Paulus, stands for K. O. M\u00fcller\u2019s edition of the fragments of\nFestus, _De Significatione Verborum_, and the _Excerpta ex Festo_ of\nPaulus Diaconus; quoted by the page.\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\n I. The Roman Method of Reckoning the Year.[1]\n\nThere are three ways in which the course of the year may be calculated.\nIt can be reckoned\u2014\n\n1. By the revolution of the moon round the earth, twelve of which = 354\ndays, or a ring (_annus_), sufficiently near to the solar year to be a\npracticable system with modifications.\n\n2. By the revolution of the earth round the sun i. e. 365-1/4 days; a\nsystem which needs periodical adjustments, as the odd quarter (or, more\nstrictly, 5 hours 48 minutes 48 seconds) cannot of course be counted in\neach year. In this purely solar year the months are only artificial\ndivisions of time, and not reckoned according to the revolutions of the\nmoon. This is our modern system.\n\n3. By combining in a single system the solar and lunar years as\ndescribed above. This has been done in various ways by different\npeoples, by adopting a cycle of years of varying length, in which the\nresultants of the two bases of calculation should be brought into\nharmony as nearly as possible. In other words, though the difference\nbetween a single solar year and a single lunar year is more than 11\ndays, it is possible, by taking a number of years together and reckoning\nthem as lunar years, one or more of them being lengthened by an\nadditional month, to make the whole period very nearly coincide with the\nsame number of solar years. Thus the Athenians adopted for this purpose\nat different times groups or cycles of 8 and 19 years. In the Octaeteris\nor 8-year cycle there were 99 lunar months, 3 months of 30 days being\nadded in 3 of the 8 years\u2014a plan which falls short of accuracy by about\n36 hours. Later on a cycle of 19 years was substituted for this, in\nwhich the discrepancy was greatly reduced. The Roman year in historical\ntimes was calculated on a system of this kind, though with such\ninaccuracy and carelessness as to lose all real relation to the\nrevolutions both of earth and moon.\n\nBut there was a tradition that before this historical calendar came into\nuse there had been another system, which the Romans connected with the\nname of Romulus. This year was supposed to have consisted of 10 months,\nof which 4\u2014March, May, July, October\u2014had 31 days, and the rest 30; in\nall 304. But this was neither a solar nor a lunar year; for a lunar year\nof 10 months = 295 days 7 hours 20 minutes, while a solar year =\n365-1/4. Nor can it possibly be explained as an attempt to combine the\ntwo systems. Mommsen has therefore conjectured that it was an artificial\nyear of 10 months, used in business transactions, and in periods of\nmourning, truces[2], &c., to remedy the uncertainty of the primitive\ncalculation of time; and that it never really was the basis of a state\ncalendar. This view has of course been the subject of much criticism[3].\nBut no better solution has been found; the hypothesis that the year of\n10 months was a real lunar year, to which an undivided period of time\nwas added at each year\u2019s end, to make it correspond with the solar year\nand the seasons, has not much to recommend it or any analogy among other\npeoples. It was not, then, the so-called year of Romulus which was the\nbasis of the earliest state-calendar, but another system which the\nRomans themselves usually ascribed to Numa. This was originally perhaps\na lunar year; at any rate the number of days in it is very nearly that\nof a true lunar year (354 days 8 hours 48 minutes)[4]. It consisted of\n12 months, of which March, May, July, October had 31 days, and the rest\n29, except February, which had 28. All the months therefore had an odd\nnumber of days, except the one which was specially devoted to\npurification and the cult of the dead; according to an old superstition,\nprobably adopted from the Greeks of Southern Italy[5], that odd numbers\nwere of good omen, even numbers of ill omen. This principle, as we shall\nsee, holds good throughout the Roman calendar.\n\nBut this reckoning of the year, if it ever existed at all, could not\nhave lasted long as it stood. As we know it in historical times, it has\nbecome modified by applying to it the principle of the solar year. The\nreason for this should be noted carefully. A lunar year, being about 11\ndays short of the solar year, would in a very short time become out of\nharmony with the seasons. Now if there is one thing certain about the\nRoman religious calendar, it is that many at least of its oldest\nfestivals mark those operations of husbandry on which the population\ndepended for its subsistence, and for the prosperous result of which\ndivine agencies must be propitiated. These festivals, when fixed in the\ncalendar, must of course occur at the right seasons, which could not be\nthe case if the calendar were that of a purely lunar year. It was\ntherefore necessary to work in the solar principle; and this was done[6]\nby a somewhat rude expedient, not unlike that of the Athenian\nOctaeteris, and probably derived from it[7]. A cycle of 4 years was\ndevised, of which the first had the 355 days of the lunar year, the\nsecond 355 + 22, the third 355 again, and the fourth 355 + 23. The extra\nperiods of 22 and 23 days were inserted in February, not at the end, but\nafter the 23rd (_Terminalia_)[8]. The total number of days in the cycle\nwas 1465, or about 1 day too much in each year; and in course of time\neven this system got out of harmony with the seasons and had to be\nrectified from time to time by the Pontifices, who had charge of the\ncalendar. Owing to ignorance on their part, misuse or neglect of\nintercalation had put the whole system out of gear before the last\ncentury of the Republic. All relation to sun and moon was lost; the\ncalendar, as Mommsen says, \u2018went on its own way tolerably unconcerned\nabout moon and sun.\u2019 When Caesar took the reform of the calendar in hand\nthe discrepancy between it and the seasons was very serious; the former\nbeing in advance of the latter probably by some weeks. Caesar, aided by\nthe mathematician Sosigenes, put an end to this confusion by extending\nthe year 46 B.C. to 445 days, and starting afresh on Jan. 1, 45\nB.C.[9]\u2014a day henceforward to be that of the new year\u2014with a cycle of 4\nyears of 365 days[10]; in the last of which a single day was added,\nafter the _Terminalia_. This cycle produced a true solar year with a\nslight adjustment at short intervals; and after a few preliminary\nblunders on the part of the Pontifices, lasted without change until A.D.\n1582, when Pope Gregory XIII set right a slight discrepancy by a fresh\nregulation. This regulation was only adopted in England in 1752, and is\nstill rejected in Russia and by the Greek Church generally.\n\n\n II. Order of Months in the Year.\n\n\nThat the Roman year originally began with March is certain[11], not only\nfrom the evidence of the names of the months, which after June are\nreckoned as 5th (Quinctilis), 6th (Sextilis), and so on, but from the\nnature of the March festivals, as will be shown in treating of that\nmonth. In the character of the religious festivals there is a distinct\nbreak between February and March, and the operations both of nature and\nof man take a fresh turn at that point. Between the festivals of\nDecember and those of January there is no such break. No doubt January\n1, just after the winter solstice, was even at an early time considered\nin some sense as a beginning; but it is going too far to assume, as some\nhave done, that an ancient religious or priestly year began at that\npoint[12]. It was not on January 1, but on March 1, that the sacred fire\nin the Aedes Vestae was renewed and fresh laurels fixed up on the Regia,\nthe two buildings which were the central points of the oldest Roman\nreligion[13]. March 1, which in later times at least was considered the\nbirthday of the special protecting deity of the Romans, continued to be\nthe Roman New Year\u2019s Day long after the official beginning of the year\nhad been changed to January 1[14]. It was probably not till 153 B.C.,\nwhen the consuls began to enter on office on January 1, that this\nofficial change took place; and the date was then adopted, not so much\nfor religious reasons as because it was convenient, when the business of\nadministration was increasing, to have the consuls in Rome for some time\nbefore they left for their provinces at the opening of the war season in\nMarch.\n\nNo rational account can in my opinion be given of the Roman religious\ncalendar of the Republic unless it be taken as beginning with March; and\nin this work I have therefore restored the old order of months. With the\nJulian calendar I am not concerned; though it is unfortunate that all\nthe Roman calendars we possess, including the _Fasti_ of Ovid, date from\nafter the Julian era, and therefore present us with a distorted view of\nthe true course of the old Roman worship.\n\nNext after March came Aprilis, the month of opening or unfolding\nvegetation; then Maius, the month of growing, and Junius, that of\nripening and perfecting. After this the names cease to be descriptive of\nthe operations of nature; the six months that follow were called, as\nfour of them still are, only by their positions relative to March, on\nwhich the whole system of the year thus turned as on a pivot.\n\nThe last two months of the twelve were January and February. They stand\nalone among the later months in bearing names instead of mere numbers,\nand this is sufficient to suggest their religious importance. That they\nwere not mere appendages to a year of ten months is almost certain from\nthe antique character of the rites and festivals which occur in\nthem\u2014Agonia, Carmentalia, Lupercalia, &c.; and it is safer to consider\nthem as marking an ancient period of religious importance preparatory to\nthe beginning of the year, and itself coinciding with the opening of the\nnatural year after the winter solstice. This latter point seems to be\nindicated in the name Januarius, which, whether derived from janua, \u2018a\ngate,\u2019 or Janus, \u2018the god of entrances,\u2019 is appropriate to the first\nlengthening of the days, or the entrance of the sun on a new course;\nwhile February, the month of purifying or regenerative agencies\n(februa), was, like the Lent of the Christian calendar, the period in\nwhich the living were made ready for the civil and religious work of the\ncoming year, and in which also the yearly duties to the dead were paid.\n\nIt is as well here to refer to a passage of Ovid (_Fasti_, ii. 47\nfoll.), itself probably based on a statement of Varro, which has led to\na controversy about the relative position of these two months:\n\n Sed tamen antiqui ne nescius ordinis erres,\n Primus, ut est, Iani mensis et ante fuit.\n Qui sequitur Ianum, veteris fuit ultimus anni,\n Tu quoque sacrorum, Termine, finis eras.\n Primus enim Iani mensis, quia ianua prima est;\n Qui sacer est imis manibus, imus erat.\n Postmodo creduntur spatio distantia longo\n Tempora bis quini continuasse viri.\n\nThis plainly means that from the time when March ceased to be the first\nmonth, the year always began with January and ended with February; in\nother words the order was January, March, April, and so on, ending with\nFebruary; until the time of the Decemvirate, when February became the\nsecond month, and December the last, as at present, January still\nretaining its place. A little consideration of Ovid\u2019s lines will,\nhowever, suggest the conclusion that he, and his authority, whoever that\nmay have been, were arguing aetiologically rather than on definite\nknowledge. January, they thought, must always have been the first month,\nbecause janua, \u2018a door,\u2019 is the first thing, the entrance, through which\nyou pass into a new year as into a house or a temple. How, they would\nargue, could a month thus named have ever been the eleventh month? This\nonce supposed impossible, it was necessary to infer that the place of\nJanuary was the first, from the time of its introduction, and that it\nwas followed by March, April, &c., February coming last of all,\nimmediately after December; and finally that at the time of the\nDecemvirs, who are known to have made some alterations in the calendar,\nthe positions of January and February were reversed, January remaining\nthe first month, but February becoming the second.\n\n\n III. The Divisions of the Month.\n\n\nThe Romans, with their usual conservatism, preserved the shell of the\nlunar system of reckoning long after the reality had disappeared. The\nmonth was at all times divided by the real or imaginary phases of the\nmoon, though a week of eight days was introduced at an early period, and\nthough the month was no longer a lunar one.\n\nThe two certain points in a lunar month are the first appearance of the\ncrescent[15] and the full moon; between these is the point when the moon\nreaches the first quarter, which is a less certain one. Owing to this\nuncertainty of the reckoning of the first days of the month there were\nno festivals in the calendars on the days before the first quarter\n(Nones), with a single exception of the obscure _Poplifugia_ on July 5.\nThe day of the new moon was called Kalendae, as Varro tells us, \u2018quod\nhis diebus calantur eius mensis nonae a pontificibus, quintanae an\nseptimanae sint futurae, in Capitolio in curia Calabra sic: Dies te\nquinque calo, Iuno Covella. Septem dies te calo Iuno Covella\u2019[16]. All\nthe Kalends were sacred to Juno, whose connexion with the moon is\ncertain though not easy to explain.\n\nWith the Nones, which were sacred to no deity, all uncertainty ceased.\nThe Ides, or day of the full moon, was always the eighth after the first\nquarter. This day was sacred to Jupiter; a fact which is now generally\nexplained as a recognition of the continuous light of the two great\nheavenly bodies during the whole twenty-four hours[17]. On the Nones the\n_Rex sacrorum_ (and therefore before him the king himself) announced the\ndates of the festivals for the month.\n\nThere was another internal division of the month, with which we are not\nhere specially concerned, that of the Roman week or nundinal period of\neight days, which is indicated in all the calendars by the letters A to\nH. The _nundinae_ were market days, on which the rustic population came\ninto Rome; whether they were also feast days (_feriae_) was a disputed\nquestion even in antiquity.\n\n\n IV. The Days.\n\n\nEvery day in the Roman calendar has a certain mark attached to it, viz.\nthe letters F, C, N, NP, EN, Q.R.C.F., Q.St.D.F., or FP. All of these\nhave a religious significance, positive or negative.\n\nF, i. e. _fas_ or _fastus_, means that on the day so marked civil and\nespecially judicial business might be transacted without fear of divine\ndispleasure[18]. Correctness in the time as well as place of all human\nactions was in the mind of the early Roman of the most vital importance;\nand the floating traditional ideas which governed his life before the\nformation of the State were systematized and kept secret by kings and\npriests, as a part, so to speak, of the science of government. Not till\nB.C. 304 was the calendar published, with its permissive and prohibitive\nregulations[19].\n\nC (_comitialis_) means that the day so marked was one on which the\n_comitia_ might meet[20], and on which also legal business might be\ntransacted, as on the days marked F, if there were no other hindrance.\nThe total number of days thus available for secular business, i.e. days\nmarked F and C, was in the Julian calendar 239 out of 365.\n\nN, i. e. _nefastus_, meant that the day so marked was _religiosus_,\n_vitiosus_, or _ater_; as Gellius has it[21], \u2018tristi omine et infames\nimpeditique, in quibus et res divinas facere et rem quampiam novam\nexordiri temperandum est.\u2019 Some of these days received the mark in\nhistorical times for a special reason, e. g. a disaster to the State;\namong these were the _postriduani_ or days following the Kalends, Nones\nand Ides, because two terrible defeats had occurred on such days[22].\nBut most of them (in all they are 57) were probably so marked as being\ndevoted to lustrations, or worship of the dead or of the powers of the\nearth, and therefore unsuitable for worldly business. One long series of\nsuch _dies nefasti_ occurs Feb. 1-14, the time of purification; another,\nApril 5-22, in the month occupied by the rites of deities of growing\nvegetation; a third, June 5-14, when the rites of the Vestals\npreparatory to harvest were taking place; and a fourth, July 1-9, for\nreasons which are unfortunately by no means clear to us.\n\nNP was not a mark in the pre-Julian calendars, for it was apparently\nunknown to Varro and Ovid. Verrius Flaccus seems to have distinguished\nit from N, but his explanation is mutilated, even as it survives in\nFestus[23]. No one has yet determined for certain the origin of the\nsign, and discussion of the various conjectures would be here\nsuperfluous[24]. It appears to distinguish, in the Julian calendars,\nthose days on which fell the festivals of deities who were not of an\nearthly and therefore doubtful character from those marked N. Thus in\nthe series of _dies nefasti_ in February and April the Ides in each case\nhave the mark NP as being sacred to Jupiter.\n\nEN. We have a mutilated note in the calendar of Praeneste which\nindicates what this abbreviation meant, viz. _endotercisus =\nintercisus_, i. e. \u2018cut into parts\u2019[25]. In morning and evening, as\nVarro tells us, the day was _nefastus_, but in the middle, between the\nslaying of the victim and the placing of the entrails upon the altar, it\nwas _fastus_. But why eight days in the calendar were thus marked we do\nnot know, and have no data for conjecturing. All the eight were days\ncoming before some festival, or before the Ides. Of the eight two occur\nin January and two in February, the others in March, August, October and\nDecember. But on such facts no conjectures can be built.\n\nQ.R.C.F. (_Quando Rex Comitiavit Fas_) will be explained under March 24;\nthe only other day on which it occurs is May 24. Q.St.D.F. (_Quando\nstercus delatum fas_) only occurs on June 15, and will there be fully\ndealt with.\n\nFP occurs thrice, but only in three calendars. Feb. 21 (_Feralia_) is\nthus marked in Caer.[26], but is F in Maff. April 23 (_Vinalia_) is FP\nin Caer. but NP in Maff. and F in Praen. Aug. 19 (_Vinalia rustica_) is\nFP in Maff. and Amit, F in Antiat. and Allif., NP in Vall. Mommsen\nexplains FP as _fastus principio_, i. e. the early part of the day was\n_fastus_, and suggests that in the case of the _Feralia_, as the rites\nof the dead were performed at night, there was no reason why the earlier\npart of the day should be _nefastus_. But in the case of the two Vinalia\nwe can hardly even guess at the meaning of the mark, and it does not\nseem to have been known to the Romans themselves.\n\n\n V. The Calendars still surviving.\n\n\nThe basis of our knowledge of the old Roman religious year is to be\nfound in the fragments of calendars which still survive. None of these\nindeed is older than the Julian era; and all but one are mere fragments.\nBut from the fragments and the one almost perfect calendar we can infer\nthe character of the earlier calendar with tolerable certainty.\n\nThe calendar, as the Romans generally believed, was first published by\nCnaeus Flavius, curule aedile, in 304 B.C., who placed the _fasti_\nconspicuously in the Forum, in order that every one might know on what\ndays legal business might be transacted[27]; in other words, a calendar\nwas published with the marks of the days and the indications of the\nfestivals. After this we hear nothing until 189 B.C., when a consul, M.\nFulvius Nobilior, adorned his temple of Hercules and the Muses with a\ncalendar which contained explanations or notes as well as dates[28].\nThese are the only indications we have of the way in which the\npre-Julian calendar was made known to the people.\n\nBut the rectification of the calendar by Julius, and the changes then\nintroduced, brought about a multiplication of copies of the original one\nissued under the dictator\u2019s edict[29]. Not only in Rome, but in the\nmunicipalities round about her, where the ancient religious usage of\neach city had since the enfranchisement of Italy been superseded,\nofficially at least, by that of Rome, both public and private copies\nwere made and set up either on stone, or painted on the walls or ceiling\nof a building.\n\nOf such calendars we have in all fragments of some thirty, and one which\nis all but complete. Fourteen of these fragments were found in or near\nRome, eleven in municipalities such as Praeneste, Caere, Amiternum, and\nothers as far away as Allifae and Venusia; four are of uncertain\norigin[30]; and one is a curious fragment from Cisalpine Gaul[31]. Most\nof them are still extant on stone, but for a few we have to depend on\nwritten copies of an original now lost[32]. No day in the Roman year is\nwithout its annotation in one or more of these; the year is almost\ncomplete, as I have said, in the Fasti Maffeiani; and several others\ncontain three or four months nearly perfect[33]. Two, though in a\nfragmentary condition, are of special interest. One of these, that of\nthe ancient brotherhood of the Fratres Arvales, discovered in 1867 and\nfollowing years in the grove of the brethren near Rome, contains some\nvaluable additional notes in the fragments which survive of the months\nfrom August to November. The other, that of Praeneste, containing\nJanuary, March, April and parts of February and December, is still more\nvaluable from the comments it contains, most of which we can believe\nwith confidence to have come from the hand of the great Augustan scholar\nVerrius Flaccus. We are told by Suetonius that Verrius put up a calendar\nin the forum at Praeneste[34], drawn up by his own hand; and the\ndate[35] and matter of these fragments found at Praeneste agree with\nwhat we know of the life and writings of Verrius. It is unlucky that\nrecent attempts to find additional fragments should have been entirely\nwithout result; for the whole annotated calendar, if we possessed it,\nwould probably throw light on many dark corners of our subject.\n\nTo these fragments of Julian calendars, all drawn up between B.C. 31 and\nA.D. 46, there remain to be added two in MSS.: (i) that of Philocalus,\nA.D. 354, (ii) that of Polemius Silvius, A.D. 448; neither of which are\nof much value for our present purpose, though they will be occasionally\nreferred to. Lastly, we have two farmer\u2019s almanacs on cubes of bronze,\nwhich omit the individual days, but are of use as showing the course of\nagricultural operations under the later Empire[36].\n\nAll these calendars, some of which had been printed wholly or in part\nlong ago, while a few have only been discovered of late, have been\nbrought together for the first time in the first volume of the _Corpus\nInscriptionum Latinarum_, edited by Mommsen with all his incomparable\nskill and learning, and furnished with ample elucidations and\ncommentaries. And we now have the benefit of a second edition of this by\nthe same editor, to whose labours in this as in every other department\nof Roman history it is almost impossible to express our debt in adequate\nwords. All references to the calendars in the following pages will be\nmade to this second edition.\n\nA word remains to be said about the _Fasti_ of Ovid[37], which is a\npoetical and often fanciful commentary on the calendar of the first half\nof the Julian year, i.e. January to June inclusive; each month being\ncontained in one book. Ovid tells us himself[38] that he completed the\nyear in twelve books; but the last six were probably never published,\nfor they are never quoted by later writers. The first six were written\nbut not published before the poet\u2019s exile, and taken in hand again after\nthe death of Augustus, but only the first book had been revised when the\nwork was cut short by Ovid\u2019s death.\n\nOvid\u2019s work merits all praise as a literary performance, for the\nneatness and felicity of its versification and diction; but as a source\nof knowledge it is too much of a medley to be used without careful\ncriticism. There is, however, a great deal in it that helps us to\nunderstand the views about the gods and their worship, not only of the\nscholars who pleased themselves and Augustus by investigating these\nsubjects, but also of the common people both in Rome and in the country.\nBut the value varies greatly throughout the work. Where the poet\ndescribes some bit of ritual which he has himself seen, or tells some\nItalian story he has himself heard, he is invaluable; but as a\nsubstitute for the work of Varro on which he drew, he only increases our\nthirst for the original. No great scholar himself, he aimed at producing\na popular account of the results of the work of scholars, picking and\nchoosing here and there as suited his purpose, and not troubling himself\nto write with scientific accuracy. Moreover, he probably made free use\nof Alexandrine poets, and especially of Callimachus, whose _Aetia_ is in\nsome degree his model for the whole poem; and thus it is that the work\ncontains a large proportion of Greek myth, which is often hard to\ndistinguish from the fragments of genuine Italian legend which are here\nand there imbedded in it. Still, when all is said, a student of the\nRoman religion should be grateful to Ovid; and when after the month of\nJune we lose him as a companion, we may well feel that the subject not\nonly loses with him what little literary interest it can boast of, but\nbecomes for the most part a mere investigation of fossil rites, from\nwhich all life and meaning have departed for ever.\n\n\n VI. The Calendar of the Republic and its Religious Festivals.\n\n\nAll the calendars still surviving belong, as we saw, to the early\nEmpire, and represent the Fasti as revised by Julius. But what we have\nto do with is the calendar of the Republic. Can it be recovered from\nthose we still possess? Fortunately this is quite an easy task, as\nMommsen himself has pointed out[39]; we can reconstruct for certain the\nso-called calendar of Numa as it existed throughout the Republican era.\nThe following considerations must be borne in mind:\n\n1. It is certain that Caesar and his advisers would alter the familiar\ncalendar as little as possible, acting in the spirit of persistent\nconservatism from which no true Roman was ever free. They added 10 days\nto the old normal year of 355 days, i. e. two at the end of January,\nAugust, and December, and one at the end of April, June, September, and\nNovember; but they retained the names of the months, and their division\nby Kalends, Nones, and Ides, and also the signs of the days, and the\nnames of all festivals throughout the year. Later on further additions\nwere made, chiefly in the way of glorification of the Emperors and their\nfamilies; but the skeleton remained as it had been under the Republic.\n\n2. It is almost certain that the Republican calendar itself had never\nbeen changed from its first publication down to the time of Caesar.\nThere is no historical record of any alteration, either by the\nintroduction of new festivals or in any other way. The origin of no\nfestival is recorded in the history of the Republic, except the second\nCarmentalia, the Saturnalia, and the Cerealia[40]; and in these three\ncases we can be morally certain that the record, if such it can be\ncalled, is erroneous.\n\n3. If Julius and his successors altered only by slight additions, and if\nthe calendar which they had to work on was of great antiquity and\nunchanged during the Republic, how, in the next place, are we to\ndistinguish the skeleton of that ancient calendar from the Julian and\npost-Julian additions? Nothing is easier; in Mommsen\u2019s words, it is not\na matter of calculation; a glance at the Fasti is sufficient. In all\nthese it will be seen that the numbers, names, and signs of the days\nwere cut or painted in _large_ capital letters; while ludi, sacrifices,\nand all additional notes and comments appear in _small_ capital letters.\nIt cannot be _demonstrated_ that the large capital letters represent the\nRepublican calendar; but the circumstantial evidence, so to speak, is\nconvincing. For inscribed in these large capitals is all the information\nwhich the Roman of the Republic would need; the _dies fasti_,\n_comitiales_, _nefasti_, &c.; the number of the days in the month; the\nposition of the Nones and the Ides and the names of those days on which\nfixed festivals took place; all this in an abbreviated but no doubt\nfamiliar form. The minor sacrificial rites, which concerned the priests\nand magistrates rather than the people, he did not find there; they\nwould only have confused him. The moveable festivals, too, he did not\nfind there, as they changed their date from year to year and were fixed\nby the priesthood as the time for each came round. The _ludi_, or public\ngames, were also absent from the old calendar, for they were, originally\nat least, only adjuncts to certain festivals out of which they had grown\nin course of time. Lastly, all rites which did not technically concern\nthe State as a whole, but only its parts and divisions[41], i. e. of\ngentes and curiae, of pagi (_paganalia_), montes (_Septimontium_) and\nsacella (_Sacra Argeorum_), could not be included in the public calendar\nof the Roman people.\n\nBut the Roman of the Republic, even if his calendar were confined to the\nindications given by the large capital letters in the Julian calendar,\ncould find in these the essential outline of the yearly round of his\nreligious life. This outline we too can reconstruct, though the detail\nis often wholly beyond our reach. For this detail we have to fall back\nupon other sources of information, which are often most unsatisfactory\nand difficult to interpret. What are these other sources, of what value\nare they, and how can that value be tested?\n\nApart from the surviving Fasti, we have to depend, both for the\ncompletion of the religious calendar, and for the study and\ninterpretation of all its details, chiefly on the fragmentary remains of\nthe works of the two great scholars of the age of Julius and Augustus,\nviz. Varro and Verrius Flaccus, and on the later grammarians,\ncommentators, and other writers who drew upon their voluminous writings.\nVarro\u2019s book _de Lingua Latina_, though not complete, is in great part\npreserved, and contains much information taken from the books of the\npontifices, which, did we but possess them, would doubtless constitute\nour one other most valuable record besides the _Fasti_ themselves[42].\nSuch, too, is the value of the dictionary of Verrius Flaccus, which,\nthough itself lost, survives in the form of two series of condensed\nexcerpts, made by Festus probably in the second century, A.D., and by\nPaulus Diaconus as late as the beginning of the ninth[43]. Much of the\nwork of Varro and Verrius is also imbedded in the grammatical writings\nof Servius the commentator on Virgil, in Macrobius, Nonius, Gellius, and\nmany others, and also in Pliny\u2019s _Natural History_, and in some of the\nChristian Fathers, especially St. Augustine and Tertullian; but all\nthese need to be used with care and caution, except where they quote\ndirectly from one or other of their two great predecessors. The same may\nbe said of Laurentius Lydus[44], who wrote in Greek a work _de Mensibus_\nin the sixth century, which still survives. To these materials must be\nadded the great historical writers of the Augustine age; Livy, who,\nuncritical as he was, and incapable of distinguishing the genuine\nItalian elements in religious tradition from the accretions of Greek and\nGraeco-Etruscan myth, yet supplies us with much material for criticism;\nand Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who as a foreigner resident for some\ntime in Rome, occasionally describes ritual of which he was himself a\nwitness. The Roman lives of Plutarch, and his curious collection\nentitled _Roman Questions_, also contain much interesting matter, taken\nfrom several sources, e.g. Juba, the learned king of Mauritania, but as\na rule ultimately referable to Varro. Beyond these there is no one\nauthor of real importance; but the \u2018plant\u2019 of the investigator will\ninclude of course the whole of Roman literature, and Greek literature so\nfar as it touches Roman life and history. Of epigraphical evidence there\nis not much for the period of the Republic, beyond the fragments of the\nFasti; by far the most valuable Italian religious inscription is not\nRoman but Umbrian; and the _Acta Fratrum Arvalium_ only begin with the\nEmpire. Yet from these[45], and from a few works of art, however hard of\ninterpretation, some light has occasionally been thrown upon the\ndifficulties of our subject; and the study of early Italian culture is\nfast progressing under the admirable system of excavation now being\nsupervised by the Italian government.\n\nAll this material has been collected, sifted, and built upon by modern\nscholars, and chiefly by Germans. The work of collecting was done to a\ngreat extent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the rest of the\nprocess mainly in the nineteenth. The chief writers will be quoted as\noccasion demands; here can only be mentioned, _honoris causa_, the\nwritings of Ambrosch, Preller, Schwegler, Marquardt[46], and of some of\nthe writers in the _Mythological Lexicon_, edited by Roscher, especially\nProfessor Wissowa of Berlin, whose short but pithy articles, as well as\nhis treatises _de Feriis_ and _de Dis Indigetibus_ are models of\nscholarly investigation[47]. Of late, too, anthropologists and\nfolk-lorists have had something to say about Roman religious\nantiquities; of these, the most conspicuous is the late lamented Dr.\nMannhardt, who applied a new method to certain problems both of the\nGreek and the Roman religion, and evolved a new theory for their\ninterpretation. Among other works of this kind, which incidentally throw\nlight on our difficulties, the most useful to me have been those of\nProfessor Tylor, Mr. Frazer, Mr. Andrew Lang, and the late Professor\nRobertson Smith. In the _Religion of the Semites_, by the last named\nscholar, I seem to see a deeper insight into the modes of religious\nthought of ancient peoples than in any other work with which I am\nacquainted.\n\nYet in spite of all this accumulation of learning and acumen, it must be\nconfessed that the study of the oldest Roman religion is still one of\ninsuperable difficulty, and apt to try the patience of the student all\nthe more as he slowly becomes aware of the conditions of the problem\nbefore him. There are festivals in the calendar about which we really\nknow nothing at all, and must frankly confess our ignorance; there are\nothers about which we know just enough to be doubtful; others again, in\ninterpreting which the Romans themselves plainly went astray, leaving us\nperhaps nothing but a baseless legend to aid us in guessing their\noriginal nature. It must be borne in mind that the Roman religion was in\nruins when the Julian calendar was drawn up, and that the archaeological\nresearch which was brought to bear upon it by Varro and Verrius was not\nof a strictly scientific character. And during the last two centuries of\nthe Republic, as the once stately building crumbled away, it became\noverlaid with growths of foreign and especially of Greek origin, under\nwhich it now lies hopelessly buried. The ground-plan alone remains, in\nthe form of the calendar as it has been explained above; to this we must\nhold fast if we would obtain any true conception of the religion of the\nearliest Roman State[48]. Here and there some portion of the building of\nwhich it was the basis can however still be conjecturally restored by\nthe aid of Varro and Verrius and a few other ancient writers, tested by\nthe criticism of modern scholars, and sometimes by the results of the\nscience of comparative religion. Such particular restoration is what has\nbeen attempted in this work, not without much misgiving and constant\ndoubt.\n\nThe fall of the Republic is in any case a convenient point from which to\nsurvey the religious ideas and practice of the conquerors of the\ncivilized world. It is not indeed a more significant epoch in the\nhistory of the Roman religion than the era of the Punic wars, when Rome\nceased to be a peninsular, and began to be a cosmopolitan state; but it\nis a turning-point in the history of the calendar and of religious\nworship as well as of the constitution. Henceforward, in spite of the\nstrenuous efforts of Augustus to revive the old forms of worship, all\nreligious rites have a tendency to become transformed or overshadowed,\nfirst by the cult of the Caesars[49]; secondly, by the steadily\nincreasing influence of foreign and especially of Oriental cults; and\nlastly, by Christianity itself[50].\n\nTaking our stand, then, in the year 46 B.C., the last year of the\npre-Julian calendar, we are able in a small volume, by carefully working\nthrough that calendar, to lay a firm foundation of material for the\nstudy of the religious life and thought of the Roman people while it was\nstill in some sense really Roman. The plan has indeed its disadvantages;\nit excludes the introduction of a systematic account of certain\ndepartments of the subject, such as the development of the priesthoods,\nthe sacrificial ritual, the auspicia, and the domestic practice of\nreligious rites[51]. But if it is true, as it undoubtedly is, that in\ndealing with the Roman religion we must begin with the cult[52], and\nthat for the cult the one \u2018sincerum documentum\u2019 is to be found in the\nsurviving Fasti, these drawbacks may fairly be deemed to be\ncounterbalanced by distinct advantages. And in order to neutralize any\nbewilderment that may be caused by the constant variety of the rites we\nshall meet with, both in regard to their origin, history, and meaning,\nsome attempt will be made, when we have completed the round of the year,\nto sum up our results, to sketch in outline the history of Roman\nreligious ideas, and to estimate the influence of all this elaborate\nceremonial on the life and character of the Roman people.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn order to fit the calendar of each month into a single page of this\nwork it has been necessary to print the names of the festivals, and the\nindications of Kalends, Nones, &c. in _small_ capital letters instead of\nthe large capitals in which they appear in the originals (see above, p.\n15). In the headings to the days as they occur throughout the book the\nmethod of the originals will be reproduced exactly, i. e. large capitals\nrepresent in every case the most ancient calendar of the Republic, and\nsmall capitals the _additamenta ex fastis_.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n The difficult questions connected with this subject cannot be\n discussed here. Since Mommsen wrote his _R\u00f6mische Chronologie_ it has\n at least been possible to give an intelligible account of it, such as\n that in the _Dict. of Antiquities_ (second edition), in Marquardt\u2019s\n _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 281 foll., and in Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq,\n _Pontifes_, p. 230 foll. There is a useful summary in H. Peter\u2019s\n edition of Ovid\u2019s _Fasti_ (p. 19). Mommsen\u2019s views have been\n criticized by Huschke, _Das R\u00f6mische Jahr_, and Hartmann, _Der R\u00f6m.\n Kalender_; the former a very unsafe guide, and the latter,\n unfortunately, an unfinished and posthumous work. The chief ancient\n authority is Censorinus, _De die natali_, a work written at the\n beginning of the third century A.D., on the basis of a treatise of\n Suetonius.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n _Chron._ 48 foll.; Marq. 284 and notes.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n Huschke, _op. cit._ 8 foll.; Hartmann, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n 1 Censorinus, _De die natali_, 20. 4.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n Mommsen (_Chron._ 13) believes it to have been a Pythagorean doctrine\n which spread in Southern Italy. Hartmann, on the contrary, calls it an\n old Italian one adopted by Pythagoras. See a valuable note in\n Schwegler, _R\u00f6m. Gesch._ i. 561, inclining to the latter view.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n Probably by the Decemvirs, B.C. 450, who are said to have made some\n alteration in the calendar (Macrob. 1. 13. 21.)\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n See _Dict. Ant._ i. 337 and 342. It is highly probable that there was\n a still older plan, which gave way to this at the time of the\n Decemvirate: the evidence for this, which is conjectural only, is\n stated by Mommsen in the first chapter of his _Chronologie_. The\n number of days in this cycle (also of 4 years) is computed at 1475,\n and the average in each year at 368-3/4.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Or, according to Mommsen, in alternate years after the 23rd and 24th,\n i. e. in the year of 378 days 23 days were inserted after the\n _Terminalia_; in the year of 377 days 22 days were inserted after the\n 24th (_Regifugium_). Thus February would in the one case have 23, and\n in the other 24 days; the remaining 5 and 4 being added to the\n intercalated period. The object of the Decemvirs (if it was they who\n made this change) in this curious arrangement was, in part at least,\n to keep the festival of the god Terminus on its original day (Mommsen,\n _Chron._ 38). Terminus would budge neither from his seat on the\n Capitol (Liv. 1. 55) nor from his place in the calendar.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n Probably in order that the beginning of the year might coincide with a\n new moon; which actually happened on Jan. 1, 45, and was doubtless\n regarded as a good omen.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n He added 10 days to the normal year of 355: January, Sextilis,\n December, receiving two; April, June, September, November, one only.\n These new days were placed at the end of the months, so that the days\n on which religious festivals fell might remain as before.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n Mommsen, _Chron._ 220. In no other Italian calendar of which we have\n any knowledge is March the first month (ib. 218 foll.): but there\n cannot be much doubt that these too had undergone changes. Festus\n (150), representing Verrius Flaccus, says, \u2018Martius mensis initium\n fuit anni et in Latio et post Romam conditam,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Huschke, _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 11 foll.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n See below, under March 1.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n Mommsen, _Chron._ 103 foll.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n Not the real new moon, which is invisible. The period between the new\n moon and the first quarter varies.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 27. This was the method before the publication of\n the calendar by Flavius: Macr. 1. 15. 9. The meaning of Covella is\n doubtful; it has generally been connected with _cavus_ and \u03ba\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, and\n explained of the \u2018hollow\u2019 crescent of the new moon. See Roscher,\n _Lex._ s. v. Iuno 586.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n Aust, s. v. Iuppiter, in Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_, p. 655.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 29 \u2018Dies fasti, per quos praetoribus omnia verba (i.\n e. do, dico, addico) sine piaculo licet fari.\u2019\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n Liv. 9. 46.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n Macr. 1. 16. 14. Cp. the mutilated note of Verrius in _Fasti\n Praenestini_ (Jan. 3).\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n Gell. 4. 9. 5. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 29. 30.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n Livy, 6. 1. 11. Macrob. i. 16. 22.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n Festus 165. See Mommsen\u2019s restoration of the passage in _C. I. L._ 290\n B.; another, less satisfactory, in Huschke, _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 240.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n Mommsen (_C. I. L._ 290, A) still holds to his view that NP is only an\n old form of N, brought into use for purposes of differentiation. His\n criticism of other views makes it difficult to put faith in them; but\n I cannot help thinking that the object of the mark was not only to\n distinguish the religious character of the days from those marked N,\n but to show that civil business might be transacted on them after the\n sacrificial rites were over, owing to the rapid increase of legal\n business. Ovid may be alluding to this, though confusing NP with EN,\n in _Fasti_ i. 51, where the words, \u2018Nam simul exta deo data sunt,\n licet omnia fari,\u2019 do not suit with Verrius\u2019 note on EN, but may\n really explain NP.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n _Fasti Praen._, Jan. 10. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 31. Maer. 1. 16. 3.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n For the names of the fragments of _Fasti_, see next section.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n \u2018Fastos circa forum in albo proposuit, ut quando lege agi posset\n sciretur,\u2019 Liv. 9. 46. 5; Cic. _Att._ 6. 1. 8. On the latter passage\n Mommsen has based a reasonable conjecture that the Fasti had been\n already published in one of the last two of the Twelve Tables, and\n subsequently again withdrawn. (_Chron._ 31 and note.)\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n Macrob. 1. 12. 16.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n _C. I. L._ 207 B. Petronius (_Cena_ 30) suggests the way in which\n copies might be set up in private houses. In municipia copies might be\n made and given to the town by private persons (so probably were Maff.\n and Praen.) or put up by order of the decuriones.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n Including the Fasti Maffeiani, which is almost complete.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n No. 20 in _C. I. L._ (Guidizzolenses), found at Guidizzolo between\n Mantua and Verona.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n Maffeiani, Tusculani, Pinciani, Venusini.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n Those of Caere, Praeneste, Amiternum, and Antium.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n Suet. _de Grammaticis_, 19.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n Circ. A.D. 10: cf. _C. I. L._ 206. There are a few additional notes\n apparently by a later hand.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n Menologium rusticum Colotianum, and Men. rusticum Vallense in _C. I.\n L._ 280, 281.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n Merkel\u2019s edition (1841), with its valuable Prolegomena, is\n indispensable; very useful too is that by H. Peter; Leipzig, 1889.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n _Tristia_, ii. 549.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n _C. I. L._ 297 foll. (de feriis).\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n To these we may perhaps add the _Poplifugia_ and _Lucaria_ in July,\n the legends about which we can neither accept nor refute.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n See Festus, 245; and _Dict. Ant._ s. v. Sacra.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Varro\u2019s works, _de Antiquitatibus humanis_ and _divinis_, and many\n others, only survive in the fragments quoted by later authors.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n Paul the deacon was one of the scholars who found encouragement at the\n court of Charles the Great. His work is an abridgement of that of\n Festus, not of Verrius himself. On Verrius and his epitomators, as\n well as on the other writers who used his glosses, see H. Nettleship\u2019s\n valuable papers in _Essays in Latin Literature_, p. 201 foll.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n For more information about Lydus see Bury, _Later Roman Empire_, ii.\n 183, and below under March 14.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n They will be found in B\u00fccheler\u2019s _Umbrica_ (containing the\n processional inscription of Iguvium with commentary and translation),\n and Henzen\u2019s _Acta Fratrum Arvalium_.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n Preller\u2019s _R\u00f6mische Mythologie_ (ed. 3, by H. Jordan) and Marquardt\u2019s\n third volume of his _Staatsverwaltung_ (ed. Wissowa) are both\n masterpieces, not only in matter but in manner.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n Among the others may especially be mentioned Aust, a pupil of Wissowa,\n to whom we owe the excellent and exhaustive article on Jupiter; and R.\n Peter, the author of the article Fortuna and others, who largely\n reflects the views of the late Prof. Reifferscheid of Breslau.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n \u2018Hoc paene unum superest sincerum documentum,\u2019 Wissowa, _de Feriis_,\n p. 1.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n This is well illustrated in the _Acta Fratrum Arvalium_ referred to\n above.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n A succinct account of these tendencies will be found in Marquardt, p.\n 72 foll. There is a French translation of this invaluable volume.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n A short account of these will be found in the author\u2019s articles in the\n new edition of Smith\u2019s _Dictionary of Antiquities_, on \u2018Sacra,\u2019\n \u2018Sacerdos,\u2019 and \u2018Sacrificium.\u2019 On the domestic rites, there is an\n excellent book in Italian, which might well be translated: _Il Culto\n privato di Roma antica_, by Prof. De-Marchi of Milan, of which only\n Part I, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, has as yet appeared.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n Marquardt, _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. p. 2.\n\n\n\n\n Calendar.\n\n\n MENSIS MARTIUS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. 1. Feriae Marti. 1. Matronalia(?).\n NP Iunoni Lucinae.\n 2 F\n 3 C\n 4 C\n 5 C\n 6 NP\n 7 NON. 7. Vediovi.\n F\n 8 F\n 9 C 9. Arma ancilia\n movent.\n 10 C\n 11 C\n 12 C\n 13 EN\n 14 NP EQUIRRIA 14 (or 15?). Feriae 14. Mamuralia(?).\n Marti.\n 15 EID. 15. Feriae Annae\n NP Perennae.\n 16 F 16 (and 17?). Sacra\n Argeorum.\n 17 NP LIBERALIA\n AGONIA\n 18 C\n 19 N QUINQUATRUS 19. Feriae Marti.\n 20 C\n 21 C\n 22 N\n 23 NP TUBILUSTRIUM\n 24 Q.R.C.\n F\n 25 C\n 26 C\n 27 NP\n 28 C\n 29 C\n 30 C\n 31 C 31. Lunae in\n Aventino.\n\n\n MENSIS APRILIS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. 1. Veneralia(?).\n F Fortunae virili in\n balneis (Verr.\n Flacc.).\n 2 F\n 3 C\n 4 C 4. Matri Magnae.\n 4-10. Ludi\n Megalesiaci.\n 5 NON. 5. Fortunae publicae\n N citeriori in colle.\n 6 NP\n 7 N\n 8 N\n 9 N 9-10 or 10-11.\n Oraculum Fortunae\n patet (at\n Praeneste).\n 10 N\n 11 N\n 12 N 12-19. Ludi Cereales\n 13 EID. NP\n 14 N\n 15 NP FORDICIDIA\n 16 N\n 17 N\n 18 N\n 19 N CEREALIA 19. Cereri Libero\n Liberae.\n 20 N\n 21 NP PARILIA 21. Natalis urbis\n (Philoc.).\n 22 N\n 23 NP VINALIA 23. Veneri Erycinae.\n Iovi.\n 24 C 24. Feriae Latinae\n (conceptivae)\n usually about this\n time.\n 25 NP ROBIGALIA 25. Sacrificium et\n ludi.\n 26 F\n 27 C\n 28 NP 28. Ludi Florae, to 28. Floralia\n V. Non. Mai. (May (Plin.).\n 3).\n 29 C\n\n\n MENSIS MAIUS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. 1. Laribus 1. Dies natalis of\n F (praestitibus). temple of Bona Dea\n (Ovid).\n 2 F\n 3 C\n 4 C\n 5 C\n 6 C\n 7 NON.\n [53]F\n 8 F\n 9 N LEMURIA\n 10 C\n 11 N LEMURIA\n 12 NP\n 13 N LEMURIA\n 14 C\n 15 EID. 15. Feriae Iovi 15. Sacra Argeorum\n NP Mercurio Maiae. (Ovid, &c.).\n 16 F\n 17 C\n 18 C\n 19 C\n 20 C\n 21 NP AGONIA 21. Vediovi.\n 22 N\n 23 NP TUBILUSTRIUM 23. Volcano.\n 24 Q.R.C.\n F\n 25 C 25. Fortunae\n publicae Populi\n Romani.\n 26 C\n 27 C\n 28 C\n 29 C 29. Ambarvalla\n (feriae\n conceptivae).\n 30 C\n 31 C\n\n\n MENSIS IUNIUS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. 1. Iunoni Monetae. 1. Kalendae fabariae\n N (Plin.) Ludi.\n 2 F\n 3 C 3. Bellonae in\n circo.\n 4 C\n 5 NON. 5. Dio Fidio in\n N colle.\n 6 N\n 7 N\n 8 N 8. Menti in\n Capitolio.\n 9 N VESTALIA\n 10 N\n 11 N MATRALIA\n 12 N\n 13 EID. 13. Feriae Iovi. 13. Quinquatrus\n NP minusculae.\n 14 [54]N\n 15 Q.ST.D.\n F\n 16 C\n 17 C\n 18 C 18. Annae sacrum.\n 19 C\n 20 C 20. Summano ad\n circum maximum.\n 21 C\n 22 C\n 23 C\n 24 C 24. Forti Fortunae.\n 25 C\n 26 C\n 27 C\n 28 C\n 29 F\n\n\n MENSIS QUINTILIS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. N\n 2 N\n 3 N\n 4 NP\n 5 NP POPLIFUGIA\n 6 N 6-13. Ludi\n Apollinares.\n 7 NON. N 7. Nonae Caprotinae\n (Varro).\n 8 N\n 9 N 9. Vitulatio\n (Varro).\n 10 C\n 11 C\n 12 C\n 13 C\n 14 C 14-19. Mercatus.\n 15 EID. NP\n 16 F\n 17 C\n 18 C 18. Dies Alliensis.\n 19 NP LUCARIA\n 20 C\n 21 NP LUCARIA\n 22 C\n 23 NP NEPTUNALIA\n 24 N\n 25 NP FURRINALIA\n 26 C\n 27 C\n 28 C\n 29 C\n 30 C 30. Fortunae\n huiusque diei in\n campo.\n 31 C\n\n\n MENSIS SEXTILIS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. F 1. Spei ad forum 1. Laribus\n holitorium. compitalibus? (Ovid,\n 5. 147).\n 2 NP\n 3 C\n 4 C\n 5 NON. F 5. Saluti in colle\n Quir.\n 6[55] F\n 7 C\n 8 C 8 (or 9?) Soli\n Indigiti in colle\n Quir.\n 9 F\n 10 C\n 11 C\n 12 C 12. Herculi invicto\n ad circ. max.\n 13 EID. NP 13. Feriae Iovi.\n 14 F Dianae in Aventino.\n 15 C Vortumno in\n Aventino, &c. (see\n p. 198).\n 16 C\n 17 NP PORTUNALIA 17. Ianoad theatrum\n Marcelli.\n 18 C\n 19[56] FP VINALIA\n 20 C\n 21 NP CONSUALIA 21. Conso in\n Aventino.\n 22 EN\n 23 NP VOLCANALIA 23. Volcano in circo\n Flaminio, &c.\n 24 C 24. Mundus patet\n (Festus).\n 25 NP OPICONSIVIA\n 26 C\n 27 NP VOLTURNALIA\n 28 C\n 29 F\n\n\n MENSIS SEPTEMBER\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL.\n F\n 2 F\n 3 F\n 4 C 4-12. Ludi Romani.\n 5 NON.\n F\n 6 F\n 7 C\n 8 C\n 9 C\n 10 C\n 11 C\n 12[57] N\n 13 EID. 13. Iovi epulum.\n NP Feriae Iovi.\n 14 F 14. Equorum\n probatio.\n 15[58] N 15-19. Ludi Romani\n in circo.\n 16 C\n 17 C\n 18 C\n 19 C\n 20 C 20-23. Mercatus.\n 21 C\n 22 C\n 23 F\n 24 C\n 25 C\n 26 C\n 27 C\n 28 C\n 29 F\n\n\n MENSIS OCTOBER\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. 1. Tigillo sororio\n N Acili. Fidei in\n Capitolio.\n 2 F\n 3 C\n 4 C\n 5 C 5. Mundus patet.\n 6[59] C\n 7 NON. 7. Iovi fulguri.\n F Iunoni Curriti in\n campo.\n 8 F\n 9 C\n 10 C\n 11 NP MEDITRINALIA\n 12 C\n 13 NP FONTINALIA 13. Feriae Fonti.\n 14 EN\n 15 EID. 15. Feriae Iovi. 15. Sacrifice of\n NP October horse\n (Festus).\n 16 F\n 17 C\n 18 C\n 19 NP ARMILUSTRIUM\n 20 C\n 21 C\n 22 C\n 23 C\n 24 C\n 25 C\n 26 C\n 27 C\n 28 C\n 29 C\n 30 C\n 31 C\n\n\n MENSIS NOVEMBER\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL.\n F\n 2 F\n 3 C\n 4 C 4-17. Ludi plebeii.\n 5 F\n 6 NON.\n F\n 7 C\n 8 C\n 9 C\n 10 C\n 11 C 13. Feriae Iovi.\n Iovi epulum.\n 12 C\n 13 EID. 13. (or 14?).\n NP Feroniae in campo.\n Fortunae\n Primigeniae.\n 14 F\n 15 C\n 16 C\n 17 C 14. Equorum\n probatio.\n 18 C 18-20. Mercatus.\n 19 C\n 20 C\n 21 C\n 22 C\n 23 C\n 24 C\n 25 C\n 26 C\n 27 C\n 28 C\n 29 F\n\n\n MENSIS DECEMBER\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. 1. Neptuno Pietati 1. Fortunae muliebri\n N ad circ. max. (Dionys.).\n 2 N\n 3 N 3. Sacra Bonae Deae\n (Plutarch, &c.).\n 4 C\n 5 NON. 5. Faunalia rustica\n F (Horace).\n 6 F\n 7 C\n 8 C 8. Tiberino in\n insula.\n 9 C\n 10 C\n 11 NP AG[ONIA] IN. 11. Septimontium\n (Festus; Varro).\n 12 EN 12. Conso in\n Aventino.\n 13 EID. 13. Telluri et\n NP Cereri in Carinis.\n 14 F\n 15 NP CONSUALIA\n 16 C\n 17 NP SATURNALIA\n 18 C\n 19 NP OPALIA\n 20 C\n 21 NP DIVALIA\n 22 C 22. Laribus\n permarinis in\n porticu Minucia.\n 23 NP LARENTALIA\n 24 C\n 25 C\n 26 C\n 27 C\n 28 C\n 29 F\n\n\n MENSIS IANUARIUS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. F 1. Aesculapio\n Vediovi in insula\n 2 F\n 3 C 3-5 (circa).\n Compitalia or ludi\n compitales.\n 4 C\n 5 NON. F\n 6 F\n 7 C\n 8 C\n 9 [NP] AGONIA\n 10 EN\n 11 NP CARMENTALIA 11. \u2018Inturnalia\u2019\n Servius.\n 12 C\n 13 EID. NP\n 14 EN\n 15 NP CARMENTALIA\n 16 C\n 17 C\n 18 C\n 19 C\n 20 C\n 21 C\n 22 C\n 23 C\n 24 C 24-26. Sementivae or\n Paganalia (Ovid)\n (feriae\n conceptivae).\n 25 C\n 26 C\n 27 C 27. Castori et\n Polluci (dedication\n of temple).\n 28 C\n 29 F\n\n\n MENSIS FEBRUARIUS\n\n _Fasti antiquissimi._ _Additamenta ex _Additamenta ex\n fastis._ scriptoribus._\n\n 1 KAL. 1. Iunoni Sospitae\n N (Ovid).\n 2 N\n 3 N\n 4 N\n 5 NON. 5. Concordiae in\n NP arce (Praen.).\n 6 N\n 7 N\n 8 N\n 9 N\n 10 N\n 11 N\n 12 N\n 13 EID. 13. Fauno in insula 13-21. Parentalia.\n NP (Esq.).\n 14 N\n 15 NP LUPERCALIA\n 16 EN\n 17 NP QUIRINALIA 17. Last day of\n Fornacalia (feriae\n conceptivae).\n \u2018Stultorum feriae\u2019\n (Paulus, &c.).\n 18 C\n 19 C\n 20 C\n 21[60] FP FERALIA\n 22 C\n 23 NP TERMINALIA\n 24 N REGIFUGIUM\n 25 C\n 26 EN\n 27 NP EQUIRRIA\n 28 C\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n N. Maff. Cf. Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 294 b.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n F. Tusc. Cf. Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 294 b.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n NP. Antiat. N. minores 6.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n F. Antiat. Allif. NP Vall.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n NP Vall. C. Antiat. _C. I. L._ 294.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n C. Vall. Antiat.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n N. Antiat. Cf. _C. I. L._ 294.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n F. Maff.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS MARTIUS.\n\n\nThe mensis Martius stands alone among the Roman months. Not only was it\nthe first in matters both civil and religious down to the time of Julius\nCaesar, but it is more closely associated with a single deity than any\nother, and that deity the protector and ancestor of the legendary\nfounder of the city. It bears too the name of the god, which is not the\ncase with any other month except January; and it is less certain that\nJanuary was named after Janus than that March was named after Mars. The\ncult of Janus is not specially obvious in January except on a single\nday; but the cult of Mars is paramount all through March, and gives a\npeculiar character to the month\u2019s worship.\n\nIt follows on a period which we may call one of purification, or the\nperformance of piacular duties towards dead ancestors and towards the\ngods; and this has itself succeeded a time of general festivity in the\nhomestead, the group of homesteads, the market, and the cross-roads. The\nrites of December and January are for the most part festive and social,\nthose of February mystic and melancholy\u2014characteristics which have their\ncounterpart in the Christian Christmas, New Year, and Lent. The rites of\nMarch are distinct from those of either period, as we shall see. They\nagain are followed by those of April, the opening month, which are gay\nand apt to be licentious; then comes the mensis Maius or month of\ngrowth, which is a time of peril for the crops, and has a certain\ncharacter of doubt and darkness in its rites; lastly comes June, the\nmonth of maturity, when harvest is close at hand, and life begins to\nbrighten up once more. After this the Roman months cease to denote by\ntheir names those workings of nature on which the husbandman\u2019s fortune\nfor the year depends.\n\nBy a process of elimination we can make a guess at the kind of ideas\nwhich must have been associated with the month which the Romans called\nMartius, even before examining its rites in detail. It is the time when\nthe spring, whose first breath has been felt in February, begins to show\nits power upon the land[61]. Some great _numen_ is at work, quickening\nvegetation, and calling into life the powers of reproduction in man and\nthe animals. The way in which this quickening Power or Spirit was\nregarded by primitive man has been very carefully investigated of recent\nyears, and though the variation is endless both in myth and in ritual,\nwe may now safely say that he was looked on as coming to new life after\na period of death, or as returning after an absence in the winter, or as\nconquering the hostile powers that would hinder his activity. Among\ncivilized peoples these ideas only survive in legend or poetry, or in\nsome quaint bit of rural custom, often semi-dramatic, which may or may\nnot have found its way into the organized cults of a city state of\nGreece or Italy, or even into the calendar of a Christian Church. But\nwhen these survivals have been collected in vast numbers both from\nmodern Europe and from classical antiquity, and compared with the\nexisting ideas and practices of savage peoples, they can leave no doubt\nin our minds as to the general character of the primitive husbandman\u2019s\nconception of the mysterious power at work in spring-time.\n\nIt was this Power, we can hardly doubt, that the Latins knew by the name\nof Mars, the god whose cult is so prominent throughout the critical\nperiod of the quickening processes. We know him in Roman literature as a\nfull-grown deity, with characteristics partly taken from the Greeks,\npartly extended and developed by a state priesthood and the usage of a\ngrowing and cosmopolitan city. We cannot trace him back, step by step,\nto his earliest vague form as an undefined Spirit, Power, or _numen_; it\nis very doubtful whether we can identify him, as mythologists have often\ndone, with anything so obvious and definite as the sun, which by itself\ndoes not seem to have been held responsible by primitive peoples for the\nworkings of nature at this time of year. We do not even know for certain\nthe meaning of his name, and can get no sure help from comparative\nphilology. Nevertheless there is a good deal of cumulative evidence\nwhich suggests a comparatively humble origin for this great god, some\npoints of which we shall meet with in studying his cult during the\nmonth. The whole subject has been worked up by Roscher in the article on\nMars in his _Mythological Lexicon_, which has the great advantage of\nbeing based on an entire re-examination of the Mars-cult, which he had\nhandled in an earlier essay on Apollo and Mars.\n\n\n KAL. MART. (MARCH 1). NP.\n\n\nFERIAE MARTI. (PRAEN.)\nN\u0304 MARTIS. (PHILOC.)\nIUN[O]NI LUCINAE E[S]QUILIIS QUOD EO DIE AEDES EI [DEDICA]TA EST PER\nMATRONAS QUAM VOVERAT ALBI[NIA] ... VEL UXOR ... SI PUERUM ... [AT]QUE\nIPSA[M].... (PRAEN.)\n\n\nThis was the New Year\u2019s day of the Roman religious calendar. From\nMacrobius[62] we learn that in his day the sacred fire of Vesta was now\nrenewed, and fresh laurels fixed on the Regia, the Curiae, and the\nhouses of the flamens; the custom therefore was kept up long after the\nfirst of March had ceased to be the civil New Year. Ovid alludes to the\nsame rites, and adds the Aedes Vestae as also freshly decorated[63]:\n\n Neu dubites, primae fuerint quin ante Kalendae\n Martis, ad haec animum signa referre potes.\n Laurea flaminibus quae toto perstitit anno\n Tollitur, et frondes sunt in honore novae.\n Ianua tunc regis posita viret arbore Phoebi;\n Ante tuas fit idem, curia prisca, fores.\n Vesta quoque ut folio niteat velata recenti,\n Cedit ab Iliacis laurea cana focis.\n\nThe mention of these buildings carries us back to the very earliest\nRome, when the rex and his sons and daughters[64] (Flamines and\nVestales, in their later form) performed between them the whole\nreligious duty of the community; to these we may perhaps add the\nwarrior-priests of Mars (Salii). The connexion of the decoration with\nthe Mars-cult is probable, if not certain; the laurel was sacred to\nMars, for in front of his _sacrarium_ in the regia there grew two\nlaurels[65], and it has been conjectured that they supplied the boughs\nused on this day[66].\n\nMarch 1 is also marked in the calendar of Philocalus as the birthday of\nMars (N\u0304 = natalis Martis). This appears in no other calendar as yet\ndiscovered, and is conspicuously absent in the Fasti Praenestini; it is\ntherefore very doubtful whether any weight should be given to a\nfourth-century writer whose calendar had certainly an urban and not a\nrustic basis[67]. There is no trace of allusion to a birth of Mars _on\nthis day_ in Latin literature, though the day is often mentioned. There\nwas indeed a pretty legend of such a birth, told by Ovid under May\n2[68], which has its parallels in other mythologies; Juno became\npregnant of Mars by touching a certain flower of which the secret was\ntold her by Flora:\n\n Protinus haerentem decerpsi pollice florem;\n Tangitur et tacto concipit illa sinu.\n Iamque gravis Thracen et Iaeva Propontidis intrat\n Fitque potens voti, Marsque creatus erat.\n\nOf this tale Preller remarked long ago that it has a Greek setting: it\nis in fact in its Ovidian form a reflex from stories such as those of\nthe birth of Athena and of Kora. Yet it has been stoutly maintained[69]\nthat it sprang from a real Italian germ, and is a fragment of the lost\nItalian mythology. Now, though it is certainly untrue that the Italians\nhad no native mythology, and though there are faint traces, as we shall\nsee, of tales about Mars himself, yet the Latins at least so rarely took\nthese liberties with their deities[70], that every apparent case of a\ndivine myth needs to be carefully examined and well supported. In this\ncase we must conclude that there is hardly any evidence for a general\nbelief that March 1 was the birthday of Mars; and that Ovid\u2019s story of\nJuno and Mars must be looked on with suspicion so far as these deities\nare concerned.\n\nThe idea that Mars was born on March 1 might arise simply from the fact\nthat the day was the first of his month and also the first of the year.\nIt is possible however to account for it in another way. It was the\n_dies natalis_ of the temple of Juno Lucina on the Esquiline, as we\nlearn from the note in the Fasti Praenestini; and this Juno had a\nspecial power in childbirth. The temple itself was not of very ancient\ndate[71], but Juno had no doubt always been especially the matrons\u2019\ndeity, and in a sense represented the female principle of life[72]. To\nher all kalends were sacred, and more especially the first kalends of\nthe year, on which we find that wives received presents from their\nhusbands[73], and entertained their slaves. In fact the day was\nsometimes called the Matronalia[74], though the name has no technical or\nreligious sense. Surely, if a mother was to be found for Mars, no one\ncould be more suitable that Juno Lucina; and if a day were to be fixed\nfor his birth, no day could be better than the first kalends of the\nyear, which was also the dedication-day of the temple of the goddess. At\nwhat date the mother and the birthday were found for him it is\nimpossible to discover. The latter may be as late as the Empire; the\nformer may have been an older invention, since Mars seems to have been\napt to lend himself, under Greek or Etruscan influence, somewhat more\neasily to legendary treatment than some other deities[75] But we may at\nany rate feel pretty sure that it was the Matronalia on March 1 that\nsuggested the motherhood of Juno and the birth of Mars; and we cannot,\nas Roscher does, use the Matronalia to show that these myths were old\nand native[76].\n\nYet another legend was attached to this day. It was said that the\noriginal _ancile_, or sacred shield of Mars, fell down from heaven[77],\nor was found in the house of Numa[78], on March 1. This was the type\nfrom which were copied the other eleven belonging to the collegium of\nSalii Palatini; in the legend the smith who did this work was named\nMamurius, and was commemorated in the Salian hymn[79]. These are simply\nfragments of a tangle of myth which grew up out of the mystery attaching\nto the Salii, or dancing priests of Mars, and to the curious shields\nwhich they carried, and the hymns which they sang[80]; in the latter we\nknow that the word _Mamuri_ often occurred, which is now generally\nrecognized as being only a variant of the name Mars[81]. We shall meet\nwith the word again later in the month. This also was the first day on\nwhich the shields were \u2018moved,\u2019 as it was called; i. e. taken by the\nSalii from the _sacrarium Martis_ in the Regia[82], and carried through\nthe city in procession. Dionysius (ii. 70) has left us a valuable\ndescription of these processions, which continued till the 24th of the\nmonth; the Salii leaped and danced, reminding the writer of the Greek\nCuretes, and continually struck the shields with a short spear or\nstaff[83] as they sang their ancient hymns and performed their\nrhythmical dances.\n\nThe original object and meaning of all these strange performances is now\nfairly well made out, thanks to the researches of M\u00fcllenhoff, Mannhardt,\nRoscher, Frazer and others. Roscher, in his comparison of Apollo and\nMars[84], pointed out the likeness in the spring festivals of the two\ngods. At Delphi, at the Theophania (7th of Bysios = March), there were\ndecorations, sacrifices, dances, and songs; and of these last, some were\n\u1f54\u03bc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03af, or invocations to the god to appear, some \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u1fb6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, or\nshouts of encouragement in his great fight with the dragon, or perhaps\nintended to scare the dragon away. For Apollo was believed to return in\nthe spring, to be born anew, and to struggle in his infancy with the\ndemon of evil. At other places in Greece similar performances are found;\nat Delos[85], at Ortygia[86] near Ephesus, at Tegyra, and elsewhere. At\nOrtygia the \u039a\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u1fc6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 stood and clashed their arms to frighten away Hera\nthe enemy of Apollo\u2019s mother Leto, in the annual dramatic representation\nof the perilous labour of the mother and the birth of her son. These\npractices (and similar ones among northern peoples) seem to be the\nresult of the poetical mythology of an imaginative race acting on still\nmore primitive ideas. From all parts of the world Mr. Frazer has\ncollected examples of rites of this kind occurring at some period of\nreal or supposed peril, and often at the opening of a new year, in which\ndances, howling, the beating of pots and pans, brandishing of arms, and\neven firing of guns are thought efficacious in driving out evil spirits\nwhich bring hurt of some kind to mankind or to the crops which are the\nfruits of his labour[87]. This notion of evil spirits and the\npossibility of expelling them is at the root of the whole series of\npractices, which in the hands of the Greeks became adorned with a\nbeautiful mythical colouring, while the Romans after their fashion\nembodied them in the cult of their city with a special priesthood to\nperform them, and connected them with the name of their great priest\nking.\n\nIn an elaborate note[88] Mr. Frazer has attempted to explain the rites\nof the Salii in the light of the material he has collected. He is\ninclined to see two objects in their performances: (1) the routing out\nof demons of all kinds in order to collect them for transference to the\nhuman scapegoat, Mamurius Veturius (see below on March 14), who was\ndriven out a fortnight later; and (2) to make the corn grow, by a charm\nconsisting in leaping and dancing, which is known in many parts of the\nworld. It will perhaps be safer to keep to generalities in matters of\nwhich we have but slender knowledge; and to conclude that the old Latins\nbelieved that the Spirit which was beginning to make the crops grow must\nat this time be protected from hostile demons, in order that he might be\nfree to perform his own friendly functions for the community. Though the\nfew words preserved of the Salian hymns are too obscure to be of much\nuse[89], we seem to see in them a trace of a deity of vegetation; and\nthe prayer to Mars, which is given in Cato\u2019s agricultural treatise, is\nmost instructive on this point[90].\n\nThe Salii in these processions were clothed in a _trabea_ and _tunica\npicta_[91], the \u2018full dress\u2019 of the warrior inspired by some special\nreligious zeal, wearing helmet, breastplate, and sword. They carried the\n_ancile_ on the left arm, and a staff or club of some kind to strike it\nwith[92]. At certain sacred places they stopped and danced, their\npraesul giving them the step and rhythm; and here we may suppose that\nthey also sang the song of which a few fragments have come down to us,\nwhere the recurring word Mamurius seems beyond doubt to be a variant of\nMars[93]. Each evening they rested at a different place\u2014_mansiones\nSaliorum_, as they were called\u2014and here the sacred arms were hung up\ntill the next day, and the Salii feasted. They were twenty-four in\nnumber, twelve Palatini and twelve Collini (originally Agonales or\nAgonenses), the former specially devoted to the worship of Mars\nGradivus, the latter to that of Quirinus[94]. The antiquity of the\npriesthood is proved by the fact that the Salii must be of patrician\nbirth, and _patrimi_ and _matrimi_ (i. e. with both parents living)\naccording to the ancient rule which descended from the worship of the\nhousehold[95].\n\nIt has been suggested that the shields (_ancilia_) which the Salii\ncarried, being twelve in number for each of the two guilds, represented\nthe twelve months of the year, either as twelve suns[96] (the sun being\nrenewed each month), or as twelve moons, which is a little more\nreasonable. This idea implies that the number of the Salii (which was\nthe same as that of the Fratres Arvales) was based on the number of\nmonths in the year, which is very far from likely; it would seem also to\nassume that the shape of the shields was round, like sun or moon, which\nwas almost certainly not the case. According to the legend, the original\nshield fell on the first new moon of the year; but it is quite\nunnecessary to jump to the conclusion that the others represent eleven\nother new moons. It would rather seem probable to a cautious inquirer\nthat though an incrustation of late myth may have grown upon the Salii\nand their carmen and their curious arms, no amount of ingenious\ncombination has as yet succeeded in proving that such myths had their\norigin in any really ancient belief of the Romans. What we know for\ncertain is that there were twelve warrior-priests of the old Palatine\ncity, and that they carried twelve shields of an antique type, which\nVarro compares to the Thracian peltae (_L. L._ 7. 43); shaped not unlike\nthe body of a violin, with a curved indentation on each side[97], which,\nwhen the shield was slung on the back, would leave space for the arms to\nmove freely. In this respect, as in the rest of his equipment, the\nSalius simply represented the old Italian warrior in his \u2018war-paint.\u2019 In\nthe examples of expulsion of evils referred to above as collected by Mr.\nFrazer, it is interesting to notice how often the expellers use military\narms, or are dressed in military fashion. This may perhaps help us to\nunderstand how attributes apparently so distinct as the military and the\nagricultural should be found united in Mars and his cult.\n\n\n NON. MART. (MARCH 7). F.\n\n\n... [VEDI]OVI. ARTIS VEDIOVIS INTER DUOS LUCOS. (PRAEN.)\n\n\nVarious conjectures have been made for correcting this note. We may take\nit that the first word is rightly completed: some letters seem to have\npreceded it, and _feriae_ has been suggested[98], but not generally\naccepted. The next word, _Artis_, must be a slip of the stone-cutter.\nThat it was not Martis we are sure, as Ovid says that there was no note\nin the Fasti for this day except on the cult of Vediovis[99]. Even\nMommsen is in despair, but suggests _Aedis_ as a possibility, and that\n_dedicata_ was accidentally omitted after it.\n\nWe do not know when the temple was dedicated[100]. The cult of Vediovis\nseems to have no special connexion with other March rites: and it seems\nas well to postpone consideration of it till May 21, the dedication-day\nof the temple _in arce_. See also on Jan. 1.\n\n\n VII ID. MART. (MARCH 9). C.\n\n\nARMA ANCILIA MOVENT. (PHILOC.)\n\n\nAs we have seen, the first \u2018moving\u2019 of the ancilia was on the 1st. This\nis the second mentioned in the calendars; the third, according to Lydus\n(4. 42), was on the 23rd (Tubilustrium, q.v.). As the Salii seem to have\ndanced with the shields all through the month up to the 24th[101], it\nhas been supposed that these were the three principal days of \u2018moving\u2019;\nand Mr. Marindin suggests that they correspond to the three most\nimportant _mansiones Saliorum_, of which two were probably the Curia\nSaliorum on the Palatine and the Sacrarium Martis in the Regia[102].\n\n\n PRID. ID. MART. (MARCH 14). NP.\n\n\nEQUIRR[IA]. (MAFF. VAT. ESQ.)\nFERIAE MARTI. (VAT.)\nSACRUM MAMURIO. (RUSTIC CALENDARS[103].)\nMAMURALIA. (PHILOC.)\n\n\nThese notes involve several difficulties. To begin with, this day is an\neven number, and there is no other instance in the calendar of a\nfestival occurring on such a day. Wissowa[104], usually a very cautious\ninquirer, here boldly cuts the knot by conjecturing that the Mars\nfestival of this day had originally been on the next, i.e. the Ides, but\nwas put back one day to enable the people to frequent both the\nhorse-races (Equirria) and the festival of Anna Perenna[105]. The\nlatter, he might have added, was obviously extremely popular with the\nlower classes, as we shall see from Ovid\u2019s description; and though the\nscene of it was close to that of the Equirria, or certainly not far\naway, it is not impossible that it may have diverted attention from the\nnobler and more manly amusement. Wissowa strengthens his argument by\npointing out an apparent parallel between the festival dates of March\nand October. Here, as elsewhere, in the calendar, we find an interval of\nthree days between two festivals, viz. between March 19 (Quinquatrus)\nand March 23 (Tubilustrium), and between Oct. 15 (\u2018October horse\u2019) and\nOct. 19 (Armilustrium). Now, as we shall see, the rites of March 19 and\nOct. 19 seem to correspond to each other[106]; and if there were a\nchariot-race on March 15, it would also answer to the race on the day of\nthe \u2018October horse,\u2019 Oct. 15, with a three days\u2019 interval as in October.\nThe argument is not a very strong one, but there is a good deal to be\nsaid for it.\n\nA much more serious difficulty lies in the discrepancy between the three\nolder calendars in which we have notes for this day and the almanacs of\nthe later Empire, viz. that of Philocalus (A.D. 354) and the rustic\ncalendars. The former tell us of a Mars-festival, with a horse-race; the\nlatter know nothing of these, but note a festival of Mamurius, a name\nwhich, as we saw, occurred in the Saliare Carmen apparently as a variant\nof Mars, and came to be affixed to the legendary smith who made the\neleven copies of the ancile. How are we to account for the change of\nMars into Mamurius, and of feriae Marti into Mamuralia? And are we to\nsuppose that the later calendars here indicate a late growth of legend,\nbased on the name Mamurius as occurring in the Carmen Saliare, or that\nthey have preserved the shadow of an earlier and popular side of the\nMarch rites, which the State-calendars left out of account?\n\nApparently Mommsen holds the former opinion[107]. In his note on this\nday he says that it is easy to understand how the second Equirria came\nto be known to the _vulgus_ as Mamuralia (i.e. so distinguished from the\nfirst Equirria on Feb. 27), seeing that Mamurius who made the ancilia\nbelongs wholly to the cult of Mars, and that this day was one of those\non which the Salii and the ancilia were familiar sights in the streets\nof Rome. In other words, the Salian songs gave rise to the legend of\nMamurius, and this in its turn gave a new name to the second Equirria or\nferiae Marti. And this I believe to be the most rational explanation of\nour difficulty, seeing that we have no mention of a feast of Mamurius\nearlier than the calendar of Philocalus in the fourth century A.D.,\nwhich cannot be regarded as in any sense representing learning or\nresearch[108].\n\nBut of recent years much has been written in favour of the other view,\nthat the late calendars have here preserved for us a trace of very\nancient Roman belief and ritual[109]. This view rests almost entirely on\na statement of a still later writer, Laurentius Lydus of Apamea, who\nwrote a work, _de Mensibus_, in the first half of the sixth century\nA.D., preserved in part in the form of two summaries or collections of\nextracts. Lydus was no doubt a man of learning, as is shown by his other\nwork, _de Magistratibus_; but he does not give us his authority for\nparticular statements, and his second- or third-hand knowledge must\nalways be cautiously used.\n\nLydus tells us that on the Ides of March (a mistake, it is\nsupposed[110], for the 14th\u2014which, however, he should not have made), a\nman clothed in skins was led out and driven with long peeled wands (out\nof the city, as we may guess from what follows) and shouted at as\n\u2018Mamurius.\u2019 Hence the saying, when any one is beaten, that they are\n\u2018playing Mamurius with him.\u2019 For the legend runs that Mamurius the smith\nwas beaten out of the city because misfortune fell on the Romans when\nthey substituted the new shields (made by Mamurius) for those that had\nfallen from heaven[111].\n\nThis is clearly a late form of the Mamurius-myth: in all the earlier\naccounts[112] only one ancile is said to have fallen from heaven. Lydus\nseems rather to be thinking of twelve original ones[113], and twelve\ncopies\u2014perhaps of the Palatine and Colline ancilia respectively. If the\nform of the myth, then, is of late growth, suspicion may well be aroused\nas to the antiquity of the rite it was meant to explain, for with the\nolder type of myth the rite does not seem to suit. And this suspicion is\nstrengthened by the fact that in the whole of Latin literature there is\nno certain allusion to a rite so striking and peculiar, and only one\nthat can possibly, even by forcible treatment, be taken as such. In\nPropertius v (iv.) 2. 61, we have the following lines, put into the\nmouth of the god Vertumnus:\n\n At tibi, Mamuri, formae caelator aenae,\n Tellus artifices ne premat Osca manus,\n Qui me tam docilis potuisti fundere in usus.\n Unum opus est: operi non datur unus honos.\n\nUsener took this to mean, or to imply, that Mamurius was driven out of\nthe city to its enemies the Oscans; but how we are to get this out of\nthe words, which will bear very different interpretations, obscure as\nthey are, it is not easy to see. And can we easily believe that, with\nthis exception, no allusion should be found to the rite in either Latin\nor Greek writers\u2014not in Ovid, Dionysius, Servius, Plutarch[114], or in\nthe fragments of Varro, Varrius, and others\u2014if that curious rite had\nreally been enacted year by year before the eyes of the Roman people? It\ncertainly is not impossible that it may have slipped their notice, or\nhave been mentioned in works that are lost to us; but it is so\nimprobable as to justify us in hesitating to base conclusions as to the\nantiquity of the rite on the statement of Lydus alone.\n\nThere are indeed one or two passages which seem to prove that _skins_\nwere used by the Salii, and that these skins were _beaten_. Servius[115]\nsays of Mamurius that they consecrated a day to him, on which \u2018pellem\nvirgis caedunt ad artis similitudinem,\u2019 i. e. on which they imitate the\nsmith\u2019s art by beating a skin. So also Minucius Felix[116]: \u2018alii (we\nshould probably read _Salii_) incedunt pileati, scuta vetera[117]\ncircumferunt, pelles caedunt.\u2019 If we may judge by these passages of\nwriters of the second century, there was something done by the Salii\nwhich involved the beating of skins; but if it was a skin-clad Mamurius\nwho was beaten, why is he not mentioned, and why did they, as Servius\nsays (and the context shows that he is speaking of him with all\nrespect), set apart a day in his honour?\n\nYet Lydus\u2019 account is so interesting from the point of view of\nfolk-lore, that Usener was led by it into very far-reaching conclusions.\nThese have been so well condensed in English by Mr. Frazer that my\nlabour will be lightened if I may borrow his account[118]:\n\n\u2018Every year on March 14 a man clad in skins was led in procession\nthrough the streets of Rome, beaten with long white rods, and driven out\nof the city. He was called Mamurius Veturius[119], that is, \u201cthe old\nMars,\u201d and as the ceremony took place on the day preceding the first\nfull moon of the old Roman year[120] (which began on March 1), the\nskin-clad man must have represented the Mars of the past year, who was\ndriven out at the beginning of a new one. Now Mars was originally not a\ngod of war, but of vegetation. For it was to Mars that the Roman\nhusbandman prayed for the prosperity of his corn and vines, his\nfruit-trees and his copses; it was to Mars that the Arval Brothers,\nwhose business it was to sacrifice for the growth of the crops,\naddressed their petitions almost exclusively.... Once more, the fact\nthat the vernal month of March was dedicated to Mars seems to point him\nout as the deity of the sprouting vegetation. Thus the Roman custom of\nexpelling the old Mars at the beginning of the New Year in spring is\nidentical with the Slavonic custom of \u201ccarrying out Death[121],\u201d if the\nview here taken of the latter custom is correct. The similarity of the\nRoman and Slavonic customs has been already remarked by scholars, who\nappear, however, to have taken Mamurius Veturius and the corresponding\nfigures in the Slavonic ceremonies to be representatives of the old year\nrather than of the old god of vegetation. It is possible that ceremonies\nof this kind may have come to be thus interpreted in later times even by\nthe people who practised them. But the personification of a period of\ntime is too abstract an idea to be primitive. However, in the Roman, as\nin the Slavonic ceremony, the representative of the god appears to have\nbeen treated not only as a deity of vegetation, but also as a\nscape-goat[122]. His expulsion implies this; for there is no reason why\nthe god of vegetation, as such, should be expelled the city. But it is\notherwise if he is also a scape-goat; it then becomes necessary to drive\nhim beyond the boundaries, that he may carry his sorrowful burden away\nto other lands. And, in fact, Mamurius Veturius appears to have been\ndriven away to the lands of the Oscans, the enemies of Rome[123].\u2019\n\nMy examination of the evidence will, I hope, have made it clear why I\nhesitate to endorse these conclusions in their entirety (as I did for\nmany years), interesting as they are. I rather incline to believe that\nthe whole Mamurius-legend grew out of the Carmen Saliare, and that we\nmay either have here one of those comparatively rare examples of later\nritual growing itself out of myth, or a point of ancient ritual, such as\nthe use of skins\u2014perhaps those of victims\u2014misinterpreted and possibly\naltered under the influence of the myth. As to Lydus\u2019 statement, it is\nbetter to suspend our judgement; he may, for all we know, have confused\nsome foreign custom, or that of some other Italian town where there were\nSalii, with the ritual of a Roman priesthood[124]. In any case, his\naccount is too much open to question to bear the weight of conjecture\nthat has been piled upon it.\n\n\n ID. MART. (MARCH 15). NP.\n\n\nFERIAE[125] ANNAE PERENNAE VIA FLAM[INIA] AD LAPIDEM PRIM[UM]. (VAT.)\n\nANNAE PER. (FARN.)\n\n\nThis is a survival of an old popular festival, as is clearly seen from\nOvid\u2019s account of it; but the absence of any mention of it in the rustic\ncalendars or in those of Philocalus and Silvius leads us to suppose that\nit had died out in the early Empire. This may be accounted for by the\nfact that the people came to be more and more attracted by spectacles\nand games; and also by the ever-increasing cosmopolitanism of the city\npopulace, which would be continually losing interest in old Roman\ncustoms which it could not understand.\n\nOn this day, Ovid tells us[126], the \u2018plebs\u2019 streamed out to the \u2018festum\ngeniale\u2019 of Anna Perenna, and taking up a position in the Campus\nMartius, not far from the Tiber[127], and lying about on the grass in\npairs of men and women, passed the day in revelry and drinking[128].\nSome lay in the open; some pitched tents and some constructed rude huts\nof stakes and branches, stretching their togas over them for shelter. As\nthey drank they prayed for as many years of life as they can swallow\ncups of wine; meanwhile singing snatches of song with much gesticulation\nand dancing. The result of these performances was naturally that they\nreturned to the city in a state of intoxication. Ovid tells us that he\nhad seen this spectacle himself[129].\n\nWhether there was any sacrificial rite in immediate connexion with these\nrevels we do not know. Macrobius indeed tells us[130] that sacrifice was\noffered in the month of March to Anna Perenna \u2018ut annare perannareque\ncommode liceat\u2019[131]; and Lydus, that on the Ides there were \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u03b1\u1f76\n\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03b3\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd; but we do not know\nwhat was the relation between these and the scene described by Ovid.\n\nWho was the Anna Perenna in whose honour these revels, sacrifices, and\nprayers took place, whatever their relation to each other? Ovid and\nSilius Italicus[132] tell legends about her which are hardly genuine\nItalian, and in which Anna Perenna is confused with the other Anna whom\nthey knew, the sister of Dido. Hidden under such stories may sometimes\nbe found traces of a belief or a cult of which we have no other\nknowledge; but in this poetical medley there seems to be only one\nfeature that calls on us to pause. After her wanderings Anna disappears\nin the waters of the river Numicius:\n\n Corniger hanc cupidis rapuisse Numicius undis\n Creditur, et stagnis occuluisse suis.\n\nHer companions traced her footsteps to the bank: she seemed to tell them\n\n Placidi sum nympha Numici,\n Amne perenne latens Anna Perenna vocor.\n\nThis tale led Klausen[133] into some very strange fancies about the\ngoddess, whom he regarded as a water-nymph, thinking that all her other\ncharacteristics (e.g. the year) might be explained symbolically; the\nrunning water representing the flow of time, &c. But it is probable that\nshe only came into connexion with the river Numicius because Aeneas was\nthere already. If Aeneas, as Jupiter Indiges, was buried on its\nbanks[134], what could be more natural than that another figure of the\nDido legend should be brought there too? There does not indeed seem to\nbe any reason for connecting the real Anna Perenna with water[135]. All\ngenuine Roman tradition seems to represent her, as we shall see\ndirectly, as an old woman; and when she appears in another shape, she\nmust have become mixed up with other ideas and stories. It may perhaps\nbe just possible that on this day some kind of an image of her may have\nbeen thrown into the Tiber, as was the case with the straw puppets\n(Argei) on May 15, and that the ceremony dropped out of practice, but\njust survived in the Numicius legend[136]. But this is simply\nhypothesis.\n\nThe fact is that, whatever else Anna Perenna may have been, all that we\ncan confidently say of her is that she represented in some way the\ncircle or ring of the year. This is indicated not only by the name,\nwhich can hardly be anything but a feminine form of _annus_, but by the\ntime at which her festival took place, the first full moon of the new\nyear. The one legend preserved about her which is of undoubted Italian\norigin is thought to point in the same direction. Ovid, wishing to\nexplain \u2018cur cantent obscena puellae\u2019 in that revel of the \u2018plebs\u2019 on\nthe Tiber-bank, tells us[137] how Mars, once in love with Minerva[138],\ncame to Anna and asked her aid. It was at length granted, and Mars had\nthe nuptial couch prepared: thither a bride was led, but not the desired\none; it was old Anna with her face veiled like a bride who was playing\nthe passionate god such a trick as we may suppose not uncommon in the\nrude country life of old Latium.\n\nThere is no need to be startled at the rude handling of the gods in this\nstory, which seems so unlike the stately and orderly ideas of Roman\ntheology. It must be borne in mind that folk-tales like this need not\noriginally have been applied to the gods at all. They are probably only\nancient country stories of human beings, based on some rude marriage\ncustom\u2014stories such as delighted the lower farm folk and slaves on\nholiday evenings; and they have survived simply because they became in\ncourse of time attached to the persons of the gods, as the conception of\ndivinities grew to be more anthropomorphic. Granted that Anna or\nPerenna[139] was the old woman of the _past_ year, that Mars was the god\nof the first month, and that the story as applied to human beings was a\nfavourite one, we can easily understand how it came to attach itself to\nthe persons of the gods[140].\n\nYet another story is told by Ovid of an Anna[141], in writing of whom he\ndoes not add the name Perenna. The Plebs had seceded to the Mons Sacer,\nand were beginning to suffer from starvation, when an old woman from\nBovillae, named Anna, came to the rescue with a daily supply of _rustica\nliba_. This myth seems to me to have grown out of the custom, to be\ndescribed directly, of old women[142] selling _liba_ on the 17th\n(Liberalia), the custom having been transferred to that day through an\netymological confusion between _liba_ and _Liberalia_. Usener, however,\nsaw here a connexion between Anna and Annona[143]; and recently it has\nbeen suggested that a certain Egyptian Anna, who is said by Plutarch to\nhave invented a mould for bread-baking, may have found her way to Rome\nthrough Greek channels[144].\n\n\n XVI KAL. APR. (MARCH 17). NP.\n\n\nLIB[ERALIA]. (MAFF. FARN. RUST.)\nLIB. AG[ONIA]. LIBERO LIB. (CAER.)\nAG[ONIA]. (VAT.)\nLIBERO IN CA[PITOLIO]. (FARN.)\n\n\nThis is one of the four days marked AG. or AGON. in the Fasti (Jan. 9,\nMay 21, Dec. 11)[145]. It is curious that on this day two of the old\ncalendars should mark the Liberalia only, and one the Agonia only, and\none both. The day was generally known as Liberalia[146]; the other name\nseems to have been known to the priests only, and more especially to the\nSalii Collini or Agonenses[147], who must have had charge of the\nsacrifice. Wissowa seems to be right in thinking (_de Feriis_ xii) that\nthe conjunction of Liberalia and Agonia is purely accidental, and that\nthe day took its common name from the former simply because, as the\nlatter occurred four times in the year, confusion would be likely to\narise.\n\nLiber is beyond doubt an old Italian deity, whose true nature, like that\nof so many others, came to be overgrown with Greek ideas and rites.\nThere is no sign of any connexion between this festival and the cult of\nDionysus; hence we infer that there was an old Latin Liber before the\narrival of the Greek god in Italy. What this god was, however, can\nhardly be inferred from his cult, of which we only know a single\nfeature, recorded by Ovid[148]. He tells us that old women, _sacerdotes\nLiberi_, sat crowned with ivy all about the streets on this day with\ncakes of oil and honey (_liba_), and a small portable altar (_foculus_),\non which to sacrifice for the benefit of the buyer of these cakes. This\ntells us nothing substantial, and we have to fall back on the\nname\u2014always an uncertain method. The best authorities seem now agreed in\nregarding the word Liber (whatever be its etymology) as having something\nof the same meaning as _genius_, forming an adjective _liberalis_ as\n_genius_ forms _genialis_, and meaning a creative, productive spirit,\nfull of blessing, and so generous, free, &c.[149] If this were so it\nwould not be unnatural that the characteristics and rites of Dionysus\nshould find here a stem on which to engraft themselves, or that Liber\nshould become the object of obscene ceremonies which need not be\ndetailed here, and also the god of the Italian vine-growers.\n\nIt is possible that Liber may have been an ancient cult-title of\nJupiter; we do in fact find a Jupiter Liber in inscriptions, though the\ncombination is uncommon[150]. In that case Liber may have been an\nemanation or off-shoot from Jupiter, as Silvanus probably was from\nMars[151]. But I am disposed to think that the characteristics of Liber,\nso far as we know them, are not in keeping with those of Jupiter; and\nthat the process was rather of the opposite kind, that is, the cult of\nLiber in its later form became attached to that of Jupiter, who was\nalways the presiding deity of vineyards and wine-making[152].\n\nThis was also the usual day on which boys assumed the toga virilis (toga\nrecta, pura, _libera_):\n\n Restat ut inveniam quare toga libera detur\n Lucifero pueris, candide Bacche, tuo.\n\n Sive quod es Liber, vestis quoque libera per te\n Sumitur et vitae liberioris iter[153].\n\nWe know indeed that in the late Republic and Empire other days were used\nfor this ceremony: Virgil took his toga on Oct. 15, Octavian on Oct. 18,\nTiberius on April 24, Nero on July 7[154]; but it is likely that this\nday was in earlier times the regular one, in spite of the inconvenience\nof a disparity of age thence resulting amongst the tirones. For whether\nor no the _toga libera_ has any real connexion with the Liberalia, this\nwas the time when the army was called out for the year, and when the\ntirones would be required to present themselves[155]. Ovid tells us that\non this day the rustic population flocked into the city for the\nLiberalia, and the opportunity was doubtless taken to make known the\nlist of tirones, as the boys were called when the toga was assumed and\nthey were ready for military service.\n\nThey sacrificed, it appears, before leaving home and again on the\nCapitol, either to Pubertas or Liber, or both[156].\n\nOn this day also, according to Ovid, and also on the previous one, some\nkind of a procession \u2018went to the Argei\u2019[157]; by which word is meant,\nwe may be almost sure, the Argeorum sacella. There were in various parts\nof the four regions of the Servian city a number of sacella or sacraria,\nwhich were called Argei, Argea, or Argeorum sacella. What these were we\nnever shall know for certain; but we may be fairly sure that their\nnumber was twenty-four, six for each region; the same number as that of\nthe rush puppets or simulacra also called Argei, which were thrown into\nthe Tiber by the Vestal Virgins on May 15. The identity of the name and\nnumber leads to the belief that there was a connexion between these\nsacella and the simulacra; but the very difficult questions which arose\nabout both must be postponed till we have before us the whole of the\nceremonial, i. e. that of May 15 as well as that of March 17. About this\nlast we know nothing and can at best attempt to infer its character from\nthe ceremony in May, of which we fortunately have some particulars on\nwhich we can fully rely.\n\n\n KAL. XIV APR. (MARCH 19). NP CAER. VAT. N. MAFF.\n\n\nQUINQ[VATRUS]. (CAER. MAFF. PRAEN. VAT. FARN.)\nQUINQUATRIA. (RUST. PHIL. SILV.)\n\n\nA note is appended in Praen., which is thus completed by Mommsen with\nthe help of a Verrian gloss (Fest. 254).\n\n[RECTIUS TAMEN ALII PUTARUNT DICTUM AB EO QUOD HIC DIES EST POST DIEM V\nIDUS. QUO]D IN LATIO POST [IDUS DIES SIMILI FERE RATIONE DECLI]NARENTUR.\n\nFERIAE MARTI (VAT.)\n\n[SALI] FACIUNT IN COMITIO SALTUS [ADSTANTIBUS PO]NTIFICIBUS ET\nTRIB[UNIS] CELER[UM]. Praen., in which we find yet another note:\nARTIFICUM DIES [QUOD MINERVAE] AEDIS IN AVENTINO EO DIE EST [DEDICATA].\n\nThe original significance of this day is indicated by the note Feriae\nMarti in Vat., and also by that in Praen., which has been amplified with\ntolerable certainty. The Salii were active this day in the worship of\nMars, and the scene of their activity was the _Comitium_. With this\nagrees, as Mommsen has pointed out, the statement of Varro[158] that the\n_Comitium_ was the scene of some of their performances, though he does\nnot mention which. More light is thrown on the matter by the grammarian\nCharisius[159], who, in suggesting an explanation of the name\nQuinquatrus by which this day was generally known, remarks that it was\nderived from a verb _quinquare_, to purify, \u2018quod eo die arma ancilia\nlustrari sint solita.\u2019 His etymology is undoubtedly wrong, but the\nreason given for it is valuable[160]. The ancilia were purified on this\nday (perhaps by the Salii dancing around them), and thus it exactly\nanswers to the Armilustrium on Oct. 19, just as the horse-races on the\nIdes of March, if that indeed were the original day, correspond to the\nceremony of the \u2018October horse\u2019[161].\n\nThe object and meaning of the lustratio in each case is not, however,\nquite clear. Since in March the season of war began, and ended, no\ndoubt, originally in October[162], and as the Salii seem to be a kind of\nlink between the religious and military sides of the state\u2019s life, we\nare tempted to guess that the lustration of the ancilia represented in\nsome way the lustration of the arms of the entire host, or perhaps that\nthe latter were all lustrated so as to be ready for use, on this day,\nand once again on Oct. 19 before they were put away for the winter. In\nthis latter case the Salii would be the leaders of, as well as sharers\nin, a general purifying process. And that this is the right view seems\nto be indicated by Verrius\u2019 note in the Praenestine calendar, from which\nit is clear that the _tribuni celerum_ were present, and took some part\nin the ceremony. These tribuni were almost certainly the three leaders\nof the original cavalry force of the three ancient tribes, and they seem\nto have united both priestly and military characteristics[163]; and from\ntheir presence in the Comitium may perhaps also be inferred that of the\nleaders of the infantry _tribuni militum_. In the earliest times,\ntherefore, the arms of the whole host may have been lustrated in the\npresence of its leaders, the Salii, so to speak, performing the service;\nbut in later times the Salii alone were left, and their arms alone\nlustrated, though possibly individuals representing the ancient _tribuni\ncelerum_ may have appeared as congregation.\n\nBut this day was generally known as Quinquatrus, simply because it was\nthe fifth day after the Ides[164]; i.e. there was a space of three days\nbetween the Ides and the festival. Such intervals of three days, either\nbetween the Ides and the festival or between one festival and another,\noccur several times in the Roman calendar[165], though in this instance\nalone the day following the interval appears in the calendars as\nQuinquatrus. The term was no doubt a pontifical one, and the meaning was\nunknown to the common people; in any case it came to be misunderstood,\nand was in later times popularly applied to the four days following the\nfestival as well as the festival itself; its first syllable being taken\nto indicate a five-day period instead of the fifth day after the Ides.\nThis popular mistake led to still further confusion owing to a curious\nchange in the religious character of these days, about the nature of\nwhich there can be no serious doubt.\n\nThe 19th came to be considered as sacred to Minerva[166], because a\ntemple to that goddess was consecrated on this day, on the Caelian or\nthe Aventine, or possibly both[167]. There is no obvious connexion\nbetween Mars and Minerva; and it is now thought probable that Minerva\nhas here simply taken the place of another goddess, Nerio\u2014one almost\nlost to sight in historical times, but of whose early connexion with\nMars some faint traces are to be found. Thus where we find Minerva\nbrought into close relation with Mars, as in the myth of Anna Perenna,\nit is thought that we should read Nerio instead of Minerva[168]. This\nconclusion is strengthened by a note of Porphyrion on Horace _Epist._\nii. 2. 209 \u2018Maio mense religio est nubere, et etiam Martio, in quo de\nnuptiis habito certamine a Minerva Mars victus est: obtenta virginitate\nNeriene est appellata.\u2019 As Neriene must = Nerio[169], this looks much\nlike an attempt to explain the occurrence of two female names, Minerva\nand Nerio, in the same story; the original heroine, Nerio, having been\nsupplanted by the later Minerva[170].\n\nOf this Nerio much, perhaps too much, has been made in recent years by\ningenious scholars. A complete love-story has been discovered, in which\nMars, at first defeated in his wooing, as Porphyrion tells us in the\npassage just quoted, eventually becomes victorious; for Nerio is called\nwife of Mars in a fragment of an old comedy by Licinius Imbrex, in a\npassage of Plautus, and in a prayer put into the mouth of Hersilia by\nGellius the annalist, when she asked for peace at the hand of T.\nTatius[171]. And this story has been fitted on, without sufficient\nwarrant, to the Mars-festivals of this month. Mars is supposed to have\nbeen born on the Kalends, to have grown wondrously between Kalends and\nIdes, to have fallen then in love with Nerio, to have been fooled as we\nsaw by Anna Perenna, to have been rejected and defeated by his\nsweetheart, and finally to have won her as his wife on the 19th[172].\nAre we to find here a fragment of real Italian mythology, or an\nelaborate example of the Graecizing anthropomorphic tendencies of the\nthird and second centuries B.C.?\n\nThe question is a difficult one, and lies rather outside the scope of\nthis work. Those who have read Usener\u2019s brilliant paper will find it\nhard to shake themselves free of the conviction that he has unearthed a\nreal myth, unless they carefully study the chapter of Aulus Gellius\nwhich is its chief foundation. Such a study has brought me back to the\nconviction that Plautus and the others were writing in terms of the\nfashionable modes of thought of their day, and were not appealing to\npopular ideas of the relations of Italian deities to each other[173].\nAulus Gellius begins by quoting a _comprecatio_ from the book of the\n_Libri sacerdotum populi Romani_. \u2018In his scriptum est: Luam Saturni,\nSalaciam Neptuni, Horam Quirini, Virites Quirini, Maiam Volcani, Heriem\nIunonis, Moles Martis Nerienemque Martis.\u2019 A glance at the names thus\ncoupled together is enough to show that Mars is not here thought of as\nthe husband of Neriene; the names Lua, Salacia, &c., seem rather to\nexpress some characteristic of the deity with whose name they are joined\nor some mode of his operation[174]; and Gellius himself, working on an\netymology of Nerio which has generally been accepted as correct,\nexplains the name thus: \u2018Nerio igitur Martis vis et potentia et maiestas\nquaedam esse Martis demonstratur.\u2019 In the latter part of his chapter,\nafter quoting Plautus, he says that he has heard the poet blamed by an\neminent critic for the strange and false notion that Nerio was the wife\nof Mars; but he is inclined to think that there was a real tradition to\nthat effect, and cites his namesake the annalist and Licinius Imbrex in\nsupport of his view.\n\nBut neither annalist nor play-writer can stand against that passage from\nthe sacred books with which he began his chapter; and if we give the\nlatter its due weight, the value of the others is relatively diminished.\nIt appears to me that the one represents the true primitive Italian idea\nof divine powers, which with its abundance of names offered excellent\nopportunities to anthropomorphic tendencies of the Graecizing school,\nwhile the others show those tendencies actually producing their results.\nAny conclusion on the point must be of the nature of a guess; but I am\nstrongly disposed to think (1) that Nerio was not originally an\nindependent deity, but a name attached to Mars expressive of some aspect\nof his power, (2) that the name gradually became endowed with\npersonality, and (3) that out of the combination of Mars and Nerio the\nGraecizing school developed a myth of which the fragments have been\ntaken by Usener and his followers as pure Roman.\n\nHaving once been displaced by Minerva, Nerio vanished from the calendar,\nand with her that special aspect of Mars\u2014whatever it may have been\u2014which\nthe name was intended to express. The five days, 18th to 23rd, became\npermanently associated with Minerva. The 19th was the dedication-day of\nat least one of her temples, and counted as her birthday[175]: the 23rd\nwas the Tubilustrium, with a sacrifice to \u2018dea fortis,\u2019 who seems to\nhave been taken for Minerva, owing to an incorrect idea that the latter\nwas specially the deity of trumpet-players[176]. She was no doubt an old\nItalian deity of artificers and trade-guilds; but the Tubilustrium was\nreally a Mars-festival, and Minerva had no immediate connexion with it.\n\n\n X KAL. APR. (MARCH 23). NP.\n\n\nTUBILUST[RIUM]. (CAER. MAFF. VAT. FARN. MIN. III.)\nTUBILUSTRIUM. (PHILOC.)\n\nNote in Praen.: [FERIAE] MARTI[177]. HIC DIES APPELLATUR ITA, QUOD IN\nATRIO SUTORIO TUBI LUSTRANTUR, QUIBUS IN SACRIS UTUNTUR. LUTATIUS QUIDEM\nCLAVAM EAM AIT ESSE IN RUINIS PALA[TI I]NCENSI A GALLIS REPERTAM, QUA\nROMULUS URBEM INAUGURAVERIT.\n\n\n IX KAL. APR. (MARCH 24). NP.\n\n\nQ. R. C. F. (VAT. CAER.)\n\nQ. REX. C. F. (MAFF. PRAEN.)\n\nNote in Praen.: HUNC DIEM PLERIQUE PERPERAM INTERPRETANTES PUTANT\nAPPELLAR[I] QUOD EO DIE EX COMITIO FUGERIT [REX: N]AM NEQUE TARQUINIUS\nABIIT EX COMITIO [URBIS], ET ALIO QUOQUE MENSE EADEM SUNT [IDEMQUE\nS]IGNIFICANT. QU[ARE COMITIIS PERACTIS IUDICI]A FIERI INDICA[RI IIS\nMAGIS PUTAMUS][178].\n\n\nThese two days must be taken in connexion with the 23rd and 24th of May,\nwhich are marked in the calendars in exactly the same way. The\nexplanation suggested by Mommsen is simple and satisfactory[179]; the\n24th of March and of May were the two fixed days on which the _comitia\ncuriata_ met for the sanctioning of wills[180] under the presidency of\nthe Rex. The 23rd in each month, called Tubilustrium, would be the day\nof the lustration of the _tubae_ or _tubi_ used in summoning the\nassembly. The letters Q. R. C. F. (quando rex comitiavit fas) mean that\non the days so marked proceedings in the courts might only begin when\nthe king had dissolved the Comitia.\n\nThe _tuba_, as distinguished from the _tibia_, which was the typical\nItalian instrument, was a long straight tube of brass with a bell\nmouth[181]. It was used chiefly in military[182] and religious\nceremonies; and as the _comitia curiata_ was an assembly both for\nmilitary and religious objects, this would suit well with Mommsen\u2019s idea\nof the object of the lustration. The Tubilustrium was the day on which\nthese instruments, which were to be used at the meeting of the comitia\non the following day, were purified by the sacrifice of a lamb. Of the\nAtrium Sutorium, where the rite took place, we know nothing.\n\nThere are some words at the end of Verrius\u2019 note in the Praenestine\nCalendar, which, as Mommsen has pointed out[183], come in abruptly and\nlook as if something had dropped out: \u2018Lutatius quidem clavam eam ait\nesse in ruinis Pala[ti i]ncensi a Gallis repertam, qua Romulus urbem\ninauguraverit.\u2019 This _clava_ must be the _lituus_ of Romulus, mentioned\nby Cicero[184], which was found on the Palatine and kept in the Curia\nSaliorum. We cannot, however, see clearly what Verrius or his excerptor\nmeant to tell us about it; there would seem to have been a confusion\nbetween _lituus_ in the sense of _baculum_ and _lituus_ in the sense of\na _tuba incurva_. The latter was in use as well as the ordinary straight\n_tuba_[185]; in shape it closely resembled the _clava_ of the augur, and\nperhaps the resemblance led to the notion that it was the _clava_ of\nRomulus and not a _tuba_ which was this day purified with the other\n_tubae_.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe can learn little or nothing from the calendar of this month about the\norigin of Mars, and we have no other sufficient evidence on which to\nbase a satisfactory conjecture. But from the cults of the month, and\npartly also from those of October, we can see pretty clearly what ideas\nwere prominent in his worship even in the early days of the Roman state.\nThey were chiefly two, and the two were closely connected. He was the\nPower who must be specially invoked to procure the safety of crops and\ncattle; and secondly, in his keeping were the safety and success of the\nfreshly-enrolled host with its armour and its trumpets. In short, he was\nthat deity to whom the most ancient Romans looked for aid at the season\nwhen all living things, man included, broke into fresh activity. He\nrepresents the characteristics of the early Roman more exactly than any\nother god; for there are two things which we may believe with certainty\nabout the Roman people in the earliest times\u2014(1) that their life and\nhabits of thought were those of an agricultural race; and (2) that they\ncontinually increased their cultivable land by taking forcible\npossession in war of that of their neighbours.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n See Nissen, _Italienische Landeskunde_, i. 404; Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 235\u2014\n\n Quid, quod hiems adoperta gelu tunc denique cedit,\n Et pereunt victae sole tepente nives,\n Arboribus redeunt detonsae frigore frondes,\n Uvidaque in tenero palmite gemma tumet:\n Quaeque diu latuit, nunc se qua tollat in auras,\n Fertilis occultas invenit herba vias.\n Nunc fecundus ager: pecoris nunc hora creandi,\n Nunc avis in ramo tecta laremque parat.\n Tempora iure colunt Latiae fecunda parentes\n Quarum militiam votaque partus habet.\n\n Here we have the fertility of man, beast, and crop, all brought\n together: the poet is writing of March 1. The Romans reckoned spring\n from Favonius (Feb. 7) to about May 10 (Varro, _R. R._ 1. 38); March 1\n would therefore usually be a day on which its first effects would be\n obvious to every one.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n Sat. 1. 12. 6; Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 135 foll.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Ovid only mentions one \u2018curia\u2019: in Macrobius the word is in the\n plural. Ovid must, I think, refer to the curia Saliorum on the\n Palatine (Marq. 431), as this was the day on which the Salii began\n their rites. Macrobius may be including the curia of the Quirinal\n Salii (Preller, i. 357).\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n See below, on the Vestalia in June, p. 147.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n Julius Obsequens, 19.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n Roscher, _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Mars, 2427. Roscher regards the use of\n laurel in the Mars-cult as parallel with that in the Apollo-cult and\n not derived from it. The point is not however certain. The laurel was\n used as an \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd at the Robigalia, which seems closely connected\n with the Mars-cult (Plin. _N. H._ 18, 161); here it could hardly have\n been taken over from the worship of Apollo.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 254.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 253. There is a good parallel in Celtic mythology: the\n wife of Llew the Sun-hero was born of flowers (Rhys, _Celt. Myth._\n 384). The myth is found in many parts of the world (_Lang_, ii. 22,\n and note).\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n By Usener, in his remarkable paper in _Rhein. Museum_, xxx. 215 foll.,\n on \u2018Italische Mythen.\u2019 He unluckily made the mistake of supposing that\n Ovid told this story under June 1 (i. e. _nine months_ before the\n supposed birthday of Mars). There is indeed a kind of conjunction of\n June and Mars on June 1, as both had temples dedicated on that day;\n but neither of these can well be earlier than the fourth century B.C.,\n and no one would have thought of them as having any bearing on the\n birth of Mars but for Usener\u2019s blunder (Aust, _de Aedibus sacris Pop.\n Rom._ pp. 8 and 10, and his valuable note in Roscher\u2019s article on\n Mars, p. 2390). Usener also adduces the derivation of Gradivus in\n Fest. 97 \u2018quia gramine sit ortus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n The practical Roman mind applied the myth chiefly to the history of\n its _state_, and in such a way that its true mythic character was\n lost, or nearly so. What became in Greece mythic literature became\n quasi-history at Rome. Thus it is that Romulus is so closely connected\n with Mars in legend: the race-hero and the race-god have almost a\n mythical identity. The story of the she-wolf may be at least as much a\n myth of the birth of Mars as Ovid\u2019s story of Juno, in spite of the\n fatherhood of Mars in that legend.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n Aust, as quoted above. The date was probably 379 B.C. (Plin. _N. H._\n 16. 235).\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n Roscher in _Lex._ s. v. Juno, p. 576.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n Marq. 571, where is a list of passages referring to these gifts. Some\n are familiar, e. g. Horace, _Od._ 3. 8, and Juvenal, 9. 53 (with the\n scholiast in each case).\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n _Schol. Cruq._ on Horace, l. c., and the scholiast on Juvenal, l. c.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n See e. g. the mysterious scene on a cista from Praeneste given in\n Roscher, _Lex._ 2407, to which the clue seems entirely lost.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Mars, 2399; s. v. Juno, 584.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n Ovid, 3. 351 foll.; Plut. _Numa_, 13.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n Dion. Hal. 2. 71.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n Ovid, l. c. 381 foll.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n Marq. 430, and note.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n Festus, p. 131; Usener in _Rhein. Mus._ xxx. 209 foll. Wordsworth,\n _Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin_, p. 564 foll. Jordan\n (Preller, i. 336) had however doubts about the identification of Mars\n and Mamurius.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n The place is not quite certain. Ambrosch (_Studien_, 7), who believed\n them to be part of the armour of the god, placed them in his\n _sacrarium_ in the king\u2019s house, with Serv. Aen. 7. 603, and this\n falls in with Dionysius\u2019 version of the myth, that the shield was\n found in Numa\u2019s house. With this view Preller agreed. Marquardt, (431)\n however, believed they were part of the armour of the priests, and as\n such were kept in the Curia Saliorum, which might also be called\n _sacrarium Martis_. The question is not of the first importance.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n Dionysius (2. 70. 2) says that each was girt with a sword, and carried\n in his right hand, \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u1f22 \u1fe5\u03ac\u03b2\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f24 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03b8 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Apparently,\n assuming that he had seen the procession, he did not see or remember\n clearly what these objects were. A relief from Anagnia (_Annali del\n Inst._ 1869, 70 foll.) shows them like a double drumstick, with a knob\n at each end.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n See also _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Mars, p. 2404 and Apollo, p. 425.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n Virg. _Aen._ 4. 143.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n Strabo, 639 foll. The same also appear in the cult of Zeus;\n Preller-Robert, _Greek Myth._ i. 134.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n _G. B._ ii. 157-182; Tylor, _Prim. Cult._ i. 298 foll. We have\n survivals at Rome, not only in the periodic Salian rites, but on\n particular occasions; Martial 12. 57. 15 (of an eclipse); Ovid,\n _Fasti_, 5. 441; Tibull. 1. 8. 21; Tac. _Ann._ 1. 28 (this was in\n Germany). I have known the church bells rung at Zermatt in order to\n stop a continuous downpour of rain in hay-harvest.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n _G. B._ ii. 210.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n Jordan, _Krit. Beitr\u00e4ge_, p. 203 foll.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n Cato, _R. R._ 143.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n Liv. 1. 20. Cp. 9. 40, where the chosen Samnite warriors wore _tunicae\n versicolores_. In each case the dress is a religious one, of the same\n character as that of the _triumphator_, and would have its ultimate\n origin in the war-paint of savages, which probably also has a\n religious signification. The _trabea_ was the old short cavalry coat.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n See Marq. 432, and _Dict. of Antiq._ s. v. Salii for details.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n Fest. 131. The fragments may be seen in Wordsworth\u2019s _Fragments and\n Specimens of Early Latin_, pp. 564 foll. In the chief fragment the\n name of Janus seems almost certainly to occur (cf. Lydus, 4. 2); and\n in another Lucetius (= Iupiter?). Juno and Minerva are also mentioned.\n See _Dict. of Antiq._ s. v. Salii. It is curious that Mars is more\n prominent in the song of the Arval Brothers.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n Liv. 5. 52. 7.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n Dionysius, 2. 71.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n Usener in _Rhein. Mus._ xxx. 218; Roscher, _Lex._ s. v. Mars 2419, can\n only quote two very vague and doubtful passages from late writers in\n support of the view that the shields were symbols of the months; Lydus\n 4. 2. who says that the Salii sang in praise of Janus, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd; and Liber glossarum, Cod. Vat. Palat. 1773 f.\n 40 v.: Ancilia: scuta unius anni.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n For the evidence on this point, and others connected with the Salii, I\n must refer the reader to Mr. G. E. Marindin\u2019s excellent article\n \u2018Salii\u2019 in the new edition of Smith\u2019s _Dict. of Antiquities_, the most\n complete and at the same time sensible account that has appeared in\n recent years. (The article \u2018Ancilia\u2019 in the new edition of Pauly\u2019s\n _Real-Encycl._ is disappointing.) Dionysius, Varro, and Plutarch are\n all at one about the shape of the shields, and Mr. Marindin is quite\n right in insisting that Ovid does not contradict them. (See the\n passages quoted in the article.) The coins of Licinius Stolo and of\n Antoninus Pius (Cohen, _M\u00e9d. Cons._ plate xxiv. 9, 10, and _M\u00e9d. Imp._\n ii, no. 467) give the same peculiar shape. The bronze of Domitian,\n A.D. 88 (Cohen, _M\u00e9d. Imp._ i. plate xvii), and the coins of\n Sanquinius, B.C. 16 (both issued in connexion with ludi saeculares),\n on which are figures supposed to be Salii with round shields, have\n certainly been misinterpreted (e. g. in Marq. 431). See note at end of\n this work.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n Jordan, in _Commentationes in hon. Momms._ p. 365. There could not b\n _feriae_ on this day, as it was a _dies fastus_.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n _Fast._ 3. 429 \u2018Una nota est Marti Nonis; sacrata quod illis Templa\n putant lucos Vediovis ante duos.\u2019\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 33.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n Polyb. 21. 10 (13); Liv. 37. 33.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n See his article in _Dict. Ant._ He further suggests that in\n Philocalus\u2019 note _ancilia_ is an adjective, and that _arma ancilia_\n means the shields only, as the spears of Mars do not seem to have been\n used by the Salii.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n The day is of course not given in these almanacs; but the position is\n between Isidis navigium (March 5) and Liberalia (March 17).\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n _de Feriis_, ix. foll. Cp. _C. I. L._ 311.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n The usual sacrifice to Jupiter on the Ides is also mentioned by\n Wissowa in this connexion; but I should hardly imagine that it would\n have had a sufficiently popular character to cause any such alteration\n as he is arguing for. But the first full moon of the year may have\n become over-crowded with rites; and it was the day on which at one\n time the consuls entered on office, B.C. 222 to 154 (Mommsen, _Chron._\n 102 and notes).\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n Wissowa takes both as lustrations of cavalry. Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 332,\n disapproves of Wissowa\u2019s reasoning about this day.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n _C. I. L._ 311.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n _C. I. L._ 254.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n Cf. Usener\u2019s article on Italian Myths in _Rhein. Mus._ vol. xxx\u2014a most\n interesting and suggestive piece of work, which, however, needs to be\n read with a critical mind, and has been too uncritically used by later\n writers, e. g. Roscher in his article on Mars. Frazer (_G. B._ ii.\n 208) adopts his conclusions about Mamurius, but, with his usual care,\n points out some of the difficulties in a footnote.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n Usener, p. 211.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n Lydus, 3. 29 and 4. 36. The words are rather obscure, but the meaning\n is fairly obvious. See Usener\u2019s paraphrase, p. 210.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n See above, p. 38.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n Cp. what he says of the Salii singing of Janus \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f38\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd (4. 2).\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n e. g. in Numa 13.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n _Aen._ 7. 188. Thilo and Hagen seem to think that Servius wrote\n _peltas_ (shields) on the evidence of one MS, wrongly, I think.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n _Octavius_, 24. 3.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n What is the meaning of _vetera_ here?\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n _Golden Bough_, ii. 208.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n Mr. Frazer is careful to point out in a note that Lydus only mentions\n the name Mamurius. But as we know that Mamurius was called Veturius in\n the Salian hymn, and as Veturius may perhaps mean _old_, it is\n inferred that the skin-clad man was \u2018the old Mars.\u2019 The argument is\n shaky; its only strength lies in the Slavonic and other parallels.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n Lydus is thought to have made a mistake in attributing it to the 15th\n (Ides); if so, he may have confused other matters in this curious\n note. But he is certainly explicit enough here (4. 36), and refers to\n the usual sacrifice to Jupiter on the Ides, and to \u2018public prayers for\n the salubrity of the coming year,\u2019 which we may be sure would be on\n the Ides, and not on a day of even number. I do not feel at all sure\n that Lydus was wrong as to the date, the more so as the Ides of May\n (which month has a certain parallelism with March) is the date of\n another curious ceremony of this primitive type, that of the _Argei_.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n This was first noticed by Grimm (_Teutonic Mythology_, Eng. Trans.,\n vol. ii. 764 foll.). Since then Mannhardt (_Baumkultus_, 410 foll.)\n and Mr. Frazer (_G. B._ i. 257 foll. and 264 foll.) have worked it out\n and explained it (see especially i. 275). It is generally believed\n that Death, or whatever be the name applied to the human being or\n figure expelled in these rites, signifies the extinct spirit of\n vegetation of the past year. I agree with Mr. Frazer, as against\n Usener and Roscher (_Lex._ s. v. Mars), that it is not any abstract\n conception of the year, or at least was not such originally.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n This fusion of two apparently different ideas in a single ceremony has\n previously been explained by Mr. Frazer, pp. 205 foll. On p. 210 he\n notices the curious and well-authenticated rite of driving out hunger\n at Chaeronea (Plutarch, _Quaest. Conviv._ 6. 8), which would offer an\n interesting parallel to the Roman, if we could but be sure of the\n details of the latter. Another from Delphi (Plut. _Quaest. Graec._ 12,\n mentioned by Usener, does not seem to me conclusive); but that of the\n \u2018man in cowhide\u2019 from the Highlands (_G. B._. ii. 145) is singularly\n like the Roman rite as Lydus describes it, and took place on New\n Year\u2019s eve.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n See above, p. 47.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n I am the more disposed to suspect Lydus\u2019 account, as in the same\n sentence he mentions a sacrifice which is conducted by priests of the\n Magna Mater Idaea: \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f11\u03be\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2\n \u1f44\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c7\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7\n \u1f24\u03b3\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. For the difficulties of this passage, and\n suggested emendations, see Mommsen, _C. I. L_. 312, note on Id. Mart;\n Marq. 394, note 5. What confusion of cults may not have taken place,\n either in Lydus\u2019 mind or in actual fact?\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Both these notes are _additamenta_: Anna does not appear in the large\n letters of the Numan calendar. We cannot, however, infer from this\n that her festival was not an ancient one; for, as Wissowa points out,\n the same is the case with the very primitive rite of the \u2018October\n horse\u2019 (_de Feriis_, xii). The day is only marked EID in _Maff. Vat._,\n the two calendars in which this part of the month is preserved; i. e.\n the usual sacrifice to Jupiter on the Ides was indicated (cp. Lydus,\n 4. 36), and the Ides fixed for the 15th. The additional notes,\n according to Wissowa, were for the use of the priests; but,\n considering the popular character of the festival, I am inclined to\n doubt this rule holding good in the present instance.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 523 foll.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n \u2018Via Flaminia ad lapidem primum\u2019 (Vat.): this would be near the\n present Porta del Popolo, and close to the river.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n See Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 240, for the jovial\n character of some primitive forms of religion, and the absence of a\n sense of sin.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n Ov. l. c. 541 \u2018Occurri nuper: visa est mihi digna relatu Pompa. Senem\n potum pota trahebat anus.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n _Sat._ 1. 12. 6. Cp. Lydus, _de Mens_. 4. 36.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n _Annare perennare_ is to complete the circle of the year: cp. Suet.\n _Vespas_. 5 \u2018puella nata non _perennavit_.\u2019 Anna Perenna herself is\n probably a deity manufactured out of these words, and the idea they\n conveyed (cf. Janus Patulcius and Clusius, Carmenta Prorsa Postverta);\n not exactly a _deity of the year_, but one whom it would be desirable\n to propitiate at the beginning of the year.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n Ov. l. c. 545 foll. Sil. Ital. 8. 50 foll. Ovid also says that some\n thought she was the moon, \u2018quia mensibus impleat annum\u2019 (3. 657): but\n this notion has no value, except as indicating the belief that she\n represented the circle of the year.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n _Aeneas und die Penaten_, ii. 717 foll. The cautious Merkel long ago\n repudiated such fancies; preface to Ovid\u2019s _Fasti_, p. 177.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n Liv. 1. 2. The Punic Anna is now thought to be a deity = Dido =\n Elissa: see Rossbach in the new edition of Pauly\u2019s _Encyl._ i. 2223.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n Her grove was not even on the Tiber-bank, but somewhere between the\n Via Flaminia and the Via Salaria, i.e. in the neighbourhood of the\n Villa Borghese: as we see from the obscure lines of Martial, 4. 64. 17\n (he is looking from the Janiculum):\n\n Et quod virgineo cruore gaudet\n Annae pomiferum nemus Perennae.\n Illinc Flaminiae Salariaeque\n Gestator patet essedo tacente, &c.\n\n There is no explanation of _virgineo cruore_: but I would rather\n retain it than adopt even H. A. J. Munro\u2019s _virgine nequiore_. See\n Friedl\u00e4nder, ad loc.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n This seems to be Usener\u2019s suggestion, p. 207.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n _Fasti_, 3. 675.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n No doubt this should be Nerio: see below on March 17.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n There is some ground for believing that the two words implied two\n deities on occasion or originally: Varro, _Sat. Menipp._ fr. 506 \u2018Te\n Anna ac Peranna\u2019 (Riese, p. 219).\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n Wissowa (_de Feriis_ x) thinks Ovid\u2019s tale mere _nugae_: but this\n learned scholar never seems to be able to comprehend the significance\n of folk-lore.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n _Fasti_, 3 661 foll.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n Varro (_L. L._ 6. 14) calls them \u2018sacerdotes Liberi,\u2019 by courtesy, we\n may presume: and it is noticeable that Ovid describes this old Anna as\n wearing a _mitra_, which, in Propert. v. (iv.) 2. 31, is\n characteristic of Bacchus: \u2018Cinge caput mitra: speciem furabor\n Iacchi.\u2019\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n Op. cit. 208.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n See Pauly, _Encycl._ vol. i. 2223. This is Wissowa\u2019s opinion.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n See on Jan. 9.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n Cic. _ad Fam._ 12. 25. 1; _Att._ 9. 9. 4; _Auct. Bell. Hisp._ 31.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 14 \u2018In libris Saliorum, quorum cognomen Agonensium,\n forsitan his dies ideo appellatur potius Agonia.\u2019 So Masurius Sabinus\n (in Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 4. 15), \u2018Liberalium dies a pontificibus agonium\n Martiale appellatur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n See above, p. 53, where I have expressed a doubt whether this custom\n originally belonged to the Liberalia. It is alluded to in Ovid,\n _Fasti_, 3. 725 foll., and Varro, _L. L._ 6. 14.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n This is the view of Wissowa in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Liber, 2022. Cp.\n Aust, _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 662.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n It is only once attested of Roman worship, viz. in the calendar of the\n Fratres Arvales (Sept. 1 \u2018Iovi Libero, Iunoni Reginae in Aventino,\u2019\n _C. I. L._ i. 214); but is met with several times among the\n Osco-Sabellian peoples.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n So Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen_, &c., p. 70 foll. But Hehn is only thinking\n of the later Liber, whom he considers an \u2018emanation\u2019 from Jupiter\n Liber = Dionysus, introduced with the vine from Greece. See Aust,\n _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 662.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n See on April 23.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 771 foll.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n Marq. _Privatleben_, i. 122 note 2.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n Ovid, l. c., 783 foll.; Marq. l. c. and 123, 124. Military service\n began anciently at seventeen (Tubero, ap. Gell. 10. 28): though even\n praetextati sometimes served voluntarily (Marq. op. cit. 131). Even if\n not called out at once, the boys would begin the practice of arms from\n the assumption of the toga virilis.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n Marq. op. cit. 124. Libero in Ca[pitolio], Farn. For Iuventas, Dion.\n Hal. 3. 69, 4. 15.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n This result is obtained by comparing Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 791\n\n Itur ad Argeos\u2014qui sint, sua pagina dicet\u2014\n Hac, si commemini, praeteritaque die.\n\n (where he refers to his description of the rite of May 15, and appears\n to identify the _simulacra_ and _sacella_), with Gell. _N. A._ 10. 15,\n who says that the Flaminica Dialis, \u2018cum it ad Argeos\u2019 was in mourning\n dress: also with the fragments of the \u2018Sacra Argeorum\u2019 in Varro, _L.\n L._ 5. 46-54. These have been shown by Jordan (_Topogr._ ii. 271\n foll.) to be fragments of an itinerary, meant for the guidance of a\n procession, an idea first suggested by O. M\u00fcller. The further\n questions of the route taken, and the distribution of the sacella in\n the four Servian regiones, are very difficult, and need not be\n discussed here. See Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 123 foll.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n _L. L._ 5. 85 \u2018Salii a salitando, quod facere in comitio in sacris\n quotannis et solent et debent.\u2019\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n i. p. 81 (Keil). Why the _Comitium_ was the scene does not appear.\n Preller has suggested a reason (i. 364), which is by no means\n convincing.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n It was adopted by Usener (p. 222, note 6), but has obtained no further\n support. For another curious etymology of the latter part of the word\n _latrus_, which, however, does not assist us here, see Deecke,\n _Falisker_, p. 90 (_Dies ater = dies alter = postridie_).\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n Wissowa, _de Feriis_, ix.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n Mommsen, in _C. I. L._ 312.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n Mommsen, _R. H._ i. 78, note 1.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n Festus, 254 \u2018Quinquatrus appellari quidam putant a numero dierum qui\n fere his (? feriis iis) celebrantur: qui scilicet errant tam hercule\n quam qui triduo Saturnalia, et totidem diebus Compitalia; nam omnibus\n his singulis diebus fiunt sacra. Forma autem vocabuli eius exemplo\n multorum populorum Italicorum enuntiata est, quod post diem quintum\n Iduum est is dies festus, ut apud Tusculanos Triatrus,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n Wissowa, _op. cit._ viii. We find one in April, between the Fordicidia\n (April 15) and Cerialia (April 19).\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 809 \u2018Una dies media est, et fiunt sacra Minervae,\u2019\n &c.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 835 foll.\n\n Caelius ex alto qua mons descendit in aequum,\n Hic ubi non plana est sed prope plana via,\n Parva licet videas Captae delubra Minervae\n Quae dea natali coepit habere suo.\n\n As from the note in Praen. we learn that March 19 was also the\n dedication-day of Minerva on the Aventine, there must either be a\n confusion between the two, or both had the same foundation-day. About\n the day of Minerva Capta there is no doubt; for that of Minerva on the\n Aventine see Aust, _de Aedibus_, p. 42.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n Preller, i. 342; Usener, _Rh. Mus._, xxx. 221; Roscher, _Myth. Lex._\n s. v. Mars, 2410; _Lyd. de Mens._ 4. 42; Gell. 13. 23 (from _Gellii\n Annales_) is the _locus classicus_ for Nerio.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n Nerio gen. Nerienis (Gell. l. c., who compares Anio Anienis).\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 850: \u2018_forti_ sacrificare deae,\u2019 though clearly\n meant to refer to Minerva, is thought to be a reminiscence of a\n characteristic of Nerio (\u2018the strong one\u2019), attached to her\n supplanter.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n Aul. Gell. l. c.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n Usener, l. c., _passim_.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n H. Jordan expressed a somewhat different view in his _Symbolae ad\n hist. Ital. religionum alterae_, p. 9. He thinks that \u2018volgari\n opinione hominum feminini numinis cum masculo coniunctionem non\n potuisse non pro coniugali aestimari.\u2019 But this would seem to imply\n that the _opinio volgaris_ was a mistaken one: and if so, how should\n it have arisen but under Greek influence?\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n Mommsen, in a note on the Feriale Cumanum (Hermes, 17. 637), calls\n them _weibliche Hilfsg\u00f6ttinnen_; and this is not far removed from the\n view I have expressed in the text. The other alternative, viz that we\n have in these names traces of an old Italian anthropomorphic age, with\n a mythology, is in my view inadmissible. I see in them survivals of a\n mode of thought about the supernatural which might easily lend itself\n to a foreign anthropomorphizing influence.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 835 foll.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Minerva 2986: a model article, to which the\n reader must be referred for further information about Minerva.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n Lydus, 4. 42, adds \u2018Nerine,\u2019 and further tells us that this was the\n last day on which the _ancilia_ were \u2018moved\u2019 (\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd). The\n Salii were also active on the 24th (Fest. 278).\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n The note is thus completed by Mommsen from Varro, _L. L._ 6. 31 \u2018Dies\n qui vocatur sic, Quando Rex Comitiavit Fas, is dictus ab eo quod eo\n die rex sacrificulus itat [we should probably read _litat_] ad\n comitium, ad quod tempus est nefas, ab eo fas\u2019 (see Marq. 323, note\n 8). The MS. has \u2018_dicat_ ad comitium.\u2019 If we adopt _litat_ with\n Hirschfeld and Jordan, we are not on that account committed to the\n belief corrected in Praen., that it was on this day and May 24 that\n the Rex fled after sacrificing in _comitio_ (see Hartmann, _R\u00f6m. Kal._\n 162 foll.). The question will be discussed under Feb. 24.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Chronol._ p. 241; _Staatsrecht_, iii. 375.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n Gaius, 2. 101 \u2018Comitia calata quae bis in anno testamentis faciendis\n destinata erant.\u2019 Cp. Maine, _Ancient Law_, 199.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n It may have been of Etruscan origin: M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii.\n 206. A special kind of _tuba_ seems to have been used at funerals:\n Gell. _N. A._ 20. 2; Marq. _Privatleben_, i. 341.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n For the military use, Liv. ii. 64. They were also used in _sacris\n Saliaribus_ Paul. 19, s. v. Armilustrium. Wissowa (_de Feriis_ xv)\n mentions a relief in which the Salii are preceded by _tubicines\n laureati_ (published in St. Petersburgh by E. Schulze, 1873).\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n _C. I. L._ 313. He is of opinion that the note was among those \u2018non\n tam a Verrio scriptas quam male ex scriptis eius excerptas.\u2019\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n _de Div._ i. 17. 30.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 91.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS APRILIS.\n\n\nThere can hardly be a doubt that this month takes its name, not from a\ndeity, but from the verb _aperio_; the etymology is as old as Varro and\nVerrius, and seems perfectly natural[186]. The year was opening and the\nyoung corn and the young cattle were growing. It was therefore a\ncritical time for crops and herds; but there was not much to be done by\nman to secure their safety. The crops might be hoed and cleaned[187],\nbut must for the most part be left to the protection of the gods. The\noldest festivals of the month, the Robigalia and Fordicidia, clearly had\nthis object. So also with the cattle; _oves lustrantur_, say the rustic\ncalendars[188]; and such a _lustratio_ of the cattle of the ancient\nRomans survived in the ceremonies of the Parilia.\n\nThus, if we keep clear of fanciful notions, such as those of\nHuschke[189], about these early months of the year, which he seems to\nimagine was thought of as growing like an organic creature, we need find\nno great difficulty in April. We need not conclude too hastily that this\nwas a month of purification preliminary to May, as February was to\nMarch. Like February, indeed, it has a large number of _dies\nnefasti_[190], and its festivals are of a cathartic character, while\nMarch and May have some points in common; but beyond this we cannot\nsafely venture. The later Romans would hardly have connected April with\nVenus[191], had it been a sinister month; it was not in April, but in\nMarch and May, that weddings were ill-omened.\n\nWe may note the prevalence in this month of female deities, or of those\nwhich fluctuate between male and female\u2014a sure sign of antiquity. These\nare deities of the earth, or vegetation, or generation, such as Tellus,\nPales, Ceres, Flora, and perhaps also Fortuna. Hence the month became\neasily associated in later times with Venus, who was originally,\nperhaps, a garden deity[192], but was overlaid in course of time with\nideas brought from Sicily and Greece, and possibly even from Cyprus and\nthe East. Lastly, we may note that the Magna Mater Idaea found a\nsuitable position for her worship in this month towards the end of the\nthird century B.C.\n\n\n KAL. APR. (APRIL 1). F.\n\n\nVENERALIA: LUDI. (PHILOC.)\n\nNote in Praen.: \u2018FREQUENTER MULIERES SUPPLICANT FORTUNAE VIRILI,\nHUMILIORES ETIAM IN BALINEIS, QUOD IN IIS EA PARTE CORPOR[IS] UTIQUE\nVIRI NUDANTUR, QUA FEMINARUM GRATIA DESIDERATUR.\u2019\n\n\nLydus[193] seems to have been acquainted with this note of Verrius in\nthe Fasti of Praeneste; if so, we may guess that some words have been\nomitted by the man who cut the inscription, and we should insert with\nMommsen[194], after \u2018supplicant,\u2019 the words \u2018honestiores Veneri\nVerticordiae.\u2019 If we compare the passage of Lydus with the name\nVeneralia given to this day in the calendar of Philocalus, we may guess\nthat the cult of Venus on April 1 came into fashion in late times among\nladies of rank, while an old and gross custom was kept up by the\nhumiliores in honour of Fortuna Virilis[195]. This seems to be the most\nobvious explanation of the concurrence of the two goddesses on the same\nday; they were probably identified or amalgamated under the Empire, for\nexample by Lydus, who does not mention Fortuna by name, and seems to\nconfuse her worship on this day with that of Venus. But the two are\nstill distinct in Ovid, though he seems to show some tendency to\namalgamation[196].\n\nFortuna Virilis, thus worshipped by the women when bathing, would seem\nfrom Ovid to have been that Fortuna who gave women good luck in their\nrelations with men[197]. The custom of bathing in the men\u2019s baths may\nprobably be taken as some kind of lustration, more especially as the\nwomen were adorned with myrtle, which had purifying virtues[198]. How\nold this curious custom was we cannot guess. Plutarch[199] mentions a\ntemple of this Fortuna dedicated by Servius Tullius; but there was a\nstrong tendency, as we shall see later on, to attribute all\nFortuna-cults to this king.\n\nThe Venus who eventually supplanted Fortuna is clearly Venus\nVerticordia[200], whose earliest temple was founded in 114 B.C., in\nobedience to an injunction of the Sibylline books, after the discovery\nof incest on the part of three vestal virgins, \u2018quo facilius virginum\nmulierumque mens a libidine ad pudicitiam converteretur[201].\u2019 Macrobius\ninsists that Venus had originally no share in the worship of this day or\nmonth[202]; she must therefore have been introduced into it as a\nforeigner. Robertson Smith[203] has shown some ground for the conjecture\nthat she was the Cyprian Aphrodite (herself identical with the Semitic\nAstarte), who came to Rome by way of Sicily and Latium. For if Lydus can\nbe trusted, the Roman ceremony of April 1 was found also in Cyprus, on\nthe same day, with variations in detail. If that be so, the addition of\nthe name Verticordia is a curious example of the accretion of a Roman\ncult-title expressive of domestic morality on a foreign deity of\nquestionable reputation[204].\n\n\n PRID. NON. APR. (APRIL 4). C.\n\n\nMATR[I] MAG[NAE]. (MAFF.)\nLUDI MEGALESIACI. (PHILOC.)\n\nNote in Praen.: LUDI M[ATRI] D[EUM] M[AGNAE] I[DAEAE]. MEGALESIA\nVOCANTUR QUOD EA DEA MEGALE APPELLATUR. NOBILIUM MUTITATIONES CENARUM\nSOLITAE SUNT FREQUENTER FIERI, QUOD MATER MAGNA EX LIBRIS SIBULLINIS\nARCESSITA LOCUM MUTAVIT EX PHRYGIA ROMAM.\n\n\nThe introduction of the Magna Mater Idaea into Rome can only be briefly\nmentioned here, as being more important for the history of religion at\nRome than for that of the Roman religion. In B.C. 204, in accordance\nwith a Sibylline oracle which had previously prophesied that the\npresence of this deity alone could drive the enemy out of Italy, the\nsacred stone representing the goddess arrived at Rome from Pessinus in\nPhrygia[205]. Attalus, King of Pergamus, had acquired this territory,\nand now, as a faithful friend to Rome, consented to the transportation\nof the stone, which was received at Rome with enthusiasm by an excited\nand now hopeful people[206]. Scipio was about to leave with his army for\nAfrica; a fine harvest followed; Hannibal was forced to evacuate Italy\nthe next year; and the goddess did everything that was expected of\nher[207].\n\nThe stone was deposited in the temple of Victory on the Palatine on\nApril 4[208]. The day was made a festival; though no Roman festival\noccurs between the Kalends and Nones of any month, the rule apparently\ndid not hold good in the case of a foreign worship[209]. Great care was\ntaken to keep up the foreign character of the cult. The name of the\nfestival was a Greek one (Megalesia), as Cicero remarked[210]; all\nRomans were forbidden by a senatus consultum to take any part in the\nservice of the goddess[211]. The temple dedicated thirteen years later\non April 10[212] seems to have been frequented by the nobilitas only,\nand the custom of giving dinner-parties on April 4, which is well\nattested, was confined to the upper classes[213], while the plebs waited\nfor its festivities till the ensuing Cerealia. The later and more\nextravagant developments of the cult did not come in until the\nEmpire[214].\n\nThe story told by Livy of the introduction of the goddess is an\ninteresting episode in Roman history. It illustrates the far-reaching\npolicy of the Senate in enlisting Eastern kings, religions, and oracles\nin the service of the state at a critical time, and also the curious\nreadiness of the Roman people to believe in the efficacy of cults\nutterly foreign to their own religious practices. At the same time it\nshows how careful the government was then, as always, to keep such cults\nunder strict supervision. But the long stress of the Hannibalic War had\nits natural effect on the Italian peoples; and less than twenty years\nlater the introduction of the Bacchic orgies forced the senate to strain\nevery nerve to counteract a serious danger to the national religion and\nmorality.\n\n\n XVII KAL. MAI. (APRIL 15). NP.\n\n\nFORD[ICIDIA][215]. (CAER. MAFF. VAT. PRAEN.)\n\n\nThis is beyond doubt one of the oldest sacrificial rites in the Roman\nreligion. It consisted in the slaughter of pregnant cows (_hordae_ or\n_fordae_), one in the Capitol and one in each of the thirty\n_curiae_[216]; i. e. one for the state and the rest for each of its\nancient divisions. This was the first festival of the _curiae_; the\nother, the _Fornacalia_, will be treated of under February 17. The cows\nwere offered, as all authorities agree, to Tellus[217], who, as we shall\nsee, may be an indigitation of the same earth power represented by\nCeres, Bona Dea, Dea Dia, and other female deities. The unborn calves\nwere torn by attendants of the virgo vestalis maxima from the womb of\nthe mother and burnt[218], and their ashes were kept by the Vestals for\nuse at the Parilia a few days later[219]. This was the first ceremony in\nthe year in which the Vestals took an active part, and it was the first\nof a series of acts all of which are connected with the fruits of the\nearth, their growth, ripening and harvesting. The object of burning the\nunborn calves seems to have been to procure the fertility of the corn\nnow growing in the womb of mother earth, to whom the sacrifice was\noffered[220].\n\nMany charms of this sacrificial kind have been noticed by various\nwriters; one may be mentioned here which was described by Sir John\nBarrow, when British Ambassador in China in 1804. In a spring festival\nin the temple of Earth, a huge porcelain image of a cow was carried\nabout and then broken in pieces, and a number of small cows taken from\ninside it and distributed among the people as earnests of a good\nseason[221]. This must be regarded as a survival of a rite which was no\ndoubt originally one of the same kind as the Roman.\n\n\n III ID. APR. (APRIL 11). N.\n\n\nOn this day[222] the oracle of the great temple of Fortuna Primigenia at\nPraeneste was open to suppliants, as we learn from a fragment of the\nPraenestine Fasti. Though not a Roman festival, the day deserves to be\nnoticed here, as this oracle was by far the most renowned in Italy. The\ncult of Fortuna will be discussed under June 25 and Sept. 13. It does\nnot seem to be known whether the oracle was open on these days only; see\nR. Peter in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Fortuna, 1545.\n\n\n XIII KAL. MAI. (APRIL 19). NP.\n\n\nCER[IALIA]. (CAER. MAFF. PRAEN. ESQ.)\n\nCERERI LIBERO (LIBERAE) ESQ.\n\nNote: All the days from 12th to 19th are marked ludi, ludi Cer., or ludi\nCeriales, in Tusc. Maff. Praen. Vat., taken together: loid. Cereri in\nEsq., where the 18th only is preserved: loedi C in Caer. Philocalus has\nCerealici c. m. (circenses missus) xxiv on 12th and 19th.\n\n\nThe origin of the ludi Cereales, properly so called, cannot be proved to\nbe earlier than the Second Punic War. The games first appear as fully\nestablished in B.C. 202[223]. But from the fact that April 19 is marked\nCER in large letters in the calendars we may infer, with Mommsen[224],\nthat there was a festival in honour of Ceres as far back as the period\nof the monarchy. The question therefore arises whether this ancient\nCeres was a native Italian deity, or the Greek Demeter afterwards known\nto the Romans as Ceres.\n\nThat there was such an Italian deity is placed almost beyond doubt by\nthe name itself, which all authorities agree in connecting with cerus =\ngenius, and with the _cerfus_ and _cerfia_ of the great inscription of\nIguvium[225]. The verbal form seems clearly to be _creare_[226]; and\nthus, strange to say, we actually get some definite aid from etymology,\nand can safely see in the earliest Ceres, if we recollect her\nidentification with the Greek goddess of the earth and its fruits, a\ndeity presiding over or representing the generative powers of nature. We\ncannot, however, feel sure whether this deity was originally feminine\nonly, or masculine also, as Arnobius seems to suggest[227]. Judging from\nthe occurrence of forms such as those quoted above, it is quite likely,\nas in the case of Pales, Liber, and others, that this numen was of both\nsexes, or of undetermined sex. So anxious were the primitive Italians to\ncatch the ear of their deities by making no mistake in the ritual of\naddressing them, that there was a distinct tendency to avoid marking\ntheir sex too distinctly; and phrases such as \u2018sive mas sive femina,\u2019\n\u2018si deus si dea,\u2019 are familiar to all students of the Roman\nreligion[228].\n\nWe may be satisfied, then, that the oldest Ceres was not simply an\nimportation from Greece. It is curious however, that Ceres is not found\nexactly where we should expect to find her, viz. in the ritual of the\nFratres Arvales[229]. Yet this very fact may throw further light on the\nprimitive nature of Ceres. The central figure of the Arval ritual was\nthe nameless Dea Dia; and in a ritual entirely relating to the fruits of\nthe earth we can fairly account for the absence of Ceres by supposing\nthat she is there represented by the Dea Dia\u2014in fact, that the two are\nidentical[230]. No one at all acquainted with Italian ideas of the gods\nwill be surprised at this. It is surely a more reasonable hypothesis\nthan that of Birt, who thinks that an old name for seed and bread (i. e.\nCeres) was transferred to the Greek deity who dispensed seed and bread\nwhen she was introduced in Rome[231]. It is, in fact, only the name\nCeres that is wanting in the Arval ritual, not the numen itself; and\nthis is less surprising if we assume that the names given by the\nearliest Romans to supernatural powers were not fixed but variable,\nrepresenting no distinctly conceived personalities; in other words, that\ntheir religion was pandaemonic rather than polytheistic, though with a\ntendency to lend itself easily to the influence of polytheism. We may\nagree, then, with Preller[232], that Ceres, with Tellus, and perhaps Ops\nand Acca Larentia, are different names for, and aspects of, the numen\nwhom the Arval brothers called Dea Dia. At the same time we cannot\nentirely explain why the name Ceres was picked out from among these to\nrepresent the Greek Demeter. Some light may, however, be thrown on this\npoint by studying the early history of the Ceres-cult.\n\nThe first temple of Ceres was founded, according to tradition, in\nconsequence of a famine in the year 496 B.C., in obedience to a\nSibylline oracle[233]. It was at the foot of the Aventine, by the Circus\nMaximus[234], and was dedicated on April 19, 493, to Ceres, Liber and\nLibera, representing Demeter, Dionysus, and Persephone.[235] Thus from\nthe outset the systematized cult of Ceres in the city was not Roman but\nGreek. The temple itself was adorned in Greek style instead of the\nEtruscan usual at this period[236]. How is all this to be accounted for?\n\nLet us notice in the first place that from the very foundation of the\ntemple it is in the closest way connected with the plebs. The year of\nits dedication is that of the first secession of the plebs and of the\nestablishment of the tribuni and aediles plebis[237]. The two events are\nconnected by the fact, repeatedly stated, that any one violating the\n_sacrosanctitas_ of the tribune was to be held _sacer Cereri_[238]; we\nare also told that the fines imposed by tribunes were spent on this\ntemple[239]. It was under the care of the plebeian aediles, and was to\nthem what the temple of Saturnus was to the quaestors[240]. Its position\nwas in the plebeian quarter, and at the foot of the Aventine, which in\nB.C. 456 is said to have become the property of the plebs[241].\n\nNow it can hardly be doubted that the choice of Ceres (with her fellow\ndeities of the _trias_), as the goddess whose temple should serve as a\ncentre for the plebeian community, had some definite meaning. That\nmeaning must be found in the traditions of famine and distress which we\nread of as immediately following the expulsion of Tarquinius. These\ntraditions have often been put aside as untrustworthy[242], and may\nindeed be so in regard to details; but there is some reason for thinking\nthem to have had a foundation of fact, if we can but accept the other\ntradition of the foundation of the temple and its connexion with the\nplebs. It is likely enough that under Tarquinius the population was\nincreased by \u2018outsiders\u2019 employed on his great buildings. Under pressure\nfrom the attack of enemies, and from a sudden aristocratic reaction,\nthis population, we may guess, was thrown out of work, deprived of a\n_raison d\u2019\u00eatre_, and starved[243]; finally rescuing itself by a\nsecession, which resulted in the institution of its officers, tribunes\nand aediles, the latter of whom some to have been charged with the duty\nof looking after the corn-supply[244].\n\nHow the corn-supply was cared for we cannot tell for certain; but here\nagain is a tradition which fits in curiously with what we know of the\ntemple and its worship, though it has been rejected by the superfluous\ningenuity of modern German criticism. Livy tells us that in B.C. 492,\nthe year after the dedication of the temple, corn was brought from\nEtruria, Cumae, and Sicily to relieve a famine[245]. We are not obliged\nto believe in the purchase of corn at Syracuse at so early a date,\nthough it is not impossible; but if we remember that the decorations and\nritual of the temple were Greek beyond doubt, we get a singular\nconfirmation of the tradition _in outline_ which has not been\nsufficiently noticed. If it was founded in 493, placed under plebeian\nofficers, and closely connected with the plebs; if its rites and\ndecorations were Greek from the beginning; we cannot afford to discard a\ntradition telling us of a commercial connexion with Greek cities, the\nobject of which was to relieve a starving plebeian population.\n\nAnd surely there is nothing strange in the supposition that Greek\ninfluence gained ground, not so much with the patricians who had their\nown outfit of religious armour, but with the plebs who had no share in\nthe sacra of their betters, and with the Etruscan dynasty which favoured\nthe plebs[246]. We may hesitate to assent to Mommsen\u2019s curious assertion\nthat the merchants of that day were none other than the great patrician\nlandholders[247]; we may rather be disposed to conjecture that it was\nthe more powerful plebeians, incapable of holding large areas of public\nland, who turned their attention to commerce, and came in contact with\nthe Greeks of Italy and Sicily. The position of the plebeian quarter\nalong the Tiber bank, and near the spot where the quays of Rome have\nalways been, may possibly point in the same direction[248].\n\nTo return to the Cerealia of April 19. We have still to notice a relic\nof apparently genuine Italian antiquity which survived in it down to\nOvid\u2019s time, and may be taken as evidence that there was a real Roman\nsubstratum on which the later Greek ritual was superimposed.\n\nEvery one who reads Ovid\u2019s account of the Cerealia will be struck by his\nstatement that on the 19th it was the practice to fasten burning brands\nto the tails of foxes and set them loose to run in the Circus\nMaximus[249]:\n\n Cur igitur missae vinctis ardentia taedis\n Terga ferant volpes, causa docenda mihi est.\n\nHe tells a charming story to explain the custom, learnt from an old man\nof Carseoli, an Aequian town, where he was seeking information while\nwriting the _Fasti_. A boy of twelve years\u2019 old caught a vixen fox which\nhad done damage to the farm, and tied it up in straw and hay. This he\nset on fire, but the fox escaped and burnt the crops. Hence a law at\nCarseoli forbidding\u2014something about foxes, which the corruption of the\nMSS. has obscured for us[250]. Then he concludes:\n\n Utque luat poenas gens haec, Cerialibus ardet;\n Quoque modo segetes perdidit, ipsa perit.\n\nWe are, of course, reminded of Samson burning the corn of the\nPhilistines[251]; and it is probable that the story in each case is a\nmyth explanatory of some old practice like the one Ovid describes at\nRome. But what the practice meant it is not very easy to see. Preller\nhas his explanation ready[252]; it was a \u2018sinnbildliche Erinnerung\u2019 of\nthe _robigo_ (i. e. \u2018red fox\u2019), which was to be feared and guarded\nagainst at this time of year. Mannhardt thinks rather of the corn-foxes\nor corn-spirits of France and Germany, of which he gives many\ninstances[253]. If the foxes were corn spirits, one does not quite see\nwhy they should have brands fastened to their tails[254]. No exactly\nparallel practice seems to be forthcoming, and the fox does not appear\nelsewhere in ancient Italian or Greek folk-tales, as far as I can\ndiscover. All that can be said is that the fox\u2019s tail seems to have been\nan object of interest, and possibly to have had some fertilizing\npower[255], and some curious relation to ears of corn. Prof. Gubernatis\nbelieves this tail to have been a phallic symbol[256]. We need not\naccept his explanation, but we may be grateful to him for a modern\nItalian folk-tale, from the region of Leghorn and the Maremma, in which\na fox is frightened away by chickens which carry each in its beak an ear\nof millet; the fox is told that these ears are all foxes\u2019 tails, and\nruns for it.\n\nHere we must leave this puzzle[257]; but whoever cares to read Ovid\u2019s\nlines about his journey towards his native Pelignian country, his\nturning into the familiar lodging\u2014\n\n Hospitis antiqui solitas intravimus aedes,\n\nand the tales he heard there\u2014among them that of the fox\u2014will find them\nbetter worth reading than the greater part of the _Fasti_.\n\n\n XI KAL. MAI. (APR. 21). NP.[258]\n\n\nPAR[ILIA]. (CAER. MAFF. PRAEN.)\n\n\nROMA COND[ITA] FERIAE CORONATIS OM[NIBUS]. (CAER.)\n\nN[ATALIS] URBIS. CIRCENSES MISSUS XXIV. (PHILOC.)\n\n[A note in Praen. is hopelessly mutilated, with the exception of the\nwords IGNES and PRINCIPIO AN[NI PASTORICII[259]?]]\n\n\nThe Parilia[260], at once one of the oldest and best attested festivals\nof the whole year, is at the same time the one whose features have been\nmost clearly explained by the investigations of parallels among other\nraces.\n\nThe first point to notice is that the festival was both public and\nprivate, urban and rustic[261]. Ovid clearly distinguishes the two;\nlines 721-734 deal with the urban festival, 735-782 with the rustic. The\nexplanations which follow deal with both. Pales, the deity (apparently\nboth masculine and feminine[262]) whose name the festival bears, was,\nlike Faunus, a common deity of Italian pasture land. A Palatium was said\nby Varro to have been named after Pales at Reate, in the heart of the\nSabine hill-country[263]; and though this may not go for much, the\ncharacter of the Parilia, and the fact that Pales is called _rusticola_,\n_pastoricia_, _silvicola_, &c., are sufficient to show the original\nnon-urban character of the deity. He (or she) was a shepherd\u2019s deity of\nthe simplest kind, and survived in Rome as little more than a name[264]\nfrom the oldest times, when the earliest invaders drove their cattle\nthrough the Sabine mountains. Here, then, we seem to have a clear\nexample of a rite which was originally a rustic one, and survived as\nsuch, while at the same time one local form of it was kept up in the\ngreat city, and had become entangled with legend and probably altered in\nsome points of ritual. We will take the rustic form first.\n\nHere we may distinguish in Ovid\u2019s account[265] the following ritualistic\nacts.\n\n1. The sheep-fold[266] was decked with green boughs and a great wreath\nwas hung on the gate:\n\n Frondibus et fixis decorentur ovilia ramis,\n Et tegat ornatas longa corona fores.\n\nWith this Mannhardt[267] aptly compares the like concomitants of the\nmidsummer fires in North Germany, Scotland, and England. In Scotland,\nfor example, before the bonfires were kindled on midsummer eve, the\nhouses were decorated with foliage brought from the woods[268]. The\ncustom of decoration at special seasons, May-day, mid-summer, harvest,\nand Christmas, is even now, with the exception of midsummer, universal,\nand is probably descended from these primitive rites, by which our\nancestors sought in some mysterious way to influence the working of the\npowers of vegetation.\n\n2. At the earliest glimmer of daybreak the shepherd purified the sheep.\nThis was done by sprinkling and sweeping the fold; then a fire was made\nof heaps of straw, olive-branches, and laurel, to give good omen by the\ncrackling, and through this apparently the shepherds leapt, and the\nflocks were driven[269]. For this we have, of course, numerous parallels\nfrom all parts of the world. Burning sulphur was also used:\n\n Caerulei fiant vivo de sulfure fumi\n Tactaque fumanti sulfure balet ovis[270].\n\n3. After this the shepherd brought offerings to Pales, of whom there may\nperhaps have been in the farmyard a rude image made of wood[271]; among\nthese were baskets of millet and cakes of the same, pails of milk, and\nother food of appropriate kinds. The meal which followed the shepherd\nhimself appears to have shared with Pales[272]. Then he prays to the\ndeity to avert all evil from himself and his flocks; whether he or they\nhave unwittingly trespassed on sacred ground and caused the nymphs or\nfauni to fly from human eyes; or have disturbed the sacred fountains,\nand used branches of a sacred tree for secular ends. In these petitions\nthe genuine spirit of Italian religion\u2014the awe of the unknown, the fear\nof committing unwittingly some act that may bring down wrath upon you\u2014is\nmost vividly brought out in spite of the Greek touches and names which\nare introduced. He then goes on to his main object[273]:\n\n Pelle procul morbos: valeant hominesque gregesque,\n Et valeant vigiles, provida turba, canes.\n\n\n Absit iniqua fames. Herbae frondesque supersint,\n Quaeque lavent artus, quaeque bibantur, aquae.\n Ubera plena premam: referat mihi caseus aera,\n Dentque viam liquido vimina rara sero.\n Sitque salax aries, conceptaque semina coniunx\n Reddat, et in stabulo multa sit agna meo.\n Lanaque proveniat nullas laesura puellas,\n Mollis et ad teneras quamlibet apta manus.\n Quae precor eveniant: et nos faciamus ad annum\n Pastorum dominae grandia liba Pali.\n\nThis prayer must be said four times over[274], the shepherd looking to\nthe east and wetting his hands with the morning dew[275]. The position,\nthe holy water, and the prayer in its substance, though now addressed to\nthe Virgin, have all descended to the Catholic shepherd of the Campagna.\n\n4. Then a bowl is to be brought, a wooden antique bowl apparently[276],\nfrom which milk and purple _sapa_, i. e. heated wine, may be drunk,\nuntil the drinker feels the influence of the fumes, and when he is well\nset he may leap over the burning heaps:\n\n Moxque per ardentes stipulae crepitantis acervos\n Traiicias celeri strenua membra pede[277].\n\nThe Parilia of the urbs was celebrated in much the same way in its main\nfeatures; but the day was reckoned as the birthday of Rome, and\ndoubtless on this account it came under the influence of priestly\norganization[278]. It is connected with two other very ancient\nfestivals: that of the Fordicidia and that of the \u2018October horse.\u2019 The\nblood which streamed from the head of the horse sacrificed on the Ides\nof October was kept by the Vestals in the Penus Vestae, and mixed with\nthe ashes of the unborn calves burnt at the Fordicidia; and the mixture\nseems to have been thrown upon heaps of burning bean-straw to make it\nsmoke, while over the smoke and flames men and women leaped on the\nPalatine Hill[279]. The object was of course purification; Ovid calls\nthe blood, ashes, and straw _februa casta_, i. e. holy agents of\npurification, and adds in allusion to their having been kept by the\nVestals:\n\n Vesta dabit: Vestae munere _purus_ eris.\n\nOvid had himself taken part in the rite; had fetched the _suffimen_, and\nleaped three times through the flames, his hands sprinkled with dew from\na laurel branch. Whether the _februa_ were considered to have\nindividually any special significance or power, it is hard to say.\nMannhardt, who believed the \u2018October horse\u2019 to be a corn-demon, thought\nthat the burning of its blood symbolized the renewal of its life in the\nspring, while the ashes thrown into the fire signified the safe passage\nof the growing crops through the heat of the summer[280]; but about this\nso judicious a writer is naturally not disposed to dogmatize. We can,\nhowever, be pretty sure that the purification was supposed to carry with\nit protection from evil influences both for man and beast, and also to\naid the growth of vegetation. The theory of Mannhardt, adopted by Mr.\nFrazer, that the whole class of ceremonies to which the Parilia clearly\nbelongs, i. e. the Easter and Midsummer fires and Need-fires of central\nand northern Europe, may best be explained as charms to procure\nsunshine,[281] has much to be said for it, but does not seem to find any\nspecial support in the Roman rite.\n\nIt may be noted in conclusion that a custom of the same kind, and one\nperhaps connected with a cult of the sun,[282] took place not far from\nRome, at Mount Soracte; at what time of year we do not know. On this\nhill there was a worship of Apollo Soranus,[283] a local deity, to which\nwas attached a kind of guild of worshippers called Hirpi Sorani, or\nwolves of Soranus;[284] and of these we may guess, from the legend told\nof their origin, that in order to avert pestilence, &c., they dressed or\nbehaved themselves like wolves.[285] Also on a particular day, perhaps\nthe summer solstice, these Hirpi ran through the flames, \u2018super ambustam\nligni struem ambulantes non aduruntur,\u2019[286] and on this account were\nexcused by a senatus consultum from all military or other service. A\nstriking parallel with this last feature is quoted by Mannhardt, from\nMysore, where the Harawara are degraded Brahmins who act as priests in\nharvest-time, and make a living by running through the flames unhurt\nwith naked soles: but in this case there seems to be no animal\nrepresentation. Mannhardt tries to explain the Hirpi as dramatic\nrepresentations of the Corn-wolf or vegetation spirit.[287] On the other\nhand, it is possible to consider them as survivals of an original clan\nwho worshipped the wolf as a totem[288]; a view adopted by Mr.\nLang[289], who compares the _bear_-maidens of Artemis at Brauron in\nAttica. But the last word has yet to be said about these obscure\nanimalistic rites.\n\n\n IX KAL. MAI. (APR. 23). FP (CAER.) NP (MAFF.) F (PRAEN.)[290]\n\n\nVEIN[ALIA] (CAER.) VIN[ALIA] (MAFF. PRAEN. ESQ.)\n\nPraen. has a mutilated note beginning IO[VI], and ending with [CUM\nLATINI BELLO PREME]RENTUR A RUTULIS, QUIA MEZENTIUS REX ETRUS[CO]RUM\nPACISCEBATUR, SI SUBSIDIO VENISSET, OMNIUM ANNORUM VINI FRUCTUM. (Cp.\nFestus, 65 and 374, where it appears that libations of all new wine were\nmade to Jupiter.)\n\nVENERI (CAER.)\n\n[V]EBERI ERUC. [EXTR]A PORTAM COLLIN[AM]. (ARV.)\n\n\nThis day was generally known as Vinalia Priora, as distinguished from\nthe Vinalia Rustica of August 19. Both days were believed to be sacred\nto Venus[291]; the earlier one, according to Ovid, was the\nfoundation-day of the temple of Venus Erycina, with which he connected\nthe legend of Aeneas and Mezentius. But as both Varro and Verrius are\nagreed that the days were sacred, not to Venus but to Jupiter[292], we\nmay leave the legend alone and content ourselves with asking how Venus\ncame into the connexion.\n\nThe most probable supposition is that this day being, as Ovid implies,\nthe dies natalis of one of the temples of Venus[293], the Vinalia also\ncame to be considered as sacred to the goddess. The date of the\nfoundation was 181 B.C., exactly at a time when many new worships, and\nespecially Greek ones, were being introduced into Rome[294]. That of the\nSicilian Aphrodite, under the name of Venus, seems to have become at\nonce popular with its _Graecus ritus_ and _lascivia maior_[295]; and the\nolder connexion of the festival with Jupiter tended henceforward to\ndisappear. It must be noted, however, that the day of the Vinalia\nRustica in August was also the dies natalis of one if not two other\ntemples of Venus[296], and one of these was as old as the year B.C. 293.\nThus we can hardly avoid the conclusion that there was, even at an early\ndate, some connexion in the popular mind between the goddess and wine.\nThe explanation is perhaps to be found in the fact that Venus was\nspecially a deity of gardens, and therefore no doubt of vineyards[297].\nAn interesting inscription from Pompeii confirms this, and attests the\nconnexion of Venus with wine and gardens, as it is written on a\nwine-jar[298]:\n\n PRESTA MI SINCERU[M] ITA TE AMET QUE\n CUSTODIT ORTU[M] VENUS.\n\nThe Vinalia, then, both in April and August, was really and originally\nsacred to Jupiter. The legendary explanation is given by Ovid in 11.\n877-900. Whatever the true explanation may have been, the fact can be\nillustrated from the ritual employed; for it was the Flamen Dialis[299]\nwho \u2018vindemiam auspicatus est,\u2019 i. e. after sacrificing plucked the\nfirst grapes. Whether this auspicatio took place on either of the\nVinalia has indeed been doubted, for even August 19 would hardly seem to\nsuit the ceremony Varro describes[300]; but the fact that it was\nperformed by the priest of Jupiter is sufficient for our purpose.\n\nOf this day, April 23, we may guess that it was the one on which the\nwine-skins were first opened, and libations from them made to Jupiter.\nThese are probably the libations about which Plutarch[301] asks \u2018Why do\nthey pour much wine from the temple of Venus on the Veneralia\u2019 (i. e.\nVinalia)? The same libations are attested by Verrius: \u2018Vinalia diem\nfestum habebant quo die vinum novum Iovi libabant\u2019[302]. After the\nlibation the wine was tasted, as we learn from Pliny[303]; and it seems\nprobable that it was brought from the country into Rome for this purpose\nonly a few days before. Varro has preserved an interesting notice which\nhe saw posted in vineyards at Tusculum: \u2018In Tusculanis hortis (MSS.\nsortis) est scriptum: \u2018Vinum novum ne vehatur in urbem ante quam vinalia\nkalentur\u2019[304]; i. e. wine-growers were warned that the new wine was not\nto be brought into the city until the Vinalia had been proclaimed on the\nNones. It must, however, be added that this notice may have had\nreference to the Vinalia in August; for Verrius, if he is rightly\nreported by Paulus[305], gives August 19 as the day on which the wine\nmight be brought into Rome. Paulus may be wrong, and have confused the\ntwo Vinalia[306]; but in that case we remain in the dark as to what was\ndone at the Vinalia Rustica, unless indeed we explain it as a rite\nintended to secure the vintage that was to follow against malignant\ninfluences. This would seem to be indicated by Pliny (_H. N._ 18. 284),\nwhere he classes this August festival with the Robigalia and\nFloralia[307], and further on quotes Varro to prove that its object was\nto appease the storms (i. e. to be expected in September).\n\nAs regards the connexion of the vine-culture with Jupiter, it should be\nobserved that the god is not spoken of as Jupiter Liber, but simply\nJupiter; and though the vine was certainly introduced into Italy from\nGreece, we need not assume that Dionysus, coming with it, was from the\nbeginning attached to or identified with Jupiter. The gift of wine might\nnaturally be attributed to the great god of the air, light, and heat;\nthe Flamen Dialis who \u2018vindemiam auspicatus est\u2019 was not the priest of\nJupiter Liber; nor does the aetiological legend, in which the Latins\navoid the necessity of yielding their first-fruits to the Etruscan\ntyrant Mezentius by dedicating them to Jupiter, point to any other than\nthe protecting deity of Latium.[308]\n\n\n VII KAL. MAI. (APRIL 25). NP.\n\n\n[ROB]IGALIA. (CAER. ESQ. MAFF. PRAEN.)\n\nNote in Praen: FERIAE ROBIGO VIA CLAUDIA AD MILLIARIUM V NE ROBIGO\nFRUMENTIS NOCEAT. SACRIFICIUM ET LUDI CURSORIBUS MAIORIBUS MINORIBUSQUE\nFIUNT. FESTUS EST PUERORUM LENONIORUM, QUIA PROXIMUS SUPERIOR MERETRICUM\nEST.\n\n\nRobigo means red rust or mildew which attacks cereals when the ear is\nbeginning to be formed[309], and which is better known and more dreaded\non the continent than with us. This destructive disease is not caused by\nthe sun\u2019s heat, as Pliny[310] tells us was the notion of some Italians,\nbut by damp acting in conjunction with a certain height of temperature,\nas Pliny himself in fact explains it.\n\nRobigus[311] is the spirit who works in the mildew; and it has been\nconjectured that he was a form or indigitation of Mars[312], since\nTertullian tells us that \u2018Marti et Robigini Numa ludos instituit\u2019[313].\nThis is quite consistent with all we know of the Mars of the\nfarm-worship, who is invoked to avert evil simply because he can be the\ncreator of it[314]. The same feature is found in the worship of Apollo,\nwho had at Rhodes the cult-title \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2[315], or Apollo of the\nblight, as elsewhere he is Apollo Smintheus, i. e. the power that can\nbring and also avert the pest of field-mice.\n\nRobigus had a grove of his own at the fifth milestone on the Via\nClaudia; and Ovid relates in pretty verses how, as he was returning from\nNomentum (doubtless by way of his own gardens, which were at the\njunction of the Via Claudia with the Via Flaminia near the Milvian\nbridge[316]), he met the Flamen Quirinalis with the _exta_ of a dog and\na sheep to offer to the god[317]. He joined the procession, which was\napparently something quite new to him, and witnessed the ceremony,\nnoting the _meri patera_, the _turis acerra_, and the rough linen\nnapkin[318], at the priest\u2019s right hand. He versified the prayer which\nhe heard, and which is not unlike that which Cato directs the husbandman\nto address to Mars in the lustration of the farm[319]:\n\n Aspera Robigo, parcas Cerialibus herbis,\n Et tremat in summa leve cacumen humo.\n\n Tu sata sideribus caeli nutrita secundi\n Crescere, dum fiant falcibus apta, sinas.\n\n\n\n Parce, precor, scabrasque manus a messibus aufer,\n Neve noce cultis: posse nocere sat est, &c.\n\nOvid then asked the flamen why a dog\u2014_nova victima_\u2014was sacrificed, and\nwas told that the dangerous Dog-star was in the ascendant[320]:\n\n Est Canis, Icarium dicunt, quo sidere moto\n Tosta sitit tellus, praecipiturque seges.\n Pro cane sidereo canis hic imponitur arae,\n Et quare pereat, nil nisi nomen habet.\n\nIn this, however, both he and the priest were certainly mistaken. Sirius\ndoes not rise, but disappears on April 25, at sunset; and it is almost\ncertain that the sacrifice of the dog had nothing to do with the star.\nThe real meaning of the choice of victim was unknown both to priest and\npoet: but modern research has made a reasonable attempt to recover\nit[321].\n\nWe are told[322] of a sacrifice of reddish sucking whelps, and of augury\nmade from their _exta_, which must have been closely connected with the\nRobigalia, if not (in later times at least) identified with it.\nOriginally it was not on a fixed day, as is proved by an extract from\nthe _commentarii pontificum_ quoted by Pliny[323]; but it is quite\npossible that for convenience, as the religio of the urbs got more and\nmore dissociated from the agriculture in which it had its origin, the\ndate was fixed for April 25\u2014the rites of the Robigalia being of the same\nkind, and the date suitable. The whelps were red or reddish; and from\nthe language of Festus, quoting Ateius Capito, we gather that this\ncolour was supposed to resemble that of the corn when ripe: \u2018Rufae canes\nimmolabantur, ut fruges _flavescentes_ ad maturitatem perducerentur\u2019 (p.\n285). We should indeed naturally have expected that the rufous colour\nwas thought to resemble the red mildew, as Mannhardt explains it[324];\nbut we do not know for certain that these puppies were offered to\nRobigus. In any case, however, we may perhaps see in them an animal\nrepresentation of the corn, and in the rite a piece of \u2018sympathetic\nmagic\u2019[325], the object of which was to bring the corn to its golden\nperfection, or to keep off the robigo, or both. If we knew more about\nthe dog-offering at the grove of Robigus, we might find that it too, if\nnot indeed identical with the _augurium_, had a similar intention.\n\nThe red mildew was at times so terrible a scourge that the Robigalia\nmust in early Rome, when the population lived on the corn grown near the\ncity, have been a festival of very real meaning. But later on it became\nobscured, and gave way to the races mentioned in the note in the\nPraenestine calendar[326], and under the later empire to the Christian\n_litania maior_, the original object of which was also the safety of the\ncrops[327]. The 25th is at present St. Mark\u2019s day.\n\n\n IV KAL. MAI. (APR. 28). NP.\n\n\nLOEDI FLOR[AE] (CAER.) LUDI FLOR[AE]. (MAFF. PRAEN.)\n\n\n V NON. MAI. (MAY 3). C.\n\n\nFLORAE (VEN.).\n\nOn the intervening days were also ludi (_C. I. L._ 317).\n\nNote in Praen. (Apr. 28): EODEM DIE AEDIS FLORAE, QUAE REBUS\nFLORESCENDIS PRAEEST, DEDICATA EST PROPTER STERILITATEM FRUGUM.\n\n\nThis was not a very ancient festival and is not marked in the Calendars\nin those large letters which are believed to indicate extreme\nantiquity[328]. Its history seems to be as follows: in 238 B.C. in\nconsequence of a dearth, the Sibylline Books were consulted, and games\nin honour of Flora were held for the first time by plebeian\naediles[329]; also a temple was dedicated to her _ad circum maximum_ on\nApril 28 of that year[330]. There seems to be a certain connexion\nbetween the accounts of the institution of the Floralia and the\nCerialia. Dearth was the alleged cause in each case; and the position of\nthe temple of Flora near that of Ceres: the foundation by plebeian\nmagistrates, in this case the two Publicii[331], who as aediles were\nable to spend part of the fines exacted from defaulting holders of _ager\npublicus_ on this object[332]: and the coarse character of the games as\nOvid describes them, all seem to show that the foundation was a plebeian\none, like that of the Cerialia[333].\n\nThere may, however, have been something in the nature of ludi before\nthis date and at the same time of year, but not of a regular or public\ncharacter. Flora was beyond doubt an old Italian deity[334], probably\nclosely related to Ceres and Venus. There was a Flamen Floralis of very\nold standing[335]; and Flora is one of the deities to whom piacula were\noffered by the Fratres Arvales[336]\u2014a list beginning with Janus and\nending with Vesta. There is no doubt, then, that there was a Flora-cult\nin Rome long before the foundation of the temple and the games in 238;\nand though its character may have changed under the influence of the\nSibylline books, we may be able to glean some particulars as to its\noriginal tendency.\n\nIn the account of Ovid and from other hints we gather\u2014\n\n1. That indecency was let loose[337] at any rate on the original day of\nthe ludi (April 28), which were in later times extended to May 3. The\nnumen of Flora, says Ovid, was not strict. Drunkenness was the order of\nthe day, and the usual results followed:\n\n Ebrius ad durum formosae limen amicae\n Cantat: habent unctae mollia serta comae.\n\nThe prostitutes of Rome hailed this as their feast-day, as well as the\nVinalia on the 23rd; and if we may trust a story told by Valerius\nMaximus[338], Cato the younger withdrew from the theatre rather than\nbehold the mimae unclothe themselves, though he would not interfere with\nthe custom. Flora herself, like Acca Larentia, was said by late writers\nto have been a harlot whose gains enabled her to leave money for the\nludi[339]. These characteristics of the festival were no doubt developed\nunder the influence of luxury in a large city, and grew still more\nobjectionable under the Empire[340]. But it is difficult to believe that\nsuch practices would have grown up as they did at this particular time\nof year, had there not been some previous customs of the kind existing\nbefore the ludi were regularly instituted.\n\n2. We find another curious custom belonging to the last days of the\nludi, which became common enough under the Empire[341], but may yet have\nhad an origin in the cult of Flora. Hares and goats were let loose in\nthe Circus Maximus on these days. Ovid asks Flora:\n\n Cur tibi pro Libycis clauduntur rete[342] leaenis\n Imbelles capreae sollicitusque lepus?\n\nand gets the answer:\n\n Non sibi, respondit, silvas cessisse, sed hortos\n Arvaque pugnaci non adeunda ferae.\n\nIf we take this answer as at least appropriate, we may add to it the\nreflection that hares and goats are prolific animals and also that they\nare graminivorous. Flora as a goddess of fertility and bloom could have\nnothing in common with fierce carnivora. But we are also reminded of the\nfoxes that were let loose in the Circus at the Cerialia[343], and may\nsee in these beasts as in the foxes animal representations of the spirit\nof fertility.\n\n3. Another custom is possibly significant in something the same way.\nFrom a passage in Persius we learn that vetches, beans, and lupines were\nscattered among the people in the circus[344]. The commentators explain\nthis as meaning that they were thrown simply to be scrambled for as\nfood; and we know that other objects besides eatables were thrown on\nsimilar occasions, at any rate at a later time[345]. But it is\nnoticeable that among these objects were medals with obscene\nrepresentations on them; and putting two and two together it is not\nunreasonable to guess that the original custom had a meaning connected\nwith fructification. Dr. Mannhardt[346] has collected a very large\nnumber of examples of the practice of sprinkling and throwing all kinds\nof grain, including rice, peas, beans, &c., from all parts of the world,\nin the marriage rite and at the birth of children; amply sufficient to\nprove that the custom is symbolic of fertility. Bearing in mind the time\nof year, the nature of Flora, the character of the April rites\ngenerally, and the occurrence of the women\u2019s cult of the Bona Dea on May\n1, viz. one of the days of the ludi, we may perhaps conjecture that the\ncustom in question was a very old one\u2014far older than the organized\ngames\u2014and had reference to the fertility both of the earth and of man\nhimself[347].\n\n\n Feriae Latinae.\n\n\nA brief account may be here given of the great Latin festival which\nusually in historical times took place in April. Though it was not held\nat Rome, but on the Alban Mount, it was under the direct supervision of\nthe Roman state, and was in reality a Roman festival. The consuls on\ntheir entrance upon office on the Ides of March had to fix and announce\nthe date of it[348]; and when in 153 B.C. the day of entrance was\nchanged to January 1, the date of the festival does not seem to have\nbeen changed to suit it. The consuls must be present themselves, leaving\na _praefectus urbi_ at Rome[349]; or in case of the compulsory absence\nof both consuls a dictator might be appointed _Feriarum Latinarum\ncausa_. Only when the festival was over could they leave Rome for their\nprovinces.\n\nIt was therefore a festival of the highest importance to the Roman\nstate. But the ritual will show that it must in fact have been much\nolder than that state as we know it in historical times; it was a common\nfestival of the most ancient Latin communities[350], celebrated on the\nlofty hill which arose in their midst, where dwelt the great protecting\ndeity of their race. At what date Rome became the presiding city at the\nfestival we do not know. The foundation of the temple on the hill was\nascribed to the Tarquinii, and this tradition seems to be borne out by\nthe character of the foundations discovered there, which resemble those\nof the Capitoline temple[351]. No doubt the Tarquinii may have renovated\nthe cult or even given it an extended significance; but the Roman\npresidency must conjecturally be placed still further back. Perhaps no\nfestival, Greek or Roman, carries us over such a vast period of time as\nthis; its features betray its origin in the pastoral age, and it\ncontinued in almost uninterrupted grandeur till the end of the third\ncentury A.D., or even later[352].\n\nThe ritual as known to us was as follows[353]. When the magistrates or\n(their deputies) of all the Latin cities taking part had assembled at\nthe temple, the Roman consul offered a libation of milk, while the\ndeputies from the other cities brought sheep, cheeses, or other such\nofferings. But the characteristic rite was the slaughter of a pure white\nheifer that had never felt the yoke. This sacrifice was the duty of the\nconsul, who acted on behalf of the whole number of cities. When it was\nconcluded, the flesh of the victim was divided amongst all the deputies\nand consumed by them. To be left out of this common meal, or sacrament,\nwould be equivalent to being excluded from communion with the god and\nthe Latin league, and the desire to obtain the allotted flesh is more\nthan once alluded to[354]. A general festivity followed the sacrifice,\nwhile _oscilla_, or little puppets, were hung from the branches of trees\nas at the Paganalia[355]. As usual in Italy, the least oversight in the\nceremony or evil omen made it necessary to begin it all over again; and\nthis occasionally happened[356]. Lastly, during the festival there was a\ntruce between all the cities, and it would seem that the alliance\nbetween Rome and the Latins was yearly renewed on the day of the\nFeriae[357].\n\nSome of the leading characteristics of the Italian Jupiter will be\nconsidered further on[358]. But this festival may teach us that we are\nhere in the presence of the oldest and finest religious conception of\nthe Latin race, which yearly acknowledges its common kinship of blood\nand seals it by partaking in the common meal of a sacred victim, thus\nentering into communion with the god, the victim, and each other[359].\nThe offerings are characteristic rather of a pastoral than an\nagricultural age, and suggest an antiquity that is fully confirmed by\nthe ancient utensils dug up on the Alban Mount[360]. As Helbig has\npointed out, the absence of any mention of wine proves that the origin\nof the festival must be dated earlier than the introduction of the grape\ninto Italy. The white victim may be a reminiscence of some primitive\nwhite breed of cattle. The common meal of the victim\u2019s flesh is a\nsurvival from the age when cattle were sacred animals, and were never\nslain except on the solemn annual occasions when the clan renewed its\nkinship and its mutual obligations by a solemn sacrament[361].\n\nAs Rome absorbed Latium, so Jupiter Latiaris gave way before the great\ngod of the Capitol, who is the symbol of the later victorious and\nimperial Rome; but the god of the Alban hill and his yearly festival\ncontinued to recall the early share of the Latins in the rise of their\nleading city, long after the population of their towns had been so\nterribly thinned that some of them could hardly find a surviving member\nto represent them at the festival and take their portion of the\nvictim[362].\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 33; Censorinus, 2. 20. Verrius Flaccus in the\n heading to April in Fasti Praen.: ... \u2018quia fruges flores animaliaque\n et maria et terrae aperiuntur.\u2019 Mommsen, _Chron._ 222. Ovid quaintly\n forsakes the scholars to claim the month for Venus (Aphrodite),\n _Fasti_, 4. 61 foll. I do not know why Mr. Granger should call it the\n boar-month (from _aper_), in his _Worship of the Romans_, p. 294.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n _Segetes runcuri_, Varro, _R. R._ I. 30. Columella\u2019s instructions are\n of the same kind (II. 2).\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n _C. I. L._ 280.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 216.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n February has thirteen, all but two between Kal. and Ides. The Nones\n and Ides are NP. April has thirteen between Nones and 22nd; or\n fourteen if we include the 19th, which is NP in Caer. The Ides are NP,\n Nones N.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n See the fragmentary heading to the month in Fasti Praen.; Ovid, l. c.;\n Lydus, 4. 45; Tutela Veneris, in rustic calendars; Veneralia (April\n 1), Philocalus.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n Varro, _R. R._ 1. 1. 6: \u2018Item adveneror Minervam et Venerem, quarum\n unius procuratio oliveti, alterius _hortorum_.\u2019 Cp. _L. L._ 6. 20\n \u2018Quod tum (Aug. 19) dedicata aedes et horti ei deae dicantur ac tum\n fiant feriati _holitores_.\u2019 Cf. Preller, _Myth._ i. 434 foll. The\n oldest Venus-temple was in the low ground of the Circus Maximus (B.C.\n 295). \u201cVenus, like Ceres, may have been an old Roman deity of the\n plebs, but she never entered into the State-worship in early times.\u201d\n Macrob. 1. 12. 12 quotes Cincius (_de Fastis_) and Varro to prove that\n she had originally nothing to do with April, and that there was no\n _dies festus_ or _insigne sacrificium_ in her honour during the month.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n 4. 45 \u03a4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03af\u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03c3\u03b5\u03bc\u03bd\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03ce\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c4\u03af\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b1\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03bf\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03c3\u03af\u03bd\u03b7 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. Cp. Macrob. 1. 12. 15.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n _C. I. L._ 315.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n We shall find some reason for believing that in the early Republican\n period new cults came in rather through plebeian than patrician agency\n (see below, on Cerealia). But in the period of the new nobilitas the\n lower classes seem rather to have held to their own cults, while the\n upper social stratum was more ready to accept new ones. See below, on\n April 4, for the conditions of such acceptance. The tendency is to be\n explained by the wide and increasing sphere of the foreign relations\n of the Senatorial government.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n _Fasti_, 4. 133-164.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n Ovid, l. c. 149 foll.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 456.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n _Quaest. Rom._ 74.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n Ovid, l. c., 4. 160 \u2018Inde Venus verso nomina corde tenet.\u2019\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 28. About a century earlier a statue of\n this Venus was said to have been erected (Val. Max. 8. 15. 12; Plin.\n _H. N._ 7. 120), as Wissowa pointed out in his Essay, \u2018de Veneris\n Simulacris,\u2019 p. 12.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n See above, p. 67, note 2.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n _Religion of the Semites_, p. 450 foll.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n Preller, i. 446.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n Livy, 29. 10 and 14; Ovid (_Fasti_, 4. 259 foll.) has a fanciful\n edition of the story which well illustrates the character of his work,\n and that of the legend-mongers; cp. Preller, ii. 57.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n Preller, ii. 55.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n Plin. _H. N._ 18. 16; Arnobius, 7. 49.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n Livy, 29. 10, 14.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n See above, Introduction, p. 7.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n _de Harusp. Resp._ 12. 24 \u2018Qui uni ludi ne verbo quidem appellantur\n Latino, ut vocabulo ipso et appetita religio externa et Matris Magnae\n nomine suscepta declaretur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n Dion. Hal. 2. 19. A very interesting passage, in which, among other\n comments, the historian points out that in receiving the goddess the\n Romans eliminated \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, pp. 22 and 49.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n Gell. 18. 2. 11 (patricii); cp. 2. 24. 2 (principes civitatis). Cp.\n Lydus, 4. 45; Verrius\u2019 note in Praen., \u2018_Nobilium mutitationes\n cenarum_ solitae sunt frequenter fieri,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n See Marq. 370 foll. The Ludi eventually extended from the 4th to the\n 10th inclusive (_C. I. L._ 314).\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n Or Hordicidia, Fest. 102; Hordicalia, Varro, _R. R._ 2. 5. 6;\n Fordicalia, Lydus, 4. 49. \u2018Forda ferens bos est fecundaque, dicta\n ferendo,\u2019 Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 631.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n Ovid, l. c. 635 \u2018Pars cadit arce Iovis. Ter denas curia vaccas\n Accipit, et largo sparsa cruore madet.\u2019 Cp. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 15.\n Preller, ii. 6, understands Ovid\u2019s \u2018pars\u2019 as meaning more than one\n cow.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n Ovid, l. c. 633 \u2018Nune gravidum pecus est, gravidae nunc semine terrae;\n Telluri plenae victima plena datur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n Ovid, l. c. 637.\n\n Ast ubi visceribus vitulos rapuere ministri,\n Sectaque fumosis exta dedere focis,\n Igne cremat vitulos quae natu maxima Virgo,\n Luce Palis populos purget ut ille cinis.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n See below, p. 83.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n This appears plainly in Ovid\u2019s account (_Fasti_, 4. 633 foll.), and\n also in that of Lydus (4. 49): \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd. Both doubtless drew on Varro. Lydus adds one or two\n particulars, that the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 (?) scattered flowers among the people\n in the theatre, and went in procession outside the city, sacrificing\n to Demeter at particular stations; but he may be confusing this\n festival with the Ambarvalia.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n See Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 190; cp. Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 43.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n Fasti Praen.; _C. I. L._ 235, and Mommsen\u2019s note (where Apr. is\n misprinted Aug.). \u2018[Hoc biduo sacrific]ium maximum Fortunae Prim[i]g.\n utro eorum die oraclum patet, II viri vitulum I.\u2019\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n Liv. 30. 39; Friedl\u00e4nder in Marq. 500; Mommsen, _M\u00fcnzwesen_, p. 642,\n note; _Staatsrecht_, i. 586.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n _C. I. L._ 298.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n In the Salian hymn _duonus cerus = creator bonus_ (of Janus): cf.\n Varro, L. L. 7. 26; Mommsen, _Unteritalische Dialekten_, 133. See\n articles _cerus_ (Wissowa) and _Ceres_ (Birt) in _Myth. Lex._;\n B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_, 80 and 99.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n \u2018Ceres a creando dicta,\u2019 Serv. Georg. 1. 7. It is worth noting that in\n Nonius Marcellus, 44, _cerriti = larvati_, where _cerus_ seems to mean\n a ghost. If so, we have a good example of a common origin of ghosts\n and gods in the animistic ideas of early Italy.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n Arnob. 3. 40, quoting one Caesius, who followed Etruscan teaching, and\n held that Ceres = Genius Iovialis et Pales. See Preller-Jordan, i. 81.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n Preller-Jordan, i. 62. They were not even certain whether the Genius\n Urbis was masculine or feminine; Serv. _Aen._ 2. 351.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n Henzen, _Acta Fr. Arv._ p. 48. In later times Ceres took the place of\n Mars at the Ambarvalia, under Greek influence.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n So Henzen, l. c. and his Introduction, p. ix.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n _Myth. Lex_, s.v. Ceres, 861. He does not, however, dogmatize, and has\n little to adduce in favour of his opinion, save the statement of\n Servius (Georg. 1. 7) that \u2018Sabini Cererem Panem appellant.\u2019\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n Preller Jordan, ii. 26.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus_, pp. 5 and 40. Preller-Jordan, ii. 38.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n Birt (_Myth. Lex._ 862) gives the authorities.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n The _trias_ of itself would prove the Greek origin: cf. Kuhfeldt, _de\n Capitoliis_, p. 77 foll.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n Plin. _H. N._ 35. 154. The names of two Greek artists were inscribed\n on the temple.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. 2, 468, note.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n Dion. Hal. 6. 89; 10. 42; Liv. 3. 55 says _sacer Iovi_, but the\n property was to be sold at the temple of Ceres, Liber, and Libera. The\n corn-stealer also was _sacer Cereri_.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n Liv. 10. 23; 27. 6; 33. 25.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n Mommsen, _Hist_. i. 284, note. Cp. Schwegler, _R\u00f6m. Gesch._ ii. 275,\n note 3, who thinks of an _aerarium plebis_ there. See also i. 606 and\n ii. 278, note 3. According to Liv. 3. 55 senatus consulta had to be\n deposited in this temple.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n Burn, _Rome and the Campagna_, p. 204; Liv. 3. 31 and 32 fin.; cp. 10.\n 31.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n e. g. by Ihne, vol. i. p. 160.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 783 foll.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. 2. 468, note 2, is doubtful as to the date\n of the _cura annonae_ of the plebeian aediles. But Plin. _H. N._ 18.\n 3. 15 attributes it to an aedile of earlier date than Spurius Maelius\n (B.C. 438); and though the Consuls may have had the general\n supervision, the immediate _cura_, as far as the plebs was concerned,\n would surely lie with their officers. Two points should be borne in\n mind here\u2014(1) that the plebeian population to be relieved would be a\n surplus population _within the city_, not the farmer-population of the\n country; (2) that it would probably be easier to transport corn by sea\n than by land, as roads were few, and enemies all around.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n Dion. Hal. 7.1, exposes the absurdity of Roman annalists in\n attributing the corn-supply to Dionysius; but he himself talks of\n Gelo. Cp. Ihne, i. 160. Ihne disbelieves the whole story, believing it\n to be copied from events which happened long afterwards.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n Ambrosch, _Studien_, p. 208. Tradition told that the Tarquinii had\n stored up great quantities of corn in Rome, i. e. had fed their\n workmen. Cp. Liv. 1. 56 and 2. 9.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n Mommsen, _R. H._, bk. i. ch. 13 fin.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n See under August 13 (below, p. 198) for the parallel foundation of the\n temple of Diana on the Aventine, which also had a Greek and plebeian\n character.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n _Fasti_, 4. 681 foll. Ovid does not distinctly say that the foxes were\n let loose in the Circus, but seems to imply it.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n \u2018Factum abiit, monimenta manent; nam vivere captam\n Nunc quoque lex volpem Carseolana vetat.\u2019\n\n The best MSS. have \u2018nam dicere certam.\u2019 Bergk conjectured \u2018namque\n icere captam.\u2019 The reading given above is adopted from some inferior\n MSS. by H. Peter (Leipzig, 1889), following Heinsius and Riese. Mr. S.\n G. Owen of Ch. Ch., our best authority on the text of Ovid, has kindly\n sent me the suggestion _namque ire repertam_, comparing, for the use\n of _ire_, Ovid, _Am_. 3. 6. 20 \u2018sic aeternus eas.\u2019 This conjecture,\n which occurred independently to myself, suits the sense and is close\n to the reading of the best MSS.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n J. Grimm, _Reinhardt der Fuchs_, cclxix (quoted by Peter). Ovid\u2019s\n explanation is of course wrong; the story is beyond doubt meant to\n explain the ritual, or a law to which the ritual gave rise.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n Preller-Jordan, ii. 43. See under Robigalia.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n _Myth. Forsch._ 107 foll.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n Ovid\u2019s word is _terga_, but he must, I think, mean \u2018tails.\u2019\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n Mannhardt, op. cit. 185. Cp. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 408; ii. 3 and\n 28 (for fertilizing power of tail).\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n _Zoological Mythology_, ii. 138.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n It may be as well to note that the custom of tying some object in\n straw\u2014wheel, pole with cross-piece, man who slips out in time, &c.\u2014and\n then burning it and carrying it about the fields, is common in Europe\n and elsewhere (Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 246 foll.). At the same time\n animals are sometimes burnt in a bonfire: e.g. squirrels, cats, foxes,\n &c. (_G. B._ ii. 283). The explanation of Mannhardt, adopted by Mr.\n Frazer, is that they were corn-spirits burnt as a charm to secure\n sunshine and vegetation. If the foxes were ever really let loose among\n the fields, damage might occasionally be done, and stories might arise\n like that of Carseoli, or even laws forbidding a dangerous practice.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n In _C. I. L._ 315 this mark is confused with those of the 23rd.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n The letters _an_ also appear in a fragment of a lost note in Esq.\n Mommsen quotes Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 775, and Tibull. 2. 5. 81 for the\n idea of an _annus pastorum_ beginning on this day. I can find no\n explanation of it, astronomical or other. Dion. Hal. 1. 88 calls the\n day the beginning of spring, which it certainly was not.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n For the form of the word see Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 315. (In Varro, _L.\n L._ 6. 15, it is Palilia.) Preller-Jordan, i. 416.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n \u2018Palilia tam privata quam publica sunt.\u2019 Varro, ap Schol. in Persium,\n 1. 75. See on Compitalia, below, p. 279.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n Serv. _Georg._ 3. 1: \u2018Pales ... dea est pabuli. Hanc ... alii, inter\n quos Varro, masculino genere vocant, ut hic Pales.\u2019 There can be no\n better proof of the antiquity of the deity in Italy.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n _L. L._ 5. 53.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n There was a _flamen Palatualis_ (Varro, _L. L._ 7. 45, and Fest. 245)\n and an offering _Palatuar_ (Fest. 348), connected with a _Diva\n Palatua_ of the Palatine, who may have been the urban and pontifical\n form of Pales.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n Ovid is borne out or supplemented by Tibull. 2. 5. 87 foll.; Propert.\n 4. 4. 75 foll.; Probus on Virg. _Georg._ 3. 1; Dionys. 1. 88, &c.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n It is noticeable that sheep alone are mentioned in the ritual as Ovid\n describes it.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n _A. W. F._ p. 310. Cp. Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 246 foll.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n _Chambers\u2019 Journal_, July, 1842. For the custom in London, Brand,\n _Pop. Antiquities_, p. 307.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n So I understand Ovid: but in line 742 _in mediis focis_ might rather\n indicate a fire in the _atrium_ of the house, and so Mannhardt takes\n it. In that case the fire over which they leaped (line 805) was made\n later on in the ceremony.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n Cp. Hom. _Od_. 22. 481 \u039f\u1f36\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b8\u03ad\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03cd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f04\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f36\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u1fe6\u03c1,\n \u1f4c\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03b5\u03b9\u03ce\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n Tibull. 2. 5. 28 \u2018Et facta agresti lignea falce Pales.\u2019 Tib. seems\n here to be transferring a rustic practice of his own day to the\n earliest Romans of the Palatine. But he may be simply indulging his\n imagination; and we cannot safely conclude that we have here a rude\n Italian origin of anthropomorphic ideas of the gods.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 743-746. esp \u2018dapibus resectis.\u2019 We can hardly\n escape the conclusion that the idea of the common meal shared with the\n gods was a genuine Italian one; it is found here, in the Terminalia\n (Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 655), and in the worship of Jupiter. See on Sept.\n 13 and Feb. 23.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n _Fasti_, 4. 763 foll.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n Four is unusual; three is the common number in religious rites.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n \u2018Conversus ad ortus Die quater, et vivo perlue rore manus.\u2019 Ovid may\n perhaps be using _ros_ for fresh water of any kind; see H. Peter\u2019s\n note (Pt. II, p. 70). But the virtues of dew are great at this time of\n year (e. g. May-day). See Brand, _Pop. Ant._ 218, and Mannhardt, _A.\n W. F._ 312. Pepys records that his wife went out to gather May-dew;\n _Diary_, May 10. 1669.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n The word is _camella_ in Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 779; cp. Petron. _Sat_,\n 135, and Gell. _N. A._ 16 7.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n Or as Propertius has it (4. 4. 77):\n\n \u2018Cumque super raros foeni flammantis acervos\n Traiicit immundos ebria turba pedes.\u2019\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 801 foll.; Prop. 4. 4. 73; Varro, _R. R._ 2. 1. 9.\n Many other references are collected in Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 444, note\n 1. The tradition was certainly an ancient one, and the pastoral\n character of the rite is in keeping with that of the legend. It is to\n be noted that the sacrificing priest was originally the Rex Sacrorum\n (Dionys. 1. 88), a fact which may well carry us back to the earliest\n Roman age.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 733 foll. \u2018Sanguis equi suffimen erit vitulique\n favilla. Tertia res durae culmen inane fabae.\u2019 Whether the bonfire was\n burnt on the Palatine itself does not seem certain, but it is a\n reasonable conjecture.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n He points out (p. 316) that the throwing of bones or burnt pieces of\n an animal into the flames is common in northern Europe: hence bonfire\n = bonefire.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n _A. W. F._ 316; Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 274 foll.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n Preller-Jordan, i. 268. Soranus is thought to be connected\n etymologically with Sol. With this, however, Deecke disagrees\n (_Falisker_, 96).\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n So called by Virg. _Aen._ II. 785 and Serv. ad loc. Who the deity\n really was, we do not know. Apollo here had no doubt a Graeco-Etruscan\n origin. Deecke (_Falisker_, 93) thinks of Dis Pater or Vediovis;\n quoting Servius\u2019 account and explanation of the cult. That the god was\n Sabine, not Etruscan, is shown by the word _hirpi_.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n Or of Soracte, if Soranus = Soractnus (Deecke).\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n Serv. l. c. tells the aetiological legend. Cp. Plin. _N. H._ 7. 11. It\n has been dealt with fully by Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 318 foll.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n Plin. l. c.; Varro (ap. Serv. l. c.) asserted that they used a salve\n for their feet which protected them. The same thing is said, I\n believe, of the Harawara in India.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n According to Strabo, p. 226, this fire-ceremony took place in the\n grove of Feronia, at the foot of the hill. Feronia may have been a\n corn- or harvest-deity, and of this Mannhardt makes all he can. We may\n at least guess that the rite took place at Midsummer.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n Cp. the cult of Zeus Lykaios in Arcadia; Farnell, _Cults of the Greek\n States_, i. 41.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n _Myth., Ritual, and Religion_, ii. 212.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n This peculiar notation is common to this day and Aug. 19 (the Vinalia\n Rustica), and to the Feralia (Feb. 21). See Introduction, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 877, asks: \u2018Cur igitur Veneris festum Vinalia\n dicant, Quaeritis?\u2018\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 16; Fest. 65 and 374. The latter gloss is: \u2018Vinalia\n diem festum habebant, quo die vinum novum Iovi libabant.\u2019 Ovid,\n _Fasti_, 4. 899, after telling the Mezentius story (alluded to in the\n note in Praen.), adds\n\n Dicta dies hinc est Vinalia: Iuppiter illam\n Vindicat, et festis gaudet inesse suis.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 871\n\n Templa frequentari Collinae proxima portae\n Nunc decet; a Siculo nomina colle tenent.\n\n He seems to have confused this temple with that on the Capitol (Aust,\n _de Aedibus_, 23).\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n Liv. 40. 34. 4.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n Aust, ib. p. 24. Varro wrote a satire \u2018Vinalia \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03c3\u03af\u03c9\u03bd.\u2019\n Plutarch (_Q. R._ 45) confuses Vinalia and Veneralia.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n Festus, 264 and 265; in the Vallis Murcia (or Circus maximus), and the\n lucus Libitinae. (In 265, xiii Kal. Sept. should be xiv.) For the date\n of the former temple, 293 B.C., Liv. 10. 31. 9.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Varro, _R. R._ 1. 1; Fest. 265; Preller-Jordan, i. 441.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n _C. I. L._ iv. 2776.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 16. See _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 704 foll.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 326. Vindemia is the _grape_-harvest. Hartmann,\n _R\u00f6m. Kal._ 138, differs from Mommsen on this point.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n _Q. R._ 45.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Fest. 65.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n _H. N._ 18. 287.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 16. _Hortis_ is Mommsen\u2019s very probable emendation for\n _sortis_ of the MSS. O. M\u00fcller has _sacris_, which is preferred by\n Jordan (Preller, i. 196).\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n 264.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n Mommsen (_C. I. L._ 326) thinks that there is no mistake in the gloss;\n but that the Vinalia Rustica represent a later and luxurious fashion\n of allowing a whole year to elapse before tasting the wine, instead of\n six months. From the vintage, however (end of September or beginning\n of October), to August 19 is not a whole year. See under August 19.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n \u2018Tria namque tempora fructibus metuebant, propter quod instituerunt\n ferias diesque festos, Robigalia, Floralia, Vinalia.\u2019 That the\n Vinalia here referred to is the August one is clear, not only from\n the order of the words, but from what follows, down to the end of\n sec. 289. Secs. 287 to end of 288 deal with the Vinalia priora\n _parenthetically_; in 289 Pliny returns to the Vinalia altera (or\n rustica), after thus clearing the ground by making it clear that the\n April Vinalia \u2018nihil ad fructus attinent.\u2019 He then quotes Varro to\n show that in August the object is to avert storms which might damage\n the vineyards. Mommsen, _C. I. L. 326_, seems to me to have misread\n this passage.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 877 foll.: the legend was an old one for it is quoted\n by Macrob. (_Sat._ 3. 5. 10) from Cato\u2019s _Origines_. See also Hehn,\n _Kulturpflanzen_, 65 foll., who is, however, in error as to the\n identification of Jupiter (Liber) with \u0396\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f18\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n See Columella, 2. 12; Plin. _N. II._ 18. 91; and article, \u2018Mildew,\u2019 in\n _Encycl. Brit._ For the botanical character of this parasite see\n Worthington Smith\u2019s _Diseases of Field and Garden Crops_, chs. 21 and\n 23; and Hugh Macmillan\u2019s _Bible Teachings from Nature_, p. 120 foll.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n _N. H._ 18. 273: cp. 154. Pliny thought it chiefly the result of _dew_\n (cf. mil_dew_, German mehl_thau_), and was not wholly wrong.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n The masc. is no doubt correct. Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 907, uses the\n feminine Robigo, but is alone among the older writers in doing so: see\n Preller-Jordan, ii. 44, note 2.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n Indigitation is the fixing of the _local action_ of a god to be\n invoked, by means of his name, if I understand rightly Reifferscheid\u2019s\n view as given by R. Peter in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Indigitamenta, p. 137.\n The priest of the Robigalia was the flamen Quirinalis: Quirinus is one\n form of Mars.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n _de Spectaculis_, 5.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n Cato, _R. R._ 141; Preller-Jordan, i. 340.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n Strabo, 613: see Roscher, _Apollo and Mars_, p. 62. \u1f18\u03c1\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b2\u03b7 = mildew,\n of which \u1f10\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03af\u03b2\u03b7 is the Rhodian form.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n See Mommsen\u2019s ingenious explanation in _C. I. L._ 316.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n _Fasti_, 4. 901 foll. The victims had been slain at Rome and in the\n morning; and were offered at the grove later in the day (see Marq.\n 184).\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n Villis mantele solutis (cp. Serv. _Aen._ 12. 169).\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n _R. R._ 141.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n So we may perhaps translate _quo sidere moto_: but Ovid certainly\n thought the star rose (cf. 904). Hartmann explains Ovid\u2019s blunder by\n reference to Serv. _Georg._ 1. 218 (_R\u00f6m. Kal._ 193). See also H.\n Peter, ad loc.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 107 foll.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n Festus, 285; Paul, 45. It was outside the Porta Catularia, of which,\n unluckily, nothing is known.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n _N. H._ 18. 14 \u2018Ita est in commentariis pontificum: Augurio canario\n agendo dies constituantur priusquam frumenta vaginis exeant et\n antequam in vaginas perveniant.\u2019 For \u2018_et_ antequam\u2019 we should perhaps\n read \u2018_nec_ antequam.\u2019 The _vagina_ is the sheath which protects the\n ear and from which it eventually protrudes; and it seems that in this\n stage, which in Italy would occur at the end of April or beginning of\n May, the corn is peculiarly liable to \u2018rust.\u2019 (So Virg. _Georg._ 1.\n 151 \u2018Ut mala _culmos_ Esset robigo\u2019: i. e. the stalks including the\n _vagina_.) See Hugh Macmillan, op. cit. p. 121.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n _Myth. Forsch._ 106. Mr. Frazer (_G. B._ ii. 59: cp. i. 306) takes the\n other view of this and similar sacrifices, but with some hesitation.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n It must be confessed that the occurrence of red colour in victims\n cannot well be always explained in this way; e. g. the red heifer of\n the Israelites (Numbers xix), and the red oxen of the Egyptians (Plut.\n _Isis and Osiris_, 31). But in this rite, occurring so close to the\n Cerialia, where, as we have seen, _foxes_ were turned out in the\n _circus maximus_, the colour of the puppies must have had some meaning\n in relation to the growing crops.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n \u2018Ludi cursoribus maioribus minoribusque.\u2019 What these were is not\n known: Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 317.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n Usener, _Religionsgeschichte_, i. 298 foll.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n See Introduction, p. 15.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n Plin. _N. H._ 18. 286; two years earlier, according to Velleius, 1.\n 14. This is, I think, the only case in which a deity taken in hand by\n the _decemviri sacris faciundis_ cannot be traced to a Greek origin;\n but the characteristics of Flora are so like those of Venus that in\n the former, as in the latter, Aphrodite may be concealed. The games as\n eventually organized had points in common with the cult of Aphrodite\n at Hierapolis (Lucian, _Dea Syr._ 49; Farnell, _Cults_, ii. 643); and\n it is worth noting that their date (173 B.C.) is subsequent to the\n Syrian war. Up to that time the games were not regular or annual\n (Ovid, _Fasti_, 5. 295).\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n Tac. _Ann._ 2. 49; Aust, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n Plebis ad aediles: Ovid, ib. v. 287; Festus, 238, probably in error,\n calls the Publicii _curule_ aediles.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n Ovid, ib. 5.277 foll., in which he draws a picture of the misdoings of\n the landholders. Cp. Liv. 33. 42, for the temple of Faunus _in\n insula_, founded by the same means.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n Ovid, ib. 5. 352.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n Steuding in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Flora. There was a Sabine month\n Flusalis (Momms. _Chron._ 219) = Floralis, and answering to July.\n Varro considered Flora a Sabine deity (_L. L._ 5. 74).\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 7. 45. Flora had an ancient temple _in colle_, near the\n so-called Capitolium vetus (Steuding, l. c.), i. e. in the \u2018Sabine\n quarter.\u2019\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ 146.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n Ov. 5. 331 foll \u2018Volt sua plebeio sacra patere choro.\u2019\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n Val. Max. 2. 10. 8. Steuding in _Myth. Lex._ has oddly misunderstood\n this passage, making Val. Max. write of this custom as an ancient one,\n whereas he clearly implies the opposite. It was no doubt the relic of\n some rude country practice, degenerated under the influence of city\n life.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n Lactantius, _De falsa religione_, i. 20.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n Aug. _Civ. Dei_, ii. 27.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n Friedl\u00e4nder on Martial, 8. 67. 4.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n H. Peter takes this to mean that they were let loose from a net and\n hunted into it again. See note ad loc. 5. 371.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n See above, p. 77.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n _Sat_. 5. 177:\n\n Vigila et cicer ingere large\n Rixanti populo, nostra ut Floralia possint\n Aprici meminisse senes.\u2014Cp. Hor. _Sat._ 2. 3. 182.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n Friedl\u00e4nder, _Sittengeschichte_, ii. 286; and his note on Martial, 8.\n 78.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n _Kind. u. Korn._ 351 foll.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n Another point that may strike the reader of Ovid is the wearing of\n parti-coloured dress on these days (5. 355: cp. Martial, 5. 23)\u2014\n\n Cur tamen ut dantur vestes Cerialibus albae,\n Sic haec est cultu versicolore decens?\n\n Flora answers him doubtfully. Was this a practice of comparatively\n late date? See Friedl\u00e4nder, _Sittengeschichte_ ii. 275.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n Mommsen in _C. I. L._ vi. p. 455 (Tabula fer. Lat.). The day was March\n 15 from B.C. 222 to 153; in earlier times it had been frequently\n changed. See Mommsen. _Chron._ p. 80 foll.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n On this office and its connexion with the _feriae_ see Vigneaux,\n _Essai sur l\u2019histoire de la praefectura urbis_, p. 37 foll.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n Plin. _H. N._ 3. 69; Dionys. 4. 49. The difficult questions arising\n out of the numbers given by these authorities are discussed by Beloch,\n _Italischer Bund_, 178 foll., and Mommsen in _Hermes_, vol. xvii. 42\n foll.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n Aust, in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, p. 689.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n _C. I. L._ vi. 2021.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n Condensed from the account given by Aust, l. c. See also\n Preller-Jordan, i. 210 foll. The chief authority is Dionys. 4. 49.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n e. g. Liv. 32. 1, 37. 3, in which cases some one city had not received\n its portion. The result was an _instauratio feriarum_.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n See below, p. 294 (Feriae Sementivae). The meaning of the _oscilla_\n was not really known to the later Romans, who freely indulged in\n conjectures about them. Macrob. 1. 7. 34; Serv. _Georg._ 2. 389; Paul.\n 121. My own belief is that, like the _bullae_ of children, they were\n only one of the many means of averting evil influences.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n See the passages of Livy quoted above, and add 40. 45 (on account of a\n storm); 41. 16 (a failure on the part of Lanuvium).\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n Macrob. 1. 16. 16 \u2018Cum Latiar, hoc est Latinarum solemne concipitur,\n nefas est proelium sumere: quia nec Latinarum tempore, quo publice\n quondam indutiae inter populum Romanum Latinosque firmatae sunt,\n inchoari bellum decebat.\u2019\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n See under Sept. 13.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n For the characteristics and meaning of the common sacrificial meal see\n especially Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, Lect. viii.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_, 71.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n Robertson Smith, op. cit., 278 foll.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n Cic. _pro Plancio_, 9. 23.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS MAIUS.\n\n\nWas the name of this month taken from a deity Maia, or had it originally\nonly a signification of _growing_ or _increasing_, such as we might\nexpect in a word derived from the same root as _maior_, _maiestas_, &c.?\nThe following passage of Macrobius will show how entirely the Roman\nscholars were at sea in their answer to this question[363]:\n\n\u2018Maium Romulus tertium posuit. De cuius nomine inter auctores lata\ndissensio est. Nam Fulvius Nobilior in Fastis quos in aede Herculis\nMusarum posuit[364] Romulum dicit postquam populum in maiores\niunioresque diuisit, ut altera pars consilio altera armis rem publicam\ntueretur, in honorem utriusque partis hunc Maium, sequentem Iunium\nmensem uocasse[365]. Sunt qui hunc mensem ad nostros fastos a Tusculanis\ntransisse commemorent, apud quos nunc quoque uocatur deus Maius, qui est\nIuppiter, a magnitudine scilicet ac maiestate dictus[366]. Cingius[367]\nmensem nominatum putat a Maia quam Vulcani dicit uxorem, argumentoque\nutitur quod flamen Vulcanalis Kalendis Maiis huic deae rem diuinam\nfacit. Sed Piso uxorem Vulcani Maiestam non Maiam dicit uocari.\nContendunt alii Maiam Mercurii matrem mensi nomen dedisse, hinc maxime\nprobantes quod hoc mense mercatores omnes Maiae pariter Mercurioque\nsacrificant[368]. Adfirmant quidam, quibus Cornelius Labeo consentit,\nhanc Maiam cui mense Maio res diuina celebratur terram esse hoc adeptam\nnomen a magnitudine, sicut et Mater Magna in sacris uocatur\nadsertionemque aestimationis suae etiam hinc colligunt quod sus\npraegnans ei mactatur, quae hostia propria est terrae. Et Mercurium ideo\nilli in sacris adiungi dicunt quia uox nascenti homini terrae contactu\ndatur, scimus autem Mercurium uocis et sermonis potentem. Auctor est\nCornelius Labeo huic Maiae id est terrae aedem Kalendis Maiis dedicatam\nsub nomine Bonae Deae et eandem esse Bonam Deam et terram ex ipso ritu\noccultiore sacrorum doceri posse confirmat. Hanc eandem Bonam deam\nFaunamque et Opem et Fatuam pontificum libris indigitari, &c.\u2019\n\nIt is clear from this passage that the Romans themselves were not\nagreed, either in the case of May or June, that the name of the month\nwas derived from a deity. No Roman scholar doubted that Martius was\nderived from Mars, the characteristic god of the Roman race; but Maia\nwas a deity known apparently only to the priests and the learned. Had\nshe been a popular one, what need could there have been to question so\nobvious an etymology? And if she were an obscure one, how could she have\ngiven her name to a month? As a matter of fact March is the only month\nof which we can be sure that it was named after a god. Even January is\ndoubtful, June still more so. The natural assumption about this latter\nword would be that it comes from Juno, more especially as we find in\nLatium the words Junonius and Junonalis as names of months[369]. But if\nJunius came from Juno, it must have come by the dropping out of a\nsyllable; and this, in the case of a long and accented _o_, would be at\nleast unlikely to happen[370]. Nor can we discover any sufficient reason\nwhy the month of June should be called after Juno; none at any rate such\nas accounts for the connexion of Mars with the initial month of the\nyear. This is enough to show that the derivation of June from Juno must\nbe left doubtful; and if so, certainly that of May from Maia. In the\ncase of this month, not only does the natural meaning of mensis Maius\nsuit well as following the mensis Aprilis, but there is no cult of a\ndeity Maia which is found throughout the month.\n\nAny one who reads the passage of Macrobius with some knowledge of the\nRoman theological system will hardly fail to conclude that Maia is only\na priestly _indigitation_ of another deity, and that the name thus\ninvented was simply taken from the name of the month as explained above.\nThis deity was more generally known, as Macrobius implies, by the name\nBona Dea, and her temple was dedicated on the Kalends of May.\n\nIt is difficult to characterize the position of the month of May in the\nreligious calendar. It was to some extent no doubt a month of\npurification. At the _Lemuria_ the house was purified of hostile ghosts;\nthe curious ceremony of the Argei on the Ides is called by Plutarch the\ngreatest of the purifications; and at the end of the month took place\nthe _lustratio_ of the growing crops. We note too that it was considered\nill-omened to marry in May, as it still is in many parts of Europe. The\nagricultural operations of the month were not of a marked character.\nMuch work had indeed to be done in oliveyards and vineyards; some crops\nhad to be hoed and cleaned, and the hay-harvest probably began in the\nlatter part of the month. In the main it was a time of somewhat anxious\nexpectation and preparation for the harvest to follow; and this falls in\nfairly well with the general character of its religious rites.\n\n\n KAL. MAI. (MAY 1.) F.\n\n\nLAR[IBUS]. (VEN.) L\u2014\u2014. (ESQ.)\n\n\nThis was the day on which, according to Ovid[371], an altar and \u2018parva\nsigna\u2019 had been erected to the Lares praestites. They were originally of\ngreat antiquity, but had fallen into decay in Ovid\u2019s time:\n\n Bina gemellorum _quaerebam_ signa deorum,\n Viribus annosae facta caduca morae[372].\n\nOvid himself had apparently not seen the _signa_, though he looked for\nthem; and no doubt he took from Varro the description he gives. They had\nthe figure of a dog at their feet[373], and, according to Plutarch, were\nclothed in dogs\u2019 skins. Both Ovid and Plutarch explained the dog as\nsymbolizing their watch over the city; though Plutarch, following, as he\nsays, certain Romans, preferred to think of them rather as evil demons\nsearching out and punishing guilt like dogs. The mention of the skins is\nvery curious, and we can hardly separate it from the numerous other\ninstances in which the images of deities are known to have been clothed\nin the skins of victims sacrificed to them[374]. We may indeed fairly\nconclude that the Lares were chthonic deities, and as such were\noriginally appeased, like Hekate in Greece[375], by the sacrifice of\ndogs. We have already had one example of the dog used as a victim[376].\nTwo others are mentioned by Plutarch[377]; in one case the deity was the\nobscure Genita Mana, and in the other the unknown god of the Lupercalia,\nboth of which belong in all probability to the same stratum of Italian\nreligious antiquity as the Lares. Whether we should go further, and\ninfer from the use of the skins that the Lares were originally\nworshipped in the form of dogs[378], is a question I must leave\nundecided; the evidence is very scanty. There is no trace of any\nconnexion with the dog in the cult of the Lares domestici[379], or\nCompitales.\n\nThis is also the traditional day of the dedication of a temple to the\nBona Dea, on the slopes of the Aventine, under a big sacred rock. It is\nthus described by Ovid[380]:\n\n Est moles nativa loco. Res nomina fecit:\n Appellant Saxum. Pars bona montis ea est.\n Huic Remus institerat frustra, quo tempore fratri\n Prima Palatinae signa dedistis aves.\n\n Templa Patres illic oculos exosa viriles\n Leniter acclivi constituere iugo.\n Dedicat haec veteris Clausorum nominis heres,\n Virgineo nullum corpore passa virum.\n Livia restituit, ne non imitata maritum\n Esset et ex omni parte secuta virum.\n\nThe allusion to Remus fixes the site on the Aventine. The date is\nuncertain[381]; so too the alleged foundation by Claudia, which may be\nonly a reflection from the story of the part played by a Claudia in the\nintroduction of the _Magna Mater Idaea_ to Rome[382]. The temple, as\nOvid says, was restored by Livia, in accordance with the policy of her\nhusband, also at an unknown date.\n\nOf the cult belonging to this temple we have certain traces, which also\nhelp us to some vague conception of the nature of the deity. It should\nbe observed that though in one essential particular, viz. the exclusion\nof men, this cult was similar to that of December, it must have been\nquite distinct from it, as the latter took place, not in a temple, but\nin the house of a magistrate _cum imperio_[383].\n\n1. The temple was cared for, and the cult celebrated, by women\nonly[384]. There was an old story that Hercules, when driving the cattle\nof Geryon, asked for water by the cave of Cacus of the women celebrating\nthe festival of the goddess, and was refused, because the women\u2019s\nfestival was going on, and men were not allowed to use their\ndrinking-vessels; and that this led to the corresponding exclusion of\nwomen from the worship of Hercules[385]. The myth obviously arose out of\nthe practice. The exclusion of men points to the earth-nature of the\nBona Dea; the same was the case in the worship of the Athenian Demeter\nThesmophoros. The earth seems always to be spiritualized as feminine\neven among savage peoples[386], and the reason of the exclusion of men\nis not difficult to conjecture, just as the exclusion of women from the\nworship of Hercules is explained by the fact that Hercules represents\nthe male principle in the ancient Roman religion[387].\n\n2. Macrobius[388] tells us that wine could not be brought into the\ntemple _suo nomine_, but only under the name of milk, and that the vase\nin which it was carried was called _mellarium_, i. e. a vase for honey.\nA legend grew up to account for the custom, to which we shall refer\nagain, that Faunus had beaten his daughter Fauna (i. e. Bona Dea) with a\nrod of myrtle because she would not yield to his incestuous love or\ndrink the wine he pressed on her[389]. This may indicate a survival from\nthe time when the herdsman used no wine in sacred rites, but milk and\nhoney only; Pliny tells us of such a time[390], and his evidence is\nconfirmed by the poets. In any case milk would be the appropriate\noffering to the Earth-mother, and it is hard to see why it should have\nbeen changed to wine, unless it were that life in the city and Greek\ninfluence altered the character both of the Bona Dea and her\nworshippers. The really rustic deities had milk offered them, e. g.\nSilvanus, Pales, and Ceres. The general inference from this survival is\nthat the Bona Dea was originally of the same nature with these deities,\nbut lost her rusticity when she became part of an organized city\nworship.\n\n3. Myrtle was not allowed in this temple; hence the myth that Faunus\nbeat his daughter with a myrtle rod[391]. But could the exclusion of\nmyrtle by itself have suggested the beating? Dr. Mannhardt answers in\nthe negative, and conjectures that there must have been some kind of\nbeating in the cult itself, which gave rise to the story[392]. Dr.\nMannhardt never made a conjecture without a large collection of facts on\nwhich to base it; and here he depends upon a number of instances from\nGreece and Northern Europe, in which man or woman, or some object such\nas the image of a deity, is whipped with rods, nettles, strips of\nleather, &c., in order, as it would seem, to produce fertility and drive\naway hostile influences. We shall see the same peculiarity occurring at\nthe Lupercalia in February[393], where its object and meaning are almost\nbeyond doubt. Many of these practices occur, it is worth noting, on\nMay-day. If the Bona Dea was a representative in any sense of the\nfertility of women, as well as of the fructifying powers of the\nearth\u2014and the two ideas seem naturally to have run together in the\nprimitive mind\u2014we may provisionally accept Dr. Mannhardt\u2019s ingenious\nsuggestion. If it be objected that as myrtle was excluded from the cult\nit could not have been used therein for the purpose of whipping, the\nanswer is simply that as being invested with some mysterious power it\nwas tabooed from ordinary use, but, like certain kinds of victims, was\nintroduced on special and momentous occasions.\n\n4. The temple was a kind of _herbarium_ in which herbs were kept with\nhealing properties[394]. A group of interesting inscriptions shows that\nthe Bona Dea did not confine her healing powers to cases of women, but\ncured the ailments of both sexes[395]. This attribute of the goddess is\nborne out by the presence of snakes in her temple, the usual symbol of\nthe medicinal art, and at the same time appropriate to the Bona Dea as\nan Earth-goddess[396]. It is possible that this feature is a Greek\nimportation; but on the whole I see no reason why the female ministrants\nof the temple should not have exercised such healing powers, or have\nsold or given herbs at request, even at a very early period. No doubt\nGreek medicinal learning became associated with it, but that the\nknowledge of simples was indigenous in Italy we have abundant\nproof[397]; and that it should have been connected with no cult of a\ndeity until Aesculapius was introduced from Greece, is most improbable.\n\n5. The sacrifice mentioned is that of a _porca_[398]. The pig is also\nthe victim in the worship of Ceres, of Juno Lucina[399] (as alternative\nfor a lamb), and as a piacular sacrifice in the ritual of the deity of\nthe Fratres Arvales (Dea Dia); it seems in fact, as in Greece, to be\nappropriate to deities of the earth and of women. There is no reason to\nsuppose that wherever it is found it had a Greek origin; even in the\ncult of Ceres, which, as we saw, became early overlaid with Greek\npractice[400], the pig may have been the victim before that change took\nplace. But it is a singular fact that in the worship of the Bona Dea,\neither at the temple of the Aventine, or in the December rite\u2014more\nprobably perhaps in the latter\u2014the victim was called by a name which\nlooks suspiciously Greek, viz. _Damium_[401]. It seems that there was a\ndeity Damia who was worshipped here and there in Greece, and also in\nSouthern Italy, e. g. at Tarentum, where she had a festival called\nDameia[402]. It looks as if this Greek deity had at one time migrated\nfrom Tarentum to Rome, and become engrafted upon the indigenous Bona\nDea; for we are expressly told that Damia was identical with the Bona\nDea, and that the priestess of the latter was called _Damiatrix_[403].\nMuch has been written about these very obscure names, without any very\ndefinite result; but it seems to be generally agreed that the form of\nthe word _damiatrix_ indicates a high antiquity for the Graecized form\nof the cult, and may indeed possibly suggest an Italian origin for the\nwhole group of names. In this uncertainty conjectures are almost\nuseless.\n\nWe have seen enough of the cult to gain some idea of the nature of this\nmysterious deity, whose real name was not known, even if she had\none[404]. We need not identify her with Vesta, as some have done[405],\nnor with Juno Lucina, nor with any other female deity of the class to\nwhich she seems to have belonged. She must at one time have been,\nwhatever she afterwards became, a protective deity of the female sex,\nthe Earth-mother[406], a kindly and helpful, but shy and unknowable\ndeity of fertility. The name Bona Dea is probably to be regarded as one\nindigitation of the Earth-spirit known by a variety of other names and\nappearing in a number of different phases. There is indeed a remarkable\nindefiniteness about the Italian female deities of this class; they\nnever gained what we may call complete specific distinctness, but are\nrather half-formed species developed from a common type. They form, in\nfact, an excellent illustration of the nature of that earliest stratum\nof Roman religious belief which has been called pandaemonism\u2014a belief in\na world of spiritual powers not yet grown into the forms of individual\ndeities, but ready at any moment, under influences either native or\nforeign, to take a more definite shape.\n\n\n VII. ID. MAI. (MAY 9). N.\n\n\nLEM[VRIA]. (VEN. MAFF.)\n\n\n V. ID. MAI. (MAY 11). N.\n\n\nLEM[VRIA]. (TUSC. VEN. MAFF.)\n\n\n III. ID. MAI. (MAY 13). N.\n\n\nLEM[VRIA]. (TUSC. VEN. MAFF.)\n\n\nThe word Lemuria indicates clearly enough some kind of worship of the\ndead; but we know of no such _public_ cult on these three days except\nfrom the calendars. What Ovid describes as taking place at this time is\na private and domestic rite performed by the head of the household[407];\nand Ovid is our only informant in regard to details. In historical times\nthe public festival of the dead was that of the _dies parentales_ in\nFebruary, ending with the Feralia on the 21st. How, then, is it that the\nthree days of the Lemuria appear in those large letters in the ancient\ncalendars, which, as we have seen[408], indicate the public festivals of\nthe religious system of the Republic? There is no certain answer to this\nquestion. We can but guess that the Lemuria was at one time, like the\nFeralia, a public festival, but descended from a more ancient deposit of\nsuperstition which in historical times was buried deep beneath the\ncivilization of a developed city life[409]. Ovid himself implies that\nthe Lemuria was an older festival than the Feralia[410], and we may\nsuppose him to be following Varro as a guide. And if we compare his\naccount of the grotesque domestic rites of the Lemuria with those of\nFebruary, which were of a systematic, cheerful, and even beautiful\ncharacter, we may feel fairly sure that the latter represents the\norganized life of a city state, the former the ideas of an age when life\nwas wilder and less secure, and the fear of the dead and of demons\ngenerally was a powerful factor in the minds of the people. If we may\nargue from Ovid\u2019s account, to be described directly, it is not\nimpossible that the Lemuria may have been one of those periodical\nexpulsions of demons of which Mr. Frazer has told us so much in his\n_Golden Bough_[411], and which are performed on behalf of the community\nas well as in the domestic circle amongst savage peoples. It is\nnoticeable that the offering of food to the demons is a feature common\nto these practices, and that it also appears in those described by Ovid.\n\nThe difference of character in the two Roman festivals of the dead is\nperhaps also indicated by the fact that the days of the Lemuria are\nmarked in the calendars with the letter N, while the Feralia is marked F\nor FP[412]. This may perhaps point to two different views of the\nattitude of the dead to the living, affecting the character of the\nfestival days; they are friendly or hostile, as they have been buried\nwith due rites and carefully looked after, or as they have failed of\nthese dues and are consequently angry and jealous[413]. The latter of\nthese attitudes is more in keeping with the notions of uncivilized man,\nand of a life not as yet wholly brought under the influence of the\ncivilization of the city-state. To be more certain, however, on this\npoint, we must try and discover the real meaning of the word _lemur_.\n\nThe definition given by Porphyrio is \u2018Umbras vagantes hominum ante diem\nmortuorum atque ideo metuendas[414].\u2019 Nonius has the following: \u2018Lemures\nlarvae nocturnae et terrificationes imaginum et bestiarum[415].\u2019 From\nthese passages it would seem that _lemures_ and _larvae_ mean much the\nsame thing; on the other hand Appuleius[416] implies that _lemures_ is a\ngeneral word for spirits after they have left the body, while those that\nhaunt houses are especially called _larvae_. But on a question of this\nkind, the philosophical and uncritical Appuleius is not to be weighed as\nan authority against either Nonius or Porphyrio, who may quite possibly\nbe here representing the learning of the Augustan age; and a perusal of\nthe whole of his passage will show that he is simply trying to classify\nghosts by the light of his own imagination. Judging from the hints of\nthe two other scholars, we may perhaps conclude that _lemures_ and\n_larvae_ are to be distinguished as hostile ghosts from _manes_, the\ngood people (as the word is generally explained), i. e. those duly\nburied in the city of the dead, and whom their living descendants have\nno need to fear so long as they pay them their due rites at the proper\nseasons as members of the family. And this conclusion is confirmed by\nthe curious etymology of Ovid[417], reproduced by Porphyrio, deriving\nLemuria from Remus. whose violent death was supposed to have been\nexpiated by the institution of the festival. The difficulty is to see\nwhy, if the _lemures_ were unburied, evil, or hostile spirits, a special\nfestival of three days should have been necessary to appease or quiet\nthem; and I can only account for this by supposing that such spirits\nwere especially numerous in an age of uncivilized life and constant war\nand violence, and that they formed a large part of the whole world of\nevil demons whose expulsion was periodically demanded. It may have been\nthe case that at this particular time in May, when the days were\n_nefasti_ and marriages were ill-omened, these spirits became\nparticularly restless and needed to be laid.\n\nSuch an explanation as this of the Lemuria is on the whole preferable to\nthat which would regard it as the original Roman festival of _all_ the\ndead; for there is now abundant evidence that even in the earliest ages\nof Italian life the practice of orderly burial in necropoleis was\nuniversal[418], and this is a practice that seems inconsistent with a\ngeneral belief in the dead as hostile and haunting spirits.\n\nThe following is Ovid\u2019s description of the way in which the ghosts were\nlaid at the Lemuria by the father of a family. At midnight he rises, and\nwith bare feet[419] and washed hands, making a peculiar sign with his\nfingers and thumbs to keep off the ghosts, he walks through the house.\nHe has black beans in his mouth, and these he spits out as he walks,\nlooking the other way, and saying, \u2018With these I redeem me and mine.\u2019\nNine times he says this without looking round; then come the ghosts\nbehind him, and gather up the beans unseen. He proceeds to wash again\nand to make a noise with brass vessels; and after nine times repeating\nthe formula \u2018manes[420] exite paterni,\u2019 he at last looks round, and the\nceremony is over.\n\nThe only point in this quaint bit of ritual which need detain us is the\nuse of beans. We have had bean-straw used at the Parilia, and we shall\nfind that beans were also used at the festival of the dead in February.\nAssuredly it is not easy to see what could have made them into such\nvaluable \u2018medicine.\u2019 Beans were not a newly discovered vegetable. Their\nexclusion from the rites of Demeter must have been of great antiquity,\nand the notions of the Pythagoreans about them were probably based on\nvery ancient popular superstitions[421]. No one, as far as I know, has\nas yet successfully solved the problem why beans had so strange a\nreligious character about them[422]; they probably were an ancient\nsymbol of fertility, but it is impossible now to discover how or why the\nideas grouped themselves around them, which we so constantly find both\nin Greece and Italy. If we ask why the ghosts picked them up, or were\nsupposed to do so, there is some reason for believing that by eating\nthem they might possibly hope to get a new lease of life[423]. Whatever\nwas the real basis of the superstition, it was a widely spread one, and\nramified in more than one direction; the Roman priest of Jupiter, for\nexample, might not touch beans nor even mention them[424]. In his case\nthe taboo was no doubt very old, but might have grown out of some such\npractice as that just described, all things ill-omened and mysterious\nbeing carefully kept out of his reach.\n\nThe days from May 7 to 14 were occupied by the Vestal Virgins in\npreparing the _mola salsa_, or sacred salt-cake, for use at the Vestalia\nin June, on the Ides of September, and at the Lupercalia[425]. This was\nmade from the first ears of standing corn in a primitive fashion by the\nthree senior Vestals, and is no doubt, like most of their ritual, a\nrelic of the domestic functions of the daughters of the family. But we\nmust postpone further consideration of the Vestals and their duties till\nwe come to the Vestalia in June.\n\n\n ID. MAI. (MAY 15). NP.\n\n\nFER[IAE] IOVI. MERCUR[IO] MAIAE. (VENUS[426].)\nMAIAE AD CIRC[UM] M[AXIMUM]. (CAER.) MERC[URIO]. (TUSC.)\n\n\nThe very curious rite which took place on this day is not mentioned in\nthe calendars; it belonged to those which, like the Paganalia, were\n_publica_ indeed and _pro populo_, but represented the people as divided\nin certain groups rather than the State as a whole[427]. But its obvious\nantiquity, and the interesting questions which arise out of it, tempt me\nto treat it in detail, at the risk of becoming tedious.\n\nI have already mentioned[428] that there was a procession in March, as\nwe infer from the _sacra Argeorum_ quoted by Varro, which went round the\n_sacella Argeorum_, or twenty-four chapels situated in the four Servian\nregions of the city[429]. What was done at these _sacella_ we do not\nknow; the procession and its doings had become so obscure in Ovid\u2019s time\nthat he could dispose of it in two lines of his _Fasti_, and express a\ndoubt as to whether it took place on one day or two[430]. Nor do we know\nwhat the _sacella_ really were. The best conjecture is that of Jordan,\nwho has brought some evidence together to show that they were small\nchapels or sacred places where holy things were deposited until the time\ncame round for them to be used in some religious ceremony[431].\n\nBut on May 15 there was another rite in which the word _Argei_ plays a\nprominent part; and here the details have in part at least survived. The\n_Argei_ in this case are not chapels, but a number of puppets or bundles\nof rushes, resembling (as Dionysius has recorded) men bound hand and\nfoot, which were taken down to the _pons sublicius_ by the Pontifices\nand magistrates, and cast into the river by the Vestal Virgins[432]. The\nFlaminica Dialis, the priestess of Jupiter, was present at the ceremony\nin mourning. The number of the puppets was probably the same as that of\nthe _sacella_ of the same name[433].\n\nExplanations of these rites were invented by Roman scholars. The\n_sacella_ were the graves of Greeks who had come to Italy with Hercules;\nand the puppets represented the followers of Hercules who had died on\ntheir journey and were to return home as it were by proxy[434]. Apart\nfrom the theories of the learned, it was the fact that the common people\nat Rome believed the puppets to be substitutes for old men, who at one\ntime used to be thrown into the Tiber as victims. _Sexagenarios de\nponte_ was a well-known proverb which in Cicero\u2019s time was explained by\nsupposing that the bridges alluded to were those over which the voters\npassed in the Comitia[435]; but this view may at once be put aside.\nThose bridges were certainly a comparatively late invention, while the\nproverb was of remote antiquity.\n\nBut, given the details of the rite, and the popular belief about the old\nmen as victims, what explanation can we hope to arrive at? We may freely\nadmit that no satisfactory etymology of the word _Argei_ is forthcoming;\nbut this is perhaps, in a negative sense, an advantage to our\ninquiry[436]. The Romans derived it from the Greek \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9; and to this\netymology Mommsen is now disposed to return. The writer of the article\n\u2018Argei\u2019 in the _Mythological Lexicon_ derived it from _varka-s_ =\n\u2018wolf\u2019; others have believed it to come from a root _arg_ = \u2018white\u2019 or\n\u2018shining,\u2019 and though the termination _eus_ is hardly a Latin one, it\nmay be that this is the true basis of the word[437].\n\nInstead of prejudging the case by fanciful etymologies, or by attempting\nto decide the question whether the Romans ever practised the rites of\nhuman sacrifice, we will take the leading features of the ceremony, and\nsee in what direction they may on the whole direct us. That done, it may\nbe possible to sum up the debate, though a final and decisive verdict is\nnot to be expected.\n\nThe features which demand attention are (1) the processional character\nof the rites; (2) the presence of the Pontifices and the Vestals; (3)\nthe mourning of the Flaminica Dialis; (4) the rush-puppets and their\nimmersion in the Tiber.\n\n1. We can hardly doubt that there was a procession to the _pons\nsublicius_, though the fact is not expressly stated. We are tempted to\nbelieve that it visited each _sacellum_, and there found, or possibly\nmade, the puppet (_simulacrum_), which thus represented the district of\nwhich the _sacellum_ was the sacred centre; and that it then proceeded,\nbearing the puppets, probably by the Forum and Vicus Tuscus to the\nbridge[438]. Now if this feature can help us at all\u2014if we accept the\nconnexion of the March and May ceremonies and their processional\ncharacter\u2014it must point in the direction of the purification of land or\ncity, on the analogy of other Italian ceremonies of the same kind. At\nthe end of this month took place the Ambarvalia, when the priests went\nround the land with prayer and sacrifice to ensure the good growth of\nthe crops; and we have a remarkable instance of the same kind of\npractice in the celebrated inscription of Iguvium. Not only each city,\nbut each _pagus_, and even each farmer, duly purified his land in some\nsuch way, cleansing it from the powers of evil and sterility, while at\nthe same time the boundaries were renewed in the memories of all\nconcerned. Bearing this in mind, and also the season of the year, we may\nfairly guess that the Argean processions had some relation to\nagriculture, and to the welfare of the precarious stock of wealth of an\nagricultural community.\n\n2. _The presence of the Pontifices and Vestals._\u2014The former would be\npresent, partly as the representative sacred college of the united\ncity[439], partly as having under their special care the sacred bridge\nfrom which the puppets were thrown. Whether or not the word _pontifex_\nbe directly derived from _pons_[440], it is certain that the ancient\nbridge, with its strong religious associations, was under their care,\nand that the river was an object of their constant liturgical\nattention[441]. It has been suggested that the whole ceremony was one of\nbridge-worship[442]; but this view, as we shall see, will hardly explain\nall the facts. It leaves the March rites unexplained, and also the\npresence of the Vestals; nor does it seem to suit the season of the\nyear.\n\nThe presence of the Vestals is more significant; and it was they, as it\nseems, who performed the act of throwing the puppets from the\nbridge[443]. In all the public duties performed by them (as we shall see\nmore fully in dealing with the Vestalia[444]) a reference can be traced\nto one leading idea, viz. that the food and nourishment of the State, of\nwhich the sacred fire was the symbol, depended for its maintenance on\nthe accurate performance of these duties. We have just seen that they\nspent the seven days preceding the Ides of May in preparing their sacred\ncakes from the first ripening ears of corn. We shall see them using\nthese cakes in June, September, and at the Lupercalia. At the Parilia\nand the Fordicidia they also take a prominent part, both of them\nfestivals relating to the fruitfulness of herds and flocks; so also at\nthe harvest festivals in August of Ops Consiva and Consus. And we can\nhardly suppose that their presence at the rite under discussion should\nhave a different significance from that of their public service on all\nother occasions. Even if we had no other evidence to go upon, we might\non the facts just adduced base a fair inference that this ceremony too\nhad some relation to the processes and perils awaiting the ripening\ncrops.\n\n3. The Flaminica Dialis had on this day to lay aside her usual bridal\ndress, and to appear in mourning[445]. The same rule was laid down for\nher during the \u2018moving\u2019 of the _ancilia_ in March, and during the\nVestalia up to the completion of the purification of the temple of\nVesta. It is not easy to see what the meaning of this rule may have\nbeen. On the other two occasions there is nothing to lead us to suppose\nthat it was some such terrible rite as human sacrifice which caused the\nchange of costume; we need not therefore suppose that it was so on May\n15. But if all three occasions are times of purification and the\naverting of evil influences: if they each mark the conclusion of an old\nseason, and the necessity of great care in entering on a new one, we can\nbetter understand it. This was the case, as we saw, when in March the\nSalii were pervading the city, and it was so also at the Vestalia, which\nwas preparatory to the ingathering of the crops. Some such critical\nmoment, I think, the day we are discussing must also have been. Some\nlight may be thrown on this aspect of the question by practices which\nhave been collected by Dr. Mannhardt from Northern Europe[446], some of\nwhich still survive. I will give a single instance from Russia. At Murom\non June 29 a figure of straw, dressed in female clothing, is laid on a\nbier and carried to the edge of a lake or river; it is eventually torn\nup and thrown into the river, while the spectators hide their faces and\nbehave as though they bewailed the death of Kostroma. In another\ndistrict on the same day an old man carried out of the town a puppet\nrepresenting the spring, and was followed by the _women_ singing\nmournful songs and expressing by their gestures grief and despair.\n\n4. _The Puppets and their immersion in the Tiber._\u2014There are two\npossible explanations of this curious practice.\n\n(1) The puppets were substitutes for human victims, and probably for old\nmen. The evidence for this view is\u2014first, the Roman tradition expressed\nin the saying _sexagenarios de ponte_[447], and supported by the fact\nthat the puppets appeared, to Dionysius at least, like men bound hand\nand foot[448]; secondly, the fact that human sacrifice was not entirely\nunknown at Rome, though there is no trace of any such custom regularly\nrecurring. We may allow that Italy could not have been entirely free\nfrom a practice which existed even in Greece, and also that the habit of\nsubstituting some object for the original victim is common and well\nattested in religious history; but whether either the Argei, or the\n_oscilla_ or _maniae_, which are often compared with the Argei, really\nhad this origin, may well indeed be doubted[449]. Thirdly, there is\nevidence that not only human sacrifice, but the sacrifice of old men,\nwas by no means unknown in primitive times. Passing over the general\nevidence as to human sacrifice, we know that the old and weak were\nsometimes put to death[450]. Being of no further use in the struggle for\nexistence, they were got rid of in various ways\u2014an act perhaps not so\nmuch of cruelty as of kindness, and under certain circumstances not\nincompatible with filial piety[451]. The chief objections to this\nexplanation are\u2014first, that it obliges us to ascribe to the early Romans\na habit which seems quite incompatible with their well-known respect for\nold age and their horror of parricide; secondly, that it does not\nexplain why a practice, which can hardly have ever been a regularly\nrecurring one, should have passed into a yearly ceremony[452].\n\n(2) The rite was of a dramatic rather than a sacrificial character[453],\nand belongs to a class of which we have numerous examples both from\nGreek, Teutonic, and Slavonic peoples. In Greece, or rather in Egypt, we\nhave the cult of Adonis, in which a puppet is immersed in the water amid\nwailings and lamentations. In Greece proper semi-dramatic rites are\nfound at Chaeronea and Athens[454], though somewhat different in\ncharacter to those of the Argei and Adonis. Tacitus describes the\nimmersion in water of the image of the German goddess Nerthus[455]. But\nmost significant are the many examples, of which Mannhardt formed an\nample collection, in which puppets are found, made as a rule of straw,\ncarried along in procession and thrown into a river or water of some\nkind, often from a bridge[456]. Sometimes the place of these puppets is\ntaken by a sheaf, a small tree, or a man or boy dressed up in foliage or\nfastened in the sheaf[457]: but in almost all cases the object is ducked\nin water or at least sprinkled with it, though now and then it is burnt\nor buried. The best known example is that of the Bavarian \u2018Wasservogel,\u2019\nwhich is either a boy or a puppet, as the custom may be in different\nplaces; he or it was decorated, carried round the fields at\nWhitsuntide[458], and thrown from the bridge into the stream. So\nconstant and inconvenient was this kind of custom in the Middle Ages\nthat a law of 1351, still extant, forbade the ducking of people at\nErfurt in the water at Easter and Whitsuntide[459]. In many of these\ncases the _simulacrum_ may have been substituted for a human being[460];\nbut I find none where the notion of sacrifice survived, or where there\nwas any trace of a popular belief that the object was a substitute for\nan actual victim. What these curious customs, according to Dr.\nMannhardt, do really represent, is the departure of winter and the\narrival of the fruitful season, or possibly the exhaustion of the vernal\nPower of vegetation after its work is done[461].\n\nTwo features in these old customs may strike us as interesting in\nconnexion with the Argei\u2014(1) The fact that the central object is often\neither actually _an old man_, or is at least called \u2018the old one.\u2019 A\nWhitsuntide custom at Halle shows us, for example, a straw puppet called\n_Der alte_[462]. (2) The constant occurrence of white objects in these\ncustoms; the puppet is called \u2018the white man with the white hair, the\nsnow-white husband,\u2019 or is dressed in a white shirt[463]. In these\nexpressions it is perhaps not impossible that we may find a clue to the\nlong-lost meaning of the word Argei. Can it be that the Roman puppets\nwere originally called \u2018the white ones,\u2019 i. e. old ones, from a root\n_arg_ = \u2018white\u2019[464]; and that from a natural mistake as to the meaning\nof the word there arose not only the story about the Greek victims but\nalso the common belief about sexagenarii being thrown over the bridge?\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe have to choose between the two explanations given above. I am, on the\nwhole, disposed to agree with Dr. Mannhardt, and in the absence of\nconvincing evidence as to the regular and periodical occurrence of human\nsacrifice in ancient Italy, to regard these strange survivals as\nsemi-dramatic performances rather than sacrificial rites. This view,\nhowever, need not exclude the possibility of the union of both drama and\nsacrifice at a very remote period, probably before the Latins settled in\nthe district.\n\nThe immersion in water, whether or no it involved the death of a victim,\nis reasonably explained, on the basis of comparative evidence, to have\nbeen a _rain-spell_[465]. In the cases already mentioned of Adonis,\nNerthus, &c., this idea seems the prominent one. I am inclined to think,\nhowever, that the notion of purification was also present\u2014the two\nuniting in the idea of regeneration. Plutarch calls the Argean rite \u2018the\ngreatest of the purifications,\u2019 and he is here most probably reproducing\nthe opinion of Varro[466]. This is indicated by the presence of the\npriests and the Vestals, by the processions, and by the mourning of the\nFlaminica Dialis, as we have already seen. We may regard the rite as in\nfact a casting out of old things, and in that sense a purification; and\nalso at the same time as a spell or earnest of rain and fertility in the\nensuing year. The puppets were perhaps hung in the sacella in the course\nof the procession in March, as a symbol of the fertility then beginning,\nand cast into the river as \u2018the old ones\u2019 when that fertility had\nreached its height[467].\n\nIn the last place, it might be asked in honour of what deity the rite\nwas performed. It is hardly necessary, and certainly is not possible, to\nanswer a question about which the Romans themselves were not agreed.\nOvid and Dionysius[468] believed it was Saturnus, probably following an\nold Greek oracle which was known to Varro[469]. Verrius Flaccus thought\nit was Dis Pater[470]. Modern writers have concluded on the general\nevidence of the rite that it was the river-god Tiberinus; Jordan,\nhowever, regarded the question as irrelevant[471]. We may agree with\nhim, and at least return a verdict of _non liquet_. If it was a\nsacrificial act, the ancient river-god is indeed likely enough; if it\nwas a quasi-dramatic one, it does not follow that any deity was\nspecially concerned in it. But we may go so far as to guess that it was\nconnected with the worship of those vaguely-conceived deities of\nvegetation whose influence on the calendar we have been tracing since\nMarch 1.\n\nThis same day is marked in one calendar as Feriae Iovi, Mercurio, Maiae.\nThe conjunction of these deities is to some extent accidental. In the\nfirst place the Ides of every month were sacred to Jupiter; and the\naddition of Mercurius is probably to be explained simply by the\nadaptation of a Greek myth which made Hermes the son of Jupiter,\nsuggesting the selection of the Ides as an appropriate day for the cult\nof the Latin representative of Hermes[472]. Mercurius, again, was\nassociated with Maia, perhaps simply because the dedication-day of his\noldest temple in Rome (_ad circum maximum_) was the Ides of the Mensis\nMaius[473]. The Roman Mercurius was considered especially as the god of\ntrade, and dated, like Ceres, from the time when an extensive corn trade\nfirst began in Rome[474]. It is highly probable that the Tarquinian\ndynasty had encouraged Roman trade, and that the increase of population\nwhich was the result, together with the wars which followed their\nexpulsion, had occasioned a series of severe famines. To this we trace\nthe Roman knowledge of the Greek or Graeco-Etruscan Hermes, through a\ntrade in corn with Sicilian Greeks or Etruscans, and the appearance of\nthe god at Rome as Mercurius, the god of trade. His first temple was\ndedicated in B.C. 495, and as in other cases, the dedication was\ncelebrated each year by those specially interested in the worship, in\nthis case the _mercatores_, who were already, at this early period,\nformed into an organized guild[475].\n\n\n XII KAL. IUN. (MAY 21). NP.\n\n\nAGON[IA][476]. (ESQ. CAER. VEN. MAFF.)\n\nVEDIOVI. (VEN.)\n\n\nThe other days sacred to Vediovis were January 1 and the Nones of March,\nfrom which latter day we postponed the consideration of this mysterious\ndeity, in hopes of future enlightenment. But Vediovis is wrapped still,\nand always will be, in at least as profound an obscurity for us as he\nwas for Varro and Ovid.\n\nWe have but his name to go upon, and two or three indistinct traces of\nhis cult. The name seems certainly to be Vediovis, i. e. apparently \u2018the\nopposite of,\u2019 or \u2018separated from,\u2019 Jupiter (= Diovis); or, as Preller\nhas it[477], comparing, like Ovid, _vegrandia farra_ (\u2018corn that has\ngrown badly\u2019), _vescus_, &c., Jupiter in a sinister sense. But this last\nexplanation must, on the whole, be rejected. It is true that each deity\nhas a sinister or threatening aspect as well as a smiling one; but in no\nother case was this separately personified, and the name, if its origin\nbe rightly given as above (which is not indeed certain), might be\nexplained by the well-known Roman habit of calling deities by their\nqualities and their business rather than by substantival names. In this\ncase the name would be negatively deduced from that of one of the few\ngods who really had a name.\n\nWhat we know of the cult is only this. First, it was peculiar, so far as\nwe know, to Rome and Bovillae[478]; secondly, the temples in Rome were\nin the space between the arx and Capitolium, \u2018inter duos lucos\u2019[479],\nand another in the Tiber island[480]\u2014two places outside the Servian\nwall, and of importance for the security of the city; thirdly, the god\nwas represented as young, holding arrows, and having a goat standing\nbeside him, on account of which characteristics he was usually,\naccording to Gellius, identified with Apollo[481]; fourthly, the usual\nvictim was a goat which was sacrificed _humano ritu_[482].\n\nOn such faint traces it will be obvious that no sound conclusion can be\nbased. The connexion with Bovillae and the gens Julia points to a\ngenuine Latin origin. The sites on the Capitol and the island do not\nlead to any definite conclusion; in the former the god seems to have\nbeen connected with the so-called Asylum, in the latter with\nAesculapius; but both these connexions may be accidental or later\ndevelopments. Preller conjectured cleverly that Vediovis was a god of\ncriminals who might take refuge in Rome and there find purification; but\nthe idea of an Asylum, on which this is based, is Greek, and of much\nlater date than any age which could have given a definite meaning to\nsuch a deity. We must here, as occasionally elsewhere, give up the\nattempt to discover the original nature of this god.\n\n\n X KAL. IUN. (MAY 23). NP.\n\n\nTUBIL[USTRIUM]. (ESQ. CAER. VEN. MAFF.)\n\nFER[IAE] VOLCANO. (VEN. AMIT.)\n\n\nI have already explained[483] the view taken by Mommsen of the two pairs\nof days, March 23 and 24 and May 23 and 24, accepting his theory that\nthe 24th in each month was the day on which wills could be made and\nwitnessed in the Comitia calata, and that the 23rd in each month was the\nday on which the _tubae_ were lustrated by which the assembly was\nsummoned.\n\nBut May 23 is also marked in two calendars as _feriae Volcano_; and Ovid\nhas noticed this in a single couplet:[484]\n\n Proxima Volcani lux est: Tubilustria dicunt;\n Lustrantur purae, quas facit ille, tubae.\n\nThe difficult question of the original character of Volcanus must be\npostponed until we come to his festival in August. We only need here to\nask whether Ovid was right in regarding Volcanus as the smith who made\nthe trumpets. This has been strenuously denied by Wissowa[485], who goes\nso far as to believe that the deity originally invoked on this day was\nnot Volcanus but Mars\u2014since the corresponding day in March was a\nfestival of that deity\u2014and that Volcanus was at an early period thrust\ninto his place under the influence of Greek notions of Hephaestus as a\nsmith who made armour and also trumpets. Wissowa has, however, to throw\nover the two calendars quoted above (Ven. Amit.) in order to support his\nargument\u2014and so far we are hardly entitled to go.\n\nIt is safer to take Volcanus as an ancient Roman deity whose cult was\nclosely connected with that of Maia, or the Bona Dea, and was prominent\nin this month as well as in August. The Flamen Volcanalis sacrificed to\nthe Bona Dea on May 1; and Maia was addressed in invocations as Maia\nVolcani[486]. The coincidence of this festival of his with the\nTubilustrium I take to have been accidental; but it led naturally, as\nthe Romans became acquainted with Greek mythology, to the erroneous view\nrepresented by Ovid that Volcanus was himself a smith[487].\n\n\n VIII KAL. IUN. (MAY 25). C.\n\n\nFORTUNAE P[UBLICAE] P[OPULI] R[OMANI] Q[UIRITIUM] IN COLLE QUIRIN[ALI].\n(CAER.)\n\nFORTUN[AE] PUBLIC[AE] P[OPULI] R[OMANI] IN COLL[E]. (ESQ.)\n\nFORTUN[AE] PRIM[IGENIAE] IN COL[LE]. (VEN.)\n\n\nThis was the dedication-day of one of three temples of Fortuna on the\nQuirinal; the place was known as \u2018tres Fortunae[488].\u2019 The goddess in\nthis case was Fortuna Primigenia, imported from Praeneste\u2014of whom\nsomething will be said later on[489]. The temple was vowed after the\nSecond Punic War in B.C. 204, and dedicated ten years later[490]. Our\nconsideration of Fortuna may be postponed till the festival of Fors\nFortuna, an older Roman form of the cult, on June 24.\n\n\n KAL. IUN. (MAY 29). C.\n\n\nThe Ambarvalia, originally a religious procession round the land of the\nearly Roman community, the object of which was to purify the crops from\nevil influences, does not appear in the Julian calendars, not being\n_feriae stativae_; but it is indicated in the later rustic calendars by\nthe words, _Segetes lustrantur_. Its date may be taken as May 29[491]:\nand this fixity will not appear incompatible with its character as a\n_sacrum conceptivum_, if we accept Mommsen\u2019s explanation of the way in\nwhich some feasts might be fixed to a day according to the usage of the\nItalian farmer, but of varying date according to the civil\ncalendar[492].\n\nThere has been much discussion whether the Ambarvalia was identical with\nthe similar festival of the Fratres Arvales. On the ground that the\n_acta fratrum Arvalium_ seemed to prove a general similarity of the two\nin time and place, and at least in some points of ritual, Mommsen,\nHenzen, and Jordan answer in the affirmative[493]. On the other side\nthere is no authority of any real weight. The judicious Marquardt[494]\nfound a difficulty in the absence of any mention in the _acta fratrum\nArvalium_ of a lustratio in the form of a procession; but it should be\nremembered (1) that we have not the whole of the _acta_; (2) that it is\nalmost certain that, as the Roman territory continued to increase, the\nbrethren must have dropped the duty of driving victims round it, for\nobvious reasons. A passage in Paulus[495] places the matter beyond doubt\nif we can be sure of the reading: \u2018_Ambarvales hostiae dicebantur quae\npro arvis a duodecim_ (MSS. duobus) _fratribus sacrificantur._\u2019 As no\n_duo fratres_ are known, the old emendation _duodecim_ seems certain,\nbut will of course not convince those who disbelieve in the identity of\nthe Ambarvalia and the sacra fratrum Arvalium. The question is, however,\nfor us of no great importance, as the _acta_ do not add to our knowledge\nof what was done at the Ambarvalia.\n\nThe best description we have of such lustrations as the Ambarvalia is\nthat of Virgil; it is not indeed to be taken as an exact description of\nthe Roman rite, but rather as referring to Italian customs generally:\n\n In primis venerare deos, atque annua magnae\n Sacra refer Cereri laetis operatus in herbis,\n Extremae sub casum hiemis, iam vere sereno.\n Tum pingues agni, et tum mollissima vina;\n Tum somni dulces densaeque in montibus umbrae.\n Cuncta tibi Cererem pubes agrestis adoret,\n Cui tu lacte favos et miti dilue Baccho,\n Terque novas circum felix eat hostia fruges,\n Omnis quam chorus et socii comitentur ovantes,\n Et Cererem clamore vocent in tecta; neque ante\n Falcem maturis quisquam supponat aristis,\n Quam Cereri torta redimitus tempora quercu\n Det motus inconpositos et carmina dicat[496].\n\nIt is not clear to what festival or festivals Virgil is alluding in the\nfirst few of these lines[497]; probably to certain rustic rites which\ndid not exactly correspond to those in the city of Rome. But from line\n343 onwards the reference is certainly to Ambarvalia of some kind,\nperhaps to the private _lustratio_ of the farmer before harvest began,\nof which the Roman festival was a magnified copy. His description\nanswers closely to the well-known directions of Cato[498]; and if it is\nCeres who appears in Virgil\u2019s lines, and not Mars, the deity most\nprominent in Cato\u2019s account, this may be explained by the undoubted\nextension of the worship of Ceres, and the corresponding contraction of\nthat of Mars, as the latter became more and more converted into a god of\nwar[499].\n\nThe leading feature in the original rite was the procession of\nvictims\u2014bull, sheep, and pig\u2014all round the fields, driven by a garlanded\ncrowd, carrying olive branches and chanting. These victims represent all\nthe farmer\u2019s most valuable stock, thus devoted to the appeasing of the\ngod. The time was that when the crops were ripening, and were in\ngreatest peril from storms and diseases; before the harvest was begun,\nand before the Vestalia took place in the early part of June, which was,\nas we shall see, a festival preliminary to harvest. Three times the\nprocession went round the land; at the end of the third round the\nvictims were sacrificed, and a solemn prayer was offered in antique\nlanguage, which ran, in Cato\u2019s formula of the farmer\u2019s lustration, as\nfollows: \u2018Father Mars, I pray and beseech thee to be willing and\npropitious to me, my household, and my slaves; for the which object I\nhave caused this threefold sacrifice to be driven round my farm and\nland. I pray thee keep, avert, and turn from us all disease, seen or\nunseen, all desolation, ruin, damage, and unseasonable influence; I pray\nthee give increase to the fruits, the corn, the vines, and the\nplantations, and bring them to a prosperous issue. Keep also in safety\nthe shepherds and their flocks, and give good health and vigour to me,\nmy house, and household. To this end it is, as I have said\u2014namely, for\nthe purification and making due lustration of my farm, my land\ncultivated and uncultivated\u2014that I pray thee to bless this threefold\nsacrifice of sucklings. O Father Mars, to this same end I pray thee\nbless this threefold sacrifice of sucklings[500].\u2019\n\nNot only in this prayer, but in the ritual that follows, as also in\nother religious directions given in the preceding chapters, we may no\ndoubt see examples of the oldest agricultural type of the genuine\nItalian worship. They are simple rustic specimens of the same type as\nthe elaborate urban ritual of Iguvium, fortunately preserved to us[501];\nand we may fairly assume that they stood in much the same relation to\nthe Roman ritual of the Ambarvalia.\n\nOf all the Roman festivals this is the only one which can be said with\nany truth to be still surviving. When the Italian priest leads his flock\nround the fields with the ritual of the Litania major in Rogation week\nhe is doing very much what the Fratres Arvales did in the infancy of\nRome, and with the same object. In other countries, England among them,\nthe same custom was taken up by the Church, which rightly appreciated\nits utility, both spiritual and material; the bounds of the parish were\nfixed in the memory of the young, and the wrath of God was averted by an\nact of duty from man, cattle, and crops. \u2018It was a general custom\nformerly, and is still observed in some country parishes, to go round\nthe bounds and limits of the parish on one of the three days before\nAscension-day; when the Minister, accompanied by his Churchwardens and\nParishioners, was wont to deprecate the vengeance of God, beg a blessing\non the fruits of the earth, and preserve the rights and properties of\nthe parish[502].\u2019\n\nAt Oxford, and it is to be hoped in some other places, this laudable\ncustom still survives. But the modern clergy, from want of interest in\nritual, except such as is carried on within their churches, or from some\nstrong distrust of any merry-making not initiated by their own zeal, are\napt to drop the ceremonies; and there is some danger that even in Oxford\nthe processions and peeled wands may soon be things of the past. To all\nsuch ministers I would recommend the practice of the judicious Hooker,\nas described by his biographer, Isaak Walton:\n\n \u2018He would by no means omit the customary time of procession,\n persuading all, both rich and poor, if they desired the preservation\n of Love, and their Parish rights and liberties, to accompany him in\n his Perambulation\u2014and most did so; in which Perambulation he would\n usually express more pleasant Discourse than at other times, and\n would then always drop some loving and facetious Observations, to be\n remembered against the next year, especially by the Boys and young\n people; still inclining them, and all his present Parishioners, to\n meekness and mutual Kindnesses and Love.\u2019\n\nAt Charlton-on-Otmoor, near Oxford, there was a survival of the \u2018agri\nlustratio\u2019 until recent years. On the beautiful rood-screen of the\nparish church there is a cross, which was carried in procession through\nthe parish[503], freshly decorated with flowers, on May-day; it was then\nrestored to its place on the screen, and remained there until the\nMay-day of the next year. It may still be seen there, but it is no\nlonger carried round, and its decoration seems to have been transferred\nfrom May-day to the harvest-festival[504].\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n Sat. 1. 12. 16.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n See above, Introduction, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n So Varro also (_L. L._ 6. 33). But Censorinus (_De die natali_, 20. 2)\n expressly ascribes to Varro the derivation from Maia; the great\n scholar apparently changed his view.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n For Iup. Maius see Aust, in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, p. 650.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n This was probably not the early historian Cincius Alimentus, but a\n contemporary of Augustus, Teuffel, _Hist. of Roman Literature_, sec.\n 106. For the flamen Volcanalis see on Aug 23.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n i. e. on the Ides: see below, p. 120. The connexion between Mercurius\n and Maia seems to arise simply from the fact that the dedication of\n the temple of the former was on the Ides of this month.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 59 foll.; Mommsen, _Chron._ 218.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n The etymology was defended by Roscher in Fleckeisen\u2019s _Jahrbuch_ for\n 1875, and in his _Iuno und Hera_, p. 105.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 129 foll. For the doubtful reading _Curibus_ in 131 see\n Peter, ad loc.; Preller-Jordan, ii. 114.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 143; Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 51.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n This appears on coins of the gens Caesia: Cohen, _M\u00e9d. Cons._ pl.\n viii. Wissowa, in _Myth. Lex._, s. v. Lares, gives a cut of the coin,\n on which the Lares are represented sitting with a dog between them.\n See note at the end of this work (Note B) on the further\n interpretation of these coins.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n See Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 414 foll.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n Farnell, _Cults_, ii. 515. Hekate was certainly a deity of the earth.\n Cf. Plut. _Q. R._ 68.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n See on Robigalia, April 25.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n _Quaest. Rom._ 52 and 111; cf. _Romulus_ 21.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n So Jevons, _Roman Questions_, Introduction, xli.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n De-Marchi, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, 48. Wissowa (_Myth.\n Lex._, s. v. Lares, p. 1872) prefers the old interpretation, much as\n Plutarch gives it.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 149 foll.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n Aust, _De Aedibus sacris_, p. 27. It was apparently before 123 B.C.,\n when a Vestal Virgin, Licinia, added an _aedicula_, _pulvinar_, and\n _ara_ to it (Cic. _de Domo_, 136).\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n Wissowa, in Pauly\u2019s _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die_, s. v. Bona Dea, 690. See\n above, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n See below, under Dec. 3. There can be hardly a doubt that this\n December rite was the one famous for the _sacrilegium_ of Clodius in\n 62 B.C., though Prof. Beesly rashly assumed the contrary in his essay\n on Clodius (_Catiline, Clodius, and Tiberius_, p. 45 note). Plutarch,\n _Cic._ 19 and 20; Dio Cass. 37. 35.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n Ovid, l. c. \u2018oculos exosa viriles.\u2019 Cp. _Ars Amat._ 3. 637. On this\n and other points in the cult see R. Peter in _Myth. Lex._, and\n Wissowa, l. c. The latter seems to refer most of them to the December\n rite; but Ovid and Macrobius expressly connect them with the _temple_.\n Macr. 1. 12. 25 foll.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n Propert. 4. 9; Macr. 1. 12. 28.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 245 foll.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n See below, p. 143. _Lex. Myth._ s. v. Hercules, 2258.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n Macr. l. c. Plutarch also knew of this (_Quaest. Rom._ 20).\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n Otherwise in Lactantius, 1. 22. 11, and Arnob. 5. 18, where Fauna is\n said to have been beaten because she drank wine; no doubt a later\n version. Lactantius quotes Sext. Clodius, a contemporary of Cicero.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n _H. N._ 14. 88. See above on feriae Latinae, p. 97. Virg. _Ecl._ 5.\n 66; _Georg._ 1. 344; _Aen._ 5. 77. In the last passage milk is offered\n to the _inferiae_ of Anchises: we may note the similarity of the cult\n of Earth-deities and of the dead.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 20; Macrob. l. c.; Lactant. l. c. The myth has been\n explained as Greek (Wissowa, in Pauly, 688), but its peculiar feature,\n the whipping, could hardly have become attached to a Roman cult unless\n there were something in the cult to attach it to, or unless the cult\n itself were borrowed from the Greek. That the latter was the case it\n is impossible to prove; and I prefer to believe that both cult and\n myth were Roman.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n _Mythologische Forschungen_, 115 foll. Cp. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii.\n 213 foll.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n Below, p. 320. See also on July 7 (Nonae Caprotinae).\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n Macrob. l. c. \u2018Quidam Medeam putant, quod in aede eius omne genus\n herbarum sit ex quibus antistites dant plerumque medicinas.\u2019\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n _C. I. L._ vi. 54 foll.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n This no doubt gave rise to the myth that Faunus \u2018coisse cum filia\u2019 in\n the form of a snake. Here again the myth may possibly be Greek, but we\n have no right to deny that it may have had a Roman basis. Snakes were\n kept in great numbers both in temples and houses in Italy\n (Preller-Jordan, i. 87, 385).\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n Plin. _H. N._ 29 _passim_, especially 14, &c., where Cato is quoted as\n detesting the new Greek art, and urging his son to stick to the old\n simples; some of which, with their absurd charms, are given in Cato,\n R. R. 156 foll.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n Macrob. l. c.; Juv. _Sat._ 2. 86.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n Marq. 173. Gilbert (_Gesch. und Topogr._ ii. 159, note) has some\n impossible combinations on this subject, and concludes that the Bona\n Dea was a moon-goddess.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n See above, p. 72 foll.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n Paulus, 68 \u2018Damium sacrificium, quod fiebat in operto in honorem Bonae\n deae, ... dea quoque ipsa Damia et sacerdos eius damiatrix\n appellabatur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n R. Peter in _Myth. Lex._, s. v. Damia; Wissowa, l. c.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n Paulus, l. c.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n Lactantius, 1. 22; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 314.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n Preuner, _Hestia-Vesta_, 407 foll. For Lucina, Gilbert, l. c.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n The combination of the idea of female fecundity with that of the earth\n is of course common enough. Here is a good example from Abyssinia:\n \u2018She (Atetie) is the goddess of fecundity, and women are her principal\n votaries; but, as she can also make the earth prolific, offerings are\n made to her for that purpose\u2019 (Macdonald, _Religion and Myth_, p. 42).\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 421 foll.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n See Introduction, p. 15.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n Huschke (_R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 17) tried to prove that the Lemuria was the\n \u2018Todtenfest\u2019 of the Sabine city, the Feralia that of the Latin; but\n his arguments have convinced no one.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 423.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n _G. B._ ii. 157 foll.; Macdonald, _Religion and Myth_, ch. vi.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n Introduction, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n Tylor, _Prim. Cult._ ii. 24. The friendly attitude is well illustrated\n in F. de Coulanges\u2019 _La Cit\u00e9 antique_, ch. ii.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n On Hor. _Ep._ 2. 2. 209.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n Non. p. 135. Cp. Festus, s. v. faba: \u2018Lemuralibus iacitur larvis,\u2019 i.\n e. \u2018the bean is thrown to _larvae_ at the Lemuralia.\u2019 Serv. _Aen._ 3.\n 63.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n _de Genio Socratis_, 15. The passage is interesting, but historically\n worthless, as is that of Martianus Capella, 2. 162.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 451 foll.; Porph. l. c. Remus, as one dead before his\n time, would not lie quiet: \u2018Umbra cruenta Remi visa est adsistere\n lecto,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n See e. g. Von Duhn\u2019s paper on Italian excavations, translated in the\n _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for 1897.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n \u2018Habent vincula nulla pedes\u2019 (_Fasti_, 5. 432). In performing sacred\n rites a man must be free; e. g. the Flamen Dialis might not wear a\n ring, or anything binding, and a fettered prisoner had to be loosed in\n his house (Plut. _Q. R._ 111). Cp. Numa in his interview with Faunus\n (Ov. _Fasti_, 4. 658), \u2018Nec digitis annulus ullus inest.\u2019 Serv. _Aen._\n 4. 518; Hor. _Sat._ 1. 8. 24.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n _Manes_ must be here used, either loosely by the poet, or\n euphemistically by the house-father.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n It is curious to find them used for the very same purpose of\n ghost-ridding as far away as Japan (Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 176).\n For their antiquity as food, Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen_, 459; Schrader,\n _Sprachvergleichung_, 362.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n A. Lang, _Myth_, &c., ii. 265; Jevons, _Roman Questions_, Introd. p.\n lxxxvi; O. Crusius, _Rhein. Mus._ xxxix. 164 foll.; and especially\n Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ 251 foll. For superstitions of a similar kind\n attached to the mandrake and other plants see Sir T. Browne\u2019s _Vulgar\n Errors_, bk. ii. ch. 6; Rhys, _Celtic Mythology_, p. 356 (the berries\n of the rowan).\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n There was a notion that beans sown in a manure-heap produced men. Cp.\n Plin. _H. N._ 18. 118 \u2018quoniam mortuorum animae sint in ea.\u2019\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n Gell. 10. 15. 2 (from Fabius Pictor).\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n Serv. _Ecl._ 8. 82; Marq. 343 note. Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 269,\n attempts an explanation of the difficulty arising here from the fact\n that in historical times the calendar was some weeks in advance of the\n seasons, but without much success.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n This note is wrongly entered in the Fasti Venusini, under May 16.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n Festus, 245, s. v. Publica sacra. Cp. Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii.\n 123. Festus distinguishes _pagi_, _montes_, _sacella_, of which the\n festivals would seem to be the Paganalia, Septimontium, and sacra\n Argeorum, respectively.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n See under March 17. We arrive at the procession by comparing the\n Varronian extracts from the sacra Argeorum (_L. L._ 545) with Gellius,\n 10. 15.30, and Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 791. See a restoration of the\n itinerary of the procession in Jordan, _Topogr._ ii. 603.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n Sacella in Varro (_L. L._ 545); sacraria, ib. 548; Argea in Festus,\n 334, where the word seems to be an adjective; Argei in Liv. 1. 24\n \u2018loca sacris faciendis, quae Argeos pontifices vocant.\u2019 The number\n depends on the reading of Varro, 7. 44, xxiv or xxvii; Jordan decided\n for xxiv: but see Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 123.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n _Fasti_, 3. 791.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n Jordan, _Topogr._ ii. 271 foll.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n Dionysius, 1. 38; Ovid, _Fasti_, 5. 621 foll.; Festus, p. 334, s. v.\n Sexagenarii; Plutarch, _Q. R._ 32 and 86.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n Dionysius says there were thirty; he had probably seen the ceremony,\n but may have only made a rough guess at the number or have thought of\n the thirty Curiae. Ovid writes of two: \u2018Falcifero libata seni duo\n corpora gentis Mittite,\u2019 &c. (Jordan proposed to read \u2018senilia\u2019 for\n \u2018seni duo.\u2019)\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n Festus, 334.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n Festus, l. c.; Cicero, _pro Roscio Amerino_, 35. 100. _Sexagenarios de\n ponte_ was apparently an old saying (cp. \u2018depontani,\u2019 Festus, 75); the\n earliest notice we have of it, which comes from the poet Afranius,\n seems to connect it with the pons sublicius.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n \u2018The etymology will of course explain a word, but only if it happens\n to be right; the history of the word is a surer guide\u2019 (Skeat). In\n this case we have not even the history.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n See Schwegler, i 383. note; Marq. 183. Mommsen (_Staatsrecht_, iii.\n 123) reverts to the opinion that Argei is simply \u1f08\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, and\n preserves a reminiscence of Greek captives. Nettleship, in his _Notes\n in Latin Lexicography_, p. 271, is inclined to connect the word with\n \u2018arcere\u2019, in the sense of confining prisoners. More fanciful\n developments in a paper by O. Keller, in Fleckeisen\u2019s _Jahrbuch_,\n cxxxiii. 845 foll.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n The puppets may have been made in March, and then hung in the sacella\n till May: so Jordan, _Topogr._ l. c. The writer in _Myth. Lex._ thinks\n that human victims were originally kept in these sacella, for whom the\n puppets were surrogates.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n There is an interesting modern parallel in Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 178.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 83, and Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 398. The general\n opinion seems now to favour the view that there was an original\n connexion between the _pontifices_ and the _pons sublicius_.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 83; Dionys. 2. 73, 3. 45.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n This was the suggestion of Mr. Frazer in a note in the _Journal of\n Philology_, vol. xiv. p. 156. The late Prof. Nettleship once expressed\n this view to me.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n Paulus, p. 15 \u2018per Virgines Vestales\u2019; Ovid, _Fasti_, 5. 621.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n See below, p. 149.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n Plut. _Quaest. Rom._ 86; Gell. 10. 15; Marq. 318. Her usual head-dress\n was the _flammeum_, or bride\u2019s veil. No mention is made of the Flamen\n her husband; the prominence of women in all these rites is noticeable.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n _Baumkultus_, 155, 411, 416. The cult of Adonis has some features like\n that of the Argei: e. g. the puppet, the immersion in water and the\n mourning (see _Lex._ s. v. Adonis, p. 73; Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 276).\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n i. e. \u2018old men must go over the bridge.\u2019 See Cic. _pro Roscio\n Amerino_, 35, where the old edition of Osenbr\u00fcggen has a useful note.\n Also Varro, apud Lactant. _Inst._ 1. 21. 6. Ovid alludes to the\n proverb (5. 623 foll.) \u2018Corpora post decies senos qui credidit annos\n Missa neci, sceleris crimine damnat avos.\u2019\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n Dionys. 1. 38. But he may have been deceived simply by the appearance\n of the bindings of the sheaves or bundles, especially if he had been\n told beforehand of the proverb.\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n The best known instances of human sacrifice at Rome are collected in a\n note to Merivale\u2019s _History_ (vol. iii. 35); and by Sachse, _Die\n Argeer_, p. 17. O. M\u00fcller thought that it came to Rome from Etruria\n (_Etrusker_, ii. 20). For Greece, see Hermann, _Griech. Alt._ ii. sec.\n 27; Strabo. 10. 8. See also some valuable remarks in Tylor, _Prim.\n Cult._ ii. 362, on substitution in sacrifice.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n Caesar, _B. G._ 6. 16; Tac. _Germ._ 9 and 39. Strabo, 10. 8, is\n interesting, as giving an example of the dropping out of the actual\n killing, while the form survived. See below on Lupercalia, p. 315.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n A point suggested to me some years ago by Mr. A. J. Evans.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n Sir A. Lyall (_Asiatic Studies_, p. 19) writes of human sacrifice as\n having been common in India as a last resort for appeasing divine\n wrath when manifested in some strange manner; i. e. it was never\n regular. So Procopius, _Bell. Goth._ 3. 13. Tacitus, indeed, writes of\n \u2018certis diebus\u2019 (_Germ._ 9), but it is not clear that he meant fixed\n recurring days. As a rule in human sacrifice and cannibalism the\n victims are captives, who would not be always at hand.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n Dionysius (1. 38) speaks of sacrifice _before_ the immersion of the\n puppets: \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n The \u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c6\u03b1\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2, Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 129 foll.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n _Germania_, 40: Mannhardt, _Baumkultus_, 567 foll. The evidence is\n perhaps hardly adequate as to detail.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n _Baumkultus_, chapters 3, 4, and 5, which should be used by all who\n wish to form some idea of the amount of evidence collected on this one\n head.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n Our Jack-in-the-Green is probably a survival of this kind of rite.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n Nearly all these customs occur either at Whitsuntide or harvest.\n Mannhardt conjectured that the Argei-rite was originally a harvest\n custom (_A. W. F._ 269); quite needlessly, I think.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n _Baumkultus_, 331.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n Mannhardt allows this, _Baumkultus_, 336 note.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n _Baumkultus_, 358 foll. His theory is expressed in judicious and by no\n means dogmatic language. It may be that he runs his Vegetation-spirit\n somewhat too hard\u2014and no mythologist is free from the error of seeing\n his own discovery exemplified wherever he turns. But the spirit of\n vegetation had been found at Rome long before Mannhardt\u2019s time (see e.\n g. Preller\u2019s account of Mars and the deities related to him).\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n _Baumkultus_, 359, 420; _Kornd\u00e4monen_, 24.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n _Baumkultus_, 349 foll., 365, 414.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n Cp. the root _cas-_, which (according to Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 652\n note), appears both in _canus_ and _cascus_, and also in the Oscan\n _casnar_ = \u2018an old man.\u2019 The word _casnar_ is used by Varro (ap.\n Nonium, 86) for _sexagenarius_, or possibly _argeus_: \u2018Vix ecfatus\n erat cum more maiorum carnales (= casnales) arripiunt et de ponte\n deturbant.\u2019 Cf. Varro, _L. L._ 7. 73; Mommsen, _Unteritalische\n Dialekten_, p. 268. The root _arg_ may perhaps have meant _holy_ as\n well as old or white, like the Welsh _gwen_ (Rhys, _Celtic Mythology_,\n 527 note).\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n _Baumkultus_, 214-16, 355, &c. On p. 356 is a valuable note giving\n examples from America, India, &c. For a remarkable case from ancient\n Egypt, of which the object is not rain, but inundation, see Tylor,\n _Prim. Cult._ ii. 368. See also Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_ (E. T.),\n p. 593 foll.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n _Quaest. Rom._ 86. This work is undoubtedly drawn chiefly from Varro\u2019s\n writings, but largely through the medium of those of Juba the king of\n Mauretania, who wrote in Greek (Barth de Jubae \u1f49\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd in Plutarcho\n expressis: G\u00f6ttingen, 1876).\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n Parallels in _Baumkultus_, pp. 170, 178, 211, 409. These are examples\n of May-trees and other objects, sometimes decked out as human beings,\n which are hung up in the homestead for a certain time\u2014e. g. in Austria\n from May-day to St. John Baptist\u2019s day, a period closely corresponding\n both in length and season to that at Rome, from March 15 to May 15. In\n the church of Charlton-on-Otmoor, near Oxford, it is hung on the\n rood-screen from May 1 onwards.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 5. 627; Dionys. 1. 38.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n See Macrob. 1. 7. 28. In Dionysius\u2019 version, however, of the line it\n is \u1f0d\u03b9\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2 to whom the sacrifice is offered.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n Festus, 334.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n _Topogr._ ii. 285.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Mercurius, p. 2804.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 5.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n It seems to me probable that there was a Mercurius at Rome before the\n introduction of Hermes; but this cannot be proved. It seems likely\n that the temple-cult established in 495 B.C. was really that of Hermes\n under an Italian name, as in the parallel case of Ceres. This was one\n year later than the date of the Ceres-temple (above, p. 74).\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n Mercuriales, or Mercatores (Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 1. 278). They\n belonged to the collegia of the pagi.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n See on March 17 and January 9.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n i. 262 foll.; Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 445; Gell. _N. A._ 5. 12.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n _C. I. L._ i. 807; the dedication of an altar (Vediovei Patrei\n genteiles Iuliei) found at Bovillae.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 429; Gell. 5. 12. It was this temple which had May\n 21 as its \u2018dies natalis.\u2019\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n Liv. 31. 21. 12 (reading Vediovi for deo Iovi, with Merkel and\n Jordan).\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n Gell. l. c.; Preller, i. 264, and Jordan\u2019s note.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n Gell. 5. 12. The meaning of the expression is not clear. Paulus (165)\n writes: \u2018Humanum sacrificium dicebant quod mortui causa fiebat\u2019\u2014which\n does not greatly help us. Preller reasonably suggested that the goat\n might be a substitutory victim in place of a \u2018homo sacer\u2019 or criminal\n (i. 265).\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n Above, p. 63.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n _Fasti_, 5. 725.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n _de Feriis_, xv.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n Gell. 13. 23.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n The Hephaestus-myth has been treated on the comparative method by F.\n von Schr\u00f6der (_Griech. G\u00f6tter u. Heroen_, i. 79 foll.), and by Rapp in\n _Myth. Lex._ It is of course possible that it may have been known to\n the early Italians, but what we know of Volcanus does not favour this.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n Vitruvius, 3. 2. 2; it was \u2018proxime portam Collinam.\u2019\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n See below, pp. 165, 223.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n Liv. 34. 53; Aust, _de Aedibus_, p. 20.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n This seems to have been the date among the Anauni of N. Italy as late\n as 393 A.D.: see the _Acta Martyrum_, p. 536 (Verona, 1731). (For the\n Anauni, Rushforth, _Latin Historical Inscriptions_, p. 99 foll.)\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n _Chron._ 70 foll.: a difficult bit of calculation.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n Mommsen, l. c. Henzen, _Acta Fr. Arv._ xlvi-xlviii; Jordan on Preller,\n i. 420, and _Topogr._ i. 289, ii. 236. The latter would also identify\n Ambarvalia and Amburbium; but the two seem clearly distinguished by\n Servius (_Ecl._ 3.77).\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n p. 200. Huschke, _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 63.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n p. 5. See Jordan on Preller, i. 420, note 2; Marq. 200, note 3.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n _Georg._ 1. 338 foll.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n \u2018Extremae sub casum hiemis\u2019 might possibly suit the Italian April, but\n certainly not the Italian May. May 1 is the earliest date we have for\n an agri lustratio, i. e. in Campania (_C. I. L._ x. 3792). \u2018Tunc\n mollissima vina\u2019 may contain a reference to the Vinalia of April 23,\n when the new wine was first drunk; and if that were so, the general\n reference might be to the Cerialia or its rustic equivalent.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n _R. R._ 141. Cp. Siculus Flaccus in _Gromatici Veteres_, p. 164. The\n lustratio should be celebrated before even the earliest crops (e. g.\n beans) were cut.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n Henzen, _Acta Fr. Arv._ xlviii.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n Cato, _R. R._ 141. I have availed myself of the Italian translation\n and commentary of Prof. De Marchi in his work on the domestic religion\n of the Romans, p. 128 foll.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_; Br\u00e9al, _Les Tables Eugubines_.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, p. 292.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n I am informed that it visited one hamlet, Horton, which is not at\n present in the parish of Charlton; of this there should be some\n topographical explanation.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n The cross is very commonly carried about on the continent, and in\n Holland the week is called cross-week for this reason. But at Charlton\n there seems to have been a confusion between this cross and the\n May-queen or May-doll; for on May-day, 1898, the old woman who decked\n it called it \u2018my lady,\u2019 and spoke of \u2018her waist,\u2019 &c. I am indebted to\n the Rev. C. E. Prior, the present incumbent, for information about\n this interesting survival.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS IUNIUS.\n\n\n KAL. IUN. (JUNE 1). N.\n\n\nIUNONI MONETAE (VEN.)\n\nFABARICI C[IRCENSES] M[ISSUS]. (PHILOC.)\n\n\nOn the name of the mensis Junius some remarks have already been made\nunder May 1. There is no sure ground for connecting it with Juno[505].\nThe first day of June was sacred to her, but so were all Kalends; and if\nthis was also the _dies natalis_ of the temple of Juno Moneta _in arce_,\nwe have no reason to suppose the choice of day to be specially\nsignificant[506]. We know the date of this dedication; it was in 344\nB.C. and in consequence of a vow made by L. Furius Camillus Dictator in\na war against the Aurunci[507]. Of a Juno Moneta of earlier date we have\nno knowledge; and, in spite of much that has been said to the contrary,\nI imagine that the title was only given to a Juno of the _arx_ in\nconsequence of the popular belief that the Capitol was saved from the\nattack of the Gauls (390 B.C.) by the warning voices of her sacred\ngeese. What truth there was in that story may be a matter of doubt, but\nit seems easier to believe that it had a basis of fact than to account\nfor it aetiologically[508]. There may well have been an altar or\n_sacellum_[509] of Juno on the _arx_, near which her noisy birds were\nkept[510]; and when a temple was eventually built here in 344 B.C., it\nwas appropriately dedicated to Juno of the warning voice. From the fact\nthat part of this temple was used as a mint[511], the word _Moneta_\ngradually passed into another sense, which has found its way into our\nmodern languages[512].\n\nOne tradition connected the name of the month with M. Junius Brutus, who\nis said to have performed a _sacrum_ on this day after the flight of\nTarquinius, on the Caelian Hill[513]. This _sacrum_ had no connexion\nwith Juno, and the tradition which thus absurdly brings Brutus into the\nquestion shows plainly that the derivation from Juno was not universally\naccepted[514]. The real deity of the Kalends of June was not Juno, but\nan antique goddess whose antiquity is attested both by the meagreness of\nour knowledge of her, and the strange confusion about her which Ovid\ndisplays. Had Carna been more successful in the struggle for existence\nof Roman deities, we might not have been so sure of her extreme\nantiquity; but no foreign cult grafted on her gave her a new lease of\nlife, and by the end of the Republic she was all but dead.\n\nWhat little we do know of her savours of the agricultural life and\nfolk-lore of the old Latins. Her sacrifices were of bean-meal and\nlard[515]; and this day went by the name of Kalendae fabariae[516],\n\u2018quia hoc mense adultae fabae divinis rebus adhibentur.\u2019 The fact was\nthat it was the time of bean-harvest[517]; and beans, as we have already\nseen, were much in request for sacred purposes. \u2018Maximus honos fabae,\u2019\nsays Pliny[518], alluding to the value of the bean as food, to its\nsupposed narcotic power, and its use in religious ritual. We have\nalready found beans used in the cult of the dead and the ejection of\nghosts from the house[519]; and Prof. Wissowa has of late ingeniously\nconjectured that this day (June 1) was concerned with rites of the same\nkind[520]. He quotes an inscription, a will in which a legacy is left\n\u2018ut rosas Carnar[iis] ducant\u2019[521]. Undoubtedly the reference here is to\nrites of the dead (cf. Rosalia), and Mommsen may be right in suggesting\nthat by Carnar[iis] is meant the Kalends of June. But it is going a\nlittle too far to argue on this slender evidence, even if we add to it\nthe fact that the day was _nefastus_, that the festival of Carna was of\nthe same kind as the Parentalia, Rosalia, &c.; a careful reading of\nOvid\u2019s comments seems to show that there were curious survivals of\nfolk-lore connected with the day and with Carna which cannot all be\nexplained by reference to rites of the dead.\n\nOvid does indeed at once mislead his readers by identifying Carna and\nCardea, and thus making the former the deity of door-hinges, and\nbringing her into connexion with Janus[522]. But we may guess that he\ndoes this simply because he wants to squeeze in a pretty folk-tale of\nJanus and Cardea, for which his readers may be grateful, and which need\nnot deceive them. When he writes of the ritual of Carna[523]\u2014our only\nsafe guide\u2014he makes it quite plain that he is mixing up the attributes\nof two distinct deities. He brings the two together by contriving that\nJanus, as a reward to Cardea for yielding to his advances, should bestow\non her not only the charge of _cardines_, but also that of protecting\ninfants from the _striges_[524], creatures of the nature of vampires,\nbut described by Ovid as owls, who were wont to suck their blood and\ndevour their vitals. But this last duty surely belonged to Carna, of\nwhom Macrobius says \u2018Hanc deam vitalibus humanis praeesse credunt\u2019: and\nthus Carna\u2019s attribute is conjoined with Cardea\u2019s. The lines are worth\nquoting in which Ovid describes the charms which are to keep off the\n_striges_, for as preserving a remnant of old Italian folk-lore they are\nmore interesting than the doubtful nature of an obscure deity[525]:\n\n Protinus arbutea[526] postes ter in ordine tangit\n Fronde, ter arbutea limina fronde notat:\n Spargit aquis aditus\u2014et aquae medicamen habebant\u2014\n Extaque de porca cruda bimenstre tenet[527].\n Atque ita \u2018noctis aves, extis puerilibus\u2019 inquit\n \u2018Parcite: pro parvo victima parva cadit.\n Cor pro corde, precor, pro fibris sumite fibras.\n Hanc animam vobis pro meliore damus.\u2019\n Sic ubi libavit, prosecta sub aethere ponit,\n Quique adsint sacris, respicere illa vetat[528].\n Virgaque Ianalis de spina ponitur alba[529]\n Qua lumen thalamis parva fenestra dabat.\n Post illud nec aves cunas violasse feruntur,\n Et rediit puero qui fuit ante color.\n\nHaving told his folk-tale and described his charms, Ovid returns to\nCarna, and asks why people eat bean-gruel on the Kalends of June, with\nthe rich fat of pigs. The answer is that the cult of Carna is of ancient\ndate, and that the healthy food of man in early times is retained in\nit[530].\n\n Sus erat in pretio; caesa sue festa colebant.\n Terra fabas tantum duraque farra dabat.\n Quae duo mixta simul sextis quicunque Kalendis\n Ederit, huic laedi viscera posse negant.\n\nThis was undoubtedly the real popular belief\u2014that by eating this food on\nCarna\u2019s day your digestion was secured for the year. Macrobius[531]\nmakes the practice into a much more definite piece of ritual. \u2018_Prayers_\nare offered to this goddess,\u2019 he says, \u2018for the good preservation of\nliver, heart, and the other internal organs of our bodies. Her\n_sacrifices_ are bean-meal and lard, because this is the best food for\nthe nourishment of the body.\u2019 Ovid is here the genuine Italian,\nMacrobius the scholar and theologian: both may be right.\n\nWhatever, then, may be the meaning or etymology of the name Carna, we\nmay at least be sure that the cult belongs to the age of ancient Latin\nagriculture[532], since it was in connexion with her name that the\npopular belief survived in Ovid\u2019s time of the virtue of bean-eating on\nthe Kalends of June.\n\nWe learn from Ovid (line 191) that this same day was the _dies natalis_\nof the temple of Mars _extra portam Capenam_, i. e. on the Via Appia\u2014a\nfavourite spot for the mustering of armies, and the starting-point for\nthe yearly _transvectio equitum_[533]. I have already alluded to the\nbaseless fabric of conjecture built on the conjunction of Mars and Juno\non this day[534]; and need here only repeat that in no well-attested\nRoman myth is Mars the son of Juno, or Juno the wife of Jupiter. And it\nis even doubtful whether June 1 was the _original_ dedication-day of\nthis temple of Mars: the Venusian calendar does not mention it, and Ovid\nmay be referring to a re-dedication by Augustus[535]. There is\nabsolutely no ground for the myth-making of Usener and Roscher about\nMars and Juno: but it is to the credit of the latter that he has\ninserted in his article on Mars a valuable note by Aust, in which his\nown conclusions are cogently controverted.\n\n\n III. NON. IUN. (JUNE 3). C.\n\n\nBELLON[AE] IN CIRC[O] FLAM[INIO]. (VEN.)\n\n\nThis temple was vowed by the Consul Ap. Claudius in an Etruscan war[536]\n(296 B.C.): the date of dedication is unknown. In front of the temple\nwas an area of which the truly Roman story is told[537], that being\nunable to declare war with Pyrrhus with the orthodox ritual of the\n_fetiales_, as he had no land in Italy into which they could throw the\nchallenging spear[538], they caught a Pyrrhan soldier and made him buy\nthis spot to suit their purpose. Here stood the \u2018columella\u2019 from which\nhenceforward the spear was thrown[539].\n\nThe temple became well known as a suitable meeting-place for the Senate\noutside the _pomoerium_, when it was necessary to do business with\ngenerals and ambassadors who could not legally enter the city[540]. But\nof the goddess very little is known. There is no sufficient reason to\nidentify her with that Nerio with whom we made acquaintance in March, as\nis done too confidently by the writer of the article in Roscher\u2019s\n_Lexicon_[541].\n\n\n PRID. NON. IUN. (JUNE 4). C.\n\n\nHERC[ULI] MAGN[O] CUSTO[DI]. (VEN.)\n\nSACRUM HERCULI. (RUST.)\n\n\nThis temple also was near the Circus Flaminius[542]. It was a foundation\nof Sulla\u2019s, 82 B.C., and the cult was Greek, answering to that of\n\u1f29\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2[543].\n\n\n NON. IUN. (JUNE 5). N.[544]\n\n\nDIO FIDIO IN COLLE. (VEN.)\n\n\nThe temple on the Quirinal of which this was the _dies natalis_ is said\nby Dionysius[545] to have been vowed by Tarquinius Superbus, and\ndedicated by Sp. Postumius in B.C. 466. But that there was a _fanum_ or\n_sacellum_ of this deity on or near the same site at a much earlier time\nis almost certain; such a _sacellum_ \u2018ad portam Sanqualem\u2019 is mentioned,\nalso by Dionysius[546], as \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, and we know that in many\ncases the final _aedes_ or _templum_ was a development from an uncovered\naltar or sacred place.\n\nDius Fidius, as the adjectival character of his name shows, was a\ngenuine old Italian religious conception, but one that in historical\ntimes was buried almost out of sight. Among gods and heroes there has\nbeen a struggle for existence, as among animals and plants; with some\npeoples a struggle between indigenous and exotic deities, in which the\nlatter usually win the day, and displace or modify the native\nspecies[547]. What laws, if any, govern this struggle for existence it\nis not possible to discern clearly; the result is doubtless the survival\nof the fittest, if by the fittest we understand those which flourish\nbest under the existing conditions of society and thought; but it would\nhardly seem to be the survival of those which are most beneficial to the\nworshipping race. Among the Romans the fashionable exotic deities of the\nlater Republic and Empire had no such ethical influence on the character\nof the people as those older ones of the type of Dius Fidius, who in\nhistorical times was known to the ordinary Roman only through the medium\nof an old-fashioned oath.\n\nOvid knows very little about Dius Fidius[548]:\n\n Quaerebam Nonas Sanco Fidione referrem,\n An tibi, Semo pater: cum mihi Sancus ait\n \u2018Cuicunque ex illis dederis, ego munus habebo;\n Nomina trina fero, sic voluere Cures.\u2019\n\nHe finds three names for the deity, but two would have sufficed; the\nonly individual Semo known to us is Sancus himself. The Semones, so far\nas we can guess, were spirits of the \u2018pandaemonic\u2019 age, nameless like\nthe Lares with whom they are associated in the hymn of the Fratres\nArvales[549]; but one only, Semo Sancus, seems to have taken a name and\nsurvived into a later age, and this one was identified with Dius Fidius.\nAelius Stilo, the Varro of the seventh century A. U. C., seems to have\nstarted this identification[550]. Varro does not comment on it; but\nVerrius accepted it: he writes of an \u2018aedes Sancus, qui deus Dius Fidius\nvocatur\u2019[551]. The evidence of inscriptions is explicit for a later\nperiod; an altar, for example, found near the supposed site of his\ntemple on the Quirinal, bears the inscription \u2018Sanco Sancto Semon[i] deo\nfidio sacrum\u2019[552]. And there is nothing in the words Sancus and Fidius\nto forbid the identification, for both point to the same class of\nideas\u2014that of the bond which religious feeling places on men in their\nduties to, and contracts with, each other. They are in fact two\ndifferent names for the same religious conception. It is interesting to\nfind them both occurring in the great processional inscription of\nIguvium in Umbria: Fisus or Fisovius Sancius, who is there invoked next\nafter Jupiter, seems to unite the two deities in a single name[553].\nThis conjunction would seem to save us from the necessity of discussing\nthe question whether Sancus, as has often been insisted on by scholars\nboth ancient and modern[554], was really the Sabine form of Dius Fidius;\nfor if in Umbria the two are found together, as at Rome, there is no\nreason why the same should not have been the case throughout central\nItaly. The question would never have been asked had the fluid nature of\nthe earliest Italian deities and the adjectival character of their names\nbeen duly taken account of. We are all of us too apt to speak of this\nprimitive spirit-world in terms of a later polytheistic theology, and to\nsuppose that the doubling of a name implies some distinction of origin\nor race.\n\nDius Fidius, then, and Semo Sancus are both Latin names for the same\nreligious conception, the impersonality of which caused it to lose\nvitality as new and anthropomorphic ideas of the divine came into vogue\nat Rome. But there is at least some probability that it survived in a\nfashion under the name of an intruder, Hercules; and the connexion with\nHercules will show, what we might already have guessed, that the\nreligious conception we are speaking of was very near akin to that of\nJupiter himself.\n\nThere is clear evidence that the best Roman scholars identified not only\nDius Fidius with Semo Sancus, but both of these with Hercules. Varro, in\na passage already quoted, tells us that Stilo believed Dius Fidius to be\nthe Sabine Sancus and the Greek Hercules; Verrius Flaccus, if his\nexcerptors represent him rightly, in two separate glosses identified all\nthese three[555].\n\nAgain, the Roman oaths _me dius fidius_ and _me hercule_ are synonymous;\nthat the former was the older can hardly be doubted, and the latter must\nhave come into vogue when the Greek oath by Heracles became familiar.\nThus the origin of _me hercule_ must be found in a union of the\ncharacteristics of Hercules with those of the native Dius Fidius. It is\nworth noting that in pronouncing both these oaths it was the custom to\ngo out into the open air[556]. Here is a point at which both Hercules\nand Dius Fidius seem to come into line with Jupiter; for the most solemn\noath of all was _per Iovem_ (_lapidem_), also taken under the light of\nheaven[557], as was the case with the oath at the altar of \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f19\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\nin Greece[558]. Yet another point of conjunction is the _ara maxima_ at\nthe entrance to the Circus Maximus, which was also a place where oaths\nwere taken and treaties ratified[559]; this was the altar of Hercules\nVictor, to whom the tithes of spoil were offered; and this was also\nassociated with the legend of Hercules and Cacus. In the deity by whom\noaths were sworn, and in the deity of the tithes and the legend, it is\nnow acknowledged on all hands that we should recognize a great Power\nwhom we may call Dius Fidius, or Semo Sancus, or the Genius Iovius, or\neven Jupiter himself[560]. Tithes, oaths, and the myth of the struggle\nof light with darkness, cannot be associated with such a figure as the\nHercules who came to Italy from Greece; tithes are the due of some great\ngod, or lord of the land[561], oaths are taken in the presence of the\ngod of heaven, and the great nature myth only descends by degrees to\nattach itself to semi-human figures.\n\nWe are here indeed in the presence of very ancient Italian religious\nideas, which we can only very dimly apprehend, and for the explanation\nof which\u2014so far as explanation is possible\u2014there is not space in this\nwork. But before we leave Dius Fidius, I will briefly indicate the\nevidence on which we may rest our belief (1) that as Semo Sancus, he is\nconnected with Jupiter as the god of the heaven and thunder; and (2)\nthat as Hercules he is closely related to the same god as seen in a\ndifferent aspect.\n\n1. In the Iguvian inscription referred to above Sancius in one place\nappears in conjunction with Iovius[562]; and, as we have seen, it is\nalso found in the same ritual with Fisu or Fisovius. In this same\npassage of the inscription (which is a manual of ritual for the Fratres\nAttidii, an ancient religious brotherhood of Iguvium), the priest is\ndirected to have in his hand an _urfita_ (_orbita_), i. e. either disk\nor globe; and this _urfita_ has been compared[563], not without reason,\nwith the _orbes_ mentioned by Livy[564] as having been made of brass\nafter the capture of Privernum and placed in the temple of Semo Sancus.\nIf we may safely believe that such symbols occur chiefly in the worship\nof deities of sun and heaven, as seems probable, we have here some\nevidence, however imperfect, for the common origin of Sancus and\nJupiter.\n\nAgain, there was in Roman augural lore a bird called _sanqualis avis_,\nwhich can hardly be dissociated from the cult of Sancus; for there was\nalso an ancient city gate, the porta Sanqualis, near the sacellum Sancus\non the Quirinal[565]. Pliny\u2019s language about this bird shows that this\nbit of ancient lore was almost lost in his time; but at the same time he\nmakes it clear that it was believed to belong to the eagle family, which\nplayed such an important part in the science of augury. The only\nconcrete fact that seems to be told us about this bird is that in B.C.\n177 one struck with its beak a sacred stone at Crustumerium\u2014a stone, it\nwould seem, that had fallen from heaven, i. e. a thunder-stone or a\nmeteorite[566].\n\nBearing this in mind, we are not surprised to find further traces of a\nconnexion between Sancus and thunderbolts. There was at Rome a _decuria_\nof _sacerdotes bidentales_, in close association with the cult of\nSancus. Three votive altars are extant, dedicated to the god by this\n_decuria_[567]; two of them were found on the Quirinal, close to the\nsite of the sacellum Sancus. Now the meaning of the word _bidental_\nshows that the _decuria_ had as its duty the care of the sacred spots\nwhich had been struck by thunderbolts; such a spot, which was also\ncalled _puteal_ from its resemblance to a well fenced with a circular\nwall, bore the name _bidental_, presumably because two-year-old sheep\n(_bidentes_) were sacrificed there[568]. Consequently we again have\nSancus brought into connexion with the augural lore of lightning, which\nmade it a religious duty to bury the bolt, and fence off the spot from\nprofane intrusion. Yet another step forward in this dim light. A\n_bidental_ was one kind of _templum_, as we are expressly told[569]; and\nthe temple of Sancus itself seems to have had this peculiarity. Varro\nsays that its roof was _perforatum_, so that the sky might be seen\nthrough it[570]. In a fragment of augural lore, apparently genuine\nthough preserved by a writer of late date, the _caeli templum_ seems to\nhave been conceived as a dome, or a ball (_orbis_) cut in half, _with a\nhole in the top_[571]. We may allow that we are here getting out of our\ndepth; but the general result of what has been put forward is that\nSancus = Dius Fidius was originally a spirit or _numen_ of the heaven,\nand a wielder of the lightning, closely allied to the great Jupiter,\nwhose cult, combined with that of Hercules, had almost obliterated him\nin historical times.\n\nFinally, it would seem that those moral attributes of Jupiter which give\nhim a unique position in the Roman theology as the god of truth, order,\nand concord, belonged at one period also to Sancus as Dius Fidius; for\nin his temple was kept the most ancient treaty of which the Romans knew,\nthat said to have been made by Tarquinius Superbus with Gabii, which\nDionysius must himself have seen[572], and which he describes as\nconsisting of a wooden _clypeus_, bound with the hide of a sacrificed\nox, and bearing ancient letters. Here also was the reputed statue of\nGaia Caecilia or Tanaquil, the ideal Roman matron; of which it has been\nconjectured, rashly perhaps, but by an authority of weight, that it\nreally represented a humanized female form of Dius Fidius, standing to\nhim as the Junones of women stood to the Genii of men, or as Juno in the\nabstract to Genius in the abstract[573].\n\n2. The last sentence of the preceding paragraph may aptly bring us to\nour second point, viz. the relation to Jupiter of Dius Fidius as =\nHercules. Those who read the article \u2018Dius Fidius\u2019 in Roscher\u2019s\n_Lexicon_ will be struck by the fact that so cautious a writer as\nProfessor Wissowa should boldly identify this deity, at the very outset\nof his account, with the \u2018Genius Iovis\u2019; and this conjecture, which is\nnot his own, but rather that of the late Professor Reifferscheid of\nBreslau[574], calls for a word of explanation.\n\nMore than thirty years ago Reifferscheid published a paper in which he\ncompared certain points in the cults of Juno and Hercules, of which we\nhave a meagre knowledge from Roman literature, with some works of art of\nEtruscan or ancient Italian origin (i. e. not Greek), and found that\nthey seemed to throw new and unexpected light on each other.\n\nThe Roman women, we are told[575], did not swear by Hercules, but by\n\u2018their Juno\u2019; the men swore by Hercules, Dius Fidius, or by their\nGenius[576]. Women were excluded from the cult of Hercules at the ara\nmaxima[577]; men were excluded, not indeed from the cult of Juno, but\n(as Reifferscheid puts it) \u2018from that of Bona Dea, who was not far\nremoved from Juno[578].\u2019 At the birth of a child, a couch (_lectus_) was\nspread in the _atrium_ for Juno, a _mensa_ for Hercules[579]. The\nbride\u2019s girdle (_cingulum_) seems to have given rise to a cult-title of\nJuno, viz. Cinxia, while the knot in it which was loosed by the\nbridegroom at the _lectus genialis_ was called the _nodus\nherculaneus_[580].\n\nNow Reifferscheid believed that he found the same conjunction of Juno\nand Hercules in several works of art, which may be supposed to be\nreflections from the same set of ideas which produced the usages just\nindicated. In the most important of these there is indeed no doubt about\nit; this is a mirror of Etruscan workmanship[581], in which three\nfigures are marked with the Latin names IOVEI (Jupiter), IUNO and\nHERCELE. Jupiter sits on an altar in the middle, and with his right hand\nis touching Juno, who has her left hand on his shoulder; Hercules stands\nwith his club, apparently expectant, on the left. From certain\nindications in the mirror (for which I must refer the reader to the\nillustration on p. 2259 of Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_) Reifferscheid concluded\nthat Jupiter was here giving Juno in marriage to Hercules; and, in spite\nof some criticism, this interpretation has been generally accepted[582].\nIn other works of art he found the same conjunction, though no names\nmark the figures; in these Hercules and Juno, if such they be, appear to\nbe contending for the mastery, rather than uniting peacefully in\nwedlock[583]. This conjunction, or opposition, of Juno and Hercules, is\nthus explained by Reifferscheid. The name Juno represents the female\nprinciple in human nature[584]; the \u2018genius\u2019 of a woman was called by\nthis name, and the cult of Juno as a developed goddess shows many\nfeatures that bear out the proposition[585]. If these facts be so, then\nthe inference to be drawn from the conjunction or opposition of Juno and\nHercules is that the name Hercules indicates the _male_ principle in\nhuman nature. But the male principle is also expressed in the word\nGenius, as we see e. g. in the term _lectus genialis_; Hercules\ntherefore and Genius mean the same thing\u2014the former name having\nencroached upon the domain of the latter, as a Latinized form of\nHeracles, of all Greek heroes or divinities the most _virile_. And if\nHercules, Semo Sancus and Dius Fidius are all different names for the\nsame idea, then the word Genius may be taken as equivalent to the two\nlast of these as well as to Hercules[586].\n\nBut why does Reifferscheid go on to tell us that this Genius, i. e.\nHercules = Sancus = Dius Fidius, is the _Genius Iovis_? How does he\nconnect this many-titled conception with the great father of the sky? As\na matter of fact, he has but slender evidence for this; he relies on the\nmirror in which he found Jupiter giving Juno to Hercules, and on the\nconjecture that the Greek Hercules, the son of Zeus, would easily come\nto occupy in Italy the position of Genius, if the latter were, in an\nabstract form and apart from individual human life, regarded as the\nGenius of Jupiter[587]. And in this he is followed by Wissowa and other\nwriters in Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_.\n\nIt would perhaps have been wiser not to go so far as this. He has\nalready carried us back to a world of ideas older than these varying\nnames which so often bewilder us in the Roman worship\u2014to a world of\nspirits, Semones, Lares, Cerri, ghosts of deceased ancestors, vegetation\ndemons, and men\u2019s \u2018other souls.\u2019 When he talks of a _Genius Iovis_[588],\nhe is surely using the language of later polytheism to express an idea\nwhich belonged, not to a polytheistic age, but to that older world of\nreligious thought. He is doing, in fact, the very thing which the Romans\nthemselves were doing all through the period of the Republic\u2014the one\nthing which above all others has made the study of their religious ideas\nsuch a treacherous quagmire for the modern student.\n\n\n VI ID. IUN. (JUNE 8). N.\n\n\nMENTI IN CAPITOLIO. (VEN. MAFF. VI MINORES.)\n\n\nThe temple of Mens was vowed by T. Otacilius (praetor) in 217 B.C.,\nafter the battle of Trasimenus \u2018propter neglegentiam caerimoniarum\nauspiciorumque[589],\u2019 and dedicated in 215 B.C., by the same man as\n_duumvir aedibus dedicandis_[590]. The vow was the result of an\ninspection of the Sibylline books, from which we might infer that the\ngoddess was a stranger[591]. If so, who was she, and whence? Reasoning\nfrom the fact that in the same year, in the same place, and by the same\nman, a temple was dedicated to Venus Erycina[592], Preller guessed that\nthis Mens was not a mere abstraction, but another form of the same\nVenus; for a Venus Mimnermia or Meminia is mentioned by Servius[593],\n\u2018quod meminerit omnium.\u2019\n\nHowever this may be, the foundation of a cult of Mens at so critical a\nmoment of their fortunes is very characteristic of the Roman spirit of\nthat age; it was an appeal to \u2018something not themselves which made for\nrighteousness\u2019 to help them to remember their caerimoniae, and not to\nneglect their auspicia. It is remarkable that this temple of Mens was\nrestored by M. Aemilius Scaurus probably amid the disasters of the\nCimbrian war a century later[594].\n\n\n VII ID. IUN. (JUNE 7). N.\n\n\nVESTA APERIT. (PHILOC.)\n\n\n V ID. IUN. (JUNE 9). N.\n\n\nVESTALIA. (TUSC. VEN. MAFF.)\n\n\n XVII KAL. QUINCT. (JUNE 15). N.\n\n\nVESTA CLUDITUR. (PHILOC.)\n\n\n XVII KAL. QUINCT. (JUNE 15). Q. ST. D. F.\n\n\nIt would seem from these notes in the calendars, and from passages in\nOvid and Festus[595], that both before and after the day of the true\nVestalia there were days set apart for the cult of the goddess, which\nwere _nefasti_ and also _religiosi_[596]. Ovid\u2019s lines are worth\nquoting; he consults the Flaminica Dialis[597] about the marriage of his\ndaughter:\n\n Tum mihi post sacras monstratur Iunius idus\n Utilis et nuptis, utilis esse viris,\n Primaque pars huius thalamis aliena reperta est,\n Nam mihi sic coniunx sancta Dialis ait;\n \u2018Donec ab Iliaca placidus purgamina Vesta\n Detulerit flavis in mare Thybris aquis,\n Non mihi detonsos crines depectere buxo,\n Non ungues ferro subsecuisse licet,\n Non tetigisse virum, quamvis Iovis ille sacerdos,\n Quamvis perpetua sit mihi lege datus.\n Tu quoque ne propera. Melius tua filia nubet\n Ignea cum pura Vesta nitebit humo.\u2019\n\nWhat is the meaning of this singular aspect of the Vesta-cult? Why\nshould these days be so ill-omened or so sacred that during them\nmarriages might not be celebrated, and the priestess of Jupiter might\nnot hold any intercourse with her husband, cut her hair, or pare her\nnails? And what is the explanation of the annotation Q[uando] St[ercus]\nD[elatum] F[as][598], which on the 15th indicated the breaking of the\nspell, and a return to ordinary ways of life? Before attempting to\nanswer these questions, it will be as well to say a few words about the\nnature and probable origin of the worship of Vesta. Owing to the\nremarkable vitality and purity of this cult throughout the whole of\nRoman history, we do not meet here with those baffling obscurities which\nso often beset us in dealing with deities that had lost all life and\nshape when Roman scholars began to investigate them. And yet we know\nthat we are here in the presence of rites and ideas of immemorial\nantiquity.\n\nIn an article of great interest in the _Journal of Philology_ for\n1885[599], Mr. J. G. Frazer first placed the origin of the cult in a\nclear light for English scholars. By comparing it with similar practices\nof existing peoples still in a primitive condition of life, he made\napparent the real germ of the institution of the Vestal Virgins. Helbig,\nin his _Italiker in der Poebene_[600], had already recognized that germ\nin _the necessity of keeping one fire always alight in each settlement_,\nso that its members could at any time supply themselves with the flame,\nthen so hard to procure at a moment\u2019s notice; and Mr. Frazer had only to\ngo one step further, and show that the task of keeping this fire alight\nwas that of the daughters of the chief. This step he was able to take,\nsupported by evidence from Damaraland in South Africa, where the\npriestess of the perpetual fire is the chief\u2019s daughter; quoting also\nthe following example from Calabria in Southern Italy: \u2018At the present\nday the fire in a Calabrian peasant\u2019s house is never (except after a\ndeath) allowed to die quite out, even in the heat of summer; it is a bad\nomen if it should chance to be extinguished, and the girls of the house,\nwhose special care it is to keep at least a single brand burning on the\nhearth, are sadly dismayed at such a mishap.\u2019 The evidence of the Roman\n_ius sacrum_ quite confirms this modern evidence; the Vestals were under\nthe patria potestas of the pontifex maximus, who represented in\nrepublican times the legal powers of the Rex, and from this fact we may\nsafely argue that they had once been the daughters of the primitive\nchief. The _flamines_ too, or _kindlers_, as being under the potestas of\nthe pontifex, may be taken as representing the sons of the primitive\nhousehold[601]. But from various reasons[602] the duties of the\n_flamines_ became obsolete or obscure; while those of the Vestals\nremained to give us an almost perfect picture of life in the household\nof the oldest Latins.\n\nFrom the first, no doubt, the tending of the fire was in some sense a\nreligious service, and the flame a sacred flame[603]. There must have\nbeen many stages of growth from this beginning to the fully developed\nVesta of the Republic and Empire; yet we can see that the lines of\ndevelopment were singularly simple and consistent. The sacred fire for\nexample was maintained in the aedes Vestae, adjoining the king\u2019s\nhouse[604] (_regia_); and the penus Vestae, which must originally have\ncontained the stores on which the family depended for their sustenance,\nwas always believed to preserve the most sacred and valuable objects\npossessed by the State[605].\n\nWe return to the Vestalia, of which the ritual was as follows. On June\n7, the penus Vestae, which was shut all the rest of the year, and to\nwhich no man but the pontifex maximus had at any time right of entry,\nwas thrown open to all matrons. During the seven following days they\ncrowded to it barefoot[606]. Ovid relates his own experience[607]:\n\n Forte revertebar festis Vestalibus illa\n Qua nova Romano nunc via iuncta foro est.\n Huc pede matronam vidi descendere nudo:\n Obstipui tacitus sustinuique gradum.\n\nThe object of this was perhaps to pray for a blessing on the household.\nOn plain and old-fashioned ware offerings of food were carried into the\ntemple: the Vestals themselves offered the sacred cakes made of the\nfirst ears of corn plucked, as we saw, in the early days of May[608];\nbakers and millers kept holiday, all mills were garlanded, and donkeys\ndecorated with wreaths and cakes[609].\n\n Ecce coronatis panis dependet asellis\n Et velant scabras florida serta molas.\n\nOn June 15 the temple (aedes, not templum) was swept and the refuse\ntaken away and either thrown into the Tiber or deposited in some\nparticular spot[610]. Then the _dies nefasti_ came to an end; and the\n15th itself became _fastus_ as soon as the last act of cleansing had\nbeen duly performed: \u2018Quando stercus delatum fas.\u2019\n\nIn this account of the ritual of these days, two features claim special\nattention: (1) the duties of the Vestals in connexion with the provision\nof food; (2) the fact that the days were _religiosi_, as is illustrated\nby the prohibition of marriage and the mourning of the Flaminica Dialis.\nThat these two features were in some way connected seems proved by the\ncessation of the mourning when the penus Vestae was once more closed.\n\n1. It needs but little investigation to discover that, though the germ\nof the cult was doubtless the perpetual fire in the king\u2019s house, the\ncult itself was by no means confined to attendance on the fire; and this\nwas so probably from the very first. The king\u2019s daughters fetched the\nwater from the spring, both for sacred and domestic purposes; and this\nduty was kept up throughout Roman history, for water was never \u2018laid on\u2019\nto the house of the Vestals, but carried from a sacred fountain[611].\nThey also crushed the corn with pestle and mortar, and prepared the\ncakes for the use of the family\u2014duties which survived in all their\npristine simplicity in the preparation of the _mola salsa_ in the early\ndays of May[612]; and they swept the house, as the Vestals afterwards\ncontinued to cleanse the penus Vestae, on June 15. The penus, or\nstore-closet of the house, was under their charge; on the state of its\ncontents the family depended for its comfort and prosperity, and from\nthe very outset it must have had a kind of sacred character[613]. The\nclose connexion of Vesta and her ministrants with the simple materials\nand processes of the house and the farm is thus quite plain; and we may\ntrace it in every rite in which they took any part. The Fordicidia and\nthe Parilia in April were directly concerned with the flocks and herds\nof the community; in May the festival of the Bona Dea and the mysterious\nceremony of the Argei point to the season of peril during the ripening\nof the crops. After the Vestalia the Vestals were present at the\nConsualia and the festival of Ops Consiva in August, which, as we shall\nsee, were probably harvest festivals; and on the Ides of October the\nblood of the \u2018October horse\u2019 was deposited in their care for use at the\nFordicidia as a charm for fertility. So constant is the connexion of\nVesta with the fruits of the earth, that it is not surprising that some\nRoman scholars[614] should have considered her an earth goddess;\nespecially as, in a volcanic region, the proper home of fire would be\nthought to be beneath the earth. But such explanations, and also the\nviews of modern scholars who have sought to find in Vesta a deity of\nabstract ideas, such as \u2018the nourishing element in the fire\u2019[615], are\nreally superfluous. The associations which grew up around the sacred\nhearth-fire can all be traced to the original germ, if it be borne in\nmind that the fire, the provision-store, and the protecting deities of\nthat store, were all placed together in the centre of the house, and\nthat all domestic operations, sacrificial or culinary, took place at or\nby means of, the necessary fire. \u2018What is home but another word for\ncooking?\u2019 Nor must we forget that the living fire was for primitive man\na mysterious thing, and invested from the first with divine\nattributes[616].\n\n2. The fact that from the 5th to the 15th the days were not only\n_nefasti_ but also _religiosi_ is not easy to explain. It is true that\nin two other months, February and April, we find a parallel series of\n_dies nefasti_ in the first half of the month; in February it extended\nfrom the Kalends to the Lupercalia (15th), and in April from the Nones\nto the Vinalia (23rd)[617]. But these days in February and April were\n_nefasti_ in the ordinary sense of the word, i. e. the cessation of\njudicial business, and we are not told of them that they were also\n_religiosi_, or that the Flaminica Dialis lay during them under any\nspecial restrictions, as in the days we are speaking of. On the other\nhand, we find to our surprise that the other days on which this\npriestess was forbidden to comb hair or cut nails were not even\n_nefasti_ in the ordinary sense, viz. those of the \u2018moving\u2019 of the\n_ancilia_ and of the ceremony of the Argei[618]: so that we are baffled\nat every point in looking for a solution to the calendar.\n\nBut there is one fact that is quite clear, namely, that the _tempus\nnefastum_ was in some way or other the result of the purification of the\naedes Vestae, since it ceased at the moment the last act of cleansing\nwas completed. Now it does seem to be the case that among some peoples\nliving by agriculture but as yet comparatively uncivilized, special\nimportance is attached to the days immediately before harvest and the\ngathering of the first-fruits\u2014at which time there is a general cleaning\nout of house, barns, and all receptacles and utensils, and following\nupon this a period of rejoicing. Mr. Frazer, in his _Golden Bough_ has\ncollected some examples of this practice, though he has not brought them\ntogether under one head or given them a single explanation. The most\nstriking, and at the same time the best attested, example is as\nfollows[619]:\n\n\u2018Among the Creek Indians of North America, the _busk_, or festival of\nfirstfruits, was the chief ceremony of the year. It was held in July or\nAugust, when the corn was ripe, and marked the end of the old year and\nthe beginning of the new one. Before it took place none of the Indians\nwould eat or even handle any of the new harvest.... Before celebrating\nthe Busk, the people provided themselves with new clothes and new\nhousehold utensils and furniture; they collected their old clothes and\nrubbish, together with all the remaining grain and other old provisions,\ncast them together in one common heap and consumed them with fire. As a\npreparation for the ceremony all the fires in the village were\nextinguished, and the ashes swept clean away. In particular the hearth\nor altar of the temple was dug up, and the ashes carried out....\nMeanwhile the women at home were cleaning out their houses, renewing the\nold hearths, and scouring all the cooking vessels that they might be\nready to receive the new fire and the new fruits. The public or sacred\nsquare was carefully swept of even the smallest crumbs of previous\nfeasts, for fear of polluting the first-fruit offerings. Also every\nvessel that had contained any food during the expiring year was removed\nfrom the temple before sunset.\u2019 A general fast followed, we are told;\n\u2018and when the sun was declining from the meridian, all the people were\ncommanded by the voice of a crier to stay within doors, to do no bad\nact, and to be sure to extinguish and throw away every spark of the old\nfire. Universal silence now reigned. Then the high priest made the new\nfire by the friction of two pieces of wood, and placed it on the altar\nunder the green arbour. This new fire was believed to atone for all past\ncrimes except murder. Then a basket of new fruits was brought; the high\npriest took out a little of each sort of fruit, rubbed it with bear\u2019s\noil, and offered it together with some flesh to the bountiful spirit of\nfire as a first-fruit offering and an annual oblation for sin....\nFinally the chief priest made a speech, exhorting the people to observe\ntheir old rites and customs, announcing that the new divine fire had\npurged away the sins of the past year, and earnestly warning the women\nthat if any of them had not extinguished the old fire, or had contracted\nany impurity, they must forthwith depart lest the divine fire should\nspoil both them and the people.\u2019\n\nThe four chief points in this very interesting account are, (1) the\nextremely solemn and critical character of the whole ceremonial, as\nindicated in the general fast; (2) the idea of the necessity of\npurification preparatory to the reception of first-fruits, a\npurification which seems to extend to human beings as well as to houses,\nreceptacles, and utensils; (3) the renewal of the sacred fire, which was\ncoincident with the beginning of a new year; (4) the solemn reception of\nthe first-fruits. Comparing these with Roman usage, we notice that the\nfirst two are fully represented at the Vestalia, the one by the\nreligious character of the days, and the mourning of the Flaminica\nDialis, the other by the cleansing of the penus Vestae, and the careful\nremoval of all its refuse. The third is represented, not at the\nVestalia, but at the beginning of the year on March 1, when the sacred\nfire was renewed, as we saw, in the primitive fashion by the friction of\ntwo pieces of wood, and the temple of Vesta was adorned with fresh\nlaurels, as was the case also with the altar in the American example\njust quoted. The fourth point is represented neither in March nor June,\nbut rather by the plucking of the first ears of corn by the Vestals\nbefore the Ides of May, from which they made the sacred salt-cakes of\nsacrifice.\n\nNow we need not go the length of assuming that the Roman ceremonies of\nMarch, May and June were three parts of one and the same rite which in\ncourse of time had been separated and attached to different periods of\nthe year; though this indeed may not be wholly impossible. But we may at\nleast profitably notice that all the four striking features of the\nIndian ceremony are found in the cult of Vesta, and descended no doubt\nto the later Romans from an age in which both the crops, the fire and\nthe store-houses were regarded as having much the same sacred character\nas they had for the Creek Indians.\n\nTo me indeed it had seemed probable, even before the publication of Mr.\nFrazer\u2019s _Golden Bough_, that the cleansing of the penus Vestae was\nnothing but a survival of a general purification of store-houses, barns,\nutensils, and probably of all the apparatus of farming, including\nperhaps human beings, before the completion of the harvest which was now\nclose at hand. The date of the Vestalia is indeed too early to let us\nsuppose it to have been a real harvest festival, nor had it any of the\njoyous character found in such rites; and, as we shall see, the true\nharvest festivals are to be found in the month of August. The corn\nharvest in middle Italy took place in the latter half of June and in\nJuly[620]; and, as is everywhere still the practice, the festivals\nproper did not occur until the whole work of harvesting was done. But at\nthe time of the Vestalia the crops were certainly ripening; in May we\nhave already had the plucking of the first ears by the Vestals, and the\n_lustratio segetum_ which has been described under the head of\nAmbarvalia on May 28.\n\nI must leave to anthropologists the further investigation of the ideas\nunderlying the ritual we have been examining; it is something to have\nbeen able to co-ordinate it with rites which are so well attested as\nthose of the Creek Indians, and which admit without difficulty of a\nreasonable interpretation[621].\n\n\n III ID. IUN. (JUNE 11). N.\n\n\nMAT[RALIA]. (TUSC. VEN. MAFF.)\nMATR[I] MATUT[AE]. (VEN.)\nMATRALIA. (PHILOC.)\n\n\nThe temple of which this day was apparently the _dies natalis_ dated\nfrom the Veientine War, 396 B.C., and was the result of a vow made by L.\nFurius Camillus[622]. An earlier temple was attributed to Servius\nTullius; but it is extremely improbable that anything more than a\n_sacellum_ or altar existed at such an early date[623]. The cult of\nMater Matuta was widely extended in Italy, and clearly of genuine and\nancient Italian origin; she can be separated with certainty from the\nGreek goddess Leucothea with whom Ovid mixes her up, and from whom she\nderived a connexion with harbours which did not originally belong to\nher[624]. The evidence for the wide spread of her cult consists of (1)\ntwo extremely old inscriptions from Pisaurum in Umbria, of which Mommsen\nobserves, \u2018lingua meram vetustatem spirat\u2019[625]; (2) certain\ninscriptions and passages of Livy which prove that her worship existed\namong the Volsci, in Campania, and at Praeneste[626]. At Satricum she\nwas apparently the chief deity of the place and probably also at Pyrgi,\nthe port of Caere in Etruria[627]. The cult seems to have had some\nmarked peculiarities, of which one or two fragments have come down to\nus. Only the wife of a first marriage could deck the image of the\ngoddess[628]; no female slaves were allowed in the temple except one,\nwho was also driven out of it with a box on the ear, apparently as a\nyearly recurring memorial of the rule[629]; the sacred cakes offered\nwere cooked in old-fashioned earthenware[630]; and, lastly, the women\nare said to have prayed to this goddess for their nephews and nieces in\nthe first place, and for their own children only in the second[631]. All\nthat can be deduced from these fragments is that the Mater Matuta was an\nancient deity of matrons, and perhaps of the same type as other deities\nof women such as Carmenta, Fortuna, and Bona Dea[632]. The best modern\nauthorities explain her as a goddess of the dawn\u2019s light and of\nchild-birth, and see a parallel in Juno Lucina[633]; and Mommsen has\npointed out that the dawn was thought to be the lucky time for birth,\nand that the Roman names Lucius and Manius have their origin in this\nbelief[634]. Lucretius shows us that in his day Mater Matuta was\ncertainly associated with the dawn[635]:\n\n roseam Matuta per oras\n Aetheris auroram differt et lumina pandit.\n\nWe should, however, be glad to be more certain that Matuta was\noriginally a substantive meaning dawn or morning. Verrius Flaccus[636]\nseems to have believed that the words _mane_, _maturus_, _matuta_,\n_manes_, and _m\u0101nus_, all had the meaning of \u2018good\u2019 contained in them;\nso that Mater Matuta might after all be only another form of the Bona\nDea, who is also specially a woman\u2019s deity. But this cult was not\npreserved, like that of Vesta, by being taken up into the essential life\nof the State, and we are no longer able to discern its meaning with any\napproach to certainty.\n\nIt is noticeable that this day was, according to Ovid[637], the\ndedication of a temple of Fortuna, also _in foro boario_: but no\nimmediate connexion can be discovered between this deity and Mater\nMatuta. This temple was remarkable as containing a wooden statue, veiled\nin drapery, which was popularly believed to represent Servius\nTullius[638], of whose connexion with Fortuna we shall have more to say\nfurther on. No one, however, really knew what the statue was; Varro and\nPliny[639] write of one of Fortuna herself which was heavily draped, and\nmay have been the one in this temple. Pliny says that the statue of\nFortuna was covered with the _togae praetextae_ of Servius Tullius,\nwhich lasted intact down to the death of Seianus; and it is singular\nthat Seianus himself is said to have possessed a statue of Fortuna which\ndated from the time of Servius[640], and which turned its face away from\nhim just before his fall. Seianus was of Etruscan descent, we may\nremember; Servius Tullius, or Mastarna, was certainly Etruscan; and\namong Etruscan deities we find certain shrouded gods[641]. These facts\nseem to suggest that the statue (or statues, if we cannot refer all the\npassages above quoted to one statue) came from Etruria, and was on that\naccount a mystery both to the learned and the ignorant at Rome. To us it\nmust also remain unexplained[642].\n\n\n ID. IUN. (JUNE 13). NP.\n\n\nFERIAE IOVI. (VEN.)\n\nIOVI. (TUSC.)\n\n\nTo these notes in the calendars we may add a few lines from Ovid:\n\n Idibus Invicto sunt data templa Iovi.\n Et iam Quinquatrus iubeor narrare minores:\n Nunc ades o coeptis, flava Minerva, meis.\n Cur vagus incedit tota tibicen in urbe?\n Quid sibi personae, quid stola longa volunt?\n\nAll Ides, as we have seen, were sacred to Jupiter; they are so noted in\nthe surviving calendars in May, June, August, September, October and\nNovember, and were probably originally so noted in all the months[643].\nOn this day the _collegium_ or guild of the tibicines feasted in the\ntemple of Jupiter Capitolinus[644]. The temple referred to by Ovid of\nJupiter Invictus as having been dedicated on this day may possibly have\nbeen one of two mentioned by Livy as dedicated on the Capitol in B.C.\n192[645]; but the coincidence of a dedication-day with the Ides may\nperhaps suggest a higher antiquity[646].\n\nFor the right meaning and derivation of the word Quinquatrus the reader\nis referred to what has been already said under March 19. June 13 was\nusually called Quinquatrus minusculae, not because it was really\nQuinquatrus (i. e. five days after the Ides), but because through the\nfeast of the tibicines it was associated with their patron Minerva[647],\nin whose temple on the Aventine they met, apparently before they set out\non the revelling procession to which Ovid refers[648]. Varro makes this\nclear when he writes \u2018Quinquatrus minusculae dictae Iuniae Idus _ab\nsimilitudine_ maiorum\u2019[649], i. e. it was not really Quinquatrus, but\nwas popularly so called because the other festival of Minerva and her\nfollowers bore that name. Verrius Flaccus was equally explicit on the\npoint: \u2018Minusculae Quinquatrus appellantur quod is dies festus est\ntibicinum, qui colunt Minervam cuius deae proprie festus dies est\nQuinquatrus mense Martio\u2019[650].\n\nThe revelry of the tibicines, during which they wore the masks and long\nrobes mentioned by Ovid, was explained by a story which the poet goes on\nto tell, and which is told also by Livy and by Plutarch with some\nvariations[651]; how they fled to Tibur in anger at being deprived by\nAppius Claudius the censor of their feast in the Capitol: how they were\nbadly missed at Rome, tricked and made drunk by a freedman at Tibur, and\nsent home unconscious on a big waggon. The story is genuinely Roman in\nits rudeness and in the rough humour which Ovid fully appreciates; the\nfavourite feature of a secession is seen in it, and also the peaceful\nsettlement of difficulties by compromise and contract. I see no reason\nwhy it should not be the echo of an actual event, though in detail it is\nobviously intended to explain the masks and the long robes. These are to\nbe seen represented on a coin of the gens Plautia[652], to which the\nfierce censor\u2019s milder colleague belonged, who negotiated the return of\nthe truants. Plutarch calls the \u2018stolae longae\u2019 women\u2019s clothes; but it\nis more natural to suppose that they were simply the dress of Etruscan\npipe-players of the olden time[653].\n\nThe story well shows the universal use of the _tibia_ in all sacred\nrites; the tibicines were indispensable, and had to be got back from\nTibur by fair means or foul. As Ovid says:\n\n Cantabat fanis, cantabat tibia ludis,\n Cantabat maestis tibia funeribus.\n\nThe instrument was probably indigenous in Italy, and the only indigenous\none of which we know. \u2018The word _tibia_,\u2019 says Professor\nNettleship[654], \u2018is purely Italian, and has, so far as I can find, no\nparallel in the cognate languages.\u2019 M\u00fcller, in his work on the\nEtruscans, does indeed assume that the Roman tibicines were of Etruscan\norigin, which would leave the Romans without any musical instrument of\ntheir own. The probability may rather be that it was the general\ninstrument of old Italy, specially cultivated by the one Italian race\nendowed with anything like an artistic temperament.\n\n\n XII KAL. IUN. (JUNE 20). C.\n\n\nSUMMAN[O] AD CIRC[UM] MAXIM[UM]. (VEN. ESQ. AMIT.)\n\n\nTo this note may be added that of Ovid[655]:\n\n Reddita, quisquis is est, Summano templa feruntur,\n Tum cum Romanis, Pyrrhe, timendus eras.\n\nThe date of the foundation of the temple of Summanus was probably\nbetween 278 and 275 B.C.[656]; the foundation was the result of the\ndestruction by lightning, no doubt at night, of a figure of Jupiter on\nthe Capitol[657]. Who was this Summanus? Ovid\u2019s language, _quisquis is\nest_, shows that even in his time this god, like Semo Sancus, Soranus,\nand others, had been fairly shouldered out of the course by more\nimportant or pushing deities. In the fourth century A.D. S.\nAugustine[658], well read in the works of Varro and the Roman\nantiquarians, could write as follows: \u2018Sicut enim apud ipsos legitur,\nRomani veteres nescio quem Summanum, cui nocturna fulmina tribuebant,\ncoluerunt magis quam Iovem\u2014sed postquam Iovi templum insigne ac sublime\nconstructum est, propter aedis dignitatem sic ad eum multitudo\nconfluxit, ut vix inveniatur, qui Summani nomen, quod audire iam non\npotest, se saltem legisse meminerit.\u2019 In spite of the decay and\ndisappearance of this god we may believe that the Christian Father has\npreserved the correct tradition as to his nature when he tells us that\nhe was the wielder of the lightning _of the night_, or in other words a\nnocturnal Jupiter. We do in fact find a much earlier statement to the\nsame effect traceable to Verrius Flaccus[659]. Varro also mentions him\nand classes him with Veiovis, and with the Sabine deities whom he\nbelieved to have been brought to Rome by Tatius[660]. There is, however,\nno need to suppose with Varro that he was Sabine, or with M\u00fcller that he\nwas Etruscan[661]; the name is Latin and probably = Submanus, i. e. the\ngod who sends the lightning before the dawn.\n\nIt is interesting to find the wheel symbol here again, as is noticed by\nGaidoz in his _Studies of Gallic Mythology_[662]. We can hardly doubt\nthat the Summanalia which Festus explains as \u2018liba farinacea in modum\nrotae ficta[663]\u2018, were cakes offered or eaten on this day: it is hard\nto see what other connexion they could have had. Mr. Arthur Evans has\nsome interesting remarks[664] on what seem to be moulds for making\nreligious cakes of this kind, found at Tarentum; they are decorated, not\nonly with the wheel or cross, but with many curious symbols. \u2018It is\ncharacteristic,\u2019 he writes, \u2018in a whole class of religious cakes that\nthey are impressed with a wheel or cross, and in other cases divided\ninto segments as if to facilitate distribution. This symbolical division\nseems to connect itself _with the worship of the ancestral fire_ rather\nthan with any solar cult. In a modified form they are still familiar to\nus as \u201chot-cross buns.\u201d\u2019 Summanus, however, does not seem to have had\nanything to do with the ancestral fire.\n\n\n VIII KAL. QUINCT. (JUNE 24). C.\n\n\nFORTI FORTUNAE TRANS TIBER[IM] AD MILLIAR[IUM] PRIM[UM] ET SEXT[UM].\n(AMIT.)\n\nFORTIS FORTUNAE. (VEN. PHILOC.)\n\nSACRUM FORTIS FORTUNAE. (RUST.)\n\n\nOvid writes of this day as follows[665]:\n\n Ite, deam laeti Fortem celebrate, Quirites!\n In Tiberis ripa munera regis habet.\n Pars pede, pars etiam celeri decurrite cymba,\n Nec pudeat potos inde redire domum.\n Ferte coronatae iuvenum convivia lintres:\n Multaque per medias vina bibantur aquas.\n Plebs colit hanc, quia, qui posuit, de plebe fuisse\n Fertur, et ex humili sceptra tulisse loco.\n Convenit et servis; serva quia Tullius ortus\n Constituit dubiae templa propinqua deae.\n\nH. Peter, in his additional notes to Ovid\u2019s _Fasti_[666], has one so\nlucid on the subject of the temples of Fors Fortuna mentioned in this\npassage that I cannot do better than reproduce it. \u2018We find three\ntemples of the goddess mentioned, all of which lay on the further side\nof the Tiber. The first was that of Servius Tullius mentioned by Varro\nin the following passage[667]: \u201cDies Fortis Fortunae appellatus ab\nServio Tullio rege, quod is fanum Fortis Fortunae secundum Tiberim extra\nurbem Romam dedicavit Iunio mense.\u201d The second is one stated by\nLivy[668] to have been built by the consul Spurius Carvilius in 460 B.C.\nnear the temple of Servius. The third is mentioned by Tacitus[669] as\nhaving been dedicated at the end of the year 17 A.D. by Tiberius, also\non the further side of the Tiber in the gardens of Caesar. Of these\nthree temples the third does not concern us in dealing with Ovid\u2019s\nlines, because it was completed and dedicated long after the composition\nof the sixth book of the _Fasti_, perhaps at a time when Ovid was\nalready dead; we have to do only with the first two. Now we find in the\n_Fasti_ of Amiternum[670] the following note on the 24th of June: \u201cForti\nFortunae trans Tiberim ad milliarium primum et sextum\u201d; and this taken\ntogether with Ovid suggests that either besides the temple of Carvilius\nthere were two temples of Fors Fortuna attributed to Servius, or (and\nthis appears to me more probable) the temple of Carvilius itself was\ntaken for a foundation of Servius as it had the same dedication-day and\nwas in the same locality. In this way the difficulties may be solved.\u2019 I\nam disposed to accept the second suggestion of Peter\u2019s; for, as Mommsen\nhas remarked[671], it is quite according to Roman usage that Carvilius\nshould have placed his temple close to a much more ancient _fanum_ of\nthe same deity; i. e. the principle of the locality of cults often held\ngood through many centuries.\n\nMany cults of Fortuna were referred to Servius Tullius, but especially\nthis one, because, as Ovid says, it was particularly a festival of the\nplebs of which he was the traditional hero; and also because it was open\nto slaves, a fact which was naturally connected with the supposed\nservile birth of this king. The jollity and perhaps looseness of the\noccasion seemed to indicate a connexion between the lower stratum of\npopulation and the worship of Fortuna: \u2018On foot and in boats,\u2019 says\nOvid, \u2018the people enjoyed themselves even to the extent of getting\ndrunk.\u2019 We are reminded in fact of the plebeian license of the festival\nof Anna Perenna in March[672]. It is perhaps worth noting that on June\n18 the calendar of Philocalus has the note _Annae Sacrum_, which\nunluckily finds no corroboration from any other source. Whether it was\nan early popular cult, whether it was connected in any way with that of\nFors Fortuna, and whether both or either of them had any immediate\nrelation to the summer solstice, are questions admitting apparently of\nno solution.\n\nIt has rarely happened that any Roman cult has been discussed at length\nin the English language, especially by scholars of unquestionable\nlearning and resource. But on the subject of Fortuna, and Fors Fortuna,\nan interesting paper appeared some years ago by Prof. Max M\u00fcller in his\nvolume entitled _Biographies of Words_[673], which I have been at great\npains to weigh carefully. The skill and lucidity with which the\nProfessor\u2019s arguments are, as usual, presented, make this an unusually\npleasant task.\n\nHe starts, we must note, with a method which in dealing with Italian\ndeities has been justly and emphatically condemned[674]; he begins with\nan etymology in order to discover the nature of the deity, and goes on\nto support this by selecting a few features from the various forms of\nthe cult. This method will not of course be dangerous, if the etymology\nbe absolutely certain; and absolute certainty, so far as our present\nknowledge reaches, is indeed what the Professor claims for his. Though\nwe may doubt whether the science of Comparative Philology is as yet old\nand sure enough to justify us in violating a useful principle in order\nto pay our first attentions to its results, we may waive this scruple\nfor the present and take the etymology in this case at the outset.\n\nThe Professor alludes to the well-known and universally accepted\nderivation of Fors and Fortuna from _ferre_, but rejects it: \u2018I appeal\nto those who have studied the biographies of similar Latin words,\nwhether they do not feel some misgiving about so vague and abstract a\ngoddess as \u201cDea quae fert,\u201d the goddess who brings.\u2019 But feeling the\ndifficulty that Fortuna may not indeed have been originally a deity at\nall, but an abstract noun which became a deity, like Fides, Spes, &c.,\nin which case his objection to the derivation from _ferre_ would not\napply, he hastens to remove it by trying to show from the early\ncredentials of Fortuna, that she did not belong to this latter class,\nbut has characteristics which were undoubtedly heaven-born. The process\ntherefore was this: the ordinary etymology, though quite possible, is\nvague and does not seem to lead to anything; is there another to be\ndiscovered, which will fulfil philological requirements and also tell us\nsomething new about Fortuna? And are there any features to be found in\nthe cult which will bear out the new etymology when it is discovered?\n\nHe then goes on to derive the word from the Sanskrit root HAER, \u2018to\nglow,\u2019 from which many names expressive of the light of day have come:\n\u2018From this too comes the Greek \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 with the \u03a7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, the goddess of\nmorning; and from this we may safely derive _fors_, _fortis_, taking it\neither as a mere contraction, or a new derivative, corresponding to what\nin Sanskrit would be _Har-ti_, and would mean the brightness of the day,\nthe Fortuna _huiusce diei_.\u2019\n\nSo much for the etymological argument; on which we need only remark, (1)\nthat while it may be perfectly possible in itself, it does not impugn\nthe possibility of the older derivation; (2) that it introduces an idea\n\u2018bright,\u2019 hardly less vague and unsubstantial than that conveyed by \u2018the\nthin and unmeaning name\u2019 _she who brings or carries away_. When, indeed,\nthe Professor goes on, by means of this etymology, to trace Fortuna to a\nconcrete thing, viz. the dawn, he is really making a jump which the\netymology does not specifically justify. All he can say is that it would\nbe \u2018a most natural name for the brightest of all goddesses, the dawn,\nthe morning, the day.\u2019\n\nHe looks, however, for further justification of the etymology to the\ncult and mythology of Fortuna. From among her many cult-names he selects\ntwo or three which seem suitable. The first of these is Fortuna _huiusce\ndiei_. This Fortuna was, he tells us, like the Ushas of the Veda, \u2018the\nbright light of each day, very much like what we might call \u201cGood\nmorning.\u201d\u2019 But as a matter of fact all we know of this Fortuna is that\nAemilius Paullus, the victor of Pydna, vowed a temple to her in which he\ndedicated certain statues[675]; that Catulus, the hero of Vercellae, may\nhave repaired or rebuilt it, and that on July 30, the day of the latter\nbattle, there was a sacrifice at this temple[676]. Whatever therefore\nwas the origin of this cult (and it may date no further back than Pydna)\nit seems to have been specially concerned, as its name implies, with the\nevents of particular famous days. It is pure guesswork to imagine that\nits connexion with such days may have arisen from an older meaning, viz.\nthe _bright light of each day_. Nothing is more natural than the\n_huiusce diei_, if we believe that this Fortuna simply represented\nchance, that inexplicable power which appealed so strongly to the later\nsceptical and Graecized Roman, and which we see in the majority of\ncult-names by which Fortuna was known in the later Republic. The\nadvocate of the dawn-theory, on the other hand, has to account for the\ntotal loss in the popular belief of the nature-meaning of the epithet\nand cult\u2014a loss which is indeed quite possible, but one which must\nnecessarily make the theory less obvious and acceptable than the\nordinary one.\n\nSecondly, the Professor points out, that on June 11, the day of the\nMatralia, Fortuna was worshipped coincidently with Mater Matuta\u2014the\nlatter being, as he assumes beyond doubt, a dawn-goddess. But we have\nalready seen that this assumption is not a very certain one[677]; and we\nmay now add that the coincident worship must simply mean that two\ntemples had the same dedication-day, which may be merely\naccidental[678].\n\nBut the chief argument is based on the cult of Fortuna Primigenia, \u2018the\nfirst-born of the gods,\u2019 as he translates the word, in accordance with a\nrecent elaborate investigation of its meaning[679]. This cult does\nindeed show very curious and interesting characters. It belonged\noriginally to Praeneste, where Fortuna was the presiding deity of an\nancient and famous oracle. Here have been found inscriptions to Fortuna,\n\u2018DIOVO[S] FILEA[I] PRIMOGENIA[I],\u2019 the first-born daughter of\nJupiter[680]. Here also, strange to say, Cicero describes[681] an\nenclosure sacred to Jupiter Puer, who was represented there with Juno as\nsitting in the lap of Fortuna \u2018mammam appetens.\u2019 This very naturally\nattracted Prof. Max M\u00fcller\u2019s keenest attention, and he had no difficulty\nin finding his explanation: Fortuna is \u2018the first-born of all the bright\npowers of the sky, and the daughter of the sky; but likewise from\nanother point of view the mother of the daily sun who is the bright\nchild she carries in her arms.\u2019 This is charming; but it is the language\nand thought, not of ancient Italians, but of Vedic poets. The great\nLatin scholar, who had for years been soaking his mind in Italian\nantiquities, will hardly venture on an explanation at all: \u2018haud ignarus\nquid deceat eum qui Aboriginum regiones attingat[682].\u2019\n\nI shall have occasion later on[683] to say something of this very\ninteresting and mysterious cult at Praeneste. At present I must be\ncontent with pointing out that it is altogether unsafe to regard it as\nrepresentative of any general ideas of ancient Italian religion. As\nItalian archaeologists are aware, Praeneste was a city in which Etruscan\nand Greek influences are most distinctly traceable, and in which foreign\ndeities and myths seem to have become mixed up with native ones, to the\nextreme bewilderment of the careful inquirer[684]. We may accept the\nProfessor\u2019s explanation of it with all respect as a most interesting\nhypothesis, but as no more than a hypothesis which needs much more\ninformation than we as yet possess to render it even a probable one.\n\nBy his own account the Professor would not have been led so far afield\nfor an explanation of Fortuna if he had not been struck by the apparent\ndifficulty involved in such a goddess as \u2018she who brings.\u2019 Towards the\nremoval of this difficulty, however, the late Mr. Vigfusson did\nsomething in a letter to the _Academy_ of March 17, 1888[685]. He\nequated Fors and Fortuna with the Icelandic _buror_, from a verb having\nquite as wide and general a meaning as _fero_, and being its\netymological equivalent. \u2018There is a department of its meanings,\u2019 he\ntells us, \u2018through which runs the notion of an invisible, passive,\nsudden, involuntary, chance agency\u2019; and another, in which _bera_ means\nto give birth, and produces a noun meaning birth, and so lucky birth,\nhonour, &c. The two ideas come together in the Norse notion of the Norns\nwho presided at the birth of each child, shaping at that hour the\nchild\u2019s fortune[686].\n\nIt is rather to the ideas of peoples like the early Teutons and Celts\nthat we must look for mental conditions resembling those of the early\nItalians, than to the highly developed poetical mythology of the Vedas;\nand it is in the direction which Mr. Vigfusson pointed out that I think\nwe should search for the oldest Italian ideas of Fortuna and for the\ncauses which led to her popularity and development. In a valuable paper,\nto which I shall have occasion to refer again, Prof. Nettleship[687]\nsuggested that Carmenta (or Carmentes) may be explained with S.\nAugustine[688] as the goddess or prophetess who tells the fortunes of\nthe children, and that this was the reason why she was especially\nworshipped by matrons, like Mater Matuta, Fortuna and others. The\nCarmentes were in fact the Norns of Italy. Such a practical need as the\ndesire to know your child\u2019s fortunes would be quite in harmony with what\nwe know of the old Italian character; and I think it far from impossible\nthat Fortuna, as an oracular deity in Italy, may have been originally a\nconception of the same kind, perhaps not only a prophetess as regards\nthe children, but also of the good luck of the mother in childbirth.\nPerhaps the most striking fact in her multifarious cults is the\npredominance in them of women as worshippers. Of the very Fortuna\nPrimogenia of whom we have been speaking Cicero tells us that her\nancient home at Praeneste was the object of the special devotion of\nmothers[689]. The same was the case with Fortuna Virilis, Muliebris,\nMammosa, and others.\n\nIf we look at her in this light, there is really no difficulty in\nunderstanding why what seems to us at first sight a very vague\nconception, \u2018the goddess who brings,\u2019 should not have meant something\nvery real and concrete to the early Italian mind. And again, if that be\nso, if Fortuna be once recognized as a great power in ways which touched\nthese essential and practical needs of human nature, we may feel less\nastonishment at finding her represented either as the daughter or the\nmother of Jupiter. Such representation could indeed hardly have been the\nwork of really primitive Italians; it arose, one may conjecture, if not\nfrom some confusion which we cannot now unravel, from the fame of the\noracle\u2014one of the very few in Italy\u2014and the consequent fame of the\ngoddess whose name came to be attached to that oracle. Or, as Jordan\nseems to think, it may have been the vicinity of the rock-oracle to the\ntemple of Jupiter which gave rise to the connexion between the two in\npopular belief; a belief which was expressed in terms of relationship,\nperhaps under Greek influence, but certainly in a manner for the most\npart absent from the unmythological Italian religion. Why indeed in the\nsame place she should be mother as well as daughter of Jupiter (if\nCicero be accurate in his account, which is perhaps not quite certain)\nmay well puzzle us all. Those who cannot do without an explanation may\naccept that of Prof. Max M\u00fcller, if they can also accept his etymology.\nThose who have acquired what Mommsen has called the \u2018difficillima ars\nnesciendi,\u2019 will be content with Jordan\u2019s cautious remark, \u2018Non desunt\nvestigia divinum numen Italis notum fuisse deis deabusve omnibus et hoc\nipso in quo vivimus mundo antiquius[690].\u2019\n\nBut Fortuna has not only been conjectured to be a deity of the dawn; she\nhas been made out to be both a moon-goddess and a sun-goddess. For her\norigin in the moon there is really nothing of any weight to be urged;\nthe advocate of this view is one of the least judicious of German\nspecialists, and his arguments need not detain us[691]. But for her\nconnexion with the sun there is something more to be said.\n\nThe dedication day of the temple of Fors Fortuna was exactly at the\nsummer solstice. It is now St. John the Baptist\u2019s day, and one on which\na great variety of curious local customs, some of which still survive,\nregularly occur; and especially the midsummer fires which were until\nrecently so common in our own islands. Attention has often been drawn to\nthe fondness for parallelism which prompted the early Christians to\nplace the birth of Christ at the winter solstice, when the days begin to\ngrow longer, and that of the Baptist\u2014for June 24 is his reputed birthday\nas well as festival\u2014at the summer solstice when they begin to shorten;\nfollowing the text, \u2018He must increase and I must decrease[692].\u2019\nCertainly the sun is an object of special regard at all midsummer\nfestivals, and is supposed to be often symbolized in them by a wheel,\nwhich is set on fire and in many cases rolled down a hill[693]. Now the\nwheel is of course a symbol in the cult of Fortuna, and is sometimes\nfound in Italian representations of her, though not so regularly as the\ncornucopia and the ship\u2019s rudder which almost invariably accompany\nher[694]. Putting this in conjunction with the date of the festival of\nFors Fortuna, the Celtic scholar Gaidoz has concluded that Fortuna was\nultimately a solar deity[695]. The solar origin of the symbol was, he\nthinks, quite forgotten; but the wheel, or the globe which sometimes\nreplaces it, was certainly at one time solar, and perhaps came from\nAssyria. If so (he concludes), the earliest form of Fortuna must have\nbeen a female double of the sun.\n\nAll hints are useful in Roman antiquities, and something may yet be made\nof this. But it cannot be accepted until we are sure of the history and\ndescent of this symbol in the representations of Fortuna; it is far from\nimpossible that the wheel or globe may in this case have nothing more to\ndo with the sun than the rudder which always accompanies it. In any case\nit can hardly be doubted that it is not of Italian origin; it is found,\ne. g. also in the cult of Nemesis, who, like Tyche, Eilithyia, and\nLeucothea, is probably responsible for much variation and confusion in\nthe worship of Italian female deities[696]. As to the other fact adduced\nby Gaidoz, viz. the date of the festival, it is certainly striking, and\nmust be given its full weight. It is surprising that Prof. Max M\u00fcller\nhas made no use of it. But we must be on our guard. It is remarkable\nthat we find in the Roman calendars no other evidence that the Romans\nattached the same importance to the summer solstice as some other\npeoples; the Roman summer festivals are concerned, in accordance with\nthe true Italian spirit, much more with the operations of man in dealing\nwith nature than with the phenomena of nature taken by themselves. It is\nperhaps better to avoid a hasty conclusion that this festival of Fors\nFortuna was on the 24th because the 24th was the end of the solstice,\nand rather to allow the equal probability that it was fixed then because\nharvest was going on. Columella seems to be alluding to it in the\nfollowing lines[697]:\n\n Sed cum maturis flavebit messis aristis\n Allia cum cepis, cereale papaver anetho\n Iungite, dumque virent, nexos deferte maniplos,\n Et celebres Fortis Fortunae dicite laudes\n Mercibus exactis, hilaresque recurrite in hortos.\n\nThe power of Fortuna as a deity of chance would be as important for the\nperils of harvest as for those of childbirth; and it is in this\nconnexion that the Italians understood the meaning of that cornucopia\nwhich is perhaps her most constant symbol in art[698].\n\nLastly, there is a formidable question, which may easily lead the unwary\ninto endless complications, and on which I shall only touch very\nbriefly. How are we to explain the legendary connexion between the cult\nof Fortuna and Servius Tullius? That king, the so-called second founder\nof Rome, was said, as we have seen, to have erected more than one\nsanctuary to Fortuna, and was even believed to have had illicit dealings\nwith the goddess herself[699]. The dedication-day of Fors Fortuna was\nsaid to have been selected by him, and, as Ovid describes it, was a\nfestival of the poorer kind of people, who thus kept up the custom\ninitiated by the popular friend of the plebs.\n\nSince the Etruscan origin of Servius Tullius has been placed beyond a\ndoubt by the discovery of the famous tomb at Vulci, with the paintings\nof Cales Vibenna released from his bonds by Mastarna[700], which has\nthus confirmed the Etruscan tradition of the identity of Mastarna and\nServius preserved by the emperor Claudius in his famous speech[701], it\nwould seem that we may consider it as highly probable that if Servius\ndid really institute the cult of Fortuna at Rome, that cult came with\nhim from Etruria. This by no means compels us to look on Fortuna as an\nEtruscan deity only; but it seems to be a fact that there was an\nEtruscan goddess who was recognized by the Romans as the equivalent of\ntheir Fortuna[702]. This was Nortia, a great deity at Volsinii, as is\nfully proved by the remains found there[703]; and we may note that the\ncity was near to and in close alliance with Vulci, where the tomb was\nfound containing the paintings just alluded to. Seianus, a native of\nVolsinii[704], was supposed to be under the protection of this deity,\nand, as we have already seen, to possess an ancient statue of her.\n\nIn her temple a nail was driven every year as in the temple of Jupiter\nCapitolinus[705], and hence some have concluded that she was a goddess\nof time. It cannot, however, be regarded as certain whether this\nnail-driving was originally symbolical only, or at all, of time; it may\nquite as well remind us of the famous Fortuna of Antium and the \u2018clavos\ntrabales\u2019 of Horace\u2019s Ode[706]. However this may be, it is a fair guess,\nthough it must be made with hesitation, that the Fortuna of Servius was\nthe equivalent of this Nortia, to whom the Roman plebs gave a name with\nwhich they were in some way already familiar. Mastarna continued to\nworship his native deity after he was settled in Rome; and the plebs\ncontinued to revere her, not because of his luck, which was indeed\nimperfect, but simply because she was his protectress[707]. If we try to\nget beyond this we lose our footing; and even this is only conjecture,\nthough based upon evidence which is not entirely without weight.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n What can be said for this view may be read in Roscher\u2019s article in\n _Lex._ s. v. Iuno, p. 575, note.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n Roscher\u2019s treatment of Juno Moneta (_Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 593) seems to\n me pure fancy; this writer is apt to twist his facts and his\n inferences to suit a prepossession\u2014in this case the notion of a \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2\n \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 of Jupiter and Juno.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n Liv. 7. 28; Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 183; Macrob. 1. 12. 30.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n On this point see Lewis, _Credibility of Early Roman Hist._ vol. ii.\n 345.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n Dionys., 13. 7, says, \u03a7\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f2d\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2; but this is\n no evidence for an early _temple_ of Juno Moneta.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n Apparently she was fond of such birds: crows also were \u2018in tutela\n Iunonis\u2019 at a certain spot north of the Tiber (Paul. 64), and at\n Lanuvium (Preller, i. 283).\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n Liv. 6. 20.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n I have assumed that _Moneta_ is connected with _moneo_; but there are\n other views (Roscher, _Lex._ 593). Livius Andronicus (ap. Priscian, p.\n 679) helps us to the meaning by translating \u039c\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7 (of the\n _Odyssey_) by _Moneta_.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 12. 22 and 31. There was no temple of Carna there\n but Tertullianus (_ad Nat._ 2. 9) mentions a _fanum_.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n Cp. also the explanation from _iuniores_ (e. g. in Ovid, _Fasti_, 6.\n 83 foll.).\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n Macrob. 1. 12. 33 \u2018Cui pulte fabacia et larido sacrificatur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n Even in the fourth century A.D. this was so: see the calendar of\n Philocalus.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n Colum. II. 2. 20; Pallad. 7. 3; Hartmann, _Das R\u00f6m. Kal._ 135.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n _H. N._ 18. 117.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n See above on Lemuria, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n _de Feriis_, xiii.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n _C. I. L._ iii. 3893.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n There is really nothing in common between the two: see Wissowa in\n _Lex._ s. v. Carna, following Merkel, clxv. What the real etymology of\n Carna may be is undecided; Curtius and others have connected it with\n _cor_, and on this O. Gilbert has built much foolish conjecture (ii.\n 19 foll.). I would rather compare it with the words Garanus or\n Recaranus of the Hercules legend (Br\u00e9al, _Herc. et Cacus_, pp. 59,\n 60), and perhaps with Gradivus, Grabovius. The name of the \u2018nymph\u2019\n Cranae in Ovid\u2019s account is in some MSS. Grane or Crane. H. Peter\n (_Fasti_, pt. ii. p. 89) adopts the connexion with _caro_: she is \u2018die\n das Fleisch kr\u00e4ftigende G\u00f6ttin\u2019 (cp. Ossipago).\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 169-182. Lines 101-130 are concerned with Cardea; 130 to\n 168, or the middle section of the comment, seem, as Marquardt\n suggested (p. 13, note), to be referable to Carna (as the averter of\n _striges_), though the charms fixed on the _postes_ show that Ovid is\n still confounding her with Cardea.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n The word _strix_ is Greek, or at least identical with the Greek word.\n But the belief in vampires is so widely spread (cf. Tylor, _Prim.\n Cult._ ii. 175 foll.) that we must not conclude hastily that it came\n to Italy with the Greeks: it is met with as early as Plautus (_Pseud._\n 3. 2. 20). Cf. Pliny, _H. N._ 11. 232.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 155 foll.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n The _arbutus_ does not seem to be mentioned in connexion with charms\n except in this passage; we might have expected the laurel. B\u00f6tticher,\n _Baumkultus_, 324.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n The sucking-pig is sacrificed, as we gather from _prosecta_ below; i.\n e. to Carna: cp. the cakes of _lard_ eaten this day (169 foll.).\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n Cp. in the process of ghost-laying (above, p. 109) the prohibition to\n look at the beans scattered.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n For the blackthorn (Germ. _Weissdorn_) see B\u00f6tticher, _Baumkultus_,\n 361. Varro, ap. Charisium, p. 117 \u2018fax ex spinu alba praefertur, quod\n purgationis causa adhibetur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n This is the passage that must have inspired O. Crusius in his paper on\n beans in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxix. 164 foll. \u2018Beans,\u2019 he says, \u2018were the\n oldest Italian food, and like stone knives, &c., survived in ritual.\u2019\n We want, indeed, some more definite proof that they were really the\n oldest food; and anyhow their use had not died out like that of stone\n implements. They were a common article of food at Athens: Aristoph.\n _Knights_, 41; _Lysist._ 537 and 691. But it is not unlikely that\n their use in the cult of the dead may be a survival, upon which odd\n superstitions grafted themselves. For a parallel argument see Roscher,\n _Nektar und Ambrosia_, 36; Rhys, _Celtic Mythology_, 356.\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n _Sat._ 1. 12. 32.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n No safe conclusion can be drawn from Tertullian\u2019s inclusion (_ad Nat._\n 2. 9) of the _fanum_ of Carna on the Caelian among those of _di\n adventicii_. O. Gilbert has lately tried to make much of this (ii. 42\n foll.), and to find an Etruscan origin for Carna: but see Aust on the\n position of temples outside the _pomoerium_ (_de Aedibus sacris_, 47).\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n Liv. 7. 23; Dionys. 6. 13.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n See on March 1, above, p. 37.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 8. The _Fasti Venusini_ are \u2018omnium\n accuratissimi\u2019; ib. p. 43. Aust goes so far as to doubt the true Roman\n character of this Mars, and believes him to be the Greek god Ares. See\n his note in _Lex._ 2391. The date of foundation is not certain, but\n was probably not earlier than the Gallic war, 388 B.C., if it is this\n to which Livy alludes in 6. 5. 8.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n Liv. 10. 19. There was a tradition that Ap. Claudius, _Cos._ 495 B.C.,\n had dedicated statues of his ancestors in a temple of Bellona (Pliny,\n _N. H._ 35. 12).\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n Serv. _Aen._ ix. 53.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n Liv. 1. 32. 12; Marq. 422.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 205 foll.; Paulus, 33.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n Willems, _Le S\u00e9nat de la R\u00e9publique_, ii. 161.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n This was originally suggested by Gellius (13. 23), \u2018perhaps not\n without some reason,\u2019 says Marquardt (75). This suggestion has grown\n almost into a certainty for the writer in the _Lexicon_, in a manner\n very characteristic of the present age of research. There would be\n some reason to think that Bellona (or Duellona) was an ancient goddess\n of central Italy, if we could be sure that the inscription on an\n ancient cup, in the museum at Florence, which may be read \u2018Belolae\n poculum\u2019 (_C. I. L._ i. 44), refers to this deity. See _Lex._ s. v.\n Belola.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 209. See _Commentarii in honorem Th. Mommseni_, 262\n foll. (Kl\u00fcgmann), and R. Peter in _Lex._ s. v. Herc. p. 2979.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n Preller-Jordan, ii. 296.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n See below, p. 146.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n 9. 60, where \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 = Dius Fidius.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n 4. 58: cp. Liv. 8. 20; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 51. Of the porta\n Sanqualis I shall have a word to say presently.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n Mr. Lang (_Myth, Ritual_, &c., ii. 191) has some excellent remarks on\n this subject.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 213.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n See Wordsworth\u2019s _Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin_, p. 157\n \u2018Semunes alternos advocapit cunctos.\u2019 I follow Jordan\u2019s explanation of\n \u2018Semunes,\u2019 in _Krit. Beitr\u00e4ge_, 204 foll.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n Aelius Dium Fidium dicebat Diovis filium, ut Graeci \u0394\u03b9\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\n Castorem, et putabat hunc esse Sancum ab Sabina lingua et Herculem a\n Graeca\u2019 (Varro, _L. L._ 5. 66).\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n Festus, 241. This is probably the _sacellum_ of Livy, 8. 22.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n _C. I. L._ vi. 568: again (ib. 567), \u2018Semoni Sanco deo fidio.\u2019 Sancus\n is, of course, a name, not an adjective: we find Sangus in some MSS.\n of Livy, 32. 1. For the well-known curious confusion with Simon Magus,\n Euseb. _H. E._ 2. 13.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n Br\u00e9al, _Tables Eugubines_, 71; B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_, 65 foll. As\n Preller remarks, Fisus stands to Fidius as Clausus to Claudius (ii.\n 271). At Iguvium there was a hill, important in the rites, which bore\n this name\u2014_ocris fisius_.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n Aelius Stilo ap. Varro, l. c.; Ovid, l. c.; Propert. 4. 9. 74;\n Lactantius, 1. 15. 8; Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 364; Preller, ii. 272; O.\n Gilbert, i. 275, note; Ambrosch, _Studien_, 170. Jordan, however, in a\n note on Preller (273) emphatically says that the Sabine origin of the\n god is a fable; and for the illusory distinction between Latins and\n Sabines in Rome see Mommsen, _R. H._ i. 67, note, and Br\u00e9al, _Hercule\n et Cacus_, p. 56. Sancus was no doubt a Sabine deity and reputed\n ancestor of the race (Cato ap. Dionys. 2. 49: cp. 4. 58); but it does\n not follow that he came to Rome as a Sabine importation.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 66; Festus, 229 (Propter viam); and Paulus, 147\n (medius fidius).\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n Cp. Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 28 (\u2018Why are boys made to go out of the\n house when they wish to swear by Hercules?\u2018) with Varro, ap. Nonium,\n s. v. _rituis_, and _L. L._ 5. 66.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n See below on Sept. 13, p. 231. The silex was taken out of the temple\n of Jupiter Feretrius (Paulus, 92).\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n Eustath. ad _Od._ 22. 335; Hermann, _Gr. Ant._ ii. 74. Cp. A. Lang,\n _Myth_, &c. ii. 54: \u2018the sky hears us,\u2019 said the Indian when taking an\n oath.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n Dionys. 1. 40.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n See the opinions of Hartung, Schwegler, and Preller, summed up by\n Br\u00e9al, _Hercule et Cacus_, 51 foll.; and R. Peter in _Lex._ s. v.\n Hercules, 2255 foll.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 233.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_, 7; Br\u00e9al, _Tables Eugubines_, 270.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n Preller, ii. 273, and Jordan\u2019s note. In M. Gaidoz\u2019s _\u00c9tudes de\n Mythologie Gauloise_, i. 64, will be found figures of a hand holding a\n wheel, from Bar-le-Duc (the wrist thrust through one of the holes),\n which may possibly explain the _urfita_, and which he connects with\n the Celtic sun-god. In this connexion we may notice the large series\n of Umbrian and Etruscan coins with the six-rayed wheel-symbol\n (Mommsen, _M\u00fcnzwesen_, 222 foll.), which, as Professor Gardner tells\n me, is more probably a sun-symbol than merely the chariot-wheel\n convenient for unskilful coiners.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n 8. 20.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n For the bird, Plin. _N. H._ 10. 20; Festus, 197 s. v. _oscines_, and\n 317 (_sanqualis avis_). Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Hist. de la Divination_, iv.\n 200. For the gate cp. Paulus, 345, with Liv. 8. 20; Jordan, _Topogr._\n ii. 264.\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n Liv. 41. 13, with Weissenborn\u2019s note. The stone was perhaps the same\n as one which had shortly before fallen into the grove of Mars at\n Crustumerium (41. 9).\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n _C. I. L._ vi. 567. 568; and _Bull. dell\u2019Inst._, 1881, p. 38 foll.\n (This last with a statue, which, however, may not belong to it:\n Jordan\u2019s note on Preller, ii. 273.) Wilmanns, _Exempla Inscr. Lat._\n 1300.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n Marq. 263; B.-Leclercq, iv. 51 foll. The Scholiast on Persius, 2. 27,\n is explicit on the point. But Deecke, in a note to M\u00fcller\u2019s _Etrusker_\n (ii. 275) doubts the connexion of the _decuria_ with _bidental =\n puteal_.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n Festus, s. v. Scribonianum (p. 333: the restoration can hardly be\n wrong) \u2018[quia ne]fas est integi, semper ibi forami[ne aper]to caelum\n patet.\u2019\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n _L. L._ 5. 66 \u2018ut ea videatur divum, id est caelum.\u2019 He connects the\n word _divum_ with _Dius_ Fidius. See Jordan in the collection of\n essays \u2018in honorem Th. Mommseni,\u2019 p. 369.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n Martianus Capella, 1. 45 (p. 47 in Eyssenhardt\u2019s edition). See\n Nissen\u2019s explanation in _Das Templum_, p. 184, and plate iv. In this\n account Jupiter occupies the chief place: Sancus is there, alone in\n the 12th _regio_. But doubt has been cast on Nissen\u2019s view by the\n discovery of an actual representation of the _caeli templum_ (see\n Aust, in _Lex._ s. v. Iupiter, 668).\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n Dionys. 4. 58. In 9. 60 he says that this temple was only vowed by\n Tarquinius, and not dedicated till 466 B.C. (Aust, _de Aedibus\n sacris_, p. 6); but there must have been a still earlier sanctuary of\n some kind (Livy writes of a _sacellum_, 8. 20. 8). Dionysius is\n interesting and explicit; he calls Dius Fidius \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03a0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, and adds\n the name \u03a3\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. The treaties next in date, those with Carthage, were\n kept in the aedilium thesaurus, close to the temple of Jupiter\n Capitolinus (Polyb. 3. 22; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. 1 (ed. 2) 481\n note). Here we seem to see the authority of the ancient Dius Fidius\n already losing ground.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n Plut. _Quaest. Rom._ 30; Varro, ap. Plin. _N. H._ 8. 194; Festus, 238.\n It was Reifferscheid\u2019s conjecture that she was a female Dius Fidius\n (see Wissowa, _Lex._ 1190). Fest. 241 adds \u2018cuius ex zona\n periclitantes ramenta sumunt.\u2019\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n _Bull. dell\u2019 Inst._, 1867, 352 foll. Reifferscheid was prevented by\n death from working his view out more fully; but R. Peter (see _Lex._\n s. v. Hercules, 2267) preserved notes of his lectures.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n Gellius, 11. 6. 1. For Juno as female equivalent of Genius see article\n \u2018Iunones\u2019 in _Lex._ But it does not seem proved that this was the old\n name, and not an idea of comparatively late times.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n Seneca, _Ep._ 12. 2.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n See below, on Aug. 12, p. 194.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n This seems a weak point. Bona Dea was not more closely related to Juno\n than some others. I do not feel sure that the name Juno is not as much\n an intrusion here as Hercules, and that the real female counterpart of\n Genius, &c., was not a nameless _numen_ like the Bona Dea. The rise of\n the cult of Juno Lucina may have produced this intrusion. It is worth\n noting that in Etruria Minerva takes the place of Juno _(Lex._ 2266,\n and the illustration on 2267).\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n Serv. _Ecl._ 4. 62.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n Paulus, 63.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n Gerhard, _Etruskische Spiegel_, 147. It is also figured in _Lex._ s.\n v. Hercules, 2259.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n e. g. by every writer in Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_ who has touched on the\n subject. Jordan seems to have dissented (Preller, ii. 284).\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n The opposition or conflict of the two is paralleled by the supposed\n myth of the contention of Mars and Minerva (Nerio) (see above, p. 60;\n _Lex._ 2265).\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n See article \u2018Iunones\u2019 in _Lex._; and De-Marchi, _La Religione nella\n vita domestica_, p. 70.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n Roscher\u2019s article \u2018Juno\u2019 in _Lex._ passim.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n I cannot agree with Mr. Jevons (_Introduction to History of Religion_,\n p. 186 foll.) when he makes the Roman genius a relic of totemism,\n simply because _genii_ were often represented by serpents. The snake\n was too universally worshipped and domesticated to be easily explained\n as a totem. Mr. Frazer has an interesting example from Zululand, which\n is singularly suggestive in connexion with the doctrine of Genius (see\n _Golden Bough_, ii. 332), which can hardly be explained on a\n totemistic basis. The doctrine of Genius may certainly have had its\n roots in a totemistic age; but by the time it reaches us in Roman\n literature it has passed through so many stages that its origin is not\n to be dogmatized about.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n I cannot attach much weight to the argument (see _Lex._ 2268) that\n because Aelius Stilo explained Dius Fidius as Diovis Filius he\n therefore had in his head some such relation of Genius to Jupiter.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n If he had written Genius _Iovius_, after the manner of the Iguvian\n inscription, with its adjectival forms which preserve a reminiscence\n of the older spirit-world, he might have been nearer the mark. It may\n be that we get back to Jupiter himself as the Genius _par excellence_,\n but there is no direct proof of this. The genius of a god is a late\n idea, as Mr. Jevons points out in a note to _Roman Questions_, p.\n liii.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n Livy, 22. 9; Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 241 foll.; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_,\n p. 19.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n Livy, 23. 31 and 32; Marq. 270.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n Marq. 358 foll.; Article \u2018Sibyllini libri\u2019 in _Dict. of Antiquities_,\n ed. 2.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n Livy, 22. 9, 10; 23. 30, 31.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n Ad _Aen._ 1. 720.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n Plut. _de Fort. Rom._ 5. 10; Cic. _Nat. Deor._ 2. 61. Aust (_de\n Aedibus sacris_, p. 19) puts it in B.C. 115, in Scaurus\u2019 consulship.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 219 foll.; Festus, 250, s. v. _Penus_: \u2018[Penus\n vo]catur locus intimus in aede Vestae, tegetibus saeptus, qui certis\n diebus circa Vestalia aperitur. Ii dies religiosi habentur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n For the meanings of _nefastus_ and _religiosus_ see Introduction, p.\n 9; Marq. 291.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n No doubt this was done, and the lines composed, in order to please\n Augustus and reflect the revival of the old _religio_.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 32.\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n Vol. xiv, No. 28.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n p. 53.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n Marq. 250. In the Andaman Islands both sons and daughters take part in\n the work of maintaining the fires (Man\u2019s _Andaman Islands_, quoted by\n Mr. Frazer, op. cit. p. 153).\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n See my article \u2018Sacerdos\u2019 in _Dict. of Antiquities_, ed. 2.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n Vesta herself was originally simply the fire on the hearth (Frazer,\n op. cit. 152). Note that the flame was obtained afresh each year on\n March 1, even in historical times, by the primitive method of the\n friction of the wood of a \u2018lucky\u2019 tree (Festus, 106), or from the\n sun\u2019s rays. We are not told which priest performed this rite.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n Middleton, _Rome in 1885_, p. 181 foll.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n This belief, and the nature of the treasures, are fully discussed by\n Marquardt, p. 251, with additions by Wissowa.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n Cp. Petronius, _Sat._ 44 (of the aquaelicium).\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 395 foll.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n Above, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n As the beast that usually worked in mills? There is a Pompeian\n painting of this scene (Gerhard, _Ant. Bild._ pl. 62).\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 32 \u2018Dies qui vocatur Q. St. D. F. ab eo appellatur\n quod eo die ex aede Vestae stercus everritur et per Capitolinum clivum\n in locum defertur certum.\u2019 It is Ovid who tells us it was thrown into\n the Tiber (_Fasti_, 6. 713).\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n Jordan, _Tempel der Vesta_, p. 63.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n The crushing of the grain no doubt comes down from a time when there\n were no mills (Helbig, _Italiker in der Poebene_, 17 and 72). The\n preparation of the cakes was also peculiar, and even that of the salt\n which was used in them (Festus, 159; cp. Serv. _Ecl._ 8. 82). The\n latter passage is the _locus classicus_ for all these duties:\n \u2018Virgines Vestales tres maximae ex nonis Maiis ad pridie Idus Maias\n alternis diebus (i. e. on 7th, 9th, 11th?) spicas adoreas in corbibus\n messuariis ponunt, easque spicas ipsae virgines torrent, pinsunt,\n molunt, atque ita molitum condunt. Ex eo farre virgines ter in anno\n molam faciunt, Lupercalibus, Vestalibus, Idibus Septembribus, adiecto\n sale cocto et sale duro.\u2019 For examples of the primitive method of\n cooking see Miss Kingsley\u2019s _Travels in West Africa_, p. 208; and Sir\n Joseph Banks\u2019s _Journal_ (ed. Hooker), p. 137.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n _Penus_ means, in the first instance, food. Cic. _Nat. Deorum_, 2. 68\n \u2018Est omne quo vescuntur homines penus.\u2019 Hence it came to mean the\n store-closet in the centre of the house, of which the Penates were the\n guardian spirits. Its sacred character is indicated in a passage of\n Columella (_R. R._ 12. 4; and see my paper on the _toga praetexta_ of\n Roman children, in _Classical Review_, Oct. 1896).\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n Varro, ap. S. Aug. _de Civ._ 7. 24; cp. 7. 16. Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 267,\n writes, \u2018Vesta eadem quae terra,\u2019 but more correctly in 291, \u2018Nec tu\n aliud Vestam quam vivam intellige flammam.\u2019 Some moderns derive Vesta\n from root _vas_ = \u2018dwelling,\u2019 and make her the earth in special\n relation to the dwelling; e. g. O. Gilbert, i. 348 note.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n Preuner, _Hestia-Vesta_, p. 221 \u2018Gottheit des Feuers, sofern\n religi\u00f6se, ethische Ideen sich in demselben abspiegeln, nicht des\n Feuers als blossen Elements.\u2019 This is surely turning the question\n upside down.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n Tylor, _Prim. Cult._ ii. 251; Grimm, _German Mythology_ (Eng. trans.),\n p. 601 foll.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n In July also the days were _nefasti_ from the Kalends to the 9th; but\n to the meaning of this we have no clue whatever.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n See above, p. 115.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n _G. B._ ii. 75. In an appendix (p. 373 foll. and esp. 382) will be\n found some other examples of the same type of ritual. Cp. also ii. 176\n (from Punjaub), which example, however, does not seem in any way\n connected with harvest. But the practice of the Creek Indians is so\n unusually well attested that it deserves special attention. It is\n described by no less than four independent authorities (see Mr.\n Frazer\u2019s note on p. 76).\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n Nissen, _Landeskunde_, 399.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n The whole of Mr. Frazer\u2019s section on the sacramental eating of new\n crops should be read in connexion with the Vestalia.\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 7; Liv. 5. 19 and 23. The temple was in\n the Forum boarium, near the Circus maximus.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n Wissowa in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Mater Matuta, 2463.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 473 foll.; Cic. _Nat. Deor._ 3. 48; _Tusc._ 1. 28.\n Plutarch (_Quaest. Rom._ 16. 1) noted a likeness between her cult and\n that of Leucothea in his own city of Chaeroneia; an interesting\n passage, though quite inconclusive as to the Greek origin of Mater\n Matuta. Plutarch, like Servius (_Aen._ 5. 241) and others, has adopted\n Ovid\u2019s legend of Ino by way of explanation of the identity of\n Leucothea and Matuta. Merkel (_Fasti_, clxxxiv) believed the cult to\n be wholly Greek; Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq (_Hist. de Divination_, iv. 147)\n follows Klausen in identifying Mater Matuta with Tethys (cf. Plut.\n _Rom._ 2) and with the deity of the oracle at Pyrgi. But see Wesseling\n on Diod. Sic. 15, p. 337; and Strabo, Bk. 5, p. 345.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n _C. I. L._ i. 176, 177.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n Liv. 6. 33. 4; Wissowa, _Lex._ 2462.\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n Diod. Sic. 15. 14, p. 337, and Wesseling\u2019s note. The temple at Pyrgi\n was an important one, and rich enough to be plundered by Dionysius I\n of Syracuse. But it must be admitted that the identification of the\n deity of Pyrgi with Mater Matuta is not absolutely certain. Strabo, l.\n c., calls her Eileithyia, Aristotle (_Oecon._ 1349 b) Leucothea; and\n it is thought that Mater Matuta alone combines the characteristics of\n these two. If, however, the goddess of Pyrgi was the deity of the\n oracle, she might almost as well have been a Fortuna, like those of\n Antium and Praeneste.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n Tertullian, _de Monogam_. 17.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 481, with Plut. _Q. R._ 16; _Camill._ 5.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 106. Ovid (482) writes of _liba tosta_, i. e. cakes\n cooked in pans rather than baked, like the _mola salsa_. See above, p.\n 149; and cp. Ovid, 532 \u2018in subito cocta foco.\u2019\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n Plut. ll. cc.; Ovid, 559 foll.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n See below on Jan. 11. I cannot explain the rule that a woman prayed\n for nephews and nieces before her own children, which is peculiar to\n this cult.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n Preller, i. 322; Wissowa in _Lex_.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n _R. H._ (Eng. trans.) i. 162.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n Lucr. 5. 654.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n Paulus, 122 \u2018Matrem Matutam antiqui ob bonitatem appellabant, et\n maturum idoneum usui,\u2019 &c. See also Curtius, _Gk. Etym._ I. 408.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 569 foll.; 625 foll.: cp. Dionysius, 4. 40. Ovid has three\n fanciful explanations of the draping.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n Ovid, l.c.; Dionys. 4. 40.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n Varro ap. Nonium, p. 189; Plin. _N. H._ 8. 194, 197. See Schwegler,\n _R. G._ i. 712, note 3, and a full discussion in _Lex_. by R. Peter,\n s.v. Fortuna, p. 1509.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n Dio Cassius, 58. 7.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n Seneca, _Q. N._ 2. 41; M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 83; Dennis,\n _Etruria_, i, Introduction lvi. The passage of Seneca is a very\n curious one about the Etruscan lightning-lore. O. M\u00fcller guesses that\n the _di involuti_ were Fates (_Schicksalsgottheiten_), which would\n suit Fortuna (cp. Hor. _Od._ 1. 35).\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n There is just a possibility that it was confused with a statue of\n Pudicitia, also _in foro boario_, and also said to have been veiled\n (Festus, 242). Varro, l. c., calls the goddess of the statue, Fortuna\n Virgo, and Preller suggested that she was identical with Pudicitia.\n The lines of Ovid seem to favour this view (_Fasti_, 6. 617 foll.):\n\n Veste data tegitur. Vetat hanc Fortuna moveri\n Et sic e templo est ipsa locuta suo;\n \u2018Ore revelato qua primum luce patebit\n Servius, haec positi prima pudoris erit.\n Parcite, matronae, vetitas attingere vestes:\n Sollemni satis est voce movere preces.\u2019\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 2, 298.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n Livy, 9. 30; Val. Max. 2. 5. 4; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 17. Cp. _C. I. L._\n vi. 3696 [Magistri] quinq(uennales) [collegi] teib(icinum) Rom(anorum)\n qui s(acris) p(ublicis) p(raesto) s(unt) Iov(i) Epul(oni) s(acrum).\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n So Preller, i. 198.\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n Aust, in _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 680. Both here and in his work _de\n Aedibus sacris_, this scholar declines to distinguish between Iup.\n Invictus and Iup. Victor.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n For Minerva as the patron of all such guilds see Wissowa in _Lex._ s.\n v. Minerva, 2984 foll.\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 17. There were three days of revelry, according to\n Livy (9. 30): did they meet in this temple on each day? The 13th was\n the day of the _epulum_; which the other days were we do not know.\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 17.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n Festus, 149, s. v. minusculae. Cf. Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 695.\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n Livy, l. c. Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 55, who confuses two Appii\n Claudii, and refers the story to the Decemvir instead of to the Censor\n of 311 B.C. Livy omits the very Roman trait (Ov. 673 foll.) of the\n _libertus_ feigning to be surprised by his _patronus_.\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n Cohen, _M\u00e9d. Pl._ 33; Borghesi, _Op._ i. 201 (quoted by Marq. 577).\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 202.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n _Journal of Philology_, vol. xi. p. 189. It was a short pipe played\n with a reed, and no doubt almost the same thing as the short rough\n oboes which are still favourites in Italy, and which are still\n sometimes played two at a time in the mouth as of old. Their antiquity\n is vouched for by the law of the Twelve Tables, which limited the\n players at a funeral to ten. See Professor Anderson\u2019s article \u2018tibia\u2019\n in _Dict. of Ant._ (ed. 2).\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 731.\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 13.\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n Not to be confused, as in Livy, _Epit._ 14, with a statue of Summanus\n himself on the same temple (in fastigio Iovis: Cicero, _Div._ 1. 10).\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n _de Civ. Dei_, 4. 23.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n Festus, 229, s. v. Proversum fulgor: \u2018Quod diurna Iovis, nocturna\n Summani fulgura habentur.\u2019 (Cp. Pliny, _N. H._ 2. 52.) An interesting\n inscription (_C. I. L._ vi. 206) runs, \u2018Summanium fulgus conditum,\u2019 i.\n e. \u2018a bolt which fell before dawn was buried here.\u2019\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n _L. L._ 5. 74.\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 60.\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n _\u00c9tudes de Mythologie Gauloise_, i. p. 92. M. Gaidoz looks on these\n wheel-cakes as \u2018emblematic of Summanus\u2019 as a god of sun and sky.\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n Festus, p. 348. The MS. has \u2018finctae.\u2019\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. vii, No. 1 (1886), p. 44 foll.\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 775 foll.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n p. 104.\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n _L. L._ 61. 7.\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n Livy, 10. 46. 17.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n _Ann._ 2. 41.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n See above, the heading of this section.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n _C. I. L._ 320.\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n See above, p. 50.\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n ch. i.\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n Marquardt, p. 2.\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n Pliny, _N. H._ 34. 54.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n Plut. _Marius_, 26; Pliny, l. c. I follow Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_,\n p. 26.\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n Above, p. 156.\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n Ovid is the only authority for the worship of Fortuna on June 11\n (_Fasti_, 6. 569); it is not mentioned in the calendars (Tusc. Ven.\n Maff.) which have notes surviving for this day.\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n By H. Jordan, _Symbolae ad historiam religionum Italicarum alterae_\n (K\u00f6nigsberg, 1885). See also R. Peter, in _Lex._ s. v. Fortuna, 1542,\n and Aust, _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 647.\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n _C. I. L._ xiv. 2863.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n _de Div._ 2. 41. 85.\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n Jordan, op. cit. p. 12.\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n See below, p. 223 foll., under Sept. 13.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n Fernique, _\u00c9tude sur Pr\u00e9neste_, pp. 8 and 139 foll.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n See also his previous letter of March 3.\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n He held \u2018birth\u2019 and \u2018fortune\u2019 to be words etymologically related. Cp.\n a communication from Prof. Kluge in the same number of the _Academy_.\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n _Journal of Philology_, vol. xi. 178; _Studies in Latin Literature_,\n p. 60.\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n _de Civ. Dei_, 4. 11. Cp. Serv. _Aen._ 8. 336.\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n l. c. \u2018Castissime colitur a matribus.\u2019 One of the ancient inscriptions\n from Praeneste (_C. I. L._ xi. 2863) is a dedication \u2018nationu cratia\u2019\n = _nationis gratia_, which may surely mean \u2018in gratitude for\n childbirth,\u2019 though Mommsen would refer it to cattle, on the ground of\n a gloss of Festus (p. 167).\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n Jordan, op. cit. p. 12.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n O. Gilbert, _Gesch. u. Topogr. der Stadt Rom_, ii. 260 foll.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n St. John, iii. 30; St. Augustine, Sermo xii in Nativitate Domini: \u2018In\n nativitate Christi dies crescit, in Johannis nativitate decrescit.\n Profectum plane facit dies, quum mundi Salvator oritur; defectum\n patitur quum ultimus prophetarum nascitur.\u2019\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n See many examples in _The Golden Bough_, ii. 258 foll., and Brand\u2019s\n _Popular Antiquities_, p. 306.\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n See R. Peter, in _Lex._, s. v. Fortuna, 1506.\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n _\u00c9tudes de Myth. Gaul._ i. 56 foll. On p. 58 we find, \u2018La Fortune nous\n para\u00eet donc sortir, par l\u2019interm\u00e9diaire d\u2019une image, d\u2019une divinit\u00e9 du\n soleil.\u2019\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n For the history of these symbols in Greek cults, and especially that\n of Tyche, see a paper by Prof. Gardner in _Journal of Hellenic\n Studies_, vol. ix. p. 78, on \u2018Countries and Cities in ancient art.\u2019\n The rudder seems to connect Fortuna with sea-faring; it is often\n accompanied by a ship\u2019s prow (R. Peter, _Lex._ 1507); in connexion\n with which we may notice that even in Italy her cult is rarely found\n far from the sea. Cp. Horace, _Od._ 1. 35, 6 \u2018dominam aequoris.\u2019\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n 10. 311 foll.; Marq. 578.\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n R. Peter, _Lex._ 1505. She is also often represented with a _modius_,\n and with ears of corn. Cp. Horace, l. c. (of the Fortuna of Antium):\n \u2018Te pauper ambit sollicita prece Ruris colonus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 573 foll. Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 711 foll.; Preller,\n ii. 180.\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, vol. ii. p. 506;\n Gardthausen, \u2018Mastarna,\u2019 figures the painting (plate i).\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n Tac. _Ann._ II. 24; the fragments of the original speech are printed\n from the inscription at Lyons in Mr. Furneaux\u2019s _Annals of Tacitus_,\n vol. ii. p. 210.\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n Juvenal, 10. 74, and note of the Scholiast.\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 52; Dennis, _Cit. and Cem._ ii. 24.\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n Juvenal, l.c.\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n See below on Sept. 13, p. 234.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n M\u00fcller-Deecke, ii. 308. Gaidoz, op. cit. p. 56, on the connexion\n between Fortuna, Necessitas, and Nemesis.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n Gerhard, _Agathodaemon_, p. 30, has other explanations.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS QUINCTILIS.\n\n\nThe festivals of this month are so exceedingly obscure that it seems\nhopeless to try to connect them in any definite way with the operations\neither of nature or of man. We know that this was the time when the\nsun\u2019s heat became oppressive and dangerous; statistics show at the\npresent day that the rate of mortality rises at Rome to its greatest\nheight in July and August, as indeed is the case in southern latitudes\ngenerally. We know also that harvest of various kinds was going on in\nthis month: \u2018Quarto intervallo inter solstitium et caniculam plerique\nmessem faciunt,\u2019 writes Varro (_R. R._ 1. 32). We should have expected\nthat the unhealthy season and the harvest would have left their mark on\nthe calendar; but in the scantiness of our information we can find very\nfew traces of their influence. We here lose the company of Ovid, who\nmight, in spite of his inevitable ignorance, have incidentally thrown\nsome ray of light upon the darkness; but it is clear that even Varro and\nVerrius knew hardly anything of the almost obsolete festivals of this\nmonth. The Poplifugia, the Lucaria, the Neptunalia, and the Furrinalia,\nhad all at one time been great festivals, for they are marked in large\ncapitals in the ancient calendars; but they had no more meaning for the\nRoman of Varro\u2019s time than the lesser saints\u2019-days of our calendar have\nfor the ordinary Englishman of to-day. The ludi Apollinares, of much\nlater date, which always maintained their interest, did not fall upon\nthe days of any of these festivals, or obliterate them in the minds of\nthe people; they must have decayed from pure inanition\u2014want of practical\ncorrelation with the life and interests of a great city.\n\n\n III NON. QUINCT. (JULY 5). NP.\n\n\nPOPLIF[UGIA]. (MAFF. AMIT. ANT.)\n\nFERIAE IOVI. (AMIT.)\n\n\nThe note \u2018feriae Iovi\u2019 in the calendar of Amiternum is confirmed in a\ncurious way, by a statement of Dio Cassius[708], who says that in B.C.\n42 the Senate passed a decree that Caesar\u2019s birthday should be\ncelebrated on this day[709], and that any one who refused to take part\nin the celebration should be \u2018sacer Iovi et Divo Iulio.\u2019 But we know far\ntoo little of the rites of this day to enable us to make even a guess at\nthe meaning of its connexion with Jupiter. It is just worth noting that\ntwo days later we find a festival of Juno, the Nonae Caprotinae; the two\ndays may have had some connexion with each other, being separated by an\ninterval of one day, as is the case with the three days of the Lemuria,\nthe two days of the Lucaria in this month, and in other instances[710];\nand their rites were explained by two parts of the same aetiological\nstory\u2014viz. that the Romans fled before the Fidenates on the 5th, and in\nturn defeated them on the 7th[711]. But we are quite in the dark as to\nthe meaning of such a connexion, if such there was. Nor can we explain\nthe singular fact that this is the only festival in the whole year,\nmarked in large capitals in the calendars, which falls _before the\nNones_[712].\n\nThere is hardly a word in the whole calendar the meaning of which is so\nentirely unknown to us as this word Poplifugia. Of the parallel one, the\nRegifugium in February, something can be made out, as we shall see[713];\nand it is not unlikely that the ritualistic meaning concealed in both\nmay be much the same. But all attempts to find a definite explanation\nfor Poplifugia have so far been fruitless, with the single exception\nperhaps of that of Schwegler[714], who himself made the serious blunder\nof confounding this day with the Nonae Caprotinae. It is true that the\ntwo days and their rites were confused even in antiquity, but only by\nlate writers[715]; the calendars, on the other hand, are perfectly plain\nand so is Varro[716], who proceeds from the one to the other in a way\nthat can leave no doubt that he understood them as distinct.\n\nThe simple fact is that the meaning of the word Poplifugia had wholly\nvanished when the calendar began to be studied. Ingenuity and fancy, as\nusual, took the place of knowledge, and two legends were the result\u2014the\none connecting the word with the flight of the Romans from an army of\ntheir neighbours of Fidenae, after the retirement of the Gauls from the\ncity[717]; the other interpreting it as a memorial of the flight of the\npeople after the disappearance of Romulus in the darkness of an eclipse\nor sudden tempest[718]. The first of these legends may be dismissed at\nonce; the large capitals in which the name Poplifugia appears in the\nfragments of the three calendars which preserve it, are sufficient\nevidence that it must have been far older than the Gallic invasion[719].\nThe second legend might suggest that the story itself of the death of\nRomulus had grown out of some religious rite performed at this time of\nyear; and it was indeed traditionally connected with the Nones of this\nmonth[720]. But that day is unluckily not the day of the Poplifugia,\nwhich it is hardly possible to connect with the disappearance of\nRomulus. There may, however, have been a connexion between the rites of\nthe two days, as has been pointed out above; and this being so, it is\nworth while to notice a suggestion made by Schwegler, in spite of the\nfact that he confused the two days together. He saw that the\ndisappearance of Romulus was said to have occurred while he was holding\na _lustratio_ of the citizens[721], and concluded that the Poplifugia\nmay have been an ancient rite of lustration\u2014an idea which other writers\nhave been content to follow without always giving him the credit of\nit[722].\n\nSuch a rite may very well be indicated by the following sentence of\nVarro[723]\u2014the only one which gives us any solid information on the\nquestion: _Aliquot huius diei vestigia fugae in sacris apparent, de\nquibus rebus antiquitatum libri plura referunt_. It seems not\nunreasonable to guess that the rite was one of those in which the\npriest, or in this case, as it would seem, the people also, fled from\nthe spot after the sacrifice had been concluded. As the slayer of the ox\nat the Athenian Bouphonia (which curiously enough took place just at\nthis same time of year) fled as one guilty of blood, so it may possibly\nhave been that priest and people at Rome fled after some similar\nsacrifice, and for the same reason[724]. Or it may have been that they\nfled from the victim as a scapegoat which was destined to carry away\nfrom the city some pollution or pestilence. It is interesting to find at\nIguvium in Umbria some \u2018vestigia fugae,\u2019 not of the people, indeed, but\nof victims, at a _lustratio populi_ which seems to have had some object\nof this kind[725]. Heifers were put to flight, then caught and killed,\napparently in order to carry off evils from the city[726], as well as to\nrepresent and secure the defeat of its enemies. Such performances seem\nespecially apt to occur at sickly seasons[727]; and as the unhealthy\nseason began at Rome in July[728], it is just possible that the\nPoplifugia was a ceremony of this class.\n\n\n NON. QUINCT. (JULY 7). N.\n\n\nThis day does not appear as a festival in the old calendars; but the\nlate one of Silvius[729] notes it as _Ancillarum Feriae_, or Feast of\nHandmaids, and adds the explanatory story which is found also in\nPlutarch and Macrobius[730]. The victorious Fidenates having demanded\nthe surrender of the wives of the Romans, the latter made over to them\ntheir _ancillae_, dressed in their mistresses\u2019 robes, by the advice of a\ncertain Philotis, or Tutula[731], one of the handmaids. Ausonius alludes\nto the custom that gave rise to the story:\n\n Festa Caprotinis memorabo celebria Nonis\n Cum stola matronis dempta teget famulas[732].\n\nPlutarch also tells us that on this day the _ancillae_ not only wore the\nmatron\u2019s dress, but had license for what may be described as a game of\nromps; they beat each other, threw stones at each other, and scoffed at\nthe passers by[733].\n\nThis last point supplies us with a possible clue both to the origin of\nthe custom and the explanatory legend. One of the most frequent customs\nat harvest-time used to be, and still is in some places, for the\nharvesters to mock at, and even to use roughly, any stranger who appears\non the field; frequently he is tied up with straw, even by the women\nbinding the sheaves, and only released on promise of money, brandy, &c.;\nor he is ducked in water, or half-buried, or in pretence beheaded[734].\nThe stranger in such cases is explained as representing the spirit of\nthe corn; the examples collected by Mannhardt and Mr. Frazer seem fairly\nconclusive on this point[735]. The wearing of the matron\u2019s dress also\nseems to be a combination of the familiar practices of the winter\nSaturnalia with harvest customs, which in various forms is by no means\nuncommon[736], though I have not found a case of exchange of dress after\nharvest.\n\nThus it would seem possible that we have here a relic of Italian\nharvest-custom; and this is confirmed by the statement of Tertullian\nthat there was on this day a sacrifice to the harvest-god Consus[737],\nat his underground altar in the Circus Maximus, of which we shall have\nmore to say under Aug. 21 (Consualia). It is worth noting here that just\nas the legend of the Rape of the Sabines was connected with the\nConsualia[738], so the analogous story of the demand of the Fidenates\nfor Roman women is associated with the _Ancillarum Feriae_, and the day\nof the sacrifice to Consus. This not only serves to connect together the\ntwo days of Consus-worship, but suggests that harvest was a favourable\nopportunity for the practice of capturing wives in primitive Italy, when\nthe women were out in the fields, and might be carried off by a sudden\nincursion.\n\nThis day was also known as Nonae Caprotinae, because the women,\npresumably those who had been helping at the harvest, both bond and\nfree[739], sacrificed to Juno Caprotina under a wild fig-tree\n(caprificus) in the Campus Martius[740]. Juno Caprotina was a Latin\ngoddess, of great renown at Falerii[741], where the goat from which she\ntook her name appears in the legend of her cult. The character of Juno\nas the representative of the female principle of human life[742] suits\nwell enough with the prominence of women both in the customs and legends\nconnected with the day; and the fig-tree with its milky juice, which was\nused, according to Macrobius, in the sacrifice to Juno instead of milk,\nhas also its significance[743]. Varro adds that a rod (virga) was also\ncut from this tree[744], without telling us for what purpose it was\nused; and it has been ingeniously conjectured that it was with this that\nthe handmaids beat each other as Plutarch describes, to produce\nfertility, just as at the Lupercalia the women were beaten with strips\ncut from the skins of the victims (amiculum Junonis). But this is mere\nconjecture, and Varro\u2019s statement is too indefinite to be pressed[745].\n\n\n VIII ID. QUINCT. (JULY 8). N.\n\n\n\u2018Piso ait vitulam victoriam nominari, cuius rei hoc argumentum profert,\nquod postridio nonas Iulias re bene gesta, cum pridie populus a Tuscis\nin fugam versus sit (unde Populifugia vocantur), post victoriam certis\nsacrificiis fiat _vitulatio_[746].\u2019\n\nI must be content with quoting this passage, and without comment; it\nwill suffice to show that the meaning of the word \u2018vitulatio\u2019 was\nentirely unknown to Roman scholars. Why they should not have connected\nit with _vitulus_ I know not: we may remember that in the Iguvian ritual\n_vituli_ seem to have performed the function of scapegoats[747]. If the\nvitulatio is in any way to be connected with the Poplifugia, as it was\nindeed in the legend as given by Macrobius above, it may be worth while\nto remember that that day is marked in one calendar as \u2018feriae Iovi,\u2019\nand that the _vitulus_ (heifer) was the special victim of Jupiter[748].\n\n\n PRID. NON. QUINCT.\u2014III ID. QUINCT. (JULY 6-13).\n\n\nLUDI APOLLINARES.\n\n\nAll these days are marked \u2018ludi\u2019 in Maff. Amit. Ant.; the 6th \u2018ludi\nApoll[ini],\u2019 and the 13th \u2018ludi in circo.\u2019\n\nThese games[749] were instituted in 212 B.C., for a single occasion\nonly, at the most dangerous period of the war with Hannibal, when he had\ntaken Tarentum and invaded Campania. Recourse was had to the Sibylline\nbooks and to the Italian oracles of Marcius, and the latter answered as\nfollows[750]:\n\n\u2018Hostes Romani si expellere voltis, vomicamque quae gentium venit longe,\nApollini vovendos censeo ludos, qui quotannis Apollini fiant,\u2019 &c. The\ngames were held, as we may suppose, on the analogy of the ludi plebeii,\noriginally on the 13th day of the month[751], and were, in course of\ntime, extended backwards till in the Julian calendar we find them\nlasting from the 6th to the 13th. They had a Greek character from the\nfirst; they were superintended by the Decemviri sacris faciundis, who\nconsulted the Sibylline books and organized the ritual of foreign cults;\nand they included scenic shows, after the Greek fashion, as well as\nchariot races[752].\n\nIt was matter of dispute whether in this year, 212, Apollo was expected\nto show his favour to Rome as a conqueror of her foe or as an averter of\npestilence in the summer heats; both functions were within his range.\nBut in 208 we are told that the ludi were renewed by a lex, made\npermanent, and fixed for July 13 in consequence of a pestilence[753];\nand we may fairly assume that this was, in part at least, the cause of\ntheir institution four years earlier. What little we know of the\ntraditions of Apollo-worship at Rome points in the same direction. His\noldest temple in the Flaminian fields, where, according to Livy, a still\nmore ancient shrine once stood[754], was vowed in 432 B.C. in\nconsequence of a pestilence; and the god had also the cult-title\nMedicus[755]. The next occasion on which we meet with the cult is that\nof the first institution of a lectisternium in 397 B.C., Livy\u2019s account\nof which is worth condensing[756]. That year was remarkable for an\nextremely cold winter, which was followed by an equally unhealthy\nsummer, destructive to all kinds of animals. As the cause of this\npestilence could not be discovered, the Sibylline books were consulted;\nthe result of which was the introduction of a _lectisternium_, at which\nthree couches were laid out with great magnificence, on which reposed\nApollo and Latona, Diana and Hercules, Mercurius and Neptunus, whose\nfavour the people besought for eight days.\n\nThe cult of Apollo, though thus introduced in its full magnificence at\nRome in historical times, was, \u2018so old in Italy as almost to give the\nimpression of being indigenous[757].\u2019 Tradition ascribed to Tarquinius\nSuperbus the introduction from Cumae of the Sibylline oracles, which\nwere intimately connected with Apollo-worship; and that Etruscan king\nmay well have been familiar with the Greek god, who was well known in\nEtruria as _Aplu_[758], and who was worshipped at Caere, the home of the\nTarquinian family, which city had a \u2018treasury\u2019 at Delphi[759]. The\nRomans themselves, according to a tradition which is by no means\nimprobable, had very early dealings with the Delphic oracle.\n\nIt does not seem certain that Apollo displaced any other deity when\ntransplanted to Rome. It has been thought that the obscure Veiovis\nbecame clothed with some of Apollo\u2019s characteristics, but this is\nextremely doubtful[760]. The mysterious deity of Soracte, _Soranus_, is\ncalled Apollo by Virgil[761]; this, however, is not a true displacement,\nlike that, e. g., of the ancient Ceres by the characteristics of\nDemeter, but merely a poetical substitution of a familiar name for an\nunfamiliar one which was unquestionably old Italian.\n\nIt does not seem probable that in the Republican period the cult of\nApollo had any special influence, either religious or ethical, for the\nRoman people generally. It was a priestly experiment\u2014a new physician was\ncalled in at perilous times, according to the fashion of the Roman\noligarchy, either to give advice by his oracles, or to receive honours\nfor his benefits as \u1f00\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. It is in the age of Augustus that the\ncult begins to be important; the family of the Caesars was said to have\nhad an ancient connexion with it[762], and after the victory at Actium,\nwhere a temple of Apollo stood on the promontory, Augustus not only\nenlarged and adorned this one, but built another on the Palatine, near\nhis own house, to Apollo Palatinus. But for the \u2018Apollinism\u2019 of\nAugustus, and for the important part played by the god in the _ludi\nsaeculares_ of B.C. 17, I must refer the reader to other works[763].\n\n\n XIV KAL. SEXT. (JULY 19). NP.\n\n\nLUCAR[IA]. (MAFF. AMIT.)\n\n\n XII KAL. SEXT. (JULY 21). NP.\n\n\nLUCAR[IA]. (MAFF. AMIT.)\n\n\nHere, as in the next two festivals we have to consider, we are but\n\u2018dipping buckets into empty wells.\u2019 The ritual, and therefore the\noriginal meaning of this festival, is wholly lost to us, as indeed it\nwas to the Romans of Varro\u2019s time. Varro, in his list of festivals, does\nnot even mention this one; but it is possible that some words have here\ndropped out of his text[764]. The only light we have comes at\nsecond-hand from Verrius Flaccus[765]. \u2018Lucaria festa in luco colebant\nRomani, qui permagnus inter viam Salariam et Tiberim fuit, pro eo, quod\nvicti a Gallis fugientes[766] e praelio ibi se occultaverint.\u2019 This\npassage reminds us of the story explanatory of the Poplifugia, and might\nsuggest, as in that case, an expiatory sacrifice and flight of the\npeople from a scapegoat destined to carry away disease. But here we know\nof no _vestigia fugae_ in the cult, such as Varro tells us were apparent\nat the Poplifugia.\n\nThe only possible guess we can make must rest on the name itself, taken\ntogether with what Festus tells us of the great wood once existing\nbetween the Via Salaria and the Tiber, in which the festival was held\u2014a\nwood which no doubt occupied the Pincian hill, and the region afterwards\nlaid out in gardens by Lucullus, Pompeius, and Sallust the historian.\nLucaria is formed from _lucar_ as Lemuria from _lemur_; and _lucar_,\nthough in later times it meant \u2018the sum disbursed from the _aerarium_\nfor the games[767],\u2019 drawn probably from the receipts of the sacred\ngroves, may also at one time itself have meant a grove. An inscription\nfrom the Latin colony of Luceria shows us _lucar_ in this sense[768]:\n\n IN \u00b7 HOCE \u00b7 LUCARID \u00b7 STIRCUS \u00b7 NE \u00b7 IS \u00b7 FUNDATID, &c.\n\nNow there can be no doubt about the great importance of woods, or rather\nof clearings in them, in the ancient Italian religion. \u2018_Nemus_ and\n_lucus_,\u2019 says Preller[769], \u2018like so many other words, remind us of the\nold Italian life of woodland and clearing. _Nemus_ is a pasturage,\n_lucus_ a \u201clight\u201d or clearing[770], in the forest, where men settled and\nimmediately began to look to the interests of the spirits of the\nwoodland, and especially of Silvanus, who is at once the god of the wild\nlife of the woodland and of the settler in the forest\u2014the backwoodsman.\u2019\nThe woods left standing as civilization and agriculture advanced\ncontinued to be the abodes of _numina_, not only of the great Jupiter,\nwho, as we shall see, was worshipped in groves all over Italy[771], and\nof Diana, who at Aricia bore the title of Nemorensis, but of innumerable\nspirits of the old worship, Fauni, Silvani, and other manifestations of\nthe idea most definitely conceived in the great god Mars[772]. But men\ncould not of course know for certain what spirits dwelt in a wood, whose\nanger might be roused by intrusion or tree-felling; and old Cato, among\nhis many prescriptions, material and religious, gives one in the form of\nan invocation to such unknown deities if an intrusion had to be made. It\nis worth quoting, and runs as follows[773]: \u2018Lucum conlucare Romano more\nsic oportet. Porco piaculo facito. Sic verba concipito: Si Deus, si Dea\nes, quoium illud sacrum est, uti tibi ius siet porco piaculo facere,\nilliusce sacri coercendi ergo. Harumce rerum ergo, sive ego, sive quis\niussu meo fecerit, uti id recte factum siet. Eius rei ergo te hoc porco\npiaculo immolando bonas preces precor, uti sies volens propitius mihi,\ndomo familiaeque meae, liberisque meis. Harumce rerum ergo macte hoc\nporco piaculo immolando esto.\u2019\n\nApplying these facts to the problem of the Lucaria, though necessarily\nwith hesitation, and remembering the position of the wood and the date\nof the festival, we may perhaps arrive at the following conclusion; that\nthis was a propitiatory worship offered to the deities inhabiting the\nwoods which bordered on the cultivated Roman ager. The time when the\ncorn was being gathered in, and the men and women were in the fields,\nwould be by no means unsuitable for such propitiation. It need not have\nbeen addressed to any special deity, any more than that of Cato, or as I\nbelieve, the ritual of the Lupercalia[774]; it belonged to the most\nprimitive of Roman rites, and partly for that reason, partly also from\nthe absorption of land by large private owners[775], it fell into\ndesuetude. The grove of the Fratres Arvales and the decay of their cult\n(also addressed to a nameless deity) offers an analogy on the other side\nof Rome, towards Ostia.\n\nSuch a hypothesis seems not unreasonable, though it is based rather on\ngeneral than particular evidence. It is at any rate better than the wild\nguessing of one German inquirer, who is always at home when there is no\ninformation. Huschke[776] believes that the words _Lucaria_ and\n_Luceres_ (the ancient Roman tribe-name) are both derived from _lucus_\nbecause the Lucaria take place in July, which is the auspication-month\nof the Luceres. And there are two days of this festival, because the\nLuceres owed protection both to the Romani and Quirites (Rhamnes and\nTities) and therefore worshipped both Janus and Quirinus.\n\n\n X KAL. SEXT. (JULY 23). NP.\n\n\nNEPT[UNALIA]. (PINC. MAFF.)\n\nFERIAE NEPTUNO. (PINC. ALLIF.)\n\n\nThe early history of Neptunus is a mystery, and we learn hardly anything\nabout him from his festival. We know that it took place in the heat of\nsummer, and that booths or huts made of the foliage of trees were used\nat it, to keep the sun off the worshippers\u2014and that is all[777]. Neither\nof these facts suggests a sea-god, such as we are accustomed to see in\nNeptune; yet they are hardly strong enough to enable us to build on them\nany other hypothesis as to his character or functions. Nor does his name\nhelp us. Though it constantly appears in Etruscan art as the name of a\ngod who has the characteristics of the Greek Poseidon, it is said not to\nbe of genuine Etruscan origin[778]. If this be so, the Etruscans must\nhave borrowed it from some people who already used it of a sea-god when\nthe loan was made; but one does not see why this great seafaring people\nshould have gone outside the language of their own religion for a name\nfor their deity of the sea.\n\nIn the ancient cult-formulae preserved by Gellius[779], Neptunus is\ncoupled with a female name Salacia; and of this Varro writes \u2018Salacia\nNeptuni a salo\u2019\u2014an etymology no doubt suggested by the later\nidentification of Neptunus with Poseidon. Salacia is in my opinion\nrather to be referred to _salax_ (\u2018lustful,\u2019 &c.), and, like Nerio\nMartis[780], to be taken as indicating the virile force of Neptunus as\nthe divine progenitor of a stock[781]. This seems to be confirmed by the\nfact that this god was known as Neptunus pater, like Mars, Janus,\nSaturnus, and Jupiter himself[782]; all of whom are associated in cult\nor legend with the early history of Latin stocks.\n\nWhen Neptunus first meets us in Roman history, he has already put on the\nattributes of the Greek Poseidon; this was in B.C. 399, at the first\nlectisternium, where he is in company with Apollo and Latona, Diana and\nHercules, and is specially coupled with Mercurius (= Hermes)[783]. What\ncharacteristics of his suggested the identification, either here or in\nEtruria, we cannot tell. We find no trace of any evidence connecting him\nwith the sea; and the coupling with Hermes need mean no more than that\nboth this god and Poseidon found their way to Rome through the medium of\nGreek trade.\n\nIt has recently been conjectured[784] that the object of both the\nLucaria and Neptunalia was to avert the heat and drought of July, and to\npropitiate the deities of water and springs, of whom Neptunus (judging\nfrom his identification with Poseidon) may possibly have been one; but\nthis is no more than a vague guess, which its author only puts forward\n\u2018with all reserve.\u2019\n\n\n VIII KAL. SEXT. (JULY 25). NP.\n\n\nFURR[INALIA]. (PINC. ALLIF. MAFF.)\n\nFERIAE FURRINAE (PINC. ALLIF.)\n\n\nIt seems to be the lesson of the festivals of July that there was an\nearly stage of the Roman religion which had lost all meaning for the\nRomans themselves when they began to inquire into the history of their\nown religion. Of this last festival of the month we know no single item\nin the cult, and therefore have nothing substantial to guide us. It\nseems almost certain that even Varro and Verrius Flaccus[785] knew\nnothing of the festival but its name as it stood in the calendar. Nor\ndid they know anything of the goddess Furrina or Furina. Varro is\nexplicit; he says that she was celebrated \u2018apud antiquos,\u2019 for they gave\nher an annual festival and a flamen, but that in his day there were\nhardly a dozen Romans who knew either her name or anything about her.\n\nVarro is no doubt right in arguing from the festival and the flamen to\nthe ancient honour in which she was held; and these facts also tend to\nprove that she was a single deity, and quite distinct from the Furiae\nwith whom the later Romans as well as the Greeks naturally confounded\nher\u2014an inference which is confirmed by the long _u_ indicated by the\ndouble _r_ in the calendars[786].\n\nThere is therefore nothing but the etymology to tell us anything about\nthe goddess, and from this source we cannot expect to learn anything\ncertain. Preller plausibly suggested a connexion with _fur_, _furvus_,\nand _fuscus_, from a root meaning dark or secret; and if this were\ncorrect she might be a deity of the under-world or of the darkness.\nB\u00fccheler in his _Umbrica_[787] suggested a comparison with the Umbrian\n_furfare_ = februare (\u2018to purify\u2019), which will at least serve to show\nthe difficulty of basing conclusions on etymological reasoning. Jordan\nconjectured that the festival had to do with the averting of dangerous\nsummer heat[788]\u2014a conclusion that is natural enough, but does not seem\nto rest on any evidence but its date. Lastly, Huschke[789], again in his\nelement, boldly asserts that the Furrinalia served to appease the\ndeities of revenge who hailed from the black region of Vediovis\u2014wrongly\nconfusing Furrina and the Furiae. It will be quite obvious from these\ninstances that it is as hopeless as it is useless to attempt to discover\nthe nature of either goddess or festival by means of etymological\nreasoning.\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n Bk. 47. 18. We owe the reference to Merkel, _Praef. in Ovidii Fastos_,\n clix.\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n His real birthday seems to have been the 12th, which, was already\n occupied by the ludi Apollinares.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n Mommsen in _C. I. L._ 321 (on July 7).\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n Varro, _L. L._6. 18; Marq. 325.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n See Introduction, p. 7. This anomaly led Huschke to the inadmissible\n supposition that this was the single addition made to the calendar of\n Numa in the republican period. He accepts Varro\u2019s explanatory story,\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, p. 224.\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n See below, p. 327.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n _R. G._ i. 532: see Mommsen\u2019s criticism in _C. I. L_ 321 f.\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n Macrob. 6. 11. 36; Plut. _Rom._ 29, _Camill._ 33. See also O. M\u00fcller\u2019s\n note on Varro, _L. L._ 6. 18.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 18.\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n This is Varro\u2019s account; the Etruscans are a variant in Macrobius, l.\n c.\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n Dionys. 2. 56; Plut. _Rom._ 29. See Lewis, _Credibility of Early Roman\n History_, i. 430.\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n Introduction, p. 15.\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n Cic. _de Rep._ 1. 16; Plut. _Rom._ 27.\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n Liv. 1. 16 \u2018Ad exercitum recensendum.\u2019 Lustratio came to be the word\n for a review of troops because this was preceded by a religious\n _lustratio populi_.\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n e. g. Gilbert, i. 290; Marq. 325.\n\nFootnote 723:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 18. Details have vanished with the great work here quoted,\n the _Antiquitates divinae_.\n\nFootnote 724:\n\n Schwegler suggested the parallel, i. 534, note 20. For the Bouphonia\n see especially Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 68. For other such rites,\n Lobeck, _Aglaophamus_, 679, 680.\n\nFootnote 725:\n\n B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_, 114.\n\nFootnote 726:\n\n The idea of the scapegoat was certainly not unknown in Italy; B\u00fccheler\n quotes Serv. (_Aen._ 2. 140) \u2018Ludos Taureos a Sabinis propter\n pestilentiam institutos dicunt, _ut lues publica in has hostias\n verteretur_.\u2019 See on the Regifugium, below, p. 328.\n\nFootnote 727:\n\n See examples in Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 160 foll. The one from the\n Key Islands is interesting as including a flight of the people.\n\nFootnote 728:\n\n Nissen, _Landeskunde_, 406.\n\nFootnote 729:\n\n _C. I. L._ p. 269.\n\nFootnote 730:\n\n Macrob. 1. 11. 36; Plut. _Camill._ 33.\n\nFootnote 731:\n\n Aug. _de Civ. Dei_, 4. 8.\n\nFootnote 732:\n\n _de Feriis_, 9.\n\nFootnote 733:\n\n The last point is in _Camill._ 33-6: cp. _Rom._ 29. 6.\n\nFootnote 734:\n\n The bearing of these customs on the Nonae Caprotinae, and on the Greek\n story of Lityerses, was suggested by Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 32.\n Mr. Frazer gives a useful collection of examples, _G. B._ ii. 363\n foll. The custom survives in Derbyshire (so I am told by Mr. S. B.\n Smith, Scholar of Lincoln College), but only in the form of making the\n stranger \u2018pay his footing.\u2019\n\nFootnote 735:\n\n _G. B._ i. 381.\n\nFootnote 736:\n\n It was the custom, says Macrobius (i. 10) \u2018ut patres familiarum,\n frugibus et fructibus iam coactis, passim cum servis vescerentur, cum\n quibus patientiam laboris in colendo rure toleraverant.\u2019 The old\n English harvest- or mell-supper, had all the characteristics of\n Saturnalia (Brand, _Pop. Antiq._ 337 foll.).\n\nFootnote 737:\n\n Tertullian, _de Spect._ 5.\n\nFootnote 738:\n\n See below, p. 208.\n\nFootnote 739:\n\n This point\u2014the union of free- and bond-women in the sacrifice\u2014seems to\n prove that Nonae Caprotinae and ancillarum feriae were only two names\n for the same thing. Macrobius connects the legend of the latter with\n the rite of the former (i. II. 36).\n\nFootnote 740:\n\n Plut. _Rom._ 29. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 18 writes \u2018in Latio.\u2019\n\nFootnote 741:\n\n Deecke, _Die Falisker_, 89; Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Juno, p. 599.\n\nFootnote 742:\n\n See above, p. 143.\n\nFootnote 743:\n\n One naturally compares the ficus Ruminalis and the foundation-legend\n of Rome.\n\nFootnote 744:\n\n It is curious that the practice in husbandry called _caprificatio_, or\n the introduction of branches of the wild tree among those of the\n cultivated fig to make it ripen (Plin. _N. H._ 15. 79; Colum. II. 2)\n took place in July; and it strikes me as just possible that there may\n have been a connexion between it and the Nonae Caprotinae.\n\nFootnote 745:\n\n Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ l. c.\n\nFootnote 746:\n\n Macrob. 3. 2. 11 and 14. Macrobius also quotes Varro in the 15th book\n of his _Res Divinae_ \u2018Quod pontifex in sacris quibusdam vitulari\n soleat, quod Graeci \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd vocant.\u2019 Perhaps we may compare\n _visceratio_: Serv. Aen. 5. 215.\n\nFootnote 747:\n\n Above, p. 176.\n\nFootnote 748:\n\n Marq. 170.\n\nFootnote 749:\n\n See Marq. 384, and _Lex._ s. v. Apollo 447.\n\nFootnote 750:\n\n Liv. 25. 12.\n\nFootnote 751:\n\n The MSS. of Livy (27. 23) have a.d. iii _Nonas_, no doubt in error for\n a.d iii Idus. Merkel, _Praef._ xxviii.; Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 321.\n\nFootnote 752:\n\n Liv. 25. 12; 26. 33; Festus, 326; Cie. _Brutus_, 20, 78, whence it\n appears that Ennius produced his _Thyestes_ at these _ludi_. Cp. the\n story in Macrob. 1. 17. 25.\n\nFootnote 753:\n\n Liv. 27. 23.\n\nFootnote 754:\n\n Liv. 3. 63. This older shrine Livy calls Apollinar. The temple that\n followed it was the only Apollo-temple in Rome till Augustus built one\n on the Palatine after Actium; this is clear from Asconius, p. 81 (ad\n Cic. in toga candida), quoted by Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, 7. It was\n outside the Porta Carmentalis, near the Circus Flaminius. A still more\n ancient Apollinar is assumed by some to have existed on the Quirinal;\n but it rests on an uncertain emendation of O. M\u00fcller in Varro, _L. L._\n 5. 52.\n\nFootnote 755:\n\n Liv. 40. 51. The Romans seem originally to have called the god\n _Apello_, and connected the name with _pellere_. Paulus, 22; Macrob.\n 1. 17. 15.\n\nFootnote 756:\n\n Liv. 5. 13.\n\nFootnote 757:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Apollo, 446.\n\nFootnote 758:\n\n M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 69.\n\nFootnote 759:\n\n Strabo, p. 214; Herodotus, 1.167.\n\nFootnote 760:\n\n Jordan on Preller, i. 265.\n\nFootnote 761:\n\n _Aen._ 11. 785 \u2018Summe deum, sancti custos Soractis Apollo,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 762:\n\n Serv. _Aen._ 10. 316 \u2018Omnes qui secto matris ventre procreantur, ideo\n sunt Apollini consecrati, quia deus medicinae est, per quam lucem\n sortiuntur. Unde Aesculapius eius fingitur filius: ita enim eum [esse]\n procreatum supra (7. 761) diximus. Caesarum etiam familia ideo sacra\n retinebat Apollinis, quia qui primus de eorum familia fuit, exsecto\n matris ventre natus est. Unde etiam Caesar dictus est.\u2019\n\nFootnote 763:\n\n A concise account by Roscher, _Lex._ s. v. Apollo 448; Boissier,\n _Religion Romaine_, i. 96 foll.; Gardthausen, _Augustus_, vol. ii, p.\n 873. For the _ludi saeculares_ see especially Mommsen\u2019s edition of the\n great but mutilated inscription recently discovered in the Campus\n Martius (_Eph. Epigr._ viii. 1 foll.); Diels, _Sibyllin. Bl\u00e4tter_, p.\n 109 foll.; and the _Carmen Saeculare_ of Horace, with the commentaries\n of Orelli and Wickham.\n\nFootnote 764:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 18 fin. and 19 init.\n\nFootnote 765:\n\n Festus, 119. s. v. Lucaria.\n\nFootnote 766:\n\n The battle of the Allia was fought on the 18th, the day before the\n first Lucaria. This no doubt suggested the legend connecting the two,\n especially as the Via Salaria, near which was the grove of the\n festival, crossed the battle-field some ten miles north of Rome.\n\nFootnote 767:\n\n See Friedl\u00e4nder in Marq. 487; Plutarch, _Q. R._ 88.\n\nFootnote 768:\n\n Mommsen in _Ephemeris Epigraphica_, ii. 205.\n\nFootnote 769:\n\n i. III; Liv. 24. 3; Cato, ap. Priscian, 629. Much useful matter\n bearing on _luci_ as used for boundaries, _asyla_, markets, &c., will\n be found in Rudorff, _Gromatici Veteres_, ii. 260.\n\nFootnote 770:\n\n \u2018Light\u2019 is not uncommon in England for a \u2018ride\u2019 or clearing in a wood.\n\nFootnote 771:\n\n Below, pp. 222, and 228.\n\nFootnote 772:\n\n On the whole subject of the religious ideas arising from the first\n cultivation of land in a wild district I know nothing more instructive\n than Robertson Smith\u2019s remarks in _Religion of the Semites_, Lecture\n iii.; I have often thought that they throw some light on the origin of\n Mars and kindred numina. The most ancient settlements in central Italy\n are now found to be on the tops of hills, probably once forest-clad\n (see Von Duhn\u2019s paper on recent excavations, _Journal of Hellenic\n Studies_, 1896, p. 125). For a curious survival of the feeling about\n woods and hill-tops in Bengal, see Crooke, _Religion, &c., in India_,\n ii. 87.\n\nFootnote 773:\n\n _R. R._ 139. For _piacula_ of this kind see also Henzen, _Acta Fratr.\n Arv._ 136 foll.; Marq. 456.\n\nFootnote 774:\n\n See below, p. 312.\n\nFootnote 775:\n\n See a passage in Frontinus (_Grom. Vet._ 1. 56: cp. 2. 263).\n\nFootnote 776:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, p. 221, and note 81 on p. 222.\n\nFootnote 777:\n\n Festus, 377 \u2018Umbrae vocantur Neptunalibus casae frondeae pro\n tabernaculis.\u2019 Wissowa (_Lex._ s. v. Neptunus, 202) compares the\n \u03c3\u03ba\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 of the Spartan Carneia (also in the heat of summer), described\n in Athenaeus, 4. 141 F.\n\nFootnote 778:\n\n M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 54, with Deecke\u2019s note 51 b. The\n Etruscan forms are Nethunus and Nethuns. The form of the word is\n adjectival like Portunus, &c.; but what is the etymology of the first\n syllable? We are reminded of course of Nepe or Nepete, an inland town\n near Falerii; and to this district the cult seems specially to have\n belonged. Messapus, \u2018Neptunia proles,\u2019 leads the Falisci and others to\n war in Virg. _Aen._ 7. 691, and Halesus, Neptuni filius, was eponymous\n hero of Falerii (Deecke, _Falisker_, 103). There is no known connexion\n of Neptunus with any coast town.\n\nFootnote 779:\n\n 13. 23. 2: cp. Varro, _L. L._ 5. 72.\n\nFootnote 780:\n\n See above, p. 60.\n\nFootnote 781:\n\n Cp. Serv. _Aen._ 5. 724 \u2018(Venus) dicitur et Salacia, quae proprie\n meretricum dea appellata est a veteribus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 782:\n\n Gell. 5. 12; Henzen, _Act. Fratr. Arv._ 124. Wissowa, in his article\n \u2018Neptunus,\u2019 goes too far, as it seems to me, when he asserts that the\n \u2018pater\u2019 belonged to all deities of the oldest religion. See below, p.\n 220.\n\nFootnote 783:\n\n Liv. 5. 13. 6; Dionys. 12. 9. Wissowa, _Lex._ s. v. Nept. 203, for his\n further history as Poseidon.\n\nFootnote 784:\n\n Wissowa in _Lex._ l. c. I doubt if much can be made of the argument\n that the Neptunalia on the 23rd is necessarily connected with the\n Lucaria on the 17th and 19th\u2014i. e. three alternate days, like the\n three days of the Lemuria in May.\n\nFootnote 785:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 84 \u2018Furinalis (flamen) a Furina quoius etiam in\n fastis Furinales feriae sunt\u2019: cp. 6. 19 \u2018Ei sacra instituta annua et\n flamen attributus: nunc vix nomen notum paucis.\u2019\n\nFootnote 786:\n\n See Wissowa\u2019s short and sensible note in _Lex._ s. v. Furrina. For the\n confusion with Furiae, Cic. _de Nat. Deor._ 3. 46; Plut. _C. Gracch._\n 17; _Lex._ s. v. Furiae. Jordan, in Preller, ii. 70, is doubtful on\n the etymological question.\n\nFootnote 787:\n\n p. 71.\n\nFootnote 788:\n\n In Preller, ii. 121.\n\nFootnote 789:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 221.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS SEXTILIS.\n\n\nAugust is with us the month when the corn-harvest is begun; in Italy it\nis usually completed in July, and the final harvest-festivals, when all\nthe operations of housing, &c., have been brought to a close, would\nnaturally have fallen for the primitive Roman farmer in the sixth month.\nThe Kalends of Quinctilis would be too early a date for notice to be\ngiven of these; some farmers might be behindhand, and so cut off from\nparticipation. The Kalends of Sextilis would do well enough; for by the\nNones, before which no festival could be held, there would be a general\ncessation from labour. No other agricultural operations would then for a\ntime be specially incumbent on the farmer[790].\n\nBefore the Ides we find no great festival in the old calendar, though\nthe sacrifice on the 12th at the _ara maxima_ was without doubt of great\nantiquity. The list begins with the Portunalia on the 17th; and then\nfollow, with a day\u2019s interval between each, the Vinalia Rustica,\nConsualia, Volcanalia, Opeconsivia, and Volturnalia. The Vinalia had of\ncourse nothing to do with harvest, and the character of the Portunalia\nand Volturnalia is almost unknown; but all the rest may probably have\nhad some relation to the harvesting and safe-keeping of crops, and the\none or two scraps of information we possess about the Portunalia bear in\nthe same direction. Deities of fire and water seem to be propitiated at\nthis time, in order to preserve the harvest from disaster by either\nelement. The rites are secret and mysterious, the places of worship not\nfamiliar temples, but the _ara maxima_, the underground altar of Consus,\nor the Regia; which may perhaps account for the comparatively early\nneglect and decadence of some of these feasts. We may also note two\nother points: first, the rites gather for the most part in the vicinity\nof the Aventine, the Circus Maximus, and the bank of the Tiber; which in\nthe earliest days must have been the part of the cultivated land nearest\nthe city[791], or at any rate that part of it where the crops were\nstored. Secondly, there is a faint trace of commerce and connexion\nbetween Rome and her neighbours\u2014Latins and Sabines\u2014both in the rites and\nlegends of this month, which may perhaps point to an intercourse,\nwhether friendly or hostile, brought about by the freedom and\nfestivities of harvest time.\n\n\n NON. SEXT. (AUG. 5). F. (NP. ANT.)\n\n\nSALUTI IN COLLE QUIRINALE SACRIFICIUM PUBLICUM. (VALL.)\n\nSALUTI IN COLLE. (AMIT. ANT.)\n\nNATALIS SALUTIS. (PHILOC.)\n\n\nThe date of the foundation of the temple of Salus was 302 B.C., during\nthe Samnite wars[792]. The cult was probably not wholly new. The\n_Augurium Salutis_, which we know through its revival by Augustus, was\nan ancient religious performance at the beginning of each year, or at\nthe accession of new consuls, which involved, first the ascertaining\nwhether prayers would be acceptable to the gods, and secondly the\noffering of such prayers on an auspicious day[793]. Two very old\ninscriptions also suggest that the cult was well distributed in Italy at\nan early period[794]. Such impersonations of abstract ideas as Salus,\nConcordia, Pax, Spes, &c., do not belong to the oldest stage of\nreligion, but were no doubt of pontifical origin, i. e. belonged to the\nlater monarchy or early republic[795]. We need not suppose that they\nwere due to the importation of Greek cults and ideas, though in some\ncases they became eventually overlaid with these. They were generated by\nthe same process as the gods of the Indigitamenta[796]\u2014being in fact an\napplication to the life of the state of that peculiarly Roman type of\nreligious thought which conceived a distinct _numen_ as presiding over\nevery act and suffering of the individual. This again, as I believe, in\nits product the Indigitamenta, was an artificial priestly exaggeration\nof a very primitive tendency to see a world of nameless spirits\nsurrounding and influencing all human life.\n\nThe history of the temple is interesting[797]. Not long after its\ndedication its walls were painted by Gaius Fabius, consul in 269 B.C.,\nwhose descendants, among them the historian, bore the name of Pictor, in\ncommemoration of a feat so singular for a Roman of that age[798]. It was\nstruck by lightning no less than four times, and burnt down in the reign\nof Claudius. Livy[799] tells us that in 180 B.C., by order of the\ndecemviri a supplicatio was held, in consequence of a severe pestilence,\nin honour of Apollo, Aesculapius, and Salus; which shows plainly that\nthe goddess was already being transformed into the likeness of the Greek\n\u1ffe\u03a5\u03b3\u03af\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, and associated rather with public health than with public\nwealth in the most general sense of the word.\n\n\n VI ID. SEXT. (AUG. 9). F. (ALLIP.) NP. (AMIT. MAFF. ETC.)\n\n\nSOLI INDIGITI IN COLLE QUIRINALE. (AMIT. ALLIF.)\n\nSOL[IS] INDIGITIS IN COLLE QUIRINALE SACRIFICIUM PUBLICUM. (VALL.)\n\n\nThere was an ancient worship of Sol on the Quirinal, which was believed\nto be of Sabine origin. A _Solis pulvinar_ close to the temple of\nQuirinus is mentioned, and the Gens Aurelia was said to have had charge\nof the cult[800].\n\nBut the Sol of August 9 is called in the calendars _Sol Indiges_. What\nare we to understand by this word, which appears in the names Di\nIndigetes, Jupiter Indiges, or Indigetes simply? The Roman scholars\nthemselves were not agreed on the point; the general opinion was that it\nmeant \u2018of or belonging to a certain place,\u2019 i. e. fixed there by origin\nand protecting it[801]. This view has also been generally adopted, on\netymological or other grounds, by modern writers, including\nPreller[802]. Recently a somewhat different explanation has been put\nforward in the _Mythological Lexicon_, suggested by Reifferscheid in his\nlectures at Breslau. According to this view, _Indiges_ (from _indu_ and\nroot _ag_ in _agere_) was a deity working in a particular act, business,\nplace, &c., of men\u2019s activity, and in no other; it is of pontifical\norigin, like its cognate _indigitamenta_, and is therefore not a\nsurvival from the oldest religious forms[803].\n\nThe second of these explanations does not seem to help us to understand\nwhat was meant by Sol Indiges; and its exponent in the _Lexicon_, in\norder to explain this, falls back on an ingenious suggestion made long\nago by Preller. In dealing with Sol Indiges, Preller explained Indiges\nas = _index_, and conjectured that the name was not given to Sol until\nafter the eclipse which foretold the death of Caesar, comparing the\nlines of Virgil (_Georg._ 1. 463 foll.):\n\n Sol tibi signa dabit. Solem quis dicere falsum\n Audeat? ille etiam caecos instare tumultus\n Saepe monet, fraudemque et operta tumescere bella.\n Ille etiam exstincto miseratus Caesare Romam:\n Cum caput obscura nitidum ferrugine texit,\n Impiaque aeternam timuerunt saecula noctem.\n\nPreller may be right; and if he were, we should have no further trouble\nin this case. In the pre-Julian calendar, on this hypothesis, the word\nIndiges was absent. This is also the opinion of the last scholar who, so\nfar as I know, has touched the question; but Wissowa[804], with reason\nas I think, reverts to the first explanation given above of the word\nIndiges (\u2018of or belonging to a certain place\u2019), and believes that the\nword, when added to Sol in the Julian calendar, was simply meant to\ndistinguish the real indigenous Sun-god from foreign solar deities.\n\n\n PRID. ID. SEXT. (AUG. 12). C.\n\n\nHERCULI INVICTO AD CIRCUM MAXIM[UM]. (ALLIF. AMIT.)\n\n[HERCULI MAGNO CUSTODI IN CIRCO FLAMIN[IO] (VALL.) is generally taken as\na confusion with June 4[805].]\n\n\nThis is the only day to which we can ascribe, on the evidence of the\ncalendars, the yearly rites of the _ara maxima_, and of the _aedes\nHerculis_ in the Forum boarium. These two shrines were close together;\nthe former just at the entrance of the Circus maximus, the latter, as\nhas been made clear by a long series of researches, a little to the\nnorth-east of it[806]. We are led to suppose that the two must have been\nclosely connected in the cult, though we are not explicitly informed on\nthe point.\n\nThe _round_ temple indicates a very ancient worship, as in the case of\nthe aedes Vestae, and the legends confirm this. The story of Hercules\nand Cacus, the foundation-legend of the cult, whatever be its origin,\nshows a priesthood of two ancient patrician families, the Potitii and\nPinarii[807]. Appius Claudius, the censor of 312 B.C., is said to have\nbribed the Potitii, the chief celebrants, to hand over their duties to\npublic slaves[808]; but in the yearly rites, consisting chiefly in the\nsacrifice of a heifer, these were presided over by the praetor urbanus,\nwhose connexion with the cult is attested by inscriptions[809]. That\nthere was at one time a reconstruction of the cult, especially in the\ndirection of Greek usage, seems indeed probable; for the praetor wore a\nlaurel wreath and sacrificed with his head uncovered after the Greek\nfashion[810]. But there is enough about it that was genuine Roman to\nprove that the foundation-legend had some of its roots in an ancient\ncult; e. g. at the sacred meal which followed the previous sacrifice in\nthe evening, the worshippers did not lie down but sat, as was the most\nancient practice both in Greece and Italy[811]. Women were excluded,\nwhich is in keeping with the Italian conception of Hercules as Genius,\nor the deity of masculine activity[812]. The sacrifice was followed by a\nmeal on the remainder, which was perhaps an old practice in Italy, as in\nGreece. In this feature, as in two others, we have a very interesting\nparallel with this cult, which does not seem to have been noticed, in\nthe prescription given by Cato for the invocation of Mars on behalf of\nthe farmer\u2019s cattle[813]. After prescribing the material of the offering\nto Mars Silvanus, he goes on as follows: \u2018Eam rem divinam _vel servus,\nvel liber licebit faciat_. Ubi res divina facta erit, _statim ibidem\nconsumito_. _Mulier ad eam rem divinam ne adsit_, neve videat quomodo\nfiat. Hoc votum in annos singulos, si voles, licebit vovere.\u2019 Here we\nhave the eating of the remainder[814], the exclusion of women, and the\nparticipation in the cult by slaves; the exclusion of women is very\ncurious in this case, and seems to show that such a practice was not\nconfined to worships of a sexual character. It is also worth noting that\njust as Cato\u2019s formula invokes Mars Silvanus, so in Virgil\u2019s description\nof the cult of the _ara maxima_[815], we find one special feature of\nMars-worship, namely the presence of the _Salii_[816]. It is hardly\npossible to suppose that Virgil here was guilty of a wilful confusion:\nis it possible, then, that in this cult some form of Mars is hidden\nbehind Hercules, and that the Hercules of the _ara maxima_ is not the\nGenius after all, as modern scholars have persuaded themselves?\n\nBut what marks out this curious cult more especially from all others is\nthe practice of offering on the _ara maxima_ \u2018decumae\u2019 or tithes, of\nbooty, commercial gains, sudden windfalls, and so on[817]. The custom\nseems to be peculiar to this cult, though it is proved by inscriptions\nof Hercules-cults elsewhere in Italy\u2014e. g. at Sora near Arpinum, at\nReate, Tibur, Capua and elsewhere[818]. But these inscriptions, old as\nsome of them are, cannot prove that the practice they attest was not\nultimately derived from Rome. At Rome, indeed, there is no question\nabout it; it is abundantly proved by literary allusions, as well as by\nfragments of divine law[819]. Was it an urban survival from an old\nItalian rural custom, or was it an importation from elsewhere?\n\nIn favour of the first of these explanations is the fact that the\noffering of _first-fruits_ was common, if not universal, in rural\nItaly[820]. They are not, indeed, known to have been offered specially\nto Hercules; but the date, Aug. 12, of the sacrifice at Rome might\nsuggest an original offering of the first-fruits of the Roman ager,\nbefore the growth of the city had pushed agriculture to some distance\naway. Now first-fruits are the oldest form of tribute to a god as \u2018the\nlord of the land,\u2019 developing in due time into fixed tithes as\ntemple-ritual becomes more elaborate and expensive[821]. In their\nprimitive form they are found in all parts of the world, as Mr. Frazer\nhas shown us in an appendix to the second volume of his _Golden\nBough_[822]. It is certainly possible that in this way the August cult\nof the _ara maxima_ may be connected with the general character of the\nAugust festivals; that the offering of the first-fruits of harvest gave\nway to a regulated system of tithes[823], of which we find a survival in\nthe offerings of the tenth part of their booty by great generals like\nSulla and Crassus. As the city grew, and agriculture became less\nprominent than military and mercantile pursuits, the practice passed\ninto a form adapted to these\u2014i. e. the _decumae_ of military booty or\nmercantile gain[824].\n\nBut there is another possibility which must at least be suggested. The\nmyth attached to the _ara maxima_ and the Aventine, that of Hercules and\nCacus, stands alone among Italian stories, as the system of tithe-giving\ndoes among Italian practices. We may be certain that the practice did\nnot spring from the myth; rather that an addition was made to the myth,\nwhen Hercules was described as giving the tenth of his booty, in order\nto explain an unusual practice. Yet myth and practice stand in the\nclosest relation to each other, and the strange thing about each is that\nit is unlike its Italian kindred.\n\nOf late years it has become the fashion to claim the myth as genuine\nItalian, in spite of its Graeco-Oriental character, on the evidence of\ncomparative mythology[825]: but no explanation is forthcoming of its\nunique character among Italian myths, all of which have a marked\npractical tendency, and a relation to some human institution such as the\nfoundation of a city. They are legends of human beings and practices:\nthis is an elemental myth familiar in different forms to the Eastern\nmind. Again, the Hercules of the myth has nothing in common with the\ngenuine Italian Hercules, whom we may now accept as = genius, or the\nmasculine principle\u2014as may be seen from the sorry lameness of the\nattempt to harmonize the two[826]. Beyond doubt there was an Italian\nspirit or deity to whom the name Hercules was attached: but there is no\nneed to force all the forms of Hercules that meet us into exact\nconnexion with the genuine one. We have seen above that the Hercules of\nthe _ara maxima_ may possibly have concealed Mars himself, in his\noriginal form of a deity of cattle, pasture, and clearings. But there is\nyet another possible explanation of this tangled problem.\n\nThe Roman form of the Cacus-myth, in which Cacus steals the cattle from\nHercules, and tries to conceal his theft by dragging them backwards into\nhis cave by their tails, has recently been found in Sicily depicted on a\npainted vase, whither, as Professor Gardner has suggested, it may have\nbeen brought by way of Cyprus by Phoenician traders[827]; and the\ninference of so cautious an archaeologist is, apparently, that the myth\nmay have found its way from Sicily to the Tiber. Nothing can be more\nprobable; for it is certain that even before the eighth century B.C. the\nwhole western coast of Italy was open first to Phoenician trade and then\nto Greek. And we are interested to find that the only other traces of\nthe myth to be found in Italy are located in places which would be open\nto the same influence. From Capua we have a bronze vase on which is\ndepicted what seems to be the punishment of Cacus by Hercules[828]; and\na fragment of the annalist Gellius gives a story connecting Cacus with\nCampania, Etruria, and the East[829]. At Tibur also, which claimed a\nGreek origin, there is a faint trace of the myth in an inscription[830].\n\nNow assuming for a moment that the myth was thus imported, is it\nimpossible that the anomalies of the cult should be foreign also? That\none of them at least which stands out most prominently is a peculiarly\nSemitic institution; tithe-giving in its systematized form is found in\nthe service of that Melcarth who so often appears in Hellas as\nHerakles[831]. The coincidence at the Aventine of the name, the myth,\nand the practice, is too striking to be entirely passed over\u2014especially\nif we cannot find certain evidence of a pure Italian origin, and if we\n_do_ find traces of all three where Phoenicians and Greeks are known to\nhave been. We may take it as not impossible that the _ara maxima_ was\nolder than the traditional foundation of Rome, and that its cult was\noriginally not that of the characteristic Italian Hercules, but of an\nadventitious deity established there by foreign adventurers.\n\n\n ID. SEXT. (AUG. 13). NP.\n\n\nFER[IAE] IOVI. (AMIT. ALLIF.)\n\nDIANAE IN AVENTINO. (AMIT. VALL. ANT. ALLIF.)\n\nSACRUM DEANAE. (RUST.) NATALIS DIANES. (PHILOC.)\n\nVORTUMNO IN AVENTINO. (AMIT. ALLIF.)\n\nHERC[ULI] INVICTO AD PORTAM TRIGEMINAM. (ALLIF.)\n\nCASTORI POLLUCI IN CIRCO FLAMINIO. (AMIT. ALLIF.)\n\nFLORAE AD C[IRCUM] MAXIMUM. (ALLIF.)\n\n\nAll Ides, as we have seen, were sacred to Jupiter; and it does not seem\nthat there is here any further significance in the note \u2018feriae Iovi.\u2019\nThough there was a conjunction here of many cults, this day was best\nknown as that of the dedication of the temple of Diana on the Aventine,\nwhich was traditionally ascribed to Servius Tullius. There are\ninteresting features in this cult, and indeed in the worship of this\ngoddess throughout Latium and Italy. For the most famous of all her\ncults, that of Aricia[832], I need only refer to Mr. Frazer\u2019s _Golden\nBough_\u2014the most elaborate and convincing examination of any ancient\nworship that has yet appeared. Of the goddess in general it will be\nsufficient to say here that whatever be the etymology of her name or the\nearliest conception of her nature\u2014and both are very far from certain\u2014she\nwas for the old Latins second only to Jupiter Latiaris in the power she\nexercised of uniting communities together and so working in the cause of\ncivilization. This was the ease with the cult on the Aventine, as it was\nalso with that at Aricia[833].\n\nAbout the political origin of the temple on the Aventine tradition was\nexplicit[834]. Livy says that Servius Tullius persuaded the chiefs of\nthe Latins to build a temple of Diana in conjunction with the Romans;\nand Varro calls it \u2018commune Latinorum Dianae templum.\u2019 The \u2018lex templi,\u2019\nor ordinance for the common worship of Romans and Latins, was seen by\nDionysius\u2014so he declares\u2014written in Greek characters and preserved in\nthe temple[835]. The horns of a cow[836], hung up in front of this\ntemple, gave rise to legends, one of which is preserved by Livy, and\nseems to bring the Sabines also into the connexion. This temple was,\nthen, from the beginning in some sense extra-Roman, i. e. did not belong\nto the purely Roman gentile worship. And it had other characteristics of\nthe same kind; it was specially connected with the Plebs and with\nslaves, and as, in the case of the neighbouring temple at Ceres, there\nwas a Greek character in the cult from the beginning.\n\nI. _The Connexion with the Plebs._ The position on the Aventine would of\nitself be some evidence of a non-patrician origin; so also the\ntraditional ascription to Servius Tullius as the founder. More direct\nevidence seems wanting[837], but it is not impossible that the temple\nmarks a settlement of Latins in this part of the city.\n\nII. _The Connexion with Slaves._ The day was a holiday for slaves[838],\nperhaps after the work of harvest. There was one other Latin goddess,\nFeronia, who was especially beloved by emancipated slaves[839]; and as\nFeronia was a deity both of markets and harvests, there is something to\nbe said for the suggestion[840] that both slave holidays and slave\nemancipation would find a natural place on occasions of this kind. It\nwould seem also that this temple was an asylum for runaway or criminal\nslaves\u2014a fact which slips out in Festus\u2019 curious reproduction of a gloss\nof Verrius Flaccus[841]: \u2018Servorum dies festus vulgo existimatur Idus\nAug., quod eo die Servius Tullius, natus servus, aedem Dianae\ndedicaverit in Aventino, cuius tutelae sint cervi, a quo celeritate\nfugitivos vocent servos.\u2019 The stag, as the favourite beast of Diana, may\nperhaps have a Greek origin; but the inference from the false etymology\nremains the same.\n\nIII. _The Greek Character in the Cult._ As in the case of Ceres, the\ntemple-foundations of this age might naturally have a Greek character,\nowing to the foreign relations of the Etruscan dynasty in Rome[842]. We\nhave already noticed the lex templi, said to have been written in Greek\ncharacters. It is a still more striking fact that there was in this\ntemple a \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or wooden statue of Diana, closely resembling that of\nArtemis at Massilia, which was itself derived from the famous temple at\nEphesus[843]. The transference to Diana of the characteristics of\nArtemis was no doubt quite natural and easy; for, hard as it is to\ndistinguish the Greek and Italian elements in the cult, we know enough\nof some at least of the latter to be sure that they would easily lend\nthemselves to a Greek transformation. This transformation must have\nbegun at a very early period, for in B.C. 398 we find Diana already\nassociated with Apollo and Latona, in the first _lectisternium_\ncelebrated at Rome, where she certainly represented Artemis[844].\n\nOn the whole this temple and its cult seem a kind of anticipation of the\ngreat temple on the Capitol, in marking an advance in the progress of\nRome from the narrow life of a small city-state to a position of\ninfluence in Western Italy. The advance of the Plebs, the emancipation\nof slaves, the new relations with Latin cities, and the introduction of\nGreek religious ideas are all reflected here. New threads are being\nwoven into the tissue of Roman social and political life.\n\nThe close relation of Diana to human life is not very difficult to\nexplain. Like Fortuna, Juno Lucina, Bona Dea, and others, she was a\nspecial object of the worship of women; she assisted the married woman\nat childbirth[845]; and on this day the Roman women made a special point\nof washing their heads[846]\u2014an unusual performance, perhaps, which has\nbeen explained by reference to the sanctity of the head among primitive\npeoples[847]. But Diana, like Silvanus, with whom she is found in\nconnexion[848], was no doubt originally a spirit of holy trees and\nwoods, i. e. of wild life generally, who became gradually reclaimed and\nbrought into friendly and useful relations with the Italian farmer, his\nwife, and his cattle[849].\n\nThis was also the _dies natalis_ of another temple on the Aventine, that\nof Vortumnus, which was dedicated in B.C. 264 by the consul M. Fulvius\nFlaccus[850]. About the character of this god there is fortunately no\ndoubt. Literature here comes to our aid, as it too rarely does:\nPropertius[851] describes him elaborately as presiding over gardens and\nfruit, and Ovid[852] tells a picturesque story of his love for Pomona\nthe fruit-goddess, whose antiquity at Rome is proved by the fact that\nshe had a flamen of her own[853]. The date, August 13, when the fruit\nwould be ripe, suits well enough with all we know of Vortumnus.\n\nThe god had a bronze statue in the Vicus Tuscus, and perhaps for that\nreason was believed to have come to Rome from Etruria[854]. But his\nname, like Picumnus, is beyond doubt Latin, and may be supposed to\nindicate the turn or change in the year at the fruit-season[855]; and if\nhe really was an immigrant, which is possible, his original cult in\nEtruria was not Etruscan proper, but old Italian.\n\nThree other dedications are mentioned in the calendars as occurring on\nAug. 13: to Hercules invictus ad portam trigeminam; to Castor and Pollax\nin circo Flaminio; and to Flora ad circum maximum. Of these cults\nnothing of special interest is known, and the deities are treated of in\nother parts of this work.\n\n\n XVI KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 17). NP.\n\n\nPORT[UNALIA]. (MAFF. AMIT. VALL.)\nTIBERINALIA. (PHILOC.)\nFERIAE PORTUNO. (AMIT. ANT.)\nPORTUNO AD PONTEM AEMILIUM. (AMIT. VALL. ALLIF.)\nIANO AD THEATRUM MARCELLI. (VALL. ALLIF.)\n\n\nWho was Portunus, and why was his festival in August? Why was it at the\nPons Aemilius, and where was that bridge? Can any connexion be found\nbetween this and the other August rites? These questions cannot be\nanswered satisfactorily; the scraps of evidence are too few and too\ndoubtful. We have here to do with another ancient deity, who survives in\nthe calendars only, and in the solitary record that he had a special\nflamen. This flamen might be a plebeian[856], which seems to suit with\nthe character of other cults in the district by the Tiber, and may\nperhaps point to a somewhat later origin than that of the most ancient\ncity worships.\n\nThere are but two or three texts which help us to make an uncertain\nguess at the nature of Portunus. Varro[857] wrote \u2018Portunalia et\nPortuno, quoi eo die aedes in portu Tiberino facta et feriae\ninstitutae.\u2019 Mommsen takes the _portus_ here as meaning Ostia at the\nmouth of the Tiber, and imagines a yearly procession thither from Rome\non this day[858]. This of course is pure hypothesis; but if, as he\ninsists, _portus_ is rarely or never used for a city wharf on a river\nsuch as that at Rome, we may perhaps accept it provisionally; but in\ndoing so we have to yield another point to Mommsen, viz. the identity of\nPortunus and Tiberinus. In the very late calendar of Philocalus this day\nis called Tiberinalia, and from this Mommsen infers the identity of the\ntwo deities[859].\n\nBut it may be that the original Portunus had no immediate connexion\neither with river or harbour. We find a curious but mutilated note in\nthe Veronese commentary on Virgil[860]: \u2018Portunus, ut Varro ait, deus\nport[uum porta]rumque praeses. Quare huius dies festus Portunalia, qua\napud veteres claves in focum add ... mare institutum.\u2019 Huschke[861] here\nconjectured \u2018addere et infumare,\u2019 and inferred that we should see in\nPortunus the god of the gates and keys which secured the stock of corn,\n&c., in storehouses. Wild as this writer\u2019s conjectures usually are, in\nthis case it seems to me possible that he has hit the mark. If the words\n\u2018claves in focum\u2019 are genuine, as they seem to be, we can hardly avoid\nthe conclusion that something was done to keys on this day; perhaps the\nold keys of very hard wood were held in the fire to harden them\nafresh[862]. It is worth noting that according to Verrius[863] Portunus\nwas supposed \u2018clavim manu tenere et deus esse portarum.\u2019 This would suit\nvery well with harvest-time, when barns and storehouses would be\nrepaired and their gates and fastenings looked to\u2014more especially as it\nis not unlikely that the word _portus_ originally meant a safe place of\nany kind, and only as civilization advanced became specially\nappropriated to harbours[864]. This appropriation may have come about\nthrough the medium of storehouses near the Tiber; and it was long ago\nsuggested by Jordan that these were under the particular care of\nPortunus[865].\n\nIf Portunus were really a god of keys and doors and storehouses, it\nwould be natural to look for some close relation between him and Janus.\nBut what can be adduced in favour of such a relation does not amount to\nmuch[866]; and it may have been merely by accident that this was the\ndedication-day of a temple of Janus \u2018ad theatrum Marcelli\u2019[867].\n\n\n XIV KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 19). FP. (MAFF. AMIT.) F.\n\n(ANT. ALLIF.) NP. (VALL.[868])\n\n\nVIN[ALIA]. (MAFF. VALL. AMIT. ETC.)\n\nFERIAE IOVI. (ALLIF.)\n\nVENERI AD CIRCUM MAXIMUM. (VALL.)\n\n\nThe \u2018Aedes Veneris ad Circum Maximum\u2019 alluded to in the _Fasti\nVallenses_ was dedicated in 295 B.C., and the building was begun at the\nexpense of certain matrons who were fined for adultery[869]. As has been\nalready explained, no early connexion can be proved between Venus and\nwine or the vintage[870]; though both August 19 and April 23, the days\nof the two Vinalia, were dedication-days of temples of the goddess.\n\nThe difficult question of the two festivals called Vinalia has been\ntouched upon under April 23. The one in August was known as Vinalia\nRustica[871], and might naturally be supposed to be concerned with the\nripening grapes. It has been conjectured[872] that it was on this day,\nwhich one calendar marks as a festival of Jupiter, that the Flamen\nDialis performed the _auspicatio vindemiae_, i. e. plucked the first\ngrapes, and prayed and sacrificed for the safety of the whole crop[873].\nIf it be argued that August 23 was too early a date for such a rite,\nsince the vintage was never earlier than the middle of September, we may\nremember that the Vestal Virgins plucked the first ears of corn as early\nas the first half of May for the purpose of making sacred cakes, some\nweeks before the actual harvest[874].\n\nBut it is certainly possible that both Vinalia have to do with wine, and\nnot with the vintage. Festus says that this day was a festival because\nthe new wine was then first brought into the city[875]; and this does\nnot conflict with Varro[876], who tells us that on this day _fiunt\nferiati olitores_\u2014for it would naturally be a day of rejoicing for the\ngrowers. Mommsen, with some reason, refers these passages to the later\ncustom of not opening the wine of the last vintage for a year[877], in\nwhich case the year must be understood roughly as from October to\nAugust. He would, in fact, explain this second Vinalia as instituted\nwhen this later and more luxurious custom arose, the old rule of a six\nmonths\u2019 period surviving in the April ceremony. If we ask why the August\nVinalia are called Rustica, Mommsen answers that the country growers\nwere now at liberty to bring in their wine.\n\nIt is difficult to decide between these conflicting views. When an\nauthority like Mommsen bids us beware of connecting the Vinalia Rustica\nwith the _auspicatio vindemiae_, we feel that it is at our peril that we\ndiffer from him. He is evidently quite unable to look upon such a date\nas August 19 as in any way associated with the vintage which followed\nsome weeks later. Yet I cannot help thinking, that this association is\nby no means impossible; for the grapes would by this time be fully\nformed on the vines, and the next few weeks would be an anxious time for\nthe growers[878]. Ceremonies like that of the Auspicatio, intended to\navert from crops the perils of storm or disease, are known sometimes to\ntake place when the crops are still unripe. I have already alluded to\nthe proceedings of the Vestals in May. Mr. Frazer, in an Appendix to his\n_Golden Bough_[879], gives a curious instance of this kind from Tonga in\nthe Pacific Ocean, where what we may call the auspicatio of the Yam-crop\ntook place before the whole crop was fit for gathering. It was\ncelebrated \u2018just before the yams in general are arrived at a state of\nmaturity; those which are used in this ceremony being planted sooner\nthan others, and consequently they are the firstfruits of the yam\nseason. The object of this offering is to ensure the protection of the\ngods, that their favour may be extended to the welfare of the nation\ngenerally and in particular to the productions of the earth, of which\nyams are the most important.\u2019\n\n\n XII KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 21). NP.\n\n\nCONS[UALIA]. (PINC. MAFF. VALL. ETC.)\n\nCONSO IN AVENTINO SACRIFICIUM. (VALL.)\n\n\nThere was a second festival of Consus on Dec. 15; but the note \u2018Conso in\nAventino\u2019 there appears three days earlier, Dec. 12. The temple on the\nAventine was a comparatively late foundation[880]; but as the cult of\nthis old god became gradually obscured, it seems to have been confused\nwith the most ancient centre of Consus-worship, the underground altar in\nthe Circus maximus, \u2018ad primas metas\u2019[881]. It is with this latter that\nwe must connect the two Consualia. What the altar was like we do not\nexactly know; it was only uncovered on the festival days. Dionysius\ncalls it a \u03c4\u03ad\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, Servius a \u2018templum sub tecto\u2019; and Tertullian, who\nexplicitly says that it was \u2018sub terra,\u2019 asserts that there was engraved\non it the following inscription: \u2018Consus consilio, Mars duello, Lares\ncoillo[882] potentes.\u2019 Wissowa remarks that this statement \u2018is not free\nfrom suspicion\u2019; and we may take it as pretty certain that if it was\nreally there it was not very ancient. The false etymology of Consus, and\nthe connexion of Mars with war, both show the hand of some comparatively\nlate interpreter of religion; and the form of the inscription,\nnominative and descriptive, is most suspiciously abnormal.\n\nFor the true etymology of Consus we are, strange to say, hardly in\ndoubt; and it helps us to conjecture the real origin of this curious\naltar. Consus is connected with \u2018condere\u2019[883], and may be interpreted\nas the god of the stored-up harvest; the buried altar will thus be a\nreminiscence of the very ancient practice\u2014sometimes of late suggested as\nworth reviving for hay\u2014of storing the corn underground[884]. Or if this\npractice cannot be proved of ancient Italy, we may aptly remember that\nsacrifices to chthonic deities were sometimes buried; a practice which\nmay in earliest times have given rise to the connexion of such gods with\nwealth\u2014when agricultural produce rather than the precious metals was the\ncommon form of wealth[885]. Or again we may combine the two\ninterpretations, and guess that the corn stored up underground was\nconceived as in some sense sacrificed to the chthonic deities.\n\nIf these views of the altar are correct, we might naturally infer that\nthe Consualia in August was a harvest festival of some kind.\nPlutarch[886] asks why at the Consualia horses and asses have a holiday\nand are decked out with flowers; and such a custom would suit\nexcellently with harvest-home. Unluckily in the only trace of this\ncustom preserved in the calendars, it is attributed to the December\nfestival, and is so mutilated as to be useless for detail[887].\n\n FERIAE CONSO EQUI ET [MULI FLORIBUS CORONANTUR].\n QUOD IN EIUS TU[TELA SUNT].\n [ITA]QUE REX EQUO [VECTUS].\n\nThe amplifications here are Mommsen\u2019s, the first two based on Plutarch\u2019s\nstatement. It is a difficulty, as regards the first, that the middle of\nDecember would be a bad time for flowers: perhaps this did not occur to\nthe great scholar. I would suggest that either Verrius\u2019 note is here\naccidentally misplaced, or that the lacunae must be filled up\ndifferently. In any case I do not think we need fear to refer Plutarch\u2019s\npassage to the Consualia of August, and therefore to harvest rejoicings\non that day.\n\nThe connexion of the Consus-cult with horses was so obvious as to give\nrise eventually to the identification of the god with Poseidon Hippios.\nIt is certain that there were horse-races in the Circus maximus at one\nof the two Consualia, and as Dionysius[888] connects them with the day\nof the Rape of the Sabines, which Plutarch puts in August, we may be\nfairly sure that they took place at the August festival. Mules also\nraced\u2014according to Festus[889], because they were said to be the most\nancient beasts of burden. This looks like a harvest festival, and may\ncarry us back to the most primitive agricultural society and explain the\norigin of the Circus maximus; for the only other horse-races known to us\nfrom the old calendar were those of Mars in the Campus Martius on Feb.\n27 and March 13[890]. We may suppose that when the work of harvest was\ndone, the farmers and labourers enjoyed themselves in this way and laid\nthe foundation for a great Roman social institution[891].\n\nOnce more, it is not impossible that in the legendary connexion of the\nRape of the Sabine women with the Consualia[892] we may see a reflection\nof the jollity and license which accompanies the completion of harvest\namong so many peoples. Romulus was said to have attracted the Sabines by\nthe first celebration of the Consualia. Is it not possible that the\nmeeting of neighbouring communities on a festive occasion of this kind\nmay have been a favourable opportunity for capturing new wives[893]? The\nsexual license common on such occasions has been abundantly illustrated\nby Mr. Frazer in his _Golden Bough_[894].\n\nBefore leaving the Consualia we may just remark that Consus had no\nflamen of his own, in spite of his undoubted antiquity; doubtless\nbecause his altar was underground, and only opened once or perhaps twice\na year. On August 21 his sacrifice was performed, says Tertullian[895],\nby the Flamen Quirinalis in the presence of the Vestals. This flamen\nseems to have had a special relation to the corn-crops, for it was he\nwho also sacrificed a dog to Robigus on April 25[896], to avert the\nmildew from them; and thus we get one more confirmation from the cult of\nthe view taken as to the agricultural origin of the Consualia.\n\n\n X KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 23). NP.\n\n\nVOLCANALIA. (PINC. MAFF. VALL. ETC.)\nVOLCANO IN CIRCO FLAMINIO. (VALL.)\nVOLCANO. (PINC.)\n\n\n(A mutilated fragment of the calendar of the Fratres Arvales gives\nQUIR[INO] IN COLLE, VOLK[ANO] IN COMIT[IO]. OPI OPIFER[AE] IN ...,\n[NYMP]HIS(?) IN CAMPO).\n\n\nOf the cult of this day, apart from the extracts from the calendars, we\nknow nothing, except that the heads of Roman families threw into the\nfire certain small fish with scales, which were to be had from the Tiber\nfishermen at the \u2018area Volcani\u2019[897]. We cannot explain this; but it\nreminds us of the fish called _maena_, with magical properties, which\nthe old woman offered to Tacita and the ghost-world at the\nParentalia[898]. Fish-sacrifices were rare; and if in one rite fish are\nused to propitiate the inhabitants of the underworld, they seem not\ninappropriate in another of which the object is apparently to propitiate\nthe fire-god, who in a volcanic country like that of Rome must surely be\na chthonic deity.\n\nThe antiquity of the cult of Volcanus is shown by the fact that there\nwas a Flamen Volcanalis[899], who on May 1 sacrificed to Maia, the\nequivalent, as we saw, of Bona Dea, Terra, &c. With Volcanus we may\nremember that Maia was coupled in the old prayer formula preserved by\nGellius (13.23)\u2014_Maia Volcani_. From these faint indications\nPreller[900] conjectured that the original notion of Volcanus was that\nof a favouring nature-spirit, perhaps of the warmth and fertilizing\npower of the earth. However this may be, in later times, under\ninfluences which can only be guessed at, he became a hostile fire-god,\nhard to keep under control. Of this aspect of him Wissowa has written\nconcisely at the conclusion of his little treatise _de Feriis_. He\nsuggests that the appearance of the nymphs[901] in the rites of this day\nindicates the use of water in conflagrations, and that Ops Opifera was\nperhaps invoked to protect her own storehouses. The name Volcanus became\na poetical word for devouring fire as early as the time of Ennius, and\nis familiar to us in this sense in Virgil[902]. After the great fire at\nRome in Nero\u2019s time a new altar was erected to Volcanus by Domitian, at\nwhich (and at all Volcanalia) on this day a red calf and a boar were\noffered for sacrifice[903]. At Ostia the cult became celebrated; there\nwas an \u2018aedes\u2019 and a \u2018pontifex Volcani\u2019 and a \u2018praetor sacris Volcani\nfaciundis.\u2019 In August the storehouses at Ostia would be full of new\ngrain arrived from Sicily, Africa, and Egypt, and in that hot month\nwould be especially in danger from fire; an elaborate cult of Volcanus\nthe fire-god was therefore at this place particularly desirable.\n\nThe aedes Volcani in circo Flaminio was dedicated before 215 B.C.; the\nexact date is not known[904]. Its position was explained by\nVitruvius[905] as having the object of keeping conflagrations away from\nthe city. Mr. Jevons, in his Introduction to a translation of Plutarch\u2019s\n_Quaestiones Romanae_[906], has argued from this position, outside the\npomoerium, and from a doubtful etymology, that the cult of Volcanus was\na foreign introduction; but the position of the temple is no argument,\nas has been well shown by Aust[907], and the chief area Volcani, or\nVolcanal, was in the Comitium, in the heart of the city[908].\n\n\n IX KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 24). MUNDUS PATET.\n\n\nThis does not appear in the calendars. We learn from Festus[909] that on\nthis day, on Oct. 5, and Nov. 8, the \u2018mundus\u2019 was open. This mundus was\na round pit on the Palatine, the centre of Roma quadrata[910]\u2014the\nconcave hollow being perhaps supposed to correspond to the concave sky\nabove[911]. It was closed, so it was popularly believed, by a \u2018lapis\nmanalis\u2019 (Festus s. v.). When this was removed, on the three days there\nwas supposed to be free egress for the denizens of the underworld[912].\n\nI am much inclined to see in this last idea a later Graeco-Etruscan\naccretion upon a very simple original fact. O. M\u00fcller long ago\nsuggested this\u2014pointing out that in Plutarch\u2019s description of the\nfoundation of Roma quadrata the casting into the trench of\nfirst-fruits of all necessaries of life gives us a clue to the\noriginal meaning of the mundus. If we suppose that it was the _penus_\nof the new city\u2014a sacred place, of course\u2014used for storing grain, we\ncan see why it should be open on Aug. 24[913]. Nor is it difficult to\nunderstand why, when the original use and meaning had vanished, the\nGraeco-Etruscan doctrine of the underworld should be engrafted on this\nsimple Roman stem. Dis and Proserpina claim the mundus: it is \u2018ianua\nOrci,\u2019 \u2018faux Plutonis\u2019[914]\u2014ideas familiar to Romans who had come\nunder the spell of Etruscan religious beliefs.\n\n\n VIII KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 25). NP.\n\n\nOPIC[ONSIVIA]. (ALLIF. MAFF. VALL.)\n\nOPICID. (PINC.) The last two letters must be a cutter\u2019s error.\n\nFERIAE OPI; OPI CONSIV. IN REGIA. (ARV.) The last four words seem to\nbelong to Aug. 26 (see Mommsen ad loc.).\n\n\nThis festival follows that of Consus after an interval of three days;\nand Wissowa[915] has pointed out that in December the same interval\noccurs between the Consualia (15th) and the Opalia (19th). This and the\nepithet or cognomen Consiva, which is fully attested[916], led him to\nfancy that Ops was the wife of Consus, and not the wife of Saturnus, as\nhas been generally supposed both in ancient and modern times[917]. We\nmay agree with him that there is no real evidence for any _primitive_\nconnexion of Saturnus and Ops of this kind; as far as we can tell the\nidea was adopted from the relation of Cronos and Rhea. But there was no\nneed to find any husband for Ops; the name Consiva need imply no such\nrelation, any more than Lua Saturni, Moles Martis, Maia Volcani, and the\nrest[918], or the Tursa Iovia of the Iguvian inscription so often\nquoted. Both adjectival and genitive forms are in my view no more than\nexamples of the old Italian instinct for covering as much ground as\npossible in invoking supernatural powers[919]; and this is again a\nresult of the indistinctness with which those powers were conceived, in\nregard both to their nature and function. A distinct specialization of\nfunction was, I am convinced, the later work of the pontifices. Ops and\nConsus are obviously closely related; and Wissowa is probably right in\ntreating the one as a deity \u2018messis condendae,\u2019 and the other as\nrepresenting the \u2018opima frugum copia quae horreis conditur.\u2019 But when he\ngoes further than this, his arguments ring hollow[920].\n\nOf the ritual of the Opiconsivia we know only what Varro tells us[921]:\n\u2018Opeconsiva dies ab dea Ope Consiva, quoius in Regia sacrarium, quod\nideo actum (so MSS.) ut eo praeter Virgines Vestales et sacerdotem\npublicum introeat nemo.\u2019 Many conjectures have been made for the\ncorrection of \u2018quod ideo actum\u2019[922]; but the real value of the passage\ndoes not depend on these words. The Regia is the king\u2019s house, and\nrepresents that of the ancient head of the family: the sacrarium Opis\nwas surely then the sacred _penus_ of that house\u2014the treasury of the\nfruits of the earth on which the family subsisted. It suits admirably\nwith this view that, as Varro says, only the Vestals and a \u2018publicus\nsacerdos\u2019 were allowed to enter it\u2014i. e. the form was retained from\nremote antiquity that the daughters of the house were in charge of\nit[923]\u2014the master of the house being here represented by the\nsacerdos\u2014the rex sacrorum or a pontifex. In this connexion it is worth\nwhile to quote a passage of Columella[924] which seems to be derived\nfrom some ancient practice of the rural household: \u2018Ne contractentur\npocula vel _cibi_ nisi aut ab impube aut certe abstinentissimo rebus\nvenereis, quibus si fuerit operatus vel vir vel femina debere eos\nflumine aut perenni aqua priusquam penora contingant ablui. Propter quod\nhis necessarium esse pueri vel virginis ministerium, per quos promantur\nquae usus postulaverit.\u2019\n\n\n VI KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 27). NP.\n\n\nVOLT[URNALIA]. (ALLIF. MAFF. VALL.)\n\nFERIAE VOLTURNO. (ARV. INTER ADDITA POSTERIORA.)\n\nVOLTURNO FLUMINI SACRIFICIUM. (VALL.)\n\n\nOf this very ancient and perhaps obsolete rite nothing seems to have\nbeen known to the later Latin scholars, or they did not think it worth\ncomment. Varro mentions a Flamen Volturnalis, but tells us nothing about\nhim. From the occurrence of the name for a river in Campania it may be\nguessed that the god in this case was a river also; and if so, it must\nbe the Tiber. This is Mommsen\u2019s conclusion, and the only difficulty he\nfinds in it is that (in his view) Portunus is also the Tiber[925]. Why\ndid he not see that the same river-god, even if bearing different names,\ncould hardly have two flamines? I am content to see in Volturnus an old\nname for the Tiber, signifying the winding snake-like river[926], and in\nPortunus a god of storehouses, as I have explained above.\n\nHere, then, we perhaps have a trace of the lost cult of the Tiber, which\nassuredly must have existed in the earliest times\u2014and the _flamen_ is\nthe proof of its permanent importance. When the name was changed to\nTiber we do not know, nor whether \u2018Albula\u2019 marks an intermediate stage\nbetween the two; but that this was the work of the pontifices seems\nlikely from Servius[927], who writes \u2018Tiberinus ... a pontificibus\nindigitari solet.\u2019 Of a god Tiberinus there is no single early record.\n\nIt should just be mentioned that Jordan[928], relying on Lucretius, 5.\n745, thought it probable that Volturnus might be a god of whirlwinds;\nand Huschke[929] has an even wilder suggestion, which need not here be\nmentioned.\n\nFootnote 790:\n\n Varro, _R. R._ I. 33, has only the following: \u2018Quinto intervallo,\n inter caniculam et aequinoctium auctumnale oportet stramenta desecari,\n et acervos construi, aratro offringi, frondem caedi, prata irrigua\n iterum secari.\u2019\n\nFootnote 791:\n\n This is the natural position for the _ager_ of the oldest community on\n the Palatine. The Campus Martius was believed to have been \u2018king\u2019s\n land\u2019 of the later developed city (Liv. 2. 5).\n\nFootnote 792:\n\n Liv. 10. 1. 9; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 793:\n\n Marq. 377; Dio Cass. 37. 24 and 25; Tac. _Ann._ 12. 23.\n\nFootnote 794:\n\n _C. I. L._ i. 49 and 179.\n\nFootnote 795:\n\n See Preller, ii. 228; and article \u2018Sacerdos\u2019 in _Dict. of\n Antiquities_, new edition.\n\nFootnote 796:\n\n On this difficult subject see _Dict. of Antiquities_, s.v.\n Indigitamenta; and the long and exhaustive article by R. Peter in\n Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_ (which is, however, badly written, and in some\n respects, I think, misleading).\n\nFootnote 797:\n\n See the valuable summary of Aust (in ten lines).\n\nFootnote 798:\n\n Plin. _N. H._ 35. 19.\n\nFootnote 799:\n\n 40. 19.\n\nFootnote 800:\n\n Paulus, 23; Quintil. 1. 7. 12; Varro, _L. L._ 5. 52 (from the \u2018sacra\n Argeorum\u2019), if we read \u2018adversum Solis pulvinar cis aedem Salutis.\u2019\n The name is said to be connected with the Umbrian and Etruscan god of\n light, Usil, a word thought to be recognizable in Aurelius (=\n Auselius, Varro, l. c.), and in the Ozeul of the Salian hymn\n (Wordsworth, _Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin_, p. 564 foll.).\n\nFootnote 801:\n\n So e. g. Virgil, _Georg._ 1. 498 \u2018Di patrii indigites et Romule\n Vestaque Mater.\u2019 Peter, in _Lex._ s. v. Indigitamenta, 132.\n\nFootnote 802:\n\n i. 325.\n\nFootnote 803:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Indigitamenta, 137.\n\nFootnote 804:\n\n Wissowa, _de Romanorum Indigetibus et Novensidibus_ (Marburg, 1892).\n\nFootnote 805:\n\n Merkel, _Praef. in Ov. Fastos_, cxxxv; Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 324.\n\nFootnote 806:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Hercules, 2903 foll., where R. Peter has summarized and\n criticized all the various opinions.\n\nFootnote 807:\n\n Liv. I. 7.\n\nFootnote 808:\n\n Dionys. I. 40, who says that the duties were performed by slaves in\n his day. See _Lex._ 2925 for a long list of conjectures about this\n part of the legend. The Potitii never occur in inscriptions; and I\n think with Jordan (Preller, ii. 291) that the name is imaginary,\n invented to account for the functions of the slaves.\n\nFootnote 809:\n\n _C. I. L._ vi. 312-319, found on the site of the _aedes_.\n\nFootnote 810:\n\n Macrob. 3. 12. 2; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 15. The uncovered head also occurs\n in the cult of Saturnus; and R. Peter argues that the custom may after\n all be old-Italian (_Lex._ 2928).\n\nFootnote 811:\n\n Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, vol. i, p. 291.\n\nFootnote 812:\n\n See above, p. 142 foll. Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 60; Macrob. 1. 12. 38. In _Q.\n R._ 90 Plutarch notes that no other god might be mentioned at the\n sacrifice, and no dog might be admitted.\n\nFootnote 813:\n\n _de Re Rustica_, 83.\n\nFootnote 814:\n\n The word was _profanatum_, opposed to _polluctum_ (see Marq. 149).\n\nFootnote 815:\n\n _Aen._ 8. 281 foll.\n\nFootnote 816:\n\n Salii are found in the cult of Hercules also at Tibur: Macrob. 3. 12.\n 7. See a note of Jordan in Preller, i. 352.\n\nFootnote 817:\n\n _Lex._ 2931 foll.; _C. I. L._ i. 149 foll.\n\nFootnote 818:\n\n The examples are collected by R. Peter in _Lex._ 2935.\n\nFootnote 819:\n\n Festus, 253, s. v. pollucere merces; Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 18; _Vita\n Sullae_, 35; _Crassi_, 2; _Lex._ 2032 foll.\n\nFootnote 820:\n\n Marq. 469; Festus, p. 318, s. v. sacrima.\n\nFootnote 821:\n\n Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 233.\n\nFootnote 822:\n\n _G. B._ ii. 373 foll.\n\nFootnote 823:\n\n In the legend Hercules gave a tenth part of his booty to the\n inhabitants of the place (Dionys 1. 40).\n\nFootnote 824:\n\n See Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 150.\n\nFootnote 825:\n\n e. g. in Br\u00e9al, _Hercule et Cacus_.\n\nFootnote 826:\n\n See _Lex._ 2286 (R. Peter, quoting Reifferscheid).\n\nFootnote 827:\n\n _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. xiii. 73. Professor Gardner is\n inclined to consider the myth as Phoenician rather than Greek, and\n attached to the Phoenician Melcarth = Herakles. The vase is in the\n Ashmolean Museum, and was found by the Keeper, Mr. Arthur Evans.\n\nFootnote 828:\n\n _Mon. dell\u2019 Inst._ v. 25. But the character of the vase is archaic\n Ionian, as Prof. Gardner tells me; _Lex._ 2275.\n\nFootnote 829:\n\n H. Peter, _Fragmenta Hist. Rom._ p. 166 (= Solinus, i. 7).\n\nFootnote 830:\n\n _C. I. L._ xiv. 3555; _Lex._ 2278.\n\nFootnote 831:\n\n Robertson Smith, op. cit. pp. 228 foll., and additional note F.\n\nFootnote 832:\n\n The day of the festival at Aricia is thought to have been also Aug. 13\n (_Lex._ s. v. Diana, 1006).\n\nFootnote 833:\n\n Beloch, _Italischer Bund_, 180; Cato (ap. Priscian, 7. 337, ed.\n Jordan, p. 41) gives the names of the towns united in and by the\n Arician cult\u2014Aricia, Tusculum, Lanuvium, Laurentum, Cora, Tibur,\n Pometia, Ardea.\n\nFootnote 834:\n\n Liv. I. 45 Dionys. 4. 26; Varro, _L. L._ 5. 43.\n\nFootnote 835:\n\n Dionys. l. c. See Jordan, _Krit. Beitr\u00e4ge_, 253.\n\nFootnote 836:\n\n So Liv. l. c.: other temples of Diana had deers\u2019 horns, according to\n Plutarch, _Q. R._ 4. The cow was Diana\u2019s favourite victim (Marq. 361);\n but we cannot be sure that this was not a feature borrowed from the\n cult of Artemis (Farnell, _Greek Cults_, ii. 592).\n\nFootnote 837:\n\n The passages from Livy quoted by Steuding (_Lex._ 1008) are hardly to\n the point, as the cult is not mentioned in them.\n\nFootnote 838:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 100.\n\nFootnote 839:\n\n Serv. _Aen._ 8. 564: cp. Liv. 22. 1, 26. 11.\n\nFootnote 840:\n\n Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 328 foll.\n\nFootnote 841:\n\n Festus, 343, \u2018Servorum dies.\u2019\n\nFootnote 842:\n\n See above, p. 75.\n\nFootnote 843:\n\n Strabo, Bk. 4, p. 180; Farnell, _Greek Cults_, ii. 529 and 592.\n\nFootnote 844:\n\n Liv. 5. 13: Apollo and Latona, Diana and Hercules, Mercurius and\n Neptunus.\n\nFootnote 845:\n\n _Lex._ 1007. The excavations at Nemi have produced several votive\n offerings in terra cotta of women with children in their arms. Cp.\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 269. Plutarch tells us (_Q. R._ 3) that men were\n excluded from a shrine of Diana in the Vicus Patricius; but of this\n nothing further is known.\n\nFootnote 846:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 100; Jevons, _Introduction_, p. lxviii.\n\nFootnote 847:\n\n Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 187.\n\nFootnote 848:\n\n _C. I. L._ vi. 656, 658.\n\nFootnote 849:\n\n Frazer, _G. B._ i. 105: cp. Robertson Smith, _Religion of the\n Semites_, p. 128 foll. Serv. _Georg._ 3. 332 \u2018Ut omnis quercus Iovi\n est consecrata, et omnis _lucus_ Dianae.\u2019 (Hor. _Od._ 1. 21.) The\n reclaiming of Diana from the woodland to the homestead is curiously\n illustrated by an inscription from Aricia (Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 1767)\n in which she is identified with Vesta.\n\nFootnote 850:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 15.\n\nFootnote 851:\n\n 5. (4.) 2.\n\nFootnote 852:\n\n _Metaph._ 14. 623 foll.; Preller, i. 451.\n\nFootnote 853:\n\n Varro. _L. L._ 7. 45. A god Pomonus (gen. Puemones) occurs in the\n Iguvian ritual (B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_, 158); who may have been identical\n with Vortumnus.\n\nFootnote 854:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 46.\n\nFootnote 855:\n\n Preller, i. 452, and Jordan\u2019s note.\n\nFootnote 856:\n\n Festus, 217, s. v. persillum. All we know of his duties is that he\n \u2018unguit arma Quirini\u2019; the word for the oil or grease he used was\n \u2018persillum.\u2019 Quirinus had his own flamen, who might be supposed to do\n this office for him; hence Marq. (328 note) inferred that the god in\n this case was a form of Janus, Janus Quirinus. But there is no other\n sound evidence for a Janus Quirinus, though Janus and Portunus may be\n closely connected.\n\nFootnote 857:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 19.\n\nFootnote 858:\n\n _C. I. L._ 325. He thinks that the _atria Tiberina_ mentioned by Ovid\n (_Fasti_, 4. 329) were a station on the route of the procession.\n\nFootnote 859:\n\n Mommsen has not convinced other scholars, e. g. Jordan on Preller, ii.\n 133, and Marq. 328, who points out that if Volturnus is an old name\n for the Tiber, that river-god was already provided with a flamen\n (Volturnalis), and a festival in this month (see below on\n Volturnalia). I am disposed to think that Mommsen\u2019s critics have the\n best of the argument.\n\nFootnote 860:\n\n On _Aen._ 5. 241.\n\nFootnote 861:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, p. 250. Jordan restored the passage thus: \u2018Quo apud\n veteres aedes in portu et feriae institutae\u2019 (Preller, i. 178 note).\n\nFootnote 862:\n\n See Marquardt, _Privatalterth\u00fcmer_, p. 226.\n\nFootnote 863:\n\n Paulus, 56.\n\nFootnote 864:\n\n In Festus, 233, _portus_ is said to have been used for a house in the\n Twelve Tables.\n\nFootnote 865:\n\n _Topogr._ i. 430; Marq. agrees (327 note).\n\nFootnote 866:\n\n Preller, i. 177.\n\nFootnote 867:\n\n It was a late foundation, vowed by C. Duilius in the First Punic War\n (B.C. 260). When rebuilt by Tiberius (Tac. _Ann._ 2. 49) the\n dedication-day became Oct. 18. See Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 868:\n\n See above on April 23, p. 85.\n\nFootnote 869:\n\n Livy, 10. 31; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 12.\n\nFootnote 870:\n\n See above, p. 86.\n\nFootnote 871:\n\n Paulus, 264.\n\nFootnote 872:\n\n Preller, i. 196; Marq. 333 note.\n\nFootnote 873:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 16 \u2018Vinalia a vino; Hic dies Iovis, non Veneris;\n huius rei cura non levis in Latio; nam aliquot locis vindemiae primum\n a sacerdotibus publicae fiebant, ut Romae etiam nunc; nam flamen\n Dialis auspicatur vindemiam, et ut iussit vinum legere, agna Iovi\n facit, inter quoius exta caesa et porrecta flamen primus vinum legit.\u2019\n But this note, coming between others on the Cerialia and Robigalia,\n clearly refers to April 23, and the latter part of it must be taken as\n simply explaining \u2018huius rei cura non levis\u2019 without reference to a\n particular day.\n\nFootnote 874:\n\n See above, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 875:\n\n p. 264.\n\nFootnote 876:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 20. The passage in 6. 16, quoted above, ends thus: \u2018In\n Tusculanis hortis (sortis in MS.) est scriptum: Vinum novum ne vehatur\n in urbem antequam Vinalia calentur,\u2019 which may refer to a notice put\n up in the vineyards. Another reading is \u2018sacris.\u2019\n\nFootnote 877:\n\n _C. I. L._ 316 and 326; Varro, _R. R._ 1. 65.\n\nFootnote 878:\n\n Cf. Pliny, _N. H._ 18. 284. \u2018Tria namque tempora fructibus metuebant,\n propter quod instituerunt ferias diesque festos, Robigalia, Floralia,\n Vinalia.\u2019 I do not see why the Vinalia here should not be the Vinalia\n Rustica. Cp. Virg. _Georg._ 2. 419 \u2018Et iam maturis metuendus Iuppiter\n uvis.\u2019 Hartmann, _R\u00f6m. Kal._ 137 foll.\n\nFootnote 879:\n\n Vol. ii. 379.\n\nFootnote 880:\n\n B.C. 272 (Festus, 209; Aust, p. 14).\n\nFootnote 881:\n\n For this altar, Tertull. _Spect._ 5 and 8; Dionys. 1. 33; Tac. _Ann._\n 12. 24; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 636.\n\nFootnote 882:\n\n No correction of this word seems satisfactory: see Mommsen, _C. I. L._\n 326.\n\nFootnote 883:\n\n Wissowa, _Lex._ s. v. Consus, 926.\n\nFootnote 884:\n\n Suggested by Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 326, and accepted by Wissowa.\n Unluckily Columella (r. 6), in alluding to the practice, says nothing\n of its occurrence in Italy. The alternative explanation was suggested\n to me by Robertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, 107): see also a\n note in M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 100; and below on Terminalia\n (p. 325).\n\nFootnote 885:\n\n The underground altar of Dis Pater in the Campus Martius, at which the\n ludi saeculares were in part celebrated (Zosimus, 2. 1), may have had\n a like origin.\n\nFootnote 886:\n\n _Qu. Rom._ 40: cf. Dionys. 1. 33.\n\nFootnote 887:\n\n Fast. Praen.; _C. I. L._ 237.\n\nFootnote 888:\n\n 2. 31, where he says that they were kept up in his own day: cf.\n Strabo, Bk. 5.3. 2.\n\nFootnote 889:\n\n p. 148.\n\nFootnote 890:\n\n Friedl\u00e4nder in Marq. 482. For the connexion of games with harvest see\n Mannhardt. _Myth. Forsch._ 172 foll.\n\nFootnote 891:\n\n Varro (ap. Non. p. 13) quotes an old verse which seems to the point\n here: \u2018Sibi pastores ludo faciunt coriis consualia.\u2019\n\nFootnote 892:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 20; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 636; Dionys. 2. 31; Cic. _Rep._\n 2. 12.\n\nFootnote 893:\n\n See above, p. 178.\n\nFootnote 894:\n\n Vol. ii. 171 foll., 372 foll.\n\nFootnote 895:\n\n _de Spect._ 8.\n\nFootnote 896:\n\n See above, p. 89; Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 908.\n\nFootnote 897:\n\n Festus, p. 210, s. v. piscatorii ludi (Varro, _L. L._ 6 20). The\n latter uses the word \u2018animalia,\u2019 and does not mention fish. The fish\n were apparently sacrificed at the domestic hearth; but it is doubtful\n whether Volcanus was ever a deity of the hearth-fire (see Schwegler,\n _R. G._ i. 714; Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xlv).\n\nFootnote 898:\n\n See below, p. 309; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 571 foll.\n\nFootnote 899:\n\n See above on May 23, p. 123; Varro, _L. L._ 5. 84; Macrob. 1. 12. 18;\n _C. I. L._ vi. 1628.\n\nFootnote 900:\n\n ii. 149.\n\nFootnote 901:\n\n In the mutilated note in Fast. Praen. given above. For Wissowa\u2019s views\n as to the mistake of supposing Volcanus to have been a god of smiths,\n see above, p. 123 (May 23).\n\nFootnote 902:\n\n Ennius, _Fragm._ 5. 477; Virg. _Aen._ 5. 662.\n\nFootnote 903:\n\n _C. I. L._ vi. 826.\n\nFootnote 904:\n\n Liv. 24. 10. 9.\n\nFootnote 905:\n\n Vitruv. 1. 7. 1.\n\nFootnote 906:\n\n _Roman Questions_, xviii.\n\nFootnote 907:\n\n _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 47 foll.\n\nFootnote 908:\n\n What this was we do not really know: there were several of them\n (Preller, ii. 150).\n\nFootnote 909:\n\n Fest. 154, from Ateius Capito; Macrob. 1. 16. 17.\n\nFootnote 910:\n\n Plut. _Rom._ 11; Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 821. Plutarch wrongly describes it\n as being in the Comitium.\n\nFootnote 911:\n\n This seems to be meant by Cato\u2019s words quoted by Festus, l. c. \u2018Mundo\n nomen impositum est ab eo mundo quod supra nos est ... eius inferiorem\n partem veluti consecratam dis Manibus clausam omni tempore nisi his\n diebus (i. e. the three above mentioned) maiores c[ensuerunt\n habendam], quos dies etiam religiosos judicaverunt.\u2019\n\nFootnote 912:\n\n Fest. 128. So Varro, ap. Macrob. 1. 16. 18 \u2018Mundus cum patet, deorum\n tristium atque inferum ianua patet.\u2019 _Lex._ s. v. Dis Pater, 1184;\n Preller, ii. 68.\n\nFootnote 913:\n\n M\u00fcller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 100. Plutarch is explicit: \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c3\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u1ff3 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1. See above on the Consualia for the practice of\n burying grain, &c.\n\nFootnote 914:\n\n Macrob. 1. 16. 17. For similar ideas in Greece see A. Mommsen,\n _Heortologie_, 345 foll.\n\nFootnote 915:\n\n _de Feriis_, vi.\n\nFootnote 916:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 21; Festus, 187.\n\nFootnote 917:\n\n Varro, _L. L._. 5. 57 and 64; Festus, 186; Macrob. 1. 10. 19. So\n Preller, ii. 20. The keen-sighted Ambrosch had, I think, a doubt about\n it (_Studien_, 149), and about the conjugal tie generally among\n Italian deities. See his note on p. 149.\n\nFootnote 918:\n\n Gell. 13. 23. Ops Toitesia (if the reading be right) of the Esquiline\n vase (Jordan in Preller, ii. 22) may be a combination of this kind\n (toitesia, conn. tutus?): cf. Ops opifera.\n\nFootnote 919:\n\n Wissowa himself goes so far as to say that male and female divinities\n were joined together \u2018non per iustum matrimonium sed ex officiorum\n adfinitate,\u2019 op. cit. vi.\n\nFootnote 920:\n\n Op. cit. vii.; Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 327 declines to follow him here.\n\nFootnote 921:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 20. The MSS. read Ope Consiva; so Mommsen in _C. I. L._\n 327. Wissowa adopts the other form.\n\nFootnote 922:\n\n See Mommsen, l. c., and Marquardt, 212.\n\nFootnote 923:\n\n See on Vestalia above, p. 147, and Marq. 251.\n\nFootnote 924:\n\n Colum. 12 4. Cited in De Marchi, _Il Culto privato di Roma Antica_\n (Milan, 1896), p. 56. See my paper in _Classical Review_ for Oct.\n 1896: vol. x. p. 317 foll.\n\nFootnote 925:\n\n _C. I. L._ 327.\n\nFootnote 926:\n\n Preller, ii. 142.\n\nFootnote 927:\n\n _Aen._ 8. 330.\n\nFootnote 928:\n\n In Preller, ii. 143. In the passage of Lucretius Volturnus is coupled\n with Auster: \u2018Inde aliae tempestates ventique secuntur, Altitonam\n Volturnus et Auster fulmine pollens.\u2019 Columella (11. 2. 65) says that\n some people use the name for the east wind (cp. Liv. 22. 43).\n\nFootnote 929:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 251.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS SEPTEMBER.\n\n\nThe Calendar of this month is almost a blank. Only the Kalends, Nones\nand Ides are marked in the large letters with which we have become\nfamiliar; no other festival is here associated with a special deity. But\nthe greater part of the month is occupied with the ludi Romani (5th to\n19th)[930], and the 13th (Ides), as we know from two Calendars, was not\nonly, like all Ides, sacred to Jupiter, but was distinguished as the day\nof the famous \u2018epulum Jovis,\u2019 and also as the _dies natalis_ of the\ngreat Capitoline temple.\n\nThe explanation of the absence of great festivals in this month is\ncomparatively simple. September was for the Italian farmer, and\ntherefore for the primitive Roman agricultural community, a period of\ncomparative rest from urgent labour and from religious duties; for no\noperations were then going on which called for the invocation of special\ndeities to favour and protect. A glance at the rustic calendars will\nshow this well enough[931]. The _messes_ which figure in July and August\nhave come to an end, and the vintage does not appear until October.\nThere is of course work to be done, as always, but it is the easy work\nof the garden and orchard. \u2018Dolia picantur: poma legunt: arborum\noblaqueatio.\u2019 Varro, who divides the year for agricultural purposes into\neight irregular periods, has little to say of the fifth of these, i. e.\nthat which preceded the autumn equinox. \u2018Quinto intervallo inter\ncaniculam et aequinoctium autumnale oportet stramenta desecari, et\nacervos construi, aratro offringi, frondem caedi, prata irrigua iterum\nsecari[932].\u2019\n\nThis was also the time when military work would be coming to an end. In\nearly times there were of course no lengthy campaigns; and such fighting\nas there was, the object of which would be to destroy your enemies\u2019\ncrops and harvest, would as a rule be over in August. Even in later\ntimes, when campaigns were longer, the same would usually be the case;\nand the performance of vows made by the generals in the field, and also\ntheir vacation of office, would naturally fall in this month. We find,\nin fact, that the ludi which occupied so large a number of September\ndays, had their origin in the performance of the _vota_ of kings or\nconsuls after the close of the wars[933]; and we have evidence that the\nIdes of September was the day on which the earliest consuls laid down\ntheir office[934]. There was, in fact, every opportunity for a\nlengthened time of ease; the people were at leisure and in good temper\nafter harvest and victory; even the horses which took part in the games\nwere home from war service or resting from their labours on the\nfarm[935].\n\nIt is not strictly within the scope of this work to describe the ludi\nRomani, which in their fully organized form were of comparatively late\ndate; but their close connexion with the cult of Jupiter affords an\nopportunity for some remarks on that most imposing of all the Roman\nworships.\n\nThe ludi Romani came in course of time, as has been said above, to\nextend from the 5th to the 19th; they spread out in fact on each side of\nthe Ides[936], the day on which took place the \u2018epulum Jovis\u2019 in the\nCapitoline temple. As this day was also the _dies natalis_ of the same\ntemple, and that on which the nail was driven into the wall of the cella\nJovis[937], we have a very close connexion between the ludi and the cult\nof Jupiter. The link is to be found in the fact that in the _ludi\nvotivi_, which were developed into ludi Romani, the vows were made and\npaid to the supreme god of the State[938]. We have from a later time the\nformula of such a vow preserved by Livy[939]. \u2018Si duellum quod cum rege\nAntiocho sumi populus iussit id ex sententia senatus populique Romani\nconfectum erit, tum tibi, Iuppiter, populus Romanus ludos magnos dies\ndecem continuos faciet, donaque ad omnia pulvinaria dabuntur de pecunia,\nquantam senatus decreverit: quisquis magistratus eos ludos quando ubique\nfaxit, hi ludi recte facti donaque data recte sunto.\u2019\n\nThe epulum Jovis, thus occurring in the middle of the ludi, is believed\nby some writers to have originally belonged to the Ides of November and\nto the ludi plebeii, as it does not happen to be alluded to by Livy in\nconnexion with the ludi Romani, and our first notice of it in September\nis in the Augustan calendars[940]. But it is surely earlier than B.C.\n230, the received date of the ludi plebeii, and of the circus Flaminius\nin which they took place. We may agree with the latest investigator of\nthe Jupiter-cult that the origin of the epulum is to be looked for in a\nform of thanksgiving to Jupiter for the preservation of the state from\nthe perils of the war season, and that no better day could be found for\nit than the foundation-day of the Capitoline temple[941]. This epulum\nwas one of the most singular and striking scenes in Roman public life.\nIt began with a sacrifice; the victim is not mentioned, but was no doubt\na heifer, and probably a white one[942]. Then took place the epulum\nproper[943], which the three deities of the Capitol seem to have shared\nin visible form with the magistrates and senate. The images of the gods\nwere decked out as for a feast, and the face of Jupiter painted red with\n_minium_, like that of the triumphator. Jupiter had a couch, and Juno\nand Minerva each a sella, and the meal went on in their presence[944].\n\nNow an investigator of the Roman religious system is here confronted\nwith a difficult problem. Was this simply a Greek practice like that of\nthe lectisternium, and one which began with the Etruscan dynasty and the\nfoundation of the Capitoline temple with its triad of deities? Or is it\npossible that in the cult of the Roman Jupiter there was of old a common\nfeast of some kind, shared by gods and worshippers, on which this\ngorgeous ritual was eventually grafted?\n\nMarquardt has gone so far as to separate the epulum Jovis altogether\nfrom the lectisternia, and apparently also from the inundation of Greek\ninfluence[945]. It answers rather, he says, to such domestic rites as\nthe offering to Jupiter Dapalis described thus by Cato in the _De Re\nRustica_[946]: \u2018Dapem hoc modo fieri oportet. Iovi dapali culignam vini\nquantum vis polluceto. Eo die feriae bubus et bubulcis, et qui dapem\nfacient. Cum pollucere oportebit, sic facies. Iupiter dapalis, quod tibi\nfieri oportet, in domo familia mea culignam vini dapi, eius rei ergo\nmacte hac illace dape pollucenda esto. Manus interluito. Postea vinum\nsumito. Iupiter dapalis, macte istace dape pollucenda esto. Macte vino\ninferio esto. Vestae, si voles, dato[947]. Daps Iovi assaria pecuina,\nurna vini lovis caste.\u2019\n\nI confess that I do not see wherein lies the point of the comparison of\nthis passage with the ceremony of the epulum; and Marquardt himself does\nnot attempt to elaborate it. There is no mention here of a visible\npresence of Jupiter in the form of an image, which is the one striking\nfeature of the epulum. Marquardt, as it seems to me, might better have\nadduced some example from old Italian usage of the _belief_ that the\ngods were spiritually present at a common religious meal\u2014a belief on\nwhich might easily be engrafted the practice of presenting them there in\nactual iconic form. Ovid, for example, writes thus of the cult of the\nSabine Vacuna[948]:\n\n Ante focos olim scamnis considere longis\n Mos erat, _et mensae credere adesse deos_.\n Nunc quoque cum fiunt antiquae sacra Vacunae,\n Ante Vacunales stantque sedentque focos.\n\nOr again in the sacra of the curiae, if Dionysius reports them\nrightly[949], we find a clear case of a common meal in which the gods\ntook part. He tells us that he saw tables in the \u2018sacred houses\u2019 of the\ncuriae spread for the gods with simple food in very primitive\nearthenware dishes. He does not mention the presence of any images of\nthe gods, but it is probable from his interesting description that each\ncuria partook with its gods of a common meal of a religious character,\nand one not likely to have come under Greek influence[950].\n\nThis last example may suggest a hypothesis which is at least not likely\nto do any serious harm. Let it be remembered that each curia was a\nconstituent part of the whole Roman community. We might naturally expect\nto find a common religious meal of the same kind in which the _whole_\nstate took part through its magistrates and senate. This is just what we\ndo find in the epulum Jovis, though the character of its ceremonial is\ndifferent; and it is certainly possible that this epulum had its origin\nin a feast like that which Dionysius saw, but one which afterwards\nunderwent vital changes at the hands of the Etruscan dynasty of Roman\nkings. I am strongly inclined to believe that it was under the influence\nof these kings that the meal came to take place on the Capitol, and in\nthe temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, which they intended to be the\nnew centre of the Roman dominion[951]; and to them also I would ascribe\nthe presence at the feast of the three deities in iconic form. It may be\nthat before that critical era in Roman history the epulum took place not\non the Capitol but in the Regia, which with the temple of Vesta hard by\nformed the oldest centre of the united Rome; and that the presence of\nJupiter[952] or any other god was there a matter of belief, like that of\nVacuna with the Sabines, and not of the actual evidence of eyesight.\n\nBut this conjecture is a somewhat bold one; and it seems worth while to\ntake this opportunity of examining more closely into the cult of\nJupiter, with the object of determining whether the great god was apt,\nin any part of Italy but Etruria, to lend himself easily to\nanthropomorphic ideas and practices[953].\n\nThe cult of Jupiter is found throughout Italy under several forms of the\nsame name, with or without the suffix -piter = pater, which, so far as\nwe can guess, points to a conception of the god as protector, if not\noriginator, of a stock. This paternal title, which was applied to other\ndeities also, does not necessarily imply an early advance beyond the\n\u2018daemonistic\u2019 conception of divine beings; it rather suggests that some\none such being had been brought into peculiarly close relations with a\nparticular stock, and does no more than indicate a possibility of\nfurther individual development in the future[954]. The \u2018father\u2019 in this\ncase has no wife, though we find the word \u2018mater\u2019 applied to\ngoddesses[955]; Juno is undoubtedly the female principle, but she is\nnot, as has so often been imagined, the wife of Jupiter. The attempt to\nprove this by arguing from the Flamen Dialis and his wife the Flaminica\ncannot succeed: the former was the priest of Jupiter, but his wife was\nnot the priestess of Juno[956]. There is indeed a certain mysterious\ndualism of male and female among the old Italian divinities, as we know\nfrom the _locus classicus_ in Gellius (_N. A._ 13. 23. 2); but we are\nnot entitled to say that the relation was a conjugal one[957].\n\nBefore we proceed to examine traces of the oldest Jupiter in Rome and\nLatium let us see what survivals are to be found in other parts of\nItaly.\n\nIn Umbria we find Jovis holding the first place among the gods of the\ngreat inscription of Iguvium, which beyond doubt retains the primitive\nfeatures of the cult, though it dates probably from the last century\nB.C., and records rites which indicate a fully developed city-life[958].\nHis cult-titles here are Grabovius, of which the meaning is still\nuncertain, and Sancius, which brings him into connexion with the Semo\nSancus and Dius Fidius of the Romans. The sacrifices and prayers are\nelaborately recorded, but there is no trace in the ritual of anything\napproaching to an anthropomorphic conception of the god, unless it be\nthe apparent mention of a temple[959]. No image is mentioned, and there\nis no sign of a common meal. The titles of the deities too have the\ncommon old-Italian fluidity, i. e. the same title belongs to more than\none deity[960]. Everything points to a stage of religious thought in\nwhich the personality of gods had no distinct place. The centre-point of\nthe cult seems to be a hill, the _ocris fisius_, within the town of\nIguvium, which reminds us of the habits of the Greek Zeus and the\nphysical or elemental character\u2014unanthropomorphized\u2014which seems to\nbelong to that earlier stage in his worship[961].\n\nIt is on a hill also that we find the cult among the Sabellians. An\ninscription from Rapino in the land of the Marrucini tells us of a\nfestal procession in honour of \u2018Iovia Ioves patres ocris Tarincris,\u2019 i.\ne. Jovia (Juno?) belonging to the Jupiter of the hill Tarincris[962].\n\nAmong the Oscan peoples the cult-title _Lucetius_ is the most striking\nfact. Servius[963] says: \u2018Sane lingua Osca Lucetius est Iuppiter dictus\na luce quam praestare hominibus dicitur.\u2019 The same title is found in the\nhymn of the Roman Salii[964], and is evidently connected with _lux_;\nJupiter being beyond doubt the giver of light, whether that of sun or\nmoon. So Macrobius[965]: \u2018Nam cum Iovem accipiamus lucis auctorem, unde\net Lucetium Salii in carminibus canunt et Cretenses \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\nvocant, ipsi quoque Romani Diespitrem appellant ut diei patrem. Iure hic\ndies Iovis fiducia vocatur, cuius lux non finitur cum solis occasu, sed\nsplendorem diei et noctem continuat inlustrante luna,\u2019 &c. The Ides of\nall months, i. e. the days of full moon, were sacred to Jupiter. But in\nall ceremonies known to us in which the god appears in this capacity of\nhis, there is, as we might expect, no trace whatever of a personal or\nanthropomorphic conception.\n\nThe Etruscan Tina, or Tinia, is now generally identified, even\netymologically, with Jupiter[966]. The attributes of the two are\nessentially the same, though one particular side of the Etruscan god\u2019s\nactivity, that of the lightning-wielder, is specially developed. But\nTina is also the protector of cities, along with Juno and Minerva (Cupra\nand Menvra); and it is in connexion with this function of his that we\nfirst meet with a decided tendency towards an anthropomorphic\nconception. Even here, however, the stimulus can hardly be said to have\ncome from Italy. \u2018The one fact,\u2019 says Aust[967], \u2018which is at present\nquite clear is that the oldest Etruscan representations of gods can be\ntraced back to Greek models. Tinia was completely identified in costume\nand attributes with the Greek Zeus by Etruscan artists.\u2019 The insignia of\nEtruscan magistrates were again copied from these, and have survived for\nus in the costume of the Roman triumphator[968], and in part in the\ninsignia of the curule magistrate, i. e. in sceptrum, sella, toga\npalmata, &c., and in the smearing of the face of the triumphator with\n_minium_.\n\nComing nearer to Rome we find at Falerii, a town subject to Roman and\nSabellian as well as Graeco-Etruscan influence, the curious rite of the\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 described by Ovid (_Amores_, 3. 13), and found also in many\nparts of Greece[969]. In this elaborate procession Juno is apparently\nthe bride, but the bridegroom is not mentioned. At Argos, Zeus was the\nbridegroom, and the inference is an obvious one that Jupiter was the\nbridegroom at Falerii. But this cannot be proved, and is in fact\nsupported by no real evidence as to the old-Italian relation of the god\nand goddess. The rite is extremely interesting as pointing to what seems\nto be an early penetration of Greek religious ideas and practices into\nthe towns of Western Italy; but it has no other bearing on the\nJupiter-question, nor are we enlightened by the little else we know of\nthe Falerian Jupiter[970].\n\nBut at Praeneste, that remarkable town perched high upon the hills which\nenclose the Latin Campagna to the north, we find a very remarkable form\nof the Jupiter-cult, and one which must be mentioned here, puzzling and\neven inexplicable as it certainly is. The great goddess of Praeneste was\nFortuna Primigenia\u2014a cult-title which cannot well mean anything but\n_first-born_[971]; and that she was, or came to be thought of as, the\nfirst-born daughter of Jupiter is placed beyond a doubt by an\ninscription of great antiquity first published in 1882[972]. But this is\nnot the only anomaly in the Jupiter-worship of Praeneste. There was\nanother cult of Fortuna, distinct, apparently, from that of Fortuna\nPrimigenia, in which she took the form not of a daughter but of a\nmother, and, strange as it may seem, of the mother both of Jupiter and\nJuno. On this point we have the explicit evidence of Cicero (_de\nDivinatione_, 2. 85), who says, when speaking of the place where the\nfamous \u2018sortes\u2019 of Praeneste were first found by a certain Numerius\nSuffustius: \u2018Is est hodie locus saeptus religiose propter Iovis pueri\n(sacellum?) qui lactens cum Iunone Fortunae in gremio sedens, castissime\ncolitur a matribus.\u2019 Thus we have Fortuna worshipped in the same place\nas the daughter and as the mother of Jupiter; and nowhere else in Italy\ncan we find a trace of a similar conception of the relations either of\nthese or any other deities. We cannot well reject the evidence of\nCicero, utterly unsupported though it be: we must face the difficulty\nthat we have here to account for the occurrence of a Jupiter who is the\nchild of Fortuna and also apparently the brother of Juno, as well as of\na Jupiter who is the father of Fortuna.\n\nAs regards this last feature, the fatherhood of Jupiter, Jordan says\nemphatically[973]\u2014and no scholar was more careful in his judgements\u2014that\nin the whole range of Italian religions \u2018liberorum procreatio nulla est\nunquam\u2019: and he would understand \u2018filia\u2019 in the inscription quoted above\nin a metaphorical rather than a physical sense. Yet however we choose to\nthink of it, Mommsen is justified in remarking[974] on the peculiarly\nanthropomorphic idea of Fortuna (and we may add of Jupiter) at which the\nLatins of Praeneste must have arrived, in comparison with the character\nof Italian religion generally.\n\nEven more singular than this is the sonship of Jupiter and the fact that\nhe appeared together with Juno in the lap of Fortuna \u2018mammae appetens.\u2019\nCicero\u2019s language leaves no doubt that there was some work of art at\nPraeneste in which the three were so represented, or believed to be\nrepresented. Yet there are considerations which may suggest that we\nshould hesitate before hastily concluding that all this is a genuine\nItalian development of genuine Italian ideas.\n\n1. Italy presents us with no real parallel to this child-Jupiter though\nin Greece we find many. Jordan has mentioned three possible Italian\nparallels, but rejected them all: Caeculus Volcani, the legendary\nfounder of Praeneste, Hercules bullatus, and the beardless Veiovis. The\nattributes of the last-named are explained by a late identification with\nApollo[975]; Hercules bullatus is undoubtedly Greek: the story of the\nbirth of Caeculus is a foundation-legend, truly Italian in character,\nbut belonging to a different class of religious ideas from that we are\ndiscussing. To these we may add that the _boy-Mars_ found on a\nPraenestine cista is clearly of Etruscan origin, as is shown by Deecke\nin the _Lexicon_, s. v. Maris.\n\n2. Cicero\u2019s statement is not confirmed by any inscription from\nPraeneste. Those which were formerly thought to refer to _Iupiter\nPuer_[976] are now proved to belong to Fortuna as _Iovis puer_ (=\n_filia_). It is most singular that Fortuna should be thus styled _Iovis\npuer_ in the same place where Jupiter himself was worshipped as _puer_;\nstill more so that in one inscription (2868) the cutter should have\ndropped out the \u2018s\u2019 in Iovis, so that we actually read _Iovi puero_. It\nmay seem tempting to guess that the name Jupiter Puer arose from a\nmisunderstanding of the word _puer_ as applied to Fortuna: but the\nevidence as it stands supplies no safe ground for this.\n\n3. The fact that Cicero describes a statue is itself suspicious, in the\nabsence of corroborative evidence of any other kind[977]: for it\nsuggests that the cult may have arisen, and have taken its peculiar\nform, as a result of the introduction of Greek or Graeco-Etruscan works\nof art. In Praeneste itself, and in other parts of Latium and of\nCampania, innumerable terra-cottas have been found[978], of the type of\nthe Greek \u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, i. e. a mother, sitting or standing, with a\nchild, and occasionally two children[979] in her lap. These may, indeed,\nbe simply votive offerings, to Fortuna and other deities of childbirth:\nbut such objects may quite well have served as the foundation from which\nthe idea of Fortuna and her infants arose. There is a passage in Servius\nwhich seems to me to show a trace of a similar confusion elsewhere in\nthis region of Italy. \u2018Circa hunc tractum Campaniae colebatur _puer\nIuppiter_ qui Anxyrus dicebatur quasi \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5 \u03be\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, id est sine novacula:\nquia barbam nunquam rasisset: et _Iuno virgo_ quae Feronia\ndicebatur[980].\u2019 True, the Jupiter of Anxur is a boy or youth[981], not\nan infant: but the passage serves well to show the fluidity of Italian\ndeities, at any rate in regard to the names attached to them. That this\n_puer Iuppiter_ was originally some other deity, and very possibly a\nGreek one, I have little doubt: while Juno Virgo, Feronia, Fortuna,\nProserpina, all seem to slide into each other in a way which is very\nbewildering to the investigator[982]. This is no doubt owing to two\nchief causes\u2014the daemonistic character of the early Italian religion, in\nwhich many of the spiritual conceptions were even _unnamed_; and,\nsecondly, the confusion which arose when Greek artistic types were first\nintroduced into Italy. Two currents of religious thought met at this\npoint, perhaps in the eighth and following centuries B.C.; and the\nresult was a whirlpool, in which the deities were tossed about, lost\nsuch shape as they possessed, or got inextricably entangled with each\nother. The French student of Praenestine antiquities writes with reason\nof \u2018the negligence with which the Praenestine artists placed the names\nof divinities and heroes on designs borrowed from Greek models, and\noften representing a subject which they did not understand[983].\u2019\n\n4. And lastly, there is no doubt that Praeneste, in spite of its lofty\nposition on the hills, was at an early stage of its existence subject to\nforeign influences, like so many other towns on or near the western\ncoast of central Italy. This has been made certain by works of art found\nin its oldest tombs[984]. Whether these objects came from Greece,\nPhoenicia, Carthage, or Etruria, the story they tell is for us the same,\nand may well make us careful in accepting a statement like that of\nCicero\u2019s without some hesitation. There was even a Greek\nfoundation-legend of Praeneste, as well as the pure Italian one of\nCaeculus[985]. Evidence is slowly gathering which points to a certain\nbasis of fact in these foundation-stories\u2014of fact, at least, in so far\nas they seem to indicate that the transformation of the early Italian\ncommunity into a city and a centre of civilization was coincident with\nthe era of the introduction of foreign trade.\n\nWhile, then, we cannot hope as yet to account for the singular anomaly\nin the Jupiter-cult, which is presented to us at Praeneste, we may at\nleast hesitate to make use of it in answering the main question with\nwhich we set out\u2014viz. how far we can find in the cult of the genuine\nItalian Jupiter any tendency towards an anthropomorphic conception of\nthe god. Before we return to Rome a word is needed about the Latin\nJupiter. The Latin festival has already been described[986]: it will be\nsufficient here to point out that none of its features show any advance\ntowards an anthropomorphic conception of Jupiter Latiaris. The god here\nis of the same type as at Iguvium, one whose sanctuary\u2014whatever it may\noriginally have been\u2014is in a grove on a hill-top[987], the conspicuous\nreligious centre of the whole Latin stock inhabiting the plain below. Of\nthis stock he is the uniting and protecting deity; and when once a year\nhis sacred victim is slain, after offerings have been made to him by the\nrepresentatives of each member of the league, it is essential that each\nshould also receive (and probably consume through its deputies) a\nportion of the sacrificial flesh (_carnem petere_). This, the main\nfeature, and other details of the ritual, point to a survival from a\nvery early stage of religious culture, and one that we may fairly call\naniconic. The victim, a white heifer, the absence of wine in the\nlibations, and the mention of milk and cheese among the offerings, all\nsuggest an origin in the pastoral age; and it would seem that foreign\nideas never really penetrated into this worship of a pastoral race. The\nobjects that have been found during excavations near the site of the\nancient temple[988] show that, as in the worship of the Fratres Arvales\nand in that of the curiae, so here, the most antique type of sacred\nvessels remained in use. Undoubtedly there was in later times a temple,\nand also a statue of the god[989]: and it is just possible that, as\nNiebuhr supposed[990], these were the goal of an ancient Alban triumphal\nprocession, older than the later magnificent rite of the Capitol. But we\nknow _for certain_ that the ancient cult here suggests neither gorgeous\nritual nor iconic usage. We see nothing but the unadorned practices of a\nsimple cattle-breeding people.\n\nComing now once more to Rome itself, where of course we have fuller\ninformation, fragmentary though it be, we find sufficiently clear\nindications of an ancient cult of Jupiter showing characteristics of\nmuch the same kind as those we have already noticed as being genuine\nItalian.\n\nIn the first place the cult is associated with hills and also with\ntrees. It is found on that part of the Esquiline which was known as\nlucus Fagutalis or Fagutal: here there was a sacellum Iovis \u2018in quo fuit\nfagus arbor quae Iovis (so MSS.) sacra habebatur[991]\u2018: and the god\nhimself was called Fagutalis. Not far off on the Viminal, or hill of the\nosiers, there was also an altar of Jupiter Viminius, which we may\nsuppose to have been ancient[992]. The mysterious Capitolium vetus on\nthe Quirinal may be assumed as telling the same tale, though in\nhistorical times the memory of the cult there included Minerva and Juno\nwith Jupiter, i. e. the Etruscan \u2018Trias.\u2019 Lastly, on the Capitol itself\nwas the temple of Jupiter Feretrius, reputed to be the oldest in\nRome[993]. It was attributed to Romulus, who, after slaying the king of\nthe Caeninenses, dedicated the first spolia opima on an ancient oak\n\u2018pastoribus sacram,\u2019 and at the same time \u2018designavit templo Iovis fines\ncognomenque addidit deo.\u2019 The oak, we may assume, was the original\ndwelling of the god, and upon it were fixed the arms taken from the\nconquered enemy as a thank-offering for his aid[994]. In this case we\nseem to be able to guess the development of the cult from this beginning\nin the tree-worship of primitive \u2018pastores.\u2019 The next step would be the\nerection of an altar below the tree, in a small enclosure, i. e. a\nsacellum of the same kind as those of the Argei or the Sacellum\nLarum[995]. The third stage would be the building of the aedes known to\nus in history, which Cornelius Nepos says had fallen into decay in his\ntime, and was rebuilt by Augustus on the suggestion of Atticus. Even\nthis was a very small building, for Dionysius saw the foundations of it\nand found them only fifteen feet wide. This oldest cult of Jupiter was\ncompletely overshadowed by the later one of the Etruscan Trias\u2014the\naniconic by the iconic, the pure Italian by the mongrel ritual from\nEtruria.\n\nThat this Jupiter Feretrius[996] was the great Jupiter of pre-Etruscan\nRome seems to be proved by his connexion with oaths and treaties, in\nwhich he resembles the god of the Latin festival. To him apparently\nbelonged the priestly college of the Fetiales, who played so important a\npart in the declaring of war and the making of treaties: at any rate it\nwas from his temple that the _lapis silex_ and the _sceptrum_ were taken\nwhich accompanied them on their official journeys[997]. It has been\nsupposed that this _lapis silex_ was a symbol of the god himself, like\nthe spear of Mars in the Regia, and other such objects of cult[998]. \u2018We\nrecognize here the primitive forms of a nature-worship, in which the\nsimple flint was sufficient to bring up in men\u2019s minds the idea of the\nheavenly power of lightning and thunder,\u2019 i. e. the flint if struck\nwould emit sparks and remind the beholder of lightning. Unluckily the\nexistence of a stone in this temple as an object of worship is not\nclearly attested. Servius (_Aen._ 8. 641) says that the Fetials took to\nusing a stone instead of a sword to slay their victims with, \u2018quod\nantiquum Iovis signum lapidem silicem _putaverunt_ esse.\u2019 The learned\ncommentator makes a mistake here which will be obvious to all\narchaeologists, in putting the age of iron before that of stone; but it\nhas not been equally clear to scholars that he by no means implies his\nbelief that Jupiter was ever worshipped under the form of a stone. He\nonly says that the Fetials _fancied_ that this was so: and the whole\npassage has an aetiological colouring which should put us on our\nguard[999]. It is not supported by any other statement or tradition,\nexcept an allusion in S. Augustine[1000] to a \u2018lapis Capitolinus,\u2019 which\nis surely the stone of Terminus (see below): and by the oath \u2018per Iovem\nlapidem,\u2019 which has been interpreted by some as meaning \u2018Jupiter in the\nform of a stone.\u2019 But this interpretation is at least open to grave\ndoubt; and in the absence of clearer evidence for the \u2018Iuppiter lapis\u2019\nof the temple it is better to understand the oath as being sworn by the\ngod and also by the stone, \u2018two distinct aspects of the transaction\nbeing run together,\u2019 in a way not uncommon in Latin formulae[1001].\n\nIt only remains to conjecture what the \u2018silex\u2019 or \u2018lapis\u2019 was which the\nFetials took from the temple together with the sceptrum. Helbig has\nattempted to prove that it was not a survival of the stone age, e. g. an\naxe of stone. Had that been so, he argues, the Roman antiquaries, who\nwere acquainted with such implements[1002], would have noticed it: and\nthose who describe the rites of the Fetials would have stated that the\nstone was artificially sharpened. But this negative argument is not a\nstrong one; and I am rather inclined to agree with the suggestion of Dr.\nTylor[1003], that it was a stone celt believed to have been a\nthunder-bolt. There may indeed have been more than one of these kept in\nthe temple, for in B.C. 201 the Fetials who went to Africa took with\nthem _each a stone_[1004] (privos lapides silices) along with their\n\u2018sagmina,\u2019 &c. This fact seems to me to prove that the silices, like the\nsagmina and sceptrum, were only part of the ritualistic apparatus of the\nFetials[1005], and not objects in which the god was supposed to be\nmanifested. The idea that he was originally worshipped in the form of a\nstone may well have arisen from this use of stones in the ritual,\nespecially if those stones were believed to be in some way his\nhandiwork[1006]. We may think then of the cult of Jupiter Feretrius as\nan example of primitive tree-worship, but we are not justified in going\nfurther and finding him also in the form of a stone.\n\nThere is yet another stone that may have belonged to the earliest Roman\ncult of Jupiter, but the connexion is not very certain. \u2018The (rite of)\nAquaelicium,\u2019 says Festus[1007], \u2018is when rain is procured (elicitur) by\ncertain methods, as for example when the lapis manalis is carried into\nthe city.\u2019 This stone lay by the temple of Mars, outside the Porta\nCapena; we learn from other passages that it was carried by the\npontifices[1008], but we are not told what they did with it within the\nwalls. It has been ingeniously suggested that this rain-spell, as we may\ncall it, was a part of the cult of Jupiter Elicius, to whom there was an\naltar close by under the Aventine[1009], the cult-title being identical\nwith the latter part of the word \u2018aquaelicium[1010].\u2019 We may agree that\nthe stone had nothing to do with the temple of Mars, which happened to\nbe near it, and also that any such rain-spell as this would be more\nlikely to belong to the cult of Jupiter than of any other deity. The\nheaven-god, who launches the thunder-bolt, is naturally and almost\neverywhere also the rain-giver[1011]: and that this was one of the\nfunctions of Jupiter is fully attested, for later times at least[1012].\n\nBut it must be confessed that the evidence is very slight[1013]: and it\nis as well here to remember that the further we probe back into old\nItalian rites, the less distinctly can we expect to be able to connect\nthem with particular deities. The formula \u2018si deus, si dea es\u2019 should\nalways be borne in mind in attempting to connect gods and ceremonies.\nAnd this ceremony, like that of the Argei[1014] (which also wants a\nclearly-conceived deity as its object), is obviously a survival from a\nvery primitive class of performances which Mr. Frazer has called acts of\n\u2018sympathetic magic[1015].\u2019 I am indebted to the _Golden Bough_ for a\nstriking parallel to the rite of the lapis manalis, among many others\nwhich more or less resemble it. \u2018In a Samoan village a certain stone was\ncarefully housed as the representative of the rain-making god: and in\ntime of drought his priests carried the stone in procession and dipped\nit in a stream[1016].\u2019 What was done with the lapis manalis we are not\ntold, but it is pretty plain from the word \u2018manalis,\u2019 and from the\nfragments of explanation which have come down to us from Roman scholars,\nthat it was either the object of some splashing or pouring, or was\nitself hollow and was filled with water which was to be poured out in\nimitation of the desired rain[1017]. Such rites need not necessarily be\nconnected by us with the name of a god: and the Jupiter Elicius, with\nwhom it is sought to connect this one, was always associated by the\nRomans not with this obsolete rite, but with the elaborated science of\naugury which was in the main Etruscan[1018].\n\nBut this discussion has already been carried on as far as the scope of\nthis work permits. It may be completed by any one who has the patience\nto work through Aust\u2019s exhaustive article, examining his conclusions\nwith the aid of his abundant references; but I doubt if anything will be\nfound, beyond what I have mentioned, which bears closely on the question\nwith which we set out. That question was, whether the distinctly\nanthropomorphic treatment of Jupiter in the \u2018epulum Iovis\u2019 could be\nexplained by any native Italian practice in his cult (as Marquardt tried\nto explain it), or must be referred with Aust to foreign, i. e.\nGraeco-Etruscan, influence. I am driven to the conclusion that Aust is\nprobably right. There is no real trace in Italy of an indigenous iconic\nrepresentation of Jupiter. Trees and hills are apparently sacred to him,\nand possibly stones, though this last is doubtful: we find a sacrificial\nmeal at the Latin festival, but no sign that he takes part in it as an\nimage or statue. Elsewhere, as at Praeneste, peculiar representations of\nhim arouse strong suspicions of foreign iconic influence. I think, on\nthe whole, that the Italian peoples owed the sacred image to foreign\nworks of art: and that the \u2018epulum Iovis\u2019 was introduced from Etruria by\nthe Etruscan dynasty which built the Capitoline temple. It may, indeed,\nhave been engrafted upon an earlier sacrificial meal like that of the\nferiae Latinae, or that of the curiae, or the rustic one of Jupiter\ndapalis: but, if so, the meal was one at which the ancient Romans were\ncontent to _believe_, as Ovid says, that the gods were present, and did\nnot need, like the Greeks, the evidence of their eyes to help out their\nbelief. Their gods were still aniconic when the wave of foreign ideas\nbroke over them. We may say of the earliest Roman cult of Jupiter what\nTacitus asserts of the Germans of his day[1019]: \u2018nec cohibere\nparietibus deos neque in ullam humani oris speciem adsimulare ex\nmagnitudine caelestium arbitrantur: lucos ac nemora consecrant,\ndeorumque nominibus appellant secretum illud quod sola reverentia\nvident.\u2019\n\n * * * * *\n\nSeptember 13 was also the day on which, according to Livy[1020] and\nVerrius Flaccus[1021], a nail (_clavus_) was driven _annually_ by the\n\u2018Praetor maximus\u2019 into the wall of the cella of Minerva in the\nCapitoline temple, in obedience to an old lex which was fixed up on the\nwall of the temple adjoining this same cella. But Mommsen\u2019s trenchant\ncriticism[1022] of the _locus classicus_ for this subject in Livy has\nmade it almost certain that the Roman scholars were here in error: that\nthe ceremony was not an annual one, but took place once in a century, in\ncommemoration of a vow made in 463 B.C., to commemorate the great\npestilence of that year, which carried off both the consuls and several\nother magistrates[1023]: that it had no special connexion with the cult\nof Jupiter, and was not intended, as is generally supposed, to mark the\nyears as they passed. The nail is really the symbol of Fortuna or\nNecessitas; the rite was Etruscan, and was also celebrated at Volsinii\nin the temple of the Etruscan deity of Fate; when brought to Rome it was\nvery naturally located in the great temple of the Etruscan Trias, the\nreligious centre of the Roman state. Originally a dictator was chosen\n(i. e. Praetor maximus) _clavi figendi causa_; and when the dictatorship\nwas dropped after the Second Punic War, the ceremony was allowed to fall\ninto oblivion. Later on the Roman antiquarians unearthed and\nmisinterpreted it, believing it to have been a yearly rite of which the\nobject was to mark the succession of years. This brief account of\nMommsen\u2019s view may suffice for the purpose of this work: but the subject\nis one that might with advantage be reinvestigated.\n\nFootnote 930:\n\n This represents the length which the ludi had attained in Cicero\u2019s\n time (_Verr._ i. 10. 31). September 4 was probably added after\n Caesar\u2019s death (Mommsen in _C. I. L._ 328).\n\nFootnote 931:\n\n _C. I. L._ 281.\n\nFootnote 932:\n\n _R. R._ I. 33.\n\nFootnote 933:\n\n See Mommsen\u2019s masterly essay in his _R\u00f6mische Forschungen_, vol. ii.\n p. 42 foll. Aust, in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 732.\n\nFootnote 934:\n\n Mommsen, _R\u00f6m. Chronol._ 86 foll.\n\nFootnote 935:\n\n The \u2018equorum probatio,\u2019 preliminary to the races in the circus, took\n place on the day after the Ides: see above, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 936:\n\n Mommsen (_C. I. L._ 328, and _R\u00f6m. Forsch._ ii. 43 foll.) points out\n that the real centre-point and original day of the ludi proper was the\n day of the great procession (pompa) from the Capitol to the Circus\n maximus; and that this was probably the 15th, two days after the\n epulum, because the 14th, being _postriduanus_, was unlucky, and that\n day was also occupied by the \u2018equorum probatio.\u2019 (See Fasti Sab.,\n Maff., Vall., Amit. and Antiat.)\n\nFootnote 937:\n\n See below, p. 234. For the _dies natalis_, see Aust, in _Lex._ s.v.\n Iuppiter, p. 707; Plutarch, _Poplic._ 14.\n\nFootnote 938:\n\n Mommsen, _R\u00f6m. Forsch._ l. c.\n\nFootnote 939:\n\n Livy, 36. 2. 3. The passage refers to _ludi magni_, i. e. _special_\n votive games, vowed after the fixed organization of the ludi Romani;\n but it is none the less illustrative of the latter, as they originated\n in votive games.\n\nFootnote 940:\n\n So Marq. 349 and note; Mommsen in _C. I. L._ 329, 335. I follow Aust,\n _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 732. The \u2018epulum Minervae\u2019 of the rustic\n calendars is but slender evidence for an ancient and special connexion\n of the goddess with this day; but Mommsen thinks that the epulum\n \u2018magis Minervae quam Iovis fuisse.\u2019\n\nFootnote 941:\n\n Aust, l. c.\n\nFootnote 942:\n\n Aust, _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 670, 735.\n\nFootnote 943:\n\n In Capitolio (Gellius, 12. 8. 2; Liv. 38. 57. 5). For the collegium of\n _epulones_, which from 196 B.C. had charge of this and other public\n feasts, see Marq. 347 foll.\n\nFootnote 944:\n\n Val. Max. 2. 1. 2; Plin. _N. H._ 33. 111; Aust, l. c.; Preller, i.\n 120.\n\nFootnote 945:\n\n Marq. 348.\n\nFootnote 946:\n\n _R. R._ 132. Festus (68) explains daps as \u2018res divina quae fiebat aut\n hiberna semente aut verna,\u2019 and Cato directs the farmer to begin to\n sow after the ceremony he describes. I do not clearly understand\n whether Marquardt intended also to connect the epulum Jovis of Nov. 13\n with the autumn sowing.\n\nFootnote 947:\n\n I am unable to offer any explanation of these words, though half\n inclined to suspect that Vesta was the original deity of this rite of\n the farm, and that Jupiter and the wine-offering are later intrusions.\n\nFootnote 948:\n\n _Fasti_, 6. 307. For Vacuna see Preller, i. 408.\n\nFootnote 949:\n\n Bk. 2. 23 (cp. 2. 50); Marq. 195 foll. For a comparison of Greek and\n Roman usage of this kind see de Coulanges, _La Cit\u00e9 antique_, p. 132\n foll.\n\nFootnote 950:\n\n He compares this common meal with those of the \u03c0\u03c1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1 of Greek\n cities, and also with the \u03c6\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 at Sparta. But it is most unlikely\n that the practice of the curiae should have had any but a native\n origin.\n\nFootnote 951:\n\n See cap. 7 of Ambrosch\u2019s _Studien_; and cp. cap. 1 on the Regia as the\n older centre.\n\nFootnote 952:\n\n I may relegate to a footnote the further conjecture that the original\n deity of the epulum was Vesta. We know that this Sept. 13 was one of\n the three days on which the Vestals prepared the _mola salsa_ (Serv.\n _Ecl._ 8. 32). We cannot connect this _mola salsa_ with the cult of\n Jupiter on this day, for the Vestals have no direct connexion with\n that cult at any period of the year; but it is possible that it was a\n survival from the time when the common meal took place in the Regia.\n\nFootnote 953:\n\n See Aust\u2019s admirable and exhaustive article on Jupiter in Roscher\u2019s\n _Lexicon_.\n\nFootnote 954:\n\n Robertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, 42 foll.) seems to trace\n the idea back to an actual physical fatherhood. Mr. Farnell, on the\n other hand (_Cults of the Greek States_, i. 49), believes that in the\n case of Zeus it expresses \u2018rather a moral or spiritual idea than any\n real theological belief concerning physical or human origins.\u2019 In\n Italy, I think, the suffix pater indicates a special connexion with a\n particular stock, and one rather of guardianship than of actual\n fatherhood. See above on Neptunalia.\n\nFootnote 955:\n\n See Jordan\u2019s note on Preller, i. 56.\n\nFootnote 956:\n\n See my paper in _Classical Review_, vol. ix. 474 foll.\n\nFootnote 957:\n\n Wissowa, _de Feriis_, p. 6, in the true spirit of Italian worship,\n concludes that it was \u2018non per iustum matrimonium, sed ex officiorum\n affinitate.\u2019\n\nFootnote 958:\n\n B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_; Br\u00e9al, _Les Tables Eugubines_.\n\nFootnote 959:\n\n _Tab._ 1 B. (B\u00fccheler, p. 2, takes it as a temple or sacellum of\n _Juno_).\n\nFootnote 960:\n\n Grabovius is an epithet of Mars; Sancius of Fisius; Jovius or Juvius\n of more than one deity.\n\nFootnote 961:\n\n Farnell, op. cit. i. 50 and notes.\n\nFootnote 962:\n\n Mommsen, _Unteritalische Dialekten_, 341; _Lex._ 637. The Jupiter\n _Cacunus_ of _C. I. L._ 6. 371 and 9. 4876 also points to _high\n places_, and there are other examples.\n\nFootnote 963:\n\n _Aen._ 9. 567.\n\nFootnote 964:\n\n Wordsworth, _Fragments and Specimens_, p. 564.\n\nFootnote 965:\n\n _Sat._ 1. 15. 14.\n\nFootnote 966:\n\n Deecke, _Etruskische Forschungen_, iv. 79 foll.\n\nFootnote 967:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, p. 634.\n\nFootnote 968:\n\n Servius _Ecl._ 10. 27; _Dict. of Antiquities_ (ed. 2), s. v.\n Triumphus.\n\nFootnote 969:\n\n Farnell, i. 184 foll. See also Dion. Hal. 1. 21. 2; Deecke, _Die\n Falisker_, p. 88; _Lex._ s. v. Juno, 591; Roscher, _Juno und Hera_,\n 76.\n\nFootnote 970:\n\n _Lex._ 643.\n\nFootnote 971:\n\n H. Jordan, _Symbolae ad historiam religionum Italicarum alterae_.\n K\u00f6nigsberg, 1885.\n\nFootnote 972:\n\n \u2018Orceria\u00b7Numeri\u00b7nationu\u00b7cratia\u00b7Fortuna\u00b7Diovo\u00b7filei\u00b7primocenia\u00b7donom\n dedi\u2019 (_C. I. L._ xiv. 2863). There are later inscriptions in which\n she appears as \u2018Iovis (or Iovi) puero,\u2019 in the sense of female child\n (_C. I. L._ xiv. 2862, 2868). The subject is discussed by Mommsen in\n _Hermes_ for 1884, p. 455, and by Jordan op. cit. See also _Lex._ s.\n v. Fortuna, 1542 foll., and s. v. Iuppiter, 648.\n\nFootnote 973:\n\n _Symbolae_, i. p. 8, and cp. 12. For the apparent parallel in the myth\n of the birth of Mars see on March 1.\n\nFootnote 974:\n\n _Hermes_, 1884, p. 455 foll.\n\nFootnote 975:\n\n Gellius, _N. A._ 5. 12; Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 429 foll.; and see above on\n May 21. For Hercules, Jordan l. c. and his note on Preller, ii. 298.\n For Caeculus, Wissowa, in _Lex._ s. v.\n\nFootnote 976:\n\n _C. I. L._ xiv. 2862 and 2868.\n\nFootnote 977:\n\n The _tria signa_ of Liv. 23. 19, placed \u2018in aede Fortunae\u2019 by M.\n Anicius after his escape from Hannibal, with a dedication, may\n possibly have been those of Fortuna and the two babes (Preller, ii.\n 192. note 1): but this is very doubtful.\n\nFootnote 978:\n\n Jordan, _Symbolae_, 10; _Lex._ s. v. Fortunae, 1543; Fernique, _\u00c9tude\n sur Pr\u00e9neste_, 78.\n\nFootnote 979:\n\n Gerhard, _Antike Bildwerke_, Tab. iv. no. 1, gives an example: the\n children here, however, are not babes, and the mother has her arms\n round their necks. It seems more to resemble the types of Leto with\n Apollo and Artemis as infants (_Lex._ s. v. Leto, 1973), as Prof.\n Gardner suggests to me.\n\nFootnote 980:\n\n Ad _Aen._ 7. 799.\n\nFootnote 981:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 640.\n\nFootnote 982:\n\n See Fernique, _\u00c9tude sur Pr\u00e9neste_, pp. 79-81.\n\nFootnote 983:\n\n Fernique, op. cit. p. 79.\n\nFootnote 984:\n\n Fernique, 139 foll. Wissowa writes of Praeneste as \u2018a special point of\n connexion between Latin and Etruscan culture\u2019 (_Lex._ s. v. Mercurius,\n 2813).\n\nFootnote 985:\n\n Plutarch, _Parallela_, 41.\n\nFootnote 986:\n\n See at end of April, p. 95.\n\nFootnote 987:\n\n Liv. 1. 31. 3 \u2018visi etiam audire vocem ingentem ex summi cacuminis\n luco, ut patrio ritu sacra Albani facerent.\u2019\n\nFootnote 988:\n\n e. g. the vases of very primitive make (Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._\n 30).\n\nFootnote 989:\n\n Liv. 27. 11 (B.C. 209).\n\nFootnote 990:\n\n Niebuhr, _Hist. of Rome_, ii. 37. Strong arguments are urged against\n this view by Aust, _Lex._ 696.\n\nFootnote 991:\n\n Paul. Diac. 87. The lucus is mentioned in the corrupt fragments of the\n Argean itinerary (see on May 15) in Varro, _L. L._ 5. 50 (see Jordan,\n _Topogr._ ii, 242): where I am inclined to think the real reading is\n \u2018Esquiliis cis Iovis lucum fagutalem\u2019; \u2018Iuppiter Fagutalis\u2019 in Plin.\n _N. H._ 16. 37; a \u2018vicus Iovis Fagutalis,\u2019 _C. I. L._ vi. 452 (110\n A.D.).\n\nFootnote 992:\n\n For Iuppiter Viminius and his ara, Fest. 376.\n\nFootnote 993:\n\n Liv. 1. 10; Dionys. 2. 34; Propert. 5. (4.) 10.\n\nFootnote 994:\n\n For other examples of this practice see B\u00f6tticher, _Baumkultus_, pp.\n 73 and 134; Virgil, _Aen._ 10. 423, and Servius, ad loc.; Statius,\n _Theb._ 2. 707.\n\nFootnote 995:\n\n Corn. Nep. _Atticus_, 20; cf. Mommsen, _Res Gestae Divi Augusti_, p.\n 53; Dion. Hal. 2. 34. 4. This is apparently what Livy alludes to in 1.\n 10, attributing it, after Roman fashion, to Romulus: \u2018Templum his\n regionibus, quas modo animo metatus sum, dedico sedem opimis spoliis.\u2019\n For a discussion of the shape of this temple see Aust, in _Lex._ s. v.\n Iuppiter, 673. He is inclined to attribute it (679) to the A.\n Cornelius Cossus who dedicated the second _spolia opima_ in B.C. 428\n (Liv. 4. 20).\n\nFootnote 996:\n\n The meaning of the cult-title is obscure; _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 673.\n\nFootnote 997:\n\n Paul. Diac. 92; Serv. _Aen._ 12. 206.\n\nFootnote 998:\n\n Aust, in _Lex._ 676. The idea is that of Helbig in his _Italiker in\n der Poebene_, 91 foll. Cp. Schwegler, _R\u00f6m. Gesch._ i. 681, and\n Preller, i. 248 foll. H. Nettleship, _Essays in Latin Literature_, p.\n 35, and Strachan-Davidson (Polybius, _Prolegomena_, viii) discuss the\n oath _per Iovem lapidem_ usefully. Nettleship saw that the passage of\n Servius is the only one which \u2018gives any real support\u2019 to the notion\n that the god was represented by a stone; and Strachan-Davidson notes\n the aetiological method of Servius.\n\nFootnote 999:\n\n Cp. his note on the \u2018sceptrum\u2019 (_Aen._ 12. 206), which he explains as\n being the substitute for a \u2018simulacrum\u2019 of Jupiter. Was this\n \u2018simulacrum\u2019 a stone? If so he would have said so. Obviously he knew\n little or nothing about these cult-objects.\n\nFootnote 1000:\n\n _de Civ. Dei_ 2. 29. S. Augustine couples it with the focus Vestae, as\n something well known: and this could not be said at that time of any\n object in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. The epithet Capitolinus\n would suit the stone of Terminus far better; and this is, in fact,\n made almost certain by Servius\u2019 language when speaking of Virgil\u2019s\n \u2018Capitoli immobile saxum\u2019 (_Aen._ 9. 448), which he identifies with\n the \u2018lapidem ipsum Termini.\u2019 Doubtless if we could be sure that such a\n stone existed, we might guess that it was an aerolite\n (Strachan-Davidson, p. 76, who quotes examples).\n\nFootnote 1001:\n\n So Nettleship, l. c.: and Strachan-Davidson, l. c.\n\nFootnote 1002:\n\n He quotes Plin. _N. H._ 37. 135 \u2018cerauniae nigrae rubentesque et\n similes securibus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1003:\n\n Communicated to Mr. Strachan-Davidson, and mentioned by him in a note\n (op. cit. p. 77). An instance in Retzel, _History of Mankind_, vol. i.\n p. 175. The other suggestion, that it was a meteoric stone, is also\n quite possible: for Greek examples, see Sch\u00f6mann, _Griech.\n Alterth\u00fcmer_, ii. 171 foll.\n\nFootnote 1004:\n\n Liv. 30. 43.\n\nFootnote 1005:\n\n We may compare the \u2018orbita\u2019 of the cult of Jupiter Sancius at Iguvium:\n B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_, 141. See above, p. 139.\n\nFootnote 1006:\n\n It may be as well to say, before leaving the subject, that I certainly\n agree with Mr. Strachan-Davidson that the ordinary oath, \u2018per Iovem\n lapidem,\u2019 where the swearer throws the stone away from him (described\n by Polybius, 3. 25), has nothing to do with the ritual of the Fetials.\n\nFootnote 1007:\n\n Festus, p. 2. Cp. 128, where this stone is distinguished from the\n other, which was the \u2018ostium Orci.\u2019 Serv. _Aen._ 3. 175.\n\nFootnote 1008:\n\n Serv. l. c. Marquardt, and Aust following him, add the matrons with\n bare feet and the magistrates without their praetexta: but this rests\n on the authority of Petronius (_Sat._ 44), who surely is not writing\n of Rome, where the ceremony was only a tradition, to judge by Fest. p.\n 2.\n\nFootnote 1009:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 94.\n\nFootnote 1010:\n\n O. Gilbert, ii. 154: adopted by Aust, 658, who adds some slight\n additional evidence: e. g. the \u2018Iovem aquam exorabant\u2019 of the passage\n from Petronius.\n\nFootnote 1011:\n\n Tylor, _Prim. Cult._ ii. 235-7: for the Greek Zeus, Farnell, _Cults_,\n i. 44 foll.\n\nFootnote 1012:\n\n Preller, i. 190. I cannot say that I find evidence earlier than the\n passage of Tibullus, 1. 7. 26 (Jupiter Pluvius).\n\nFootnote 1013:\n\n Note that the Flamen Dialis is not mentioned along with the Pontifices\n by Servius, l.c.\n\nFootnote 1014:\n\n See on May 15.\n\nFootnote 1015:\n\n _Golden Bough_, i. 11 foll.; Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_, 595 foll.;\n abundant examples in the works of Mannhardt, see indices.\n\nFootnote 1016:\n\n From _Samoa_, by G. Turner, p. 145.\n\nFootnote 1017:\n\n Compare together Nonius, 547. 10; 559. 19 (s. v. trulleum), from\n Varro; Festus, 128, s. v. \u2018manalis lapis,\u2019 from Verrius Flaccus. The\n suggestion that the stone was hollow is O. Gilbert\u2019s.\n\nFootnote 1018:\n\n Aust, _Lex._ 657, who believes the Romans to have been mistaken. The\n _locus classicus_ is Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 285 foll.; a more rational\n account in Liv. 1. 20; Plin. _N. H._ 2. 140. Note the position of the\n altar of this Jupiter, i. e. the Aventine.\n\nFootnote 1019:\n\n _Germania_, 9.\n\nFootnote 1020:\n\n 7. 3.\n\nFootnote 1021:\n\n Festus, 55.\n\nFootnote 1022:\n\n In _R\u00f6m. Chronologie_, p. 175 foll. Preller (i. 258) had already seen\n that the ceremony was a religious one, but believed it to be annual,\n and used for the reckoning of time.\n\nFootnote 1023:\n\n \u2018An sich hat der Nagel gewiss mit dem Jahre nichts zu thun, sondern\n steht in seiner nat\u00fcrlichen und wohlbekannten Bedeutung der\n Schicksalsfestung, in welcher er als Attribut der grausen\n Nothwendigkeit (saeva Necessitas), der Fortuna, der Atropos bei\n r\u00f6mischen Schriftstellern und auf italischen Bildwerken begegnet.\u2019\n Mommsen, op. cit. 179. He alludes, of course, to Horace, _Od._ 1. 35,\n and 3. 24, and to the Etruscan mirror mentioned by Preller (p. 259):\n see Gerhard, _Etr. Spiegel_, i. 176. But the interpretation of this\n mirror, as given by Preller, seems to me very doubtful.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS OCTOBER.\n\n\nIn the Italy of historical times, the one agricultural feature of this\nmonth was the vintage. The rustic calendars mark this with the single\nword _vindemiae_[1024]. The vintage might begin during the last few days\nof September, but October was its natural time, though it is now\nsomewhat earlier: this point is clear both from Varro and Pliny[1025].\nBut the old calendars have preserved hardly a trace of this; and in fact\nthe only feast which we can in any way connect with wine making (the\nMeditrinalia on the 11th) is obscure in name and its ritual unknown to\nus. We may infer that the practice of viticulture was a comparatively\nlate introduction; and this is borne out by such facts as the absence of\nwine in the ritual of the Latin festival[1026], and the words of a _lex\nregia_ (ascribed to Numa) which forbade wine to be sprinkled on a\nfuneral pile[1027]. Pliny also expressed a decided opinion that\nviticulture was _multo serior_: and lately Hehn[1028] has traced it to\nthe Italian Greeks on etymological grounds. It can hardly have become a\ncommon occupation in Latium before the seventh or possibly even the\neighth century B.C.\n\nProbably if Ovid had continued his _Fasti_ to the end of the year we\nmight have learnt much of interest about this month: as it is, we have\nonly scraps of information about a very few primitive rites, only one of\nwhich can be said to be known to us in any detail; and the\ninterpretation of that one is extremely doubtful.\n\n\n KAL. OCT. (OCTOBER 1). N.\n\n\n[FIDEI] IN CAPITOLIO. TIGILL[O] SOROR[IO] AD COMPITUM ACILI. (ARV.)\n\n\nThe sacrifice here indicated to Fides in the Capitol is clearly the one\nwhich Livy ascribes to Numa[1029]: \u2018Et soli Fidei sollemne instituit. Ad\nid sacrarium flamines bigis, curru arcuato (i. e. \u2018covered\u2019) vehi\niussit, manuque ad digitos usque involuta rem divinam facere:\nsignificantes fidem tutandam, sedemque eius etiam in dextris sacratam\nesse.\u2019 Dionysius also mentions the foundation, without alluding to the\npeculiar ritual, but dwelling on the moral influence of the cult both in\npublic and private life[1030].\n\nThe personification of a moral idea would hardly seem likely to be as\nold as Numa; yet there are points in the ritual which suggest a high\nantiquity, apart from tradition. It was the three chief flamines who\nthus drove to the Capitol\u2014i. e. those of Jupiter, Mars, and Quirinus;\nthese at least were the three who had been just instituted by Numa (Liv.\n1. 20), and to them Livy must be referring. As has been often pointed\nout, the presence of flamines at a rite is always evidence of its\nantiquity; and in this case they may have represented the union of the\ntwo communities of Septimontium and Quirinal in a common worship on the\nCapitol, this central point being represented by the Flamen Dialis. The\ncurious fact that the right hands of these flamens were wrapped up to\nthe fingers in white cloth is another obvious sign of antiquity, and is\nexplained as meaning that the right hand, which was given to another in\npledging one\u2019s word, then as now[1031], was pure and clean, as was the\nmind of the pledger[1032]. A sacred object, statue or victim, was often\nthus wrapped or tied with fillets (_vittae_); and the \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 in the\nEleusinian mysteries seem to have worn a crocus-coloured band on the\nright hand and right foot[1033]. The statue of the goddess in her temple\nhad probably the right hand so covered, if at least we are at liberty so\nto interpret the words of Horace, \u2018albo Fides velata panno\u2019[1034].\n\nA word about the _tigillum sororium_[1035]. What this was, and where it\nwas, can be made out with some certainty; beyond that all is obscure. It\nwas a beam, renewed from time to time, let into the opposite walls of a\nstreet which led down from the Carinae to the Vicus Cyprius, now the via\ndel Colosseo[1036]. It remained till at least the fourth century A.D. It\nis now generally explained as a primitive Janus-arch, apparently on the\nground that one of the altars below it was to Janus Curiatius[1037]. As\nit seems, however, to have been a single beam, without supports except\nthe street walls[1038], I am unable to understand this conclusion; and\nas the Roman antiquaries never supposed it to be such, we can hardly do\nso safely. They believed it to be a memorial of the expiation undergone\nby the legendary Horatius for the murder of his sister. Acquitted by the\npeople on appeal, he had to make religious expiation, and this he did by\nthe erection of an altar to Janus Curiatius, and another to Juno\nSororia[1039], and by passing under a yoke, which was afterwards\nrepresented by the _tigillum_.\n\nWe may leave the _tigillum_ as really inexplicable, unless we are to\naccept the suggestion of Roscher[1040], that the germ of the legend is\nto be found in the practice of creeping through a split tree to get rid\nof spell or disease. The two altars demand a word.\n\nLivy\u2019s language seems to suggest that these were in the care of the gens\nHoratia[1041]: \u2018Quibusdam piacularibus sacrificiis factis, quae deinde\ngenti Horatiae tradita sunt.\u2019 If so, perhaps the whole legend of\nHoratius, or at any rate its connexion with this spot, arose out of this\ngentile worship of two deities, of whom the cult-titles were\nrespectively Curiatius and Sororia. The coincidence of Janus and Juno is\nnatural enough; both were associated with the Kalends[1042]. But the\noriginal meaning of their cult-titles at the Tigillum remains unknown.\nAll we can say is that the Janus of the _curiae_ and the Juno of a\nsister may certainly have given point to a legend of which the hero was\nacquitted by the Comitia Curiata for the murder of a sister[1043].\n\n\n 3 NON. OCT. (OCTOBER 5). C.\n\n\nThis was one of the three days on which the _mundus_ was open: see on\nAugust 24.\n\n\n NON. OCT. (OCTOBER 7). F.\n\n\nIOVI FULGURI, IUNONI CURRITI[1044] IN CAMPO. (ARV. PAUL.)\n\n\nOf these worships in Rome nothing else is known. Iuno Curitis is the\ngoddess of Falerii, whose supposed \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03ac\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 was referred to\nabove[1045].\n\n\n V ID. OCT. (OCTOBER 11). NP.\n\n\nMEDITR[INALIA]. (SAB. MAFF. AMIT.)\n\nFERIAE IOVI. (AMIT.)\n\n\nThis was the day on which the new wine was tasted. There is no real\nevidence of a goddess Meditrina. The account in Paulus is as follows:\n\u2018Mos erat Latinis populis, quo die quis primum gustaret mustum, dicere\nominis gratia \u201cVetus novum vinum bibo, veteri novo morbo medeor.\u201d A\nquibus verbis etiam Meditrinae deae nomen conceptum, eiusque sacra\nMeditrinalia dicta sunt[1046].\u2019 Varro had already given the same\naccount: \u2018Octobri mense Meditrinalia dies, dictus a medendo, quod\nFlaccus flamen Martialis dicebat hoc die solitum vinum novum et vetus\nlibari et gustari medicamenti causa: quod facere solent etiam nunc multi\nquom dicunt: Novum vetus vinum bibo, novo veteri vino morbo medeor.\u2019\n\nNote _a_. A parallel practice of tasting both old and new crops is to be\nfound in the ritual of the Fratres Arvales, who in May \u2018fruges aridas et\nvirides contigerunt,\u2019 i. e. the old grain and the new[1047].\n\nNote _b_. The belief that the new wine (_mustum_) was wholesome and\nnon-inebriating is discussed charmingly by Plutarch (_Quaest. Conv._\nvii. 1).\n\nNote _c_. Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 1. 2. 332, points out that the real deity\nhere concerned was doubtless Jupiter: see under Vinalia, p. 86.\n\n\n III ID. OCT. (OCTOBER 13). NP.\n\n\nFONT[INALIA]. (SAB. MAFF. AMIT. MIN. IX.)\n\nFERIAE FONTI. (AMIT.)\n\n\nAll we know of this very ancient festival is contained in a few words of\nVarro[1048]: \u2018Fontinalia a Fonte, quod is dies feriae eius; ab eo tum et\nin fontes coronas iaciunt et puteos coronant.\u2019\n\nThe holiness of wells and springs is too familiar to need illustration\nhere. The original object of the garlanding was probably to secure\nabundant water.\n\nIt is generally assumed that there was a god Fons or Fontus, to whom\nthis day was sacred. There was a delubrum Fontis[1049]; an ara Fonti on\nthe Janiculum[1050]; and a porta Fontinalis in the Campus Martius. Fons\nalso appears with Flora, Mater Larum, Summanus, &c., in the ritual of\nthe Fratres Arvales[1051]. The case seems to be one of those in which\nmultiplicity passes into a quasi-unity: but Fons did not survive long in\nthe latter stage.\n\n\n ID. OCT. (OCT. 15). NP.\n\n\nEQUUS AD NIXAS FIT. (PHILOC.)\n\n\nNo calendar but the late one of Philocalus mentions the undoubtedly\nprimitive rite of horse-sacrifice which took place on this day. Wissowa\nhas tried to explain this difficulty, which meets us elsewhere in the\nCalendar, e. g. on the Ides of May (Argei), June 1 (festival of\nCarna)[1052]. Where two festivals fell on the same day, _both_ would not\nbe found in calendars which were meant for the use, not of the\npontifices themselves, but of the unlearned vulgar; for the latter would\nnot be able to distinguish, or to get one clear name for the day, and\nconfusion would result. Now all Kalends and Ides were sacred to Juno and\nJupiter respectively; all other rites falling on these days would stand\na chance of being omitted, unless indeed they were noticed in later\nannotations such as we find cut in smaller letters in the Fasti\nPraenestini and others.\n\nLuckily the entry in Philocalus\u2019 calendar is supplemented sufficiently\nfrom other sources. The earliest hint we get comes from the Greek\nhistorian Timaeus, and is preserved in a fragment of the twelfth book of\nPolybius[1053]. Timaeus after the Greek fashion connects the\nhorse-sacrifice with the legend of Troy and the wooden horse: but he\nalso tells us the important detail that on a certain day _a war-horse\nwas killed with a spear in the Campus Martius_[1054]. The passage is no\ndoubt characteristic of Timaeus, both in regard to the detail, and the\nmythology which Polybius despised. But though we do not know that\nTimaeus was ever at Rome, we may hope that he was correct in the one\nparticular which we do not learn from other sources, viz. the slaughter\nof the horse with the sacred weapon of Mars.\n\nFuller information comes from Verrius Flaccus, as represented in the\nepitomes of Festus and Paulus Diaconus[1055]. On this day there was a\ntwo-horse chariot race in the Campus Martius; and the near horse of the\nwinning pair was sacrificed to Mars\u2014killed with a spear, if we may\nbelieve Timaeus. The place is indicated in Philocalus\u2019 calendar as \u2018ad\nnixas,\u2019 i. e. the _ciconiae nixae_, which seem to have been three storks\ncarved in stone with bills crossing each other[1056]: this however was\nnon-existent under the Republic. The real scene of the sacrifice must\nhave been an old \u2018ara Martis,\u2019 and that there was such an altar in the\nCampus we know for certain, though we cannot definitely fix its\nposition[1057]. The tail of the horse was cut off and carried with speed\nto the Regia so that the warm blood might drip upon the focus or sacred\nhearth there. The head also was cut off and decked with cakes; and at\none time there was a hard fight for its possession between the men of\nthe two neighbouring quarters of the Via Sacra and the Subura. If the\nformer carried off the prize, they fixed it on the wall of the Regia; if\nthe latter, on the turris Mamilia[1058].\n\nIt is probable[1059], though not quite certain, that the congealed blood\nfrom the tail was used, together with the ashes of the unborn calves\nsacrificed on the Fordicidia, as \u2018medicine\u2019 to be distributed to the\npeople at the Parilia on April 21.\n\nThe rite of the \u2018October-horse\u2019 had been adequately described and in\nsome degree explained by Preller, Marquardt, Schwegler, and\nothers[1060], before the late Dr. Mannhardt took it in hand not long\nbefore his death[1061]. Mannhardt studied it in the light of his\nfar-reaching researches in folk-lore, and succeeded in treating it as\nall such survivals should be treated, i.e. in bringing it into relation\nwith the practices of other peoples\u2014not so much by way of explaining its\noriginal meaning precisely, as in order to make some progress by its\nhelp towards an understanding of the attitude of primitive man to the\nsupernatural. His conclusions have been generally accepted, and, with\nvery slight modifications, are to be found in Mr. Frazer\u2019s _Golden\nBough_ (ii. 64), and in Roscher\u2019s article \u2018Mars\u2019 in the _Mythological\nLexicon_ (2416). Recently, however, they have been called in question by\nno less a person than Prof. Wissowa[1062] of Berlin, who seems to take a\ndifferent view of the Mars-cult from that at which we thought we had at\nlast safely arrived: it may be as well therefore to give yet another\naccount of Mannhardt\u2019s treatment of the question, and to follow his\ntrack somewhat more elaborately than Mr. Frazer. It does not of course\nfollow that he has said the last word; but it is as well to begin by\nmaking clear what he _has_ said.\n\n1. This is _the last of the series of harvest festivals_, as we may call\nthem generically. We have had the Ambarvalia and the plucking of the\nfirst ears by the Vestals in May: the Vestalia in June[1063]; the\nfestivals of Consus and Ops Consiva in August; and lastly we find this\none coming after all the fruits of the land have been gathered in. In\nthis respect it is parallel to the Pyanepsia and Oschophoria of the\nGreeks, to the Jewish feast of Tabernacles[1064], and to the true\nMichaelmas harvest-festivals of modern Europe, which follow at an\ninterval the great variety of quaint harvest customs which occur at the\nactual in-gathering. Even now in the Roman Campagna there is a lively\nfestival of this kind in October.\n\nIt should be noticed that the harvest character of the rite was\nsuggested to Mannhardt by the passage from Paulus (220), from which we\nlearn that the head of the sacrificed horse was decked with cakes, like\nthose of the live draught-animals at the Vestalia and Consualia and\nferiae Sementivae [q. v.]. This, Paulus adds, was done \u2018quia id sacrum\nfiebat ob frugum eventum,\u2019 which last words can hardly mean anything but\n\u2018on account of the _past_ harvest[1065].\u2019 There are, I may add, two\npoints open to doubt here, which Mannhardt does not point out: (1) the\nreason here given may be only a guess of Verrius\u2019, and not one generally\nunderstood at Rome[1066]. (2) The concluding words of the gloss seem to\nmake no sense, a fact which throws some doubt on the whole passage. The\nrite is \u2018ob frugum eventum,\u2019 yet \u2018a horse, and not an ox, is the victim,\nbecause a horse is suited for war, and an ox is not[1067].\u2019 However this\nmay be understood, we need not quarrel with the conclusion[1068], that\nthe real meaning of the adornment was to show that the head was an\nobject possessed of power to procure fertility\u2014an inference confirmed by\nthe eagerness of the rival city-quarters to get possession of it.\n\n2. The _sacrificed horse represented a Corn-spirit_. The Corn-spirit was\nMannhardt\u2019s chief discovery, and its various forms are now familiar to\nEnglish readers of Frazer\u2019s _Golden Bough_, and of Farnell\u2019s _Cults of\nthe Greek States_. Almost every common animal, wild or tame, may be\nfound to represent the Corn-spirit at harvest-time in one locality or\nanother, where the nomadic age has given place to an agricultural one;\nor a man, woman, boy or puppet represents the animal, and so indirectly\nthe Corn-spirit[1069]. Mannhardt produces from his stores of folk-lore\nmany instances in which the horse thus figures, including the\nhobby-horse which in old England used to prance round the May-pole.\nThose examples, however, are not strong enough to convince us that the\nOctober horse was a Corn-spirit, though they prove well enough that the\nCorn-spirit often took this shape[1070]. But we must remember that he is\nonly suggesting an _origin_ in the simple rites of the farm, indicating\na class of ideas to which this survival may be traceable[1071].\n\nHe does, however, produce an example which has one or two features in\ncommon with the Roman rite, only in this case the animal is a goat\ninstead of a horse. In Dauphin\u00e9 a goat is decked with ribbons and\nflowers and let loose in the harvest-field. The reapers run after it,\nand finally the farmer cuts off its head[1072], while his wife holds it.\nParts of its body (we are not told whether the head is among them) are\nkept as \u2018medicine\u2019 till the next harvest. So too the head, and also the\ntail and the blood, of the October horse were the seat of some great\nPower; but whether this was a vegetation-spirit does not seem\nsatisfactorily shown.\n\n3. _The chariot-race was an elaborated and perhaps Graecized form or\nsurvival of the simple race of men and women so often met with in the\nharvest-field, often in pursuit of a representative of the Corn-spirit._\n\nMannhardt gives examples from France and Germany of races in pursuit of\ncock, calf, kid, sheep, or whatever shape may be the one in vogue for\nthe Corn-spirit; often the animal is in some way decorated for the\noccasion. Two of a rather different kind may be mentioned here, though\nthey occur, not on the harvest-field, but at Whitsuntide and Easter\nrespectively; but they show how horse-races may originate in the customs\nof the farm. In the Hartz the farm-horses, gaily decorated, are raced by\nthe labourers for possession of a wreath, which is hung on the neck of\nthe winning horse. In Silesia the finest near horse of the team,\ndecorated by the girls, is ridden (raced?) round the boundary of the\nfarm, and then round a neighbouring village, while Easter hymns are\nsung. We have already noticed the racing of horses and mules at the\nConsualia in August: according to Dionysius, these too were decked out\nwith flowers[1073]. Mannhardt makes also a somewhat lengthy digression\nto point out the possibility that in the original form of the Passover\n(on which was afterwards engrafted the Jahvistic worship and the history\nof the escape from Egypt) a race or something of the kind may be\nindicated by the custom of eating the victim with the loins girt.\n\nThere is undoubtedly a possible origin for the horse-racing of Greeks\nand Romans in the customs of the farm at different seasons of the year,\nand I accept Mannhardt\u2019s view so far, with a probability, not certainty,\nas to the Corn-spirit. We may perhaps be able to trace the development\nof the custom a little further in this case.\n\n4. _The horse\u2019s head, fixed on the Regia or the turris Mamilia, is the\neffigy of the Corn-spirit, which is to bring fertility and to keep off\nevil influences for the year to come._[1074]\n\nExamples of this practice of fixing up some object after harvest in a\nprominent place in farm or village are so numerous as almost to defy\nselection, and are now familiar to all students of folk-lore[1075].\nSometimes it is a bunch of corn or flowers, as in the Greek\nEiresione[1076], and to this day at Charlton-on-Otmoor, where it is\nplaced over the beautiful rood-screen in the church. Such bunches are\noften called by the name of some animal; occasionally their place is\ntaken by the effigy of an animal\u2019s head, e. g. that of a horse[1077],\nwhich in course of time becomes a permanency.\n\n5. _The cutting off the tail is explained by the idea that a remnant of\nthe body of the representative of the Corn-spirit is sufficient to\nproduce this spirit afresh in the vegetation of the coming year._\n\nThe examples Mannhardt quotes are numerous, and only gain force when\nbrought together: I must refer the reader to his work for them[1078].\nThe word _tail_ not only occurs frequently in harvest customs (e. g. the\ncutter of the last sheaf is called the wheat-tail or barley-tail[1079]),\nbut there is little doubt that virtue was believed to reside in a\ntail[1080]. Who knows but that the preservation of the fox\u2019s brush by\nfox-hunters has some origin of this kind?\n\n6. The use made of the blood, which was kept and mixed with the ashes of\nthe unborn calves of the Fordicidia, and with sulphur and bean-straw as\na medicine to be distributed to the people at the Parilia, tells its own\nstory without need of illustration (see on April 15 and 21). The blood\nwas the life[1081]; the fire and sulphur-fumes were to purify and avert\nevil. Both men and beasts leapt over the fire into which this mixture\nwas thrown at the Parilia, to gain new life and strength, and to avert\nthe influences which might retard them.\n\nFinally, Mannhardt has some remarks on the origin of the rite, which\nwere suggested by Schwegler and Ambrosch[1082]. The Campus Martius, the\nscene of the sacrifice, was originally _terra regis_, cultivated for him\nby the people[1083]. When the king was the chief farmer, the horse\u2019s\nhead was carried to his house (regia) and fixed thereon, and the tail\nallowed to drip on to his hearth. When the neighbouring community of the\nSubura was united with that of the Palatine, the seat of the oldest\ncommunity, the remembrance of their duality survived in the contest for\nthe head: if the men of the Subura won it, they fixed it on the turris\nMamilia, which may have been the dwelling of their own chief. Such\ncontests are even now well known, or have[1084] but lately disappeared;\nand some of them may owe their origin to a fight for the Corn-spirit.\nMannhardt gives some examples\u2014one very curious one from Granada, and one\nfrom Brittany. At Derby, Hawick, Ludlow, and other places in this\ncountry, they or the recollection of them may still be found.\n\nOn the whole we may agree with him that the rite was in its origin one\nof the type to which he has referred it\u2014a final harvest festival of the\nLatin farm. There is yet, however, a word to be said. He does not treat\nit from the point of view of the Roman calendar, and thus fails to note\nthe turn it took when Latin farmers became Roman citizens. Wissowa, on\nthe other hand, takes the calendar as his sole basis for judging of it,\nand with a strange perversity, as it seems to me, brushes Mannhardt\u2019s\nconclusions aside, and would explain the rite simply as a sacrifice to\nthe god of war[1085]. Now doubtless it had come to be this in the\norganized city-calendar, as Mars himself began to be brought into\nprominence in a new light, as the _iuvenes_ of the community came to be\nmore and more employed in war as well as agriculture, and as the Campus\nMartius came to be used as an exercising-ground for the armed host. The\nCalendars show us a curious correspondence between the beginning and the\nend of the season of arms, i. e. the middle of March and the middle of\nOctober, which leaves little doubt of the change which had taken place\nin the accepted character of the rites of the two periods by the time\nthe Numan calendar was drawn up. This correspondence has already been\nnoted[1086]; it may be here briefly referred to again.\n\nOn March 14[1087] there was a horse-race in the Campus Martius; on the\n19th (Quinquatrus) was the _lustratio armorum_ for the coming\nwar-season, as is seen from the fact that the _ancilia_ of the Salii at\nleast\u2014if not all arms\u2014were _lustrata_ on that day[1088]. So too on\nOctober 15 there was a horse-race, as we have seen, in the Campus\nMartius, and on the 19th we find the Armilustrium in the oldest\ncalendars[1089], a name which tells its own tale. The inference is that\nthe horse-races on Oct. 15 and March 14 had much the same origin, and it\nis just this which induces Wissowa to slight Mannhardt\u2019s explanation of\nthe former. He thinks that on each day the horses, like the arms, were\nlustrated (p. x.), i. e. before the war-season began, and after it was\nover. This is likely enough; but might not the same have been the case\nwith the horses of the farm? The Roman farmer\u2019s year began with March,\nand the heavy work of carrying, &c., would be over in October. I am\ndisposed to think that we must look on organized war-material as a\ndevelopment later than the primitive times to which Mannhardt would\ncarry us back, a side of Roman life which only in course of time became\nhighly specialized.\n\nWe must never forget that the oldest Roman calendar is the record of the\nlife of an agricultural people. So much is clear on the face of it; and\nin some instances, as in the Ambarvalia, Vestalia, Consualia, and in the\nOctober rite we have been discussing, something of the original intent\ncan be made out from researches into modern folk-lore or savage custom.\nYet this calendar is at the same time the table of feasts of a fully\ndeveloped city-state, and in the process of its development the original\nmeaning of the feasts was often lost, or they were explained by some\nmythical or historical event, or again they themselves may have changed\ncharacter as the life of the people changed from an agricultural to a\npolitical one. In the rite of the October horse we may see an\nagricultural harvest custom taking a new shape and meaning as the State\ngrew to be accustomed to war, just as Mars, originally perhaps the\nprotector of man, herds, and crops alike, becomes\u2014it may be even before\nGreek influence is brought to bear upon him\u2014the deity of warriors and\nwar-horses, of the yearly renewed strength of a struggling\ncommunity[1090]. It is looking with modern eyes at the institution of an\nold world if we try to separate the Roman warrior from the Roman\nhusbandman, or the warlike aspect of his god from his universal care for\nhis people.\n\n\n XIV KAL. NOV. (OCTOBER 19). NP.\n\n\nARM[ILUSTRIUM]. (ARV. SAB. MAFF. AMIT. ANT.)\n\n\nThe first three letters of this word, which alone appear in the\ncalendars, are explained by Varro and Verrius: \u2018Armilustrium ab eo quod\nin armilustrio armati sacra faciunt ... ab ludendo aut lustro, quod\ncircumibant ludentes ancilibus armati[1091].\u2019 This passage may be taken\nas referring both to March 19 and Oct. 19, and as showing that the Salii\nwith the sacred shields were active on both days. This can also be\ninferred from the fact that in 190 B.C. a Roman army, on its march into\nAsia, had to halt at the Hellespont, \u2018quia dies forte, quibus ancilia\nmoventur. religiosi ad iter inciderant\u2019[1092]\u2014its commander Scipio being\none of the Salii. It can be shown that this was in the autumn, as the\narmy did not leave Italy till July 15[1093]. It may be taken as certain,\nthen, that this was the last day on which the Salii appeared, and that\n_arma_ and _ancilia_ were now purified[1094], and put away for the\nwinter.\n\nThere are no festivals in any way connected with Mars from this day to\nthe Roman new year, March 1. As Roscher has remarked, his activity, like\nthat of Apollo, is all in the warm season\u2014the season of vegetation and\nof arms. His priests, who seem in their dances, their song, and their\nequipment, to form a connecting link between his fertilizing powers and\nhis warlike activity, are seen no more from this day till his power is\nfelt again on the threshold of spring.\n\nWe learn from Varro[1095] that the place of _lustratio_ on this day was\nthe Aventine \u2018ad circum maximum.\u2019 I can find no explanation of this: we\nknow of no Mars-altar in that part of Rome, which was the seat of the\ncults of Hercules and Consus. It was probably the last point in a\nprocession of the Salii[1096].\n\nFootnote 1024:\n\n _C. I. L._ i 2. 281.\n\nFootnote 1025:\n\n Varro, _R. R._ 1. 34. Pliny, _N. H._ 18. 315: \u2018Vindemiam antiqui\n nunquam existimavere maturam ante aequinoctium, iam passim rapi\n cerno.\u2019 Sec. 319 \u2018Iustum vindemiae tempus ab aequinoctio ad\n Vergiliarum occasum dies xliii.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1026:\n\n See above, p. 97.\n\nFootnote 1027:\n\n Pliny, _N. H._ 14. 88 \u2018Vino rogum ne respargito.\u2019 Cp. 18. 24.\n\nFootnote 1028:\n\n _Kulturpflanzen_, &c., p. 65.\n\nFootnote 1029:\n\n 1. 21. Dion. Hal. 2. 75. The significance of this covered vehicle\n seems to be unknown.\n\nFootnote 1030:\n\n Many passages might be collected to bear out Dionysius\u2019 remarks: the\n reader may refer to Preller, i. 250 foll.\n\nFootnote 1031:\n\n Pliny, _N. H._ xi. 250. So \u2018dextram fidemque dare.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1032:\n\n Wissowa, in _Lex._ s. v. Fides, Preller. i. 251. Serv. _Aen._ 1. 292\n and 8. 636: but Serv. in the latter note says \u2018Quia fides tecta esse\n debet et velata.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1033:\n\n Libanius, _Decl._ 19; Photius, s. v. \u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd (B\u00f6tticher, _Baumkultus_,\n p. 43) \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u1f70\u03bd \u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03cc\u03b4\u03b1\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 1034:\n\n Hor. _Od._ 1. 35. 21.\n\nFootnote 1035:\n\n The authorities for this and the altars connected with it are Livy, 1.\n 26; Dion. Hal. 3. 22; Festus, 297 and Paul. 307; Aur. Vict. 4. 9;\n _Schol. Bob. ad Cic._ p. 277 Orelli; Lydus _de Mensibus_, 4. 1.\n\nFootnote 1036:\n\n Kiepert u. Huelsen, _Formae urbis Romae antiquae_, p. 92 and map 1;\n Jordan, _Topogr._ ii. 100.\n\nFootnote 1037:\n\n So Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Ianus, 21; Gilbert, _Topogr._ 1. 180, who\n would make it the \u2018porta Ianualis\u2019 of Macrob. 1. 19. 17, wrongly.\n\nFootnote 1038:\n\n It is always in the singular, e. g. \u2018Transmisso per viam tigillo,\u2019\n Livy, l. c. Dionys. writes as if it were originally a _iugum_, i. e.\n two uprights and a cross-beam, but does not imply that it was so in\n his day.\n\nFootnote 1039:\n\n The altars are mentioned by Festus, Dionys, and _Schol. Bob._\n\nFootnote 1040:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Janus, 21; quoting Grimm, _Deutsche Myth._ (E. T. 1157,\n with quotation from White\u2019s _Selborne_).\n\nFootnote 1041:\n\n Marquardt, 584.\n\nFootnote 1042:\n\n Macrob. 1. 9. 16 \u2018[Ianum] Iunonium quia non solum mensis Ianuarii sed\n mensium omnium ingressum tenentem: in dicione autem Iunonis sunt omnes\n Kalendae.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1043:\n\n This Juno may be the \u2018Weibliche Genius einer Frau,\u2019 as Roscher\n suggests (s. v. Janus, 22; s. v. Juno. 598, he seems to think\n otherwise). But as she is connected with Janus, I should doubt it. For\n an explanation of \u2018Ianus Curiatius\u2019 cp. Lydus, l. c. \u1f14\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 1044:\n\n Curriti Arv.: Q[uiriti] Paul.\n\nFootnote 1045:\n\n p. 223.\n\nFootnote 1046:\n\n Paulus, 123; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 21.\n\nFootnote 1047:\n\n Henzen, _Act. Fr. Arv._ pp. 11, 12, 14.\n\nFootnote 1048:\n\n _L. L._ vi. 22. Cp. Festus, 85.\n\nFootnote 1049:\n\n Cic. _N. D._ iii. 20.\n\nFootnote 1050:\n\n Preller, i. 176.\n\nFootnote 1051:\n\n Henzen, _Acta Fr. Arv._ 146. The deities to whom _piacula_ are here to\n be sacrificed are deities of the grove of the Brethren: hence I should\n conclude that this Fons simply represented a particular spring there.\n\nFootnote 1052:\n\n _de Feriis_, &c., p. xi. To me this explanation does not seem quite\n satisfactory, though it seems to be sanctioned by Mommsen (_C. I. L._\n i. 2. 332, note on Id. Oct. sub fin.). It is however undoubtedly\n preferable to the view I had taken before reading Wissowa\u2019s tract,\n that the omission was due to an aristocratic neglect of usages which\n only survived among the common people and had ceased to concern the\n whole community.\n\nFootnote 1053:\n\n Polyb. xii. 4b.\n\nFootnote 1054:\n\n \u1f18\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3. This is quoted from \u201c\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03a0\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1055:\n\n Fest. 178 \u2018October equus appellatur, qui in campo Martio mense Oct.\n immolatur quotannis Marti, bigarum victricum dexterior. De cuius\n capite non levis contentio solebat esse inter Suburanenses et\n Sacravienses, ut hi in regiae pariete, illi ad turrim Mamiliam id\n figerent; eiusdemque coda tanta celeritate perfertur in regiam, ut ex\n ea sanguis distillet in focum participandae rei divinae gratia, quem\n hostiae loco quidam Marti bellico deo sacrari dicunt,\u2019 &c. Then follow\n three examples of horse-sacrifices. Paul. 179 adds no fresh\n information. Paul. 220 \u2018Panibus redimibant caput equi immolati idibus\n Octobribus in campo Martio, quia id sacrificium fiebat ob frugum\n eventum, et equus potius quam bos immolabatur, quod hic bello, bos\n frugibus pariendis est aptus.\u2019 (The meaning of these last words will\n be considered presently.) Cp. Plutarch, _Qu. Rom._ 97; probably from\n Verrius, perhaps indirectly through Juba. Plut. by a mistake puts the\n rite on the Ides of December.\n\nFootnote 1056:\n\n See note in Preller\u2019s _Regionen der Stadi Rom_, p. 174. They are\n placed by Kiepert and H\u00fclsen (map 2) close to the Tiber and near the\n Mausoleum of Augustus, and a long way from the old ara Martis. Perhaps\n the position of the latter had changed as the Campus came to be built\n over.\n\nFootnote 1057:\n\n Livy, 35. 10; 40. 45 (the censors after their election sat in Campo on\n their curule chairs \u2018ad aram Martis\u2019). Roscher, _Lex._ s. v. Mars,\n 2389.\n\nFootnote 1058:\n\n What this was is not known: some think a kind of peel-tower. Possibly\n a tower in _quadriviis_: cf. definition of _compitum_ in _Schol.\n Pers._ 4. 28.\n\nFootnote 1059:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 731 foll.; Prop. 5. (4.) 1. 19. See on Parilia and\n Fordicidia.\n\nFootnote 1060:\n\n Preller, 1. 366; Marquardt, 334; Schwegler, _R\u00f6m. Gesch._ ii. 46;\n Roscher, _Apollo und Mars_, 64 foll.\n\nFootnote 1061:\n\n _Mythologische Forschungen_, 156-201.\n\nFootnote 1062:\n\n _de Feriis_, ix.\n\nFootnote 1063:\n\n I add this (see on Vestalia). Mannhardt had not handled it.\n\nFootnote 1064:\n\n Levit. 23 fin.\n\nFootnote 1065:\n\n Had they referred to the crops of the next season we might have\n expected \u2018ob _bonum_ frugum eventum.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1066:\n\n So Wissowa, _de Feriis_, ix. He thinks that it was only an attempt to\n explain the _panes_: but he is wrong in insisting that the Vestalia\n (where, as we saw, the same decoration occurs) had _nothing_ to do\n with \u2018frugum eventus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1067:\n\n To me it looks as if some words had dropped out of the text, perhaps\n after the word _eventum_; see the passage quoted above, p. 242, note\n 1.\n\nFootnote 1068:\n\n Given in Mannhardt\u2019s next section, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 1069:\n\n See under May 15 (Argei).\n\nFootnote 1070:\n\n Mannhardt has not suggested what seems not impossible, that the horse\n represented Mars himself\u2014in which case we might allow that Mars was,\n among other things, a vegetation deity.\n\nFootnote 1071:\n\n See his language at the top of p. 164.\n\nFootnote 1072:\n\n He ingeniously suggests that these cases of decapitation may be\n explained by the old custom of cutting off the corn-ears so as to\n leave almost the whole of the stalk. (See his _Kornd\u00e4monen_, p. 35.)\n That this method existed in Latium seems proved by a passage in Livy,\n 22. 1 \u2018Antii metentibus cruentas in corbem spicas cecidisse.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1073:\n\n Dion. Hal. i. 33, who compares an Arcadian Hippokrateia.\n\nFootnote 1074:\n\n Op. cit. p. 182.\n\nFootnote 1075:\n\n See _Golden Bough_, i. 68 foll., and Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 214 foll.\n\nFootnote 1076:\n\n Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ l. c.\n\nFootnote 1077:\n\n Mannhardt, _Baumkultus_, 167.\n\nFootnote 1078:\n\n p. 185 foll. The tail in Roman ritual was \u2018offa penita.\u2019 Marq. 335,\n note 1.\n\nFootnote 1079:\n\n In Silesia, &c., the word is _Z\u00e2l_, _Z\u00f4l_, which I suppose = tail.\n\nFootnote 1080:\n\n _Golden Bough_, ii. 65. Jevons, Introduction to Plut. _Q. R._ p. lxix.\n He quotes an example from Africa.\n\nFootnote 1081:\n\n Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, Lect. ix. In this case,\n according to M., it was the life of the Corn-spirit\u2014so of generation\n in general.\n\nFootnote 1082:\n\n Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 739; Ambrosch, _Studien_, 200 foll.\n\nFootnote 1083:\n\n Evidence for this in Liv. i 2; Serv. _Aen._ 9. 274.\n\nFootnote 1084:\n\n See e. g. Crooke\u2019s _Folklore of Northern India_, vol. ii. pp. 176 and\n 321. Crooke looks on these fights (he should have said, the possession\n of the object which is the cause of the fight) as charms for rain or\n fertility. So in the plains of N.-W. India, \u2018plenty is supposed to\n follow the side which is victorious.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1085:\n\n Veram huius sacri rationem inter veteres ii viderunt quorum sententiam\n ita refert Festus \u2018equum hostiae loco Marti bellico deo sacrari\u2019 (_de\n Feriis_, p. x).\n\nFootnote 1086:\n\n See under March 14 and 19.\n\nFootnote 1087:\n\n Wissowa thinks it was originally the 15th (Ides); but Mommsen dissents\n in his note on Oct. 15 (_C. I. L._ 332). It is the only feast-day in\n the calendar which is an _even_ number. Perhaps it was changed because\n of the popularity of the revels, &c., on the Ides.\n\nFootnote 1088:\n\n Charisius, p. 81; Marq. 435.\n\nFootnote 1089:\n\n This point of the parallel was first noticed by Wissowa, who, as just\n noted, believes the day of Equirria to have been in each case the\n Ides.\n\nFootnote 1090:\n\n An apt illustration of this aspect of Mars, in combination with the\n older primitive form of ritual, is supplied by the strange sacrifice\n by Julius Caesar of two mutinous soldiers, recorded by Dio Cassius,\n 43. 24. They were offered to Mars in the Campus Martius by the Flamen\n Martialis in the presence of the Pontifices, _and their heads were\n nailed up on the Regia_. (Hence Marq. infers that it was this flamen\n who sacrificed the October horse.) Caesar was in Rome in _October_ of\n the year to which D. C. attributes this deed, B.C. 46.\n\nFootnote 1091:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 62. Cp. Festus, 19 \u2018Armilustrium festum erat apud Romanos,\n quo res divinas armati faciebant ac dum sacrificarent tubis canebant.\u2019\n See on March 19 and 23.\n\nFootnote 1092:\n\n Liv. 37. 33. 7. Cp. Polyb. 21. 10. 12.\n\nFootnote 1093:\n\n Marq. 437, note 1. The suggestion was Huschke\u2019s, _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 363.\n\nFootnote 1094:\n\n Charisius, pp. 81. 20 (Keil), for _lustratio_ in March. The word\n Armilustrium, used for this day, speaks for itself.\n\nFootnote 1095:\n\n _L. L._ 5. 153.\n\nFootnote 1096:\n\n We have a faint indication that they reached the _pons sublicius_,\n which was quite near to the Circus maximus. See Marq. 433, note 8.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS NOVEMBER.\n\n\nOf all the months in the Roman year November is the least important from\na religious point of view. It was the month of ploughing and sowing\u2014not\nof holiday-time[1097]; then, as now, it was a quiet month, and in the\ncalendars, with the exception of the ludi plebeii, not a festival\nappears of any importance. Later on, the worship of Isis gained a hold\nupon the month[1098], which remained open to intruders long after\ncity-life had taken the place of November agricultural operations.\n\nThe ludi plebeii, as a public festival, date from 220 B.C.; they took\nplace in the Circus Flaminius, which was built in that year[1099]; they\nand the epulum Iovis (Nov. 13) are first mentioned by Livy four years\nlater. The _epulum_ has already been discussed in connexion with the\nludi Romani. The plebeian games were probably at first on a single day\n(Nov. 13), and were gradually extended, like the ludi Romani; finally,\nthey lasted from Nov. 4 to Nov. 17[1100].\n\nThe 8th was one of the three days on which the _mundus_ was open: see\nunder Oct. 5.\n\n\n ID. NOV. (NOV. 13). NP.\n\n\nFERONIAE IN CAMPO[1101]. (ARV., a later addition to the original.)\n\nFORTUNAE PRIMIGENIAE IN COLLE. (ARV., a later addition to the original.)\n\n\nThis is the only mention we have of Feronia in Rome. She was a goddess\nof renown in Latium and central Italy, but never made her mark at Rome,\nas did others of her kind\u2014Diana, Fortuna, Ceres, Flora\u2014all of whom\nappear there with plebeian associations about them, as not belonging to\nthe earliest patrician community[1102]. It is curious to find this\nFeronia too in the calendar only in the middle of the ludi plebeii, and\nprobably on the day which was the original nucleus of the games. We may\neither date the cult from the establishment of the _ludi_ or guess that\nit was there before them, and was subsequently eclipsed by the cult of\nJupiter.\n\nThe latter is perhaps the more probable conjecture; for the little that\nwe know of the cult elsewhere points to a possible origin of the games\nwhich has not, so far as I know, been noticed. They took place, be it\nremembered, in the Circus Flaminius, which was in the Campus Martius;\nwhere also was this cult of Feronia. Now the most famous shrine of\nFeronia in Italy, that of Trebula Mutusca, was the centre of a great\nfair or market held on the feast-days of the goddess[1103], and on the\nwhole her attributes seem to be those of a deity of fertility and\nplenty[1104]. Is it impossible that she had also some share in a fair in\nthe Campus Martius long before the establishment of the _ludi_?\n\nThe connexion of Feronia with the plebs seems suggested not only by her\nposition in the calendar, but by the devotion of _libertini_[1105]. In\nthe year 217 B.C. the Roman _freedwomen_ collected a sum of money as a\ngift to Feronia[1106]; though this offering need not be taken as\ndestined for the Roman goddess, but rather for her of Soracte, to whom\nfirst-fruits and other gifts were frequently offered. The temple of\nFeronia at Terracina was specially devoted to the manumission of slaves,\nof which the process, as described by Servius, presents at least one\nfeature of special interest[1107]. Manumissions would take place on\npublic occasions, such as markets, when the necessary authorities and\nwitnesses were to be easily found, and the temple of the market-goddess\nwas at hand; and this may be the original point of relation between this\ncult and the Roman plebs, which was beyond doubt by the third century\nB.C. largely composed of descendants of manumitted slaves.\n\nThe conjunction of Feronia on this day with Fortuna Primigenia (_in\ncolle_) is curious, as both were goddesses of Praeneste, where Feronia\nin legend was the mother of Erulus, a daemon with threefold body and\nsoul, who had to be killed three times by Evander[1108]. The date of the\nintroduction of this cult of Fortuna at Rome is 204 B.C.[1109]\n\nFootnote 1097:\n\n Rustic calendars: \u2018Sementes triticariae et hordiar[iae].\u2019 Varro, _R.\n R._ 1. 34.\n\nFootnote 1098:\n\n Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 2, 333.\n\nFootnote 1099:\n\n Friedl\u00e4nder in _Marq._ 499; Liv. 23. 30.\n\nFootnote 1100:\n\n See the table in _C. I. L._ i. 2, 335.\n\nFootnote 1101:\n\n Probably these notes belong to the Ides. In the Arval calendar the\n entry is opposite the 14th, but from its position may be really meant\n as an additional note to the Ides. There is no other example of\n religious rites on a day _after_ Ides. (Henzen, _Arv._ 240; _C. I. L._\n i. 2, 296.) The same was the case with all \u2018dies postriduani.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1102:\n\n See under Cerialia and Floralia.\n\nFootnote 1103:\n\n Liv. 1. 30. Roman merchants were seized by the Sabines in this market\n (Dion. Hal. 3. 32).\n\nFootnote 1104:\n\n Steuding in _Lex._ s. v. Feronia; Liv. 26 11. I cannot see any reason\n to connect her with November _sowing_, as Steuding does, p. 1480.\n\nFootnote 1105:\n\n Serv. _Aen._ 8. 564.\n\nFootnote 1106:\n\n Liv. 22. 1.\n\nFootnote 1107:\n\n The cutting of the hair, and putting on of the pileus. See Robertson\n Smith, _Religion of Semites_, p. 307.\n\nFootnote 1108:\n\n Serv. _Aen._ l. c. The myth must be Graeco-Etruscan.\n\nFootnote 1109:\n\n Liv. 29. 36. The dedication was 194 B.C. (Liv. 34. 53).\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS DECEMBER\n\n\nIn the middle of winter, until well on in January, the Roman husbandman\nhad comparatively little to do. Varro[1110] writes of sowing lilies,\ncrocuses, &c., and of cleaning out ditches and pruning vines, and such\nlight operations of the farm. Columella[1111] tells us that the autumn\nsowing should be ended by the beginning of December, though some sow\nbeans in this month; and in this he agrees with the rustic calendars\nwhich mention, besides this operation, only the manuring of vineyards\nand the gathering of olives.\n\nIt is not unnatural, then, that we should find in this \u2018slack\ntime\u2019[1112] several festivals which are at once antique and obscure, and\nalmost all of which seem to carry us back to husbandry and the primitive\nideas of a country life. On the night of the 3rd or thereabouts was the\nwomen\u2019s sacrifice to the Bona Dea; on the 5th the rustic Faunalia in\nsome parts of Italy, though probably not in Rome; on the 15th the winter\nConsualia; on the 17th the Saturnalia; and on the 19th the Opalia; and\nso on to the Compitalia and Paganalia. All this is in curious contrast\nwith the absence of festivals in the busy month of November.\n\n\n Women\u2019s Sacrifice to the Bona Dea.\n\n\nThis fell, in the year 63 B.C., on the night between Dec. 3 and 4, if we\nmay trust Plutarch and Dio[1113]; but the date does not seem to have\nbeen a fixed one[1114]. The rite does not appear in the calendars, and,\nthough attended by the Vestals, did not take place in the temple of the\ngoddess, but in the house of a consul or praetor, \u2018in ea domo quae est\nin imperio[1115].\u2019 It seems to have been in some sense a State\nsacrifice, i. e. it was \u2018pro populo Romano\u2019 (according to Cicero); but\nit was not \u2018publico sumptu\u2019[1116], and it was never woven into the\ncalendar by the pontifices, or it could hardly have occurred between the\nKalends and the Nones. Its very nature would exclude the interference of\nthe pontifical college, and there would be no need to give public notice\nof it.\n\nThe character of the goddess and her rites have already been discussed\nunder May 1. All that need be said of the December sacrifice is that it\nwas clearly a survival from the time when the wife of the chief of the\ncommunity\u2014himself its priest\u2014together with her daughters (represented in\nlater times by the Vestals), and the other matrons, made sacrifice of a\nyoung pig or pigs[1117] to the deity of fertility, from all share in\nwhich men were rigorously excluded. It must have been originally a\nperfectly decorous rite, and so have continued to the famous sacrilege\nof Clodius; it was only under the empire that it became the scene of\nsuch orgies as Juvenal describes in his second and sixth satires[1118].\n\n\n NON. DEC. (DEC. 5). F.\n\n\nHere we have another festival unknown to the calendars, the Faunalia\nrustica, as it has been called. Our knowledge of it comes from the\nfamiliar ode of Horace (iii. 18), and from the comments of the\nscholiasts thereon:\n\n Faune, Nympharum fugientum amator,\n Per meos fines et aprica rura\n Lenis incedas abeasque parvis\n Aequus alumnis,\n\n Si tener pleno eadit haedus anno,\n Larga nec desunt Veneris sodali\n Vina craterae, vetus ara multo\n Fumat odore.\n\n Ludit herboso pecus omne campo\n Cum tibi Nonae redeunt Decembres;\n Festus in pratis vacat otioso\n Cum bove pagus;\n\n Inter audaces lupus errat agnos;\n Spargit agrestes tibi silva frondes;\n Gaudet invisam pepulisse fossor\n Ter pede terram.\n\nNo picture could be choicer or neater than this; for once it is a treat\nto have our best evidence in the form of a perfect work of art. We are\nfor a moment let into the heart and mind of ancient Italy, as they\nshowed themselves on a winter holiday. There is an ancient altar\u2014not a\ntemple\u2014to a supernatural being who is not yet fully god, who can play\npranks like the \u2018Brownies\u2019 and do harm, but is capable of doing good if\nduly propitiated. On the Nones of December, possibly of other months\ntoo[1119], he is coaxed with tender kid, libations of wine, and\nincense[1120]; the little rural community of farmers (_pagus_), with\ntheir labourers, take part in the rite, and bring their cattle into the\ncommon pasture, plough-oxen and all. Then, after the sacrifice, they\ndance in triple measure, like the Salii in March.\n\nHorace is of course describing a rite which was entirely rural, as the\nword _pagus_ would indicate sufficiently, apart from other features.\nUnless he were the god of the Lupercalia, which is open to much\ndoubt[1121], Faunus was not introduced into the city of Rome till 196\nB.C., when the aediles very appropriately built him a temple in the\nTiber-island with money taken as fines from defaulting _pecuarii_[1122],\nor holders of public land used for cattle-runs. We may assume that his\nsettlement in the city was suggested by the pontifices, and that we have\nhere a case of the transformation of a purely rustic cult into an urban\none by priestly manipulation. It is not impossible that the idea that\nFaunus was the deity of the Lupercalia came in about the same\ntime[1123]. Both priests and annalists got hold of him, and did their\nbest to rob him of his true character as an intelligible and useful god\nof woodland and pasture. He became a Rex Aboriginum[1124], and the third\non the list of mythical kings of Latium[1125]. He became identified with\nthe Greek Pan. But, in spite of all their efforts, Faunus would not\ntamely accept his new position. We hear no more of the _aedes_ in the\nisland: the Roman _vulgus_ do not seem to have recognized him at the\nLupercalia, and his insertion in the legends had no political effect.\nThe fact that not a single inscription from Rome or its vicinity records\nhis name shows plainly that he never took the popular fancy as a deity\nwith city functions: and the absence of inscriptions in the country\ndistricts also, in most singular contrast to the ubiquitous stone\nrecords of Silvanus-worship, seems to show that he remained always much\nas wild as he was before the age of inscriptions began, while the\nkindred deity was adopted into the organized life and culture of the\nItalian and provincial farmer[1126].\n\nIt may be as well, before leaving the subject of this singular being, to\nsum up under a very few heads what is really known about him. But so\nlittle is known about the cult of Faunus\u2014and indeed it can hardly be\nsaid that any elaborate cult ever grew up around him\u2014that it may be\nlegitimate for once first to glance at the etymological explanations of\nhis name which have been suggested by scholars.\n\n(1) Faunus is connected with _favere_, and means \u2018the kind or propitious\none,\u2019 like Faustus and Faustulus, and as some think, Favonius[1127] and\nFons. This derivation was known to Servius[1128]: \u2018quidam Faunos putant\ndictos ab eo quod frugibus faveant.\u2019 It is not in itself inconsistent\nwith what we know of the rural Faunus, or with analogous supernatural\nbeings, like the \u2018good people.\u2019 It was accepted by Preller and\nSchwegler, and has affected their conclusions about Faunus; e. g.\nSchwegler based on it the view, now generally held, that Evander is a\nGreek translation of Faunus[1129].\n\n(2) Faunus is from _fari_, i. e. the speaker, or foreteller. This too\nwas known to Latin scholars: thus Isidorus (perhaps from Varro[1130]),\n\u2018fauni a fando, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1f74\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 dicti, quod voce non signis ostendere\nviderentur futura.\u2019 It was revived not long ago by the late Prof.\nNettleship: \u2018Once imagine Faunus as a \u201cspeaker,\u201d and all becomes clear.\nHe is not only the composer and reciter of verses[1131], but generally\nthe seer or wise man, whose superior knowledge entitles him to the\nadmiration and dread of the country folk who consult him. But as his\nreal nature and functions are superseded, his character is misconceived:\nhe becomes a divinity, the earliest king of Latium, the god of prophecy,\nthe god of agriculture.\u2019 We may compare with this Scaliger\u2019s note on\nVarro, _L. L._ 7. 36: \u2018The Fauni were a class of men who exercised, at a\nvery remote period, the same functions which belonged to the Magi in\nPersia, and to the Bards in Gaul.\u2019\n\n(3) Faunus may = Favonius, which itself may come from the same root as\nPan (i. e. _pu_ = purify). Thus Faunus, like Pan, might be taken as a\nmythological expression of the \u2018purifying breeze,\u2019 the god of the\ngentler winds[1132]. The characteristics of Faunus are of course very\nlike those of Pan; but as it is no easy matter to determine how far\nthose of the Italian were taken over by the Roman litterati from the\nGreek deity, and as the etymology itself is confessedly a questionable\none, this conjecture must be left to take its chance.\n\nBut the first two are worth attending to, and each finds some support in\nwhat we know of Faunus from other sources. Let us see in the next place\nwhat this amounts to.\n\n(1) There is fairly strong evidence that Faunus was not originally\nconceived as a single deity, but as _multiplex_. Varro quotes the line\nof Ennius:\n\n Versibus quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant,\n\nand comments thus[1133]: \u2018Fauni dii Latinorum, ita ut Faunus et Fauna\nsit.\u2019 The evidence of Virgil, always valuable for rural antiquities, is\nequally clear:\n\n Et vos agrestum praesentia numina, Fauni,\n Ferte simul Faunique pedem Dryadesque puellae[1134].\n\nServius has an interesting note on these lines: why, he asks, does the\npoet put Faunus in the plural, when there is but one? We might be\ntempted to think Virgil wrong and his commentator right, the poet\nrepresenting Greek ideas and the scholar Italian, but for a still more\ncurious note of Probus on the same passage: \u2018Plures (Fauni) existimantur\nesse etiam praesentes: idcirco rusticis persuasum est incolentibus eam\npartem Italiae quae suburbana est, saepe eos in agris conspici.\u2019 My\nbelief is that these words give us the genuine idea of Faunus in the\nrustic mind, surviving in central Italy long after he had been\nappropriated as a conventional Roman deity. We seem in the case of\nFaunus to be able to catch a deity in the process of manufacture\u2014of\nelevation from a lower, multiplex, daemonistic form, to a higher and\nmore uniform and more rigid one. Yet so excellent a scholar as Wissowa\nholds exactly the opposite view, that there was but one Faunus, and that\nhis multiplication is simply the result of Roman acquaintance with Pan\nand the Satyrs[1135]. It would have been more satisfactory if he had\ngiven us an explanation from his point of view of the passage of Probus\njust quoted, or had shown us how these Greek notions could have\npenetrated into the rural parts of Italy.\n\n(2) Another point which comes out distinctly\u2014unless our Roman\nauthorities were wholly misled\u2014is the _woodland_ character of the Fauni.\nA passage of Varro, of which I quoted the first words just now, goes on\nthus: \u2018hos versibus quos vocant Saturnios _in silvestribus locis_\ntraditum est solitos fari futura, a quo fando Faunos dictos.\u2019 This seems\nto be a genuine Italian tradition. Virgil was not talking Greek when he\nwrote[1136]\n\n Haec nemora indigenae Fauni Nymphaeque tenebant\n Gensque virum truncis et duro robore nata,\n Queis neque mos neque cultus erat, &c.\n\nThe poet imagines an ancient race, sprung from the trees themselves: a\n\u2018genus indocile et dispersum montibus altis,\u2019 living on the forest-clad\nhills[1137], to whom foreign invaders brought the means of civilization.\nWhy should not this tradition be a native one? It is singularly in\naccord with the most recent results of Italian excavation; for it is now\nabsolutely certain that the oldest inhabitants of central Italy dwelt on\nthe hill-tops, and that the first traces of foreign influence only occur\nin lower and later settlements[1138]. The valleys were still undrained\nand malarious. These earliest inhabitants who have left their traces for\nthe excavator, or a still older race scattered on the hills after their\ninvasion, may have been the traditional representatives of what Preller\nhas called \u2018the period of Faunus[1139],\u2019 regarded by the later\ncivilization, from their wild and woodland habits, as half demons and\nhalf men. The name of the kindred Silvanus tells its own tale; and his\nactual connexion with trees was even closer than that of Faunus[1140].\n\n(3) A third well-attested point is the attribution to Faunus or the\nFauni of power for good or evil over the crops and herds, as we have\nseen it already implied in Horace\u2019s ode. Porphyrion[1141] in his\ncommentary on this ode tells us that Faunus, on the Nones of December,\nwishes the cattle, which are under his protection, to be free from\ndanger. Just before this passage he had spoken of him as \u2018deum inferum\net pestilentem,\u2019 thus giving us the dark and hurtful side of his power\nas well as the bright and gracious. The same combination of the powers\nof doing and averting harm is seen in Mars, as we have already learnt\nfrom the hymn of the Arval Brethren and the formula of prayers preserved\nby Cato[1142].\n\nUnder this head may be mentioned the belief that both Faunus and\nSilvanus were dangerous for women, an idea which finds expression in the\nsignificant word _incubus_, so often applied to them[1143]. We may\nperhaps find a reason for the identification of Faunus as god of the\nLupercalia in the most striking feature of the festival\u2014the pursuit of\nthe women by the _creppi_, who struck them with thongs in order to\nrender them productive[1144].\n\n(4) The last characteristic of the Fauni to be noticed is that they had\nthe power of foretelling the future. The verse of Ennius already quoted\nis the earliest literary evidence we have of this; but the quaint story\nof the capture of Picus and Faunus by Numa[1145], who caught them by\nmaking them drunk with wine at the fountain where they came to drink,\nand compelled them as the price of their liberty to reveal the art of\nstaying a disaster, has an unmistakeable old-Italian ring. The idea\nseems to have been, not that Faunus was a \u2018god of prophecy,\u2019 as Preller\nseems to fancy, but that there was an ancient race of Fauni, who might\nbe coaxed or compelled to reveal secrets. Sometimes indeed they \u2018spoke\u2019\nof their own accord; when a Roman army needed to be warned or encouraged\non its march, their voice was heard by all as it issued from thicket or\nforest. Cicero and Livy[1146] write of these voices with a distinctness\nwhich (as it seems to me) admits of no suspicion that they are inserting\nGreek ideas into Roman annals.\n\nThere are also traces to be found of a belief in the existence of local\nwoodland oracles of Faunus and his kind. It was in a grove sacred to\nFaunus that Numa, in Ovid\u2019s vivid description[1147], slew two sheep, the\none to Faunus, the other to Sleep, and after twice sprinkling water on\nhis head, and twice wreathing it with beech-leaves, stretched himself on\nthe fleeces to receive the prophetic inspiration as he slumbered. Almost\nevery touch in this story seems to me to be genuine; and especially the\nconditions necessary to success\u2014the continence of the devotee, and the\nremoval of the metal ring from the finger. Virgil, with something more\nof foreign adornment, tells in exquisite verse what is really the same\nstory as Ovid\u2019s[1148]. And a later poet writes of a sacred beech-grove,\nwhere under like conditions of temperance, &c., the shepherds might find\nthe oracles of Faunus inscribed on the bark of a beech-tree[1149]. All\nthis reminds us of Dodona and the oldest Greek oracles: we have here the\nquaint methods of primitive shepherds, appealing to prophetic powers\nlocalized in particular woodland spots. Roman exigencies of state drew\nby degrees the whole of the secrets of fore-knowledge into the hands of\na priestly aristocracy, with its fixed doctrine and methods of\ndivination; but the country folk long retained their faith in the\nexistence of an ancient race, possessed of prophetic power, which\nhaunted forest and mountain.\n\nThese four points, taken together, i. e. the multiplicity of the Fauni,\ntheir woodland character, and their supposed powers of productivity and\nprophecy, seem by no means to exclude the possibility of the human\norigin suggested long ago by Scaliger, and recently by Prof. Nettleship,\nthough I would shape the explanation somewhat differently. Wild men from\nthe hills and woods, for example, might well be supposed to be possessed\nof supernatural powers, like the gipsies of modern times[1150]. And the\nstriking absence of any epigraphical survivals of a definite cult may\npossibly be explained by a persistence of the belief in the Italian mind\nthat Faunus was never really and truly a god, but one of a race with\nsome superhuman attributes\u2014a link in the chain that always in antiquity\nconnected together the human and the divine. Horace\u2019s ode shows the\ndivine element predominating; some local Faunus has, so to speak, been\ncaught and half deified; and yet, even then, the process is hardly\ncomplete.\n\nThere is, however, another explanation of conceptions of this kind to\nwhich I must briefly allude, which was based by Dr. Mannhardt on an\nexhaustive examination of the attributes of creatures like the Fauni, as\nthey occur in various parts of Europe and elsewhere[1151]. The general\nresult of his investigation may be stated thus. Spirits which seem to\nhave their origin in woods and mountains find outward expression for\ntheir being in the _wind_; so also do those which seem to have their\norigin in corn and vegetation generally. We thus find three ingredients\nin their composition: (1) trees, (2) corn, (3) wind. We have only to\nthink how the invisible wind moves the branches of the trees, or bows\nthe corn before it, to see how closely, in the eyes of men used to\nattribute life to inanimate things, the idea of the wind might run\ntogether with that of objects to which it seems to give motion and life.\nThe result of its mysterious agency is the growth of a variety of\ncreatures of the imagination, often half bestial, like Pan and the\nRussian Ljeschi, sometimes entirely animal, like the Rye-wolf and many\nanother animal corn-spirit now familiar to readers of Frazer\u2019s _Golden\nBough_; sometimes entirely human, like Silvanus, perhaps Faunus\nhimself[1152], or the Teutonic \u2018wild man of the woods.\u2019 Mannhardt\nendeavours, not wholly without success, to bring the attributes of\nFaunus into harmony with this theory. His prophetic _vox_ comes from the\nforest in which the wind raises strange noises; his relation to crops\nand flocks is parallel to that of many other spirits who can be traced\nto a woodland origin; and the word Favonius, used for the western moist\nand fertilizing breeze, is kindred, if not identical, with Faunus; and\nso on.\n\nThis theory, resting as it does on a very wide induction from\nunquestionable facts, beyond doubt explains many of the conceptions of\nprimitive agricultural man; whether it can be applied satisfactorily to\nthe Italian Faunus is perhaps less evident. At present I rather prefer\nto think of the Fauni as arising from the contact of the first clearers\nand cultivators of Italian soil with a wild aboriginal race of the hills\nand woods. But on such questions certainty is impossible, and dogmatism\nentirely out of place.\n\n\n III ID. DEC. (DEC. 11). NP.\n\n\nAG. IN.... (AMIT.). AG[ONIA] (MAFF. PRAEN. ANT.)\n\nSEPTIMONTIA (PHILOC.). SEPTIMONTIUM, GUID. SILV.[1153]\n\n\nFor Agonia see on Jan. 9. This (Dec. 11) is the third day on which this\nmysterious word appears in the calendars. The AG. IN. of the Amiternian\ncalendar was conjectured by Mommsen in the first edition of _C. I. L._,\nvol. i, to indicate \u2018Agonium Inui\u2019[1154]; but in the new edition he\nwithdraws this; \u2018ab incertis coniecturis abstinebimus.\u2019 This is done in\ndeference to Wissowa, who has pointed out that there is no other case in\nthe calendars of a festival-name inscribed in large letters being\nfollowed immediately by the name of a deity[1155]. We must fall back on\nthe supposition that AG. IN. ... is simply a cutter\u2019s error for the\nAGON. of three other calendars.\n\nIt is impossible to determine what was the relation between this\nagonium, or solemn sacrifice, and the Septimontium or Septimontiale\nsacrum, which appears only in very late calendars, or whether indeed\nthere was any relation at all. It is not absolutely certain that the\nso-called Septimontium took place on this day. It was only a conjecture\nof Scaliger\u2019s (though a clever one) that completed the gloss in Festus\non the word \u2018Septimontium\u2019[1156] [_Septimontium dies ap_]_pellatur\nmense_ [_Decembri qui dicitur in f_]_astis agonalia._ The word\nSeptimontium suggested itself, as the gloss occurred under letter S.\nOther support for the conjecture is found in the two late calendars, and\nin a fragment of Lydus[1157], who connects the two ceremonies.\n\nBut even if Scaliger\u2019s conjecture be right, it does not follow that the\nAgonium was identical with or was part of the Septimontiale sacrum. The\nlatter does not appear in the old calendars, as it was not \u2018pro populo,\u2019\nbut only \u2018pro montibus\u2019 (see below); and if it was there represented by\nthe word Agonium, it is not easy to see how the latter should have found\nits way into the calendar. It seems better to conclude that the two were\ndistinct.\n\nAbout the Septimontium itself we have just enough information to divine\nits nature, but without details. The word is used by Varro both in a\ntopographical and a religious sense: \u2018Ubi nunc est Roma, erat olim\nSeptimontium; nominatum ab tot montibus, quos postea urbs muris\ncomprehendit[1158].\u2019 Here he implies that the old name for Rome was\nSeptimontium; but this is only a guess based on the name of the\nfestival: \u2018Dies Septimontium nominatur ab his septem montibus, in quis\nsita urbs est; feriae _non populi sed montanorum_ modo, ut Paganalia,\nquae sunt aliquoius pagi[1159].\u2019\n\nThe _montes_ here meant are the three divisions of the Palatine, viz.\nPalatium, Cermalus, Velia; the three of the Esquiline, viz. Mons Oppius,\nMons Cispius, and the Fagutal, together with the lower ground of the\nSubura[1160]. I believe that Mommsen is right in thinking that these\nwere never political divisions\u2014in other words, that they were not\noriginally distinct communities[1161], but probably religious divisions\nof a city which began on the Palatine, and gradually took in new ground\non the Esquiline. The same process can be traced at Falerii, and at\nNarce a few miles above it; what we seem to see is not the accretion of\nvillages\u2014not \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2\u2014but the extension of a city from one strong\nposition to another[1162]. This is especially clear at Narce, where it\nis distinctly proved by the pottery found in the excavations, that the\nhill (Monte li Santi) subsequently added to the original city was not\nco-eval with the latter as a settlement; i. e. that it was the\nabsorption by an older settlement of a probably uninhabited position\nwhich here took place, and not the synoecizing of distinct political\ncommunities[1163]. In the later Rome the _montani_ of the seven\ndistricts, together with the _pagani_, or inhabitants of what had\noriginally been the farm-country around Rome, formed the united\ncity[1164]. It is most interesting to find that the earliest divisions,\ni. e. of the _montes_, were imitated in the foundation of some\ncolonies\u2014we should find them probably in many if we had the necessary\ninformation[1165].\n\nAll we know of the cult of the _montani_ on this day is as follows: (1)\nThere was a sacrifice on the Palatium (which seems to have been the\nfirst in dignity of the _montes_) by the Flamen Palatualis[1166]; but we\ndo not know to what deity, and can only guess that it was Pales, or\nPalatua[1167]. (2) On this day no carts or other vehicles drawn by\nbeasts of burden were allowed in the city, as we learn from Plutarch,\nwho asks the reason of this, and gives some quaint answers[1168]. But\nthe explanations are useless to us, and we cannot even guess whence\nPlutarch drew his knowledge of the fact, unless it was from personal\nobservation. Let us remember, however, that this was a feast of\n_montani_: is it not likely that this was a survival from a time when\nthe farm-waggons of the _pagani_ really never ascended to the \u2018hills\u2019?\n\n\n PRID. ID. DEC. (DEC. 12). EN.\n\n CONSO IN AVENTIN[O]. (AMIT.)\n\n XVIII (ANTE CAES. XVI[1169]) KAL. IAN. (DEC. 15). NP.\n\n\nCONS[UALIA]. (MAFF. PRAEN. AMIT. ANT.) FERIAE CONSO\n\n(PRAEN. AMIT.)\n\n\nFor these see on Aug. 21. If the conclusions there arrived at are sound\nwe might guess that these winter rites of Consus arose from the habit of\ninspecting the condition of the corn-stores in mid-winter[1170]. It is\nthis day that has the note attached to it in the Fasti Praenestini,\n\u2018Equi et [muli floribus coronantur] quod in eius tu[tela] ... itaque rex\nequo [vectus?],\u2019 which was commented on under Aug. 21. See also under\nAug. 25 (Opeconsivia); Wissowa, s. v. Consus, in _Lex. Myth._; and _de\nFeriis_, vi foll.\n\n\n XVI (ANTE CAES. XIV[1171]) KAL. IAN. (DEC. 17). NP.\n\n\nSATURNALIA. (MAFF. AMIT. GUID. RUST. PHILOC.)\n\nFERIAE SATURNO. (MAFF. AMIT.)\n\nSATURN[O] AD FO[RUM]. (AMIT.)\n\nFERIAE SERVORUM. (SILV.)\n\n\nThis was the original day of the Saturnalia[1172], and, in a strictly\nreligious sense, it was the only day. The festival, in the sense of a\npopular holiday, was extended by common usage to as much as seven\ndays[1173]: Augustus limited it to three in respect of legal business,\nand the three were later increased to five[1174].\n\nProbably no Roman festival is so well known to the general reader as\nthis, which has left its traces and found its parallels in great numbers\nof mediaeval and modern customs[1175], occurring about the time of the\nwinter solstice. Unfortunately, it is here once more a matter of\ndifficulty to determine what features in the festival were really of old\nLatin origin, in spite of information as to detail, which is unusually\nfull; for both Saturnus himself and his cult came to be very heavily\noverlaid with Greek ideas and practice.\n\nThat Saturnus was an old agricultural god admits, however, of no doubt;\nthe old form of the word was probably S\u0103\u0115turnus, which is found on an\ninscription on an ancient vase[1176], and this leads us to connect him\nwith _serere_ and _satio_; and popular tradition attributed to him the\ndiscovery of agricultural processes[1177]. But the Roman of the\nhistorical age knew very little about him, and cared only for his\nGraecized festival; like Faunus, he is the object of no votive\ninscriptions in Rome and its neighbourhood[1178]; and this conclusively\nproves that he was never what may be called popular as a deity. As the\nfirst king of Latium there were plenty of legends about him, or as the\nfirst civilizer of his people, the representative of a Golden Age[1179];\nbut no one has as yet thoroughly investigated these[1180], with a view\nto distinguish any Italian precipitate in the mixture of elements of\nwhich they certainly consist. We are still without the invaluable aid of\nthe contributors to Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_.\n\nMore promising at first sight is the tradition which connects him in\nRome itself with the Capitoline hill. Varro tells us positively that\nthis hill was originally called Mons Saturnius; and that there was once\nan _oppidum_ there called Saturnia, of which certain vestiges survived\nto his own time, including a \u2018fanum Saturni in faucibus,\u2019 i. e.\napparently the ara Saturni of which Dionysius records that it was at the\n\u2018root of the hill,\u2019 by the road leading to the summit[1181], in fact on\nthe same spot where stood later the temple of which eight columns are\nstill standing. Close to this, it may be noted, was a sacellum of Dis\nPater[1182], the Latinized form of Plutus; in the temple was the\naerarium of later Rome[1183], and built into the rock behind, the\nchambers of records (tabularia). But it would be idle to found upon\nthese facts or traditions any serious hypothesis as to the original\nnature of the Roman cult of Saturn; all attempts must fail in the\nbewildering fog of ancient fancy and ancient learning. Saturnus belongs,\nlike Janus, with whom he was closely connected in legend[1184], to an\nage into whose religious ideas we cannot penetrate, and survived into\nRoman worship only through Greek resuscitation[1185], and in the feast\nof the Saturnalia. All we seem to see is that he is somehow connected\nwith things that are put in the earth[1186]\u2014seed, treasure, perhaps\nstores of produce; to which may just be added that the one spot in Rome\nat all times associated with him is close to the _market_, and that\nmarket-days (nundinae) were said to be sacred to him[1187]. The temple\nof Janus is also close by, and it is not impossible that both these\nancient gods had some closer relation to the Forum and the business done\nthere than we can at present understand with our limited knowledge.\nNeither of them, it may be noted, had a flamen attached to his cult;\nfrom which we may infer that they did not descend from the primitive\nhousehold or the earliest form of community, but rather represented some\nplace or process common to several communities, such as a forum and the\nbusiness transacted there[1188]. It is precisely such gods who figure in\ntradition as kings, not of a single city, but of Latium.\n\nBut to turn to the festival; if the god was obscure and uninteresting,\nthis was not the case with his feast. It seems steadily to have gained\nin popularity down to the time of the empire, and still maintained it\nwhen Macrobius wrote the dialogue supposed to have taken place on the\nthree days of the Saturnalia, and called by that name. Seneca tells us\nthat in his day all Rome seemed to go mad on this holiday[1189].\nProbably its vogue was largely due merely to the accident of fashion,\npartly perhaps to misty ideas about the Golden Age and the reign of\nSaturn[1190]; but it seems to be almost a general human instinct to rest\nand enjoy oneself about the time of the winter solstice, and to show\none\u2019s good-will towards all one\u2019s neighbours[1191]. In Latium, as\nelsewhere, this was the time when the autumn sowing had come to an end,\nand when all farm-labourers could enjoy a rest[1192]. Macrobius alludes\nalso to the completion of all in-gathering by this date: \u2018Itaque omni\niam fetu agrorum coacto ab hominibus hos deos (Saturnus and Ops) coli\nquasi vitae cultioris auctores[1193].\u2019 The close concurrence of\nConsualia, Opalia, and Saturnalia at this time seems to show that some\nfinal inspection of the harvest work of the autumn may in reality have\nbeen coincident with, or have immediately preceded, the rejoicings of\nthe winter solstice.\n\nThere are several well-attested features of the Saturnalia as it was in\nhistorical times[1194]. On Dec. 17 there was a public sacrifice at the\ntemple (formerly the _ara_) of Saturn by the Forum[1195], followed by a\npublic feast, in breaking up from which the feasters shouted \u2018Io\nSaturnalia\u2019[1196]. During the sacrifice Senators and Equites wore the\ntoga, but laid it aside for the convivium, which reminds us of the\nritual of the Fratres Arvales, except that the toga was in the latter\ncase the praetexta[1197]. These proceedings of the first and original\nday of the festival might seem pretty clearly to descend from the\nreligion of the farm, yet the convivium is said by Livy to have been\nintroduced as late as 217 B.C.[1198].\n\nOn the 18th and 19th, which were general holidays, the day began with an\nearly bath[1199]; then followed the family sacrifice of a sucking pig,\nto which Horace alludes in familiar lines:\n\n Cras genium mero\n Curabis et porco bimenstri\n Cum famulis operum solutis[1200].\n\nThen came calls on friends, congratulations, games, and the presentation\nof gifts[1201]. All manner of presents were made, as they are still at\nChristmas: among them the wax candles (_cerei_) deserve notice, as they\nare thought to have some reference, like the yule log, to the returning\npower of the sun\u2019s light after the solstice. They descended from the\nSaturnalia into the Christmas ritual of the Latin Church[1202]. The\nsigillaria, or little paste or earthenware images which were sold all\nover Rome in the days before the festival[1203], and used as presents,\nalso survived into Christian times; thus, in the ancient Romish\nCalendar, we find that all kinds of little images were on sale at the\nconfectioners\u2019 shops, and even in England the bakers made little images\nof paste at this season[1204]. What was the original meaning of the\ncustom we do not know; but it reminds us of the oscilla of the Latin\nfestival and the Compitalia[1205].\n\nBut the best known feature of the Saturnalia is the part played in it by\nthe slaves, who, as we all know, were waited on by their masters, and\ntreated as being in a position of entire equality. The earliest\nreference to this is in a fragment of Accius, quoted by Macrobius[1206]:\n\n Iamque diem celebrant, per agros urbesque fere omnes\n Exercent epulas laeti, famulosque procurant\n Quisque suos: nostrique itidem, et mos traditus illine\n Iste, ut cum dominis famuli epulentur ibidem.\n\nBut even this custom, as Marquardt points out, may not have been of\ngenuine Latin origin: \u2018Though the Romans looked on it as a reminiscence\nof the Golden Age when all men were equal, it may have begun with the\nlectisternium of 217 B.C., for such entertainments were a characteristic\nof lectisternia.\u2019 When we turn, however, to the same author\u2019s\naccount[1207] of the Greek forms of religion introduced through the\nSibylline oracles, of which the lectisternium was one, we do not find\nslaves included in the ritual of any of them. There was no general\nexclusion of outsiders or women, but nothing is said of slaves. And on\nthe whole we may still perhaps consider the other explanation possible,\nthat the slaves here represent the farm-servants of olden time, whatever\nsocial position they may have held, who at the end of their year\u2019s work\nwere allowed to enjoy themselves \u2018exaequato omnium iure.\u2019\n\n\n XIV (ANTE CAES. XII) KAL. DEC. (DEC. 19). NP.\n\n\nOPAL[IA]. (MAFF. AMIT.)\n\nFERIAE OPI: OPI AD FORUM. (AMIT.)\n\n\nFor Ops see on Aug. 25, when the sacrifice was in the Regia, the\nsignificance of which I endeavoured to explain. Here it is \u2018ad forum,\u2019\nwhich has lately aroused a little unfruitful dispute. Is the temple of\nSaturn meant, which was also described as \u2018ad forum\u2019 in the same\ncalendar? This is still the view of Mommsen[1208], who seems to hold the\nold opinion that there was a sacellum Opis attached to the aedes\nSaturni, or that this aedes was dedicated to both deities[1209]. H.\nJordan made up his mind that \u2018ad forum\u2019 meant the Regia[1210]; but this\nis not supported by any similar entry in the _Fasti_. Aust and Wissowa\nbelieve that Ops had a separate temple \u2018ad forum,\u2019 of which all traces\nare lost, as has happened with many others[1211]; and the latter, as we\nhave already seen, disbelieves in any connexion between Saturnus and\nOps, attributing it entirely to Greek influence.\n\nHowever this may be, the one interesting fact about the temple\u2014or\nwhatever it was\u2014is that it was \u2018ad forum.\u2019 The conjunction of Saturnus\nand Ops at this place and time must surely indicate some connexion of\nfunction between the two. But what it was is not discoverable; under\nSaturnalia I have merely suggested the direction in which we may look\nfor it.\n\n\n XII (ANTE CAES. X). KAL. IAN. (DEC. 21). NP.\n\n\nDIVA[LIA]. (MAFF. PRAEN.)\n\n\nPraen. adds a terribly mutilated note, which Mommsen thus fills up from\nstray hints in Varro, Pliny (following Verrius), and Macrobius[1212]:\n\nFERIAE DIVA[E ANGERONAE, QUAE AB ANGINAE MORBO] APPELL[ATUR, QUOD\nREMEDIA EIUS QUONDAM] PRAE[CEPIT. STATUERUNT EAM ORE OBLIGATO] IN AR[A\nVOLUPIAE, UT QUI NO]SSET N[OMEN] OCCUL[TUM URBIS, TACERET. S]UNT TAMEN,\n[QUI FIERI ID SACRU]M AIUNT OB AN[NUM NOVUM; MANI]FESTUM ESSE [ENIM\nPRINCIPIU]M [A]NNI NOV[I].\n\nThe date given by Pliny and Macrobius proves that Angerona was the deity\nof the Divalia; but the etymology of the latter is useless, and the\nstatement of Pliny as to the statue with the mouth gagged and sealed\nfails to give us any clue to the nature or function of the\ngoddess[1213]. Angerona is, in fact, the North Pole of our exploration:\nno one has ever reached her, and probably no one ever will. The mention\nof Volupia by Macrobius gives no help; she is only elsewhere mentioned\nas one of the numina of the Indigitamenta by Augustine[1214]. The only\npossible clue is that of which Mommsen has taken advantage in the very\nclever completion of Verrius\u2019 last words, viz. the fact that this day\n(21st) is the centre one of the winter solstice. He here even allows\nhimself an etymology, and derives Angeronalia \u2018ab angerendo, id est \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f25\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\u2019: quoting Plutarch (_de Iside_, ch. 52) for\nsimilar Egyptian ideas of the sun\u2019s birth at this time. Though the\netymology may be doubtful, the inference from the date of the festival\nis certainly acceptable, in the absence of anything more definite: and\nthe \u2018Praenestine fragments\u2019 clearly suggest the word \u2018annus.\u2019\n\n\n X (ANTE CAES. VIII) KAL. IAN. (DEC. 23). NP.\n\n\nLAR[ENTALIA]. (MAFF. PRAEN.)\n\n\nHere again Praen. has a valuable note, which, in this case, is fairly\nwell preserved: FERIAE IOVI. ACCAE LARENTIAE. ... HANC ALII REMI ET\nROM[ULI NUTRICEM ALII] MERETRICEM, HERCULIS SCORTUM [FUISSE DIC]UNT:\nPARENTARI EI PUBLICE, QUOD P[OPULUM] R[OMANUM] HE[REDEM FECE]RIT MAGNAE\nPECUNIAE, QUAM ACCEPE[RAT TESTAME]NTO TARUTILI AMATORIS SUI[1215].\n\nAs regards the feriae Iovi we are utterly in the dark. Macrobius\nexplains it thus: \u2018Iovique feriae consecratae, quod aestimaverunt\nantiqui animas a Iove dari et rursus post mortem eidem reddi,\u2019 which is\nobviously a late invention. I can see no possible connexion of Jupiter\nwith the Larentalia, and believe the conjunction to be accidental.\n\nMommsen writes: \u2018De origine Larentalium ipsiusque Larentinae indole ac\nnatura parum constat.\u2019 He himself has investigated the myth of Acca\nLarentia in a memorable essay[1216], and we may take his opinion on the\nLarentalia as at present conclusive. It is to be noted, however, that\nthe view he formerly held as to the impossibility of connecting L\u0101rentia\nand L\u0101res[1217] is not re-asserted in the new edition of the _Corpus_\n(vol i); the connexion, he says, may be right, but does not help us to\nexplain the \u2018feriae Iovi\u2019 or the parentatio (performance of funeral\nrites) at the grave of Larentina (or Larentia).\n\nThis parentatio seems to me the one thing known to us about the\nLarentalia which can possibly aid us. We are told by Varro that it took\nplace in the Velabrum, \u2018qua in Novam viam exitur, ut aiunt quidam, ad\nsepulcrum Accae[1218].\u2019 The Flamen Quirinalis took part in it, and the\nPontifices[1219]. Now the Parentalia took place in February. Is it\npossible that this is a survival from a time when it was in December\u2014a\nsurvival, because it was at the tomb of a semi-deity, and was a public\nfunction[1220]? It is very curious that we have a record of a private\nparentatio wilfully transferred from February to December, and probably\nto this day. Cicero, in a mutilated passage from which Plutarch has\napparently drawn one of his \u2018Roman Questions,\u2019 seems to have stated that\nDec. Brutus (consul 138 B.C.) used to do his parentatio in\nDecember[1221]. Whether Cicero was here alluding to the Larentalia we do\nnot know; but Plutarch notes the fact of the parentatio of Larentia in\nDecember, and is led thereby to write the quaestio next in order on the\nstory of Larentia[1222]. Was the learned Brutus simply a pedant,\nchanging his parentatio to a date which he believed to be the real\noriginal one, or had he some special reason for connecting his family\nwith December and Larentia?\n\nHowever we may answer this question, there is, perhaps, a bare\npossibility that the Larentalia was originally a feast of the dead of\nthe old Rome on the Palatine, preserved in the calendar of the completed\ncity only through the reputed survival of the tomb of Larentia in the\nVelabrum at the foot of the rock.\n\nFootnote 1110:\n\n _R. R._ 1. 35. 2; Colum. 2. 8. 2.\n\nFootnote 1111:\n\n xi. 2.\n\nFootnote 1112:\n\n Cp. Hor. _Od._ 3. 18, 9-12. Ovid (_Fasti_, 3. 57) says of\n December\u2014Vester (i. e. Faustuli et Larentiae) honos veniet, cum\n Larentalia dicam; _Acceptus Geniis_ illa December habet.\n\n Is this only an allusion to Larentia and Faustulus, or also to the\n general character of the month and its festivals?\n\nFootnote 1113:\n\n Plut. _Cic._ 19; Dio Cass. 37. 35.\n\nFootnote 1114:\n\n Cic. _ad Att._ 1. 12, and 15. 25.\n\nFootnote 1115:\n\n Cic. _de Harusp. resp._ 17. 37 \u2018fit per Virgines Vestales, fit pro\n populo Romano, fit in ea domo quae est in imperio.\u2019 In 62 B.C. it was\n in Caesar\u2019s house, and apparently in the Regia, if as pontifix maximus\n he resided there. See Marq. 346, note 1; 250, note 2.\n\nFootnote 1116:\n\n Fest. 245 _publica sacra_ are \u2018quae _publico sumptu_ pro populo\n fiunt.\u2019 See my article \u2018Sacra\u2019 in _Dict. of Antiquities_.\n\nFootnote 1117:\n\n Juvenal, 2. 86.\n\nFootnote 1118:\n\n 2. 83 foll.; 6. 314 foll.\n\nFootnote 1119:\n\n Probus on Virg. _Georg._ 1. 10 \u2018In Italia quidam annuum sacrum, quidam\n menstruum celebrant.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1120:\n\n The word is \u2018odore,\u2019 i.e. sweet herbs of the garden (Marq. 169 and\n note).\n\nFootnote 1121:\n\n See on Lupercalia, p. 312.\n\nFootnote 1122:\n\n Lev. 33. 42.\n\nFootnote 1123:\n\n The earliest hint of the connexion of Faunus with Evander and the\n Palatine legend is found in a fragment of Cincius Alimentus, who wrote\n at this time (H. Peter, _Fragm. Hist. Lat._ 41, from Servius, _Georg._\n 1. 10).\n\nFootnote 1124:\n\n Dion. Hal. 1. 31; Suet. _Vitell._ 1. Cp. for a more truly Italian\n view, Virgil, _Aen._ 8. 314 foll.\n\nFootnote 1125:\n\n _Aen._ 7. 45 foll. The order was Saturnus, Picus, Faunus, Latinus.\n\nFootnote 1126:\n\n Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Faunus, 1458: who, however, does not\n sufficiently explain the contrast. Silvanus became _tutor finium_, and\n _cusios hortuli_ (cp. _Gromatici Veteres._ p. 302). It was probably\n this turn given to his cult which saved him from the fate of Faunus.\n He takes over definite duties to the cultivator, while Faunus is still\n roaming the country in a wild state.\n\nFootnote 1127:\n\n Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Hist. de la Divination_, iv. 122.\n\nFootnote 1128:\n\n Ad _Georg._ 1. 10.\n\nFootnote 1129:\n\n Schwegler, _R\u00f6m. Gesch._ i. 351.\n\nFootnote 1130:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 7. 36 \u2018Faunos in silvestribus locis traditum est\n solitos fari futura.\u2019 Servius identifies Faunus and Fatuus; ad _Aen._\n 6. 775.\n\nFootnote 1131:\n\n \u2018Versibus quos olim Fauni vatesque canebant.\u2019 Ennius in Varro, _L. L._\n 7. 36. See Nettleship, _Essays in Latin Literature_, p. 50 foll.\n\nFootnote 1132:\n\n Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 113 foll.\n\nFootnote 1133:\n\n _L. L._ 7. 36.\n\nFootnote 1134:\n\n _Georg._ 1. 10. The introduction of the Greek Dryads may be thought to\n throw suspicion upon the Latinity of these Fauni of Virgil. But in\n _Aen._ 8. 314, the similar conjunction of Fauni and Nymphae is\n followed by words which seem to mark a true Italian conception.\n\nFootnote 1135:\n\n _Lex._ s. v. Faunus, 1454.\n\nFootnote 1136:\n\n _Aen._ 8. 314.\n\nFootnote 1137:\n\n Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 315 \u2018Di sumus agrestes et qui dominemur in altis\n Montibus,\u2019 &c. Cp. Preller, i. 386.\n\nFootnote 1138:\n\n _Monumenti Antichi_, vol. v. (Barnabei). Von Duhn, translated in\n _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1896, p. 120 foll.\n\nFootnote 1139:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Myth._ i. 104 foll.\n\nFootnote 1140:\n\n Virg. _Aen._ 8. 601, and Serv.\u2019s note: \u2018Prudentiores dicunt eum esse\n \u1f51\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd, hoc est deum \u1f55\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2.\u2019 Silvanus may have been a true\n tree-spirit; Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 118 foll.; Preller, i. 392.\n\nFootnote 1141:\n\n Vol. i. 335, ed. Hauthal.\n\nFootnote 1142:\n\n See above, p. 126. It may be noticed that the Bona Dea, whose solemn\n rite occurs also at the beginning of this month, was identified with\n Fauna, the female form of Faunus (R. Peter, in _Lex._ s. v. Fauna); i.\n e. their powers for good and evil were thought to be much alike.\n\nFootnote 1143:\n\n Preller, i. 381 and reff.\n\nFootnote 1144:\n\n See under Lupercalia, p. 320.\n\nFootnote 1145:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 291 foll. I am glad to see that Wissowa accepts this\n story as genuine Italian (_Lex._ s. v. 1456).\n\nFootnote 1146:\n\n Cic. _de Div._ 1. 101; Livy, 2. 7 (Silvanus), and Dion. Hal. 5. 16\n (Faunus) of the battle by the wood of Arsia.\n\nFootnote 1147:\n\n _Fasti_, 4. 649 foll.\n\nFootnote 1148:\n\n _Aen._ 7. 81 foll.\n\nFootnote 1149:\n\n Calpurnius, _Ecl._ 1. 8 foll.\n\nFootnote 1150:\n\n Cp. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i. 341 foll.; Sir A. Lyall, _Asiatic\n Studies_, ch. 2.\n\nFootnote 1151:\n\n _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, p. 152.\n\nFootnote 1152:\n\n See the cuts of two bronze statuettes which Wissowa, following\n Reifferscheid, believed to represent the un-Graecized Italian Faunus,\n at the end of the article \u2018Faunus\u2019 in _Lex._ 1460. But it is at least\n very doubtful whether Reifferscheid was right in his opinion.\n\nFootnote 1153:\n\n By an error Silvius has entered it on the 12th.\n\nFootnote 1154:\n\n For Inuus see on Lupercalia, and Livy, i. 5.\n\nFootnote 1155:\n\n _de Feriis_, xii. His other argument, that Inuus is not a nomen, but a\n cognomen, is less satisfactory. Can we always be sure which is which?\n (e. g. Saturnus, Janus).\n\nFootnote 1156:\n\n Festus, p. 340.\n\nFootnote 1157:\n\n _de Mensibus_, p. 118, ed. Bekk.; quoted by Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i 2,.\n 336.\n\nFootnote 1158:\n\n _L. L._ v. 41.\n\nFootnote 1159:\n\n Ibid. vi. 24.\n\nFootnote 1160:\n\n Antistius Labeo, ap. Festum, 348: \u2018Septimontio, ut ait Antistius\n Labeo, hisce montibus feriae. Palatio, cui sacrificium quod fit\n Palatuar dicitur. Veliae, cui item sacrificium, Fagutali, Suburae,\n Cermalo, Oppio, Cispio monti.\u2019 Before \u2018Cispio\u2019 the MS. has \u2018Caelio\n monti,\u2019 which must be a copyist\u2019s blunder. The Subura is by courtesy a\n _mons_; also a _pagus_ (Festus, 309), a _regio_ (ib.), and a _tribus_\n (ib.).\n\nFootnote 1161:\n\n _Staatsrecht_, iii. 112. O. Gilbert has made a great to-do about the\n development of these communities; _Gesch. u. Topogr._ i. 39 foll. But\n where else will he find three distinct settlements in a space as small\n as that of the Palatine? The discoveries at Falerii and Narce would\n have saved him the labour of much web-spinning. Plutarch, _Q. R._ 69,\n has (accidentally perhaps) expressed the matter rightly.\n\nFootnote 1162:\n\n _Monumenti Antichi_, vol. v. p. 15 foll.\n\nFootnote 1163:\n\n _Mon. Ant._ p. 110 foll. (Barnabei).\n\nFootnote 1164:\n\n Cic. _de Domo_, 28. 74.\n\nFootnote 1165:\n\n At Ariminum, and Antioch in Pisidia (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 113,\n note).\n\nFootnote 1166:\n\n Festus, 348, cp. 245.\n\nFootnote 1167:\n\n Preller, i. 414.\n\nFootnote 1168:\n\n _Q. R._ 69. Plutarch does not say in what parts of the city the\n vehicles were forbidden. The feast existed in his day, and indeed long\n afterwards (Tertull. _Idololatr._ 10). It seems to have become a\n general feast of the whole people.\n\nFootnote 1169:\n\n Macrob. i. 10. 2.\n\nFootnote 1170:\n\n See below on Saturnalia, p. 271.\n\nFootnote 1171:\n\n Macrob. 1. 10. 2. Macr. tells us that after the change some people in\n error held the festival on the 19th, i. e. on the day which was now\n xiv K. Ian.\n\nFootnote 1172:\n\n Hartmann, _Der R\u00f6m. Kalender_, p. 203 foll., thinks it was originally\n one of the _feriae conceptivae_, like the Compitalia, Paganalia, &c.,\n and only became fixed (_stativae_) when it was reorganized in 217 B.C.\n But if so, why is it marked in the calendars in large letters? And\n Hartmann himself points out (p. 208) that Dec. 17 is the first day of\n Capricornus, i. e. the coldest season, which in the oldest natural\n reckoning would be likely to fix the day (Colum. 11. 2. 94).\n\nFootnote 1173:\n\n Macr. l. c.; Cic. _Att._ 13. 52.\n\nFootnote 1174:\n\n Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i. 337.\n\nFootnote 1175:\n\n Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 172; Brand, _Popular Antiquities_, ch. 13;\n Usener, _Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen_, 1. 214 foll. See for\n Italy, _Academy_, Jan. 20, 1888.\n\nFootnote 1176:\n\n _C. I. L._ i. 48. But Prof. Gardner tells me that the reading Saet. is\n not certain.\n\nFootnote 1177:\n\n Macrob. 1. 10. 19 foll.; 1. 7. 24 and 25; Marq. p. 11 note 3. The\n conjunction of Ops with him in this function is rejected (rightly, I\n think) by Wissowa, _de Feriis_, iv. But see below on Opalia.\n\nFootnote 1178:\n\n Jordan\u2019s note on Preller, ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 1179:\n\n e. g. Virg. _Aen._ 8. 321.\n\nFootnote 1180:\n\n See, however, Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 223 foll.\n\nFootnote 1181:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 42; Dion. Hal. i. 34 (cp. 6. 1); Fest. 322; Solinus,\n 1. 13; Servius, _Aen._ 2. 115; Middleton, _Rome in 1885_, p. 166.\n\nFootnote 1182:\n\n R. Peter, s. v. Dis in _Lex._ 1181; Macr. 1. 11. 48.\n\nFootnote 1183:\n\n Lucan, 3. 153; Middleton, op. cit. 167.\n\nFootnote 1184:\n\n Preller, ii. 13; i. 182.\n\nFootnote 1185:\n\n The temple was traditionally dated B.C. 497 (Livy, 2. 21); cp. Aust,\n _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 4: so too the festival, though both had an\n older origin (Ambrosch. _Stud._ 149). The latter was reorganized in\n Greek fashion in obedience to a Sibylline oracle in B.C. 217 (Livy,\n 22. 1).\n\nFootnote 1186:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 34 notes the cult of such gods when all fruits have been\n gathered.\n\nFootnote 1187:\n\n Macr. 1. 8. 3 and 1. 16. 30 (also, but probably in error, attributed\n to Jupiter). Plut. _Q. R._ 42, and _Poplic._ 12, states it distinctly;\n but there is no indication of the source from which he drew.\n\nFootnote 1188:\n\n Cp. the legendary connexion of both with ship-building and the coining\n of money; though it is of course possible that this was simply\n suggested by the Janus-head and the ship of early Roman coins.\n\nFootnote 1189:\n\n Seneca, _Ep._ 18. 1. Martial is full of Saturnalian allusions; e. g.\n 12. 62.\n\nFootnote 1190:\n\n Popularized, of course, by the poets: Virg. _Georg._ ii. 538; Tibull.\n i. 3. 35; &c.\n\nFootnote 1191:\n\n Was this one of the reasons why Christmas was fixed at the winter\n solstice? Cp. John Chrysostom, tom. iii. 497e: quoted by Usener, op.\n cit. p. 217.\n\nFootnote 1192:\n\n Varro, _R. R._ 1. 35. 2 \u2018Dum in xv diebus ante et post brumam ut\n pleraque ne facias.\u2019 Columella, 2. 8. 2, seems to follow Varro. Virg.\n _Georg._ 1. 211 extends the time \u2018usque sub extremum brumae\n intractabilis imbrem\u2019 (cp. Serv. ad loc.).\n\nFootnote 1193:\n\n _Sat._ i. 10. 19 and 22, and Dion. Hal. 3. 32; Plut. _Q. R._ 34.\n\nFootnote 1194:\n\n See Marquardt\u2019s excellent summary in _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. 357, and\n Preller, ii. 15 foll.\n\nFootnote 1195:\n\n Dion. Hal. 6. 1. Fasti Amit. Dec. 17. We do not know who was the\n sacrificing priest; perhaps the Rex Sacrorum, or a magistrate.\n\nFootnote 1196:\n\n Macrob. 1. 10. 18.\n\nFootnote 1197:\n\n Martial, 14. 1; at least this seems to be the inference from\n \u2018Synthesibus dum gaudet eques dominusque senator.\u2019 Cp 6. 24.\n\nFootnote 1198:\n\n Livy, 22. 1. 19 \u2018lectisternium imperatum et convivium publicum.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1199:\n\n Tertull. _Apol._ 42.\n\nFootnote 1200:\n\n _Odes_, 3. 17. Cp. Martial, 14. 70. The pig-offering indicates an\n earth-deity: Henzen, _Acta Fratr. Arv._ p. 22; Marq. 173.\n\nFootnote 1201:\n\n Martial, bk. 14, is the _locus classicus_ for all this.\n\nFootnote 1202:\n\n Brand, _Pop. Ant._ 183.\n\nFootnote 1203:\n\n Macr. i. 10. 24; 11. 49. In the latter passage he says \u2018quae homines\n pro se atque suis piaculum pro Dite Saturno facerent.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1204:\n\n Brand, 180.\n\nFootnote 1205:\n\n Marq. 192, and the passages there quoted.\n\nFootnote 1206:\n\n _Sat._ 1. 7. 37. For later evidence see Marq. 588.\n\nFootnote 1207:\n\n p. 50, and note 13.\n\nFootnote 1208:\n\n _C. I. L._ i 2. 337.\n\nFootnote 1209:\n\n O. Gilbert (1. 247 note) holds this latter view.\n\nFootnote 1210:\n\n _Ephem. Epigr._ 1. 37. Wissowa (_de Feriis_, v) points out that all\n such entries, in which the god\u2019s name in the dative is followed by the\n place of sacrifice, apply to consecrated temples only\u2014and the Regia\n was not one.\n\nFootnote 1211:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris Populi Romani_, p. 40. Wissowa, l. c., who\n should not, I think, write of an aedes _in foro_.\n\nFootnote 1212:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 23 \u2018Angeronalia ab Angerona, cui sacrificium fit in\n curia Acculeia et cuius feriae publicae is dies.\u2019 Pliny, _N. H._ 3. 5.\n 65 \u2018Nomen alterum dicere [nisi] arcanis caerimoniarum nefas habetur;\n ... non alienum videtur hoc loco exemplum religionis antiquae ob hoc\n maxime silentium institutae; namque diva Angerona, cui sacrificatur\n a.d. xii Kal. Ian., ore obligato obsignatoque simulacrum habet.\u2019 Macr.\n _Sat._ i. 10 \u2018xii (Kal. Ian.) feriae sunt divae Angeroniae, cui\n pontifices in sacello Volupiae sacrum faciunt; quam Verrius Flaccus\n Angeroniam dici ait, quod angores ac sollicitudines animorum\n propitiata depellat.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1213:\n\n See Wissowa, s. v. Angerona, _Lex._ 350.\n\nFootnote 1214:\n\n _Civ. Dei_, 4. 8.\n\nFootnote 1215:\n\n Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 10. 11; Fest. 119; and Lact. _Inst._ 1. 20. 4\n mention the Larentalia.\n\nFootnote 1216:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Forschungen_, vol. ii. p. 1 foll. See also Roscher, s. v. in\n _Lex._ 5.\n\nFootnote 1217:\n\n Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 55.\n\nFootnote 1218:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 23. The passage is in part hopelessly corrupt.\n\nFootnote 1219:\n\n Gellius, _N. A._ 7. 7; for the Flamen Quir. cf. Gilbert, 1. 88. Cic.\n _Ep. ad Brut._ 1. 15. 8. Varro, l. c. says vaguely \u2018sacerdotes\n nostri.\u2019 Plut. _Romulus_, 4, gives \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, wrongly.\n\nFootnote 1220:\n\n \u2018Sacerdotes nostri publice parentant\u2019 (Varro, l. c.).\n\nFootnote 1221:\n\n Cic. _de Legibus_, 2. 21. 54; Plut. _Q. R._ 34.\n\nFootnote 1222:\n\n Plutarch is often led on in this work from one question to another by\n something he finds in the book he is consulting for the first.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS IANUARIUS.\n\n\nThe period of winter leisure which began for the agriculturist in\nDecember continued into January. From the solstice to Favonius (i. e.\nFeb. 7) is Varro\u2019s eighth and last division of the agricultural year, in\nwhich there is no hard work to be done out of doors (_R. R._ i. 36: cf.\nVirg. _Georg._ 1. 312; Colum. xi. 2). So too the rustic calendars;\n\u2018palus aquitur, salix harundo caedetur.\u2019 Columella tells us, however,\nthat if the weather be favourable, it may be possible from the Ides of\nJanuary \u2018auspicari culturarum officia.\u2019 We have seen that in December\nthis easy time was occupied with a series of religious rites of such\nextreme antiquity that their meaning was almost entirely lost for the\nRoman of later ages. After the solstice this series cannot be said to\ncontinue: the calendars have only three festivals in January marked with\nlarge letters, the Agonia on the 9th, and the two Carmentalia on the\n11th and 15th. On the other hand, there were two _feriae conceptivae_ in\nthis month which do not appear in the calendars; the Compitalia (which\nmight, however, fall before the beginning of the month), and the\nPaganalia towards the end of it. Both these were originally festive\nmeetings in which rural folk took part together, and seem to indicate\nthat agricultural labours had not yet really begun.\n\n\n KAL. IAN. (JAN. 1). F.\n\n\n[AESCU]LAPIO, VEDIOVI IN INSULA. (PRAEN.)\n\n\nThis temple of Vediovis was vowed by the praetor L. Furius Purpureo in\n200 B.C., and dedicated six years later[1223]. For this obscure deity\nsee on May 21. The connexion between him and Aesculapius (if there were\nany) is unexplained. The latter was a much older inhabitant of the Tiber\nisland (291 B.C.), and became in time the special deity of that\nspot[1224], which is called by Dionys. (5. 13) \u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03ad\u03b8\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f08\u03c3\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\n\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac. Is it possible that an identification of Vediovis with\nApollo[1225]\u2014so often a god of pestilence\u2014brought the former to the\nisland seat of the healing deity? The connexion between Apollo and\nAesculapius is well known.\n\nAnother invasion of the island took place almost at the same time. In\n194 B.C. a temple of Faunus was dedicated there which had been vowed two\nyears earlier[1226]; and it may be worth noting that Faunus also had\npower to avert pestilence and unfruitfulness, as is seen in the story of\nNuma and the Faunus-oracle. (Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 641 foll.)\n\nOn Jan. 1, under the later Republic, i. e. after the year 153 B.C., in\nand after which the consuls began their year of office on this day, it\nwas the custom to give New Year presents by way of good omen, called\n_strenae_[1227]; a word which survives in the French _\u00e9trennes_. It is\nlikely enough that the custom was much older than 153 B.C.: the word was\nsaid to be derived from a Sabine goddess Strenia, whose sacellum at the\nhead of the Via Sacra is mentioned by Varro (_L. L._ v. 47[1228]), and\nfrom whose grove certain sacred twigs were carried to the arx (in\nprocession along the Sacred Way?) at the beginning of each year[1229].\nBut we are not told whether this latter rite always took place on Jan.\n1, or was transferred to that day from some other in 153 B.C.\n\n\n III NON. IAN.-NON. IAN. (JAN. 3-5). C.\n\n\n3 LUDI } LUDI }\n4 LUDI }(PHILOC.) LUDI COMPITALES } (SILV.)\n5 LUDI } (COMITALIS, MS.)\n\n\nThe Compitalia were not _feriae stativae_ until late in the Empire, and\nthen perhaps only so by tradition[1230]. They took place at some date\nbetween the Saturnalia (Dec. 17) and Jan. 5; and we may infer from\nPhilocalus and Silvius as quoted above that the tendency was to put them\nlate in that period. Not being a great state-festival, they could be put\nbetween Kalends and Nones.\n\nThe original meaning of _compitum_ is explained by the Scholiast on\nPersius, 4. 28[1231] \u2018Compita sunt loca in quadriviis, quasi turres, ubi\nsacrificia, finita agricultura, rustici celebrabant.... Compita sunt non\nsolum in urbe loca, sed etiam viae publicae ac diverticulae aliquorum\nconfinium, ubi aediculae consecrantur patentes. In his fracta iuga ab\nagricolis ponuntur, velut emeriti et elaborati operis indicium[1232].\u2019\nFrom this we gather that where country cross-roads met, or where in the\nparcelling out of agricultural allotments one semita crossed\nanother[1233], some kind of altar was erected and the spot held sacred.\nThis is quite in keeping with the usage of other peoples: the \u2018holiness\u2019\nof cross-roads is a well-known fact in folk-lore[1234]. It may be\ndoubted, however, whether the Scholiast is right in his explanation of\nthe \u2018fracta iuga,\u2019 which may rather have been used as a spell of some\nkind, than as \u2018emeriti operis indicium.\u2019 Thus Crooke[1235] mentions an\nIndian practice of fixing up a harrow perpendicularly where four roads\nmet, apparently with the object of appeasing the rain-god.\n\nIn the city of Rome the _compita_ were the meeting-places of _vici_\n(streets with houses), where sacella were erected to the Lares\ncompitales[1236]\u2014two in each case. For the inhabitants of the vici which\nthus crossed each other, the compitum was the religious centre; and thus\narose a quasi-religious organization, which, as including the lowest of\nthe population and even slaves[1237], became of much importance in the\nrevolutionary period in connexion with the machinery of electioneering.\nThe \u2018collegia compitalicia\u2019 were abolished by the Senate in B.C. 64, and\nreconstituted in B.C. 58 by a bill of Clodius _de collegiis_. Caesar\nagain prohibited them, and the ludi compitalicii with them; but the\nlatter were once more revived by Augustus and made part of his general\nreorganization of the city and its worship[1238].\n\nThe Compitalia, which the Romans ascribed to Servius Tullius or\nTarquinius Superbus[1239], was probably first organized as part of the\nreligious system of the united city in the Etruscan period, though it\ndoubtless had its origin in the rustic ideas and practice of which we\nget a glimpse in the passage quoted from the Scholiast on Persius. Two\nfeatures of it seem to fit in conveniently with this conjecture: (1)\nthat already mentioned, that even the slaves had a part in it, as well\nas the plebs; (2) the fact that the _magistri vicorum_, who were\nresponsible for the festival, wore the _toga praetexta_ on the day of\nits celebration[1240]\u2014which looks like a Tarquinian innovation in an\nanti-aristocratic sense.\n\n\n V ID. IAN. (JAN. 9). NP?\n\n\nAGON. (MAFF. PRAEN.) A mutilated note in Praen. gives the word Agonium.\n\n\nIt may be doubted whether the Roman scholars themselves knew for certain\nwhat was meant by AGON, and whether the explanations they give are\nanything better than guesses based on analogy[1241]. Ovid calls the day\n\u2018dies agonalis\u2019:\n\n Ianus agonali luce piandus erit (_Fasti_, 1. 318).\n Nomen agonalem credit habere diem (Ibid. 1. 324).\n\nand gives a number of amusing derivations which prove his entire\nignorance. Festus[1242] gives Agonium as the name of the day (which\nagrees with Verrius in Fast. Praen.), and says that _agonia_ was an old\nword for hostia. Varro calls the day \u2018agonalis\u2019[1243]; Ovid in another\nplace Agonalia[1244]. A god Agonius mentioned by St. Augustine[1245] is\nprobably only an invention of the pontifices. The fact is that the\nRomans knew neither what the real form of the word was, nor what it\nmeant. The attempt to explain it by the apparitor\u2019s word at a sacrifice,\n_agone_? (shall I slay?) is still approved by some, but is quite\nuncertain[1246].\n\nThe original meaning of the word, if it ever were in common use, must\nhave vanished long before Latin was a written language. The only traces\nof it, besides its appearance in the calendars, are in the traditional\nname for the Quirinal hill, Collis Agonus, in its gate, \u2018porta\nagonensis,\u2019 and its college of Salii agonenses[1247]. It would seem thus\nto have had some special connexion with the Colline city.\n\nThe same word appears in the calendars for three other days, March 17\n(Liberalia), May 21 (Agon. Vediovi), Dec. 11 (Septimontium); but it is\nimpossible to make out any connexion between these and Jan. 9. Nor can\nwe be sure that the sacrifice (if such it was), indicated by Agon, had\nany relation to the other ceremonies of the days thus marked[1248]. On\nJan. 9 Ovid does indeed say that Janus was \u2018agonali luce piandus,\u2019 and\non May 21 the Fasti Venusini add a note \u2018Vediovi\u2019 to the letters AGON;\nbut there is no distinct proof that the agonium was a sacrifice to Janus\nor to Vediovis. We are utterly in the dark[1249].\n\nOn this day the Rex sacrorum offered a ram (to Janus?) in the Regia.\nOvid says[1250] that though the meaning of Agon is doubtful,\n\n ita rex placare sacrorum\n Numina lanigerae coniuge debet ovis.\n\nIt is provokingly uncertain whether this ram was actually sacrificed to\nJanus: Varro does not say so, and Ovid only implies it[1251]. But we may\nperhaps assume it on the ground that once at least in the ritual of the\nFratres Arvales[1252] the ram is mentioned as Janus\u2019 victim.\n\nIf this be so, we are carried back by this sacrifice to the very\nbeginnings of Rome, and get a useful clue to the nature of the god\nJanus. The Rex sacrorum was the special representative in later times of\nthe king; the king, living in the Regia, was the equivalent in the State\nof the head of the household. The two most important and sacred parts of\nthe house are the door (ianua, ianus), and the hearth (vesta)[1253], and\nthe numina inhabiting and guarding these are Janus and Vesta, who, as is\nwell known, were respectively the first and the last deities to be\ninvoked at all times in Roman religious custom. The whole house\ncertainly had a religious importance, like everything else in intimate\nrelation to man; and Macrobius is not romancing when he says (quoting\n_mythici_) \u2018Regnante Iano omnium domos religione et sanctitate fuisse\nmunitas[1254].\u2019 But the door and the hearth were of special importance,\nas the folk-lore of every people fully attests; and it is hardly\npossible to avoid the conclusion that we must look for the origin of\nJanus in the ideas connected with the house-door, just as we have always\nfound Vesta in the fire on the hearth. Whatever be the true etymology of\nJanus, and however wild the interpretations of his nature and cult both\nin ancient and modern times, we shall always have firm ground to stand\non if we view him in relation to the primitive worship of the\nhouse[1255]. There is hardly an attribute or a cult-title of Janus that\ncannot be deduced with reason from this root-idea.\n\nThe old Roman scholars, who knew as little about Janus as we do, started\nseveral explanations of a cosmical kind, which must have been quite\nstrange to the average Roman worshipper. He was a sun-god[1256], and his\nname is the masculine form of Diana (= moon); he was the _mundus_, i. e.\nthe heaven, or the atmosphere[1257]. These were, of course, mere guesses\ncharacteristic of a pedantic age which knew nothing of the old Roman\nreligious mind. If Janus ever had been a nature-deity, his attributes as\nsuch were completely worn away in historical times, or had lost their\nessential character in the process of constant application to practical\nmatters by a prosaic people. How far the Roman of the Augustan age\nunderstood his great _deorum deus_ may be gathered from Ovid\u2019s treatment\nof the subject, itself no doubt a poetical version of the learned\nspeculation of Varro and others. The poet \u2018interviews\u2019 the deity with\nthe object of finding out the lost and hidden meaning of his most\nobvious peculiarities, and the old god condescends to answer with a\npromptness and good temper that would do credit to the victims of the\nmodern journalist. The curious thing is that the real origin, humble,\nsimple, and truly Latin, escaped the observation both of the interviewer\nand the deity.\n\nBefore I state more definitely the grounds on which this simple\nexplanation of Janus is based, it will be as well to deal shortly with\nthe more ambitious ones.\n\n1. The theory that Janus was a sun-god has the support of Roman\nantiquarians[1258], and was probably suggested by them to the moderns.\nNigidius Figulus, the Pythagorean mystic, seems to have been the first\nto broach the idea: we have no evidence that Varro gave his sanction to\nit. It was Nigidius who first suggested the idea of the relation of\nJanus to Diana (Dianus, Diana = Janus, Jana), which found much favour\nwith Preller and Schwegler[1259] at a time when neither comparative\nphilology nor comparative mythology were as well understood as now. But\nthe common argument, both in ancient and modern times, has been that\nwhich Macrobius quotes from certain speculators whom he does not name:\n\u2018Ianum quidam solem demonstrari volunt, et ideo geminum quasi utriusque\nianuae coelestis potentem, qui exoriens aperiat diem, occidens claudat,\u2019\n&c. It is obvious that this is pure speculation by a Roman of the\ncosmopolitan age: it is an attempt to explain the Janus geminus as the\nrepresentation of one of the great forces of nature. But it has nothing\nto do with the ideas of the early Italian farmer.\n\n2. The theory that Janus was a god of the \u2018vault of heaven\u2019 was also\nstarted by the ancients, as may be seen from the chapter of Macrobius\nquoted above. Recently it has been adopted by Professor Deecke in his\nEtruscan researches[1260]. He seems to hold that Janus in Etruria, as a\ngod of the arch of heaven, was represented on arches and gates in that\ncountry, and came to Rome when the Romans learnt the secret of the arch\nfrom the Etruscans. That the Romans were the pupils of the Etruscans in\nthis particular seems to be true; but if Janus only came to Rome with\nthe arch (Deecke says in Numa\u2019s time) it is hard to see how he could\nhave so quickly gained his peculiar place in Roman worship and legend. I\ncannot think that Deecke has here improved on the conclusions of his\npredecessor.\n\nSpeculations about Janus as a heaven-god have been pushed still further.\nHere is a passage from a book which is almost a work of genius[1261],\nyet embodies many theories of which its author may by this time have\nrepented: \u2018He who prayed (in ancient Italy) began his prayer looking to\nthe East, but ended it looking to the West. Herein we find expressed the\nconception of the unity and indivisibility of Nature; whose symbol is\nthe most characteristic figure of the Italian religion, the\ndouble-headed Janus, the highest god, and the god of all things, all\ntimes, and all gods. He unites the dualistic opposites which complete\nthe world\u2014beginning and end, morning and evening, outgoing and ingoing.\nHe is the god of the year, which finds its completion in its own orbit,\nand as he is the god of time, so he is the god of the Kosmos, which like\na circle displays both beginning and end at once.\u2019 He then quotes a\npassage from Messalla, which Macrobius has preserved, in support of this\nastonishing product of the rude mind of the primitive Roman[1262]. Of\nthis Messalla we only know that he was consul in 53 B.C., and that (as\nMacrobius tells us) he was augur for fifty-five years, in the course of\nwhich period, after the fashion of his day, he wrote works of which the\nobject was to find a philosophic basis for the quaint phenomena of the\nRoman religion. His speculations on the double head of Janus cannot help\nus to discover the primitive nature of our deity; Janus may have been\nthe ancient heaven-god of the Latins, but these guesses are the product\nof a spurious and eclectic Greek philosophy.\n\n3. There is another possible explanation of Janus, which is not\nmentioned in Roscher\u2019s article, but is perhaps worth as much\nconsideration as the two last. Professor Rhys, in his _Hibbert Lectures\non Celtic Mythology_[1263], somewhat casually identified Janus with the\nCeltic god Cernunnos, whom he considers to be the Gallic deity called by\nCaesar _Dis Pater_. The one striking fact in favour of this equation is\nthat Cernunnos was represented as having three faces, and like Janus, as\na head without a body\u2014the lower portion of the block being utilized for\nother purposes[1264]. He seems to have been a chthonic deity, and is\ncompared to and even identified by Rhys with Heimdal of the Norsemen and\nTeutons, who was the warder or porter of the gods, and of the\nunderworld[1265], who sits as the \u2018wind-listening\u2019 god, whose ears are\nof miraculous sharpness, who is the father of man, and the sire of\nkings. Both Cernunnos and Heimdal are thought further to have been like\nJanus, the _fons et origo_ of all things. According to Caesar the Gauls\nbelieved themselves to be descended from their deity; and both the\nCeltic and Scandinavian gods seem to have had, like the Roman, some\nconnexion with the divisions of time.\n\nIt must be allowed that these two gods taken together supply parallels\nto Janus\u2019 most salient characteristics; and even to one or two of the\nless prominent and more puzzling ones, such as the connexion with\nsprings[1266]. It is not impossible that all three may have grown out of\na common root; but in the cases of Cernunnos and Heimdal it does not\nseem any longer possible to trace this, owing to heavy incrustations of\npoetical mythology. In the case of the Roman, the chance is a better\none, in spite of philosophical speculation, ancient and modern.\n\nWe return from philosophers and mythologists to early Rome. The one fact\non which we must fix our attention is that on the north-east of the\nforum Romanum was the famous Janus geminus, which from representations\non coins[1267] we can see was not a temple, but a gateway, with entrance\nand exit connected by walls, within which was, we may suppose, the\ndouble-headed figure of Janus which is familiar on Roman coins. The same\nword janus is applied to the gate and to the numen who guarded it, lived\nin it, and was as inseparable from it as Vesta from the fire on the\nhearth[1268]. The word does not seem to have been used for the gate of a\ncity, but for the point of passage into a space within a city, such as a\nmarket, or a street. At Rome there were several such jani[1269];\nprobably two or more leading into the forum, as well as the more famous\none, which alone appears to have had a strictly religious\nsignification[1270]. The connexion of the god with entrances is thus a\ncertainty, though we are puzzled by his apparent absence from the gates\nof the city[1271]. The double head would signify nothing transcendental,\nbut simply that the numen of the entrance to house or market was\nconcerned both with entrance and exit. It is not peculiar to Italy, or\nto Janus, but is found on coins in every part of the Mediterranean\n(Roscher, _Lex_. 53 foll.): in no case, it is worth noting, does the\ndouble head represent any of the great gods of heaven, such as Zeus,\nApollo, &c., but Dionysus, Boreas, Argos, unknown female heads[1272],\n&c. Its history does not seem to have been worked out; but we can be\nalmost sure that it does not represent the sun, and has no relation to\nthe arch of heaven.\n\nNow keeping in mind the fact that Janus is the guardian spirit of\nentrances, let us recall again the fact that he was the first deity in\nall invocations both public and private[1273], and that Vesta was the\nlast[1274]. Vesta in the house was, as Cicero expresses it, \u2018rerum\ncustos intimarum\u2019; she presided over the penetralia\u2014the _last_ part of\nthe house to which any stranger could be admitted; exactly the opposite\nposition to that of Janus at the entrance[1275]. Both deities retained\nat all times the essential mark of primitive ideas of the supernatural:\nthey resided in and in a sense were, the doorway and the hearth\nrespectively. What we know of the priests who served them tells the same\ntale of an origin in the house, and the family\u2014the foundation of all\nItalian civilization. Vesta was served by her sacred virgins, and these,\nwe can no longer doubt, were the later representatives of the daughters\nof the head of the family, or the headman of the community[1276]; the\ninnermost part of the house was theirs, the care of the fire, the stores\n(penus), and the cooking. To the father, the defender of the family,\nbelonged naturally the care of the entrance, the dangerous point, where\nboth evil men and evil spirits might find a way in. And surely this must\nbe the explanation of the fact that no priest is to be found for Janus\nin the Roman system but the Rex sacrorum[1277], the lineal\nrepresentative of the ancient religious duties of the king, and\ntherefore, we may infer with certainty, of those of the primitive chief,\nand of the head of the household[1278]. In the most ancient order of the\npriesthoods, the Rex sacrorum came first, just as Janus was the first of\nall the gods[1279]: then came the three great Flamines, and then the\nPontifex maximus, in whose care and power were the Vestals. Translating\nthe order into terms of the primitive family, we have first the head of\nthe house, next the sons, and lastly (as women do not appear in these\nlists), the daughters represented by the later priesthood, to which they\nwere legally subordinated. The order of the gods, the order of the\npriests, and the natural position of the entrance to the house, all seem\nto lead us to the same conclusion, that the beginning of Janus and his\ncult are to be sought, and may be found, in the early Italian family\ndwelling.\n\nWe may agree with Roscher, who has worked out this part of the subject\nwith skill, that this position of Janus in the worship of the family and\nthe state is the origin of all the practices in which he appears as a\ngod of beginnings. For these the reader must be referred to Roscher\u2019s\narticle[1280], or to Preller, or to Mommsen, who sees in this aspect of\nthe god, and rightly no doubt, that which chiefly reflects the notion of\nhim held by the ordinary Roman. He was himself the oldest god, the\nbeginner of all things, and of all acts[1281]; to him in legend is\nascribed the introduction of the arts, of agriculture, ship-building,\n&c.[1282]. He is an object of worship at the beginning of the year, the\nmonth, and the day[1283]. All this sprang, not from an abstract idea of\nbeginning\u2014an idea which has no Roman parallel in being sanctified by a\npresiding deity, but from the concrete fact that the entrance of the\nhouse was the _initium_, or beginning of the house, and at the same time\nthe point from which you started on all undertakings.\n\nSuch developments of the original Janus were no doubt as old as the\nState itself. In the Salian hymn he is already \u2018deorum deus\u2019[1284], and\n\u2018duonus cerus\u2019[1285], which Festus tells us meant creator bonus. But\neven in the State there are, as we have seen, sufficiently clear traces\nof his original nature to forbid us to attribute these titles to any\nlofty and abstract philosophical ideas of religion.\n\nThe known cult-titles of Janus are for the most part explicable in the\nsame way. Geminus, Patulcius, Clusius, and Matutinus, speak for\nthemselves. Junonius probably arose from the concurrence of the cults of\nJanus and Juno on the Kalends of each month, as Macrobius tells\nus[1286]. Consivius[1287] is explained by Roscher as connected with\n_serere_, and used of Janus as creator (beginner of life: cf. _duonus\ncerus_). Curiatius, Patricius, and Quirinus[1288] are titles arising\nfrom the worship of the god in gentes, curiae, and the completed state,\nand have no significance in regard to his nature.\n\n\n III ID. IAN. (JAN. 11). NP.\n\n\nKARM[ENTALIA]. (PRAEN. MAFF.)\n\n\n XVIII KAL. FEB. (JAN. 15). NP.\n\n\nKAR[MENTALIA]. (PRAEN. MAFF. PHIL. CAER.)\n\n\nThe full name of the festival is supplied by Philoc. and Silv. There is\na much mutilated note in Praen. on Jan. 11 which is completed by Mommsen\nthus[1289]: \u2018[Feriae Carmenti ... quae partus curat omniaque] futura; ob\nquam ca[usam in aede eius cavetur ab scorteis tanquam] omine morticino.\u2019\n\nThe first point to be noticed here is that the same deity has two\nfestival days, with an interval of three days between them. There is no\nexact parallel to this in the calendar, though there are several\ninstances of something analogous[1290]. The Lemuria are on May 9, 11,\n13; but here are three days, and no special deity. Kindred deities have\ntheir festivals separated by three days, as Consus and Ops (Aug. 21,\n25); and we may compare the Fordicidia and Cerealia on April 15 and 19,\nand the Quinquatrus and Tubilustrium, both apparently sacred to Mars, on\nMarch 19 and 23. All festivals occur on days of uneven number; and if\nthere was an extension to two or more days, the even numbers were passed\nover[1291]. But the Romans did not apparently consider the two\nCarmentalia to be two parts of the same festival, but two different\nfestivals, or they would not have tried to account as they did for the\norigin of the second day. It was said to have been added by a victorious\ngeneral who left Rome by the Porta Carmentalis to attack Fidenae[1292],\nor by the matrons who had refused to perform the function of women, in\nanger at being deprived by the Senate of the right of riding in\n_carpenta_; and who, when the decree was withdrawn, testified their\nsatisfaction in this curious way.\n\nIt does not seem possible to discover the real meaning of the double\nfestival. It has been suggested[1293] that the two days represent the\nso-called Roman and Sabine cities, like the two bodies of Salii and\nLuperci. This guess is hardly an impossible one, but it is only a guess,\nand has nothing to support it but a casual statement by Plutarch that\nthe Carmentalia were instituted at the time of the _synoikismos_ of\nLatin and Sabine cities[1294].\n\nThere is fortunately little doubt about the nature of Carmenta and the\ngeneral meaning of the cult. In all the legends into which she was\nwoven[1295] her most prominent characteristic is the gift of prophecy;\nshe is the \u2018vates fatidica,\u2019 &c.,\n\n Cecinit quae prima futuros\n Aeneadas magnos et nobile Pallanteum.\n\nSo Ovid, at the end of his account of her:\n\n At felix _vates_, ut dis gratissima vixit,\n Possidet hunc Iani sic dea mense diem.\n\nThe power is expressed in her very name, for _carmen_ signifies a spell,\na charm, a prophecy, as well as a poem. Now there is clear evidence that\neither women alone had access to the temple at the Porta Carmentalis, or\nthat they were the chief frequenters of it; and they are even said to\nhave built a temple themselves[1296]. Where we find women worshipping a\ndeity of prophecy we may be fairly sure that that deity also has some\ninfluence on childbirth. \u2018The reason,\u2019 writes the late Prof.\nNettleship[1297], \u2018why the Carmentes are worshipped by matrons is\nbecause they tell the fortunes of the children\u2019\u2014and also, surely,\nbecause they tell the fortunes of the women in childbirth[1298].\n\nI am inclined to agree with my old tutor that the Carmentes may\noriginally have been wise women whose skill and spells assisted the\noperation of birth. I do not think we can look for an explanation of the\ntitles Porrima and Postverta elsewhere than in the two positions in\nwhich the child may issue from the womb, over each of which a Carmentis\nwatched[1299]; and there is in fact no doubt that Carmenta was a\nbirth-goddess[1300]. The argument then would be that the spiritual\norigin attributed to superior knowledge transforms the owner of the\nknowledge into a divine person. As Sir A. Lyall says[1301] (of the\ngenesis of local deities in Berar), \u2018The immediate motive (of\ndeification) is nothing but a vague inference from great natural gifts\nor from strange fortunes to supernatural visitation, or from power\nduring life to power prolonged beyond it.\u2019\n\nOf the cult of Carmenta we know hardly anything. She had a flamen of her\nown[1302], like other ancient goddesses, Palatua, Furrina, Flora. His\nsacrificial duties must have been confined to the preparing of cereal\nofferings, for there was a taboo in this cult excluding all skins of\nanimals\u2014all leather\u2014from the temple.\n\n Scortea non illi fas est inferre sacello[1303],\n Ne violent puros exanimata focos.\n\nVarro writes \u2018In aliquot sacris et sacellis scriptum habemus: Ne quid\nscorteum adhibeatur ideo ne morticinum quid adsit.\u2019 We could wish that\nhe had told us what these sacra and sacella were[1304]; as it is we must\nbe content to suppose that a goddess of birth could have nothing to do\nwith the slaughter of animals.\n\nThe position of the temple was at the foot of the southern end of the\nCapitol, near the Porta Carmentalis[1305], where, according to Servius,\nshe was said to have been buried (cp. Acca Larentia, Dec. 23). It is\nnoticeable that the festivals of this winter period are connected with\nsites near the Capitol and Forum; we have already had Saturnus, Ops, and\nJanus.\n\nIf the reader should ask why a goddess of birth should be specially\nworshipped in the depth of winter, he may perhaps find a reason for it\nafter reading the third chapter of Westermarck\u2019s _History of Human\nMarriage_. As far as we can judge from the calendar, April was the month\nat Rome when marriages and less legal unions were especially\nfrequent[1306]; during May and the first days of June marriages were not\ndesirable[1307]. In January therefore births might naturally be\nexpected.\n\nOvid tells us (1. 463) that _Juturna_ was also worshipped on Jan.\n11[1308]; but whether in any close connexion with Carmenta we do not\nknow. They are both called Nymphs; but from this we can hardly make any\ninference. Juturna was certainly a fountain-deity: I can find no good\nevidence that this was one of Carmenta\u2019s attributes. The fount of\nJuturna was near the Vesta-temple[1309], and therefore close to the\nForum: its water was used, says Servius, for all kinds of sacrifices,\nand itself was the object of sacrifice in a drought. All took part in\nthe festival who used water in their daily work (\u2018qui artificium aqua\nexercent\u2019). But the Juturnalia appears in no calendar, and Aust is no\ndoubt right in explaining it only as the dedication-festival of the\ntemple built by Augustus in B.C. 2[1310].\n\n\n Feriae Sementivae[1311]. Paganalia.\n\n\nUnder date of Jan. 24-26, Ovid[1312] writes in charming verse of the\n_feriae conceptivae_ called Sementivae (or -tinae), which from his\naccount would seem to be identical with the so-called Paganalia[1313].\nJust as the Compitalia of the city probably had its origin in the\ncountry (see on Jan. 3-5), though the rustic _compita_ were almost\nunknown to the later Romans, so the festival of sowing was kept up in\nthe city (\u2018a pontificibus dictus,\u2019 Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26) as Sementinae,\nlong after the Roman population had ceased to sow. In the country it was\nknown\u2014so we may guess\u2014by the less technical name of Paganalia[1314], as\nbeing celebrated by the rural group of homesteads known as the _pagus_.\n\nAs to the object and nature of the festival, let Ovid speak for himself:\n\n State coronati plenum ad praesaepe iuvenei:\n Cum tepido vestrum vere redibit opus.\n Rusticus emeritum palo suspendat aratrum[1315]:\n Omne reformidat frigida volnus humus.\n Vilice, da requiem terrae, _semente peracta_:\n Da requiem terram qui coluere viris.\n Pagus agat festum: pagum lustrate, coloni,\n Et date paganis annua liba focis.\n Placentur frugum matres, Tellusque Ceresque,\n Farre suo, gravidae visceribusque suis.\n Officium commune Ceres et Terra tuentur:\n Haec praebet causam frugibus, illa locum.\n\nCeres and Tellus, \u2018consortes operis,\u2019 are to be invoked to bring to\nmaturity the seed sown in the autumn, by preserving it from all pests\nand hurtful things; and also to assist the sower in his work in the\nspring that is at hand. This at least is how I understand the lines\n(681, 682):\n\n Cum serimus, caelum ventis aperite serenis;\n Cum latet, aetheria spargite semen aqua.\n\nOr if it be argued that both these lines may very well refer to the\nspring, it is at least certain that the poet understood the festival to\ncover the past autumn sowing:\n\n Utque dies incerta sacro, sic tempora certa,\n Seminibus iactis est ubi fetus ager[1316].\n\nVarro tells us[1317] that the time of the autumn sowing extended from\nthe equinox to the winter solstice; after which, as we have seen, the\nhusbandmen rested from their labours in the fields, and enjoyed the\nfestivals we have been discussing since Dec. 17 (Consualia). The last of\nthese is the Paganalia, i. e. the one nearest in date, if we may go by\nOvid, to the time for setting to work at the spring sowing, which began\non or about Feb. 7 (Favonius).[1318] It would thus be quite natural that\nthis festival should have reference not only to the seed already in the\nground, but also to that which was still to be sown. If Ovid lays stress\non the former, Varro and Lydus seem to be thinking chiefly of the\nlatter[1319].\n\nOvid has told us what was the nature of the rites. According to him,\nCeres and Tellus were the deities concerned, and with this Lydus agrees.\nWe need not be too certain about the names[1320], considering the\n\u2018fluidity\u2019 and impersonality of early Roman _numina_ of this type; but\nthe type itself is obvious. There were offerings of cake, and a\nsacrifice of a pregnant sow; the oxen which had served in the ploughing\nwere decorated with garlands; prayers were offered for the protection of\nthe seed from bird and beast and disease. If we may believe a note of\nProbus\u2019[1321], _oscilla_ were hung from the trees, as at the Latin\nfestival, &c., doubtless as a charm against evil influences.\n\n\n VI KAL. FEB. (Jan. 27). C.\n\n\nAEDIS [CASTORIS ET PO]LLUCIS DEDICA[TA EST ...]. (PRAEN.)\n\n\nMommsen\u2019s restoration of this note in the Fasti of Praeneste is based on\nOv. _Fast._ 1. 705-8:\n\n At quae venturas praecedet sexta Kalendas,\n Hac sunt Ledaeis templa dicata deis.\n Fratribus illa deis fratres de gente deorum\n Circa Iuturnae composuere lacus.\n\nBut Livy[1322] gives the Ides of July as the day of dedication, and a\ndifference of learned opinion has arisen[1323]. July 15, B.C. 496, is\nthe traditional date of the battle of Lake Regillus, and the temple was\ndedicated B.C. 484\u2014the result of the Consul\u2019s vow in that battle[1324].\nMommsen infers that Livy confused the date of the dedication with that\nof the battle, and that Jan. 27 is right. Aust and others differ, and\nrefer the latter date to a restoration by Tiberius, probably in A.D.\n6[1325]. The mistake in Livy is easy to explain, and Mommsen\u2019s\nexplanation seems sufficient[1326]. Three beautiful columns of Tiberius\u2019\ntemple are still to be seen at the south-eastern end of the Forum, near\nthe temple of Vesta, and close to the Iacus Juturnae, where the Twins\nwatered their steeds after the battle[1327].\n\nThe very early introduction of the Dioscuri into the Roman worship is\ninteresting as being capable of unusually distinct proof. They must have\nbeen known long before the battle of the Regillus; and they took a\npeculiarly firm hold on the Roman mind, as we see from the common oaths\nEdepol, Mecastor, from their representation on the earliest\ndenarii[1328], from their connexion with the equites throughout Roman\nhistory, and from the great popularity of their legend, which was\nreproduced in connexion with later battles[1329]. The spread of the cult\nthrough Southern Italy to Latium and Etruria (where it was also a\nfavourite) is the subject of a French monograph[1330].\n\nFootnote 1223:\n\n Livy, 31. 21; 34. 53. The MSS have \u2018deo Iovi\u2019 in the former passage,\n and \u2018Iovis\u2019 in the second; but it is almost certain that Vediovis is\n the deity referred to. See Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 2. 305 for the\n confusion in these passages, and in Livy, 35. 41. (Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_,\n i. 291-3.)\n\nFootnote 1224:\n\n Livy, _Epit._ 11, and 10. 47; Preller, ii. 241; Plut. _Q. R._ 94;\n Jordan, in _Comm. in hon. Momms._ p. 349 foll.\n\nFootnote 1225:\n\n See under May 21. Deecke, _Falisker_, 96.\n\nFootnote 1226:\n\n Livy, 33. 42, 34. 53; Jordan, l. c.\n\nFootnote 1227:\n\n These and their later history are the subject of a most exhaustive\n treatise by Martin Lipenius, in Graevius\u2019 _Thesaurus_, vol. xii, p.\n 405. See also Marq. _Privatleben_, 1. 2, 245. For the sentiment\n implied in the _strenae_ see Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 71 foll. and 175.\n\nFootnote 1228:\n\n Cp. Fest. 290.\n\nFootnote 1229:\n\n Symmachus, ep. 10. 35 \u2018Ab exortu paene urbis Martiae strenarum usus\n adolevit, auctoritate Tatii regis, qui verbenas felicis arboris ex\n luco Strenuae anni novi auspices primus accepit.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1230:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 25 \u2018quotannis is dies concipitur\u2019 (for the right\n reading of the rest of the passage see Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 305).\n Macrobius (1. 16. 6) reckons them as conceptivae, in the fourth\n century; Philoc. and Silv. may be representing a _traditional_ date\n for a feast which was _iure conceptivus_. So Momms. Cp. Gell. 10. 24.\n 3, where the formula for fixing the date is given; and Cic. _in Pis._\n 4. 8. It was the praetor (urbanus?) who in this case made the\n announcement.\n\nFootnote 1231:\n\n Cp. Philargyrius, _Georg._ 2. 382 \u2018[compita] ubi pagani agrestes\n buccina convocati solent certa inire consilia\u2019; no doubt discussion\n about agricultural matters.\n\nFootnote 1232:\n\n Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 665, of the Paganalia: \u2018Rusticus emeritum palo\n suspendat aratrum.\u2019 (Cp. Tibull. ii. 1. 5.) Such features were perhaps\n common to all these rustic winter rejoicings.\n\nFootnote 1233:\n\n _Grom. Vet._ 302. 20 foll.\n\nFootnote 1234:\n\n For Greece see Farnell, _Cults_, ii. 561 and 598.\n\nFootnote 1235:\n\n _Folklore in Northern India_, i. 77.\n\nFootnote 1236:\n\n Marq. 203; Dion. Hal. 4. 14; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 615 and 5. 140. Wissowa\n (_Myth. Lex._ s. v. Lares, p. 1874) would limit them in origin to the\n pagi outside the septem montes, as the latter had their own sacra.\n\nFootnote 1237:\n\n Dion. Hal. 4. 14 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b4\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5 (i. e.\n Serv. Tull.) \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f25\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 (Cic. _pro Sestio_, 15. 34).\n\nFootnote 1238:\n\n Marq. 204; Rushforth, _Latin Historical Inscriptions_, p. 59 foll.\n\nFootnote 1239:\n\n Pliny, _N. H._ 36. 204; Macrob. 1. 7. 34; Dion. l. c.\n\nFootnote 1240:\n\n Asconius, p. 6, K. Sch. Livy, 34. 7. 2.\n\nFootnote 1241:\n\n So Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xii note. Cp. his article \u2018Agonium\u2019 in the\n new edition of Pauly\u2019s _Real-Encycl._\n\nFootnote 1242:\n\n p. 10. Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 331 \u2018Et pecus antiquus dicebat agonia\n sermo.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1243:\n\n He uses the plural: \u2018Agonales (dies) per quos rex in regia arietem\n immolat\u2019 (_L. L._ 6. 12). But only Jan. 9 seems to be alluded to.\n\nFootnote 1244:\n\n _Fasti_, 1. 325; cf. Macrob. 1. 16. 5.\n\nFootnote 1245:\n\n _Civ. Dei_, 4. 11. 16. Ambrosch (_Studien_, 149) thinks it possible\n that Agonius may have been a god of the Colline city.\n\nFootnote 1246:\n\n B\u00fccheler, _Umbrica_, p. 30. B. apparently sees in the Umbrian \u2018sakreu\n perakneu\u2019 an equivalent to \u2018hostias agonales.\u2019 The Iguvian ritual is\n certainly the most likely document to be useful; it at least shows how\n large was the store of sacrificial vocabulary.\n\nFootnote 1247:\n\n Fest. p. 10. For the Salii, Varro, _L. L._ 6. 14.\n\nFootnote 1248:\n\n Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xii.\n\nFootnote 1249:\n\n When Varro writes (_L. L._ 6. 12) that the dies agonales are those in\n which the Rex sacrorum sacrifices a ram in the Regia, he may be\n including all the four days, and not only Jan. 9. I think this is\n likely; but we only know it of Jan. 9.\n\nFootnote 1250:\n\n _Fasti_, i. 333. Varro _L. L._ 6. 12 \u2018Agonales (dies) per quos rex in\n regia arietem immolat.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1251:\n\n Cp. lines 318 and 333.\n\nFootnote 1252:\n\n Henzen, 144. An \u2018agna\u2019 is the only other animal sacrifice we know of\n to Janus (Roscher, in _Lex._ 42).\n\nFootnote 1253:\n\n Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Ianus, 29 foll. (cp. for much interesting\n kindred matter, De-Marchi, _Il Culto privato_, p. 20 foll.). Roscher\u2019s\n attempt to find an analogy between the Forum and the house is\n interesting, but unluckily the positions \u2018ad Forum\u2019 of the \u2018Ianus\n geminus\u2019 and the \u2018aedes Vestae\u2019 do not exactly answer to those of the\n door and hearth of a Roman house.\n\nFootnote 1254:\n\n _Sat._ i. 9. 2; Procopius, _B. G._ 1. 25, who says that \u2018Janus\n belonged to the gods whom the Romans in their tongue called Penates,\u2019\n seems to be alluding to the same connexion of this god and the house.\n\nFootnote 1255:\n\n We owe this explanation of Janus chiefly to Roscher\u2019s article, and\n Roscher himself owed it to the fact that his study of Janus for the\n article was a second and not a first attempt. In _Hermes der Windgott_\n (Leipzig, 1878) he had arrived at a very different and a far less\n rational conclusion. The influence of Mannhardt and the folk-lorists\n set him on the right track.\n\nFootnote 1256:\n\n Nigidius Figulus in Macrob. i. 9. 8.\n\nFootnote 1257:\n\n See Roscher, _Lex._ 44.\n\nFootnote 1258:\n\n Macrob. 1. 9. 9; Lydus, _de Mensibus_, 4. 6 (who quotes Lutatius).\n\nFootnote 1259:\n\n Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 218 foll.; Preller, 1. 168 foll. The etymology\n is weak; the god and goddess have nothing common in cult or myth; it\n is not certain that Diana was originally the moon; and the great\n Italian deities are not coupled together in this way.\n\nFootnote 1260:\n\n ii. 125 foll. Cf. M\u00fcller\u2019s _Etrusker_ (ed. Deecke), ii. 58 foll.\n M\u00fcller, with his usual good sense, concluded from the evidence that\n the Latin Janus was a god of gates; but he thought that an Etruscan\n deity of the vault or arch of heaven had been amalgamated with him.\n This is not impossible, if there was really such an Etruscan god; and\n Deecke finds him in Ani, who in Etruscan theology seems to have had\n his seat in the northern part of the heaven (Mart. Capell. 1. 45)\n where Janus was also represented in the templum of Piacenza (_Lex._ s.\n v. Janus, p. 28). But this must remain a doubtful point, even though\n Lydus (4. 2) tells us that Varro said that the god \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03b8\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 1261:\n\n Nissen, _Templum_, p. 228.\n\nFootnote 1262:\n\n Macrob. 1. 9. 16.\n\nFootnote 1263:\n\n p. 93 foll.; Caes. _B. G._ 6. 18.\n\nFootnote 1264:\n\n M. Mowat thought that this was Janus naturalized in Gaul; but with\n Prof. Rhys (p. 81 note) I cannot but think this unlikely.\n\nFootnote 1265:\n\n See _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, ii. 465.\n\nFootnote 1266:\n\n Roscher, in _Lex._ 18; Rhys, 1. c. 88.\n\nFootnote 1267:\n\n Roscher, _Lex._ 17; Jordan, _Topogr._ 1. 2. 351.\n\nFootnote 1268:\n\n Cic. _De Nat. Deorum_, 2. 27. 67 \u2018Transitiones perviae iani, foresque\n in liminibus profanarum aedium ianuae nominantur.\u2019 Cp. Macrob. 1. 9.\n 7.\n\nFootnote 1269:\n\n On the whole question see Jordan, _Topogr_. 1. 2. 215 foll. Ovid\n (_Fasti_, 1.257) asks the god \u2018Cum tot sint iani, cur stas sacratus in\n uno?\u2018\n\nFootnote 1270:\n\n From Falerii came another janus, with a four-headed simulacrum, which\n was set up in the Forum transitorium (Macr. 1. 9. 13; Jordan, _Top_.\n 1. 2. 348).\n\nFootnote 1271:\n\n Preller made an attempt, which Roscher approves, to identify Portunus\n with Janus, Portunus being, according to Varro, \u2018Deus portuum\n portarumque praeses\u2019 (Interpr. Veron. _Aen._ v. 241). But see on Aug.\n 17.\n\nFootnote 1272:\n\n The nearest approach to Janus is the Hermes \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 or \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2\n (single head only?) and Hermes with two, three, or four heads at the\n meeting-points of streets. These are points which suggested to Roscher\n in his older work an elaborate comparison of Hermes and Janus (p. 119\n foll.).\n\nFootnote 1273:\n\n See Marq 25, 26 and notes.\n\nFootnote 1274:\n\n Cic. _N. D._ 2. 27; Preller, ii. 172.\n\nFootnote 1275:\n\n For the evidence of this position of Janus in the cults of the house\n see Roscher, _Lex._ 32; it is indirect, but sufficiently convincing.\n\nFootnote 1276:\n\n See my article \u2018Vestales\u2019 in _Dict. of Antiquities_, ed. 2.\n\nFootnote 1277:\n\n Marq. 321 foll. Besides the sacrifice in the Regia on Jan. 9, the Rex\n and his wife, the Regina sacrorum, sacrificed to Juno in the Regia on\n the Kalends of every month, and apparently also to Janus (Junonius) to\n whom there were twelve altars (in the Regia?) one for each month.\n Macr. 1. 9. 16 and 1. 15. 19.\n\nFootnote 1278:\n\n For the father as the natural defender of the family, see Westermarck,\n _Hist. of Human Marriage_, ch. 3.\n\nFootnote 1279:\n\n Festus, 185 \u2018Maximus videtur Rex, dein Dialis, post hunc Martialis,\n quarto loco Quirinalis, quinto pontifex maximus.\u2019 For the\n corresponding place of Janus, Liv. 8. 9. 6; Cato, _R. R._ 134; Marq.\n 26.\n\nFootnote 1280:\n\n _Lex._ 37 foll.; Preller, 1. 166 foll.; Mommsen, _R. H._ i. 173.\n\nFootnote 1281:\n\n \u1f1c\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, says Lydus, 4. 2, quoting Varro; cp. Ovid,\n _Fasti_, 165 foll.\n\nFootnote 1282:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 22.\n\nFootnote 1283:\n\n Macrob. 1. 9. 16; Horace, _Sat._ ii. 6. 20 foll.\n\nFootnote 1284:\n\n Macrob. 1. 9. 14.\n\nFootnote 1285:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 7. 26; Fest. 122.\n\nFootnote 1286:\n\n Macr. 1. 9. 16.\n\nFootnote 1287:\n\n Macr. l. c. Wissowa (_de Feriis_, vi) says the true form is\n cons_e_vius; but the etymology holds.\n\nFootnote 1288:\n\n Roscher, _Lex._ 21, 26, 40.\n\nFootnote 1289:\n\n _C. I. L._ 1. 307, on the evidence of Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 629 and Varro,\n _L. L._ 7. 84.\n\nFootnote 1290:\n\n Wissowa, _de Feriis_, viii.\n\nFootnote 1291:\n\n Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 1. 288.\n\nFootnote 1292:\n\n Fast. Praen. on Jan. 15 (mutilated). Cp. Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 619, and\n Plut. _Q. R._ 56. Festus, 245.\n\nFootnote 1293:\n\n By Huschke, _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 199. There was probably more than one\n Carmenta (Gell. 16. 16. 4), if we consider Porrima and Postverta as\n two forms of the goddess; and the two days may have some relation to\n this duality. Perhaps there were two altars in the temple. Ovid,\n _Fasti_, 1. 627.\n\nFootnote 1294:\n\n Plut. _Romulus_, 21.\n\nFootnote 1295:\n\n See Wissowa in _Lex. Myth._ i. 851; Ovid. _Fasti_, 1. 461 foll.; Virg.\n _Aen._ 8. 336. The eighth Aeneid, it may be remarked, should be learnt\n by heart by all investigators into Roman antiquity.\n\nFootnote 1296:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 56: cp. Dion. Hal. 1. 31. 1-9, from whom Plutarch may\n have drawn his information, directly or perhaps through Juba. For the\n temple they built cp. Gell. 18. 7. 2. If this temple be a different\n one from that under the Capitol, it may suggest an explanation of the\n double festival.\n\nFootnote 1297:\n\n _Studies in Latin Literature_, p. 48 foll.; _Journal of Philology_,\n xi. 178.\n\nFootnote 1298:\n\n See on Fortuna, above, p. 167.\n\nFootnote 1299:\n\n Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 633; Varro in Gell. 16. 6. 4. Nettleship takes a\n different view of these words. But see Wissowa in _Lex._ 1. 853;\n Preller, i. 406.\n\nFootnote 1300:\n\n St. Augustine, _C. D._ 4. 11 \u2018In illis deabus quae fata nascentibus\n canunt et vocantur Carmentes.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1301:\n\n _Asiatic Studies_, p. 20.\n\nFootnote 1302:\n\n Cic. _Brut._ 14. 56; _C. I. L._ vi. 3720; and _Eph. Ep._ iv. 759. The\n rite of Jan. 11 is called \u2018sacrum pontificale\u2019 by Ovid (_Fast._ 1.\n 462), whence we infer that the pontifices had a part in it as well as\n the flamen.\n\nFootnote 1303:\n\n Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 629. Cp. Varro, _L. L._ 7. 84. This passage of Varro\n may possibly raise a doubt whether the taboo did not arise from a\n mistaken interpretation of the words _scortum_ and _pellicula_, as\n Carmenta was especially worshipped by matrons.\n\nFootnote 1304:\n\n The more so as we have no inscriptions relating to Carmenta. Though\n her flaminium continued to exist under the Empire, she herself\n practically disappeared. I am inclined to guess that her attributes\n were to some extent usurped by the more popular and plebeian Fortuna.\n\nFootnote 1305:\n\n Solinus, 1. 13; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 336 and 337.\n\nFootnote 1306:\n\n See especially under April 1 and 28, the days of Fortuna virilis and\n Flora.\n\nFootnote 1307:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 223 foll.\n\nFootnote 1308:\n\n Juturnalia, Serv. _Aen._ 12. 139.\n\nFootnote 1309:\n\n Jordan, _Topogr._ 1. 2. 370; Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Iuturna.\n\nFootnote 1310:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 45.\n\nFootnote 1311:\n\n Sementinae, according to Jordan in Prell. 2. 5, note 2.\n\nFootnote 1312:\n\n _Fasti_, 1. 658 foll.\n\nFootnote 1313:\n\n Paganicae (feriae), Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26. Varro seems to separate the\n two: after mentioning the Sementinae, which he says was \u2018sationis\n causa susceptae,\u2019 he goes on \u2018Paganicae eiusdem agriculturae\n susceptae, ut haberent in agris omnes pagi,\u2019 &c. But the distinction\n is perhaps only of place; or if of time also, yet not of object and\n meaning.\n\nFootnote 1314:\n\n So Marq. 199, and Hartmann, _R\u00f6m. Kal._ 203. Preller thinks the\n Sementinae were in September, before the autumn sowing; and it is\n possible that there were two feasts of the name, one before the\n autumn, another before the spring, sowing. Lydus (_de Mens._ 3. 3)\n speaks of two days separated by seven others; on the former they\n sacrificed to Tellus (Demeter), on the latter to Ceres (\u039a\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7); two\n successive nundinae (market-days) are here meant.\n\nFootnote 1315:\n\n Cp. Scholiast on Persius, 4. 28; and see under Compitalia, Jan. 3-5.\n\nFootnote 1316:\n\n Ovid, 1. 661.\n\nFootnote 1317:\n\n _R. R._ 1. 34; Plin. _N. H._ 18. 204.\n\nFootnote 1318:\n\n Cp. Varro, _R. R._ 1. 29, 36. Cp. the Rustic Calendars for February.\n\nFootnote 1319:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26 \u2018sationis causa\u2019; and Lydus says that the feast\n could not be \u2018stativae,\u2019 because the \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 cannot be fixed to a\n day. Lydus\u2019 reason is not a good one, if the sowing did not begin till\n Feb. 7; but it is plain that he understands the rites as\n _prophylactic_. I may note that Columella seems to know little about\n spring sowing (II. 2: cp. 2. 8). Mommsen, _R. H._ ii. 364, says that\n spring sowing was exceptional.\n\nFootnote 1320:\n\n See under Cerialia, April 19.\n\nFootnote 1321:\n\n Ad Virg. _Georg._ 2. 385; Marq. 200 and 192, where the old explanation\n (Macr. 1. 7. 34) seems to be adopted, that these were substitutes for\n human or other victims (cp. B\u00f6tticher, _Baumkultus_, 80 foll.). We\n have no clear evidence for this, and I am not disposed to accept it.\n\nFootnote 1322:\n\n 2. 42. So Plut. _Coriol._ 3.\n\nFootnote 1323:\n\n Momms. _C. I. L._ 1. 308; Jordan, _Eph. Ep._ 1. 236; Aust, _de Aedibus\n sacris_, 43.\n\nFootnote 1324:\n\n Dion. Hal. 6. 13; Liv. 2. 20.\n\nFootnote 1325:\n\n Suetonius, _Tib._ 20; Aust, op. cit. p. 6.\n\nFootnote 1326:\n\n Weight must, however, be given to the fact that the transvectio\n equitum took place on July 15. Aust, 43, and Furtw\u00e4ngler in _Lex._ s.\n v. Dioscuri.\n\nFootnote 1327:\n\n Middleton, _Ancient Rome_, p. 174; Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of\n Ancient Rome_, p. 271 foll.\n\nFootnote 1328:\n\n Mommsen, _M\u00fcnzwesen_, 301, 559.\n\nFootnote 1329:\n\n Pydna, Cic. _N. D._ 3. 5. II; Verona (101 B.C.), Plut. _Mar._ 26. The\n most famous application of the story is in the accounts of the great\n fight between Locri and Kroton at the river Sagra: this was probably\n the origin of the Italian legends. See Preller, ii. 301.\n\nFootnote 1330:\n\n Albert, _le Culte de Castor et Pollux en Italie_, 1883. Cp.\n Furtw\u00e4ngler, l. c.\n\n\n\n\n MENSIS FEBRUARIUS\n\n\nThe name of the last month of the old Roman year is derived from\nthe word _februum_, usually understood as an instrument of\npurification[1331]. This word, and its derivatives were, as we\nshall see, best known in connexion with the Lupercalia, the most\nprominent of the festivals of the month. Now the ritual of the\nLupercalia seems to suggest that our word \u2018purification\u2019 does not\ncover all the ground occupied by the \u2018religio\u2019 of that festival;\nnor does it precisely suit some of the other rites of February. We\nare indeed here on difficult and dangerous ground. Certainly we\nmust not assume that there was any general lustration of the whole\npeople, or any period corresponding in religious intent to the\nChristian Lent, which in time only is descended from the Roman\nFebruary. Assuredly there were no such ideas as penitence or\nforgiveness of sins involved in the ritual of the month. Let so\nmuch be said for the benefit of those who are only acquainted with\nJewish or Christian history.\n\nWhat at least is certain is that at this time the character of the\nfestivals changes. Since the middle of December we have had a series of\njoyful gatherings of an agricultural people in homestead, market-place,\ncross-roads; now we find them fulfilling their duties to their dead\nancestors at the common necropolis, or engaged in a mysterious piacular\nrite under the walls of the oldest Rome. The Parentalia and the\nLupercalia are the characteristic rites of February; we shall see later\non whether any of the others can be brought into the same category. If\npleasure is the object of the mid-winter festivals, the fulfilment of\nduties towards the gods and the _manes_ would seem to be that of the\nsucceeding period.\n\nFrom an agricultural point of view February was a somewhat busy month;\nbut in the time of Varro the work was chiefly the preparatory operations\nin the culture of olives, vines and fruit-trees[1332]. The one great\noperation in the oldest and simplest agricultural system was the spring\nsowing. Spring was understood to begin on Feb. 7 (Favonius)[1333], and\nit is precisely at this point that the rites change their character. We\nare in fact close upon the new year, when the powers of vegetation awake\nand put on strength; but the Romans approached it as it were with\nhesitation, preparing for it carefully by steady devotion to work and\nduty, the whole community endeavouring to place itself in a proper\nposition toward the _numina_ of the land\u2019s fertility, and the dead\nreposing in the land\u2019s embrace.\n\nBefore taking the rites one by one, it will perhaps be as well to say a\nword in general about the nature of Roman expiatory rites, in order to\ndetermine in what sense we are to understand those of February.\n\nThe first point to notice is that these rites were applicable only to\n_involuntary_ acts of commission or omission\u2014an offence against the gods\n(nefas) if wittingly committed, was inexpiable. In this case the\noffender was _impius_, i. e. had wilfully failed in his duty; and him no\nrites could absolve[1334]. But by ordinary offences against the gods we\nare not to understand _sin_, in the Christian sense of the word; they\nwere rather mistakes in ritual, or involuntary omissions\u2014in fact any\nreal or supposed or possible errors in any of a man\u2019s relations to the\n_numina_ around him. He might always be putting himself in the wrong in\nregard to these relations, and he must as sedulously endeavour to right\nhimself. In the life of the \u2018privatus\u2019 these trespasses in sacred law\nwould chiefly be in matters of marriages and funerals and the regular\nsacrifices of the household; in the life of the magistrate they would be\nmistakes or omissions in his duties on behalf of the State[1335].\nWhether in private or public life, they must be duly expiated. It is\nneedless to point out how powerful a factor this belief must have been\nin the growth of a conscience and of the sense of duty; or how stringent\na \u2018religio\u2019 was that which, assuming that a man could hardly commit an\noffence except unwittingly, made the possible exceptional case fatal to\nhis position as a member of a community which depended for its wholesome\nexistence on the good will of the gods.\n\nRemembering that among the divine beings to whom it was most essential\nfor each family to fulfil its duties, were the _di manes_, or dead\nancestors and members of the family, we see at once that February with\nits Parentalia was an important month in the matter of expiatory rites.\nOvid, though suggesting a fancy derivation for the name of the month,\nexpresses this idea clearly enough:\n\n Aut quia _placatis_ sunt tempora pura sepulcris\n Tum cum ferales praeteriere dies[1336].\n\nBut the other etymology given by the poet is, as we have seen, the right\none, and may bring us to another class of _piacula_, of which we find an\nexample this month in the Lupercalia.\n\n Mensis ab his dictus, secta quia pelle Luperci\n Omne solum lustrant, idque piamen habent[1337].\n\nNot only was the Roman most careful to expiate involuntary offences, and\nalso to appease the wrath of the gods, if shown in any special active\nway, e.g. by lightning and many other prodigia[1338], but he also sought\nto avert evil influences _before-hand_, which might possibly emanate\nfrom hostile or offended _numina_. This religious object is well\nillustrated in the sacrifice of the _hostia praecidanea_, which was\noffered beforehand to make up for any involuntary errors in the ritual\nthat followed[1339]. But it is also seen in numerous other rites of\nwhich we have had many examples; all those, for instance, which included\na _lustratio_. We generally translate this word by \u2018purification\u2019; but\nit also involves the ideas of intercession, and of the removal of unseen\nhostile influences which may be likely to interfere with the health and\nprosperity of man, beast, or crop. At such rites special victims were\nsometimes offered, or the victim was treated in a peculiar manner; we\nfind, perhaps, some part of it used as a charm or potent spell, as the\nstrips of skin at the Lupercalia, or the ashes of the unborn calves at\nthe Fordicidia, or the tail and blood of the October horse[1340]. To the\nfirst of these, at least, if not to the other two, the word _februum_\nwas applied, and we may assume it of the others: also to many other\nobjects which had some magical power, and carry us back to a very remote\nreligious antiquity. Ovid gives a catalogue of them[1341]:\n\n Februa Romani dixere piamina patres,\n Nunc quoque dant verbo plurima signa fidem.\n Pontifices ab rege petunt et flamine _lanas_,\n Quis veterum lingua februa nomen erat.\n Quaeque capit lictor domibus purgamina \u2020ternis\u2020[1342]\n Torrida cum mica farra, vocantur idem.\n Nomen idem _ramo_, qui caesus ab arbore pura\n Casta sacerdotum tempora fronde tegit.\n Ipse ego flaminicam poscentem februa vidi:\n Februa poscenti _pinea virga_ data est.\n Denique quodcunque est, quo corpora nostra piantur,\n Hoc apud intonsos nomen habebat avos.\n\nObjects such as these, called by a name which is explained by _piamen_,\nor _purgamentum_, must have been understood as charms potent to keep off\nevil influences, and so to enable nature to take its ordinary course\nunhindered. Only in this sense can we call them instruments of\n_purification_.\n\nThe use of the _februa_ in the Lupercalia was, as we shall see, to\nprocure fertility in the women of the community. Here then, as well as\nin the rites of the Fornacalia and Parentalia, is some reason for\ncalling the month a period of purification; but only if we bear in mind\nthat at the Parentalia the process consisted simply in the performance\nof duties towards the dead, which freed or purified a man from their\npossible hostility; while at the Lupercalia the women were freed or\npurified from influences which might hinder them in the fulfilment of\ntheir natural duties to their families and the State. Beyond this it is\nnot safe to go in thinking of February as a month of expiation.\n\n\n KAL. FEB. IUNONI SOSPITAE. N.\n\n\nThis was the dedication-day of a temple of the great Lanuvian goddess,\nJuno Sospita, in the Forum olitorium[1343]. It was vowed in the year 197\nB.C. by the consul Cornelius Cethegus, but had fallen into decay in\nOvid\u2019s time[1344]. For the famous cult of this deity at Lanuvium, see\nRoscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 595.\n\n\n ID. FEB. FAUNO [I]N INSUL[A]. _C. I. L._ vi. 2302. NP.\n\n\nThis temple was vowed almost at the same time as the last, 296 B.C., by\nplebeian aediles; it was built by fines exacted from holders of ager\npublicus who had not paid their rents[1345]. See under Dec. 5, p. 257.\n\n\n FORNICALIA: FERIAE CONCEPTIVAE, ending Feb. 17.\n\n\nI have drawn attention to the change in the character of the festivals\nat this season. But before we go on to the Parentalia and Lupercalia,\nwhich chiefly mark this change, we have to consider one festival which\nseems to belong rather to the class which we found in December and\nJanuary. This was the Fornacalia, or feast of ovens; one which does not\nappear in the calendars, as it was a moveable feast (conceptivae); and\none which was a _sacrum publicum_ only in the sense of being pro curiis,\nas the Paganalia were pro pagis, the Septimontium pro montibus, and the\nArgean rite pro sacellis[1346]. Each curia conducted its own rites,\nunder the supervision of its curio and (for the last day) of the Curio\nMaximus[1347]: the great priests of the State had no official part in\nit. In this it differs in some degree from the Fordicidia (April 15),\nthe other feast of the curiae, which appears in three of our calendars,\nand in which the Pontifices and Vestals took some part[1348].\n\nThis is not the place to investigate the difficult question of what the\n_curiae_ really were. So much at least is clear, that while, like the\nmontes, pagi, and sacella (argea), they were divisions of the people and\nthe land, they were more important than the others, in that they formed\nthe basis of the earliest political and military organization[1349]. It\nneed hardly be said that each curia had also itself a religious\norganization: their places of assembly, though not temples, were\nquasi-religious buildings[1350], used for sacred purposes, but furnished\nwith hearth and eating-room like an ordinary house[1351]. We hear also\nof tables (mensae, \u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) \u2018in quibus immolabatur Iunoni quae Curis\nappellata est[1352].\u2019 There is no need to assume any etymological\nconnexion between C\u016dris and C\u016bria[1353]; but the cult of the goddess of\nthe spear is interesting here, as seeming at once to illustrate the\nmilitary importance of the curiae, the power of the paterfamilias[1354],\nand the necessity of continuing the family through the fertility of\nwoman, an idea which we shall come upon again at the Lupercalia[1355].\nLastly, each curia had its own curio, or religious superintendent, and\nits own flamen, and at the head of all the curiae was the Curio Maximus;\nofficers who coincide with the general character of the curiae in being\n(like the heads of families) not strictly priests, but capable of\nreligious duties, for the performance of which they are said to have\nbeen instituted[1356].\n\nThe ritual of the Fornacalia has been evolved with difficulty, and\nwithout much certainty, from a few passages in Ovid, Dionysius, Varro,\nFestus, and Pliny[1357]. We seem to see\u20141. An offering in each private\nhouse in each curia: it consisted of _far_, i. e. meal of the oldest\nkind of Italian wheat, roasted in antique fashion in the oven which was\nto be found in the _pistrina_ of each house, and made into cakes by\ncrushing in the manner still common in India and elsewhere[1358]. 2. A\nrite in which each curia took part as a whole. This is deduced from the\nfact that on the 17th (Quirinalia) any one who by forgetfulness or\nignorance had omitted to perform his sacra on the day fixed by the curio\nfor the meeting of his own curia, might do so then at a general assembly\nof all the thirty curiae[1359]. This was the reason why the Quirinalia\nwas called \u2018stultorum feriae.\u2019 It has also been conjectured that the\nbounds of each curia were beaten on this day, on which its members thus\nmet: for Pliny says \u2018Numa et Fornacalia instituit farris torrendi ferias\n_et aeque religiosas terminis agrorum_[1360].\u2019 3. What happened on the\nQuirinalia Ovid shall tell us himself[1361]:\n\n Curio legitimis nunc Fornacalia verbis\n Maximus indicit, nec stata sacra facit;\n Inque foro, multa circum pendente tabella,\n Signatur certa curia quaeque nota:\n Stultaque pars populi, quae sit sua curia, nescit,\n Sed facit extrema sacra relata die.\n\nIt should be noted that no certain connexion can be made out between\nQuirinus and curia, and I imagine it was only accident or convenience\nthat made this day the last of the Fornacalia[1362]. Ovid\u2019s words \u2018nec\nstata sacra facit\u2019 seem to me to imply that the Curio Maximus carefully\nabstained from using a formula of announcement likely to confuse the\n\u2018stultorum feriae\u2019 with the Quirinalia, which was always on the same\nday. But it may well have been the case that by usage the two coincided.\n\nOvid\u2019s lines make it clear that on the 17th (as a rule) the Forum was\nthe scene of a general meeting of curiae, each of which had a certain\nspace assigned it, indicated by a placard. Is it possible that this was\nmerely a survival of the assembly of the armed host in comitia curiata,\nnow used only for religious purposes? If so, the tendency to fix it on\nthe festival of Quirinus might find a natural explanation.\n\nThe meaning and object of the Fornacalia are very far from being clear.\nPreller[1363] fancied it was the occasion of the first eating of the\nfruits of the last harvest: but it is hardly possible to imagine this\npostponed as late as February. On the other hand Dionysius\u2019\ndescription[1364], already quoted, of what he saw in the curiae, would\nsuit this well enough if it could be set down to a suitable time of\nyear: it suggests a common meal, in which the first fruits are offered\nto the god, while the worshippers eat of the new grain. But this cannot\nhave been in February. Steuding (in the _Lex._) suggests that the object\nwas to thank the gods for preserving the corn through the winter, and to\npray for the welfare of the seed still in the ground (i. e. in a\nlustratio). Ovid says (though Steuding does not quote him)\n\n Facta dea est Fornax: laeti Fornace coloni\n Orant, ut fruges temperet illa suas[1365].\n\nBut neither Steuding\u2019s conjecture, nor the German parallels he appeals\nto, seem convincing. I am rather inclined to think that the making of\ncakes in each household was simply a preliminary to the _sacra_ that\nfollowed in the curia, i. e. each family brought its contribution to a\ncommon religious meal. The roasting was naturally accompanied by an\noffering to the spirit of the oven[1366] (fornax); hence the name\nFornacalia. The object of the sacra in the curia is doubtful; but they\nprobably had some relation to the land and its fertility, in view of the\nnew year about to begin. Of the final meeting of all the curiae in the\nforum I have already suggested an explanation: the phrase \u2018stultorum\nferiae\u2019 was, in my opinion, of late origin, and illustrates the\ndiminishing importance of the curiate organization after the admission\nof plebeians[1367].\n\n\n ID. FEB. (FEB. 13). NP.\n\n\nVIRGO VESTALIS PARENTAT. (PHIL.)\n\nPARENTATIO TUMULORUM INCIPIT. (SILV.)\n\n\nThe _dies parentales_, or days of worshipping the dead (placandis\nManibus), began at the sixth hour on this day, and continued either to\nthe 21st (Feralia), or the 22nd (cara cognatio)[1368]. The parentatio of\nthe Vestal was at the tomb of Tarpeia, herself a Vestal[1369].\nUndoubtedly, the Feralia (21st) was the oldest and the best known of\nthese days, and the only one which was a public festival: it appears in\nthree calendars (Caer. Maff. Farn.) in large letters. Yet there is\nreason for believing that even the Feralia was not the oldest day for\nworshipping the manes: it was in part at least a dies fastus, and none\nof the dies parentales are marked N in the calendars; and this,\naccording to Mommsen[1370], shows that the rites of those days were of\nlater origin than those of the Lemuria (May 9-13), which are all marked\nN. This seems also to have been the opinion of Latin scholars[1371].\n\nWhatever the Lemuria may have been, it is certain that the Parentalia\nwere not days of terror or ill-omen; but rather days on which the\nperformance of duty was the leading idea in men\u2019s minds. Nor was the\nduty an unpleasant one. There was a general holiday: the dead to be\npropitiated had been duly buried in the family tomb in the great\nnecropolis, had been well cared for since their departure, and were\nstill members of the family. There was nothing to fear from them, so\nlong as the living members performed their duties towards them under the\nsupervision of the State and its Pontifices[1372]. They had their\n_iura_, and the relations between them and their living relations were\nall regulated by a _ius sacrum_: they lived on in their city outside the\nwalls of the city of the living[1373], each family in their own\ndwelling: they did not interfere with the comfort of the living, or in\nany way show themselves hostile or spiteful. Such ideas as these are of\ncourse the result of a well developed city life; experience has taught\nthe citizen how his conduct towards the Di Manes can best be regulated\nand organized for the benefit of both parties. The Parentalia belong to\na later stage of development than the Lemuria, though both have the same\noriginal basis of thought. The Parentalia was practically a yearly\nrenewal of the rite of burial. As _sacra privata _they took place on the\nanniversary of the death of a deceased member of the family, and it was\na special charge on the heir that he should keep up their\nobservance[1374]. On that day the family would go in procession to the\ngrave, not only to see that all was well with him who abode there, but\nto present him with offerings of water, wine, milk, honey, oil, and the\nblood of black victims[1375]: to deck the tomb with flowers[1376], to\nutter once more the solemn greeting and farewell (Salve, sancte parens),\nto partake of a meal with the dead, and to petition them for good\nfortune and all things needful. This last point comes out clearly in\nVirgil\u2019s picture:\n\n Poscamus ventos, atque haec me sacra quotannis\n Urbe velit posita templis sibi ferre dicatis.\n\nThe true meaning of these lines is, as Henry quaintly puts it[1377],\n\u2018Let us try if we cannot kill two birds with one stone, and not only pay\nmy sire the honours due to him, but at the same time help ourselves\nforward on our journey by getting him to give us fair winds for our\nvoyage.\u2019\n\nAs we have seen, the dies parentales began on the 13th; from that day\ntill the 21st all temples were closed, marriages were forbidden, and\nmagistrates appeared without their insignia[1378]. On the 22nd was the\nfamily festival of the _Caristia_, or _cara cognatio_: the date of its\norigin is unknown, but Ovid[1379] writes of it as well established in\nhis time, and it may be very much older. He describes it as a reunion of\nthe living members of the family after they have paid their duties to\nthe dead:\n\n Scilicet a tumulis et qui periere, propinquis\n Protinus ad vivos ora referre iuvat;\n Postque tot amissos quicquid de sanguine restat,\n Aspicere, et generis dinumerare gradus.\n\nIt was a kind of love-feast of the family, and gives a momentary glimpse\nof the gentler side of Roman family life. All quarrels were to be\nforgotten[1380] in a general harmony: no guilty or cruel member may be\npresent[1381]. The centre of the worship was the Lares of the family,\nwho were \u2018incincti,\u2019 and shared in the sacred meal[1382].\n\nWe might naturally expect that, especially in Italy\u2014so tenacious of old\nideas and superstitions\u2014we should find some survival of primitive\nfolk-lore, even in the midst of this highly organized civic cult of the\ndead. Ovid supplies us with a curious contrast to the ethical beauty of\nthe Caristia, in describing the spells which an old woman works,\napparently on the day of the Feralia[1383]. \u2018An old hag sitting among\nthe girls performs rites to Tacita: with three fingers she places three\nbits of incense at the entrance of a mouse-hole. Muttering a spell, she\nweaves woollen threads on a web of dark colour, and mumbles seven black\nbeans in her mouth. Then she takes a fish, the _maena_, smears its head\nwith pitch, sews its mouth up, drops wine upon it, and roasts it before\nthe fire: the rest of the wine she drinks with the girls. Now, quoth\nshe, we have bound the mouth of the enemy:\n\n Hostiles linguas inimicaque vinximus ora,\n Dicit discedens, ebriaque exit anus.\u2019\n\nIn spite of the names of deities we find here, Tacita and Dea\nMuta[1384], and of the pretty story of the mother of the Lares which the\npoet\u2019s fancy has added to it, it is plain that this is no more than one\nof a thousand savage spells for counteracting hostile spirits[1385]. The\npicture is interesting, as showing the survival of witchcraft in the\ncivilized Rome of Ovid\u2019s time, and reminds us of the horrible hags in\nHorace\u2019s fifth epode; but it may be doubted whether it has any real\nconnexion with the Feralia. Doubtless its parallel could be found even\nin the Italy of today[1386].\n\n\n XV. KAL. MART. (FEB. 15). NP.\n\n\nLUPER(CALIA). (CAER. MAFF. FARN. PHILOC. SILV. AND RUSTIC CALENDARS.)\n\n\nThere is hardly another festival in the calendar so interesting and so\nwell known as this. Owing to the singular interest attaching to its\ncelebration in B.C. 44, only a month before Caesar\u2019s death, we are\nunusually well informed as to its details; but these present great\ndifficulties in interpretation, which the latest research has not\naltogether overcome[1387]. I shall content myself with describing it,\nand pointing out such explanations of ritual as seem to be fairly well\nestablished.\n\nOn Feb. 15 the celebrants of this ancient rite met at the cave called\nthe Lupercal, at the foot of the steep south-western corner of the\nPalatine Hill\u2014the spot where, according to the tradition, the flooded\nTiber had deposited the twin children at the foot of the sacred\nfig-tree[1388], and where they were nourished by the she-wolf. The name\nof the cave is almost without doubt built up from _lupus_, \u2018a\nwolf\u2019[1389]; but we cannot be equally sure whether the name of the\nfestival is derived directly from Lupercal, or on the analogy of\nQuirinalia, Volcanalia, and others, from Lupercus, the alleged name of\nthe deity concerned in the rites, and also of the celebrants\nthemselves[1390]. In any case we are fairly justified in calling this\nthe wolf-festival; the more so as the wolf was the sacred animal of\nMars, who was in a special sense the god of the earliest settlers on the\nPalatine[1391].\n\nThe first act of the festival seems to have been the sacrifice of goats\n(we are not told how many), and of a dog[1392]; and at the same time\nwere offered sacred cakes made by the Vestals, from the first ears of\nlast year\u2019s harvest. This was the last batch of the _mola salsa_, some\nof which had been used at the Vestalia in June, and some on the Ides of\nSeptember[1393].\n\nNext, two youths of high rank, belonging, we may suppose, one to each of\nthe two collegia of Luperci (of which more directly), were brought\nforward; these had their foreheads smeared with the knife bloody from\nthe slaughter of the victims, and then wiped with wool dipped in milk.\nAs soon as this was done they were obliged to laugh. Then they girt\nthemselves with the skins of the slaughtered goats, and feasted\nluxuriously[1394]; after which they ran round the base of the Palatine\nHill, or at least a large part of its circuit, apparently in two\ncompanies, one led by each of the two youths. As they ran they struck at\nall the women who came near them or offered themselves to their blows,\nwith strips of skin cut from the hides of the same victims; which\nstrips, as we have seen, were among the objects which were called by the\npriests _februa_.\n\nHere, in what at first sight looks like a grotesque jumble, there are\ntwo clearly distinguishable elements; (1) an extremely primitive ritual,\nprobably descended from the pastoral stage of society; (2) a certain\nco-ordination of this with definite local settlements. The sacrifices,\nthe smearing and wiping, the wearing of the skins, and the striking with\nthe _februa_, all seem to be survivals from a very early stage of\nreligious conceptions; but the two companies of runners, and their\ncourse round the Palatine, which apparently followed the most ancient\nline of the pomoerium, bring us into touch with the beginning and with\nthe development of urban life. Surviving through the whole Republican\nperiod, with a tenacity which the Roman talent for organization alone\ncould give it, the Lupercalia was still further developed for his own\npurposes by the dictator Caesar, and thenceforward lived on for\ncenturies under his successors into the age of imperial Christianity.\n\nLet us now examine the several acts of the festival, to see how far they\nadmit of explanation under the light of modern research into primitive\nideas and ritual.\n\nIt began, as we saw, with the sacrifice of goats and a dog. Unluckily we\ncannot be sure of the god to whom they were offered, nor of the\nsacrificing priest. According to Ovid[1395] the deity was Faunus;\naccording to Livy it was a certain mysterious Inuus, of whom hardly\nanything else is known[1396], though much has been written. There was no\nLupercus, as some have vainly imagined; much less any such combination\nas Faunus Lupercus, which has been needlessly created out of a passage\nof Justin[1397]. Liber is suggested by Servius[1398]; who adds that\nothers fancied it was a \u2018bellicosus deus.\u2019 Recently Juno has been\nsuggested, because the strips which the runners carried were called\n\u2018Iunonis amiculum\u2019[1399]. Thus it is quite plain that the Roman of the\nliterary age did not know who the god was. The common idea that he was\nFaunus is discredited by Livy\u2019s account and his mention of Inuus, and\nalso by the fact that Faunus is not associated with urban settlements:\nand may easily be accounted for by the myth of Evander and the\nArcadians, whose Pan Lycaeus was of course identified with Faunus[1400],\nor by the girding of the Luperci with skins, which made them resemble\nthe popular conception of the Fauni[1401]. Possibly the name was a\nsecret; for there was a tendency to avoid fixing a god\u2019s name in ritual,\nin order to escape making mistakes, and so offending him. \u2018Iure\npontificum cautum est ne suis nominibus dii Romani appellarentur, ne\nexaugurari possint[1402].\u2019 We must also remember that the Lupercalia\nundoubtedly descends from the very earliest period of the Roman\nreligion, when the individuality of deities was not clearly conceived,\nand when their names were unknown, doubtful, or adjectival only. In\nfact, we need not greatly trouble ourselves about the name of the god:\nhis nature is deducible to some extent from the ritual. The connexion\nwith the Palatine, with the wolf, and with fructification, seems to me\nto point very clearly in the direction of Mars and his characteristics.\n\nIt would be almost more profitable if we could be sure of the\nsacrificing priest; but here again we are in the dark. Ovid says,\n\u2018Flamen ad haec prisco more Dialis erat[1403]\u2018; but it is impossible\nthat this priest could have been the sacrificer (though Marquardt\ncommitted himself to this), for he was expressly forbidden to touch\neither goat or dog[1404], which seem to have been excluded from the cult\nof Jupiter. Even in the case of such exceptional _piacula_ as this no\ndoubt was, we can hardly venture without further evidence to ascribe the\nslaughter of the sacred animal to the great priest of the heavenly deity\nin whose cult it was tabooed. Plutarch says that the Luperci themselves\nsacrificed[1405]; and this is more probable, and is borne out by\ncomparison with other cases in which the priest clothes himself, as the\nLuperci did, in the skin of the victim. It does not indeed seem certain\nthat the two youths who thus girt themselves had also performed the\nsacrifice; but they represent the two collegia of Luperci, and lead the\nrace[1406], as Romulus and Remus did in the explanatory legend.\n\nAs regards the victims, there is here at least no doubt that both goat\nand dog were exceptional animals in sacrifice[1407], and that their use\nhere betokens a piacular rite of unusual \u2018holiness.\u2019 Thus their offering\nis a mystic sacrifice, and belongs to that \u2018small class of exceptional\nrites in which the victim was drawn from some species of animals that\nretained even in modern times their ancient repute of natural\nholiness[1408].\u2019 It is exactly in this kind of sacrifice that we find\nsuch peculiar points of ritual as meet us in the Lupercalia. \u2018The victim\nis sacrosanct, and the peculiar value of the ceremony lies in the\noperation performed on its life, whether that life is merely conveyed to\nthe god on the altar (i. e. as in burnt-sacrifices) or is also applied\nto the worshippers by the sprinkling of the blood, or some other lustral\nceremony[1409].\u2019 The writer might very well have been thinking of the\nLupercalia when he wrote these lines. The meaning of these rites was\noriginally, as he states it, that the holiness of the victim means\nkinship to the worshippers and their god, \u2018that all sacred relations and\nall moral obligations depend on physical unity of life, and that\nphysical unity of life can be created or reinforced by common\nparticipation in living flesh and blood.\u2019 We may postpone consideration\nof this view as applied to the Lupercalia till we have examined the\nremaining features of the ceremony.\n\nAfter the sacrifice was completed, Plutarch[1410] tells us that the\nforeheads of the two youths were touched with the bloody knife that had\nslain the victims, and the stain was then wiped off with wool dipped in\nmilk, after which the youths had to laugh. This has often been supposed\nto indicate an original human sacrifice[1411], the he-goats being\nsubstituted for human victims, and the death of the latter symbolized by\nthe smearing with their blood. This explanation might be admissible if\nthis were the only feature of the ceremony; but it is so entirely out of\nkeeping with those that follow\u2014the wearing of the skins and the\nrunning\u2014that it is preferable to look for another before adopting it. At\nthe same time it may be observed that no reasonable hypothesis can be\nruled out of court where our knowledge of the rite is so meagre and so\nhard to bring satisfactorily into harmony with others occurring among\nother peoples[1412].\n\nThere is a curious passage in Apollonius Rhodius[1413], where\npurification from a murder is effected by smearing the hands of the\nmurderer with the blood of a young pig, and then wiping it off \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03cd\u03c4\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9; and the Scholiast on the lines describes a somewhat similar\nmethod of purification which was practised in Greece. This would raise a\npresumption that the youths were not originally the victims at the\nLupercalia, but rather the slayers; and that they had to be purified\nfrom the guilt of the blood of the sacrosanct victim[1414]. When this\nwas done they became one with the victim and the god by the girding on\nof the skins, and were able to communicate the new life thus acquired in\nthe course of their lustratio of the city by means of the strips of skin\nto the women who met them. This explanation is open to one or two\nobjections; for example, it hardly accounts for the laughter of the\nyouths, unless we are to suppose that it was an expression of joy at\ntheir release from blood-guiltiness[1415]. And we have indeed no direct\nevidence that the youths were ever themselves the sacrificers, though\nthe collateral evidence on this point, as I have already said, seems to\nbe fairly strong[1416]. Yet I cannot but think that the true\nsignificance of the essential features of the ceremony is to be looked\nfor somewhere in the direction thus indicated.\n\nThere is, however, another explanation of the application of the bloody\nknife, the wiping, and the laughing, which Mannhardt proposed, not\nwithout some modest hesitation, in his posthumous work[1417]. In his\nview these were symbolic or quasi-dramatic acts, signifying death and\nrenewed life. The youths were never actually killed, but they were the\nfigures in a kind of acted parable. The smearing with blood denoted that\nthey partook of the death of the victim[1418]; the wiping with milky\nwool signified the revival to a new life, for milk is the source of\nlife. The laughing is the outward sign of such revival: the dead are\nsilent, cannot laugh[1419]. And the meaning of all this was the death\nand the revival of the Vegetation-spirit. I have already more than once\nprofited by Mannhardt\u2019s researches into this type of European custom,\nand they are now familiar to Englishmen in the works of Mr. Frazer, Mr.\nFarnell, and others. Undoubtedly there are many bits of grotesque custom\nwhich can best be explained if we suppose them to mean the death of the\nPower of growth at harvest-time, or its resuscitation in the spring,\nperhaps after the death of the powers of winter and darkness. But\nwhether the Lupercalia is one of these I cannot be so sure. These rites\ndo not seem to have any obvious reference to _crops_, but rather to have\ncome down from the pastoral stage of society: and it is not in this case\nthe _fields_ which are lustrated by the runners, but the _urbs_ and its\nwomen[1420]. And the earlier parts of the ritual bear the marks of a\n_piaculum_ so distinctly that it seems unnecessary and confusing to\nintroduce into it a different set of ideas.\n\nThere is a similar divergence of opinion in explaining the next feature,\nthe wearing of the skins of the victims[1421]. Dr. Mannhardt believed\nthat this was one of the innumerable instances in which, at certain\ntimes of the year, animals are personated by human beings, e. g. at\nChristmas, at the beginning of Lent (Carnival), and at harvest. These he\nexplained as representations of the Vegetation-spirit, which was\nconceived to be dead in winter, to come to life in spring, and at\nharvest to die again, and which was believed to assume all kinds of\nanimal forms. This has been generally accepted as explaining several\ncurious rites both in Greece and Italy, e. g. that of the Hirpi Sorani\nat Soracte not far from Rome[1422]. But it is a question whether it will\nequally well explain the Luperci and their goat-skins. In this case\nMannhardt is driven to somewhat far-fetched hypotheses; he derives\nLupercus from _lupus-hircus_[1423] (p. 90), and suggests that the two\ncollegia represented respectively wolves and goats, according to the\nview of the Vegetation-spirit taken by the two communities of Palatine\nand Quirinal[1424]. But this solution, the result of a bias in favour of\nhis favourite Vegetation-spirit, does not strike us as happy, and Dr.\nMannhardt himself does not seem well pleased with it[1425].\n\nIt would seem safer to take this as one of the many well-known _piacula_\nin which the worshipper wears the skin of a very holy victim, thereby\nentering sacramentally into the very nature of the god to whom the\nvictim is sacrificed[1426]. Whether or no we are to look for the origin\nof these practices in a totemistic age, is a question that cannot be\ndiscussed here; and there is no sign of totemism in the Lupercalia save\nthis one[1427].\n\nBut if this be the right explanation, what, we may ask, was meant by the\nname Luperci? If it meant wolves, are we not rather thrown back on\nMannhardt\u2019s theory? To this it may be answered; (1) that no classical\nauthor suggests that the runners were looked upon as representing\nwolves; by the common people we are told that they were called\n_creppi_[1428], the meaning of which is quite uncertain, though it has\nbeen explained as = _capri_, and as simply arising from the fact that\nthe runners were clad in goat-skins[1429]. There is in fact no necessary\nconnexion at all between the skins and the name Luperci. If that name\noriginally meant wolf-priests, its explanation is to be found rather in\nconnexion with the wolf of Mars, and the cave of the she-wolf, than in\nthe skins of the sacrificed goats, which were worn by only two members\nof the two collegia bearing the name.\n\nWe must now turn our attention to the last features of the festival; the\ncourse taken by the runners round the Palatine Hill, and the whipping of\nwomen with the strips of sacred skin. The two youths, having girded on\nthe skins (though otherwise naked) and also cut strips from them,\nproceeded to run a course which seems almost certainly to have followed\nthat of the pomoerium at the foot of the Palatine. The starting-point\nwas the Lupercal, or a point near it, and Tacitus[1430] has described\nthe course of the pomoerium as far as the \u2018sacellum Larum forumque\nRomanum\u2019: in his day it was marked out by stones (\u2018cippi\u2019). We are\nconcerned with it here only so far as it affects the question whether\nthe running was a _lustratio_ of the Palatine city. The last points\nmentioned by Tacitus, the \u2018sacellum Larum, forumque Romanum[1431],\u2019 show\nplainly that the course was round the Palatine from south-west to\nnorth-east, but they do not bring the runners back to the point from\nwhich they started, and complete the circle[1432]. Varro is, however,\nquite clear that the running was a _lustratio_: \u2018Lupercis nudis\nlustratur antiquum oppidum Palatinum gregibus humanis cinctum.\u2019 The\npassage is obscure, and attempts have been made to amend it; but there\ncan be no doubt that it points to a religious ceremony[1433].\n\nThis lustratio, then, as we may safely call it, was at the same time a\nbeating of the bounds and a rite of purification and fertilization. Just\nas the peeled wands of our Oxford bound-beaters on Ascension Day[1434]\nmay perhaps have originally had a use parallel to that of the _februa_,\nso the parish boundaries correspond to the Roman pomoerium. We have\nalready had examples of processional bound-beating in the rites of the\nArgei and the Ambarvalia; in all there is the same double object\u2014the\ncombination of a religious with a juristic act; but the Lupercalia\nstands alone in the quaintness of its ritual, and may probably be the\noldest of all.\n\nBefore we go on to the _februa_ and their use, mention must be made of a\ndifficulty in regard to the duality of the collegia of Luperci and the\nrunners. These have been supposed to have originated from two gentile\npriesthoods of the Fabii and Quinctii[1435]; and as we know that the\ngens Fabia had a cult on the Quirinal[1436], it is conjectured that the\nLuperci Fabiani represented the Sabine city, and the Quinctiales the\nRomans of the Palatine, just as we also find two collegia of Salii, viz.\nPalatini and Collini[1437]. If, however, the running of the Luperci was\nreally a lustratio of the Palatine, we must suppose that the lustratio\nof the Quirinal city by its own Luperci was given up and merged in that\nof the older settlement[1438]; and such an abandonment of a local rite\nwould be most surprising in Roman antiquity. It is true that there is no\nother explanation of the existence of the two guilds; but we may\nhesitate to accept this one, if we have to pay for it by so bold a\nhypothesis[1439].\n\nThe last point to be noticed, the whipping with the strips of\nskin[1440], might have attracted little notice as a relic of antiquity\nin the late Republic but for the famous incident in the life of Caesar,\nwhen Antonius was one of the runners. We have it on excellent evidence,\nnot only that the runners struck women who met them with the strips, but\nthat they did so in order to produce fertility[1441]. Such an\nexplanation of the object would hardly have been invented, and it\ntallies closely with some at least of a great number of practices of the\nkind which have been investigated by Mannhardt[1442]. His parallel are\nnot indeed all either complete or convincing; but the collection is\nvaluable for many purposes, and the general result is to show that\nwhipping certain parts of the body with some instrument supposed to\npossess magic power is efficacious in driving away the powers of evil\nthat interfere with fertilization. Whether the thing beaten be man,\nwoman, image, or human or animal representative of the Vegetation\nspirit, the object is always more or less directly to quicken or restore\nthe natural powers of reproduction; the notion being that the hostile or\nhindering spirit was thus driven out, or that the beating actually woke\nup and energized the power. The latter is perhaps a later idea,\nrationalized from the earlier. In any case the thongs, as part of the\nsacrosanct victim, were supposed to possess a special magical\npower[1443]; and the word applied to them, _februa_, though not meaning\nstrictly instruments of purification in our sense of the word, may be\ntranslated _cathartic_ objects, since they had power to free from\nhostile influences and quicken natural forces. And those who wielded\nthem were regarded in some at least as priests or magicians; they were\nnaked but for the goat-skins, and probably had wreaths on their\nheads[1444]. Their wild and lascivious behaviour as they ran is\nparalleled in many ceremonies of the kind[1445].\n\nIt is singular that a festival of a character so rude and rustic should\nhave lived on in the great city for centuries after it had become\ncosmopolitan and even Christian. This is one of the many results due to\nthe religious enterprise of Augustus, who rebuilt the decayed Lupercal,\nand set the feast on a new footing[1446]. It continued to exist down to\nthe year 494 A.D. when the Pope, Gelasius I, changed the day (Feb. 15)\nto that of the Purification of the Virgin Mary[1447].\n\n\n XIII KAL. MART. (Feb. 17). NP.\n\n\nQUIR[INALIA]. (CAER. MAFF. FARN. PHILOC.)\n\nQUIRINO IN COLLE. (FARN. CAER.)\n\n\nHow the festival of Quirinus came to be placed at this time I cannot\nexplain: we know nothing of it, and cannot assume that it was of an\nexpiatory character, like the Lupercalia preceding it, and the Feralia\nfollowing. Of the temple \u2018in colle\u2019 we also know nothing[1448] that can\nhelp us. We have already learnt that this day was called \u2018stultorum\nferiae,\u2019 and why; but the conjunction of the last day of the sacra of\nthe curiae with those of Quirinus is probably accidental; we cannot\nsafely assume any connexion through the word \u2018curia.\u2019 The name\nQuirinalia was familiar enough[1449]; but it may be that it only\nsurvived through the _stultorum feriae_.\n\nThe Roman of the later Republic identified Quirinus with Romulus;\nVirgil, e. g. in the first _Aeneid_ (292) speaks of \u2018Remo cum fratre\nQuirinus[1450].\u2019 We have no clue to the origin of this identification.\nIt may have been suggested by the use of the name Quirites; but neither\ndo we know when or why that name came to signify the Roman people in\ntheir civil capacity, and the etymology of these words and their\nrelation to each other still entirely baffles research[1451].\n\nThere is, however, a general agreement that Quirinus was another form\nof Mars, having his abode on the hill which still goes by his name.\nThat Mars and Quirinus were ever the same deities was indeed denied by\nso acute an inquirer as Ambrosch[1452]; but he denied it partly on the\nground that no trace of the worship of Mars had been found on the\nQuirinal; and since his time two inscriptions have been found there on\nthe same spot, one at least of great antiquity, which indicate votive\nofferings to Mars and Quirinus respectively[1453]. From these Mommsen\nconcludes that Quirinus was at one time worshipped there under the\nname of Mars; which involves also the converse, that Mars was once\nworshipped under the adjectival cult-title Quirinus. Unluckily Mars\nQuirinus is a combination as yet undiscovered; and as the existence of\na patrician Flamen Quirinalis distinct from the Flamen Martialis\npoints at least to a very early differentiation of the two, it may be\nsafer to think of the two, not as identical deities, but rather as\nequivalent cult-expressions of the same religious conception in two\nclosely allied communities[1454].\n\nThat the Quirinal was the seat of the cult of Quirinus admits of no\ndoubt; and the name of the hill, which we are told was originally Agonus\nor Agonalis[1455], arose no doubt from the cult[1456]. Here were\nprobably two temples of the god, the one dating from B.C. 293, and\nhaving June 29 as its day of dedication; the other of unknown date,\nwhich celebrated its birthday on the Quirinalia[1457]. A \u2018sacellum\nQuirini in colle\u2019 is also mentioned at the time of the Gallic\ninvasion[1458] (this was perhaps the predecessor of the temple of June\n29), and also the house of the Flamen Quirinalis which adjoined it. To\nthe Quirinal also belong the Salii Agonenses, Collini, or Quirinales,\nwho correspond to the Salii of the Palatine and of Mars[1459]. And here,\nlastly, seems to belong the mysterious Flora or Horta Quirini, whose\ntemple, according to Plutarch[1460], was \u2018formerly\u2019 always open. About\nthe cult of Quirinus on his hill we know, however, nothing, except that\nthere were two myrtles growing in front of his temple, one called the\npatrician and the other the plebeian[1461], and to which a curious story\nis attached. Preller[1462] noted that these correspond to the two\nlaurels in the _sacrarium Martis_ in the Regia, and conjectured that\neach pair symbolized the union of the state in the cults of the two\ncommunities.\n\nOf the duties of the Flamen Quirinalis we have already seen\nsomething[1463]: unluckily they throw little or no new light on the cult\nof Quirinus. He was concerned in the worship of Robigus, of Consus, and\nof Acca Larentia, all of them ancient cults of agricultural Rome; and he\nseems to have been in close connexion with the Vestal Virgins[1464].\nThese are just such duties as we might have expected would fall to the\nFlamen of Mars; and probably the two cults were much alike in character.\n\n\n VII KAL. MART. (FEB. 23.) NP.\n\n\nTER[MINALIA]. (CAER. MAFF. RUST. PHILOC. SILV.)\n\n\nWas there any connexion between the Terminalia and the end of the year?\nThe Roman scholars thought so; Varro[1465] writes, \u2018Terminalia quod is\ndies anni extremus constitutus; duodecimus enim fuit Februarius, et quum\nintercalatur, inferiores quinque dies duodecimo demuntur mense.\u2019 So\nOvid,\n\n Tu quoque sacrorum, Termine, finis eras.\n\nBut Terminus is the god of the boundaries of land, and has nothing to do\nwith time; and the Terminalia is not the last festival of the year in\nthe oldest calendars. The Romans must have been misled by the\ncoincidence of the day of Terminus with the last day before\nintercalation. The position in the year of the rites to be described\nseems parallel to that of the Compitalia and Paganalia, which were\nconcerned with matters of common interest to a society of farmers: and\nwe may remember that Pliny[1466] said of the Fornacalia that it was\n\u2018farris torrendi feriae et _aeque religiosae terminis agrorum_.\u2019\n\nThe ritual of the Terminalia in the country districts is described by\nOvid[1467]. The two landowners garlanded each his side of the\nboundary-stone, and all offerings were double[1468]. An altar is made;\nand fire is carried from the hearth by the farmer\u2019s wife, while the old\nman cuts up sticks and builds them in a framework of stout stakes. Then\nwith dry bark the fire is kindled; from a basket, held ready by a\nboy[1469], the little daughter of the family thrice shakes the fruits of\nthe earth into the fire, and offers cakes of honey. Others stand by with\nwine; and the neighbours (or dependants) look on in silence and clothed\nin white. A lamb is slain, and a sucking-pig, and the boundary-stone\nsprinkled with their blood; and the ceremony ends with a feast and songs\nin praise of holy Terminus.\n\nThis rite was, no doubt, practically a yearly renewal of that by which\nthe stone was originally fixed in its place. The latter is described by\nthe gromatic writer Siculus Flaccus[1470]. Fruits of the earth, and the\nbones, ashes, and blood of a victim which had been offered were put into\na hole by the two (or three) owners whose land converged at the point,\nand the stone was rammed down on the top and carefully fixed. The reason\ngiven for this was of course that the stone might be identified in the\nfuture, e. g. by an arbiter, if one should be called in[1471]; but it\nalso reminds us of the practice of burying the remains of a\nvictim[1472], and the use of the blood shows the extreme sanctity of the\noperation.\n\nThat the stone was regarded as the dwelling-place of a _numen_ is proved\nby the fact that it was sprinkled with blood and garlanded[1473]; and\nthe development of a god Terminus is perfectly in keeping with Roman\nreligious ideas. It is more difficult to determine what was the relation\nof this Terminus to the great Jupiter who was so intimately associated,\nas we have seen[1474] with the idea of keeping faith with your\nneighbours. Was he the _numen_ originally thought to occupy the stone,\nand is the name Terminus, as marking a distinct deity, a later growth? I\nam disposed to think that this was so; for we saw that there is some\nreason to believe that Jupiter did not disdain to dwell in objects such\nas trees and stones, and there is no need to look to Greece for the\norigin of his connexion with boundaries[1475]. But Jupiter and Terminus\nremained on the whole distinct; and a Jupiter Terminus or Terminalis is\nfirst found on the coins of Varro the great scholar, probably in B.C.\n76[1476].\n\nThe close connexion of the two is seen in the legend that when Jupiter\nwas to be introduced into the great Capitoline temple, from the\nCapitolium vetus on the Quirinal, all the gods made way for him but\nTerminus[1477].\n\n Quid nova cum fierent Capitolia? nempe deorum\n Cuncta Iovi cessit turba, locumque dedit.\n Terminus, ut veteres memorant, inventus in aede\n Restitit, et magno cum love templa tenet.\n\nThis, as Preller truly observes, is only a poetical way of expressing\nhis stubbornness, and his close relation to Jupiter, with whom he\ncontinued to share the great temple. It seems certain that there was in\nthat temple a stone supposed to be that of Terminus, over which there\nwas a hole in the roof[1478]: for all sacrifice to Terminus must be made\nin the open air.\n\n Nunc quoque, se supra ne quid nisi sidera cernat,\n Exiguum templi tecta foramen habent[1479].\n\nPrecisely the same feature is found in the cult of Semo Sancus or Dius\nFidius[1480], who was concerned with oaths and treaties; and of Hercules\nwe are told that the oath taken in his name must be taken out of\ndoors[1481].\n\nOf the stone itself we know nothing. It is open to us to guess that it\nwas originally a boundary-stone, perhaps between the ager of the\nPalatine city and that of the Quirinal. The mons Capitolinus seems to\nhave been neutral ground, as we may guess by the tradition of the asylum\nthere; it was outside the pomoerium, and in the early Republic was the\nproperty of the priestly collegia[1482]. It was, therefore, a very\nappropriate place for a terminus between two communities[1483].\n\nFrom Ovid (679 foll.) we gather that there was a terminus-stone at the\nsixth milestone on the via Laurentina, at which public sacrifices were\nmade, perhaps on the day of the Terminalia: this was probably at one\ntime the limit of the ager Romanus in that direction.\n\n\n VI KAL. MART. (FEB. 24). N.\n\n\nREGIF[UGIUM], (CAER. MAFF. PHILOC.) REGIFUGIUM, CUM TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS\nFERTUR AB URBE EXPULSUS. (SILV.)\n\n\nThis note of Silvius is based on a very old and natural misapprehension.\nOvid[1484], and probably most Romans, believed that the expulsion of\nTarquin was commemorated on this day. There is, however, strong indirect\nevidence to show that the \u2018flight of the king\u2019 on Feb. 24 was something\nvery different.\n\n1. We have already had a \u2018flight of the people\u2019 (Poplifugia) on July 5;\nand we saw that this was probably a purificatory rite of which the\nmeaning had been lost\u2014the sacrifice perhaps of a sacred animal followed\nby the flight of the crowd as from a murder. It seems impossible, at any\nrate unwise, to separate Poplifugia and Regifugium in general meaning,\nfor there is no other parallel to them in the calendar. Both were\nexplained historically by the Romans, because in both the obscure (and\nperhaps obsolete) religious rite was inexplicable otherwise; and we must\nalso endeavour to treat both on the same principle.\n\n2. It seems pretty clear that Verrius Flaccus did not believe in the\nhistorical explanation of the Regifugium. In Festus, page 278, we find a\nmutilated gloss which evidently refers to this day, and is thus\ncompleted by Mommsen[1485]:\u2014\n\n_[Regifugium notatur in fastis dies a.d.] vi kal. [Mart. qui creditur\nsic dict]us quia [eo die Tarquinius rex fugerit ex urbe]. Quod fal[sum\nest; nam e castris in exilium abisse cum r]ettul[erunt annales. Rectius\nexplicabit qui regem e]t Salios[1486] [hoc die ... facere sacri]ficium\nin [comitio eoque perfecto illum inde fugere n]overit ..._\n\nIt may be said that this is all guesswork, and no evidence; but it is\nborne out by the following passage in Plutarch\u2019s sixty-third Roman\nquestion:\n\n\u1f1c\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u1fb7 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u039a\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u03af\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f23\u03bd \u03b8\u03cd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f41 \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03a6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03e1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nWhence Plutarch drew this statement we cannot tell. He does not give the\nday on which the sacrifice and flight took place; and Huschke[1487] has\ndenied that he refers to the Regifugium at all. He believes that\nPlutarch is thinking of the days marked Q. R. C. F. (March 24 and May\n24), on which Varro says, or seems to say, that the Rex sacrorum\nsacrificed in the Comitium[1488]; and this may have been so, for the\nnote in the Fasti Praenestini on March 24 shows that there was a popular\nmisinterpretation of Q. R. C. F., which took the letters to mean, \u2018quod\neo die ex comitio fugerit rex.\u2019 In this confusion we can but appeal to\nthe word Regifugium, which is attached to Feb. 24 only. Taking this\ntogether with Plutarch\u2019s statement, and remembering the great\nimprobability of the historical explanation being the true one, we are\njustified in accepting Mommsen\u2019s completion of the passage in Festus,\nand in concluding that there was really on Feb. 24 a flight of the Rex\nafter a sacrifice.\n\nAnd this view is strengthened by the frequent occurrence of sacerdotal\nflights in ancient and primitive religions. These were first collected\nby Lobeck[1489], and have of late been treated of and variously\nexplained by Mannhardt, Frazer, and Robertson Smith[1490]. The best\nknown examples are those of the Bouphonia (\u2018ox murder\u2019) at Athens, in\nwhich every feature shows that the slain ox was regarded, \u2018not merely as\na victim offered to a god, but in itself a sacred creature, the\nslaughter of which was sacrilege or murder\u2019[1491]; and the sacrifice of\na bull-calf to Dionysus at Tenedos, where the priest was attacked with\nstones, and had to flee for his life[1492]. We do not yet know for\ncertain whether the origin of these ideas is to be found in totemism, or\nin the sanctity of cattle in the pastoral age, or in the representation\nof the spirit of vegetation in animal form. The second of these\nexplanations, as elucidated by Robertson Smith, would seem most\napplicable to the Athenian rite; but in the case of the Roman one, we do\nnot know what the victim was. It is also just possible, as Hartung long\nago suggested[1493], that the victim was a scapegoat carrying away\npollution, and therefore to be avoided; but I do not find any example of\nflight from a scapegoat, among the many instances collected by Mr.\nFrazer (_Golden Bough_, ii. 182 foll.).\n\n\n III KAL. MART. (FEB. 27). NP.\n\n\nEQ[UIRRIA]. (MAFF. CAER.: cp. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13).\n\n\nWe have no data whatever for guessing why a horse-race should take place\non the last day of February, or why there should be two days of racing,\nthe second being March 14. This has not, however, prevented\nHuschke[1494] from making some marvellous conjectures, in which\ningenuity and learning have been utterly thrown away.\n\nWe saw[1495] that the oldest races of this kind were connected with\nharvest rejoicings; and Mannhardt[1496] suggested that they originated\nin the desire to catch the spirit of vegetation in the last sheaf or in\nsome animal form. Races also occur in various parts of Europe in the\nspring\u2014e. g. at the Carnival, at Easter, and at Whitsuntide; and of\nthese he says that they correspond with the others, and that the idea at\nthe bottom of them is \u2018die Vorstellung des wetteifernden\nFr\u00fchlingseinzuges der Vegetationsd\u00e4monen.\u2019 However this may be, we\ncannot but be puzzled by the doubling of the Equirria, and are tempted\nto refer it to the same cause as that of the Salii and Luperci[1497].\n\nThat both were connected with the cult of Mars is almost beyond\nquestion. They were held in the Campus Martius, and were supposed to\nhave been established by Romulus in honour of Mars[1498]; and we have\nalready had an example of the occurrence of horses in the Mars-cult. It\nwould seem, then, that the peculiar features of the worship of Mars\nbegan even _before_ March 1. Preller noticed this long ago[1499], and\nsuggested that even the Lupercalia and the Quirinalia have some relation\nto the Mars-cult, and that these fall at the time when the first\nbeginnings of spring are felt\u2014e. g. when the first swallows\narrive[1500]. We may perhaps add the appearance of the Salii at the\nRegifugium to these foreshadowings of the March rites. Ovid seems to\nbear out Preller in his lines on this day[1501]:\n\n Iamque duae restant noctes de mense secundo,\n Marsque citos iunctis curribus urget equos:\n Ex vero positum permansit Equirria nomen,\n Quae deus in Campo prospicit ipse suo.\n Iuro venis, Gradive. Locum tua tempora poseunt,\n Signatusque tuo nomine mensis adest.\n\nI may aptly add Ovid\u2019s next couplet, now that we have at last reached\nthe end of the Roman year:\u2014\n\n Venimus in portum, libro cum mense peracto.\n Naviget hinc alia iam mihi linter aqua.\n\nFootnote 1331:\n\n Paulus, 85 \u2018Quaecumque purgamenti causa in quibusque sacrificiis\n adhibentur, februa appellantur. Id vero quod purgatur, dicitur\n _februatum_.\u2019 The verb februare also occurs. Varro (_L. L._ 6. 13)\n says that _februum_ was the Sabine equivalent for _purgamentum_: \u2018Nam\n et Lupercalia februatio, ut in Antiquitatum libris demonstravi\u2019 (cp.\n 6. 34). Ovid renders the word by \u2018piamen\u2019 (_Fasti_, 2. 19). Februus, a\n divinity, is mentioned in Macr. 1. 13. 3; he is almost certainly a\n later invention (see _Lex. Myth._ s. v.). The etymology of the word is\n uncertain.\n\nFootnote 1332:\n\n Varro, _R. R._ 1. 29. Cp. Colum. xi. 2; and the rustic calendars.\n\nFootnote 1333:\n\n Varro, _R. R._ 1. 28. See above, p. 295.\n\nFootnote 1334:\n\n This is very distinctly stated by Cicero (_de Legibus_, 1. 14. 40 \u2018In\n deos impietatum nulla expiatio est\u2019: cp. 2. 9. 22 \u2018Sacrum commissum\n quod neque expiari poterit, impie commissum est\u2019). Even the sailor in\n Horace\u2019s ode (1. 28), whose duty does not seem exactly binding, is\n told, if he omits it, \u2018teque piacula nulla resolvent.\u2019 On the general\n question, cp. De Marchi, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, 246; and\n Marq. 257. The pontifex Scaevola \u2018asseverabat prudentem expiari non\n posse\u2019 (Macrob. 1. 16. 10). Ovid\u2019s account (_Fasti_, 2. 35 foll.) is\n that of a layman and a modern, but not less interesting for that\n reason.\n\nFootnote 1335:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 30 \u2018Praetor qui tum (i.e. die nefasto) fatus est, si\n imprudens fecit, piaculari hostia facta piatur; si prudens dixit, Q.\n Mucius ambigebat eum expiari ut impium non posse.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1336:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 33.\n\nFootnote 1337:\n\n Ib. 31.\n\nFootnote 1338:\n\n See Marq. 259; Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Les Pontifes_, 101 foll.\n\nFootnote 1339:\n\n Marq. 180, Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, 178.\n\nFootnote 1340:\n\n See Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 406.\n\nFootnote 1341:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 19 foll.\n\nFootnote 1342:\n\n This difficult line has occasioned much conjecture, and seems still\n inexplicable. See Merkel, _Fasti_, clxvi foll.; and De-Marchi, op.\n cit. p. 246.\n\nFootnote 1343:\n\n Aust, _De Aedibus sacris_, pp. 21, 45, 48. On this last page are some\n useful remarks on the danger of drawing conclusions as to the\n indigenous or foreign origin of deities from the position of their\n temples inside or outside the pomoerium.\n\nFootnote 1344:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 55 foll.\n\nFootnote 1345:\n\n Livy, 33. 42; 34. 53. Jordan, in _Commentationes in hon. Momms._ 359\n foll.; Aust, op. cit. p. 20.\n\nFootnote 1346:\n\n See _Dict. of Antiq._ s.v. sacra. Fest. 245 a \u2018Publica sacra, quae\n publico sumptu pro populo fiunt: quaeque pro montibus, pagis, curiis,\n sacellis.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1347:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 527. See under Quirinalia.\n\nFootnote 1348:\n\n See on April 15. There must have been at one time a tendency to\n amalgamate the two kinds of _sacra publica_. The _argei_ were also\n attended by Pontifices and Vestals. I should conjecture that the\n Pontifices claimed supervision over rites in which they had originally\n no official _locus standi_, and brought the Vestals with them.\n\nFootnote 1349:\n\n Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_. iii. 1. 89 foll.\n\nFootnote 1350:\n\n \u1f39\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03b9, Dion. Hal. 2. 23; Fest. 174 b; Marq. 195.\n\nFootnote 1351:\n\n Dion. Hal. 2. 23.\n\nFootnote 1352:\n\n Ib. 2. 50. The Latin words are from Paul, 64.\n\nFootnote 1353:\n\n Jordan, on Preller, i. 278 note. Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 596.\n Curis = hasta in Sabine; Fest. 49; Roscher, l. c.; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2.\n 477.\n\nFootnote 1354:\n\n Cp. the parting of the bride\u2019s hair with a spear, Marq. vii. 44 and\n note 5; Plut. _Q. R._ 87; B\u00f6tticher, _Baumkultus_, 485; Schwegler, _R.\n G._ i. 469.\n\nFootnote 1355:\n\n The same connexion between _curiae_ and the armed deity of the female\n principle is found at Tibur (Serv. _Aen._ 1. 17), \u2018in sacris\n Tiburtibus sic precantur: Iuno curritis (sic) tuo curru clipeoque\n tuere meos curiae vernulas,\u2019 Jordan, in _Hermes_, 8. 217 foll.\n Possibly also at Lanuvium (_Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 595).\n\nFootnote 1356:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 5. 83 and 155; Marq. 195.\n\nFootnote 1357:\n\n This has been done by O. Gilbert (_Gesch. und Topogr._ 2, 129 foll.),\n an author who is not often so helpful. He is followed by Steuding, in\n _Lex. Myth._ s. v. Fornax.\n\nFootnote 1358:\n\n Paul. 93 (cp. 83), \u2018Fornacalia feriae institutae sunt farris torrendi\n gratia quod ad fornacem quae in pistrinis erat sacrificium fieri\n solebat.\u2019 Dionysius was probably referring to this when he wrote (2.\n 23) that he had himself seen ancient wooden tables spread with rude\n cakes of primitive fashion in baskets and dishes of primitive make. He\n also mentions \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2 (cp. Ovid, l. c. 520), which might\n indeed suggest a feast of curiae at a different time of year. For the\n _far_, see Marq. vii. 399 foll. The cakes were _februa_, according to\n Ovid; see above, p. 301.\n\nFootnote 1359:\n\n Comp. Ovid, l. c. with Fest. 254; Paul. 316; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13;\n Plut. _Q. R._ 89.\n\nFootnote 1360:\n\n _H. N._ 18. 8; Lange, _R\u00f6m. Alt._ 1. 2. 245.\n\nFootnote 1361:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 527 foll.\n\nFootnote 1362:\n\n That it was so is proved by Fest. 254, and Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13. It\n must have been a custom fairly well fixed.\n\nFootnote 1363:\n\n ii. 9.\n\nFootnote 1364:\n\n 2. 23, \u1f18\u03b3\u1f7c \u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03b5\u03b1\u03c3\u03ac\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c0\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03be\u03c5\u03bb\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2, \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bb\u03c6\u03af\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03ac\u03b6\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b6\u03ad\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03c2 &c.\n\nFootnote 1365:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 525. What does Ovid mean by _fruges_?\n\nFootnote 1366:\n\n Paul. 93, quoted above; Ovid, l. c. 525. Fornax as a spirit may be at\n least as old as those of other parts of the house, Janus, Vesta,\n Limentinus, &c.\n\nFootnote 1367:\n\n Mommsen, _R\u00f6m. Forschungen_, i. 149 foll.\n\nFootnote 1368:\n\n Lydus, _de Mens._ 4. 24. Lydus gives the 22nd as the final day; Ovid,\n _Fasti_, 2. 569, gives the 21st (Feralia).\n\nFootnote 1369:\n\n Dion. Hal. 2. 40.\n\nFootnote 1370:\n\n _C. I. L._ I\u00b2. 309: cf. 297 (Introduction, p. 9). The Lupercalia\n (15th) is an exception; but for reasons connected with that festival.\n The 21st (Feralia) is F P (Caer.) F (Maff.). See Introduction, p. 10.\n F P, according to Mommsen, = fastus principio.\n\nFootnote 1371:\n\n If Ovid reflects it rightly in _Fasti_, 5. 419 foll. Cp. Porph. on\n Hor. _Ep._ 2. 2. 209. See on Lemuria, above, p. 107.\n\nFootnote 1372:\n\n On the vast subject of the jus Manium and the worship of the dead, the\n following are some of the works that may be consulted: Marq. 307\n foll., and vii. 350 foll.; De-Marchi, _Il Culto Privato_, p. 180\n foll.; Roscher, _Lex._ articles Manes and Inferi; Bouch\u00e9-Leclereq,\n _Pontifes_, 147 foll.; Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 630 foll. Two old treatises\n still form the basis of our knowledge: Gutherius, _de iure Manium_, in\n Graevius\u2019 _Thesaurus_, vol. xii.; and Kirchmann, _de Funeribus_\n (1605). Valuable matter has still to be collected (for later times)\n from the _Corpus Inscriptionum_.\n\nFootnote 1373:\n\n This was the universal practice in Italy from the earliest times, so\n far as we have as yet learnt from excavations. For the question\n whether burial in or close to the house, or within the city walls,\n preceded burial in necropoleis, see _Classical Review_, for February,\n 1897, p. 32 foll. Servius (Ad _Aen._ 5. 64; 6. 152; cp. Isidorus, 15.\n ii. 1) tells us that they once buried in the house, and there were\n facts that might suggest this in the cult of the Lares, and in the\n private ghost-driving of the Lemuria; but we cannot prove it, and it\n is not true of the Romans at any period. Not even the well-known law\n of the XII Tables can prove that burial ever regularly took place\n within the _existing_ walls of a city.\n\nFootnote 1374:\n\n Cic. _De Legg._ 2. 48. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ 5. 49:\n\n Iamque dies, ni fallor, adest, quern semper acerbum,\n Semper honoratum\u2014sic di voluistis\u2014habebo.\n\nFootnote 1375:\n\n Marq. 311 foll.\n\nFootnote 1376:\n\n Purpureosque iacit flores, Virg. _Aen._ 5. 79. Cp. Cic. _pro Flacco_,\n 38. 95.\n\nFootnote 1377:\n\n _Aeneidea_, 3. 15. He well compares Lucan, 9. 990. Tylor, _Prim.\n Cult._ ii. 332. Aeneas is here, as always, the true type of the\n practical Roman.\n\nFootnote 1378:\n\n Marq. 311 and reff.\n\nFootnote 1379:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 617 foll. Among the calendars it is only mentioned in\n those of Philocalus and Silvius, and in the rustic calendars. Valerius\n Maximus is the next writer after Ovid who mentions it: 2. 1. 8. Cp.\n _C. I. L._ vi. 10234. Martial calls it \u2018lux propinquorum\u2019 (9. 55, cp.\n 54). For an interesting conjecture as to the special meaning of\n _carus_, see Lattes quoted in De-Marchi, op. cit. 214, note 2.\n\nFootnote 1380:\n\n Val. Max. l. c. and Silvius\u2019 _Calendar_.\n\nFootnote 1381:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 623,\n\n Innocui veniant: procul hinc, procul impius esto\n Frater, et in partus mater acerba suos.\n\nFootnote 1382:\n\n Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 633-634. On such occasions the Lares were clothed in\n tunics girt at the loins; see a figure of a Lar on an altar from Caere\n in Baumeister, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, vol. i. p. 77.\n\nFootnote 1383:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 571 foll.\n\nFootnote 1384:\n\n Line 583. See Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Dea Muta.\n\nFootnote 1385:\n\n See e. g. Crooke, _Folklore of Northern India_, ch. 5 (the Black Art),\n and especially pp. 264 foll.\n\nFootnote 1386:\n\n See e. g. Leland, _Etruscan Roman remains in popular legend_, pp. 3\n and 195 foll.\n\nFootnote 1387:\n\n The chief attempts are those of Unger, in _Rhein. Mus._, 1881, p. 50,\n and Mannhardt in his _Mythologische Forschungen_, pp. 72-155. The\n former is ingenious, but unsatisfactory in many ways; the latter\n conscientious, and valuable as a study in folk-lore, whether its\n immediate conclusions be right or wrong. See also Schwegler, _R. G._\n i. 356 foll.; Preller, i. 387 foll.; and article s. v. in _Dict. of\n Antiquities_ (2nd edition); Marq. 442 foll. The ancient authorities\n are Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5, 79, 80; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 267 foll.;\n Plutarch, _Caes._ 61, _Rom._ 21; Val. Max. 2. 2. 9; Propert. 5. (4.)\n 1. 26; and many other passages which will be referred to when\n necessary.\n\nFootnote 1388:\n\n Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5.\n\nFootnote 1389:\n\n Jordan, _Kritische Beitr\u00e4ge_, 164 foll. Unger\u2019s attempt, after Serv.\n _Aen._ 8. 343. to derive the word from _luo_ (\u2018to purify\u2019) is\n generally rejected.\n\nFootnote 1390:\n\n Wissowa, _Lex._ (s. v. Lupercus) takes the latter view, but rightly,\n as I think, rejects the deity.\n\nFootnote 1391:\n\n Virg. _Aen._ 8. 630 \u2018Mavortis in antro.\u2019 Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v.\n Mars, 2388; Preller, i. 334.\n\nFootnote 1392:\n\n Plut. _Rom_. 21. After mentioning the goats, he says, \u1f34\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b8\u03cd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u0394\u03bf\u03c5\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 (cp. _Q. R._ iii).\n\nFootnote 1393:\n\n Marq. 165. See above, p. 110.\n\nFootnote 1394:\n\n So Val. Max. l.c. From Ovid\u2019s version of the aetiological story of\n Romulus and Remus (_Fasti_, 2. 371 foll.) we might infer that the\n feasting took place after the running.\n\nFootnote 1395:\n\n \u2018Cornipedi Fauno caesa de more capella\u2019 (_Fasti_, 2. 361). Cp. 5. 101.\n So Plut. _Rom._ l. c.\n\nFootnote 1396:\n\n Livy, 1. 5. Unger (p. 71 foll.) has much to say about Inuus in the\n worst style of German pseudo-research. See _Lex._ s. v. (Steuding).\n\nFootnote 1397:\n\n Schwegler, i. 351 foll.; Justin, 43. 1. I had long ago arrived at this\n conclusion, and was glad to see it sanctioned by Wissowa in _Lex._ s.\n v. Lupercus.\n\nFootnote 1398:\n\n _Aen._ 8. 343: the only reason given is that the goat was Liber\u2019s\n victim.\n\nFootnote 1399:\n\n Arnobius, 2. 23. See Mannhardt, 85; Huschke, _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 12.\n\nFootnote 1400:\n\n Schwegler, i. 354 foll.: the general result is given in _Lex._ s. v.\n Evander, vol. 1. 1395. Evander himself = Faunus. It is possible that\n there may be some basis of truth in the Arcadian legend: we await\n further archaeological inquiry.\n\nFootnote 1401:\n\n See on Dec. 5; and _Lex._ s. v. Faunus, p. 1458.\n\nFootnote 1402:\n\n Serv. _Aen._ 2. 351. The whole passage is very interesting. See on\n Dec. 21; and Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Pontifes_, 28 and 49.\n\nFootnote 1403:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 282; Marq. 443.\n\nFootnote 1404:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 111; Gell. 10. 15; Arnob. 7. 21.\n\nFootnote 1405:\n\n _Rom._ 21: quoted above, p. 311. Val. Max. l. c. seems also to imply\n it: \u2018Facto sacrificio caesisque capris, epularum hilaritate ac vino\n largiore provecti, divisa pastorali turba, cincti pellibus immolatarum\n hostiarum, iocantes obvios petiverunt.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1406:\n\n Even this point is not quite certain; but see Hartung, _Rel. der\n R\u00f6mer_, ii. 178, and Mannhardt, 78.\n\nFootnote 1407:\n\n Ox, sheep and pig were the usual victims; the dog was only offered to\n Robigus (see on April 25), to the Lares Praestites and to Mana Geneta;\n the goat only to Bacchus and Aesculapius, foreign deities (Marq. 172).\n The goat-skin of Juno Sospita is certainly Greek: _Lex._ s. v. Iuno,\n 595. The goat was a special Hebrew _piaculum_ (Robertson Smith, 448;\n cf. 453).\n\nFootnote 1408:\n\n Robertson Smith, 379.\n\nFootnote 1409:\n\n Ib. 381.\n\nFootnote 1410:\n\n _Rom._ 21 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f90\u03bc\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u1fb3 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019\n \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b5\u03b2\u03c1\u03b5\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b3\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. \u0393\u03b5\u03bb\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72\n \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03cc\u03bc\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 1411:\n\n So Schwegler. l. c. and reff. in Marq. 443 notes 11-13. Dion. Hal. (1.\n 32) compared the human sacrifice in the cult of Zeus Lycaeus in\n Arcadia. See Farnell, _Cults_, i. 40 foll.\n\nFootnote 1412:\n\n We ought to have the whole _history_ of the Lupercalia if we are to\n explain it rightly; it is impossible to guess through what stages and\n changes it may have passed.\n\nFootnote 1413:\n\n 4. 478 (quoted in a valuable section (23) of Hermann\u2019s\n _Gottesdienstliche Alterth\u00fcmer der Griechen_).\n\nFootnote 1414:\n\n For examples of this idea see under Feb. 24 (Regifugium); Robertson\n Smith, 286; Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 58 foll.\n\nFootnote 1415:\n\n It may indeed be misrepresented by Plutarch (who is the only writer\n who mentions it), and may have been originally an \u1f00\u03bb\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b3\u03ae. For the\n confusion of mournful and joyful cries at a sacrifice see Robertson\n Smith, 411.\n\nFootnote 1416:\n\n Robertson Smith notes (p. 396) that young men, or rather lads, occur\n as sacrificers in Exodus xxiv. 5.\n\nFootnote 1417:\n\n p. 91 foll.\n\nFootnote 1418:\n\n Mannhardt is not lucid on this point; he was evidently in difficulties\n (pp. 97-99). He seems clear that the application of the blood produces\n an _identity_ between victim and youths; but in similar cases it is\n not through death that victim, god, and priest become identical, but\n through the life-giving virtue of the blood. The blood-application\n must surely mean the acquisition of new life; but he makes it symbolic\n of death.\n\nFootnote 1419:\n\n Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 242.\n\nFootnote 1420:\n\n Mannhardt seems to have felt this difficulty (p. 86), and to have\n tried to overcome it, but without success.\n\nFootnote 1421:\n\n I here omit the feasting, as it is by no means certain at what point\n of time it took place. If the victims themselves were eaten, it would\n be part of the sacrificial act and would precede the running; but this\n is not common in the case of such _piacula_, and one victim, we must\n remember, was a dog. It is more likely that Val. Max. is here wrong\n (see above, p. 311, note 6).\n\nFootnote 1422:\n\n See Mannhardt, _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, 318 foll., and for other\n examples, Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 1 foll.; Preller-Robert, _Griech. Myth._\n i. 144 (Zeus-festival on Pelion).\n\nFootnote 1423:\n\n After Schwegler, i. 361; rejected by Marq. (439, note 4).\n\nFootnote 1424:\n\n p. 101. The \u2018wolves\u2019 represent of course the Palatine city.\n\nFootnote 1425:\n\n See his eminently modest and sensible remarks at the end of his 5th\n section, p. 113.\n\nFootnote 1426:\n\n Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 416 foll.; _Encycl. Brit._\n art. \u2018Sacrifice\u2019; and for the Lupercalia, _Academy_, Feb. 11, 1888,\n where a totemistic origin is suggested.\n\nFootnote 1427:\n\n See also Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ pp. 183-6; Lang, _Myth, Ritual and\n Religion_, vol. ii. 177 (cp. 106) and reff., 213; _Dict. of\n Antiquities_, art. \u2018Sacrificium,\u2019 p. 584.\n\nFootnote 1428:\n\n Festus, p. 57 \u2018Creppos, id est lupercos, dicebant a crepitu\n pellicularum,\u2019 &c.\n\nFootnote 1429:\n\n Preller, i. 389. On this Jordan has added no comment.\n\nFootnote 1430:\n\n _Ann._ 12. 24; Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 163 foll., has examined Tacitus\u2019s\n account with great care. Tacitus starts the pomoerium from the Forum\n boarium, while Dionysius and Plutarch start the runners from the\n Lupercal; but the two are close together.\n\nFootnote 1431:\n\n The reading is not quite certain; the MSS. have \u2018Larum de forumque.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1432:\n\n The Sacellum Larum has generally been supposed to be that in summa\n sacra via (Jordan, op. cit. ii. 269). Kiepert and Huelsen make it the\n sacellum or ara Larum praestitum at the head of the Vicus Tuscus.\n\nFootnote 1433:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 34. Mommsen proposed \u2018a regibus Romanis moenibus cinctum.\u2019\n But it is safer to keep to the MS. reading and make the best of it.\n Jordan sees in the words a \u2018scurrilous\u2019 allusion to the _luperci_.\n\nFootnote 1434:\n\n For modern practices of the kind in England see Brand, _Popular\n Antiquities_, ch. 36; and for Oxford, p. 209. As Brand puts it, the\n beaters (i. e. ministers, churchwardens, &c.), \u2018_beg a blessing on the\n fruits of the earth_, and preserve the rights and boundaries of their\n parish.\u2019 The analogy with the old Italian processions is very close.\n\nFootnote 1435:\n\n So _C. I. L._ 6. 1933 \u2018lupercus Quinctialis vetus.\u2019 See Mommsen,\n _Forsch._ i. 117. Unger, however (p. 56 foll.), argues for the form\n Quintilianus, as it appears in Fest. 87, and Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 378;\n and also denies that the names indicate gentile priesthoods. But his\n arguments depend on a doubtful etymology. See Marq. 440, note.\n\nFootnote 1436:\n\n Liv. 5. 46. Mommsen connects the name _Kaeso_, which is found in both\n gentes, with the cutting of the strips at the Lupercalia. The Fabii in\n Ovid\u2019s story (361 foll.) are led by Remus, and the Quintilii by\n Romulus.\n\nFootnote 1437:\n\n See under March 1, p. 41.\n\nFootnote 1438:\n\n So Mannhardt, 101, who tries to explain it as we have seen.\n\nFootnote 1439:\n\n Gilbert, _Gesch. und Topogr._ i. 86, note, tries to make out that the\n Fabii belonged to the Palatine proper; and the other guild, not to the\n Quirinal, but to the Cermalus, and thus also to account for the fact\n that in Ovid\u2019s story the Fabii come first to the feast; but all this\n is pure guesswork.\n\nFootnote 1440:\n\n Plut. _Rom._ 21 and _Caes._ 61; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 425 foll.; Paul. 57;\n Liv. fragm. 12 (Madvig); Serv. _Aen._ 8. 343. All these passages make\n it clear that the object was to procure fertility in women. Nic.\n Damasc., _Vita Caesaris_ 21, does not specify women (cp. Dion. Hal. 1.\n 80).\n\nFootnote 1441:\n\n Liv. l. c. and Serv. l. c. are explicit on this point.\n\nFootnote 1442:\n\n Op. cit. 113 foll. and his _Baumkultus_, p. 251 foll. (see also\n Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 214 and 232 foll.). An example of the same kind of\n practice in India is in Crooke, _Religion and Folklore_, vol. i. p.\n 100. See under May 1 (Bona Dea), p. 104.\n\nFootnote 1443:\n\n They were also called \u2018amiculum Iunonis\u2019 (Fest. 85: cp. Ovid, _Fasti_,\n 2. 427 foll.); Juno here, as so often, representing the female\n principle. Farnell (_Cults_, i. 100) aptly compares with this the\n Athenian custom of carrying Athena\u2019s _aegis_ round Athens, and taking\n it into the houses of married women.\n\nFootnote 1444:\n\n Lactantius, _Inst._ 1. 21. 45, describes them as \u2018nudi, uncti,\n coronati, personati, aut luto obliti currunt\u2019; but we have no certain\n confirmation from earlier sources except as to the nakedness (Ovid,\n _Fasti_, 2. 267).\n\nFootnote 1445:\n\n \u2018_Iocantes_ obvios petiverunt\u2019 (Val. Max.). Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._\n 140 foll.\n\nFootnote 1446:\n\n Mon. Ancyr. iv. 2; Marq. 446.\n\nFootnote 1447:\n\n Baronius, _Annal. Eccles._ viii. 60 foll.\n\nFootnote 1448:\n\n Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 11; Jordan, _Eph. Epigr._ iii. 238.\n\nFootnote 1449:\n\n e. g. Cic. _ad Quint. Fratr._ 2. 3. 2.\n\nFootnote 1450:\n\n See other references in Preller, i. 374, note. Ambrosch (_Studien_,\n 169, note 50) observes that Cicero (_de Off._ 3. 10) writes with a\n trace of scepticism: \u2018Romulus fratre interempto sine controversia\n peccavit, pace vel Quirini vel Romuli dixerim.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1451:\n\n See Jordan on Preller, i. 369. The article \u2018Quirinus\u2019 in _Myth. Lex._\n has not yet appeared as I write.\n\nFootnote 1452:\n\n _Studien_, 169.\n\nFootnote 1453:\n\n _C. I. L._ i. 41 = vi. 475 and i. 630 = vi. 565. The older one is\n attributed by Mommsen to the consul P. Cornelius of B.C. 236: \u2018P.\n Corn[elios] L. f. coso[l] prob[avit] Mar[te sacrom].\u2019 The other,\n \u2018Quirino L. Aimilius L. f. praitor,\u2019 must be set down to an Aemilius\n praetor in 204, 191, or 190. The inference is that Mars became known\n as Quirinus in that spot at the end of the third century B.C. It is\n worth noting that the legendary smith, Mamurius, had a statue on the\n Quirinal (Jord. _Top._ ii. 125).\n\nFootnote 1454:\n\n This is much what Dion. Hal. 2. 48 says was one view held in his time:\n \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03cc\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 1455:\n\n See on Jan. 9. Fest. 254.\n\nFootnote 1456:\n\n Gilbert, i. 283, points out that in the Argean itinerary (Jord. _Top._\n ii. 237 foll.) one of the _divisions_ of the Quirinal bears the name,\n and infers the gradual spread of the cult of Quirinus over the whole\n hill; but he insists that it was introduced from the Palatine. The\n general result of his wild but ingenious combinations is to infer a\n religious conquest of the Quirinal from the Palatine.\n\nFootnote 1457:\n\n Aust, op. cit. pp. 11 and 33. Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i. 310, takes the\n one of unknown date as the older.\n\nFootnote 1458:\n\n Aust, op. cit. 51, where for Liv. 4. 21 read Liv. 5. 40.\n\nFootnote 1459:\n\n Preller, i. 356.\n\nFootnote 1460:\n\n _Q. R._ 46; Ennius ap. Nonium 120; Gell. 13. 23.\n\nFootnote 1461:\n\n Plin. _H. N._ 15. 120.\n\nFootnote 1462:\n\n i. 373.\n\nFootnote 1463:\n\n See under April 25, Aug. 21, Dec. 23. Marq. 335; Schwegler, i. 334.\n\nFootnote 1464:\n\n Liv. 5. 40, 7 and 8.\n\nFootnote 1465:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 13. According to Macrob. (1. 13. 15) the five last days of\n February were added after the intercalation, in order that March might\n follow on Feb., and not on the intercalated days.\n\nFootnote 1466:\n\n _H. N._ 18. 8. See above, p. 304.\n\nFootnote 1467:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 643 foll.\n\nFootnote 1468:\n\n Te duo diversa domini pro parte coronant,\n Binaque serta tibi binaque liba ferunt.\n\nFootnote 1469:\n\n This must be a son of the family. We have, therefore, in this charming\n picture the predecessors of the Rex, the Regina sacrorum, the\n flamines, and the Vestal Virgins.\n\n Stat puer et manibus lata canistra tenet.\n Inde ubi ter fruges medios immisit in ignes,\n Porrigit incisos filia parva favos.\n\n De-Marchi, p. 231, gives a cut of a painting at Herculaneum which may\n represent a scene of this kind.\n\nFootnote 1470:\n\n _Gromatici veteres_, i. 141. See Rudorff in vol. ii. 236 for an\n interesting discussion of the religio terminorum and its ethical and\n legal results.\n\nFootnote 1471:\n\n Rudorff, l. c. 237.\n\nFootnote 1472:\n\n Jevons, _Introduction to the History of Religion_, 149.\n\nFootnote 1473:\n\n Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 187 foll.\n\nFootnote 1474:\n\n See under September, p. 229 foll. I may here notice the very curious\n \u2018oraculum\u2019 in _Grom. Vet._ p. 350 (ex libris Vegoiae) which connects\n Jupiter with the introduction of termini in Etruria.\n\nFootnote 1475:\n\n \u0396\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 he is called by Dion. Hal. (2. 74), where the cult is\n ascribed to Numa. Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_ i. 159.\n\nFootnote 1476:\n\n Aust, in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 668.\n\nFootnote 1477:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 667; Liv. 1. 55; Serv. _Aen._ 9. 448. Augustine, _C. D._\n 4. 23, adds Mars, and Dion. Hal. 3. 69 Iuventus to Terminus, who could\n not be \u2018exauguratus.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1478:\n\n Serv. _Aen._ 9. 448 \u2018Unde in Capitolio prona pars tecti patet, quae\n lapidem ipsum Termini spectat.\u2019 This is the \u2018Capitoli immobile saxum\u2019\n of Virgil; see above, p. 230.\n\nFootnote 1479:\n\n Ovid, l. c. 671.\n\nFootnote 1480:\n\n See above, p. 140. Varro, _L. L._ 5. 66.\n\nFootnote 1481:\n\n Plut. _Q. R._ 28.\n\nFootnote 1482:\n\n Ambrosch, _Studien_, 199 foll.\n\nFootnote 1483:\n\n It would exactly correspond to the spot of sacred ground on which the\n terminus-stone stood between two properties (Rudorff, l. c). In the\n latter case, it is worth noting, the sacrifices and sacrificers are\n doubles, as with the Salii, Luperci, &c, of the two Roman settlements.\n Mr. Granger (_Worship of the Romans_, 163) suggests that this stone\n was \u2018a relic from the original dwellers by the Tiber,\u2019 i.e. pre-Roman.\n But the question is, How did the Romans come to associate it with\n Terminus?\n\nFootnote 1484:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 685 foll. He is probably following Varro and common\n opinion, which latter Verrius refers to (Paul. 279) \u2018Regifugium sacrum\n dicebant, quo die rex Tarquinius fugerit e Roma.\u2019 The word _dicebant_\n seems to show that this was not Verrius\u2019 own opinion.\n\nFootnote 1485:\n\n _C. I. L._ i. 289. This gloss is no doubt the equivalent in Festus to\n that of Paulus just quoted; but the leading word Regifugium is lost. I\n have only quoted so much as is needed for our purpose. For other\n completions of the gloss see M\u00fcller, _Festus_, l. c, and Huschke,\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, p. 166.\n\nFootnote 1486:\n\n If this gloss really refers to Feb. 24, the presence of the Salii is\n difficult to account for, as their period of activity begins in March.\n Frazer in an interesting note (_G. B._ ii. 210) suggests that the use\n of the Salii was to drive away evil demons; if the Regifugium was a\n solemn piaculum, and the victim a scapegoat, this explanation might\n serve for Feb. 24.\n\nFootnote 1487:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 166 foll.\n\nFootnote 1488:\n\n _L. L._ 6. 31, where Hirschfeld has conjectured \u2018litat ad comitium\u2019\n for the MS. \u2018dicat.\u2019\n\nFootnote 1489:\n\n _Aglaophamus_, 676.\n\nFootnote 1490:\n\n Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 58 foll.; Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 35\n foll.; Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 286 foll. Cp. Lang,\n _Myth, Ritual and Religion_, ii. 233 foll. See also Farnell, _Cults of\n the Greek States_, i. 88 foll., who agrees in the main with Robertson\n Smith.\n\nFootnote 1491:\n\n Frazer, l. c.\n\nFootnote 1492:\n\n Aelian, _N. A._ 12. 34.\n\nFootnote 1493:\n\n _Relig. der R\u00f6mer_, ii. 35. Cp. Gilbert, i. 343, note. The presence of\n the Salii (see above, p. 328), if a fact, would be in favour of this\n explanation.\n\nFootnote 1494:\n\n _R\u00f6m. Jahr_, 199.\n\nFootnote 1495:\n\n See on Aug. 21 (Consualia).\n\nFootnote 1496:\n\n _Myth. Forsch._ 170 foll.; _Baumkultus_, 382 foll.\n\nFootnote 1497:\n\n This, though with impossible combinations, is what Huschke does (199,\n note 53). Feb. 27 is the Roman, March 14 the Quirinal Equirria, in his\n view. That the Quirinalia falls in February may perhaps give some\n support to the view.\n\nFootnote 1498:\n\n Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13; Fest. 81. See under Oct. 15.\n\nFootnote 1499:\n\n i. 361.\n\nFootnote 1500:\n\n So Ovid, on Feb. 26, writes (2. 853);\n\n Fallimur, an veris praenuntia venit hirundo,\n Et metuit ne qua versa recurrat hiems?\n\n This would be early now for central Italy; but Columella, 11. 2, gives\n Feb. 23 as the date.\n\nFootnote 1501:\n\n _Fasti_, 2. 857 foll.\n\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n\nAt the end of the introductory chapter a promise was made that when we\nhad completed the round of the year, we would sum up our results, sketch\nin outline the history of Roman religious ideas, and estimate the\ninfluence of all this elaborate ceremonial on the life and character of\nthe Roman people. This undertaking I must now endeavour to fulfil,\nthough with doubt and diffidence; for even after the most careful\nexamination of the Calendar, both the character and the history of the\nRoman religious system must still in great degree remain a mystery. With\nsuch knowledge however as may have been gleaned in the preceding pages,\nthe reader may be able to appreciate or criticize a few conclusions of a\nmore general character.\n\nThe Roman religion has been ably discussed in general terms by several\nwriters of note in the century just closing. Mommsen\u2019s chapters in the\nearly books of his Roman History are familiar to every one. The\nintroduction to Marquardt\u2019s volume on our subject is indispensable; and\nPreller, less exact perhaps, but more sympathetic and inspiring, still\nholds the field with the opening chapters of his work on Roman\nMythology. To these classical works may be added the section on the\nRoman religion in the second volume of the _Religionsgeschichte_ of\nChantepie de la Saussaye, and the first chapter of Boissier\u2019s work on\nthe Roman religion from Augustus onwards. Professor Granger\u2019s _Worship\nof the Romans_ also contains here and there some suggestive remarks,\nthough as a rule these are not based upon any elaborate investigation of\nthe cult. Lastly I may mention a small but valuable treatise, published\nas long ago as 1837 by Leopold Krahner, on the history of the decay of\nthe Roman religion down to the time of Augustus, which fell into my\nhands many years ago, and is in almost every sentence of value to the\nstudent of Roman history.\n\nIn all these works the one point insisted on at the outset is this: that\nthe Romans were more interested in the cult of their deities, that is,\nin the ritual and routine by which they could be rightly and\nsuccessfully propitiated, than in the character and personality of the\ndeities themselves. This is indeed a truth which has been abundantly\nborne out in our examination of the Calendar, and might be further\nillustrated in almost every public act of procedure in the Roman State.\nCicero himself expresses it well in the second book of his _De Natura\nDeorum_ (2. 3. 8) \u2018Si conferre volumus nostra cum externis, ceteris\nrebus aut pares aut etiam inferiores reperiemur, religione, id est cultu\ndeorum, multo superiores.\u2019 The second book of his work _De Legibus_ is\nalso an invaluable witness to the conviction, lasting on even in an age\nof scepticism and indifference among the educated, that the due\nperformance of sacred rites was a necessary function of the State, on\nwhich its very existence depended. The Christian Fathers, some of whom,\nlike St. Augustine and Tertullian, were men of learning who had studied\nthe voluminous works of Varro, were well aware of this character; and\nTertullian in a curious passage went so far as to suggest that the Devil\nhad here perpetrated an imitation or parody of the minute ritual of\nLeviticus[1502]. So far as externals go, the comparison he suggested is\na useful one; but there is an essential difference in the religious\nspirit which lay at the root of the two ceremonial systems\u2014a difference\nthat makes it impossible that any work should be written on the Roman\nreligion as inspiring for the student of religious history as _The\nReligion of the Semites_ so often quoted in these pages.\n\nThis elaborate Roman ceremonial consisted in the main of sacrifices of\ndifferent kinds, conducted with an endless but ordered variety of\ndetail, of prayers, processions, and festivities, the object of which\nwas either to obtain certain practical results, to discover the will of\nthe gods, or to rejoice with the divine inhabitants of the city over the\nprosperous event of some undertaking. When we survey it in the Calendar\nas a whole, it seems to fall naturally into three divisions, which\ncorrespond with and illustrate the development of the State from its\nconstituent materials. The Calendar contains in fact in a fossilized\ncondition the remains of three different strata of religious or social\ndevelopment.\n\n(1) Here and there we find survivals of what we can only regard as the\nmost primitive condition of human life in ancient Latium: that of men\ndwelling on forest-clad hill-tops, surrounded by a world of spirits,\nsome of which have taken habitation in, or are in some sort represented\nby, objects such as trees, animals, or stones. Examples of such objects\nare the oak of Jupiter Feretrius, the sacred fig-tree of Rumina, the\nstone of Terminus with its buried sacrifice, and the wolf, the\nwood-pecker, and spear of Mars. To this earliest stratum may also belong\nin their ultimate origin those quaint sacrificial or semi-dramatic rites\nof which we have had examples in the Lupercalia, the Fordicidia, and the\nParilia. The casting of the Argei into the Tiber may perhaps also be\nreckoned here, though connected later on with certain divisions of the\ndeveloped city of which the meaning and origin are lost to us. This\nprimitive population knew also of charms and spells and omens, not\nreduced indeed as yet to a definite system, of which the Calendar\nnaturally supplies hardly any indications, while in Ovid and Cato not a\nfew survivals meet us. But the investigation of the oldest culture of\ncentral Italy is more especially the province of archaeology, and to the\narchaeologists, who are now in Italy doing excellent and elaborate work,\nI must be content to leave it.\n\n(2) We next come conjecturally to clearly-defined evidence of a period\nin which the ordered processes of agriculture, and the settled life of\nthe farm-house, are the distinctive features. We have the beginnings of\na calendar in the observation of the quarters of the moon and their\nconnexion with the deities of light. We have the discipline of the\nhouse, represented in the cult of Vesta the hearth-spirit, under the\ncare of the daughters of the family, while the sons as _flamines_ have\ntheir special sacrificial duties, the head of the house presiding over\nall, and having as his own special department the worship of the spirit\nof the door-way (Janus). The occupations of the family are reflected in\nthe series of festivals which represent the processes and perils of\npastoral and agricultural industry: e.g. the Robigalia, Ambarvalia,\nVestalia, Consualia, Opiconsivia, Vinalia, Saturnalia, and Terminalia:\nthis last indicating also the idea of property, whether of the community\nor the individual. We have also clear traces of the union of farms in a\ngroup (_pagus_); for the Paganalia still survived in the full-grown\ncity, and both at the Saturnalia and Compitalia the households met\ntogether at the winter period of ease and rejoicing.\n\n(3) The further development of social life is also reflected in the\nannual rites we have been investigating. We see the aggregation of small\ncommunities in the Septimontium, in the Fornacalia or feast of the\nCuriae, possibly also in the ritual of the twenty-four or twenty-seven\nSacella Argeorum, round which a procession seems to have gone in March\nand May. The Parentalia again is the systematized cult of the dead in\ntheir own city, outside the walls of the city of the living. The Lares\nPraestites, worshipped on May 1, are the guardian spirits of the whole\ncommunity. The Regia, the dwelling of the king, is its political and\nreligious centre, with its sacrarium of Mars, the peculiar deity of the\nstock, and with the house and hearth of Vesta close by, now grown to be\nthe symbol of the State\u2019s vitality. The Vestals and Flamines have become\npriests of special worships in an organized state, and at the head of\nall is the Rex, still specially concerned with the cult of Janus, but\nrepresenting in his priestly capacity the whole community. The steadily\nincreasing tendency to organize, a tendency rooted in the very fibre of\nthis people, is producing colleges of pontifices and augurs, to assist\nby associated effort in making sure of the laws of intercourse with the\nunseen world, and of the best methods of divining its will and\nintention. And lastly, not only have we found in the festivals traces of\nthe growth and systematization of the life of the city, but in the great\nLatin festival we have also religious evidence of the early tendency of\nthe cities of Latin blood to combine in some sort with each other.\n\nWe have thus reached what has been called by Preller the period of Numa,\nthe king with whose name and personality the Romans always associated\nthe redaction of the Fasti and the state-organization of their religion:\na personality so clearly conceived by them as to bear witness at once to\nits own historical reality, and to their conviction of the vital\nimportance of his work. Before we go further, let us pause here to\ninterrogate the Calendar as to the nature of the divine beings who in\nthese same stages of development were the objects of popular worship.\nThe simplest way to do this will be to present a table showing the list\nof the most ancient festivals, with the deities concerned in them, so\nfar as they can be identified, in a parallel column:\u2014\n\n _Festivals._ _Deities._\n\n KALENDS JUNO.\n\n IDES JUPITER.\n\n EQUIRRIA MARS.\n\n LIBERALIA LIBER.\n\n FORDICIDIA TELLUS?\n\n CERIALIA CERES.\n\n PARILIA PALE?\n\n ROBIGALIA ROBIGUS.\n\n LEMURIA Ghosts\n (unburied).\n\n ARGEORUM SACRA Unknown.\n\n AGONIA VEDIOVIS?\n\n VESTALIA VESTA.\n\n MATRALIA MATER MATUTA.\n\n POPLIFUGIA Unknown.\n\n LUCARIA Unknown.\n\n NEPTUNALIA NEPTUNUS.\n\n FURRINALIA FURRINA?\n\n PORTUNALIA PORTUNUS.\n\n VINALIA JUPITER.\n\n CONSUALIA CONSUS.\n\n VOLCANALIA VOLCANUS.\n\n OPICONSIVIA OPS CONSIVA.\n\n MEDITRINALIA Unknown.\n\n FONTINALIA FONS?\n\n AGONIA Unknown.\n\n CONSUALIA CONSUS.\n\n SATURNALIA SATURNUS.\n\n OPALIA OPS.\n\n DIVALIA ANGERONA?\n\n LARENTALIA LARENTIA?\n\n AGONIA JANUS?\n\n CARMENTALIA. CARMENTA.\n\n LUPERCALIA Unknown.\n\n QUIRINALIA QUIRINUS.\n\n FERALIA BURIED\n ANCESTORS.\n\n TERMINALIA TERMINUS.\n\n REGIFUGIUM Unknown.\n\nHere it will be noticed that in those festivals which seem to be\nsurvivals from the oldest stratum of civilization (the period of Faunus,\nas Preller has named it), viz. the Lupercalia, Parilia, Fordicidia,\nArgeorum Sacra, the deities concerned are either altogether doubtful, or\nso wanting in clearness and prominence as to be altogether subordinate\nin interest to the details of the ceremony. The Parilia and Fordicidia\nwere believed in later times to have belonged to Pales and Tellus; but\nour authority for the grounds of such belief is not strong, and as a\nmatter of fact these two, together with the sacrifice of the October\nhorse, were interconnected by details of antique ceremonial, rather than\nseparately defined by their relation to particular _numina_. In other\nfestivals which may have possibly come down from the oldest period, the\ndeity is almost entirely lost. Here is good evidence of the\nindistinctness of the Roman conception of the divine; the cult appealed\nto this people as the practical method of obtaining their desires, but\nthe unseen powers with whom they dealt in this cult were beyond their\nken, often unnamed, and only visible in the sense of being seated in, or\nin some sort symbolized by, tree or stone or animal. They are often\nmultiplex, like the Fauni, Silvani, Lares, Penates, Semones, Carmentes;\nor they run into each other, like Bona Dea, Maia, Tellus, Ceres, Dea\nDia, and others. Only the great deity of the stock stands out at all\nclearly; Father Mars of the Romans; Father Diovis of the whole Latin\nrace; to these we may perhaps add the Hercules or Genius, and Juno,\nrepresenting respectively the male and female principles of human life.\n\nIn the second and third of the strata which the Calendar offers to the\nexcavator, representing the ordered life of the household and afterwards\nof the city, we still find much of the same indistinctness. Vesta\nindeed, the spirit of the hearth-fire, becomes clearly though not\npersonally delineated; so too, but in a less degree, does Janus the\nspirit of the doorway. Two other groups of spirits also occupy the\nhouse; the Lares, who may have been the spirits of dead ancestors duly\nburied, and the Penates or spirits of the store-chamber; both of them\nbecoming sufficiently clear in the popular conception to be represented\nby images at a very early period. But in the round of ancient festivals,\nsome at least of the so-called gods, so far as we can guess at their\noriginal nature, hardly deserve that name. Liber and Ceres seem to have\nbeen originally general names for an ill-defined class of spirits;\nRobigus is the spirit of the mildew; Consus and Ops are not\npersonalities, but _numina_ protecting the gathered harvest, as Saturnus\nprobably protected the sown seed. The Compitalia was concerned only with\nthe Lares Compitales, spirits of the crossways; in the Paganalia we have\nbut very indistinct information as to the object of worship. The\nVinalia, marking a later and more skilled agricultural process, seems on\nthe other hand always to have been clearly connected with Jupiter\nhimself.\n\nThus in the so-called period of Numa, the period of the earlier monarchy\nand the first organization of the city-state, the religious life of the\ncommunity had become highly systematized in respect of the cult, of the\npriest in charge of it, and the _ius_ which governed all the citizens in\ntheir relation to the world of divinities. Of any real change however in\nthe character of these divinities, of any approach to polytheism in the\nway of an increased individuality of conception, of iconic\nrepresentation, or definite temple-worship, the Calendar then drawn up\nsupplies no certain evidence. There may indeed have been a tendency\ntowards a clearer definition of _numina_, arising from the very fact of\nthe definite organization of prayer and sacrifice, and of the allotment\nof cults to particular priesthoods or families. There may, even at that\nearly stage in Roman history, have been an influence at work on the\nRoman mind, coming from Etruria and Greece, where polytheism found its\nnourishment in works of art and mythological fancy. These are\npossibilities of which we must take account, but the Calendar has\nnothing positive to tell us of them.\n\nIt is when we advance to the later monarchy, which we may speak of\nwithout hesitation as an Etruscan dynasty, that we find a change\nbeginning, both in the forms and objects of the cult, which marks an\nepoch in Roman religious history. The oldest Calendar, that of the large\nletters in the Fasti, tells us of course nothing of this. But in the\n_additamenta ex fastis_, and in later literary allusions, we have a\nconsiderable body of material to help us in following out the character\nand consequences of this change. It is at this point, or rather at the\nend of the monarchy, that we begin to hear of the building of real\ntemples, as distinct from luci, sacella, arae, or fana; of the\nintroduction into these of statues of the gods, of the _Graecus ritus_\nin sacrifice, and of the appearance of new deities, some of them\napparently connected with new elements of population.\n\nThis epoch is most clearly marked by the building of the great temple on\nthe Capitol of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, an Etruscan Trias, perhaps\nultimately of Greek origin, whose statues, as we have seen, were invited\nin true polytheistic fashion to partake of a feast every year on the\nIdes of September, the _dies natalis_ of the temple. This temple was\ndedicated in B.C. 509, directly after the expulsion of Tarquinius\nSuperbus. The next of which we hear is that of the old Roman Saturnus\n(B.C. 497), now strangely represented by a fettered statue, and\nworshipped henceforward _Graeco ritu_, with the head uncovered. Next\ncomes Mercurius (B.C. 495), a god unknown to the most ancient Fasti;\nthen Ceres, the Greek Demeter under a familiar Italian name (B.C. 493);\nnext Fortuna with a statue (B.C. 486), an imported goddess, to whom\nServius Tullius, if tradition can be trusted, had already erected\ntemples. To this same age belongs probably the temple of Diana on the\nAventine, with a Greek \u03be\u03cc\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and the introduction of Apollo-worship as\na popular cult. If we follow the catalogue of dedications during the two\ncenturies following the abolition of the monarchy[1503], we find that\nout of fourteen of which the dates are known to us, six are Greek or\nGraeco-Etruscan, three more admit before long a non-Roman ritual under\nthe influence of the _duoviri sacris faciundis_, and five are known to\nhave contained statues from an early period. Only three, those of Dius\nFidius, of Juno Lucina, and of Mater Matuta, can be said to have been\ngenuine Roman foundations. Without doubt a great change is here\nindicated which has come over the Roman religion, both in cult and\ntheology. New elements of population, new relations with conquerors or\nconquered, new commercial enterprise, new experiences of war, famine,\nand pestilence, bring in new deities, suggest recourse to new divine\naids. The old Rome is almost a thing of the past; the cults and deities\nof the Numan period no longer suffice, and are perhaps already beginning\nto be forgotten; the oldest priesthoods begin to give place in all\nexcept empty externals to the semi-political colleges of pontifices and\naugurs, and to the important new foundation of _duoviri sacris\nfaciundis_; the old Italian ritual of simple apparatus and detailed\nceremony is becoming overshadowed by the showy ceremonial of\nlectisternia and supplicationes.\n\nWas there no reaction, we may well ask, against a tendency so expansive\nand denationalizing? I answer this question with hesitation, for so far\nas I am aware it has never yet been fully investigated. But I am\nstrongly disposed to believe that there was such a reaction in the third\ncentury B.C., in the period, that is, between the Samnite wars and\nHannibal\u2019s invasion of Italy. This, unlike the preceding century, was a\nperiod of almost uniform success of the Roman arms, and one in which the\nState was at no time in serious peril; and the temptation to have\nrecourse to strange divinities, as a patient betakes himself to new\nphysicians, would not present itself to the minds of the senate or the\npriesthoods. If we pursue the history of the temple-foundations of this\nperiod, under Aust\u2019s invaluable guidance, the result is very remarkable.\nBetween 304 and 217 B.C. we know the dates of twenty-five foundations;\nand of these no less than twenty are in honour of indigenous, or at\nleast what I may perhaps call, home-made deities. No doubt there is a\ngrowing tendency to identify Roman gods with Greek; but this does not\nshow itself plainly till the end of the century, and the only genuine\nGreek foundation is that of Aesculapius, the consequence of a severe\npestilence in 293 B.C. Three or four, e. g. those of Fors Fortuna,\nMinerva Capta, and Feronia, were probably of non-Roman origin; but they\nwere transplanted from the near neighbourhood of Rome and may almost\ncount as indigenous.\n\nIn contemplating the Roman foundations of this period we are struck by\ncertain indications of the activity of the _pontifices_, as\ndistinguished from the _duoviri sacris faciundis_; i. e. the activity of\nthat college of priests whose special charge was the Roman religion\nproper, and who were only indirectly concerned with foreign\nintroductions. For example, we may note with interest a group of four\nagricultural deities, to whom temples were dedicated in the eight years\nbetween 272 and 264 B.C., the years, that is, of the pacification and\nsettlement of Italy after the invasion of Pyrrhus[1504]. These deities\nwere Consus, Tellus, Pales, and Vortumnus. Owing to the loss of Livy\u2019s\nsecond decade we cannot be very certain of the immediate object of these\nfoundations; but we may guess that they had a definite meaning in\nconnexion with the events of the time, and that they were chiefly the\nwork of the pontifical college. Less distinct perhaps, but still worth\nnoticing, is a group of foundations in honour of deities connected with\nwater[1505], i.e. to Tempestates, Juturna and Fons, which seem to have\nhad some reference to the naval operations of the First Punic War. The\ntemple of Juturna was vowed by Lutatius Catulus in the battle at the\nAegates Insulae in 241 B.C.; that to the Tempestates by Cornelius\nScipio, when the fleet was almost destroyed near Corsica in 259 B.C.;\nand that of Fons in the Corsican war in 231 B.C. It was characteristic\nof the Roman mind, and of the pontifical methods, thus to connect the\nspirits of the springs in Rome with those of the sea and its tempests.\n\nIt is at this time also that we notice the appearance of abstractions\nresolved into deities, such as Salus, Spes, Fides, Honos et Virtus,\nConcordia, and Mens. These, as I have said elsewhere[1506], are not\ngenuine old Roman cults, but pontifical creations in the spirit of the\nold Roman impersonal and daemonic ideas of divine agency. In connexion\nwith these I may mention the conviction which has grown upon me in the\ncourse of these investigations, that it was in this reactionary period,\nas we may call it, that the pontifices drew up that extraordinary list\nof deities, classified according to their functions in relation to man\nand his activity and suffering, which we know as the _Indigitamenta_.\nThis seems to me characteristic of the period, inasmuch as it was\nprobably based on the old Roman ideas of divine agency, now systematized\nby something like scientific terminology and ordered classification. It\nis the old national belief in the ubiquity of the world of spirits, now\nedited and organized by skilled legal theologians. But it would be\nbeyond the province of this work to venture farther into this tangled\nquestion.\n\nFrom the Hannibalic war to the end of the Republic is the period of the\ndecay and downfall of the old Roman religion. This period need not\ndetain us long; it has been no part of my plan to exhibit this religion\non its death-bed, for the Fasti do not admit us to that scene. They show\nus a living and genuine, not a spurious and enfeebled religious life. A\nfew salient facts shall suffice as illustrations of the slow process of\nthis dissolution.\n\nAt the very outset of the period we mark the solemn introduction into\nRome of Cybele, the Magna Mater Idaea, and the stone which was supposed\nto represent her; and we are thus warned that even the Greek cults, with\nall their adjuncts of art and mythology, are no longer sufficient for\nRoman needs. The State is once more in peril, and the far-reaching\nstruggle with Hannibal has brought her into touch with new peoples and\ncults. The Greeks do indeed continue to be the chief invaders of the\nRoman religious territory, but the religion they bring with them is a\ndebased one. The extraordinary rapidity with which the orgiastic rites\nof Dionysus spread over Italy in 186 B.C. proves at once that the\nItalian religious forms were wearing out, and that the Greek substitute\nwas no longer a wholesome one[1507]. From this time forward the lower\nstrata of population show a tendency to run after exciting Oriental\nforms of worship, which neither the attempted restoration of the old\nreligion by Augustus, nor the subsequent rapid growth of Christianity,\ncould entirely and permanently check. Among the educated classes the old\nbeliefs were being eaten away by the acids of a second-hand philosophy.\nThe Greeks had long begun to inquire into the nature of the gods, and\nthey passed on their disintegrating criticism to their conquerors.\nEuhemerus, the arch-destroyer of ancient faiths, became known to the\nRomans through a translation by Ennius at the beginning of the second\ncentury B.C.; and it took only another century and a half to produce the\nsceptical and eclectic treatise of Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_.\n\nAgain, nothing is more characteristic of this period than the contempt\nand neglect into which the old priesthoods gradually fell; Rome now\nswarmed with a mongrel population that knew little of them and cared\nless. In the year 209 B.C. even the priesthood of Jupiter was filled by\nthe youthful black sheep of an old patrician family, apparently for no\nother reason than the hope that so objectionable a character might be\nreformed by the many quaint restrictions imposed upon the office[1508].\nOf the flamines in general, of the Fratres Arvales, Salii, Sodales\nTitii, and others of the ancient priesthoods we henceforward hear little\nor nothing until the revival of learning and religion in the Augustan\nage. Old forms continued to be used, but mainly for political purposes,\nlike the _obnuntiatio_ or observation of lightning; and only those\nreligious offices which had considerable political power continued to be\nsought after by men of light and leading.\n\nTemples continued to be vowed and built, especially in the earlier part\nof this period; but their cults are, with few exceptions, of Greek\norigin, or are new and fanciful forms of old worships, such as the Lares\nPermarini, Venus Verticordia, Fortuna Equestris, Ops Opifera, Fortuna\nHuiusce Diei. Before the fall of the Republic a great number of the old\ntemples had fallen almost irretrievably into decay; Augustus tells us in\nhis record of his own reign that he restored no less than eighty-two of\nthem. This too is the period when the identification of Roman gods with\nGreek became a general fashion; a process which had begun long before,\nbut originally with a genuine meaning and object, not as the sport of a\nsceptical society educated in Greek speculation. Salus takes the\nattributes of Hygieia, Mater Matuta becomes Leucothea, Faunus Pan,\nSancus Hercules, Carmenta Nicostrate, Neptunus Poseidon, the god of\nSoracte, Apollo Soranus; and even the greater gods like Mars, Diana, and\nothers assume more and more the likeness and mythical adornment of their\nsupposed Greek equivalents.\n\nThe civil troubles of the age of revolution completed the work of\ndisintegration. Men became careless, reckless, self-regarding; the\n\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 of which Polybius could say only just before the\nrevolution began, that more than anything else it served to knit the\nRoman state together, was lost to view in the tumult of political\npassion and personal greed. Not indeed that it was altogether extinct;\nthat could never be, and never has been the case in Italy. Augustus, who\ncame by degrees to know the people he governed better than any statesman\nin Italian history, was well aware that to inspire the Roman world once\nmore with confidence, he must bring the religious instinct into play\nagain. The task he thus set himself he accomplished with extraordinary\nskill and tact; the old religion seemed to live again, the old\npriesthoods were revived, the old minutiae of worship were restored. He\ndid what he could to bring to life again even the spirit and the\nprinciples of the old _religio_; and in the _Carmen Saeculare_ of\nHorace, written to his order at a moment when he wished to make these\nthings obvious to the eyes of all Romans, we probably have the best\nsuccinct exposition of them to be found in Roman literature[1509]. But\nof the Augustan revival, and of the reasons why it could not be\npermanent, I must forbear here to speak further.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI have yet to say a few words in answer to the interesting question\nwhether the religious system we have been examining had any appreciable\ninfluence on the character of the Roman people: whether it contributed\nto build up that _virtus_ of the State and the individual which enabled\nthem to subdue and govern the world, as the _pietas_ of Aeneas in the\npoem armed him for the subjugation and civilization of the wild Italian\ntribes. The question may at first sight seem a superfluous one, since\nthe religion of a people is rather the expression of its own genius for\ndealing with the perplexities of human life, than a _vera causa_ in\ndetermining its character; yet it is worth asking, for it is\nunquestionable that the peculiar turn taken by a nation\u2019s religious\nbeliefs and practices does in course of time come to react upon its\ncharacter and morals.\n\nIt has often been said of the Roman religion that it had nothing to do\nwith righteousness, and was without ethical value. The admirable\ncriticism of it given by Mommsen in the first volume of his History may\noriginally have suggested this view; but if so, the copyists have\nexaggerated the opinion of the master in one particular point, failing\nto give due weight to the general tenor of his exposition. However this\nmay be, we certainly are now always invited to conclude that this great\npeople, which in its dealings with human beings discovered an\nextraordinary genius for expansion and adaptation, in its attitude to\nthe supernatural remained cooped up within curiously narrow mental\nlimits, drawing no real sustenance either from its primitive beliefs or\nits quaint and detailed practice. The current views of this kind have\njust lately been so well summed up in an admirable English work on the\nlatest age of Roman society and thought, that I cannot do better than\nborrow a few sentences from it[1510]:\u2014\n\n \u2018The old Roman theology was a hard, narrow, unexpansive system of\n abstraction and personification, which strove to represent in its\n Pantheon the phenomena of nature, the relations of man in the State\n or in the clan, every act and feeling and incident in the life of\n the individual. Unlike the mythologies of Hellas and the East, it\n had no native principle of growth, or adaptation to altered needs of\n society and the individual imagination. It was also singularly\n wanting in awe and mystery. The religious spirit which it cultivated\n was formal, timid, and scrupulous.... The old Roman worship was\n businesslike and utilitarian. The gods were partners in a contract\n with their worshippers, and the ritual was characterized by the hard\n and literal formalism of the legal system of Rome. The worshipper\n performed his part to the letter with the scrupulous exactness\n required in pleadings before the praetor. To allow devotional\n feeling to transgress the bounds prescribed by immemorial custom was\n \u201csuperstitio.\u201d\u2019\n\nIt is impossible to deny that there is much truth in all this; yet I may\nventure to express a doubt whether it contains the whole truth. The fact\nis that the subject needs a more historical treatment, and perhaps also\nsomething of the historical imagination, to do it full justice.\n\nIn the earliest periods of Roman civilization, those of the family and\nthe beginnings of the State, the Roman attitude towards the supernatural\nwas, if I am not mistaken, a real contributing cause towards the\nformation of _virtus_. It was not merely an attitude of business and\nbargaining. So far as we know it, the common form of address to the gods\nwas not \u2018send me what I want\u2014sun, rain, victory, &c., and you shall then\nhave these gifts\u2019; but \u2018I give you these sacrifices and expect you to do\nyour part; in taking all this trouble to act correctly by you, I\nestablish a right as against you.\u2019 It is true that in one particular\nform of dealing with the gods, the vow, or solemn undertaking (_votum_),\nthe transaction wears more the character of a definite bargain; if the\ngod will do certain things, he shall then have his reward. So Cloanthus\nin Virgil addresses the gods of the sea[1511]\u2014\n\n Di, quibus imperium est pelagi, quorum aequora curro,\n Vobis laetus ego hoc candentem in litore taurum\n Constituam ante aras, _voti reus_, extaque salsos\n Proiciam in fluctus et vina liquentia fundam.\n\nBut the _votum_ was the exception, not the rule; it was a promise made\nby an individual at some critical moment, not the ordered and recurring\nritual of the family or the State. It takes its peculiar form simply\nbecause the maker of the vow is not at the particular moment in a\nposition to fulfil it. The normal attitude of the Roman in prayer and\nsacrifice was not this; it is much more exactly expressed in the formula\nof the farmer\u2019s prayer already quoted in these pages: \u2018Father Mars, I\npray and beseech thee be willing and propitious to me, my household, and\nmy slaves; for the which object I have caused this threefold sacrifice\nto be driven round my farm and land.\u2019 This is the usual and natural\nattitude of all peoples in sacrificing to their gods, and is far from\nbeing peculiar to Rome; but it was the nature of the Roman to express it\nin a more formal and definite way than others, and this led to an\noutward religion of formulae which has done much to obscure for us, as\nindeed for the Romans themselves, the real thought underlying them.\n\nThese exact formulae of invocation and sacrifice were really the outward\nexpression of a fear of the unknown, and its power to hinder and injure\nman; for the old Roman did not know his gods intimately, inasmuch as\nthey took no human shape, and did not dwell in buildings made by hands.\nWe have illustrated this ignorance of his again and again, and the\nvagueness and fluidity of the religious conceptions of the Roman mind.\nThe remedy for this weakness was found, as with the Jews, in a\nremarkable formularity of ritual, both as regards time, place, and\nmethod of worship: in a series of elaborate prescriptions drawn up by\nexperts, going even so far as to anticipate the consequence of an\nunintentional omission or error by piacular acts. This in time, and\nunder State organization, became a science, and finds its parallel in\nthe science of legal formulae. But there was a difference between the\ntwo sciences, even for the Roman. In religious acts, the human mind is\ndealing with the unseen and unknown, not with human beings who can be\ncalculated with or outwitted. His fear of the unknown was thus for the\nprimitive Roman a wholesome discipline; and his attitude towards it he\naptly and characteristically called _religio_, because it _bound_ him to\nthe performance of certain regulated duties, calculated to keep his\nfootsteps straight as he walked daily in this unseen world: duties which\neven in the family and clan must have been to some extent systematized,\nand which when the city-state was reached took the definite form of a\ncalendar of public prayers, sacrifices, and festivities.\n\nNow surely in this motive of fear, thus remedied by exact ritual, we may\ntrace a true civilizing element\u2014the idea of Duty, Pietas, which as\nCicero defined it, was \u2018iustitia erga deos\u2019: righteous dealing towards\nthe gods, in expectation of righteous treatment on their part. And he\nwould be a bold man who should assert that \u2018iustitia erga deos\u2019 had no\neffect in inducing the habit of \u2018iustitia erga homines\u2019: in other words\nthat it could not react upon conduct. In the _pietas_ of the one typical\nRoman in literature both these elements are equally present. The\n_pietas_ of Aeneas is a sense of duty towards god and man alike; to his\nfather, his son, and his people, as well as to the will of the gods, and\nto that solemn mission which is at once the religion of his life and the\nkey to the great Roman poem[1512]. This is indeed that same sense of\nduty and responsibility which governed every Roman in authority in the\nbest days of the State, whether paterfamilias, patronus, priest, or\nmagistrate, and which was the motive power in the working of a\nconstitution which lasted for centuries though only resting on a basis\nof trust. In this _pietas_, it is true, we find no sense of contrition\nfor sin, no humbling of the individual self before an almighty Governor\nof the world; but we do find a very sensitive conscientiousness, arising\nfrom the dread of neglect or trespass in the discharge of religious\nobservance, in the trust committed by family or State to its constituted\nrepresentative. And this trust included also the discharge of duties to\nother men, the neglect of which might bring down the anger of the\nUnknown, and even compel the surrender of a criminal as _sacer_ to an\noffended deity. We find abundant evidence of this aspect of the\n_religio_ in the language of solemn oaths and treaties, and especially\nin connexion with the cult of the great Jupiter.\n\nI maintain then that in this Roman religion, in spite of its dryness and\nformality, there was a distinct ethical and civilizing element. And in\nconclusion I may perhaps raise the question whether it was really, as\nhas been so often asserted, such a conception of the unseen as could\nnever admit of elevation and expansion. A religion, which in its best\nand simplest forms, could bind men together in the orderly dutiful life\nof family, gens, state, and federation, could hardly, if left to itself,\nhave speedily become an inanity, even though based on the motive of fear\nrather than that of brotherly love. But this religion, as the State\nbecame more fully matured, came under the influence of two retarding\ncauses. First, its ritual, always obnoxious to formularism, was\ngradually deprived of its meaning by great priesthoods which from causes\nwhich need not be here discussed became powerful political agencies.\nSecondly, the contact with a mature system of polytheism, adorned and in\nsome sort materialized by art and literature, drew away the mind of the\nsimple and wondering Roman from the task of developing his religious\nideas in his own way. When a new world of thought broke on the\nconquering Roman of the Republic, his own religious motives were already\ndrying up under the influence of a powerful State-organization. His\n_pietas_ lived on after a fashion for centuries, but more and more it\nlost that hold on the conscience, that appeal to trust and\nresponsibility, which had once promised it a vigorous life and growth.\nWhile foreign gods and cults attracted his attention and admiration, or\nappealed to his sense that there was no quarter from which supernatural\naid might not be called in for the advancement of his State, they failed\nto bind his conscience with the wholesome motives which lay at the root\nof his old native _religio_. And neither in the reaction of the fourth\ncentury B.C., nor in the protests of an austere Cato in the second, nor\nin the elaborate revival of Augustus, much less in any later effort of\nphilosopher or autocrat to return to the old ways, was any permanent\nresuscitation of discipline or conduct possible. The problem of giving a\nreal religion to the world-state into which the Roman dominion had then\ngrown, was not to be solved either by Roman _pietas_ or Hellenic\npolytheism.\n\nFootnote 1502:\n\n Tertullian, _de Praescriptionibus Haereticorum_, 40.\n\nFootnote 1503:\n\n Collected by Aust in his work _de Aedibus sacris_, pp. 4 foll.\n\nFootnote 1504:\n\n Aust, op. cit., p. 14, note 1.\n\nFootnote 1505:\n\n Above, p. 190.\n\nFootnote 1506:\n\n Aust, op. cit., p. 15, note 1.\n\nFootnote 1507:\n\n See especially the speech of the consul Postumius in Livy 39. 15.\n\nFootnote 1508:\n\n See a paper by the author in _Classical Review_, vol. vii. p. 193\n foll.\n\nFootnote 1509:\n\n Note for example the way in which Horace has contrived to introduce in\n combination the ideas of the fertility of crops and herbs, of marriage\n and the increase of population, of public morality and prosperity.\n\nFootnote 1510:\n\n It gives me pleasure to quote this passage from _Roman Society in the\n last century of the Western Empire_ (p. 63) by my old friend Professor\n Dill.\n\nFootnote 1511:\n\n _Aen._ 5. 235.\n\nFootnote 1512:\n\n See Nettleship, _Essays in Latin Literature_, pp. 103, 104.\n\n\n\n\n NOTES ON TWO COINS.\n\n\n A. Denarius of P. Licinius Stolo (p. 42).\n\n\n_Obv._ AVGVSTVS TR POT Augustus, laureate, on horse-back to r.\n\n_Rev._ P. STOLO Helmet (apex) between two shields.\n\nIIIVIR\n\n[Illustration]\n\nThe forms of the helmet and shields are very archaic and interesting,\nappearing to point to a very early period. The helmet bears a marked\nlikeness to that worn on Egyptian monuments by the Shardana, one of the\nraces that invaded Egypt about the thirteenth century B.C. The shield\nseems to consist of two small round bosses connected by an oval boss. It\nis strikingly like the Mycenaean shield as shown on a number of\nmonuments, and far earlier than the so-called Boeotian shield which was\ncommon in Greece from the sixth century onwards. The Roman writers\nthemselves seem to have been puzzled by this shape (Marindin, article\n\u2018Salii\u2019 in Smith\u2019s _Dict. Antiq._), and there can be little doubt that\nit came down from a time when the \u2018Mycenaean\u2019 civilization was common to\nGreece and Italy.\n\nThe figure on the coins of M. Sanquinius (Babelon, _Mon. de la R\u00e9pub.\nRom._ ii. 417), who wears a horned helmet and long tunic and carries a\nherald\u2019s staff and round shield, has been identified by several\nauthorities as one of the Salii. This, however, is certainly wrong. Both\non this coin, and later coins of Domitian, the personage is closely\nconnected with the Ludi Saeculares. Dr. Dressel, in the _Ephem. Epigr._\nviii. 314, maintains him to be a herald proclaiming the festival. This\nwould admirably suit the caduceus; but the decorations of the helmet\nseem to me to be not plumes, as Dr. Dressel thinks, but horns, like\nthose on the headpiece of Juno Lanuvina. In any case the person is no\nSalius.\n\n\n B. DENARIUS OF L. CAESIUS (p. 101).\n\n\n_Obv._ Youthful bust l., hair disordered, striking with thunderbolt.\nBehind, a monogram.\n\n[Illustration]\n\n_Rev._ L. CAESI Two young male figures seated to r. Each has drapery\nwrapped round waist, and grasps a spear. Between them, a dog, which one\nof them caresses. In field, in monograms, LARE Above, head of Vulcan and\npinchers (moneyer\u2019s mark). The monogram of the obverse was read by\nMommsen AP for Apollo; but the closed P was not at that time in use: the\ninterpretation of Montagu (_Numismatic Chronicle_, 1895, p. 162) as Roma\nis therefore to be preferred. The head appears to be that of Vedius or\nVejovis, whose statue at Rome carried in the hand a sheaf of arrows,\nwhich would naturally be confused with the Greek thunderbolt. Other\nheads of Vejovis on Roman coins, as those of the Gens Fonteia, are more\nApolline in type, with long curls and laurel-wreath.\n\nThe two seated figures of the reverse are identified by the inscription\nas Lares. They are clearly assimilated to the Greek Dioscuri, early\nadopted at Rome. The dog, however, which sits between them is an\nattribute properly belonging to them. Dr. Wissowa in Roscher\u2019s _Lexicon_\n(p. 1872) says that they are clad in dogs\u2019 skins; this, however, is\ncertainly not the case, an ordinary cloak or chlamys falls over their\nknees.\n\nThis representation of the Lares stands by itself, the deities are\nfrequently represented in later art, especially wall-paintings and\nbronze statuettes, but their type is that of boys who hold cornucopiae\nor drinking vessel, and are fully clad.\n\nP. G.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF SUBJECTS\n\n\n\n\n Acca Larentia, 74, 93, 275, 276, 324.\n\n Aedes Herculis: _see_ Forum Boarium.\n\n Aedes Vestae: _see_ Vesta.\n\n Aediles, plebeian, 75, 76, 92.\n\n Aesculapius, 105, 191, 278;\n connexion with Vediovis, 122, 278;\n temple, 278, 340.\n\n Agonia: December, 265, 281;\n January, 277, 280-2;\n March, 54, 281;\n May, 121, 281.\n\n Agonus (or Agonalis), 323.\n\n Agriculture: festivals, 3, 71, 79-82, 85-8, 88-91, 113-4, 124-8,\n 145-54, 204-6, 206-9, 212-4, 256-8, 268-73, 324-7, 335.\n\n Alban Mount: Feriae Latinae held at, 95, 97, 227-8;\n temple of Jupiter Latiaris, 95-6, 228.\n\n Ambarvalia, 114, 124-8, 154.\n\n\n Ancilia, 38-9, 41-3, 45-6, 250;\n lustration, 57-9, 248, 250;\n moving, 39, 41, 43-4, 115\n\n Ancillarum Feriae, 176-8.\n\n Angerona, 274-5;\n goddess of Divalia, 274, 336.\n\n Anna Perenna: festival, 44, 50-1, 53, 163;\n legends, 51-4, 60;\n popularity with lower classes, 44, 50-1;\n representative of year, 52-3.\n\n Aphrodite: connexion with Venus, 69, 86.\n\n Aplu, 181.\n\n Apollo, 89, 191, 250;\n comparison with Mars, 39-40;\n connexion with Aesculapius, 278;\n with Vediovis, 122, 181, 225, 278;\n coupled with Latona, 181, 186, 200;\n festivals, 173, 179-81;\n functions, 180, 278;\n Medicus, 180;\n restoration of worship by Augustus, 180 (n. 4), 181-2;\n Soranus, 84, 181;\n temples, 180, 182;\n worship, 117, 179-82, 339.\n\n April: character, 6, 9, 33, 66-7;\n connexion with Venus, 67, 69;\n festivals, 66-97;\n origin of name, 6, 33, 66;\n prevalence of female deities, 67.\n\n Ara Maxima: _see_ Circus Maximus.\n\n Argei: _see also_ Sacella Argeorum, 150, 151;\n explanations of custom, 114, 116-20;\n mourning of Flaminica Dialis, 112, 115, 119, 151;\n origin of name, 112-3; 118-9;\n puppets thrown into Tiber, 52, 57, 100, 111-20;\n substitution for human victims, 112, 115, 116-7, 119.\n\n Armilustrium, 45, 58, 249, 250-1.\n\n Army: importance of curiae, 303, 305;\n mustering, 133.\n\n Artemis, 200.\n\n Asylum, 122, 183 (n. 3), 327;\n connexion with Vediovis, 122.\n\n Attalus, King of Pergamus, 69.\n\n\n August: character, 189-90;\n festivals, 189-214.\n\n\n Augustus, revival of religion, 19, 181-2, 190, 280, 342, 343-4, 349.\n\n Aventine: plebeian quarter, 75-6, 199;\n temples, 59, 74-6, 101-5, 158, 198-200, 201, 206, 232, 267, 339.\n\n\n Beans: harvest, 130, 255;\n use as food, 132-3;\n use in ritual, 83, 109-10, 131;\n religious character, 91, 110, 130-1.\n\n Beating bounds, _see_ Lustrations;\n productive of fertility, 104, 178-9, 262, 302, 311, 315, 318-21.\n\n Bellona, 134-5.\n\n Birds: used in augury, 139-40.\n\n Bona Dea, 95;\n connexion with Damia, 105-6;\n with Maia, 99, 100, 123, 210;\n earth goddess, 71, 103, 104, 106;\n functions, 104-5, 106;\n men excluded from worship, 102-3, 142, 256;\n myrtle not allowed in temple, 103-4;\n temple, 101-5;\n women\u2019s sacrifice, 255-6;\n worship, 102-6, 150.\n\n Bouphonia, 176, 329.\n\n Brutus, M. Junius, 130.\n\n\n Caesar (Julius): birthday, 174;\n calendar, 4, 5-6, 11, 14-5.\n\n Cakes: _see also_ Salt-cake;\n heads of animals decked with, 148, 242, 244;\n sacrifices, 53-5, 155, 161, 295, 304.\n\n\n Calendar: _see also_ Year, 248-50;\n authorities on, 13-4, 16-9;\n divergences, 36, 45, 241, 265-6;\n Julian: _see_ Caesar;\n marks of days, 8-10;\n republican, 14-20;\n secrecy, 8-9, 11;\n surviving, 5-6, 11-4.\n\n Campus Martius, 247-8;\n festivals, 50-1;\n races, 44-5, 208, 242, 249, 330;\n sacrifice of October-horse, 241-3, 247-9.\n\n Capitolium, 129-30, 327;\n connexion with Saturnus, 269-70;\n temples, 43, 85, 129-30, 145, 157-8, 214, 216-7, 229, 291, 293,\n 326-7.\n\n Caprotinae, Nonae: _see_ Nones.\n\n Cardea: confusion with Carna, 131-2.\n\n Caristia, 308-9.\n\n\n Carmenta, 167, 291-3;\n festival, 277, 290-3;\n temple, 291, 293.\n\n Carmentalia, 15, 277, 290-3.\n\n Carmentes: _see_ Carmenta.\n\n Carna, 130;\n confusion with Cardea, 131-2;\n festival, 130-3.\n\n Castor and Pollux: _see_ Dioscuri.\n\n Cerealia, 15, 72-3, 77-9, 92;\n foxes loosed in Circus Maximus, 77-9, 94;\n plebeian character, 70, 77, 92.\n\n Ceres, 73-4, 295, 338;\n connexion with Demeter, 73, 74, 181;\n with plebeians, 74-7, 92;\n festival, 72-3, 77-9, 92, 294-6;\n goddess of crops, 67, 71, 73, 126;\n Greek influence on, 73, 75-6, 105;\n sacrifices, 103, 105, 295;\n temple, 74-6, 92.\n\n Cernunnos: identification with Janus, 286.\n\n Character of Romans, 65;\n influence of religion on, 344-9.\n\n Charlton-on-Otmoor: lustration of fields, 128, 246.\n\n Circus Flaminius: games, 217, 252, 253;\n temples, 134, 135, 180, 202, 211.\n\n\n Circus Maximus, 190;\n altar of Consus, 178, 190, 206-7, 209;\n Ara Maxima, 138, 189, 190, 193-7;\n festivals, 77-8, 94;\n races, 208;\n temples, 92, 160, 202, 204.\n\n Cnaeus Flavius, 11.\n\n Coins, 350-2;\n heads on, 286-7, 351.\n\n Comitia Curiata: meetings, 63, 64, 123, 305.\n\n Comitium, 57-8.\n\n Compitalia, 255, 277, 279-80, 294, 335, 338.\n\n Consualia, 115, 178, 189, 206-9, 290;\n Vestal Virgins present, 115, 150;\n winter, 267-8.\n\n Consuls: connexion with Feriae Latinae, 95, 96;\n entrance on office, 5, 95, 190, 278;\n laying down of office, 216.\n\n Consus, 324, 338;\n altar in Circus Maximus, 178, 190, 206-7, 209;\n connexion with horses, 207-8;\n with Ops, 212-3;\n festivals, 115, 178, 206-9, 267-8;\n temple, 206, 267.\n\n Corn: supply, 76;\n trade, 121;\n wolf: _see_ Corn-spirit.\n\n\n Corn-spirit: animal representation, 78, 83, 90-1, 94, 244-5, 264;\n death and renewal of life, 83, 118, 246-7, 316-7;\n human representation, 177, 245;\n races in rites, 245-6, 330;\n rites to aid growth of corn, 41, 83-4;\n rites to propitiate, 90-1, 244-8.\n\n Creek Indians: festivals of first-fruits, 152-3.\n\n Cross-roads, 279-80.\n\n Curiae, 16, 71, 303-4;\n festivals, 71-2, 219, 302-6, 335;\n flamen, 304.\n\n Curio Maximus, 303-4.\n\n Curis, 303.\n\n\n Damia: connexion with Bona Dea, 105-6.\n\n Days: calendar marks in, 8-10;\n market, 8;\n number in months, 2-3.\n\n Dead: ancestor worship, 161, 275-6, 300, 308-9;\n burial, 108, 109, 307;\n cult chiefly in February, 3, 6, 33, 107, 299, 300;\n festivals, 106-10, 131, 275-6, 306-10;\n offerings, 308;\n spirits: _see_ Ghosts.\n\n Dea Dia, 71, 105;\n centre of ritual of Fratres Arvales, 74, 105;\n connexion with Ceres, 74.\n\n December, 7;\n character, 255;\n festivals, 33, 255-76.\n\n\n Deities: abstractions resolved into, 190-1, 341;\n chthonic, 207, 210, 211-2;\n dualism of male and female, 61-2, 212-3, 221;\n female, 67, 71, 74, 106;\n fluctuation between male and female, 67, 73, 80, 232-3;\n images: _see_ Images;\n impersonality, 106, 137, 139, 213, 221-2, 295, 311, 337;\n multiplicity, 144, 167, 241, 259-60, 291-3, 337;\n prayers: _see_ Prayers;\n symbols, 122, 139, 161, 169, 170, 230, 235;\n women\u2019s: _see_ Women.\n\n Delphi: Roman dealings with, 181.\n\n Demeter, 103, 110;\n connexion with Ceres, 73, 74, 181.\n\n Demons: _see_ Evil spirits.\n\n Diana: connexion with Artemis, 200;\n coupled with Hercules, 181, 186;\n festival, 198-200;\n functions, 198, 200-1;\n Nemorensis, 183;\n temples, 198-200, 339.\n\n Dionysus: connexion with Liber, 54-5, 74, 88;\n introduction of cult into Italy, 88, 342;\n sacrifice at Tenedos, 329.\n\n\n Dioscuri, 296-7, 351;\n temples, 202, 296.\n\n Dis Pater, 120, 212, 269.\n\n Dius Fidius, 327;\n antiquity, 135-6;\n connexion with Genius Jovis, 142-5;\n with Hercules, 137-9, 142-4;\n with Jupiter, 138-41, 221;\n with Semo Sancus, 136-8, 144;\n temple, 135, 136, 141.\n\n Divalia, 274-5.\n\n Dogs: connexion with Lares praestites, 101, 351-2;\n sacrifices, 89-91, 101, 209, 311, 312, 314.\n\n\n Earth: deities, 67, 71, 74, 103, 104, 106, 256, 294-5;\n spiritualized as feminine, 103, 106.\n\n\n Epulum Jovis: _see_ Jupiter.\n\n Equirria, 44-6, 330-1.\n\n Esquiline: cults, 228;\n divisions, 266;\n temples, 38.\n\n Etruscans: influence on Roman religion, 171-2, 185-6, 200, 219-20,\n 222-3, 229, 234-5, 338-40;\n trias, 218, 220, 229, 235, 239.\n\n\n Evil spirits: expulsion, 40-1, 43, 107;\n human scapegoat, 40-1, 46-9.\n\n\n Fairs, 253.\n\n Fasti: _see_ Calendar;\n Ovid\u2019s, _see_ Ovid.\n\n Fauna, 103.\n\n Faunalia, 255, 256-8.\n\n Faunus, 103, 257-8;\n connexion with Lupercalia, 257-8, 262, 312-3;\n with Pan, 258, 259, 313;\n derivation of name, 258-9;\n festival, 256-8;\n functions, 80, 261-3, 278;\n multiplicity, 259-60, 313;\n origin, 257-8, 259, 261, 263-5;\n temples, 257-8, 278, 302;\n woodland character, 260-1.\n\n Favonius, 258, 259, 264;\n Feb. 7th, 277, 299.\n\n February, 3, 4, 6, 7;\n character, 6, 66, 299;\n festivals, 3, 6, 33, 298-331;\n origin of name, 6, 298.\n\n Feralia, 10, 107, 306, 309-10.\n\n Feretrius: _see_ Jupiter.\n\n\n Feriae Latinae, 95-7, 227-8, 335.\n\n Feriae Sementivae, 294-6.\n\n Feronia, 199, 252-4;\n temple, 253.\n\n Fertility: customs to produce, 94-5, 104, 178-9, 262, 302, 311, 315,\n 318-21.\n\n Festivals, 15, 18-9, 44, 336;\n agricultural, 3, 71, 79-82, 85-8, 88-91, 113-4, 124-8, 145-54, 204-6,\n 206-9, 212-4, 256-8, 268-73, 324-7, 335;\n of curiae, 16, 71-2, 219, 302-6, 335;\n domestic, 107, 306-10;\n harvest, 124-8, 145-54, 189-90, 195-6, 207-9, 212-4, 243-4, 294-6;\n marked in calendars, 15-6;\n men\u2019s, 102-3, 142, 194;\n of montes, 16, 265-7, 335;\n moveable, 15, 95, 124, 255-6, 277, 279, 294, 303;\n pagi, 16, 257, 294-6, 335;\n pastoral, 96-7;\n patrician, 68 (n. 2), 70;\n plebeian, 44, 50-1, 68, 70, 92, 163, 171, 253;\n of sacella, 16, 111-20, 335;\n survival of, 127-8, 312, 321;\n times of, 7, 59, 70, 169-70, 174, 189, 256, 290;\n transition from rustic to urban: _see_ Religion;\n women\u2019s, 38, 67-8, 102-3, 142, 148, 154-6, 178-9, 255-6, 291.\n\n Fetiales, 230-1;\n declaration of war, 134, 230;\n lapis silex, 230-1.\n\n Fidenates: legends about, 174, 175, 177, 178.\n\n Fides, 237;\n festival, 237-8.\n\n Fig-tree of Rumina, 310, 334.\n\n Fire: deities, 189, 209-10;\n sacred fire of Vesta: _see_ Vesta.\n\n Firstfruits: gathering, 151-3;\n offering, 195, 211-2.\n\n Fisovius Sancius: _see_ Fisus.\n\n\n Fisus, 137, 139.\n\n Flamines, 35, 288, 335, 342-3;\n antiquity of deity proved by, 92, 187, 201, 237;\n Flamen Carmentalis, 292;\n Flamen curiae, 304;\n Flamen Dialis, 86-8, 204, 221, 313;\n Flamen Floralis, 92;\n Flamen Furinalis, 187;\n Flamen Martialis, 237, 323;\n Flamen Palatualis, 267;\n Flamen Pomonalis, 201;\n Flamen Portunalis, 202;\n Flamen Quirinalis, 89, 209, 237, 276, 333, 334;\n Flamen Volcanalis, 123, 210;\n Flamen Volturnalis, 214;\n Flaminica Dialis, 56 (n. 5), 112, 115, 146, 149, 151, 153, 221;\n representative of sons of the family, 36, 147, 288, 334.\n\n Flora, 92-3, 240, 324;\n festivals, 91-5\n functions, 67, 93, 94;\n temples, 92, 202, 324.\n\n Floralia, 91-5;\n hares and goats loosed in Circus Maximus, 94.\n\n Fons (or Fontus), 240-1, 258;\n temple, 341.\n\n Fontinalia, 240-1.\n\n Fordicidia, 71-2, 83, 243;\n character, 66, 115, 150;\n share of Vestal Virgins in, 71, 83, 115, 150.\n\n Fornacalia, 302-6, 335.\n\n Fors Fortuna: _see_ Fortuna.\n\n\n Fortuna, 67;\n connexion with Jupiter, 166, 168, 223-5;\n with Nortia, 171-2;\n with Servius Tullius, 68, 156-7, 162, 171-2;\n explained as dawn-goddess, 164-6;\n explained as moon-goddess, 168-9;\n explained as sun-goddess, 168-71;\n festivals, 67-9; 161-72;\n Fors, 124, 161-3, 340;\n functions, 167-8, 170-1;\n _huiusce diei_, 164-5, 343;\n origin of name, 163-4, 166-7;\n Primigenia, 72, 124, 165-6, 167-8, 223-4, 254;\n statues, 156-7, 339;\n symbols, 169, 170-1;\n temples, 68, 72, 124, 156-7, 161-2, 166, 339, 343;\n Virilis, 68;\n women especially worship, 167-8;\n worshipped at Praeneste, 72, 124, 166, 168, 223.\n\n Forum: meeting of curiae in, 305, 306;\n temples, 271, 273-4, 296, 339.\n\n\n Forum Boarium: Aedes Herculis, 193;\n temples, 154, 156-7, 339.\n\n Forum Olitorium: temple, 302.\n\n Foxes, 78;\n loosed at Cerealia, 77-9; 94.\n\n Fratres Arvales, 42;\n Acta Fratrum Arvalium, 17, 125;\n calendar, 12;\n decline of, 184-5, 343;\n ritual of, 48, 74, 92-3, 105, 125, 127, 136, 240-1, 271, 282.\n\n Freedwomen: worship of Feronia, 253.\n\n Furiae: confusion with Furrina, 187, 188.\n\n Furrina (or Furina), 187-8.\n\n Furrinalia, 173, 187-8.\n\n\n Gaia Caecilia, 141.\n\n\n Games (ludi), 15, 50;\n Apollinares, 173, 179-80;\n Cereales, 72-3;\n compitales, 279-80;\n Florae, 91-5;\n horse races, 44-5, 58, 91, 180, 208, 242, 245-6, 248-9;\n Megalesiaci, 69-71;\n plebeii, 180, 217, 252, 253;\n Romani, 215, 216-7, 252;\n saeculares, 182.\n\n Gates: _see_ Porta.\n\n Geese: sacred to Juno, 129-30.\n\n Genita Mana. 101.\n\n\n Ghosts: purification of house from, 100, 109-10, 131;\n classification of, 108-9.\n\n Gods: _see_ Deities.\n\n Guilds, 62, 121;\n tibicines, 157-8.\n\n\n Harawara, 84.\n\n Hares: loosed at Floralia, 94.\n\n Harvest, 154, 189;\n customs, 177-8, 245-6;\n festivals, 124-8, 153-4, 189-90, 195-6, 207-9.\n\n Healing deities, 104-5, 180, 191, 278.\n\n Heimdal: equation with Janus, 286.\n\n Hephaestus, 123.\n\n Hercules: connexion with Dius Fidius or Semo Sancus, 137-9, 142-4;\n with Genius, 143-4, 194-5, 196, 337;\n with Juno, 142-4;\n with Mars, 194-5, 196;\n coupled with Diana, 181, 186;\n Invictus, 201;\n legends, 102, 112, 138, 193, 196-7;\n representative of male principle, 103, 143, 194;\n temples, 135, 201;\n Victor, 138;\n worship, 193-7;\n worship confined to men, 102, 103, 142, 194.\n\n Hermes, 120-1;\n connexion with Mercury, 121, 186.\n\n Hirpi Sorani: rites at Soracte, 84, 317.\n\n Horatius: legend, 238-9.\n\n Horses: connexion of Consus with, 207-8;\n of Mars with, 330;\n decked with flowers, 207-8;\n heads decked with cakes, 242, 244.\n\n Horta Quirini, 324.\n\n\n Ides, 8;\n sacred to Jupiter, 8, 10, 120, 157, 198, 215, 241.\n\n Iguvium: inscription found at, 17, 114, 127, 137, 139, 176, 221.\n\n\n Images and statues of gods, 81, 141, 156-7, 200, 201, 218, 228, 239.\n\n Indigitamenta, 71, 191, 192, 274, 341.\n\n Indigites, 192.\n\n Inuus, 312-3.\n\n Isis worship, 252.\n\n\n January, 5-7;\n character, 6, 33, 277;\n consuls enter office in, 5, 95, 278;\n festivals, 6, 277-97;\n origin of name, 6, 7, 33, 99.\n\n Janus, 270;\n connexion with Cardea, 131-2;\n with January, 6, 33, 99;\n with Saturnus, 270;\n with tigillum sororium, 238-9;\n with Vesta, 282-3, 287-8, 334-5;\n cult-titles, 289-90;\n geminus, 286;\n god of entrances, 282-3, 286-9, 335, 337;\n origin of cult, 282-9;\n Rex sacrorum connected with worship of, 282, 288, 334-5;\n temples, 204, 270.\n\n\n July, 2, 3, 173;\n festivals, 174-88.\n\n June: character, 6, 33;\n festivals, 130-72;\n origin of name, 6, 99-100, 129-30.\n\n Juno, 312;\n Caprotina, 178;\n connexion with Bona Dea, 142;\n with Hercules, 142-4;\n with June, 99-100, 129;\n with Jupiter, 134, 218, 221, 223-5;\n with Mars, 37-8, 133-4;\n with tigillum sororium, 238-9;\n cult at Praeneste, 166, 224;\n Curitis, 223, 239;\n festivals, 174, 178-9;\n Kalends sacred to, 8, 38, 129, 239, 241;\n Lucina, 38, 105, 156;\n Moneta, 129-30;\n one of Etruscan trias, 218, 220, 229, 235, 339;\n representative of female principle, 38, 141, 143, 178, 221, 321 (n.\n 1), 337;\n Sospita, 302;\n temples, 38, 157-8, 215, 216-7, 302, 326-7.\n\n\n Jupiter, 97, 220-1, 313;\n Capitolinus, 97, 158;\n cella Jovis, 217;\n connexion with Dius Fidius or Semo Sancus, 138-41, 221;\n with Fortuna, 166, 168, 223-5;\n with Juno, 134, 218, 221, 223-5;\n with Mercurius, 120;\n with Terminus, 326-7;\n with wine, 55, 88, 240;\n Elicius, 232, 233;\n epulum Jovis, 215, 216, 217-20, 233-4, 253;\n Fagutalis, 228;\n Feretrius, 229-30, 232, 334;\n festivals, 85-8, 157-9, 174, 216-20, 275, 338;\n Fulgur, 239;\n functions, 55, 88, 97, 141, 222, 229-30, 232, 326;\n Ides sacred to, 8, 10, 120, 157, 198, 215, 241;\n Indiges, 192;\n Invictus, 158;\n Latiaris, 97, 198, 227-8;\n Liber, 55, 88;\n Lucetius, 222;\n one of Etruscan trias, 218, 220, 229, 235, 339;\n Puer, cult at Praeneste, 166, 224-7;\n stones connected with, 230-3, 234;\n temples, 95-6, 157-8, 215, 216-7, 228, 229, 232, 326-7, 339;\n Viminius, 229;\n worship in groves, 183, 227;\n worship in Italy, 221-3;\n worship on hills, 95, 222, 227, 234.\n\n Juturna, 293;\n temple, 341.\n\n\n Kalends, 8;\n sacred to Juno, 8, 38, 129, 239, 241.\n\n Kings, 36, 63, 282;\n represented by Pontifex Maximus, 147, 288;\n represented by Rex sacrorum, 8, 213, 282, 288.\n\n\n Lapis: _see_ Stones.\n\n Larentalia, 275-6.\n\n Larentia: _see_ Acca Larentia.\n\n Lares, 136, 309, 337;\n compitales or domestici, 101, 338;\n praestites, 100-1, 335.\n\n Latin Festival: _see_ Feriae Latinae.\n\n Latins, common worship of Romans and, 95-7, 198-9, 335.\n\n Latona, coupled with Apollo, 181, 186, 200.\n\n Laurel, 83;\n sacred to Mars, 35-6.\n\n Lectisternium, 180-1, 186, 200, 273;\n connexion with epulum Jovis, 218.\n\n Lemuria, 100, 106-10, 131, 174, 290.\n\n Leucothea, 154.\n\n Liber, 312, 338;\n connexion with Dionysus, 54-5, 74, 88.\n\n Libera, 74.\n\n Liberalia, 54-6;\n cakes used at, 53-4, 55.\n\n Litania Maior, 91, 127.\n\n Lucaria, 15 (n. 1), 173, 174, 182-5, 186-7.\n\n Luceres, 185.\n\n Ludi: _see_ Games.\n\n\n Lupercal, 310-1, 318.\n\n Lupercalia, 298, 299, 310-21;\n deity of, 257-8, 262, 312-3;\n sacrifices at, 101, 311, 312-4;\n salt-cake used, 110, 115, 311;\n whipping to produce fertility, 104, 179, 262, 302, 311, 315, 318-21.\n\n Luperci, 311, 312-3, 319-20;\n derivation of name, 311, 317.\n\n Lupercus, 311, 312.\n\n Lupines, 94.\n\n\n Lustrations, 68, 83-5, 298;\n aedes Vestae, 148-9, 151-4;\n Argei, 100, 113-4, 115, 119;\n arms, 58-9, 248-9, 250-1;\n bound-beating, 114, 125-8, 304, 319;\n crops, 100, 114, 124-8, 154;\n ghosts, 100;\n Lupercalia, 315-6, 319-21;\n people, 175-6;\n processions, 111, 113-4, 125-6, 335;\n rites, 299-302;\n sheep, 81;\n shields, 58-9, 248, 250;\n trumpets, 63-4, 123.\n\n\n Magna Mater Idaea: festival, 67, 69-71;\n introduction into Rome, 67, 69-70, 102, 342;\n stone representing, 69-70, 342;\n temple, 70.\n\n Maia, 98-100;\n connexion with Bona Dea, 99, 100, 123, 129;\n with Mercurius, 98-9, 120;\n with Volcanus, 123, 210.\n\n Mamuralia, 45-50.\n\n Mamurius: expulsion of Mamurius Veturius, 40-1, 46-9;\n festival, 44-50;\n smith, 39, 45-6;\n variant for Mars, 39, 41, 45.\n\n Manes, 108, 300, 308.\n\n\n March, 2, 3;\n beginning of year, 5, 33, 38;\n connexion with Mars, 33-5, 48, 64-5, 99;\n festivals, 5, 35-65;\n New Year\u2019s Day, 5, 35-43, 278;\n origin of name, 33, 99.\n\n Marcus Fulvius Nobilior, 11.\n\n Market days, 8.\n\n\n Marriages, 293;\n customs, 142;\n ill-omened in March and May, 60, 67, 100, 109, 293;\n prohibited, 146, 308.\n\n Mars, 53, 60, 313;\n birthday, 5, 36-8, 60;\n comparison with Apollo, 39-40;\n connexion with Hercules, 194-5, 196;\n with Juno, 37-8, 133-4;\n with March, 33-5, 48, 64-5, 99;\n with Minerva, 53, 59-60, 62;\n with Nerio, 60-2, 186;\n with Quirinus, 322-3;\n with Robigus, 89, 324;\n with Romulus, 33, 37 (n. 3);\n with Silvanus, 55, 194;\n festivals, 44-6, 57-63, 123, 241-50, 290, 313, 330-1;\n functions, 34-5, 41, 43, 64-5, 89, 248-9, 250, 262;\n god of powers of vegetation and reproduction, 34-5; 41, 48-9, 64,\n 126-7, 196;\n Greek influence, 35, 37;\n laurel sacred to, 35-6;\n origin, 34-5, 64;\n priests: _see_ Salii;\n Sacrarium Martis, 39, 44, 324, 335;\n shields: _see_ Ancilia;\n temples, 133-4, 232;\n war-god, 126, 207, 248, 249.\n\n Mater Larum, 240.\n\n Mater Matuta, 154-6, 165.\n\n Matralia, 154-6, 165.\n\n Matronalia, 38.\n\n May, 2, 3;\n character, 6, 33, 100;\n festivals, 33, 98-128;\n origin of name, 6, 33, 98-100.\n\n Meals: _see also_ Epulum Jovis;\n sacrificial, 81, 96-7, 194, 218-20, 308, 309.\n\n Meditrinalia, 236, 239-40.\n\n Megalesia, 69-71.\n\n Men: exclusion from cults, 102-3, 142, 256;\n oaths of, 138-9, 142.\n\n Mens, 145.\n\n Mercurius: connexion with Hermes, 121, 186;\n with Jupiter, 120;\n with Maia, 98-9, 120;\n coupled with Neptunus, 181, 186;\n god of trade, 121;\n temples, 121, 339.\n\n Mildew: _see_ Rust.\n\n Minerva: connexion with Mars, 53, 59-60, 62;\n with Nerio, 59-62;\n festivals, 59, 62, 158;\n goddess of trumpet players, 62, 158;\n nail driven into cella of, 234-5;\n one of Etruscan trias, 218, 220, 229, 235, 339;\n temples, 59, 157-8, 215, 216-7, 326-7, 339.\n\n Mola salsa: _see_ Salt-cake.\n\n Montes, 266-7;\n festivals of, 16, 265-7, 335.\n\n Months, 5-7, 33-4;\n divisions, 7-8;\n lunar, 7;\n names, 5-7, 33-4, 99-100;\n number of days, 2-3;\n solar, 1.\n\n\n Mundus, 211-2;\n open, 211-2, 239, 252.\n\n Myrtle, 68;\n excluded from temple of Bona Dea, 103-4.\n\n\n Nails driven into temples, 172, 217, 234-5.\n\n Nemesis, 170.\n\n Neptunalia, 173, 185-7.\n\n Neptunus, 185-7;\n connexion with Poseidon, 185, 186, 187;\n with Salacia, 186;\n coupled with Mercurius, 181, 186;\n functions, 185, 187.\n\n Nerio, 134-5;\n connexion with Mars, 60-2, 186;\n with Minerva, 59-62.\n\n Nerthus, 117.\n\n New Year: _see_ March.\n\n\n Nones, 7, 8;\n Nonae Caprotinae, 174, 175, 178-9.\n\n Nortia, 235;\n connexion with Fortuna, 171-2.\n\n November: character, 252;\n festivals, 252-4.\n\n Numa: connexion with calendar, 4, 335-6;\n legends, 262-3, 278.\n\n Numbers: lucky and unlucky, 3.\n\n\n Oak of Jupiter Feretrius, 229, 232, 334.\n\n Oaths, 138-9, 142, 231, 297, 327;\n Jupiter\u2019s connexion with, 139, 229-30, 326;\n taken at Ara Maxima, 138-9.\n\n Octaeteris cycle, 2-3.\n\n October, 2, 3;\n character, 236-7;\n festivals, 237-51.\n\n October-horse, 45, 58, 241-50;\n blood kept by Vestal Virgins, 83, 150, 243, 247;\n corn-spirit represented by, 83, 244-8;\n races, 45, 58, 242, 245-6;\n sacrifice of, 83, 241-2.\n\n Opalia, 255, 273-4.\n\n Opeconsivia, 115, 150, 189, 212-4, 290.\n\n Ops, 74, 338;\n connexion with Consus, 212-3;\n with Saturnus, 212, 273-4;\n Consiva, 212;\n festival, 115, 150, 212-4, 273-4;\n Opifera, 210;\n temple, 273-4.\n\n Oracles: Faunus, 262-3.\n\n Oscilla: _see_ Puppets.\n\n Ovid: Fasti, 6-7, 13, 14, 36-7, 173, 236-7.\n\n\n Paganalia, 16, 294-6, 335, 338.\n\n Pagus, 257, 294, 335;\n festivals, 16, 257, 294-6, 335, 338.\n\n Palatine: divisions, 266;\n Lupercal: _see_ Lupercal;\n mundus: _see_ Mundus;\n rites celebrated, 276, 310-2, 318-9;\n temples, 70, 180 (n. 4), 182;\n union with Subura, 247.\n\n Palatua, 267.\n\n Pales, 67, 80, 267;\n festival, 79-85;\n offerings, 81, 103.\n\n Pan: connexion with Faunus, 258, 259, 313.\n\n Parentalia, 210, 276, 299, 300, 306-10, 335.\n\n Parilia, 66, 79-85, 110, 243, 247;\n character, 66, 115, 150;\n share of Vestal Virgins in, 71, 83, 115.\n\n Penates, 337.\n\n Persephone, 75.\n\n Picumnus, 201.\n\n Pinarii, 193.\n\n Plebeians: festivals, 44, 50-1, 68, 70, 92, 163, 171, 253;\n quarter, 75, 77;\n secession, 53, 75-7;\n temples, 75-6, 92, 199.\n\n Pomona, 201.\n\n Pons sublicius, Argei thrown from, 112, 113-4.\n\n\n Pontifices, 114;\n decline, 342-3;\n growing importance, 339-41;\n influence on religion, 190-1, 192, 213, 214, 257-8, 341;\n Pontifex Maximus, 147, 288;\n priestesses, 105-6;\n share in festivals, 112, 114, 276.\n\n Poplifugia, 7, 15 (n. 1), 173, 174-6, 179, 183, 328.\n\n\n Porta: Agonensis, 281;\n Capena, 133, 232;\n Carmentalis, 180 (n. 3), 290, 291, 293;\n Fontinalis, 240;\n Sanqualis, 135, 140;\n Trigemina, 201.\n\n Portunalia, 189, 202-4.\n\n Portunus, 202-4, 214,\n\n Poseidon: connexion, with Neptunus, 185, 186, 187;\n Hippios, 208.\n\n Potitii, 193.\n\n Praeneste, 254;\n cult of Fortuna, 72, 124, 166, 168, 223-4, 254;\n cult of Jupiter Puer, 166, 224-7;\n foreign influence, 166, 227.\n\n\n Prayers, 81-2, 89-90, 126-7, 133, 155, 184, 191, 295, 308, 346.\n\n Presents given at festivals, 38, 272, 278.\n\n Priests: _see_ Pontifices.\n\n Primigenia: _see_ Fortuna.\n\n Proserpina, 212.\n\n Prostitutes, festival of, 93.\n\n Punic Wars, 19, 69-71, 179;\n institution of festivals and temples due to, 19, 69, 179, 341, 342.\n\n\n Puppets: Argei thrown into Tiber, 111-20;\n oscilla hung on trees, 96, 116, 296.\n\n Purification: _see_ Lustration.\n\n Pythagoreans, 110.\n\n\n Quinctilis: see July.\n\n Quinquatrus, 45, 57-62, 290;\n minusculae, 157-9.\n\n Quirinal, 237, 281, 322;\n cults, 229, 322-4;\n temples, 124, 135, 136, 141, 190-1, 322, 324.\n\n Quirinalia, 304-5, 322-4.\n\n Quirinus, 305, 322-4;\n temples, 191, 322, 323.\n\n Quirites, 322.\n\n\n Races: _see_ Games.\n\n Regia, 190, 213, 220, 282, 335;\n laurel fixed on, 5, 35;\n sacrarium Martis in, 39, 44, 324, 335;\n sacrarium Opis in, 213.\n\n Regifugium, 174, 327-30, 331.\n\n\n Religion, 18-20;\n authorities, 332-3;\n based on cult, 20, 333-4;\n daemonistic character, 74, 106, 137, 139, 213, 221-2, 226-7, 232-3,\n 295, 313;\n decline, 341-3;\n Etruscan influence, 171-2, 219-20, 229, 234-5;\n Graeco-Etruscan influence, 185-6, 211-2, 223, 338-40;\n Greek influence, 191, 194, 200, 218, 226-7, 268-9, 273, 342, 343;\n influence on character, 344-9;\n Oriental influence, 19, 252;\n pontifices\u2019 influence, 190-1, 192, 213, 214, 257-8, 341;\n reaction against foreign influence, 340-1, 349;\n representative of stages of growth, 334-8;\n revival by Augustus: _see_ Augustus;\n transition from aniconic to iconic, 219-20, 229, 233-4;\n transition from rustic to urban, 90, 91, 103, 195-6, 248-50, 257-8,\n 279-80, 294.\n\n Reproduction, spirit: _see_ Corn-spirit.\n\n Rex sacrorum, 8, 335;\n connexion with Janus worship, 282, 288, 334-5;\n representative of king, 8, 213, 282, 288;\n representative of head of household, 213, 282, 288, 334.\n\n Robigalia, 66, 88-91.\n\n Robigus, 324, 338;\n connexion with Mars, 89, 324;\n festival, 88-91.\n\n Romulus, 4;\n connexion with Mars, 33, 37 (n. 3);\n with Quirinus, 322;\n legends, 175-6, 229, 310.\n\n\n Rust, red, 88-9, 91.\n\n\n Sabine women, legend, 178, 208-9.\n\n\n Sacella Argeorum, 16, 56-7, 111-2, 335;\n procession round, 56, 111, 113-4, 335.\n\n Sacrifices, 51, 54, 56, 62, 86, 209, 267, 313-4;\n bean meal and lard, 130, 133;\n boar, 210;\n bull, 126;\n cakes, 53-5, 155, 161, 295, 304;\n cereals, 292-3;\n cheese, 96, 228;\n cow, 71;\n dog, 89-91, 101, 209, 311, 312, 314;\n fig-tree, 178;\n fish, 209-10;\n flight after, 176, 328, 329-30;\n goat, 122, 311, 312, 314;\n heifer, 96, 179, 193, 217, 228;\n honey, 309, 325;\n horse, 241-2;\n human, relics of, 112, 115, 116-7, 119, 315;\n kid, 257;\n lamb, 64, 105, 325;\n milk, 81, 96, 103, 228, 309;\n millet, 81;\n oil, 309;\n pig, 105, 126, 256, 272, 325;\n procession of victims, 126;\n ram, 282;\n red calf, 210;\n sacrificial meal, 81, 96-7, 194, 228;\n salt-cake (mola salsa), 110, 115, 148, 311;\n sheep, 89, 96, 126;\n sow, 295;\n water, 309;\n wine, 87, 103, 257, 309, 325.\n\n Salacia, 186.\n\n\n Salii, 36, 39-43, 58, 194, 250, 331, 334;\n Agonenses, 41, 54, 281, 323;\n Carmen Saliare, 39, 41, 45, 49, 289;\n Collini, 41, 54, 320, 323;\n mansiones Saliorum, 41, 44;\n number, 41, 42;\n Palatini, 41, 320, 323;\n shields: _see_ Ancilia;\n skins worn by, 47-8, 49-50.\n\n\n Salt-cake (mola salsa): made by Vestal Virgins, 110-1, 115, 148, 149,\n 153, 205, 311;\n used at Ides of September, 110, 115, 311;\n used at Lupercalia, 110, 115, 311;\n used at Vestalia, 110, 115, 148, 311.\n\n Salus, 190-1, 343.\n\n Sancus: _see_ Semo Sancus.\n\n Saturnalia, 15, 177, 255, 268-73, 335.\n\n Saturnus, 120, 268-71;\n connexion with Ops Consiva, 212, 273-4;\n festival, 268-73;\n functions, 270, 338;\n temples, 71, 273-4, 339.\n\n Scapegoat, 176;\n Mamurius Veturius, 40-1, 46-9.\n\n Seianus: owner of statue of Fortuna, 156-7, 171.\n\n\n Semo Sancus, 160, 327;\n connexion with Dius Fidius, 136-8, 144;\n functions, 139-41.\n\n Semones, 136.\n\n Senate, 134.\n\n September: character, 215-6;\n festivals, 215-35.\n\n Septimontium, 16, 265-7, 335.\n\n Servius Tullius, 280;\n connexion with Fortuna, 68, 156-7, 162, 171-2, 339;\n Etruscan origin, 157, 171;\n founder of temples, 68, 162, 198-9, 339.\n\n Sextilis: _see_ August.\n\n Sheep: fold decorated, 80-1;\n lustration, 81;\n sacrifice, 89, 96, 126.\n\n Sibylline books, 68, 69, 74, 92, 93, 145, 179, 181.\n\n Silvanus, 55, 103, 258, 261, 262;\n connexion with Mars, 55, 194.\n\n Sirius, 90.\n\n Slaves, 155;\n deities of, 199, 253-4;\n festivals open to, 38, 162-3, 178-9, 193, 194, 199-200, 272-3, 280;\n manumissions, 253-4.\n\n Snakes, 104.\n\n Sol Indiges, 191-3.\n\n Soranus, 160;\n Apollo, 84, 181.\n\n Sosigenes, 4.\n\n Spells, 80-1, 83, 84, 96, 109-10, 150, 243, 279-80, 296, 301, 309-10;\n rain, 119-20, 232-3.\n\n Spirits: dead, _see_ Ghosts;\n evil, _see_ Evil spirits.\n\n Statues: _see_ Images.\n\n\n Stones, sacred, 140;\n lapis silex, 230-2;\n manalis, 211, 232-3;\n oath per Iovem lapidem, 138, 231;\n representing Magna Mater Idaea, 69-70, 342;\n Terminus, 230-1, 326-7, 334.\n\n Strenia, 278.\n\n Stultorum feriae, 304-6, 322.\n\n Subura, 247, 266.\n\n Summanalia, 161.\n\n Summanus, 160-1, 241.\n\n Sun, 84;\n deities of, 35, 168-70, 191-3, 283-4;\n symbols of, 139, 169-70.\n\n Supplicatio, 191.\n\n\n Tacita, 210, 309-10.\n\n Tanaquil, 141.\n\n Tarquinii, 75-6, 121, 280, 327-8;\n worships introduced by, 96, 181.\n\n Tellus, 67, 71, 74, 294-5;\n festivals, 71-2, 294-6;\n sacrifices, 71, 295.\n\n Tempestates, temple, 341.\n\n Temples, 339-43;\n of Aesculapius in insula, 278, 340;\n Apollo at Actium, 182;\n Apollo in Flaminian fields, 180;\n Apollo Palatinus on the Palatine, 180 (n. 4), 182;\n Bellona in Circo Flaminio, 134;\n Bona Dea on the Aventine, 101-5;\n Carmenta at Porta Carmentalis, 291, 293;\n Castor and Pollux ad Forum, 296;\n Castor and Pollux in Circo Flaminio, 202;\n Ceres, Liber, and Libera on the Aventine, 74-6, 339;\n Consus on the Aventine, 206, 267;\n Diana on the Aventine, 198-200, 339;\n Dius Fidius on the Quirinal, 135, 136, 141;\n Faunus in insula, 257-8, 278;\n Feronia at Tarracina, 253;\n Flora ad Circum Maximum, 92, 202;\n Flora or Horta Quirini on Quirinal, 324;\n Fors Fortuna trans Tiberim, 161-2, 339;\n Fortuna in Foro Boario, 156-7, 339;\n Fortuna Huiusce Diei, 165, 343;\n Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste, 72\n Fortuna Primigenia on the Quirinal, 124;\n Fortuna Virilis, 68;\n Hercules near the Circus Flaminius, 135;\n Hercules Invictus ad portam trigeminam, 201;\n Janus ad Theatrum Marcelli, 204;\n Juno Lucina on the Esquiline, 38;\n Juno Moneta in arce, 129-30;\n Juno Sospita ad Forum Olitorium, 302;\n Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva in Capitolio, 157-8, 215, 216-7, 326-7,\n 339;\n Jupiter Elicius under the Aventine, 232;\n Jupiter Feretrius in Capitolio, 229;\n Jupiter Invictus, 158;\n Jupiter Latiaris on the Alban Mount, 95-6, 228;\n Juturna, 341;\n Magna Mater Idaea, 70;\n Mars extra Portam Capenam, 133-4, 232;\n Mater Matuta in Foro Boario, 154;\n Mens in Capitolio, 145;\n Mercurius, 121, 339;\n Minerva on the Aventine, 59, 158;\n Ops ad Forum, 273-4;\n Quirinus in Colle, 191, 322;\n round, 193;\n Salus on the Quirinal, 190-1;\n Saturnus ad Forum, 271, 273-4, 339;\n Summanus ad Circum Maximum, 160;\n Tempestates, 341;\n Vediovis in arce, 43;\n Vediovis in insula, 122, 277;\n Vediovis inter duos lucos, 122;\n Venus ad Circum Maximum, 204;\n Venus Erycina in Capitolio, 85, 145;\n Venus Verticordia, 68, 343;\n Victory on the Palatine, 70;\n Volcanus in Circo Flaminio, 211;\n Vortumnus on the Aventine, 201, 341.\n\n Terminalia, 4, 324-7, 335.\n\n Terminus, 324, 326-7;\n festival, 324-7;\n stone, 230-1, 326-7, 334.\n\n Theatrum Marcelli, 204.\n\n Tiber, worship, 214.\n\n Tiber island: temples, 122, 257-8, 277, 278, 340.\n\n Tiberinus, 120, 203, 214.\n\n Tibicines: _see_ Trumpets.\n\n Tigillum sororium, 238-9.\n\n Tina (or Tinia), 222-3.\n\n Tirones, 56.\n\n Tithes: offered on Ara Maxima, 138; 195-7;\n offered to Hercules Victor, 138-9.\n\n Toga virilis, assumption of, 56.\n\n Totemism, 84-5, 101, 231-2, 334.\n\n Treaties: Dius Fidius\u2019 connexion with, 141;\n Jupiter\u2019s connexion with, 229-30, 326;\n making, 229-30;\n ratified at Ara Maxima, 138.\n\n Tree-worship, 228-9, 232, 234.\n\n Tribuni: celerum, 58-9;\n militum, 58;\n plebis, 75.\n\n\n Trumpets, 63-4, 159;\n lustration, 63-4, 123;\n players, 62, 157-9.\n\n Tubilustrium, 44, 45, 62-4, 123, 290;\n connexion with Minerva, 62;\n festival of Mars, 62, 290.\n\n\n Vediovis, 121-2, 160, 225, 277-8;\n connexion with Apollo, 122, 181, 225, 277;\n festivals, 43, 121-2, 277-8;\n temples, 43, 122, 277.\n\n Vegetation spirit: _see_ Corn-spirit.\n\n Veneralia, 67-9.\n\n Venus: connexion with April, 67, 69;\n with Fortuna, 68;\n with wine, 86, 204;\n Erycina, 85, 145;\n festivals, 67-8, 85-6;\n functions, 67, 86;\n Greek influence, 67, 69, 86;\n Mimnermia (or Meminia), 145;\n temples, 68, 85-6, 145, 204, 343;\n Verticordia, 68-9, 343.\n\n\n Vesta: aedes, 148-9, 151-4, 335;\n connexion with Janus, 282-3, 287-8, 334-5;\n festival, 145-54;\n functions, 150;\n hearth-goddess, 147-8, 150, 282-3, 287-8, 334, 337;\n laurels fixed on aedes, 5, 36, 153;\n penus Vestae, 83, 148, 149-50, 153, 288;\n origin of cult, 146-8, 149, 282-3;\n sacred fire, 5, 35, 114, 147-8, 150-1, 153.\n\n Vestalia, 145-54;\n character, 115, 126, 154;\n mourning of Flaminica Dialis, 115, 146, 149, 151, 153;\n salt-cake used, 110, 115, 148.\n\n Vestal Virgins, 36, 68-9, 306, 324, 335;\n festivals shared in, 52, 57, 71, 85, 112, 114-15, 150, 256;\n functions, 147, 149-51, 288;\n representative of daughters of family, 36, 111, 147, 149, 213, 256,\n 288, 334;\n salt-cake made by, 110-1, 115, 148, 149, 153, 205, 311.\n\n Vetches, 94.\n\n Victory, temple of, 70.\n\n Viminal, cults on, 229.\n\n Vinalia, 10, 338;\n connexion with Jupiter, 85, 86-8, 338;\n with Venus, 85-6, 204;\n Priora, 85-8;\n Rustica, 10, 85, 86, 87, 189, 204-6.\n\n Vitulatio, 179.\n\n Volcanalia, 189, 209-11.\n\n Volcanus, 209-11;\n connexion with Maia, 123, 210;\n festivals, 123, 209-10;\n functions, 123-4, 210;\n temple, 211.\n\n Volturnalia, 214.\n\n Volturnus, 214.\n\n Volupia, 274.\n\n Vortumnus, 201, 341.\n\n\n War: conduct of, 216;\n declaration of, 134, 230;\n gods of, 126, 134-5, 207, 248, 249.\n\n Water: deities of, 187, 189.\n\n Weddings: _see_ Marriages.\n\n Weeks: eight days, 7, 8.\n\n Wells and springs: sanctity, 240.\n\n Wheel symbol, 161, 169-70.\n\n Wills: sanctioned by Comitia Curiata, 63, 123.\n\n Wine: festivals, 85-8, 204-6, 236, 239-40;\n introduction of vine into Italy, 88, 97, 236;\n Jupiter\u2019s connexion with, 55, 88, 240;\n Venus\u2019 connexion with, 86, 204;\n vintage, 236.\n\n Wolf: corn; _see_ Corn-spirit;\n sacred to Mars, 311, 334.\n\n\n Women, 262;\n deities of, 38, 68, 102-3, 106, 155-6, 167-8, 200-1, 291-3;\n excluded from worship of Hercules, 102, 103, 142, 194;\n festivals, 38, 67-8, 102-3, 142, 148, 154-6, 178-9, 255-6, 291;\n oaths, 142;\n rites to produce fertility, 94-5, 104, 178-9, 262, 302, 311, 315,\n 318-21.\n\n Woods, importance in religion, 183-4.\n\n\n\n Year: beginning, 5-7, 35-6, 278;\n lunar, 1-3;\n method of reckoning, 1-4;\n solar, 1-3.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF LATIN WORDS\n\n\n\n Aedes, 135.\n\n Agone? 281.\n\n Agonia, 281.\n\n Amiculum Iunonis, 179, 312, 321 (n. 1).\n\n Ancile, 38, 41, 42, 43, 46, 58, 248, 250.\n\n Annare perennare, 51.\n\n Annus, 1, 52.\n\n Aperio, 66.\n\n Argea, 56.\n\n Argei, 52, 56, 57, 111 (n. 4), 112, 113, 118-9.\n\n Asylum, 122, 183 (n. 3), 327.\n\n Augurium Salutis, 190.\n\n Auspicatio vindemiae, 204, 205.\n\n\n Baculum, 64.\n\n Balineum, 67.\n\n Bidental, 140.\n\n Bidentes, 140.\n\n Bulla, 96 (n. 5).\n\n\n Caeli templum, 141.\n\n Camella, 82 (n. 4).\n\n Caprificatio, 178 (n. 8).\n\n Cara cognatio, 306, 308.\n\n Cardo, 132.\n\n Carmen, 291.\n\n Carpentum, 291.\n\n Casnar, 119 (n. 1).\n\n Cerei, 273.\n\n Cerfia, 73.\n\n Cerfus, 73.\n\n Cerus, 73.\n\n Cingulum, 142.\n\n Cippus, 319.\n\n Clava, 64.\n\n Clavis, 203.\n\n Clavus, 234, 235.\n\n Clypeus, 141.\n\n Collegium, 157.\n\n Columella, 134.\n\n Comitialis, 9.\n\n Compitum, 279, 280, 294.\n\n Condere, 207.\n\n Covella, 8 (n. 1).\n\n Creare, 73.\n\n Creppi, 262, 318.\n\n Curia, 16, 71, 303.\n\n Curio, 304.\n\n\n Damiatrix, 105, 106.\n\n Damium, 105.\n\n Decumae, 195, 196.\n\n Decuria, 140.\n\n Dies parentales, 107, 306.\n\n\n Edepol, 297.\n\n Endotercisus, 10.\n\n Equorum probatio, 216 (n. 5).\n\n\n Fabariae kalendae, 130.\n\n Fanum, 135.\n\n Far, 304.\n\n Fari, 259.\n\n Fas (or Fastus), 8.\n\n Favere, 258.\n\n Februare, 188, 298 (n. 1).\n\n Februum, 6, 83, 298, 301, 311, 321.\n\n Feriae, 8.\n\n Flamen, 36, 147.\n\n Foculus, 55.\n\n Focus, 242.\n\n Forda, 71.\n\n Fornax, 306.\n\n Fur, 187.\n\n Furfare, 188.\n\n Furvus, 187.\n\n Fuscus, 187.\n\n\n Genialis, 55.\n\n Genius, 55.\n\n\n Hostia praecidanea, 301.\n\n Herbarium, 104.\n\n Horda, 71.\n\n\n Impius, 299.\n\n Incinctus, 309.\n\n Incubus, 262.\n\n Indiges, 192, 193.\n\n Indigitamenta, 191, 192, 341.\n\n\n Janua, 6, 7, 282.\n\n Janus, 6, 282, 286, 287.\n\n\n Lapis Capitolinus, 230-1.\n\n Lapis manalis, 211, 232, 233.\n\n Lapis silex, 230, 231.\n\n Larva, 108.\n\n Laurea, 36.\n\n Lectisternium, 181, 200, 218, 273.\n\n Lectus genialis, 142, 143.\n\n Lemur, 108, 109, 183.\n\n Lex templi, 198.\n\n Liba, 53, 55, 155 (n. 7).\n\n Liberalis, 55.\n\n Litania maior, 91, 127.\n\n Lituus, 64.\n\n Lucar, 183.\n\n Lucus, 183, 185.\n\n Ludi, 15.\n\n Lupus, 311.\n\n Lustratio, 58, 66, 175 (n. 8), 176, 301.\n\n Lux, 222.\n\n\n Maena, 209, 309.\n\n Mane, 156.\n\n Manes, 108, 109, 156.\n\n Maniae, 116.\n\n Mansiones Salioruro, 41, 44.\n\n Manus, 156.\n\n Matrimus, 42.\n\n Maturus, 156.\n\n Matuta, 156.\n\n Mecastor, 297.\n\n Me dius fidius, 138.\n\n Me hercule, 138.\n\n Mellarium, 103.\n\n Mercator, 121.\n\n Minium, 218, 223.\n\n Minusculus, 158.\n\n Mola salsa, 110, 149, 155 (n. 7), 311.\n\n Moneta, 129, 130.\n\n Montanus, 267.\n\n Montes, 16, 266-7.\n\n Mundus, 211-2, 283.\n\n Mustum, 240.\n\n\n Nefas, 299.\n\n Nefastus, 9, 151.\n\n Nemus, 183.\n\n Nodus herculaneus, 142.\n\n Numen, 34, 35, 183.\n\n Nundinae, 8, 270.\n\n\n Obnuntiatio, 343.\n\n Ocris fisius, 222.\n\n Offa penita, 247 (n. 1).\n\n Orbis, 139, 141.\n\n Oscilla, 96, 116, 296.\n\n\n Paganus, 267.\n\n Pagus, 16, 114, 257, 294, 335.\n\n Palatuar, 80 (n. 3).\n\n Parentatio, 275, 276, 306.\n\n Patrimus, 42.\n\n Pecuarius, 257.\n\n Penus, 148, 149, 150 (n. 1), 153, 212, 213, 288.\n\n Per Iovem (lapidem), 138, 230 (n. 2), 231.\n\n Persillum, 202 (n. 1).\n\n Piamen, 301.\n\n Pietas, 347-8.\n\n Pistrina, 304.\n\n Pomoerium, 133 (n. 3), 134, 211, 302 (n. 1), 319, 327.\n\n Pompa, 216 (n. 5).\n\n Pontifex, 114.\n\n Portus, 202, 203.\n\n Postriduanus, 9.\n\n Primigenia, 165, 223.\n\n Purgamentum, 301.\n\n Puteal, 140.\n\n\n Quadrata (Roma), 211.\n\n Quando Rex Comitiavit Fas, 10, 63.\n\n Quando Stercus Delatum Fas, 10, 146, 149.\n\n Quinquare, 58.\n\n\n Regia, 148.\n\n Religio, 298, 300, 347.\n\n Religiosus, 9, 151.\n\n Robigo, 78, 88, 89.\n\n Ros, 82 (n. 3).\n\n\n Sacella Argeorum, 16, 56, 110.\n\n Sacellum, 111, 112, 113, 130, 135, 154.\n\n Sacer, 75, 174, 348.\n\n Sacra Argeorum, 16, 111.\n\n Sacrosanctitas, 75.\n\n Salax, 186.\n\n Salum, 186.\n\n Sanqualis avis, 139.\n\n Sapa, 82.\n\n Satio, 269.\n\n Sceptrum, 230.\n\n Serere, 269, 289.\n\n Sexagenarios de ponte, 112, 116.\n\n Sigillaria, 272.\n\n Simulacrum, 57, 113, 118.\n\n Solis pulvinar, 191.\n\n Stolae longae, 159.\n\n Strenae, 278.\n\n Strix, 132.\n\n Stultorum feriae, 304, 306.\n\n Suffimen, 83.\n\n Summanalia, 161.\n\n\n Tabularia, 269.\n\n Tibia, 63, 159.\n\n Tigillum sororium, 237, 238.\n\n Tiro, 56.\n\n Toga libera, 56.\n\n Trabea, 41.\n\n Transvectio equitum, 133, 296 (n. 6).\n\n Tribunus celerum, 58, 59.\n\n Tribunus militum, 58.\n\n Tuba, 63, 64, 123.\n\n Tunica picta, 41.\n\n\n Urfita, 139.\n\n\n Vegrandia farra, 121.\n\n Vescus, 121.\n\n Vesta, 282.\n\n Vestalis, 36.\n\n Vestigia fugae, 176, 183.\n\n Vicus, 280.\n\n Vindemia, 86, 88, 204, 205, 236.\n\n Virga, 178.\n\n Visceratio, 179.\n\n Vitulatio, 179.\n\n Vitulus, 179.\n\n Votum, 346.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF LATIN AUTHORS QUOTED\n\n\n APPULEIUS,\n\n _de Genio Socratis_, 15 108\n\n\n ARNOBIUS,\n\n _adv. Nationes_, 3. 40 73\n\n _adv. Nationes_, 7. 21 312\n\n _adv. Nationes_, 7. 49 70\n\n\n AUGUSTINUS (ST.),\n\n _de Civ. Dei_, 2. 27 93\n\n \u201c 2. 29 230\n\n \u201d 4. 8 177, 274\n\n \u201c 4. 11 167, 292\n\n \u201d 4. 23 160, 326\n\n\n AUSONIUS, _de Feriis_, 9 177\n\n\n\n CAESAR, _Bell. Gall._, 6. 16 117, 286\n\n\n CALPURNIUS, _Ecl._ 1. 8 foll. 263\n\n\n CATO,\n\n _de Re Rustica_, 83 194\n\n \u201c 132 218\n\n \u201d 139 184\n\n \u201c 141 89, 126\n\n \u201d 156 foll. 105\n\n _ap. Dionys._ 2. 49 137\n\n _ap. Priscian_. 7. 337 198\n\n\n CENSORINUS,\n\n _de Die Natali_, 2. 20 66\n\n \u201c 20. 4 3\n\n \u201d 20. 2 97\n\n\n CICERO,\n\n _de Harusp. Resp._, 12. 24 70\n\n \u201c 17. 37 256\n\n _pro Roscio Amer._, 35. 100 112, 116\n\n _in Verrem_, i. 10. 31 215\n\n _de Domo_, 28. 74 267\n\n _in Pisonem_, 4. 8 279\n\n _pro Fiacco_, 38. 95 308\n\n _de Nat. Deor._, 2. 27. 67 287\n\n \u201d 2. 61 145\n\n \u201c 2. 68 150\n\n \u201d 3. 20 240\n\n \u201c 3. 46 187\n\n \u201d 3. 48 155\n\n _de Divinatione_, 1. 10 160\n\n \u201c 1. 17. 30 64\n\n \u201d 1. 101 262\n\n \u201c 2. 41 166\n\n _de Legibus_, 1. 14. 40 299\n\n \u201d 2. 3. 8 333\n\n \u201c 2. 21. 54 276\n\n \u201d 2. 48 308\n\n _de Officiis_, 3. 10 322\n\n _de Republ._, 1. 16 175\n\n \u201c 2. 12 208\n\n _Brutus_, 14. 56 292\n\n \u201d 20. 78 180\n\n _Ep. ad Att._, 1. 12 256\n\n \u201c 6. 1. 8 11\n\n \u201d 9. 9. 4 54\n\n \u201c 13. 52 268\n\n \u201d 15. 25 256\n\n _ad Fam._ 12. 25 54\n\n _ad Q. Fratr._, 2. 3. 2 322\n\n\n COLUMELLA,\n\n _de Re Rustica_, 2. 8. 2 255, 271\n\n \u201c 2. 12 88\n\n \u201d 10. 311 170\n\n \u201c 11. 2. 178, 214, 299\n\n \u201d 12. 4 213\n\n\n CORNELIUS NEPOS,\n\n _Atticus_, 20 229\n\n\n ENNIUS, _Fragm._, 5. 477 210\n\n\n FESTUS & PAULUS (ed. M\u00fcller).\n\n\n P. 2. Aquaelicium 232\n\n 5. Ambarvales hostiae 125\n\n 19. Armilustrium 250\n\n 22. Apellinem 180\n\n 23. Aureliam familiam 191\n\n 33. Bellona 134\n\n 45. Catularia porta 90\n\n 56. Claudere 203\n\n 63. Cingulum 142\n\n 64. Corniscae 130\n\n Curiales mensae 303\n\n 68. Damium 105\n\n Daps 218\n\n 75. Depontani 112\n\n 85. Fontinalia 240\n\n Februarius mensis 298, 321\n\n 87. Fagutal 228\n\n 92. Feretrius 138, 230\n\n 93. Fornacalia 304\n\n 97. Gradivus 37\n\n 119. Larentalia 275\n\n 122. Mater Matuta 156\n\n 123. Meditrinalia 240\n\n 128. Manalis lapis 211\n\n 150. Martius mensis 5\n\n 154. Mundus 211\n\n 165. Nefasti dies 9\n\n 178. October equus 242\n\n 179. October equus 242\n\n 197. Oscines 140\n\n 209. Picta toga 206\n\n 210. Piscatorii ludi 209\n\n 217. Persillum 202\n\n 229. Propter viam 138\n\n Proversum fulgor 160\n\n 233. Portus 203\n\n 238. Praebia 141\n\n 241. Praebia 136\n\n 242. Pudicitiae Signum 157\n\n 245. Publica Sacra 16, 111, 256\n\n Palatualis flamen 80\n\n 253. Pollucere merces 195\n\n 254. Quinquatrus 59\n\n Quirinalia 304, 322\n\n 264. Rustica Vinalia 86, 204\n\n 278. Regifugium 62, 328\n\n 297. Sororium tigillum 238\n\n 309. Subura 266\n\n 316. Stultorum feriae 304\n\n 322. Saturnia 269\n\n 326. Thymelici ludi 180\n\n 333. Scribonianum 140\n\n 334. Sexagenarios de ponte 111\n\n 340. Septimontium 265\n\n 343. Servorum dies 199\n\n 348. Summanalia 161\n\n Septimontium 266\n\n 374. Vinalia 85\n\n 377. Umbrae 185\n\n\n\n GAIUS, 2. 101 63\n\n\n GELLIUS, A.,\n\n _Noctes Atticae_, 4. 9. 5 9\n\n \u201c 5. 12 122, 186, 225\n\n \u201d 10. 15 56, 110, 115, 313\n\n \u201c 10. 24. 3 279\n\n \u201d 11. 6. 1 142\n\n \u201c 12. 8. 2 218\n\n \u201d 13. 23 123, 186, 212\n\n \u201c 16. 7 82\n\n \u201d 16. 16. 4 291\n\n \u201c 18. 2. 11 70\n\n \u201d 18. 7. 2 291\n\n \u201c 20. 2 63\n\n GROMATICI AUCTORES (ed. Rudorff.),\n\n \u201d vol. i. 56 184\n\n \u201c \u201d 141 325\n\n \u201c \u201d 164 126\n\n \u201c \u201d 302 258\n\n \u201c \u201d 350 326\n\n \u201c vol. ii. 263 184\n\n\n\n HORACE,\n\n _Od._, 1. 21 201\n\n \u201c 1. 28 299\n\n \u201d 1. 35 157, 170, 235, 238\n\n \u201c 3. 8 38\n\n \u201d 3. 17 272\n\n \u201c 3. 18 256\n\n _Sat._, 1. 8. 24 109\n\n \u201d 2. 6. 20 foll. 289\n\n\n\n ISIDORUS, 15. 11. 1 307\n\n\n\n JULIUS OBSEQUENS, 19 36\n\n\n JUVENAL,\n\n _Sat._, 2. 83 foll. 256\n\n \u201c 2. 86 105, 256\n\n \u201d 6. 314 foll. 256\n\n \u201c 9. 53 38\n\n\n LACTANTIUS,\n\n _Inst._ (_de Falsa Religione_),\n\n 1. 15. 8 137\n\n 1. 20 93, 275\n\n 1. 21. 45 321\n\n 1. 22 103, 106\n\n\n LIVY,\n\n Bk. 1. 2 52, 247\n\n 5 265, 312\n\n 7 193\n\n 10 229\n\n 16 175\n\n 20 41, 233\n\n 24 111\n\n 26 238\n\n 31. 3 227\n\n 32. 12 134\n\n 45 198\n\n 55 4\n\n 2. 5 191\n\n 21 270\n\n 3. 31, 32 fin. 75\n\n 55 75\n\n 63 180\n\n 4. 20 229\n\n 5. 13 180, 186, 200\n\n 19 154\n\n 23 154\n\n 40 323\n\n 52 41\n\n 85 187\n\n 6. 5 134\n\n 20 130\n\n 33 155\n\n 7. 3 234\n\n 23 133\n\n 28 129\n\n 8. 9 288\n\n 20 141, 135\n\n 22 136\n\n 9. 30 158\n\n 40 41\n\n 46 9, 11\n\n 10. 19 134\n\n 23 75\n\n 31. 9 86, 204\n\n 46 162\n\n 11. (Epit.) 278\n\n 14. (Epit.) 160\n\n 21. 1 199\n\n 22. 1 245, 253, 271\n\n 9 145\n\n 33. 7 211\n\n 23. 19 225\n\n 31 145\n\n 24. 3 183\n\n 25. 12 179\n\n 26. 11 199, 253\n\n 33 180\n\n 27. 6 75\n\n 11 228\n\n 23 180\n\n 29. 10 69\n\n 14 69\n\n 36 254\n\n 30. 39 73\n\n 43 231\n\n 31. 21 277\n\n 32. 1 96, 137\n\n 33. 25 75\n\n 42 257, 278, 302\n\n 34. 53 124, 277, 302\n\n 35. 10 242\n\n 36. 2 217\n\n 37. 33 44, 96, 250\n\n 38. 57 218\n\n 39. 15 343\n\n 40. 34. 4 86\n\n 45 96\n\n 51 180\n\n 41. 13 140\n\n 16 96\n\n\n LUCAN, 3. 153 269\n\n\n LUCRETIUS, 5. 654 156\n\n\n MACROBIUS,\n\n _Saturnalia_ 1. 7. 34 96, 296\n\n \u201c 1. 8. 3 270\n\n \u201d 1. 9. 2 283\n\n \u201c 1. 9. 16 285, 289\n\n \u201d 1. 10. 2 267\n\n \u201c 1. 10. 11 275\n\n \u201d 1. 10. 19 271\n\n \u201c 1. 11. 36 178\n\n \u201d 1. 11. 48 269\n\n \u201c 1. 11. 49 272\n\n \u201d 1. 12. 6 35, 51\n\n \u201c 1. 12. 12 67\n\n \u201d 1. 12. 16 11, 98\n\n \u201c 1. 12. 18 210\n\n \u201d 1. 12. 22 130\n\n \u201c 1. 12. 25 102\n\n \u201d 1. 12. 30 129\n\n \u201c 1. 12. 33 134\n\n \u201d 1. 12. 38 194\n\n \u201c 1. 15. 9 8\n\n \u201d 1. 15. 14 222\n\n \u201c 1. 16. 3 10\n\n \u201d 1. 16. 5 281\n\n \u201c 1. 16. 14 9\n\n \u201c 1. 16. 16 97\n\n \u201d 1. 16. 17 & 18 211\n\n \u201c 1. 16. 22 9\n\n \u201d 1. 16. 30 270\n\n \u201c 1. 17. 15 180\n\n \u201d 1. 17. 25 180\n\n \u201c 1. 19. 17 238\n\n \u201d 3. 2. 11 179\n\n \u201c 3. 2. 14 179\n\n \u201d 3. 12. 2 194\n\n \u201c 3. 5. 10 88\n\n\n MARTIAL, 4. 64. 17 52\n\n 5. 23 95\n\n 8. 67. 4 93\n\n 14. 1 271\n\n\n MARTIANUS CAPELLA 1. 45 284\n\n 2. 162 108\n\n\n MINUCIUS FELIX,\n\n _Octavius_ 24. 3 47\n\n\n\n OVID, _Fasti_ 1. 318 281\n\n \u201c 1. 324 281\n\n \u201d 1. 331 281\n\n \u201c 1. 333 282\n\n \u201d 1. 585 291\n\n \u201c 1. 629 292\n\n \u201d 1. 661 295\n\n \u201c 1. 658 foll. 294\n\n \u201d 1. 681 295\n\n \u201c 1. 705 296\n\n \u201d 2. 19 foll. 301\n\n \u201c 2. 31 300\n\n \u201d 2. 33 300\n\n \u201c 2. 47 foll. 6\n\n \u201d 2. 50 324\n\n \u201c 2. 55 foll. 302\n\n \u201d 2. 267 foll. 310\n\n \u201c 2. 371 foll. 311\n\n \u201d 2. 425 foll. 320\n\n \u201c 2. 525 306\n\n \u201d 2. 527 foll. 305\n\n \u201c 2. 571 309\n\n \u201d 2. 617 foll. 309\n\n \u201c 2. 623 309\n\n \u201d 2. 643 foll. 325\n\n \u201c 2. 667 326\n\n \u201d 2. 671 327\n\n \u201c 2. 853 331\n\n \u201d 2. 858 foll. 331\n\n \u201c 3. 57 255\n\n \u201d 3. 135 36\n\n \u201c 3. 235 34\n\n \u201d 3. 647 51\n\n \u201c 3. 771 foll. 56\n\n \u201d 3. 791 56\n\n \u201c 3. 835 foll. 59\n\n \u201d 4. 633 foll. 71\n\n \u201c 4. 681 foll. 77\n\n \u201d 4. 711 78\n\n \u201c 4. 733 83\n\n \u201d 4. 737 80\n\n \u201c 4. 739 81\n\n \u201d 4. 763 82\n\n \u201c 4. 871 86\n\n \u201d 4. 899 85\n\n \u201c 4. 901 foll. 89-90\n\n \u201d 4. 939 90\n\n \u201c 5. 129 foll. 100\n\n \u201d 5. 149 foll. 101\n\n \u201c 5. 255 37\n\n \u201d 5. 331 foll. 93\n\n \u201c 5. 371 94\n\n \u201d 5. 419 foll. 307\n\n \u201c 5. 431 109\n\n \u201d 5. 725 123\n\n \u201c 6. 155 foll. 132\n\n \u201d 6. 213 136\n\n \u201c 6. 219 foll. 146\n\n \u201d 6. 307 219\n\n \u201c 6. 395 foll. 148\n\n \u201d 6. 617 157\n\n \u201c 6. 650 157\n\n \u201d 6. 659 159\n\n \u201c 6. 731 160\n\n \u201d 6. 775 foll. 161\n\n _Trist._ 2. 549 13\n\n _Ars Amat._ 3. 637 102\n\n _Metamorph._ 14. 623 foll. 201\n\n\n\n PALLADIUS,\n\n _de Re Rustica_ 7. 3 130\n\n\n PERSIUS, _Sat._ 5. 177 94\n\n\n PLINIUS,\n\n _Hist. Nat._ 2. 52 160\n\n \u201c 2. 140 233\n\n \u201d 3. 69 95\n\n \u201c 7. 11 84\n\n \u201d 7. 120 69\n\n \u201c 8. 194 156\n\n \u201d 10. 20 140\n\n \u201c 11. 250 237\n\n \u201d 11. 232 132\n\n \u201c 14. 88 103 & 236\n\n \u201d 15. 79 178\n\n \u201c 16. 235 38\n\n \u201d 18. 8 305, 325\n\n \u201c 18. 15 76\n\n \u201c 18. 16 70\n\n \u201d 18. 24 236\n\n \u201c 18. 91 88\n\n \u201d 18. 117 131\n\n \u201c 18. 118 110\n\n \u201d 18. 273 foll. 88\n\n \u201c 18. 284 87, 205\n\n \u201d 18. 315 236\n\n \u201c 29 passim 105\n\n \u201d 34. 54 165\n\n \u201c 35. 19 191\n\n \u201d 35. 154 75\n\n \u201c 36. 204 280\n\n \u201d 37. 135 231\n\n\n PORPHYRIO,\n\n on Hor. _Epist._ 2. 2. 209 60, 108\n\n\n PROBUS,\n\n on Virg. _Georg._ 1. 10 25, 260\n\n\n PROPERTIUS, 4. 1. 26 310\n\n 4. 4. 77 82\n\n 4. 4. 75 80\n\n 4. 9. 74 137\n\n 4. 10. 229\n\n 5 (4). 1. 9 243\n\n 5 (4). 2. 61 47\n\n\n\n QUINTILLIAN, 1. 7. 12 191\n\n\n\n SERVIUS,\n\n _ad Virg. Ecl._ 3. 77 125\n\n \u201c 4. 62 142\n\n \u201d 8. 32 220\n\n \u201c 8. 82 110\n\n \u201d 10. 27 223\n\n \u201c _Georg._ 1. 7 74\n\n \u201d 1. 10 258\n\n \u201c 2. 385 297\n\n \u201d 2. 389 96\n\n \u201c 3. 1 80\n\n \u201d 3. 332 201\n\n \u201c _Aen._ 1. 292 337\n\n \u201d 1. 720 145\n\n \u201c 2. 115 269\n\n \u201d 2. 140 176\n\n \u201c 2. 351 313\n\n \u201d 3. 63 108\n\n \u201c 3. 175 232\n\n \u201d 4. 518 109\n\n \u201c 5. 241 155\n\n \u201d 5. 724 186\n\n \u201c 7. 603 39\n\n \u201d 7. 799 226\n\n \u201c 8. 314 7\n\n \u201d 8. 336 93\n\n \u201c 8. 641 30\n\n \u201d 9. 53 154\n\n \u201c 9. 448 230, 327\n\n \u201d 10. 316 182\n\n \u201c 12. 139 293\n\n \u201d 12. 206 230\n\n\n SENECA (M. ANNAEUS),\n\n _Ep._ 12. 2 142\n\n \u201c 18. 1 270\n\n _Quaest. Nat._ 2. 41 157\n\n\n SILIUS ITALICUS, 8. 50 foll. 51\n\n\n STATIUS, _Theb._ 2. 707 229\n\n\n SOLINUS, 1. 7 197\n\n 1. 13 293\n\n\n SUETONIUS,\n\n _Vespasianus_ 5 51\n\n _Vitellius_ 1 258\n\n _de Grammaticis_ 19 12\n\n\n SYMMACHUS, _Epist._ 10. 35 278\n\n\n TACITUS,\n\n _Germania_, 9 234\n\n _Annals_, 2. 49 204\n\n \u201c 11. 24 171\n\n \u201d 12. 23 190\n\n \u201c 12. 24 206, 318\n\n\n TERTULLIAN,\n\n _Apol._ 42 272\n\n _ad Nat._ 2. 9 130, 133\n\n _de Monogam._ 17 155\n\n _de Spectaculis_, 5 89, 178\n\n \u201c 8 206, 209\n\n _de Praescript. Haeret._ 451 333\n\n\n TIBULLUS,\n\n 1. 3. 35 271\n\n 1. 8. 21 40\n\n 2. 1. 5 279\n\n 2. 5. 28 81\n\n 2. 5. 81 79\n\n 2. 5. 87 80\n\n\n VALERIUS MAXIMUS,\n\n 2. 2. 9 310 foll.\n\n 2. 1. 2 218\n\n 2. 10. 8 93\n\n 8. 15. 2 69\n\n\n VARRO,\n\n _de Lingua Latina_,\n\n 5. 41 266\n\n 43 198\n\n 46 55, 57, 111, 201,\n 323\n\n 50 228\n\n 57 64, 212\n\n 66 136, 141, 327\n\n 72 186\n\n 74 160\n\n 83 114\n\n 84 210\n\n 85 57\n\n 91 64\n\n 106 155\n\n 153 251\n\n 6. 12 282\n\n 13 298\n\n 14 53-55\n\n 15 70, 79, 194\n\n 16 85, 86, 204\n\n 17 158\n\n 18 174, 182\n\n 19 202\n\n 20 67, 205\n\n 21 212\n\n 22 240\n\n 23 274\n\n 24 266\n\n 25 279\n\n 26 295\n\n 27 8\n\n 29 8\n\n 30 9, 300\n\n 31 10, 63, 329\n\n 32 146, 149\n\n 33 66\n\n 34 319\n\n 62 250\n\n 94 232\n\n 7. 26 73\n\n 44 111\n\n 45 80, 92, 201\n\n _de Re Rustica_,\n\n 1. 1 67, 86\n\n 28. 29 299\n\n 30 66\n\n 33 189, 216\n\n 34 236\n\n 35 255, 271\n\n 36 277\n\n 65 205\n\n 2. 1. 9 83\n\n 5. 6 70\n\n _Sat. Menipp. fragm._, 506 53\n\n _ap. Charisium_, 117 132\n\n _ap. Aug. Civ. Dei_, 7. 24 150\n\n _ap. Nonium_, 13 208\n\n \u201c 189 156\n\n\n VELLEIUS PATERCULUS,\n\n 1. 14 92\n\n\n VIRGIL,\n\n _Ecl._ 5. 66 103\n\n _Georg._ 1. 10 260\n\n \u201c 151 90\n\n \u201d 211 271\n\n \u201c 338 foll. 125\n\n \u201d 344 103\n\n \u201c 419 206\n\n \u201d 462 foll. 192\n\n \u201c 498 192\n\n \u201d 2. 538 271\n\n _Aen._ 1. 292 322\n\n \u201c 5. 49 308\n\n \u201d 77 103\n\n \u201c 79 308\n\n \u201d 255 346\n\n \u201c 662 210\n\n \u201d 7. 45 foll. 258\n\n \u201c 81 foll. 263\n\n \u201d 691 185\n\n \u201c 8. 281 194\n\n \u201d 314 foll. 258\n\n \u201c 331 269\n\n \u201d 600 261\n\n \u201c 630 311\n\n \u201d 10. 423 229\n\n \u201c 11. 785 84, 181\n\n\n VITRUVIUS,\n\n 1. 7. 1 211\n\n 3. 2. 2 124\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF GREEK AUTHORS QUOTED\n\n\n AELIAN, _Hist. Anim._ 12. 34 329\n\n APOLLONIUS RHODIUS, 4. 478 315\n\n ARISTOPHANES,\n _Knights_, 41 133\n _Lysistrata_, 537 133\n \u201c 691 133\n\n ARISTOTLE, _Oecon._, p. 1349 b 155\n\n DIO CASSIUS,\n 37. 35 102, 255\n 47. 18 174\n 55. 77 296\n 58. 7 157\n\n DIODORUS SICULUS, p. 337 (15. 14) 155\n\n DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS,\n 1. 21 223\n 31 258\n 32 310\n 33 206, 246\n 34 269\n 38 112, 116\n 40 138, 193\n 79, 80 310\n 88 79, 80, 83\n 2. 19 70\n 23 305, 313\n 31 229\n 40 306\n 48 323\n 50 303\n 70 39\n 71 38\n 73 114\n 75 237\n 3. 22 238\n 32 271\n 45 114\n 69 56, 326\n 4. 14 280, 282\n 15 56\n 26 199\n 40 156\n 49 95\n 58 135, 141\n 5. 13 278\n 16 262\n 6. 1 269, 274\n 13 133, 296\n 89 75\n 7. 1 76\n 9. 60 135, 141\n 10. 42 75\n 12. 9 186\n 13. 7 130\n\n\n EUSTATHIUS,\n _ad Hom. Od._ 22. 335 138\n\n\n LUCIAN, _Dea Syria_ 49 92\n\n LYDUS, LAURENTIUS,\n \u201c 3. 3 294\n \u201d 3. 29 46, 50\n \u201c 4. 2 41, 284, 289\n \u201d 4. 24 306\n \u201c 4. 36 46, 50\n \u201d 4. 42 60, 62\n \u201c 4. 45 67\n \u201d 4. 49 71\n _Fragm._ p. 118, ed. Bekker 265\n\n NICOLAUS DAMASCENUS,\n _Vita Caesaris_ 21 320\n\n PLUTARCH,\n _Romulus_ 4 276\n \u201c 11 211\n \u201c 21 101, 291, 310, 314\n \u201d 27 175 foll.\n \u201c 29 175 foll.\n _Camillus_ 33 175 foll.\n _Poplicola_ 14 217\n _Coriolanus_ 3 296\n _C. Gracchus_ 17 187\n _Marius_ 26 165, 297\n _Cicero_ 19 & 20 102, 255\n _Caesar_ 61 310\n _Quaestiones Graecae_ 12 49\n \u201d _Conviviales_, 6. 8 49\n \u201c \u201d 7. 1 240\n \u201c _Romanae_ 3 200\n \u201d \u201c 4 199, 201\n \u201d \u201c 16 155\n \u201d \u201c 18 195\n \u201d \u201c 20 103\n \u201d \u201c 22 289\n \u201d \u201c 28 138, 327\n \u201d \u201c 30 141\n \u201d \u201c 34 270, 276\n \u201d \u201c 40 207\n \u201d \u201c 42 270\n \u201d \u201c 45 86, 87\n \u201d \u201c 46 324\n \u201d \u201c 51 100\n \u201d \u201c 55 158\n \u201d \u201c 56 290\n \u201d \u201c 60 194\n \u201d \u201c 68 101\n \u201d \u201c 69 266 foll.\n \u201d \u201c 74 69\n \u201d \u201c 86 115, 119\n \u201d \u201c 87 303\n \u201d \u201c 90 194\n \u201d \u201c 94 278\n \u201d \u201c 97 242\n \u201d \u201c 111 311\n _Parallela_ 41 227\n _de Fortuna Romanorum_ 5. 10 145\n _de Iside et Osiride_ 31 91\n\n POLYBIUS, 12. 4b 241\n \u201c 21. 10 44, 250\n\n PROCOPIUS,\n _de Bell. Goth._ 1. 25 283\n \u201c 3. 13 117\n\n STRABO,\n p. 180 (Bk. 4. 5) 200\n p. 226 (Bk. 5. 9) 84, 155\n p. 613 (Bk. 13. 64) 89\n p. 639 foll. (Bk. 14. 20) 40\n p. 660 (Bk. 10. 8) 117\n\nTHE END\n\n\n\n\nOXFORD: HORACE HART\n\nPRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY\n\n\n\n\nBY W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A.\n\n =The City State of the Greeks and Romans.= A Survey Introductory to\n the Study of Ancient History. By W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A., Sub-Rector\n of Lincoln College, Oxford. Crown 8vo, 5_s._\n\n\nBY PROFESSOR RODOLFO LANCIANI.\n\n =Ancient Rome in the Light of recent Discoveries.= By Prof. RODOLFO\n LANCIANI, LL.D. Harv. With 100 Illustrations. Small 4to, 24_s._\n\n\nHANDBOOKS OF ARCH\u00c6OLOGY AND ANTIQUITIES.\n\n_Edited by Professor PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D. of the University of Oxford,\nand Professor FRANCIS W. KELSEY, of the University of Michigan._\n\nEach volume will be the work of a thoroughly competent author, and will\ndeal with some special Department of Ancient Life or Art in a manner\nsuited to the needs both of the scholar and of the educated general\nreader.\n\nThe Series will be characterised by the following features:\u2014\n\n(1) The size of the volumes will be extra crown octavo; each volume to\ncontain not less than 200 pages.\n\n(2) The illustrations, taken from works of ancient art, will be made as\ncomplete and satisfactory as possible.\n\n(3) Each volume will contain a concise bibliography, together with\ncomplete indexes of Greek and Latin words and quotations, and of\nSubjects.\n\n(4) Thus the volumes will together form a handy encyclop\u00e6dia of\nArch\u00e6ology and Antiquities for the fields covered.\n\n(5) The different treatises will not be uniform in respect to length or\nprice.\n\nThe following volumes are already published or in preparation:\u2014\n\n =Greek Sculpture.= By Prof. ERNEST A. GARDNER, M.A., University\n College, London. Part I, 5_s._ Part II, 5_s._ Complete in one vol.,\n 10_s._\n\n [_Ready._\n\n =Greek and Roman Coins.= By G. F. HILL, of the Coins Department of\n the British Museum. Illustrated.\n\n [_Ready._\n\n =The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic.= An Introduction\n to the Study of Roman Religion. By W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A., Sub-Rector\n of Lincoln College, Oxford. Extra crown 8vo.\n\n [_Ready._\n\n =A Handbook of Greek Constitutional History.= By A. H. J. GREENIDGE,\n M.A., Hertford College, Oxford. With Map. 5_s._\n\n [_Ready._\n\n =Greek Religion.= By LOUIS DYER.\n\n =Homeric Antiquities.= By THOMAS D. SEYMOUR, Yale University.\n\n =Greek Private Life.= By Prof. J. WILLIAMS WHITE, Harvard\n University.\n\n =Roman Public Life.= By A. H. J. GREENIDGE.\n\n =Greek Commerce.= By Prof. PERCY GARDNER, University of Oxford.\n\n =The Acropolis of Athens.= By Prof. M. L. D\u2019OOGE, University of\n Michigan.\n\n =Greek Architecture.= By Prof. ALLAN MARQUAND, Princeton University.\n\n =Roman Architecture.= By Prof. FRANCIS W. KELSEY, University of\n Michigan.\n\n =The Destruction of Ancient Rome.= A Sketch of the History of the\n Monuments. By RODOLFO LANCIANI, University of Rome.\n\n [_Shortly._\n\n =Christian Rome.= By A. L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., Princeton University.\n\n =Roman Sculpture.= By SALOMAN REINACH, Mus\u00e9e St. Germain.\n\n =Ancient Painting.= By CECIL SMITH, LL.D., British Museum.\n\n =Greek Vases.= By CECIL SMITH, LL.D., British Museum.\n\n =Scientific Knowledge of the Ancients.= By PAUL SHOREY, University\n of Chicago.\n\n =Latin Inscriptions in relation to Literature and Life.= By Prof.\n MINTON WARREN, American School, Rome.\n\nMACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Notes:\n\nMissing or obscured punctuation was corrected.\n\nTypographical errors were silently corrected.","title":"The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic: An Introduction to the Study of the Religion of the Romans","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":150871}