Chapter XIV: Part 14

The known cult-titles of Janus are for the most part explicable in the same way. Geminus, Patulcius, Clusius, and Matutinus, speak for themselves. Junonius probably arose from the concurrence of the cults of Janus and Juno on the Kalends of each month, as Macrobius tells us[1286]. Consivius[1287] is explained by Roscher as connected with _serere_, and used of Janus as creator (beginner of life: cf. _duonus cerus_). Curiatius, Patricius, and Quirinus[1288] are titles arising from the worship of the god in gentes, curiae, and the completed state, and have no significance in regard to his nature.

III ID. IAN. (JAN. 11). NP.

KARM[ENTALIA]. (PRAEN. MAFF.)

XVIII KAL. FEB. (JAN. 15). NP.

KAR[MENTALIA]. (PRAEN. MAFF. PHIL. CAER.)

The full name of the festival is supplied by Philoc. and Silv. There is a much mutilated note in Praen. on Jan. 11 which is completed by Mommsen thus[1289]: ‘[Feriae Carmenti ... quae partus curat omniaque] futura; ob quam ca[usam in aede eius cavetur ab scorteis tanquam] omine morticino.’

The first point to be noticed here is that the same deity has two festival days, with an interval of three days between them. There is no exact parallel to this in the calendar, though there are several instances of something analogous[1290]. The Lemuria are on May 9, 11, 13; but here are three days, and no special deity. Kindred deities have their festivals separated by three days, as Consus and Ops (Aug. 21, 25); and we may compare the Fordicidia and Cerealia on April 15 and 19, and the Quinquatrus and Tubilustrium, both apparently sacred to Mars, on March 19 and 23. All festivals occur on days of uneven number; and if there was an extension to two or more days, the even numbers were passed over[1291]. But the Romans did not apparently consider the two Carmentalia to be two parts of the same festival, but two different festivals, or they would not have tried to account as they did for the origin of the second day. It was said to have been added by a victorious general who left Rome by the Porta Carmentalis to attack Fidenae[1292], or by the matrons who had refused to perform the function of women, in anger at being deprived by the Senate of the right of riding in _carpenta_; and who, when the decree was withdrawn, testified their satisfaction in this curious way.

It does not seem possible to discover the real meaning of the double festival. It has been suggested[1293] that the two days represent the so-called Roman and Sabine cities, like the two bodies of Salii and Luperci. This guess is hardly an impossible one, but it is only a guess, and has nothing to support it but a casual statement by Plutarch that the Carmentalia were instituted at the time of the _synoikismos_ of Latin and Sabine cities[1294].

There is fortunately little doubt about the nature of Carmenta and the general meaning of the cult. In all the legends into which she was woven[1295] her most prominent characteristic is the gift of prophecy; she is the ‘vates fatidica,’ &c.,

Cecinit quae prima futuros
Aeneadas magnos et nobile Pallanteum.

So Ovid, at the end of his account of her:

At felix _vates_, ut dis gratissima vixit,
Possidet hunc Iani sic dea mense diem.

The power is expressed in her very name, for _carmen_ signifies a spell, a charm, a prophecy, as well as a poem. Now there is clear evidence that either women alone had access to the temple at the Porta Carmentalis, or that they were the chief frequenters of it; and they are even said to have built a temple themselves[1296]. Where we find women worshipping a deity of prophecy we may be fairly sure that that deity also has some influence on childbirth. ‘The reason,’ writes the late Prof. Nettleship[1297], ‘why the Carmentes are worshipped by matrons is because they tell the fortunes of the children’—and also, surely, because they tell the fortunes of the women in childbirth[1298].

I am inclined to agree with my old tutor that the Carmentes may originally have been wise women whose skill and spells assisted the operation of birth. I do not think we can look for an explanation of the titles Porrima and Postverta elsewhere than in the two positions in which the child may issue from the womb, over each of which a Carmentis watched[1299]; and there is in fact no doubt that Carmenta was a birth-goddess[1300]. The argument then would be that the spiritual origin attributed to superior knowledge transforms the owner of the knowledge into a divine person. As Sir A. Lyall says[1301] (of the genesis of local deities in Berar), ‘The immediate motive (of deification) is nothing but a vague inference from great natural gifts or from strange fortunes to supernatural visitation, or from power during life to power prolonged beyond it.’

Of the cult of Carmenta we know hardly anything. She had a flamen of her own[1302], like other ancient goddesses, Palatua, Furrina, Flora. His sacrificial duties must have been confined to the preparing of cereal offerings, for there was a taboo in this cult excluding all skins of animals—all leather—from the temple.

Scortea non illi fas est inferre sacello[1303],
Ne violent puros exanimata focos.

Varro writes ‘In aliquot sacris et sacellis scriptum habemus: Ne quid scorteum adhibeatur ideo ne morticinum quid adsit.’ We could wish that he had told us what these sacra and sacella were[1304]; as it is we must be content to suppose that a goddess of birth could have nothing to do with the slaughter of animals.

The position of the temple was at the foot of the southern end of the Capitol, near the Porta Carmentalis[1305], where, according to Servius, she was said to have been buried (cp. Acca Larentia, Dec. 23). It is noticeable that the festivals of this winter period are connected with sites near the Capitol and Forum; we have already had Saturnus, Ops, and Janus.

If the reader should ask why a goddess of birth should be specially worshipped in the depth of winter, he may perhaps find a reason for it after reading the third chapter of Westermarck’s _History of Human Marriage_. As far as we can judge from the calendar, April was the month at Rome when marriages and less legal unions were especially frequent[1306]; during May and the first days of June marriages were not desirable[1307]. In January therefore births might naturally be expected.

Ovid tells us (1. 463) that _Juturna_ was also worshipped on Jan. 11[1308]; but whether in any close connexion with Carmenta we do not know. They are both called Nymphs; but from this we can hardly make any inference. Juturna was certainly a fountain-deity: I can find no good evidence that this was one of Carmenta’s attributes. The fount of Juturna was near the Vesta-temple[1309], and therefore close to the Forum: its water was used, says Servius, for all kinds of sacrifices, and itself was the object of sacrifice in a drought. All took part in the festival who used water in their daily work (‘qui artificium aqua exercent’). But the Juturnalia appears in no calendar, and Aust is no doubt right in explaining it only as the dedication-festival of the temple built by Augustus in B.C. 2[1310].

Feriae Sementivae[1311]. Paganalia.

Under date of Jan. 24-26, Ovid[1312] writes in charming verse of the _feriae conceptivae_ called Sementivae (or -tinae), which from his account would seem to be identical with the so-called Paganalia[1313]. Just as the Compitalia of the city probably had its origin in the country (see on Jan. 3-5), though the rustic _compita_ were almost unknown to the later Romans, so the festival of sowing was kept up in the city (‘a pontificibus dictus,’ Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26) as Sementinae, long after the Roman population had ceased to sow. In the country it was known—so we may guess—by the less technical name of Paganalia[1314], as being celebrated by the rural group of homesteads known as the _pagus_.

As to the object and nature of the festival, let Ovid speak for himself:

State coronati plenum ad praesaepe iuvenei:
Cum tepido vestrum vere redibit opus.
Rusticus emeritum palo suspendat aratrum[1315]:
Omne reformidat frigida volnus humus.
Vilice, da requiem terrae, _semente peracta_:
Da requiem terram qui coluere viris.
Pagus agat festum: pagum lustrate, coloni,
Et date paganis annua liba focis.
Placentur frugum matres, Tellusque Ceresque,
Farre suo, gravidae visceribusque suis.
Officium commune Ceres et Terra tuentur:
Haec praebet causam frugibus, illa locum.

Ceres and Tellus, ‘consortes operis,’ are to be invoked to bring to maturity the seed sown in the autumn, by preserving it from all pests and hurtful things; and also to assist the sower in his work in the spring that is at hand. This at least is how I understand the lines (681, 682):

Cum serimus, caelum ventis aperite serenis;
Cum latet, aetheria spargite semen aqua.

Or if it be argued that both these lines may very well refer to the spring, it is at least certain that the poet understood the festival to cover the past autumn sowing:

Utque dies incerta sacro, sic tempora certa,
Seminibus iactis est ubi fetus ager[1316].

Varro tells us[1317] that the time of the autumn sowing extended from the equinox to the winter solstice; after which, as we have seen, the husbandmen rested from their labours in the fields, and enjoyed the festivals we have been discussing since Dec. 17 (Consualia). The last of these is the Paganalia, i. e. the one nearest in date, if we may go by Ovid, to the time for setting to work at the spring sowing, which began on or about Feb. 7 (Favonius).[1318] It would thus be quite natural that this festival should have reference not only to the seed already in the ground, but also to that which was still to be sown. If Ovid lays stress on the former, Varro and Lydus seem to be thinking chiefly of the latter[1319].

Ovid has told us what was the nature of the rites. According to him, Ceres and Tellus were the deities concerned, and with this Lydus agrees. We need not be too certain about the names[1320], considering the ‘fluidity’ and impersonality of early Roman _numina_ of this type; but the type itself is obvious. There were offerings of cake, and a sacrifice of a pregnant sow; the oxen which had served in the ploughing were decorated with garlands; prayers were offered for the protection of the seed from bird and beast and disease. If we may believe a note of Probus’[1321], _oscilla_ were hung from the trees, as at the Latin festival, &c., doubtless as a charm against evil influences.

VI KAL. FEB. (Jan. 27). C.

AEDIS [CASTORIS ET PO]LLUCIS DEDICA[TA EST ...]. (PRAEN.)

Mommsen’s restoration of this note in the Fasti of Praeneste is based on Ov. _Fast._ 1. 705-8:

At quae venturas praecedet sexta Kalendas,
Hac sunt Ledaeis templa dicata deis.
Fratribus illa deis fratres de gente deorum
Circa Iuturnae composuere lacus.

But Livy[1322] gives the Ides of July as the day of dedication, and a difference of learned opinion has arisen[1323]. July 15, B.C. 496, is the traditional date of the battle of Lake Regillus, and the temple was dedicated B.C. 484—the result of the Consul’s vow in that battle[1324]. Mommsen infers that Livy confused the date of the dedication with that of the battle, and that Jan. 27 is right. Aust and others differ, and refer the latter date to a restoration by Tiberius, probably in A.D. 6[1325]. The mistake in Livy is easy to explain, and Mommsen’s explanation seems sufficient[1326]. Three beautiful columns of Tiberius’ temple are still to be seen at the south-eastern end of the Forum, near the temple of Vesta, and close to the Iacus Juturnae, where the Twins watered their steeds after the battle[1327].

The very early introduction of the Dioscuri into the Roman worship is interesting as being capable of unusually distinct proof. They must have been known long before the battle of the Regillus; and they took a peculiarly firm hold on the Roman mind, as we see from the common oaths Edepol, Mecastor, from their representation on the earliest denarii[1328], from their connexion with the equites throughout Roman history, and from the great popularity of their legend, which was reproduced in connexion with later battles[1329]. The spread of the cult through Southern Italy to Latium and Etruria (where it was also a favourite) is the subject of a French monograph[1330].

Footnote 1223:

Livy, 31. 21; 34. 53. The MSS have ‘deo Iovi’ in the former passage,
and ‘Iovis’ in the second; but it is almost certain that Vediovis is
the deity referred to. See Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 2. 305 for the
confusion in these passages, and in Livy, 35. 41. (Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_,
i. 291-3.)

Footnote 1224:

Livy, _Epit._ 11, and 10. 47; Preller, ii. 241; Plut. _Q. R._ 94;
Jordan, in _Comm. in hon. Momms._ p. 349 foll.

Footnote 1225:

See under May 21. Deecke, _Falisker_, 96.

Footnote 1226:

Livy, 33. 42, 34. 53; Jordan, l. c.

Footnote 1227:

These and their later history are the subject of a most exhaustive
treatise by Martin Lipenius, in Graevius’ _Thesaurus_, vol. xii, p.
405. See also Marq. _Privatleben_, 1. 2, 245. For the sentiment
implied in the _strenae_ see Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 71 foll. and 175.

Footnote 1228:

Cp. Fest. 290.

Footnote 1229:

Symmachus, ep. 10. 35 ‘Ab exortu paene urbis Martiae strenarum usus
adolevit, auctoritate Tatii regis, qui verbenas felicis arboris ex
luco Strenuae anni novi auspices primus accepit.’

Footnote 1230:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 25 ‘quotannis is dies concipitur’ (for the right
reading of the rest of the passage see Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 305).
Macrobius (1. 16. 6) reckons them as conceptivae, in the fourth
century; Philoc. and Silv. may be representing a _traditional_ date
for a feast which was _iure conceptivus_. So Momms. Cp. Gell. 10. 24.
3, where the formula for fixing the date is given; and Cic. _in Pis._
4. 8. It was the praetor (urbanus?) who in this case made the
announcement.

Footnote 1231:

Cp. Philargyrius, _Georg._ 2. 382 ‘[compita] ubi pagani agrestes
buccina convocati solent certa inire consilia’; no doubt discussion
about agricultural matters.

Footnote 1232:

Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 665, of the Paganalia: ‘Rusticus emeritum palo
suspendat aratrum.’ (Cp. Tibull. ii. 1. 5.) Such features were perhaps
common to all these rustic winter rejoicings.

Footnote 1233:

_Grom. Vet._ 302. 20 foll.

Footnote 1234:

For Greece see Farnell, _Cults_, ii. 561 and 598.

Footnote 1235:

_Folklore in Northern India_, i. 77.

Footnote 1236:

Marq. 203; Dion. Hal. 4. 14; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 615 and 5. 140. Wissowa
(_Myth. Lex._ s. v. Lares, p. 1874) would limit them in origin to the
pagi outside the septem montes, as the latter had their own sacra.

Footnote 1237:

Dion. Hal. 4. 14 οὐ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους ἀλλὰ τοὺς δούλους ἔταξε (i. e.
Serv. Tull.) παρεῖναί τε καὶ συνιερουργεῖν, ὡς κεχαρισμένης τοῖς ἥρωσι
τῆς τῶν θεραπόντων ὑπηρεσίας (Cic. _pro Sestio_, 15. 34).

Footnote 1238:

Marq. 204; Rushforth, _Latin Historical Inscriptions_, p. 59 foll.

Footnote 1239:

Pliny, _N. H._ 36. 204; Macrob. 1. 7. 34; Dion. l. c.

Footnote 1240:

Asconius, p. 6, K. Sch. Livy, 34. 7. 2.

Footnote 1241:

So Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xii note. Cp. his article ‘Agonium’ in the
new edition of Pauly’s _Real-Encycl._

Footnote 1242:

p. 10. Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 1. 331 ‘Et pecus antiquus dicebat agonia
sermo.’

Footnote 1243:

He uses the plural: ‘Agonales (dies) per quos rex in regia arietem
immolat’ (_L. L._ 6. 12). But only Jan. 9 seems to be alluded to.

Footnote 1244:

_Fasti_, 1. 325; cf. Macrob. 1. 16. 5.

Footnote 1245:

_Civ. Dei_, 4. 11. 16. Ambrosch (_Studien_, 149) thinks it possible
that Agonius may have been a god of the Colline city.

Footnote 1246:

Bücheler, _Umbrica_, p. 30. B. apparently sees in the Umbrian ‘sakreu
perakneu’ an equivalent to ‘hostias agonales.’ The Iguvian ritual is
certainly the most likely document to be useful; it at least shows how
large was the store of sacrificial vocabulary.

Footnote 1247:

Fest. p. 10. For the Salii, Varro, _L. L._ 6. 14.

Footnote 1248:

Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xii.

Footnote 1249:

When Varro writes (_L. L._ 6. 12) that the dies agonales are those in
which the Rex sacrorum sacrifices a ram in the Regia, he may be
including all the four days, and not only Jan. 9. I think this is
likely; but we only know it of Jan. 9.

Footnote 1250:

_Fasti_, i. 333. Varro _L. L._ 6. 12 ‘Agonales (dies) per quos rex in
regia arietem immolat.’

Footnote 1251:

Cp. lines 318 and 333.

Footnote 1252:

Henzen, 144. An ‘agna’ is the only other animal sacrifice we know of
to Janus (Roscher, in _Lex._ 42).

Footnote 1253:

Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Ianus, 29 foll. (cp. for much interesting
kindred matter, De-Marchi, _Il Culto privato_, p. 20 foll.). Roscher’s
attempt to find an analogy between the Forum and the house is
interesting, but unluckily the positions ‘ad Forum’ of the ‘Ianus
geminus’ and the ‘aedes Vestae’ do not exactly answer to those of the
door and hearth of a Roman house.

Footnote 1254:

_Sat._ i. 9. 2; Procopius, _B. G._ 1. 25, who says that ‘Janus
belonged to the gods whom the Romans in their tongue called Penates,’
seems to be alluding to the same connexion of this god and the house.

Footnote 1255:

We owe this explanation of Janus chiefly to Roscher’s article, and
Roscher himself owed it to the fact that his study of Janus for the
article was a second and not a first attempt. In _Hermes der Windgott_
(Leipzig, 1878) he had arrived at a very different and a far less
rational conclusion. The influence of Mannhardt and the folk-lorists
set him on the right track.

Footnote 1256:

Nigidius Figulus in Macrob. i. 9. 8.

Footnote 1257:

See Roscher, _Lex._ 44.

Footnote 1258:

Macrob. 1. 9. 9; Lydus, _de Mensibus_, 4. 6 (who quotes Lutatius).

Footnote 1259:

Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 218 foll.; Preller, 1. 168 foll. The etymology
is weak; the god and goddess have nothing common in cult or myth; it
is not certain that Diana was originally the moon; and the great
Italian deities are not coupled together in this way.

Footnote 1260:

ii. 125 foll. Cf. Müller’s _Etrusker_ (ed. Deecke), ii. 58 foll.
Müller, with his usual good sense, concluded from the evidence that
the Latin Janus was a god of gates; but he thought that an Etruscan
deity of the vault or arch of heaven had been amalgamated with him.
This is not impossible, if there was really such an Etruscan god; and
Deecke finds him in Ani, who in Etruscan theology seems to have had
his seat in the northern part of the heaven (Mart. Capell. 1. 45)
where Janus was also represented in the templum of Piacenza (_Lex._ s.
v. Janus, p. 28). But this must remain a doubtful point, even though
Lydus (4. 2) tells us that Varro said that the god παρὰ θούσκοις
οὐρανὸν λέγεσθαι.

Footnote 1261:

Nissen, _Templum_, p. 228.

Footnote 1262:

Macrob. 1. 9. 16.

Footnote 1263:

p. 93 foll.; Caes. _B. G._ 6. 18.

Footnote 1264:

M. Mowat thought that this was Janus naturalized in Gaul; but with
Prof. Rhys (p. 81 note) I cannot but think this unlikely.

Footnote 1265:

See _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, ii. 465.

Footnote 1266:

Roscher, in _Lex._ 18; Rhys, 1. c. 88.

Footnote 1267:

Roscher, _Lex._ 17; Jordan, _Topogr._ 1. 2. 351.

Footnote 1268:

Cic. _De Nat. Deorum_, 2. 27. 67 ‘Transitiones perviae iani, foresque
in liminibus profanarum aedium ianuae nominantur.’ Cp. Macrob. 1. 9.
7.

Footnote 1269:

On the whole question see Jordan, _Topogr_. 1. 2. 215 foll. Ovid
(_Fasti_, 1.257) asks the god ‘Cum tot sint iani, cur stas sacratus in
uno?‘

Footnote 1270:

From Falerii came another janus, with a four-headed simulacrum, which
was set up in the Forum transitorium (Macr. 1. 9. 13; Jordan, _Top_.
1. 2. 348).

Footnote 1271:

Preller made an attempt, which Roscher approves, to identify Portunus
with Janus, Portunus being, according to Varro, ‘Deus portuum
portarumque praeses’ (Interpr. Veron. _Aen._ v. 241). But see on Aug.
17.

Footnote 1272:

The nearest approach to Janus is the Hermes θυραῖος or στροφαῖος
(single head only?) and Hermes with two, three, or four heads at the
meeting-points of streets. These are points which suggested to Roscher
in his older work an elaborate comparison of Hermes and Janus (p. 119
foll.).

Footnote 1273:

See Marq 25, 26 and notes.

Footnote 1274:

Cic. _N. D._ 2. 27; Preller, ii. 172.

Footnote 1275:

For the evidence of this position of Janus in the cults of the house
see Roscher, _Lex._ 32; it is indirect, but sufficiently convincing.

Footnote 1276:

See my article ‘Vestales’ in _Dict. of Antiquities_, ed. 2.

Footnote 1277:

Marq. 321 foll. Besides the sacrifice in the Regia on Jan. 9, the Rex
and his wife, the Regina sacrorum, sacrificed to Juno in the Regia on
the Kalends of every month, and apparently also to Janus (Junonius) to
whom there were twelve altars (in the Regia?) one for each month.
Macr. 1. 9. 16 and 1. 15. 19.

Footnote 1278:

For the father as the natural defender of the family, see Westermarck,
_Hist. of Human Marriage_, ch. 3.

Footnote 1279:

Festus, 185 ‘Maximus videtur Rex, dein Dialis, post hunc Martialis,
quarto loco Quirinalis, quinto pontifex maximus.’ For the
corresponding place of Janus, Liv. 8. 9. 6; Cato, _R. R._ 134; Marq.
26.

Footnote 1280:

_Lex._ 37 foll.; Preller, 1. 166 foll.; Mommsen, _R. H._ i. 173.

Footnote 1281:

Ἔφορος πάσης πράξεως, says Lydus, 4. 2, quoting Varro; cp. Ovid,
_Fasti_, 165 foll.

Footnote 1282:

Plut. _Q. R._ 22.

Footnote 1283:

Macrob. 1. 9. 16; Horace, _Sat._ ii. 6. 20 foll.

Footnote 1284:

Macrob. 1. 9. 14.

Footnote 1285:

Varro, _L. L._ 7. 26; Fest. 122.

Footnote 1286:

Macr. 1. 9. 16.

Footnote 1287:

Macr. l. c. Wissowa (_de Feriis_, vi) says the true form is
cons_e_vius; but the etymology holds.

Footnote 1288:

Roscher, _Lex._ 21, 26, 40.

Footnote 1289:

_C. I. L._ 1. 307, on the evidence of Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 629 and Varro,
_L. L._ 7. 84.

Footnote 1290:

Wissowa, _de Feriis_, viii.

Footnote 1291:

Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 1. 288.

Footnote 1292:

Fast. Praen. on Jan. 15 (mutilated). Cp. Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 619, and
Plut. _Q. R._ 56. Festus, 245.

Footnote 1293:

By Huschke, _Röm. Jahr_, 199. There was probably more than one
Carmenta (Gell. 16. 16. 4), if we consider Porrima and Postverta as
two forms of the goddess; and the two days may have some relation to
this duality. Perhaps there were two altars in the temple. Ovid,
_Fasti_, 1. 627.

Footnote 1294:

Plut. _Romulus_, 21.

Footnote 1295:

See Wissowa in _Lex. Myth._ i. 851; Ovid. _Fasti_, 1. 461 foll.; Virg.
_Aen._ 8. 336. The eighth Aeneid, it may be remarked, should be learnt
by heart by all investigators into Roman antiquity.

Footnote 1296:

Plut. _Q. R._ 56: cp. Dion. Hal. 1. 31. 1-9, from whom Plutarch may
have drawn his information, directly or perhaps through Juba. For the
temple they built cp. Gell. 18. 7. 2. If this temple be a different
one from that under the Capitol, it may suggest an explanation of the
double festival.

Footnote 1297:

_Studies in Latin Literature_, p. 48 foll.; _Journal of Philology_,
xi. 178.

Footnote 1298:

See on Fortuna, above, p. 167.

Footnote 1299:

Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 633; Varro in Gell. 16. 6. 4. Nettleship takes a
different view of these words. But see Wissowa in _Lex._ 1. 853;
Preller, i. 406.

Footnote 1300:

St. Augustine, _C. D._ 4. 11 ‘In illis deabus quae fata nascentibus
canunt et vocantur Carmentes.’

Footnote 1301:

_Asiatic Studies_, p. 20.

Footnote 1302:

Cic. _Brut._ 14. 56; _C. I. L._ vi. 3720; and _Eph. Ep._ iv. 759. The
rite of Jan. 11 is called ‘sacrum pontificale’ by Ovid (_Fast._ 1.
462), whence we infer that the pontifices had a part in it as well as
the flamen.

Footnote 1303:

Ovid, _Fast._ 1. 629. Cp. Varro, _L. L._ 7. 84. This passage of Varro
may possibly raise a doubt whether the taboo did not arise from a
mistaken interpretation of the words _scortum_ and _pellicula_, as
Carmenta was especially worshipped by matrons.

Footnote 1304:

The more so as we have no inscriptions relating to Carmenta. Though
her flaminium continued to exist under the Empire, she herself
practically disappeared. I am inclined to guess that her attributes
were to some extent usurped by the more popular and plebeian Fortuna.

Footnote 1305:

Solinus, 1. 13; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 336 and 337.

Footnote 1306:

See especially under April 1 and 28, the days of Fortuna virilis and
Flora.

Footnote 1307:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 223 foll.

Footnote 1308:

Juturnalia, Serv. _Aen._ 12. 139.

Footnote 1309:

Jordan, _Topogr._ 1. 2. 370; Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Iuturna.

Footnote 1310:

Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 45.

Footnote 1311:

Sementinae, according to Jordan in Prell. 2. 5, note 2.

Footnote 1312:

_Fasti_, 1. 658 foll.

Footnote 1313:

Paganicae (feriae), Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26. Varro seems to separate the
two: after mentioning the Sementinae, which he says was ‘sationis
causa susceptae,’ he goes on ‘Paganicae eiusdem agriculturae
susceptae, ut haberent in agris omnes pagi,’ &c. But the distinction
is perhaps only of place; or if of time also, yet not of object and
meaning.

Footnote 1314:

So Marq. 199, and Hartmann, _Röm. Kal._ 203. Preller thinks the
Sementinae were in September, before the autumn sowing; and it is
possible that there were two feasts of the name, one before the
autumn, another before the spring, sowing. Lydus (_de Mens._ 3. 3)
speaks of two days separated by seven others; on the former they
sacrificed to Tellus (Demeter), on the latter to Ceres (Κόρη); two
successive nundinae (market-days) are here meant.

Footnote 1315:

Cp. Scholiast on Persius, 4. 28; and see under Compitalia, Jan. 3-5.

Footnote 1316:

Ovid, 1. 661.

Footnote 1317:

_R. R._ 1. 34; Plin. _N. H._ 18. 204.

Footnote 1318:

Cp. Varro, _R. R._ 1. 29, 36. Cp. the Rustic Calendars for February.

Footnote 1319:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 26 ‘sationis causa’; and Lydus says that the feast
could not be ‘stativae,’ because the ἀρχὴ σπόρου cannot be fixed to a
day. Lydus’ reason is not a good one, if the sowing did not begin till
Feb. 7; but it is plain that he understands the rites as
_prophylactic_. I may note that Columella seems to know little about
spring sowing (II. 2: cp. 2. 8). Mommsen, _R. H._ ii. 364, says that
spring sowing was exceptional.

Footnote 1320:

See under Cerialia, April 19.

Footnote 1321:

Ad Virg. _Georg._ 2. 385; Marq. 200 and 192, where the old explanation
(Macr. 1. 7. 34) seems to be adopted, that these were substitutes for
human or other victims (cp. Bötticher, _Baumkultus_, 80 foll.). We
have no clear evidence for this, and I am not disposed to accept it.

Footnote 1322:

2. 42. So Plut. _Coriol._ 3.

Footnote 1323:

Momms. _C. I. L._ 1. 308; Jordan, _Eph. Ep._ 1. 236; Aust, _de Aedibus
sacris_, 43.

Footnote 1324:

Dion. Hal. 6. 13; Liv. 2. 20.

Footnote 1325:

Suetonius, _Tib._ 20; Aust, op. cit. p. 6.

Footnote 1326:

Weight must, however, be given to the fact that the transvectio
equitum took place on July 15. Aust, 43, and Furtwängler in _Lex._ s.
v. Dioscuri.

Footnote 1327:

Middleton, _Ancient Rome_, p. 174; Lanciani, _Ruins and Excavations of
Ancient Rome_, p. 271 foll.

Footnote 1328:

Mommsen, _Münzwesen_, 301, 559.

Footnote 1329:

Pydna, Cic. _N. D._ 3. 5. II; Verona (101 B.C.), Plut. _Mar._ 26. The
most famous application of the story is in the accounts of the great
fight between Locri and Kroton at the river Sagra: this was probably
the origin of the Italian legends. See Preller, ii. 301.

Footnote 1330:

Albert, _le Culte de Castor et Pollux en Italie_, 1883. Cp.
Furtwängler, l. c.

MENSIS FEBRUARIUS

The name of the last month of the old Roman year is derived from the word _februum_, usually understood as an instrument of purification[1331]. This word, and its derivatives were, as we shall see, best known in connexion with the Lupercalia, the most prominent of the festivals of the month. Now the ritual of the Lupercalia seems to suggest that our word ‘purification’ does not cover all the ground occupied by the ‘religio’ of that festival; nor does it precisely suit some of the other rites of February. We are indeed here on difficult and dangerous ground. Certainly we must not assume that there was any general lustration of the whole people, or any period corresponding in religious intent to the Christian Lent, which in time only is descended from the Roman February. Assuredly there were no such ideas as penitence or forgiveness of sins involved in the ritual of the month. Let so much be said for the benefit of those who are only acquainted with Jewish or Christian history.

What at least is certain is that at this time the character of the festivals changes. Since the middle of December we have had a series of joyful gatherings of an agricultural people in homestead, market-place, cross-roads; now we find them fulfilling their duties to their dead ancestors at the common necropolis, or engaged in a mysterious piacular rite under the walls of the oldest Rome. The Parentalia and the Lupercalia are the characteristic rites of February; we shall see later on whether any of the others can be brought into the same category. If pleasure is the object of the mid-winter festivals, the fulfilment of duties towards the gods and the _manes_ would seem to be that of the succeeding period.

From an agricultural point of view February was a somewhat busy month; but in the time of Varro the work was chiefly the preparatory operations in the culture of olives, vines and fruit-trees[1332]. The one great operation in the oldest and simplest agricultural system was the spring sowing. Spring was understood to begin on Feb. 7 (Favonius)[1333], and it is precisely at this point that the rites change their character. We are in fact close upon the new year, when the powers of vegetation awake and put on strength; but the Romans approached it as it were with hesitation, preparing for it carefully by steady devotion to work and duty, the whole community endeavouring to place itself in a proper position toward the _numina_ of the land’s fertility, and the dead reposing in the land’s embrace.

Before taking the rites one by one, it will perhaps be as well to say a word in general about the nature of Roman expiatory rites, in order to determine in what sense we are to understand those of February.

The first point to notice is that these rites were applicable only to _involuntary_ acts of commission or omission—an offence against the gods (nefas) if wittingly committed, was inexpiable. In this case the offender was _impius_, i. e. had wilfully failed in his duty; and him no rites could absolve[1334]. But by ordinary offences against the gods we are not to understand _sin_, in the Christian sense of the word; they were rather mistakes in ritual, or involuntary omissions—in fact any real or supposed or possible errors in any of a man’s relations to the _numina_ around him. He might always be putting himself in the wrong in regard to these relations, and he must as sedulously endeavour to right himself. In the life of the ‘privatus’ these trespasses in sacred law would chiefly be in matters of marriages and funerals and the regular sacrifices of the household; in the life of the magistrate they would be mistakes or omissions in his duties on behalf of the State[1335]. Whether in private or public life, they must be duly expiated. It is needless to point out how powerful a factor this belief must have been in the growth of a conscience and of the sense of duty; or how stringent a ‘religio’ was that which, assuming that a man could hardly commit an offence except unwittingly, made the possible exceptional case fatal to his position as a member of a community which depended for its wholesome existence on the good will of the gods.

Remembering that among the divine beings to whom it was most essential for each family to fulfil its duties, were the _di manes_, or dead ancestors and members of the family, we see at once that February with its Parentalia was an important month in the matter of expiatory rites. Ovid, though suggesting a fancy derivation for the name of the month, expresses this idea clearly enough:

Aut quia _placatis_ sunt tempora pura sepulcris
Tum cum ferales praeteriere dies[1336].

But the other etymology given by the poet is, as we have seen, the right one, and may bring us to another class of _piacula_, of which we find an example this month in the Lupercalia.

Mensis ab his dictus, secta quia pelle Luperci
Omne solum lustrant, idque piamen habent[1337].

Not only was the Roman most careful to expiate involuntary offences, and also to appease the wrath of the gods, if shown in any special active way, e.g. by lightning and many other prodigia[1338], but he also sought to avert evil influences _before-hand_, which might possibly emanate from hostile or offended _numina_. This religious object is well illustrated in the sacrifice of the _hostia praecidanea_, which was offered beforehand to make up for any involuntary errors in the ritual that followed[1339]. But it is also seen in numerous other rites of which we have had many examples; all those, for instance, which included a _lustratio_. We generally translate this word by ‘purification’; but it also involves the ideas of intercession, and of the removal of unseen hostile influences which may be likely to interfere with the health and prosperity of man, beast, or crop. At such rites special victims were sometimes offered, or the victim was treated in a peculiar manner; we find, perhaps, some part of it used as a charm or potent spell, as the strips of skin at the Lupercalia, or the ashes of the unborn calves at the Fordicidia, or the tail and blood of the October horse[1340]. To the first of these, at least, if not to the other two, the word _februum_ was applied, and we may assume it of the others: also to many other objects which had some magical power, and carry us back to a very remote religious antiquity. Ovid gives a catalogue of them[1341]:

Februa Romani dixere piamina patres,
Nunc quoque dant verbo plurima signa fidem.
Pontifices ab rege petunt et flamine _lanas_,
Quis veterum lingua februa nomen erat.
Quaeque capit lictor domibus purgamina †ternis†[1342]
Torrida cum mica farra, vocantur idem.
Nomen idem _ramo_, qui caesus ab arbore pura
Casta sacerdotum tempora fronde tegit.
Ipse ego flaminicam poscentem februa vidi:
Februa poscenti _pinea virga_ data est.
Denique quodcunque est, quo corpora nostra piantur,
Hoc apud intonsos nomen habebat avos.

Objects such as these, called by a name which is explained by _piamen_, or _purgamentum_, must have been understood as charms potent to keep off evil influences, and so to enable nature to take its ordinary course unhindered. Only in this sense can we call them instruments of _purification_.

The use of the _februa_ in the Lupercalia was, as we shall see, to procure fertility in the women of the community. Here then, as well as in the rites of the Fornacalia and Parentalia, is some reason for calling the month a period of purification; but only if we bear in mind that at the Parentalia the process consisted simply in the performance of duties towards the dead, which freed or purified a man from their possible hostility; while at the Lupercalia the women were freed or purified from influences which might hinder them in the fulfilment of their natural duties to their families and the State. Beyond this it is not safe to go in thinking of February as a month of expiation.

KAL. FEB. IUNONI SOSPITAE. N.

This was the dedication-day of a temple of the great Lanuvian goddess, Juno Sospita, in the Forum olitorium[1343]. It was vowed in the year 197 B.C. by the consul Cornelius Cethegus, but had fallen into decay in Ovid’s time[1344]. For the famous cult of this deity at Lanuvium, see Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 595.

ID. FEB. FAUNO [I]N INSUL[A]. _C. I. L._ vi. 2302. NP.

This temple was vowed almost at the same time as the last, 296 B.C., by plebeian aediles; it was built by fines exacted from holders of ager publicus who had not paid their rents[1345]. See under Dec. 5, p. 257.

FORNICALIA: FERIAE CONCEPTIVAE, ending Feb. 17.

I have drawn attention to the change in the character of the festivals at this season. But before we go on to the Parentalia and Lupercalia, which chiefly mark this change, we have to consider one festival which seems to belong rather to the class which we found in December and January. This was the Fornacalia, or feast of ovens; one which does not appear in the calendars, as it was a moveable feast (conceptivae); and one which was a _sacrum publicum_ only in the sense of being pro curiis, as the Paganalia were pro pagis, the Septimontium pro montibus, and the Argean rite pro sacellis[1346]. Each curia conducted its own rites, under the supervision of its curio and (for the last day) of the Curio Maximus[1347]: the great priests of the State had no official part in it. In this it differs in some degree from the Fordicidia (April 15), the other feast of the curiae, which appears in three of our calendars, and in which the Pontifices and Vestals took some part[1348].

This is not the place to investigate the difficult question of what the _curiae_ really were. So much at least is clear, that while, like the montes, pagi, and sacella (argea), they were divisions of the people and the land, they were more important than the others, in that they formed the basis of the earliest political and military organization[1349]. It need hardly be said that each curia had also itself a religious organization: their places of assembly, though not temples, were quasi-religious buildings[1350], used for sacred purposes, but furnished with hearth and eating-room like an ordinary house[1351]. We hear also of tables (mensae, τράπεσαι) ‘in quibus immolabatur Iunoni quae Curis appellata est[1352].’ There is no need to assume any etymological connexion between Cŭris and Cūria[1353]; but the cult of the goddess of the spear is interesting here, as seeming at once to illustrate the military importance of the curiae, the power of the paterfamilias[1354], and the necessity of continuing the family through the fertility of woman, an idea which we shall come upon again at the Lupercalia[1355]. Lastly, each curia had its own curio, or religious superintendent, and its own flamen, and at the head of all the curiae was the Curio Maximus; officers who coincide with the general character of the curiae in being (like the heads of families) not strictly priests, but capable of religious duties, for the performance of which they are said to have been instituted[1356].

The ritual of the Fornacalia has been evolved with difficulty, and without much certainty, from a few passages in Ovid, Dionysius, Varro, Festus, and Pliny[1357]. We seem to see—1. An offering in each private house in each curia: it consisted of _far_, i. e. meal of the oldest kind of Italian wheat, roasted in antique fashion in the oven which was to be found in the _pistrina_ of each house, and made into cakes by crushing in the manner still common in India and elsewhere[1358]. 2. A rite in which each curia took part as a whole. This is deduced from the fact that on the 17th (Quirinalia) any one who by forgetfulness or ignorance had omitted to perform his sacra on the day fixed by the curio for the meeting of his own curia, might do so then at a general assembly of all the thirty curiae[1359]. This was the reason why the Quirinalia was called ‘stultorum feriae.’ It has also been conjectured that the bounds of each curia were beaten on this day, on which its members thus met: for Pliny says ‘Numa et Fornacalia instituit farris torrendi ferias _et aeque religiosas terminis agrorum_[1360].’ 3. What happened on the Quirinalia Ovid shall tell us himself[1361]:

Curio legitimis nunc Fornacalia verbis
Maximus indicit, nec stata sacra facit;
Inque foro, multa circum pendente tabella,
Signatur certa curia quaeque nota:
Stultaque pars populi, quae sit sua curia, nescit,
Sed facit extrema sacra relata die.

It should be noted that no certain connexion can be made out between Quirinus and curia, and I imagine it was only accident or convenience that made this day the last of the Fornacalia[1362]. Ovid’s words ‘nec stata sacra facit’ seem to me to imply that the Curio Maximus carefully abstained from using a formula of announcement likely to confuse the ‘stultorum feriae’ with the Quirinalia, which was always on the same day. But it may well have been the case that by usage the two coincided.

Ovid’s lines make it clear that on the 17th (as a rule) the Forum was the scene of a general meeting of curiae, each of which had a certain space assigned it, indicated by a placard. Is it possible that this was merely a survival of the assembly of the armed host in comitia curiata, now used only for religious purposes? If so, the tendency to fix it on the festival of Quirinus might find a natural explanation.

The meaning and object of the Fornacalia are very far from being clear. Preller[1363] fancied it was the occasion of the first eating of the fruits of the last harvest: but it is hardly possible to imagine this postponed as late as February. On the other hand Dionysius’ description[1364], already quoted, of what he saw in the curiae, would suit this well enough if it could be set down to a suitable time of year: it suggests a common meal, in which the first fruits are offered to the god, while the worshippers eat of the new grain. But this cannot have been in February. Steuding (in the _Lex._) suggests that the object was to thank the gods for preserving the corn through the winter, and to pray for the welfare of the seed still in the ground (i. e. in a lustratio). Ovid says (though Steuding does not quote him)

Facta dea est Fornax: laeti Fornace coloni
Orant, ut fruges temperet illa suas[1365].

But neither Steuding’s conjecture, nor the German parallels he appeals to, seem convincing. I am rather inclined to think that the making of cakes in each household was simply a preliminary to the _sacra_ that followed in the curia, i. e. each family brought its contribution to a common religious meal. The roasting was naturally accompanied by an offering to the spirit of the oven[1366] (fornax); hence the name Fornacalia. The object of the sacra in the curia is doubtful; but they probably had some relation to the land and its fertility, in view of the new year about to begin. Of the final meeting of all the curiae in the forum I have already suggested an explanation: the phrase ‘stultorum feriae’ was, in my opinion, of late origin, and illustrates the diminishing importance of the curiate organization after the admission of plebeians[1367].

ID. FEB. (FEB. 13). NP.

VIRGO VESTALIS PARENTAT. (PHIL.)

PARENTATIO TUMULORUM INCIPIT. (SILV.)

The _dies parentales_, or days of worshipping the dead (placandis Manibus), began at the sixth hour on this day, and continued either to the 21st (Feralia), or the 22nd (cara cognatio)[1368]. The parentatio of the Vestal was at the tomb of Tarpeia, herself a Vestal[1369]. Undoubtedly, the Feralia (21st) was the oldest and the best known of these days, and the only one which was a public festival: it appears in three calendars (Caer. Maff. Farn.) in large letters. Yet there is reason for believing that even the Feralia was not the oldest day for worshipping the manes: it was in part at least a dies fastus, and none of the dies parentales are marked N in the calendars; and this, according to Mommsen[1370], shows that the rites of those days were of later origin than those of the Lemuria (May 9-13), which are all marked N. This seems also to have been the opinion of Latin scholars[1371].

Whatever the Lemuria may have been, it is certain that the Parentalia were not days of terror or ill-omen; but rather days on which the performance of duty was the leading idea in men’s minds. Nor was the duty an unpleasant one. There was a general holiday: the dead to be propitiated had been duly buried in the family tomb in the great necropolis, had been well cared for since their departure, and were still members of the family. There was nothing to fear from them, so long as the living members performed their duties towards them under the supervision of the State and its Pontifices[1372]. They had their _iura_, and the relations between them and their living relations were all regulated by a _ius sacrum_: they lived on in their city outside the walls of the city of the living[1373], each family in their own dwelling: they did not interfere with the comfort of the living, or in any way show themselves hostile or spiteful. Such ideas as these are of course the result of a well developed city life; experience has taught the citizen how his conduct towards the Di Manes can best be regulated and organized for the benefit of both parties. The Parentalia belong to a later stage of development than the Lemuria, though both have the same original basis of thought. The Parentalia was practically a yearly renewal of the rite of burial. As _sacra privata _they took place on the anniversary of the death of a deceased member of the family, and it was a special charge on the heir that he should keep up their observance[1374]. On that day the family would go in procession to the grave, not only to see that all was well with him who abode there, but to present him with offerings of water, wine, milk, honey, oil, and the blood of black victims[1375]: to deck the tomb with flowers[1376], to utter once more the solemn greeting and farewell (Salve, sancte parens), to partake of a meal with the dead, and to petition them for good fortune and all things needful. This last point comes out clearly in Virgil’s picture:

Poscamus ventos, atque haec me sacra quotannis
Urbe velit posita templis sibi ferre dicatis.

The true meaning of these lines is, as Henry quaintly puts it[1377], ‘Let us try if we cannot kill two birds with one stone, and not only pay my sire the honours due to him, but at the same time help ourselves forward on our journey by getting him to give us fair winds for our voyage.’

As we have seen, the dies parentales began on the 13th; from that day till the 21st all temples were closed, marriages were forbidden, and magistrates appeared without their insignia[1378]. On the 22nd was the family festival of the _Caristia_, or _cara cognatio_: the date of its origin is unknown, but Ovid[1379] writes of it as well established in his time, and it may be very much older. He describes it as a reunion of the living members of the family after they have paid their duties to the dead:

Scilicet a tumulis et qui periere, propinquis
Protinus ad vivos ora referre iuvat;
Postque tot amissos quicquid de sanguine restat,
Aspicere, et generis dinumerare gradus.

It was a kind of love-feast of the family, and gives a momentary glimpse of the gentler side of Roman family life. All quarrels were to be forgotten[1380] in a general harmony: no guilty or cruel member may be present[1381]. The centre of the worship was the Lares of the family, who were ‘incincti,’ and shared in the sacred meal[1382].

We might naturally expect that, especially in Italy—so tenacious of old ideas and superstitions—we should find some survival of primitive folk-lore, even in the midst of this highly organized civic cult of the dead. Ovid supplies us with a curious contrast to the ethical beauty of the Caristia, in describing the spells which an old woman works, apparently on the day of the Feralia[1383]. ‘An old hag sitting among the girls performs rites to Tacita: with three fingers she places three bits of incense at the entrance of a mouse-hole. Muttering a spell, she weaves woollen threads on a web of dark colour, and mumbles seven black beans in her mouth. Then she takes a fish, the _maena_, smears its head with pitch, sews its mouth up, drops wine upon it, and roasts it before the fire: the rest of the wine she drinks with the girls. Now, quoth she, we have bound the mouth of the enemy:

Hostiles linguas inimicaque vinximus ora,
Dicit discedens, ebriaque exit anus.’

In spite of the names of deities we find here, Tacita and Dea Muta[1384], and of the pretty story of the mother of the Lares which the poet’s fancy has added to it, it is plain that this is no more than one of a thousand savage spells for counteracting hostile spirits[1385]. The picture is interesting, as showing the survival of witchcraft in the civilized Rome of Ovid’s time, and reminds us of the horrible hags in Horace’s fifth epode; but it may be doubted whether it has any real connexion with the Feralia. Doubtless its parallel could be found even in the Italy of today[1386].

XV. KAL. MART. (FEB. 15). NP.

LUPER(CALIA). (CAER. MAFF. FARN. PHILOC. SILV. AND RUSTIC CALENDARS.)

There is hardly another festival in the calendar so interesting and so well known as this. Owing to the singular interest attaching to its celebration in B.C. 44, only a month before Caesar’s death, we are unusually well informed as to its details; but these present great difficulties in interpretation, which the latest research has not altogether overcome[1387]. I shall content myself with describing it, and pointing out such explanations of ritual as seem to be fairly well established.

On Feb. 15 the celebrants of this ancient rite met at the cave called the Lupercal, at the foot of the steep south-western corner of the Palatine Hill—the spot where, according to the tradition, the flooded Tiber had deposited the twin children at the foot of the sacred fig-tree[1388], and where they were nourished by the she-wolf. The name of the cave is almost without doubt built up from _lupus_, ‘a wolf’[1389]; but we cannot be equally sure whether the name of the festival is derived directly from Lupercal, or on the analogy of Quirinalia, Volcanalia, and others, from Lupercus, the alleged name of the deity concerned in the rites, and also of the celebrants themselves[1390]. In any case we are fairly justified in calling this the wolf-festival; the more so as the wolf was the sacred animal of Mars, who was in a special sense the god of the earliest settlers on the Palatine[1391].

The first act of the festival seems to have been the sacrifice of goats (we are not told how many), and of a dog[1392]; and at the same time were offered sacred cakes made by the Vestals, from the first ears of last year’s harvest. This was the last batch of the _mola salsa_, some of which had been used at the Vestalia in June, and some on the Ides of September[1393].

Next, two youths of high rank, belonging, we may suppose, one to each of the two collegia of Luperci (of which more directly), were brought forward; these had their foreheads smeared with the knife bloody from the slaughter of the victims, and then wiped with wool dipped in milk. As soon as this was done they were obliged to laugh. Then they girt themselves with the skins of the slaughtered goats, and feasted luxuriously[1394]; after which they ran round the base of the Palatine Hill, or at least a large part of its circuit, apparently in two companies, one led by each of the two youths. As they ran they struck at all the women who came near them or offered themselves to their blows, with strips of skin cut from the hides of the same victims; which strips, as we have seen, were among the objects which were called by the priests _februa_.

Here, in what at first sight looks like a grotesque jumble, there are two clearly distinguishable elements; (1) an extremely primitive ritual, probably descended from the pastoral stage of society; (2) a certain co-ordination of this with definite local settlements. The sacrifices, the smearing and wiping, the wearing of the skins, and the striking with the _februa_, all seem to be survivals from a very early stage of religious conceptions; but the two companies of runners, and their course round the Palatine, which apparently followed the most ancient line of the pomoerium, bring us into touch with the beginning and with the development of urban life. Surviving through the whole Republican period, with a tenacity which the Roman talent for organization alone could give it, the Lupercalia was still further developed for his own purposes by the dictator Caesar, and thenceforward lived on for centuries under his successors into the age of imperial Christianity.

Let us now examine the several acts of the festival, to see how far they admit of explanation under the light of modern research into primitive ideas and ritual.