Chapter XV: Part 15

It began, as we saw, with the sacrifice of goats and a dog. Unluckily we cannot be sure of the god to whom they were offered, nor of the sacrificing priest. According to Ovid[1395] the deity was Faunus; according to Livy it was a certain mysterious Inuus, of whom hardly anything else is known[1396], though much has been written. There was no Lupercus, as some have vainly imagined; much less any such combination as Faunus Lupercus, which has been needlessly created out of a passage of Justin[1397]. Liber is suggested by Servius[1398]; who adds that others fancied it was a ‘bellicosus deus.’ Recently Juno has been suggested, because the strips which the runners carried were called ‘Iunonis amiculum’[1399]. Thus it is quite plain that the Roman of the literary age did not know who the god was. The common idea that he was Faunus is discredited by Livy’s account and his mention of Inuus, and also by the fact that Faunus is not associated with urban settlements: and may easily be accounted for by the myth of Evander and the Arcadians, whose Pan Lycaeus was of course identified with Faunus[1400], or by the girding of the Luperci with skins, which made them resemble the popular conception of the Fauni[1401]. Possibly the name was a secret; for there was a tendency to avoid fixing a god’s name in ritual, in order to escape making mistakes, and so offending him. ‘Iure pontificum cautum est ne suis nominibus dii Romani appellarentur, ne exaugurari possint[1402].’ We must also remember that the Lupercalia undoubtedly descends from the very earliest period of the Roman religion, when the individuality of deities was not clearly conceived, and when their names were unknown, doubtful, or adjectival only. In fact, we need not greatly trouble ourselves about the name of the god: his nature is deducible to some extent from the ritual. The connexion with the Palatine, with the wolf, and with fructification, seems to me to point very clearly in the direction of Mars and his characteristics.

It would be almost more profitable if we could be sure of the sacrificing priest; but here again we are in the dark. Ovid says, ‘Flamen ad haec prisco more Dialis erat[1403]‘; but it is impossible that this priest could have been the sacrificer (though Marquardt committed himself to this), for he was expressly forbidden to touch either goat or dog[1404], which seem to have been excluded from the cult of Jupiter. Even in the case of such exceptional _piacula_ as this no doubt was, we can hardly venture without further evidence to ascribe the slaughter of the sacred animal to the great priest of the heavenly deity in whose cult it was tabooed. Plutarch says that the Luperci themselves sacrificed[1405]; and this is more probable, and is borne out by comparison with other cases in which the priest clothes himself, as the Luperci did, in the skin of the victim. It does not indeed seem certain that the two youths who thus girt themselves had also performed the sacrifice; but they represent the two collegia of Luperci, and lead the race[1406], as Romulus and Remus did in the explanatory legend.

As regards the victims, there is here at least no doubt that both goat and dog were exceptional animals in sacrifice[1407], and that their use here betokens a piacular rite of unusual ‘holiness.’ Thus their offering is a mystic sacrifice, and belongs to that ‘small class of exceptional rites in which the victim was drawn from some species of animals that retained even in modern times their ancient repute of natural holiness[1408].’ It is exactly in this kind of sacrifice that we find such peculiar points of ritual as meet us in the Lupercalia. ‘The victim is sacrosanct, and the peculiar value of the ceremony lies in the operation performed on its life, whether that life is merely conveyed to the god on the altar (i. e. as in burnt-sacrifices) or is also applied to the worshippers by the sprinkling of the blood, or some other lustral ceremony[1409].’ The writer might very well have been thinking of the Lupercalia when he wrote these lines. The meaning of these rites was originally, as he states it, that the holiness of the victim means kinship to the worshippers and their god, ‘that all sacred relations and all moral obligations depend on physical unity of life, and that physical unity of life can be created or reinforced by common participation in living flesh and blood.’ We may postpone consideration of this view as applied to the Lupercalia till we have examined the remaining features of the ceremony.

After the sacrifice was completed, Plutarch[1410] tells us that the foreheads of the two youths were touched with the bloody knife that had slain the victims, and the stain was then wiped off with wool dipped in milk, after which the youths had to laugh. This has often been supposed to indicate an original human sacrifice[1411], the he-goats being substituted for human victims, and the death of the latter symbolized by the smearing with their blood. This explanation might be admissible if this were the only feature of the ceremony; but it is so entirely out of keeping with those that follow—the wearing of the skins and the running—that it is preferable to look for another before adopting it. At the same time it may be observed that no reasonable hypothesis can be ruled out of court where our knowledge of the rite is so meagre and so hard to bring satisfactorily into harmony with others occurring among other peoples[1412].

There is a curious passage in Apollonius Rhodius[1413], where purification from a murder is effected by smearing the hands of the murderer with the blood of a young pig, and then wiping it off ἄλλοις χύτλοισι; and the Scholiast on the lines describes a somewhat similar method of purification which was practised in Greece. This would raise a presumption that the youths were not originally the victims at the Lupercalia, but rather the slayers; and that they had to be purified from the guilt of the blood of the sacrosanct victim[1414]. When this was done they became one with the victim and the god by the girding on of the skins, and were able to communicate the new life thus acquired in the course of their lustratio of the city by means of the strips of skin to the women who met them. This explanation is open to one or two objections; for example, it hardly accounts for the laughter of the youths, unless we are to suppose that it was an expression of joy at their release from blood-guiltiness[1415]. And we have indeed no direct evidence that the youths were ever themselves the sacrificers, though the collateral evidence on this point, as I have already said, seems to be fairly strong[1416]. Yet I cannot but think that the true significance of the essential features of the ceremony is to be looked for somewhere in the direction thus indicated.

There is, however, another explanation of the application of the bloody knife, the wiping, and the laughing, which Mannhardt proposed, not without some modest hesitation, in his posthumous work[1417]. In his view these were symbolic or quasi-dramatic acts, signifying death and renewed life. The youths were never actually killed, but they were the figures in a kind of acted parable. The smearing with blood denoted that they partook of the death of the victim[1418]; the wiping with milky wool signified the revival to a new life, for milk is the source of life. The laughing is the outward sign of such revival: the dead are silent, cannot laugh[1419]. And the meaning of all this was the death and the revival of the Vegetation-spirit. I have already more than once profited by Mannhardt’s researches into this type of European custom, and they are now familiar to Englishmen in the works of Mr. Frazer, Mr. Farnell, and others. Undoubtedly there are many bits of grotesque custom which can best be explained if we suppose them to mean the death of the Power of growth at harvest-time, or its resuscitation in the spring, perhaps after the death of the powers of winter and darkness. But whether the Lupercalia is one of these I cannot be so sure. These rites do not seem to have any obvious reference to _crops_, but rather to have come down from the pastoral stage of society: and it is not in this case the _fields_ which are lustrated by the runners, but the _urbs_ and its women[1420]. And the earlier parts of the ritual bear the marks of a _piaculum_ so distinctly that it seems unnecessary and confusing to introduce into it a different set of ideas.

There is a similar divergence of opinion in explaining the next feature, the wearing of the skins of the victims[1421]. Dr. Mannhardt believed that this was one of the innumerable instances in which, at certain times of the year, animals are personated by human beings, e. g. at Christmas, at the beginning of Lent (Carnival), and at harvest. These he explained as representations of the Vegetation-spirit, which was conceived to be dead in winter, to come to life in spring, and at harvest to die again, and which was believed to assume all kinds of animal forms. This has been generally accepted as explaining several curious rites both in Greece and Italy, e. g. that of the Hirpi Sorani at Soracte not far from Rome[1422]. But it is a question whether it will equally well explain the Luperci and their goat-skins. In this case Mannhardt is driven to somewhat far-fetched hypotheses; he derives Lupercus from _lupus-hircus_[1423] (p. 90), and suggests that the two collegia represented respectively wolves and goats, according to the view of the Vegetation-spirit taken by the two communities of Palatine and Quirinal[1424]. But this solution, the result of a bias in favour of his favourite Vegetation-spirit, does not strike us as happy, and Dr. Mannhardt himself does not seem well pleased with it[1425].

It would seem safer to take this as one of the many well-known _piacula_ in which the worshipper wears the skin of a very holy victim, thereby entering sacramentally into the very nature of the god to whom the victim is sacrificed[1426]. Whether or no we are to look for the origin of these practices in a totemistic age, is a question that cannot be discussed here; and there is no sign of totemism in the Lupercalia save this one[1427].

But if this be the right explanation, what, we may ask, was meant by the name Luperci? If it meant wolves, are we not rather thrown back on Mannhardt’s theory? To this it may be answered; (1) that no classical author suggests that the runners were looked upon as representing wolves; by the common people we are told that they were called _creppi_[1428], the meaning of which is quite uncertain, though it has been explained as = _capri_, and as simply arising from the fact that the runners were clad in goat-skins[1429]. There is in fact no necessary connexion at all between the skins and the name Luperci. If that name originally meant wolf-priests, its explanation is to be found rather in connexion with the wolf of Mars, and the cave of the she-wolf, than in the skins of the sacrificed goats, which were worn by only two members of the two collegia bearing the name.

We must now turn our attention to the last features of the festival; the course taken by the runners round the Palatine Hill, and the whipping of women with the strips of sacred skin. The two youths, having girded on the skins (though otherwise naked) and also cut strips from them, proceeded to run a course which seems almost certainly to have followed that of the pomoerium at the foot of the Palatine. The starting-point was the Lupercal, or a point near it, and Tacitus[1430] has described the course of the pomoerium as far as the ‘sacellum Larum forumque Romanum’: in his day it was marked out by stones (‘cippi’). We are concerned with it here only so far as it affects the question whether the running was a _lustratio_ of the Palatine city. The last points mentioned by Tacitus, the ‘sacellum Larum, forumque Romanum[1431],’ show plainly that the course was round the Palatine from south-west to north-east, but they do not bring the runners back to the point from which they started, and complete the circle[1432]. Varro is, however, quite clear that the running was a _lustratio_: ‘Lupercis nudis lustratur antiquum oppidum Palatinum gregibus humanis cinctum.’ The passage is obscure, and attempts have been made to amend it; but there can be no doubt that it points to a religious ceremony[1433].

This lustratio, then, as we may safely call it, was at the same time a beating of the bounds and a rite of purification and fertilization. Just as the peeled wands of our Oxford bound-beaters on Ascension Day[1434] may perhaps have originally had a use parallel to that of the _februa_, so the parish boundaries correspond to the Roman pomoerium. We have already had examples of processional bound-beating in the rites of the Argei and the Ambarvalia; in all there is the same double object—the combination of a religious with a juristic act; but the Lupercalia stands alone in the quaintness of its ritual, and may probably be the oldest of all.

Before we go on to the _februa_ and their use, mention must be made of a difficulty in regard to the duality of the collegia of Luperci and the runners. These have been supposed to have originated from two gentile priesthoods of the Fabii and Quinctii[1435]; and as we know that the gens Fabia had a cult on the Quirinal[1436], it is conjectured that the Luperci Fabiani represented the Sabine city, and the Quinctiales the Romans of the Palatine, just as we also find two collegia of Salii, viz. Palatini and Collini[1437]. If, however, the running of the Luperci was really a lustratio of the Palatine, we must suppose that the lustratio of the Quirinal city by its own Luperci was given up and merged in that of the older settlement[1438]; and such an abandonment of a local rite would be most surprising in Roman antiquity. It is true that there is no other explanation of the existence of the two guilds; but we may hesitate to accept this one, if we have to pay for it by so bold a hypothesis[1439].

The last point to be noticed, the whipping with the strips of skin[1440], might have attracted little notice as a relic of antiquity in the late Republic but for the famous incident in the life of Caesar, when Antonius was one of the runners. We have it on excellent evidence, not only that the runners struck women who met them with the strips, but that they did so in order to produce fertility[1441]. Such an explanation of the object would hardly have been invented, and it tallies closely with some at least of a great number of practices of the kind which have been investigated by Mannhardt[1442]. His parallel are not indeed all either complete or convincing; but the collection is valuable for many purposes, and the general result is to show that whipping certain parts of the body with some instrument supposed to possess magic power is efficacious in driving away the powers of evil that interfere with fertilization. Whether the thing beaten be man, woman, image, or human or animal representative of the Vegetation spirit, the object is always more or less directly to quicken or restore the natural powers of reproduction; the notion being that the hostile or hindering spirit was thus driven out, or that the beating actually woke up and energized the power. The latter is perhaps a later idea, rationalized from the earlier. In any case the thongs, as part of the sacrosanct victim, were supposed to possess a special magical power[1443]; and the word applied to them, _februa_, though not meaning strictly instruments of purification in our sense of the word, may be translated _cathartic_ objects, since they had power to free from hostile influences and quicken natural forces. And those who wielded them were regarded in some at least as priests or magicians; they were naked but for the goat-skins, and probably had wreaths on their heads[1444]. Their wild and lascivious behaviour as they ran is paralleled in many ceremonies of the kind[1445].

It is singular that a festival of a character so rude and rustic should have lived on in the great city for centuries after it had become cosmopolitan and even Christian. This is one of the many results due to the religious enterprise of Augustus, who rebuilt the decayed Lupercal, and set the feast on a new footing[1446]. It continued to exist down to the year 494 A.D. when the Pope, Gelasius I, changed the day (Feb. 15) to that of the Purification of the Virgin Mary[1447].

XIII KAL. MART. (Feb. 17). NP.

QUIR[INALIA]. (CAER. MAFF. FARN. PHILOC.)

QUIRINO IN COLLE. (FARN. CAER.)

How the festival of Quirinus came to be placed at this time I cannot explain: we know nothing of it, and cannot assume that it was of an expiatory character, like the Lupercalia preceding it, and the Feralia following. Of the temple ‘in colle’ we also know nothing[1448] that can help us. We have already learnt that this day was called ‘stultorum feriae,’ and why; but the conjunction of the last day of the sacra of the curiae with those of Quirinus is probably accidental; we cannot safely assume any connexion through the word ‘curia.’ The name Quirinalia was familiar enough[1449]; but it may be that it only survived through the _stultorum feriae_.

The Roman of the later Republic identified Quirinus with Romulus; Virgil, e. g. in the first _Aeneid_ (292) speaks of ‘Remo cum fratre Quirinus[1450].’ We have no clue to the origin of this identification. It may have been suggested by the use of the name Quirites; but neither do we know when or why that name came to signify the Roman people in their civil capacity, and the etymology of these words and their relation to each other still entirely baffles research[1451].

There is, however, a general agreement that Quirinus was another form of Mars, having his abode on the hill which still goes by his name. That Mars and Quirinus were ever the same deities was indeed denied by so acute an inquirer as Ambrosch[1452]; but he denied it partly on the ground that no trace of the worship of Mars had been found on the Quirinal; and since his time two inscriptions have been found there on the same spot, one at least of great antiquity, which indicate votive offerings to Mars and Quirinus respectively[1453]. From these Mommsen concludes that Quirinus was at one time worshipped there under the name of Mars; which involves also the converse, that Mars was once worshipped under the adjectival cult-title Quirinus. Unluckily Mars Quirinus is a combination as yet undiscovered; and as the existence of a patrician Flamen Quirinalis distinct from the Flamen Martialis points at least to a very early differentiation of the two, it may be safer to think of the two, not as identical deities, but rather as equivalent cult-expressions of the same religious conception in two closely allied communities[1454].

That the Quirinal was the seat of the cult of Quirinus admits of no doubt; and the name of the hill, which we are told was originally Agonus or Agonalis[1455], arose no doubt from the cult[1456]. Here were probably two temples of the god, the one dating from B.C. 293, and having June 29 as its day of dedication; the other of unknown date, which celebrated its birthday on the Quirinalia[1457]. A ‘sacellum Quirini in colle’ is also mentioned at the time of the Gallic invasion[1458] (this was perhaps the predecessor of the temple of June 29), and also the house of the Flamen Quirinalis which adjoined it. To the Quirinal also belong the Salii Agonenses, Collini, or Quirinales, who correspond to the Salii of the Palatine and of Mars[1459]. And here, lastly, seems to belong the mysterious Flora or Horta Quirini, whose temple, according to Plutarch[1460], was ‘formerly’ always open. About the cult of Quirinus on his hill we know, however, nothing, except that there were two myrtles growing in front of his temple, one called the patrician and the other the plebeian[1461], and to which a curious story is attached. Preller[1462] noted that these correspond to the two laurels in the _sacrarium Martis_ in the Regia, and conjectured that each pair symbolized the union of the state in the cults of the two communities.

Of the duties of the Flamen Quirinalis we have already seen something[1463]: unluckily they throw little or no new light on the cult of Quirinus. He was concerned in the worship of Robigus, of Consus, and of Acca Larentia, all of them ancient cults of agricultural Rome; and he seems to have been in close connexion with the Vestal Virgins[1464]. These are just such duties as we might have expected would fall to the Flamen of Mars; and probably the two cults were much alike in character.

VII KAL. MART. (FEB. 23.) NP.

TER[MINALIA]. (CAER. MAFF. RUST. PHILOC. SILV.)

Was there any connexion between the Terminalia and the end of the year? The Roman scholars thought so; Varro[1465] writes, ‘Terminalia quod is dies anni extremus constitutus; duodecimus enim fuit Februarius, et quum intercalatur, inferiores quinque dies duodecimo demuntur mense.’ So Ovid,

Tu quoque sacrorum, Termine, finis eras.

But Terminus is the god of the boundaries of land, and has nothing to do with time; and the Terminalia is not the last festival of the year in the oldest calendars. The Romans must have been misled by the coincidence of the day of Terminus with the last day before intercalation. The position in the year of the rites to be described seems parallel to that of the Compitalia and Paganalia, which were concerned with matters of common interest to a society of farmers: and we may remember that Pliny[1466] said of the Fornacalia that it was ‘farris torrendi feriae et _aeque religiosae terminis agrorum_.’

The ritual of the Terminalia in the country districts is described by Ovid[1467]. The two landowners garlanded each his side of the boundary-stone, and all offerings were double[1468]. An altar is made; and fire is carried from the hearth by the farmer’s wife, while the old man cuts up sticks and builds them in a framework of stout stakes. Then with dry bark the fire is kindled; from a basket, held ready by a boy[1469], the little daughter of the family thrice shakes the fruits of the earth into the fire, and offers cakes of honey. Others stand by with wine; and the neighbours (or dependants) look on in silence and clothed in white. A lamb is slain, and a sucking-pig, and the boundary-stone sprinkled with their blood; and the ceremony ends with a feast and songs in praise of holy Terminus.

This rite was, no doubt, practically a yearly renewal of that by which the stone was originally fixed in its place. The latter is described by the gromatic writer Siculus Flaccus[1470]. Fruits of the earth, and the bones, ashes, and blood of a victim which had been offered were put into a hole by the two (or three) owners whose land converged at the point, and the stone was rammed down on the top and carefully fixed. The reason given for this was of course that the stone might be identified in the future, e. g. by an arbiter, if one should be called in[1471]; but it also reminds us of the practice of burying the remains of a victim[1472], and the use of the blood shows the extreme sanctity of the operation.

That the stone was regarded as the dwelling-place of a _numen_ is proved by the fact that it was sprinkled with blood and garlanded[1473]; and the development of a god Terminus is perfectly in keeping with Roman religious ideas. It is more difficult to determine what was the relation of this Terminus to the great Jupiter who was so intimately associated, as we have seen[1474] with the idea of keeping faith with your neighbours. Was he the _numen_ originally thought to occupy the stone, and is the name Terminus, as marking a distinct deity, a later growth? I am disposed to think that this was so; for we saw that there is some reason to believe that Jupiter did not disdain to dwell in objects such as trees and stones, and there is no need to look to Greece for the origin of his connexion with boundaries[1475]. But Jupiter and Terminus remained on the whole distinct; and a Jupiter Terminus or Terminalis is first found on the coins of Varro the great scholar, probably in B.C. 76[1476].

The close connexion of the two is seen in the legend that when Jupiter was to be introduced into the great Capitoline temple, from the Capitolium vetus on the Quirinal, all the gods made way for him but Terminus[1477].

Quid nova cum fierent Capitolia? nempe deorum
Cuncta Iovi cessit turba, locumque dedit.
Terminus, ut veteres memorant, inventus in aede
Restitit, et magno cum love templa tenet.

This, as Preller truly observes, is only a poetical way of expressing his stubbornness, and his close relation to Jupiter, with whom he continued to share the great temple. It seems certain that there was in that temple a stone supposed to be that of Terminus, over which there was a hole in the roof[1478]: for all sacrifice to Terminus must be made in the open air.

Nunc quoque, se supra ne quid nisi sidera cernat,
Exiguum templi tecta foramen habent[1479].

Precisely the same feature is found in the cult of Semo Sancus or Dius Fidius[1480], who was concerned with oaths and treaties; and of Hercules we are told that the oath taken in his name must be taken out of doors[1481].

Of the stone itself we know nothing. It is open to us to guess that it was originally a boundary-stone, perhaps between the ager of the Palatine city and that of the Quirinal. The mons Capitolinus seems to have been neutral ground, as we may guess by the tradition of the asylum there; it was outside the pomoerium, and in the early Republic was the property of the priestly collegia[1482]. It was, therefore, a very appropriate place for a terminus between two communities[1483].

From Ovid (679 foll.) we gather that there was a terminus-stone at the sixth milestone on the via Laurentina, at which public sacrifices were made, perhaps on the day of the Terminalia: this was probably at one time the limit of the ager Romanus in that direction.

VI KAL. MART. (FEB. 24). N.

REGIF[UGIUM], (CAER. MAFF. PHILOC.) REGIFUGIUM, CUM TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS FERTUR AB URBE EXPULSUS. (SILV.)

This note of Silvius is based on a very old and natural misapprehension. Ovid[1484], and probably most Romans, believed that the expulsion of Tarquin was commemorated on this day. There is, however, strong indirect evidence to show that the ‘flight of the king’ on Feb. 24 was something very different.

1. We have already had a ‘flight of the people’ (Poplifugia) on July 5; and we saw that this was probably a purificatory rite of which the meaning had been lost—the sacrifice perhaps of a sacred animal followed by the flight of the crowd as from a murder. It seems impossible, at any rate unwise, to separate Poplifugia and Regifugium in general meaning, for there is no other parallel to them in the calendar. Both were explained historically by the Romans, because in both the obscure (and perhaps obsolete) religious rite was inexplicable otherwise; and we must also endeavour to treat both on the same principle.

2. It seems pretty clear that Verrius Flaccus did not believe in the historical explanation of the Regifugium. In Festus, page 278, we find a mutilated gloss which evidently refers to this day, and is thus completed by Mommsen[1485]:—

_[Regifugium notatur in fastis dies a.d.] vi kal. [Mart. qui creditur sic dict]us quia [eo die Tarquinius rex fugerit ex urbe]. Quod fal[sum est; nam e castris in exilium abisse cum r]ettul[erunt annales. Rectius explicabit qui regem e]t Salios[1486] [hoc die ... facere sacri]ficium in [comitio eoque perfecto illum inde fugere n]overit ..._

It may be said that this is all guesswork, and no evidence; but it is borne out by the following passage in Plutarch’s sixty-third Roman question:

Ἔστι γοῦν τις ἐν ἀγορᾷ θυσία πρὸς τῷ λεγομένῳ Κομητίῳ πάτριος, ἣν θύσας ὁ Βασιλεὺς κατὰ τάχος ἄπεισι Φεύγων ἐξ ἀγορϡας.

Whence Plutarch drew this statement we cannot tell. He does not give the day on which the sacrifice and flight took place; and Huschke[1487] has denied that he refers to the Regifugium at all. He believes that Plutarch is thinking of the days marked Q. R. C. F. (March 24 and May 24), on which Varro says, or seems to say, that the Rex sacrorum sacrificed in the Comitium[1488]; and this may have been so, for the note in the Fasti Praenestini on March 24 shows that there was a popular misinterpretation of Q. R. C. F., which took the letters to mean, ‘quod eo die ex comitio fugerit rex.’ In this confusion we can but appeal to the word Regifugium, which is attached to Feb. 24 only. Taking this together with Plutarch’s statement, and remembering the great improbability of the historical explanation being the true one, we are justified in accepting Mommsen’s completion of the passage in Festus, and in concluding that there was really on Feb. 24 a flight of the Rex after a sacrifice.

And this view is strengthened by the frequent occurrence of sacerdotal flights in ancient and primitive religions. These were first collected by Lobeck[1489], and have of late been treated of and variously explained by Mannhardt, Frazer, and Robertson Smith[1490]. The best known examples are those of the Bouphonia (‘ox murder’) at Athens, in which every feature shows that the slain ox was regarded, ‘not merely as a victim offered to a god, but in itself a sacred creature, the slaughter of which was sacrilege or murder’[1491]; and the sacrifice of a bull-calf to Dionysus at Tenedos, where the priest was attacked with stones, and had to flee for his life[1492]. We do not yet know for certain whether the origin of these ideas is to be found in totemism, or in the sanctity of cattle in the pastoral age, or in the representation of the spirit of vegetation in animal form. The second of these explanations, as elucidated by Robertson Smith, would seem most applicable to the Athenian rite; but in the case of the Roman one, we do not know what the victim was. It is also just possible, as Hartung long ago suggested[1493], that the victim was a scapegoat carrying away pollution, and therefore to be avoided; but I do not find any example of flight from a scapegoat, among the many instances collected by Mr. Frazer (_Golden Bough_, ii. 182 foll.).

III KAL. MART. (FEB. 27). NP.

EQ[UIRRIA]. (MAFF. CAER.: cp. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13).

We have no data whatever for guessing why a horse-race should take place on the last day of February, or why there should be two days of racing, the second being March 14. This has not, however, prevented Huschke[1494] from making some marvellous conjectures, in which ingenuity and learning have been utterly thrown away.

We saw[1495] that the oldest races of this kind were connected with harvest rejoicings; and Mannhardt[1496] suggested that they originated in the desire to catch the spirit of vegetation in the last sheaf or in some animal form. Races also occur in various parts of Europe in the spring—e. g. at the Carnival, at Easter, and at Whitsuntide; and of these he says that they correspond with the others, and that the idea at the bottom of them is ‘die Vorstellung des wetteifernden Frühlingseinzuges der Vegetationsdämonen.’ However this may be, we cannot but be puzzled by the doubling of the Equirria, and are tempted to refer it to the same cause as that of the Salii and Luperci[1497].

That both were connected with the cult of Mars is almost beyond question. They were held in the Campus Martius, and were supposed to have been established by Romulus in honour of Mars[1498]; and we have already had an example of the occurrence of horses in the Mars-cult. It would seem, then, that the peculiar features of the worship of Mars began even _before_ March 1. Preller noticed this long ago[1499], and suggested that even the Lupercalia and the Quirinalia have some relation to the Mars-cult, and that these fall at the time when the first beginnings of spring are felt—e. g. when the first swallows arrive[1500]. We may perhaps add the appearance of the Salii at the Regifugium to these foreshadowings of the March rites. Ovid seems to bear out Preller in his lines on this day[1501]:

Iamque duae restant noctes de mense secundo,
Marsque citos iunctis curribus urget equos:
Ex vero positum permansit Equirria nomen,
Quae deus in Campo prospicit ipse suo.
Iuro venis, Gradive. Locum tua tempora poseunt,
Signatusque tuo nomine mensis adest.

I may aptly add Ovid’s next couplet, now that we have at last reached the end of the Roman year:—

Venimus in portum, libro cum mense peracto.
Naviget hinc alia iam mihi linter aqua.

Footnote 1331:

Paulus, 85 ‘Quaecumque purgamenti causa in quibusque sacrificiis
adhibentur, februa appellantur. Id vero quod purgatur, dicitur
_februatum_.’ The verb februare also occurs. Varro (_L. L._ 6. 13)
says that _februum_ was the Sabine equivalent for _purgamentum_: ‘Nam
et Lupercalia februatio, ut in Antiquitatum libris demonstravi’ (cp.
6. 34). Ovid renders the word by ‘piamen’ (_Fasti_, 2. 19). Februus, a
divinity, is mentioned in Macr. 1. 13. 3; he is almost certainly a
later invention (see _Lex. Myth._ s. v.). The etymology of the word is
uncertain.

Footnote 1332:

Varro, _R. R._ 1. 29. Cp. Colum. xi. 2; and the rustic calendars.

Footnote 1333:

Varro, _R. R._ 1. 28. See above, p. 295.

Footnote 1334:

This is very distinctly stated by Cicero (_de Legibus_, 1. 14. 40 ‘In
deos impietatum nulla expiatio est’: cp. 2. 9. 22 ‘Sacrum commissum
quod neque expiari poterit, impie commissum est’). Even the sailor in
Horace’s ode (1. 28), whose duty does not seem exactly binding, is
told, if he omits it, ‘teque piacula nulla resolvent.’ On the general
question, cp. De Marchi, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, 246; and
Marq. 257. The pontifex Scaevola ‘asseverabat prudentem expiari non
posse’ (Macrob. 1. 16. 10). Ovid’s account (_Fasti_, 2. 35 foll.) is
that of a layman and a modern, but not less interesting for that
reason.

Footnote 1335:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 30 ‘Praetor qui tum (i.e. die nefasto) fatus est, si
imprudens fecit, piaculari hostia facta piatur; si prudens dixit, Q.
Mucius ambigebat eum expiari ut impium non posse.’

Footnote 1336:

_Fasti_, 2. 33.

Footnote 1337:

Ib. 31.

Footnote 1338:

See Marq. 259; Bouché-Leclercq, _Les Pontifes_, 101 foll.

Footnote 1339:

Marq. 180, Bouché-Leclercq, 178.

Footnote 1340:

See Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 406.

Footnote 1341:

_Fasti_, 2. 19 foll.

Footnote 1342:

This difficult line has occasioned much conjecture, and seems still
inexplicable. See Merkel, _Fasti_, clxvi foll.; and De-Marchi, op.
cit. p. 246.

Footnote 1343:

Aust, _De Aedibus sacris_, pp. 21, 45, 48. On this last page are some
useful remarks on the danger of drawing conclusions as to the
indigenous or foreign origin of deities from the position of their
temples inside or outside the pomoerium.

Footnote 1344:

_Fasti_, 2. 55 foll.

Footnote 1345:

Livy, 33. 42; 34. 53. Jordan, in _Commentationes in hon. Momms._ 359
foll.; Aust, op. cit. p. 20.

Footnote 1346:

See _Dict. of Antiq._ s.v. sacra. Fest. 245 a ‘Publica sacra, quae
publico sumptu pro populo fiunt: quaeque pro montibus, pagis, curiis,
sacellis.’

Footnote 1347:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 527. See under Quirinalia.

Footnote 1348:

See on April 15. There must have been at one time a tendency to
amalgamate the two kinds of _sacra publica_. The _argei_ were also
attended by Pontifices and Vestals. I should conjecture that the
Pontifices claimed supervision over rites in which they had originally
no official _locus standi_, and brought the Vestals with them.

Footnote 1349:

Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_. iii. 1. 89 foll.

Footnote 1350:

Ἱεραὰ οἰκίαι, Dion. Hal. 2. 23; Fest. 174 b; Marq. 195.

Footnote 1351:

Dion. Hal. 2. 23.

Footnote 1352:

Ib. 2. 50. The Latin words are from Paul, 64.

Footnote 1353:

Jordan, on Preller, i. 278 note. Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 596.
Curis = hasta in Sabine; Fest. 49; Roscher, l. c.; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2.
477.

Footnote 1354:

Cp. the parting of the bride’s hair with a spear, Marq. vii. 44 and
note 5; Plut. _Q. R._ 87; Bötticher, _Baumkultus_, 485; Schwegler, _R.
G._ i. 469.

Footnote 1355:

The same connexion between _curiae_ and the armed deity of the female
principle is found at Tibur (Serv. _Aen._ 1. 17), ‘in sacris
Tiburtibus sic precantur: Iuno curritis (sic) tuo curru clipeoque
tuere meos curiae vernulas,’ Jordan, in _Hermes_, 8. 217 foll.
Possibly also at Lanuvium (_Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 595).

Footnote 1356:

Varro, _L. L._ 5. 83 and 155; Marq. 195.

Footnote 1357:

This has been done by O. Gilbert (_Gesch. und Topogr._ 2, 129 foll.),
an author who is not often so helpful. He is followed by Steuding, in
_Lex. Myth._ s. v. Fornax.

Footnote 1358:

Paul. 93 (cp. 83), ‘Fornacalia feriae institutae sunt farris torrendi
gratia quod ad fornacem quae in pistrinis erat sacrificium fieri
solebat.’ Dionysius was probably referring to this when he wrote (2.
23) that he had himself seen ancient wooden tables spread with rude
cakes of primitive fashion in baskets and dishes of primitive make. He
also mentions καρπῶν τινων ἐπαρχάς (cp. Ovid, l. c. 520), which might
indeed suggest a feast of curiae at a different time of year. For the
_far_, see Marq. vii. 399 foll. The cakes were _februa_, according to
Ovid; see above, p. 301.

Footnote 1359:

Comp. Ovid, l. c. with Fest. 254; Paul. 316; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13;
Plut. _Q. R._ 89.

Footnote 1360:

_H. N._ 18. 8; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 2. 245.

Footnote 1361:

_Fasti_, 2. 527 foll.

Footnote 1362:

That it was so is proved by Fest. 254, and Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13. It
must have been a custom fairly well fixed.

Footnote 1363:

ii. 9.

Footnote 1364:

2. 23, Ἐγὼ γοῦν ἐθεασάμην ἐν ἱεραῖς οἰκάις δεῖπνα προκείμενα θεοῖς ἐπὶ
τραπέζαις ξυλίναις ἀρχαικαῖς, ἐν κάνησι καὶ πινακίσκοις κεραμέοις
ἀλφίτων μάζας καὶ πόπανα καὶ ζέας καὶ καρπῶν τινων ἐπαρχάς &c.

Footnote 1365:

_Fasti_, 2. 525. What does Ovid mean by _fruges_?

Footnote 1366:

Paul. 93, quoted above; Ovid, l. c. 525. Fornax as a spirit may be at
least as old as those of other parts of the house, Janus, Vesta,
Limentinus, &c.

Footnote 1367:

Mommsen, _Röm. Forschungen_, i. 149 foll.

Footnote 1368:

Lydus, _de Mens._ 4. 24. Lydus gives the 22nd as the final day; Ovid,
_Fasti_, 2. 569, gives the 21st (Feralia).

Footnote 1369:

Dion. Hal. 2. 40.

Footnote 1370:

_C. I. L._ I². 309: cf. 297 (Introduction, p. 9). The Lupercalia
(15th) is an exception; but for reasons connected with that festival.
The 21st (Feralia) is F P (Caer.) F (Maff.). See Introduction, p. 10.
F P, according to Mommsen, = fastus principio.

Footnote 1371:

If Ovid reflects it rightly in _Fasti_, 5. 419 foll. Cp. Porph. on
Hor. _Ep._ 2. 2. 209. See on Lemuria, above, p. 107.

Footnote 1372:

On the vast subject of the jus Manium and the worship of the dead, the
following are some of the works that may be consulted: Marq. 307
foll., and vii. 350 foll.; De-Marchi, _Il Culto Privato_, p. 180
foll.; Roscher, _Lex._ articles Manes and Inferi; Bouché-Leclereq,
_Pontifes_, 147 foll.; Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 630 foll. Two old treatises
still form the basis of our knowledge: Gutherius, _de iure Manium_, in
Graevius’ _Thesaurus_, vol. xii.; and Kirchmann, _de Funeribus_
(1605). Valuable matter has still to be collected (for later times)
from the _Corpus Inscriptionum_.

Footnote 1373:

This was the universal practice in Italy from the earliest times, so
far as we have as yet learnt from excavations. For the question
whether burial in or close to the house, or within the city walls,
preceded burial in necropoleis, see _Classical Review_, for February,
1897, p. 32 foll. Servius (Ad _Aen._ 5. 64; 6. 152; cp. Isidorus, 15.
ii. 1) tells us that they once buried in the house, and there were
facts that might suggest this in the cult of the Lares, and in the
private ghost-driving of the Lemuria; but we cannot prove it, and it
is not true of the Romans at any period. Not even the well-known law
of the XII Tables can prove that burial ever regularly took place
within the _existing_ walls of a city.

Footnote 1374:

Cic. _De Legg._ 2. 48. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ 5. 49:

Iamque dies, ni fallor, adest, quern semper acerbum,
Semper honoratum—sic di voluistis—habebo.

Footnote 1375:

Marq. 311 foll.

Footnote 1376:

Purpureosque iacit flores, Virg. _Aen._ 5. 79. Cp. Cic. _pro Flacco_,
38. 95.

Footnote 1377:

_Aeneidea_, 3. 15. He well compares Lucan, 9. 990. Tylor, _Prim.
Cult._ ii. 332. Aeneas is here, as always, the true type of the
practical Roman.

Footnote 1378:

Marq. 311 and reff.

Footnote 1379:

_Fasti_, 2. 617 foll. Among the calendars it is only mentioned in
those of Philocalus and Silvius, and in the rustic calendars. Valerius
Maximus is the next writer after Ovid who mentions it: 2. 1. 8. Cp.
_C. I. L._ vi. 10234. Martial calls it ‘lux propinquorum’ (9. 55, cp.
54). For an interesting conjecture as to the special meaning of
_carus_, see Lattes quoted in De-Marchi, op. cit. 214, note 2.

Footnote 1380:

Val. Max. l. c. and Silvius’ _Calendar_.

Footnote 1381:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 623,

Innocui veniant: procul hinc, procul impius esto
Frater, et in partus mater acerba suos.

Footnote 1382:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 633-634. On such occasions the Lares were clothed in
tunics girt at the loins; see a figure of a Lar on an altar from Caere
in Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, vol. i. p. 77.

Footnote 1383:

_Fasti_, 2. 571 foll.

Footnote 1384:

Line 583. See Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Dea Muta.

Footnote 1385:

See e. g. Crooke, _Folklore of Northern India_, ch. 5 (the Black Art),
and especially pp. 264 foll.

Footnote 1386:

See e. g. Leland, _Etruscan Roman remains in popular legend_, pp. 3
and 195 foll.

Footnote 1387:

The chief attempts are those of Unger, in _Rhein. Mus._, 1881, p. 50,
and Mannhardt in his _Mythologische Forschungen_, pp. 72-155. The
former is ingenious, but unsatisfactory in many ways; the latter
conscientious, and valuable as a study in folk-lore, whether its
immediate conclusions be right or wrong. See also Schwegler, _R. G._
i. 356 foll.; Preller, i. 387 foll.; and article s. v. in _Dict. of
Antiquities_ (2nd edition); Marq. 442 foll. The ancient authorities
are Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5, 79, 80; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 267 foll.;
Plutarch, _Caes._ 61, _Rom._ 21; Val. Max. 2. 2. 9; Propert. 5. (4.)
1. 26; and many other passages which will be referred to when
necessary.

Footnote 1388:

Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5.

Footnote 1389:

Jordan, _Kritische Beiträge_, 164 foll. Unger’s attempt, after Serv.
_Aen._ 8. 343. to derive the word from _luo_ (‘to purify’) is
generally rejected.

Footnote 1390:

Wissowa, _Lex._ (s. v. Lupercus) takes the latter view, but rightly,
as I think, rejects the deity.

Footnote 1391:

Virg. _Aen._ 8. 630 ‘Mavortis in antro.’ Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v.
Mars, 2388; Preller, i. 334.

Footnote 1392:

Plut. _Rom_. 21. After mentioning the goats, he says, ἴδιον δὲ τῆς
ἑορτῆς τὸ καὶ κύνα θύειν τοὺς Δουπέρκους (cp. _Q. R._ iii).

Footnote 1393:

Marq. 165. See above, p. 110.

Footnote 1394:

So Val. Max. l.c. From Ovid’s version of the aetiological story of
Romulus and Remus (_Fasti_, 2. 371 foll.) we might infer that the
feasting took place after the running.

Footnote 1395:

‘Cornipedi Fauno caesa de more capella’ (_Fasti_, 2. 361). Cp. 5. 101.
So Plut. _Rom._ l. c.

Footnote 1396:

Livy, 1. 5. Unger (p. 71 foll.) has much to say about Inuus in the
worst style of German pseudo-research. See _Lex._ s. v. (Steuding).

Footnote 1397:

Schwegler, i. 351 foll.; Justin, 43. 1. I had long ago arrived at this
conclusion, and was glad to see it sanctioned by Wissowa in _Lex._ s.
v. Lupercus.

Footnote 1398:

_Aen._ 8. 343: the only reason given is that the goat was Liber’s
victim.

Footnote 1399:

Arnobius, 2. 23. See Mannhardt, 85; Huschke, _Röm. Jahr_, 12.

Footnote 1400:

Schwegler, i. 354 foll.: the general result is given in _Lex._ s. v.
Evander, vol. 1. 1395. Evander himself = Faunus. It is possible that
there may be some basis of truth in the Arcadian legend: we await
further archaeological inquiry.

Footnote 1401:

See on Dec. 5; and _Lex._ s. v. Faunus, p. 1458.

Footnote 1402:

Serv. _Aen._ 2. 351. The whole passage is very interesting. See on
Dec. 21; and Bouché-Leclercq, _Pontifes_, 28 and 49.

Footnote 1403:

_Fasti_, 2. 282; Marq. 443.

Footnote 1404:

Plut. _Q. R._ 111; Gell. 10. 15; Arnob. 7. 21.

Footnote 1405:

_Rom._ 21: quoted above, p. 311. Val. Max. l. c. seems also to imply
it: ‘Facto sacrificio caesisque capris, epularum hilaritate ac vino
largiore provecti, divisa pastorali turba, cincti pellibus immolatarum
hostiarum, iocantes obvios petiverunt.’

Footnote 1406:

Even this point is not quite certain; but see Hartung, _Rel. der
Römer_, ii. 178, and Mannhardt, 78.

Footnote 1407:

Ox, sheep and pig were the usual victims; the dog was only offered to
Robigus (see on April 25), to the Lares Praestites and to Mana Geneta;
the goat only to Bacchus and Aesculapius, foreign deities (Marq. 172).
The goat-skin of Juno Sospita is certainly Greek: _Lex._ s. v. Iuno,
595. The goat was a special Hebrew _piaculum_ (Robertson Smith, 448;
cf. 453).

Footnote 1408:

Robertson Smith, 379.

Footnote 1409:

Ib. 381.

Footnote 1410:

_Rom._ 21 οἱ μὲν ᾐμαγμένῃ μαχαίρᾳ τοῦ μετώπου θιγγάνουσιν, ἕτεροι δ’
ἀπομάττουσιν εὐθὺς ἔριον βεβρεγμένον γάλακτι προσφέροντες. Γελᾶν δὲ
δεῖ τὰ μειρόκια μετὰ τὴν ἀπόμαξιν.

Footnote 1411:

So Schwegler. l. c. and reff. in Marq. 443 notes 11-13. Dion. Hal. (1.
32) compared the human sacrifice in the cult of Zeus Lycaeus in
Arcadia. See Farnell, _Cults_, i. 40 foll.

Footnote 1412:

We ought to have the whole _history_ of the Lupercalia if we are to
explain it rightly; it is impossible to guess through what stages and
changes it may have passed.

Footnote 1413:

4. 478 (quoted in a valuable section (23) of Hermann’s
_Gottesdienstliche Alterthümer der Griechen_).

Footnote 1414:

For examples of this idea see under Feb. 24 (Regifugium); Robertson
Smith, 286; Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 58 foll.

Footnote 1415:

It may indeed be misrepresented by Plutarch (who is the only writer
who mentions it), and may have been originally an ἀλολυγή. For the
confusion of mournful and joyful cries at a sacrifice see Robertson
Smith, 411.

Footnote 1416:

Robertson Smith notes (p. 396) that young men, or rather lads, occur
as sacrificers in Exodus xxiv. 5.

Footnote 1417:

p. 91 foll.

Footnote 1418:

Mannhardt is not lucid on this point; he was evidently in difficulties
(pp. 97-99). He seems clear that the application of the blood produces
an _identity_ between victim and youths; but in similar cases it is
not through death that victim, god, and priest become identical, but
through the life-giving virtue of the blood. The blood-application
must surely mean the acquisition of new life; but he makes it symbolic
of death.

Footnote 1419:

Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 242.

Footnote 1420:

Mannhardt seems to have felt this difficulty (p. 86), and to have
tried to overcome it, but without success.

Footnote 1421:

I here omit the feasting, as it is by no means certain at what point
of time it took place. If the victims themselves were eaten, it would
be part of the sacrificial act and would precede the running; but this
is not common in the case of such _piacula_, and one victim, we must
remember, was a dog. It is more likely that Val. Max. is here wrong
(see above, p. 311, note 6).

Footnote 1422:

See Mannhardt, _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, 318 foll., and for other
examples, Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 1 foll.; Preller-Robert, _Griech. Myth._
i. 144 (Zeus-festival on Pelion).

Footnote 1423:

After Schwegler, i. 361; rejected by Marq. (439, note 4).

Footnote 1424:

p. 101. The ‘wolves’ represent of course the Palatine city.

Footnote 1425:

See his eminently modest and sensible remarks at the end of his 5th
section, p. 113.

Footnote 1426:

Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 416 foll.; _Encycl. Brit._
art. ‘Sacrifice’; and for the Lupercalia, _Academy_, Feb. 11, 1888,
where a totemistic origin is suggested.

Footnote 1427:

See also Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ pp. 183-6; Lang, _Myth, Ritual and
Religion_, vol. ii. 177 (cp. 106) and reff., 213; _Dict. of
Antiquities_, art. ‘Sacrificium,’ p. 584.

Footnote 1428:

Festus, p. 57 ‘Creppos, id est lupercos, dicebant a crepitu
pellicularum,’ &c.

Footnote 1429:

Preller, i. 389. On this Jordan has added no comment.

Footnote 1430:

_Ann._ 12. 24; Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 163 foll., has examined Tacitus’s
account with great care. Tacitus starts the pomoerium from the Forum
boarium, while Dionysius and Plutarch start the runners from the
Lupercal; but the two are close together.

Footnote 1431:

The reading is not quite certain; the MSS. have ‘Larum de forumque.’

Footnote 1432:

The Sacellum Larum has generally been supposed to be that in summa
sacra via (Jordan, op. cit. ii. 269). Kiepert and Huelsen make it the
sacellum or ara Larum praestitum at the head of the Vicus Tuscus.

Footnote 1433:

_L. L._ 6. 34. Mommsen proposed ‘a regibus Romanis moenibus cinctum.’
But it is safer to keep to the MS. reading and make the best of it.
Jordan sees in the words a ‘scurrilous’ allusion to the _luperci_.

Footnote 1434:

For modern practices of the kind in England see Brand, _Popular
Antiquities_, ch. 36; and for Oxford, p. 209. As Brand puts it, the
beaters (i. e. ministers, churchwardens, &c.), ‘_beg a blessing on the
fruits of the earth_, and preserve the rights and boundaries of their
parish.’ The analogy with the old Italian processions is very close.

Footnote 1435:

So _C. I. L._ 6. 1933 ‘lupercus Quinctialis vetus.’ See Mommsen,
_Forsch._ i. 117. Unger, however (p. 56 foll.), argues for the form
Quintilianus, as it appears in Fest. 87, and Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 378;
and also denies that the names indicate gentile priesthoods. But his
arguments depend on a doubtful etymology. See Marq. 440, note.

Footnote 1436:

Liv. 5. 46. Mommsen connects the name _Kaeso_, which is found in both
gentes, with the cutting of the strips at the Lupercalia. The Fabii in
Ovid’s story (361 foll.) are led by Remus, and the Quintilii by
Romulus.

Footnote 1437:

See under March 1, p. 41.

Footnote 1438:

So Mannhardt, 101, who tries to explain it as we have seen.

Footnote 1439:

Gilbert, _Gesch. und Topogr._ i. 86, note, tries to make out that the
Fabii belonged to the Palatine proper; and the other guild, not to the
Quirinal, but to the Cermalus, and thus also to account for the fact
that in Ovid’s story the Fabii come first to the feast; but all this
is pure guesswork.

Footnote 1440:

Plut. _Rom._ 21 and _Caes._ 61; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 425 foll.; Paul. 57;
Liv. fragm. 12 (Madvig); Serv. _Aen._ 8. 343. All these passages make
it clear that the object was to procure fertility in women. Nic.
Damasc., _Vita Caesaris_ 21, does not specify women (cp. Dion. Hal. 1.
80).

Footnote 1441:

Liv. l. c. and Serv. l. c. are explicit on this point.

Footnote 1442:

Op. cit. 113 foll. and his _Baumkultus_, p. 251 foll. (see also
Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 214 and 232 foll.). An example of the same kind of
practice in India is in Crooke, _Religion and Folklore_, vol. i. p.
100. See under May 1 (Bona Dea), p. 104.

Footnote 1443:

They were also called ‘amiculum Iunonis’ (Fest. 85: cp. Ovid, _Fasti_,
2. 427 foll.); Juno here, as so often, representing the female
principle. Farnell (_Cults_, i. 100) aptly compares with this the
Athenian custom of carrying Athena’s _aegis_ round Athens, and taking
it into the houses of married women.

Footnote 1444:

Lactantius, _Inst._ 1. 21. 45, describes them as ‘nudi, uncti,
coronati, personati, aut luto obliti currunt’; but we have no certain
confirmation from earlier sources except as to the nakedness (Ovid,
_Fasti_, 2. 267).

Footnote 1445:

‘_Iocantes_ obvios petiverunt’ (Val. Max.). Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._
140 foll.

Footnote 1446:

Mon. Ancyr. iv. 2; Marq. 446.

Footnote 1447:

Baronius, _Annal. Eccles._ viii. 60 foll.

Footnote 1448:

Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 11; Jordan, _Eph. Epigr._ iii. 238.

Footnote 1449:

e. g. Cic. _ad Quint. Fratr._ 2. 3. 2.

Footnote 1450:

See other references in Preller, i. 374, note. Ambrosch (_Studien_,
169, note 50) observes that Cicero (_de Off._ 3. 10) writes with a
trace of scepticism: ‘Romulus fratre interempto sine controversia
peccavit, pace vel Quirini vel Romuli dixerim.’

Footnote 1451:

See Jordan on Preller, i. 369. The article ‘Quirinus’ in _Myth. Lex._
has not yet appeared as I write.

Footnote 1452:

_Studien_, 169.

Footnote 1453: