Chapter VIII: Part 8

But the chief argument is based on the cult of Fortuna Primigenia, ‘the first-born of the gods,’ as he translates the word, in accordance with a recent elaborate investigation of its meaning[679]. This cult does indeed show very curious and interesting characters. It belonged originally to Praeneste, where Fortuna was the presiding deity of an ancient and famous oracle. Here have been found inscriptions to Fortuna, ‘DIOVO[S] FILEA[I] PRIMOGENIA[I],’ the first-born daughter of Jupiter[680]. Here also, strange to say, Cicero describes[681] an enclosure sacred to Jupiter Puer, who was represented there with Juno as sitting in the lap of Fortuna ‘mammam appetens.’ This very naturally attracted Prof. Max Müller’s keenest attention, and he had no difficulty in finding his explanation: Fortuna is ‘the first-born of all the bright powers of the sky, and the daughter of the sky; but likewise from another point of view the mother of the daily sun who is the bright child she carries in her arms.’ This is charming; but it is the language and thought, not of ancient Italians, but of Vedic poets. The great Latin scholar, who had for years been soaking his mind in Italian antiquities, will hardly venture on an explanation at all: ‘haud ignarus quid deceat eum qui Aboriginum regiones attingat[682].’

I shall have occasion later on[683] to say something of this very interesting and mysterious cult at Praeneste. At present I must be content with pointing out that it is altogether unsafe to regard it as representative of any general ideas of ancient Italian religion. As Italian archaeologists are aware, Praeneste was a city in which Etruscan and Greek influences are most distinctly traceable, and in which foreign deities and myths seem to have become mixed up with native ones, to the extreme bewilderment of the careful inquirer[684]. We may accept the Professor’s explanation of it with all respect as a most interesting hypothesis, but as no more than a hypothesis which needs much more information than we as yet possess to render it even a probable one.

By his own account the Professor would not have been led so far afield for an explanation of Fortuna if he had not been struck by the apparent difficulty involved in such a goddess as ‘she who brings.’ Towards the removal of this difficulty, however, the late Mr. Vigfusson did something in a letter to the _Academy_ of March 17, 1888[685]. He equated Fors and Fortuna with the Icelandic _buror_, from a verb having quite as wide and general a meaning as _fero_, and being its etymological equivalent. ‘There is a department of its meanings,’ he tells us, ‘through which runs the notion of an invisible, passive, sudden, involuntary, chance agency’; and another, in which _bera_ means to give birth, and produces a noun meaning birth, and so lucky birth, honour, &c. The two ideas come together in the Norse notion of the Norns who presided at the birth of each child, shaping at that hour the child’s fortune[686].

It is rather to the ideas of peoples like the early Teutons and Celts that we must look for mental conditions resembling those of the early Italians, than to the highly developed poetical mythology of the Vedas; and it is in the direction which Mr. Vigfusson pointed out that I think we should search for the oldest Italian ideas of Fortuna and for the causes which led to her popularity and development. In a valuable paper, to which I shall have occasion to refer again, Prof. Nettleship[687] suggested that Carmenta (or Carmentes) may be explained with S. Augustine[688] as the goddess or prophetess who tells the fortunes of the children, and that this was the reason why she was especially worshipped by matrons, like Mater Matuta, Fortuna and others. The Carmentes were in fact the Norns of Italy. Such a practical need as the desire to know your child’s fortunes would be quite in harmony with what we know of the old Italian character; and I think it far from impossible that Fortuna, as an oracular deity in Italy, may have been originally a conception of the same kind, perhaps not only a prophetess as regards the children, but also of the good luck of the mother in childbirth. Perhaps the most striking fact in her multifarious cults is the predominance in them of women as worshippers. Of the very Fortuna Primogenia of whom we have been speaking Cicero tells us that her ancient home at Praeneste was the object of the special devotion of mothers[689]. The same was the case with Fortuna Virilis, Muliebris, Mammosa, and others.

If we look at her in this light, there is really no difficulty in understanding why what seems to us at first sight a very vague conception, ‘the goddess who brings,’ should not have meant something very real and concrete to the early Italian mind. And again, if that be so, if Fortuna be once recognized as a great power in ways which touched these essential and practical needs of human nature, we may feel less astonishment at finding her represented either as the daughter or the mother of Jupiter. Such representation could indeed hardly have been the work of really primitive Italians; it arose, one may conjecture, if not from some confusion which we cannot now unravel, from the fame of the oracle—one of the very few in Italy—and the consequent fame of the goddess whose name came to be attached to that oracle. Or, as Jordan seems to think, it may have been the vicinity of the rock-oracle to the temple of Jupiter which gave rise to the connexion between the two in popular belief; a belief which was expressed in terms of relationship, perhaps under Greek influence, but certainly in a manner for the most part absent from the unmythological Italian religion. Why indeed in the same place she should be mother as well as daughter of Jupiter (if Cicero be accurate in his account, which is perhaps not quite certain) may well puzzle us all. Those who cannot do without an explanation may accept that of Prof. Max Müller, if they can also accept his etymology. Those who have acquired what Mommsen has called the ‘difficillima ars nesciendi,’ will be content with Jordan’s cautious remark, ‘Non desunt vestigia divinum numen Italis notum fuisse deis deabusve omnibus et hoc ipso in quo vivimus mundo antiquius[690].’

But Fortuna has not only been conjectured to be a deity of the dawn; she has been made out to be both a moon-goddess and a sun-goddess. For her origin in the moon there is really nothing of any weight to be urged; the advocate of this view is one of the least judicious of German specialists, and his arguments need not detain us[691]. But for her connexion with the sun there is something more to be said.

The dedication day of the temple of Fors Fortuna was exactly at the summer solstice. It is now St. John the Baptist’s day, and one on which a great variety of curious local customs, some of which still survive, regularly occur; and especially the midsummer fires which were until recently so common in our own islands. Attention has often been drawn to the fondness for parallelism which prompted the early Christians to place the birth of Christ at the winter solstice, when the days begin to grow longer, and that of the Baptist—for June 24 is his reputed birthday as well as festival—at the summer solstice when they begin to shorten; following the text, ‘He must increase and I must decrease[692].’ Certainly the sun is an object of special regard at all midsummer festivals, and is supposed to be often symbolized in them by a wheel, which is set on fire and in many cases rolled down a hill[693]. Now the wheel is of course a symbol in the cult of Fortuna, and is sometimes found in Italian representations of her, though not so regularly as the cornucopia and the ship’s rudder which almost invariably accompany her[694]. Putting this in conjunction with the date of the festival of Fors Fortuna, the Celtic scholar Gaidoz has concluded that Fortuna was ultimately a solar deity[695]. The solar origin of the symbol was, he thinks, quite forgotten; but the wheel, or the globe which sometimes replaces it, was certainly at one time solar, and perhaps came from Assyria. If so (he concludes), the earliest form of Fortuna must have been a female double of the sun.

All hints are useful in Roman antiquities, and something may yet be made of this. But it cannot be accepted until we are sure of the history and descent of this symbol in the representations of Fortuna; it is far from impossible that the wheel or globe may in this case have nothing more to do with the sun than the rudder which always accompanies it. In any case it can hardly be doubted that it is not of Italian origin; it is found, e. g. also in the cult of Nemesis, who, like Tyche, Eilithyia, and Leucothea, is probably responsible for much variation and confusion in the worship of Italian female deities[696]. As to the other fact adduced by Gaidoz, viz. the date of the festival, it is certainly striking, and must be given its full weight. It is surprising that Prof. Max Müller has made no use of it. But we must be on our guard. It is remarkable that we find in the Roman calendars no other evidence that the Romans attached the same importance to the summer solstice as some other peoples; the Roman summer festivals are concerned, in accordance with the true Italian spirit, much more with the operations of man in dealing with nature than with the phenomena of nature taken by themselves. It is perhaps better to avoid a hasty conclusion that this festival of Fors Fortuna was on the 24th because the 24th was the end of the solstice, and rather to allow the equal probability that it was fixed then because harvest was going on. Columella seems to be alluding to it in the following lines[697]:

Sed cum maturis flavebit messis aristis
Allia cum cepis, cereale papaver anetho
Iungite, dumque virent, nexos deferte maniplos,
Et celebres Fortis Fortunae dicite laudes
Mercibus exactis, hilaresque recurrite in hortos.

The power of Fortuna as a deity of chance would be as important for the perils of harvest as for those of childbirth; and it is in this connexion that the Italians understood the meaning of that cornucopia which is perhaps her most constant symbol in art[698].

Lastly, there is a formidable question, which may easily lead the unwary into endless complications, and on which I shall only touch very briefly. How are we to explain the legendary connexion between the cult of Fortuna and Servius Tullius? That king, the so-called second founder of Rome, was said, as we have seen, to have erected more than one sanctuary to Fortuna, and was even believed to have had illicit dealings with the goddess herself[699]. The dedication-day of Fors Fortuna was said to have been selected by him, and, as Ovid describes it, was a festival of the poorer kind of people, who thus kept up the custom initiated by the popular friend of the plebs.

Since the Etruscan origin of Servius Tullius has been placed beyond a doubt by the discovery of the famous tomb at Vulci, with the paintings of Cales Vibenna released from his bonds by Mastarna[700], which has thus confirmed the Etruscan tradition of the identity of Mastarna and Servius preserved by the emperor Claudius in his famous speech[701], it would seem that we may consider it as highly probable that if Servius did really institute the cult of Fortuna at Rome, that cult came with him from Etruria. This by no means compels us to look on Fortuna as an Etruscan deity only; but it seems to be a fact that there was an Etruscan goddess who was recognized by the Romans as the equivalent of their Fortuna[702]. This was Nortia, a great deity at Volsinii, as is fully proved by the remains found there[703]; and we may note that the city was near to and in close alliance with Vulci, where the tomb was found containing the paintings just alluded to. Seianus, a native of Volsinii[704], was supposed to be under the protection of this deity, and, as we have already seen, to possess an ancient statue of her.

In her temple a nail was driven every year as in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus[705], and hence some have concluded that she was a goddess of time. It cannot, however, be regarded as certain whether this nail-driving was originally symbolical only, or at all, of time; it may quite as well remind us of the famous Fortuna of Antium and the ‘clavos trabales’ of Horace’s Ode[706]. However this may be, it is a fair guess, though it must be made with hesitation, that the Fortuna of Servius was the equivalent of this Nortia, to whom the Roman plebs gave a name with which they were in some way already familiar. Mastarna continued to worship his native deity after he was settled in Rome; and the plebs continued to revere her, not because of his luck, which was indeed imperfect, but simply because she was his protectress[707]. If we try to get beyond this we lose our footing; and even this is only conjecture, though based upon evidence which is not entirely without weight.

Footnote 505:

What can be said for this view may be read in Roscher’s article in
_Lex._ s. v. Iuno, p. 575, note.

Footnote 506:

Roscher’s treatment of Juno Moneta (_Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 593) seems to
me pure fancy; this writer is apt to twist his facts and his
inferences to suit a prepossession—in this case the notion of a ἱερὸς
γάμος of Jupiter and Juno.

Footnote 507:

Liv. 7. 28; Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 183; Macrob. 1. 12. 30.

Footnote 508:

On this point see Lewis, _Credibility of Early Roman Hist._ vol. ii.
345.

Footnote 509:

Dionys., 13. 7, says, Χῆνες ἱεροὶ περὶ τὸν νεὼν τῆς Ἥρας; but this is
no evidence for an early _temple_ of Juno Moneta.

Footnote 510:

Apparently she was fond of such birds: crows also were ‘in tutela
Iunonis’ at a certain spot north of the Tiber (Paul. 64), and at
Lanuvium (Preller, i. 283).

Footnote 511:

Liv. 6. 20.

Footnote 512:

I have assumed that _Moneta_ is connected with _moneo_; but there are
other views (Roscher, _Lex._ 593). Livius Andronicus (ap. Priscian, p.
679) helps us to the meaning by translating Μνημοσύνη (of the
_Odyssey_) by _Moneta_.

Footnote 513:

Macrob. _Sat._ 1. 12. 22 and 31. There was no temple of Carna there
but Tertullianus (_ad Nat._ 2. 9) mentions a _fanum_.

Footnote 514:

Cp. also the explanation from _iuniores_ (e. g. in Ovid, _Fasti_, 6.
83 foll.).

Footnote 515:

Macrob. 1. 12. 33 ‘Cui pulte fabacia et larido sacrificatur.’

Footnote 516:

Even in the fourth century A.D. this was so: see the calendar of
Philocalus.

Footnote 517:

Colum. II. 2. 20; Pallad. 7. 3; Hartmann, _Das Röm. Kal._ 135.

Footnote 518:

_H. N._ 18. 117.

Footnote 519:

See above on Lemuria, p. 110.

Footnote 520:

_de Feriis_, xiii.

Footnote 521:

_C. I. L._ iii. 3893.

Footnote 522:

There is really nothing in common between the two: see Wissowa in
_Lex._ s. v. Carna, following Merkel, clxv. What the real etymology of
Carna may be is undecided; Curtius and others have connected it with
_cor_, and on this O. Gilbert has built much foolish conjecture (ii.
19 foll.). I would rather compare it with the words Garanus or
Recaranus of the Hercules legend (Bréal, _Herc. et Cacus_, pp. 59,
60), and perhaps with Gradivus, Grabovius. The name of the ‘nymph’
Cranae in Ovid’s account is in some MSS. Grane or Crane. H. Peter
(_Fasti_, pt. ii. p. 89) adopts the connexion with _caro_: she is ‘die
das Fleisch kräftigende Göttin’ (cp. Ossipago).

Footnote 523:

_Fasti_, 6. 169-182. Lines 101-130 are concerned with Cardea; 130 to
168, or the middle section of the comment, seem, as Marquardt
suggested (p. 13, note), to be referable to Carna (as the averter of
_striges_), though the charms fixed on the _postes_ show that Ovid is
still confounding her with Cardea.

Footnote 524:

The word _strix_ is Greek, or at least identical with the Greek word.
But the belief in vampires is so widely spread (cf. Tylor, _Prim.
Cult._ ii. 175 foll.) that we must not conclude hastily that it came
to Italy with the Greeks: it is met with as early as Plautus (_Pseud._
3. 2. 20). Cf. Pliny, _H. N._ 11. 232.

Footnote 525:

_Fasti_, 6. 155 foll.

Footnote 526:

The _arbutus_ does not seem to be mentioned in connexion with charms
except in this passage; we might have expected the laurel. Bötticher,
_Baumkultus_, 324.

Footnote 527:

The sucking-pig is sacrificed, as we gather from _prosecta_ below; i.
e. to Carna: cp. the cakes of _lard_ eaten this day (169 foll.).

Footnote 528:

Cp. in the process of ghost-laying (above, p. 109) the prohibition to
look at the beans scattered.

Footnote 529:

For the blackthorn (Germ. _Weissdorn_) see Bötticher, _Baumkultus_,
361. Varro, ap. Charisium, p. 117 ‘fax ex spinu alba praefertur, quod
purgationis causa adhibetur.’

Footnote 530:

This is the passage that must have inspired O. Crusius in his paper on
beans in _Rhein. Mus._ xxxix. 164 foll. ‘Beans,’ he says, ‘were the
oldest Italian food, and like stone knives, &c., survived in ritual.’
We want, indeed, some more definite proof that they were really the
oldest food; and anyhow their use had not died out like that of stone
implements. They were a common article of food at Athens: Aristoph.
_Knights_, 41; _Lysist._ 537 and 691. But it is not unlikely that
their use in the cult of the dead may be a survival, upon which odd
superstitions grafted themselves. For a parallel argument see Roscher,
_Nektar und Ambrosia_, 36; Rhys, _Celtic Mythology_, 356.

Footnote 531:

_Sat._ 1. 12. 32.

Footnote 532:

No safe conclusion can be drawn from Tertullian’s inclusion (_ad Nat._
2. 9) of the _fanum_ of Carna on the Caelian among those of _di
adventicii_. O. Gilbert has lately tried to make much of this (ii. 42
foll.), and to find an Etruscan origin for Carna: but see Aust on the
position of temples outside the _pomoerium_ (_de Aedibus sacris_, 47).

Footnote 533:

Liv. 7. 23; Dionys. 6. 13.

Footnote 534:

See on March 1, above, p. 37.

Footnote 535:

Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 8. The _Fasti Venusini_ are ‘omnium
accuratissimi’; ib. p. 43. Aust goes so far as to doubt the true Roman
character of this Mars, and believes him to be the Greek god Ares. See
his note in _Lex._ 2391. The date of foundation is not certain, but
was probably not earlier than the Gallic war, 388 B.C., if it is this
to which Livy alludes in 6. 5. 8.

Footnote 536:

Liv. 10. 19. There was a tradition that Ap. Claudius, _Cos._ 495 B.C.,
had dedicated statues of his ancestors in a temple of Bellona (Pliny,
_N. H._ 35. 12).

Footnote 537:

Serv. _Aen._ ix. 53.

Footnote 538:

Liv. 1. 32. 12; Marq. 422.

Footnote 539:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 205 foll.; Paulus, 33.

Footnote 540:

Willems, _Le Sénat de la République_, ii. 161.

Footnote 541:

This was originally suggested by Gellius (13. 23), ‘perhaps not
without some reason,’ says Marquardt (75). This suggestion has grown
almost into a certainty for the writer in the _Lexicon_, in a manner
very characteristic of the present age of research. There would be
some reason to think that Bellona (or Duellona) was an ancient goddess
of central Italy, if we could be sure that the inscription on an
ancient cup, in the museum at Florence, which may be read ‘Belolae
poculum’ (_C. I. L._ i. 44), refers to this deity. See _Lex._ s. v.
Belola.

Footnote 542:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 209. See _Commentarii in honorem Th. Mommseni_, 262
foll. (Klügmann), and R. Peter in _Lex._ s. v. Herc. p. 2979.

Footnote 543:

Preller-Jordan, ii. 296.

Footnote 544:

See below, p. 146.

Footnote 545:

9. 60, where Ζεὺς Πίστιος = Dius Fidius.

Footnote 546:

4. 58: cp. Liv. 8. 20; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 51. Of the porta
Sanqualis I shall have a word to say presently.

Footnote 547:

Mr. Lang (_Myth, Ritual_, &c., ii. 191) has some excellent remarks on
this subject.

Footnote 548:

_Fasti_, 6. 213.

Footnote 549:

See Wordsworth’s _Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin_, p. 157
‘Semunes alternos advocapit cunctos.’ I follow Jordan’s explanation of
‘Semunes,’ in _Krit. Beiträge_, 204 foll.

Footnote 550:

Aelius Dium Fidium dicebat Diovis filium, ut Graeci Διόσκορον
Castorem, et putabat hunc esse Sancum ab Sabina lingua et Herculem a
Graeca’ (Varro, _L. L._ 5. 66).

Footnote 551:

Festus, 241. This is probably the _sacellum_ of Livy, 8. 22.

Footnote 552:

_C. I. L._ vi. 568: again (ib. 567), ‘Semoni Sanco deo fidio.’ Sancus
is, of course, a name, not an adjective: we find Sangus in some MSS.
of Livy, 32. 1. For the well-known curious confusion with Simon Magus,
Euseb. _H. E._ 2. 13.

Footnote 553:

Bréal, _Tables Eugubines_, 71; Bücheler, _Umbrica_, 65 foll. As
Preller remarks, Fisus stands to Fidius as Clausus to Claudius (ii.
271). At Iguvium there was a hill, important in the rites, which bore
this name—_ocris fisius_.

Footnote 554:

Aelius Stilo ap. Varro, l. c.; Ovid, l. c.; Propert. 4. 9. 74;
Lactantius, 1. 15. 8; Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 364; Preller, ii. 272; O.
Gilbert, i. 275, note; Ambrosch, _Studien_, 170. Jordan, however, in a
note on Preller (273) emphatically says that the Sabine origin of the
god is a fable; and for the illusory distinction between Latins and
Sabines in Rome see Mommsen, _R. H._ i. 67, note, and Bréal, _Hercule
et Cacus_, p. 56. Sancus was no doubt a Sabine deity and reputed
ancestor of the race (Cato ap. Dionys. 2. 49: cp. 4. 58); but it does
not follow that he came to Rome as a Sabine importation.

Footnote 555:

Varro, _L. L._ 5. 66; Festus, 229 (Propter viam); and Paulus, 147
(medius fidius).

Footnote 556:

Cp. Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 28 (‘Why are boys made to go out of the
house when they wish to swear by Hercules?‘) with Varro, ap. Nonium,
s. v. _rituis_, and _L. L._ 5. 66.

Footnote 557:

See below on Sept. 13, p. 231. The silex was taken out of the temple
of Jupiter Feretrius (Paulus, 92).

Footnote 558:

Eustath. ad _Od._ 22. 335; Hermann, _Gr. Ant._ ii. 74. Cp. A. Lang,
_Myth_, &c. ii. 54: ‘the sky hears us,’ said the Indian when taking an
oath.

Footnote 559:

Dionys. 1. 40.

Footnote 560:

See the opinions of Hartung, Schwegler, and Preller, summed up by
Bréal, _Hercule et Cacus_, 51 foll.; and R. Peter in _Lex._ s. v.
Hercules, 2255 foll.

Footnote 561:

Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 233.

Footnote 562:

Bücheler, _Umbrica_, 7; Bréal, _Tables Eugubines_, 270.

Footnote 563:

Preller, ii. 273, and Jordan’s note. In M. Gaidoz’s _Études de
Mythologie Gauloise_, i. 64, will be found figures of a hand holding a
wheel, from Bar-le-Duc (the wrist thrust through one of the holes),
which may possibly explain the _urfita_, and which he connects with
the Celtic sun-god. In this connexion we may notice the large series
of Umbrian and Etruscan coins with the six-rayed wheel-symbol
(Mommsen, _Münzwesen_, 222 foll.), which, as Professor Gardner tells
me, is more probably a sun-symbol than merely the chariot-wheel
convenient for unskilful coiners.

Footnote 564:

8. 20.

Footnote 565:

For the bird, Plin. _N. H._ 10. 20; Festus, 197 s. v. _oscines_, and
317 (_sanqualis avis_). Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. de la Divination_, iv.
200. For the gate cp. Paulus, 345, with Liv. 8. 20; Jordan, _Topogr._
ii. 264.

Footnote 566:

Liv. 41. 13, with Weissenborn’s note. The stone was perhaps the same
as one which had shortly before fallen into the grove of Mars at
Crustumerium (41. 9).

Footnote 567:

_C. I. L._ vi. 567. 568; and _Bull. dell’Inst._, 1881, p. 38 foll.
(This last with a statue, which, however, may not belong to it:
Jordan’s note on Preller, ii. 273.) Wilmanns, _Exempla Inscr. Lat._
1300.

Footnote 568:

Marq. 263; B.-Leclercq, iv. 51 foll. The Scholiast on Persius, 2. 27,
is explicit on the point. But Deecke, in a note to Müller’s _Etrusker_
(ii. 275) doubts the connexion of the _decuria_ with _bidental =
puteal_.

Footnote 569:

Festus, s. v. Scribonianum (p. 333: the restoration can hardly be
wrong) ‘[quia ne]fas est integi, semper ibi forami[ne aper]to caelum
patet.’

Footnote 570:

_L. L._ 5. 66 ‘ut ea videatur divum, id est caelum.’ He connects the
word _divum_ with _Dius_ Fidius. See Jordan in the collection of
essays ‘in honorem Th. Mommseni,’ p. 369.

Footnote 571:

Martianus Capella, 1. 45 (p. 47 in Eyssenhardt’s edition). See
Nissen’s explanation in _Das Templum_, p. 184, and plate iv. In this
account Jupiter occupies the chief place: Sancus is there, alone in
the 12th _regio_. But doubt has been cast on Nissen’s view by the
discovery of an actual representation of the _caeli templum_ (see
Aust, in _Lex._ s. v. Iupiter, 668).

Footnote 572:

Dionys. 4. 58. In 9. 60 he says that this temple was only vowed by
Tarquinius, and not dedicated till 466 B.C. (Aust, _de Aedibus
sacris_, p. 6); but there must have been a still earlier sanctuary of
some kind (Livy writes of a _sacellum_, 8. 20. 8). Dionysius is
interesting and explicit; he calls Dius Fidius Ζεὺς Πίστιος, and adds
the name Σάγκος. The treaties next in date, those with Carthage, were
kept in the aedilium thesaurus, close to the temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus (Polyb. 3. 22; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. 1 (ed. 2) 481
note). Here we seem to see the authority of the ancient Dius Fidius
already losing ground.

Footnote 573:

Plut. _Quaest. Rom._ 30; Varro, ap. Plin. _N. H._ 8. 194; Festus, 238.
It was Reifferscheid’s conjecture that she was a female Dius Fidius
(see Wissowa, _Lex._ 1190). Fest. 241 adds ‘cuius ex zona
periclitantes ramenta sumunt.’

Footnote 574:

_Bull. dell’ Inst._, 1867, 352 foll. Reifferscheid was prevented by
death from working his view out more fully; but R. Peter (see _Lex._
s. v. Hercules, 2267) preserved notes of his lectures.

Footnote 575:

Gellius, 11. 6. 1. For Juno as female equivalent of Genius see article
‘Iunones’ in _Lex._ But it does not seem proved that this was the old
name, and not an idea of comparatively late times.

Footnote 576:

Seneca, _Ep._ 12. 2.

Footnote 577:

See below, on Aug. 12, p. 194.

Footnote 578:

This seems a weak point. Bona Dea was not more closely related to Juno
than some others. I do not feel sure that the name Juno is not as much
an intrusion here as Hercules, and that the real female counterpart of
Genius, &c., was not a nameless _numen_ like the Bona Dea. The rise of
the cult of Juno Lucina may have produced this intrusion. It is worth
noting that in Etruria Minerva takes the place of Juno _(Lex._ 2266,
and the illustration on 2267).

Footnote 579:

Serv. _Ecl._ 4. 62.

Footnote 580:

Paulus, 63.

Footnote 581:

Gerhard, _Etruskische Spiegel_, 147. It is also figured in _Lex._ s.
v. Hercules, 2259.

Footnote 582:

e. g. by every writer in Roscher’s _Lexicon_ who has touched on the
subject. Jordan seems to have dissented (Preller, ii. 284).

Footnote 583:

The opposition or conflict of the two is paralleled by the supposed
myth of the contention of Mars and Minerva (Nerio) (see above, p. 60;
_Lex._ 2265).

Footnote 584:

See article ‘Iunones’ in _Lex._; and De-Marchi, _La Religione nella
vita domestica_, p. 70.

Footnote 585:

Roscher’s article ‘Juno’ in _Lex._ passim.

Footnote 586:

I cannot agree with Mr. Jevons (_Introduction to History of Religion_,
p. 186 foll.) when he makes the Roman genius a relic of totemism,
simply because _genii_ were often represented by serpents. The snake
was too universally worshipped and domesticated to be easily explained
as a totem. Mr. Frazer has an interesting example from Zululand, which
is singularly suggestive in connexion with the doctrine of Genius (see
_Golden Bough_, ii. 332), which can hardly be explained on a
totemistic basis. The doctrine of Genius may certainly have had its
roots in a totemistic age; but by the time it reaches us in Roman
literature it has passed through so many stages that its origin is not
to be dogmatized about.

Footnote 587:

I cannot attach much weight to the argument (see _Lex._ 2268) that
because Aelius Stilo explained Dius Fidius as Diovis Filius he
therefore had in his head some such relation of Genius to Jupiter.

Footnote 588:

If he had written Genius _Iovius_, after the manner of the Iguvian
inscription, with its adjectival forms which preserve a reminiscence
of the older spirit-world, he might have been nearer the mark. It may
be that we get back to Jupiter himself as the Genius _par excellence_,
but there is no direct proof of this. The genius of a god is a late
idea, as Mr. Jevons points out in a note to _Roman Questions_, p.
liii.

Footnote 589:

Livy, 22. 9; Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 241 foll.; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_,
p. 19.

Footnote 590:

Livy, 23. 31 and 32; Marq. 270.

Footnote 591:

Marq. 358 foll.; Article ‘Sibyllini libri’ in _Dict. of Antiquities_,
ed. 2.

Footnote 592:

Livy, 22. 9, 10; 23. 30, 31.

Footnote 593:

Ad _Aen._ 1. 720.

Footnote 594:

Plut. _de Fort. Rom._ 5. 10; Cic. _Nat. Deor._ 2. 61. Aust (_de
Aedibus sacris_, p. 19) puts it in B.C. 115, in Scaurus’ consulship.

Footnote 595:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 219 foll.; Festus, 250, s. v. _Penus_: ‘[Penus
vo]catur locus intimus in aede Vestae, tegetibus saeptus, qui certis
diebus circa Vestalia aperitur. Ii dies religiosi habentur.’

Footnote 596:

For the meanings of _nefastus_ and _religiosus_ see Introduction, p.
9; Marq. 291.

Footnote 597:

No doubt this was done, and the lines composed, in order to please
Augustus and reflect the revival of the old _religio_.

Footnote 598:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 32.

Footnote 599:

Vol. xiv, No. 28.

Footnote 600:

p. 53.

Footnote 601:

Marq. 250. In the Andaman Islands both sons and daughters take part in
the work of maintaining the fires (Man’s _Andaman Islands_, quoted by
Mr. Frazer, op. cit. p. 153).

Footnote 602:

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

Footnote 603:

Vesta herself was originally simply the fire on the hearth (Frazer,
op. cit. 152). Note that the flame was obtained afresh each year on
March 1, even in historical times, by the primitive method of the
friction of the wood of a ‘lucky’ tree (Festus, 106), or from the
sun’s rays. We are not told which priest performed this rite.

Footnote 604:

Middleton, _Rome in 1885_, p. 181 foll.

Footnote 605:

This belief, and the nature of the treasures, are fully discussed by
Marquardt, p. 251, with additions by Wissowa.

Footnote 606:

Cp. Petronius, _Sat._ 44 (of the aquaelicium).

Footnote 607:

_Fasti_, 6. 395 foll.

Footnote 608:

Above, p. 110.

Footnote 609:

As the beast that usually worked in mills? There is a Pompeian
painting of this scene (Gerhard, _Ant. Bild._ pl. 62).

Footnote 610:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 32 ‘Dies qui vocatur Q. St. D. F. ab eo appellatur
quod eo die ex aede Vestae stercus everritur et per Capitolinum clivum
in locum defertur certum.’ It is Ovid who tells us it was thrown into
the Tiber (_Fasti_, 6. 713).

Footnote 611:

Jordan, _Tempel der Vesta_, p. 63.

Footnote 612:

The crushing of the grain no doubt comes down from a time when there
were no mills (Helbig, _Italiker in der Poebene_, 17 and 72). The
preparation of the cakes was also peculiar, and even that of the salt
which was used in them (Festus, 159; cp. Serv. _Ecl._ 8. 82). The
latter passage is the _locus classicus_ for all these duties:
‘Virgines Vestales tres maximae ex nonis Maiis ad pridie Idus Maias
alternis diebus (i. e. on 7th, 9th, 11th?) spicas adoreas in corbibus
messuariis ponunt, easque spicas ipsae virgines torrent, pinsunt,
molunt, atque ita molitum condunt. Ex eo farre virgines ter in anno
molam faciunt, Lupercalibus, Vestalibus, Idibus Septembribus, adiecto
sale cocto et sale duro.’ For examples of the primitive method of
cooking see Miss Kingsley’s _Travels in West Africa_, p. 208; and Sir
Joseph Banks’s _Journal_ (ed. Hooker), p. 137.

Footnote 613:

_Penus_ means, in the first instance, food. Cic. _Nat. Deorum_, 2. 68
‘Est omne quo vescuntur homines penus.’ Hence it came to mean the
store-closet in the centre of the house, of which the Penates were the
guardian spirits. Its sacred character is indicated in a passage of
Columella (_R. R._ 12. 4; and see my paper on the _toga praetexta_ of
Roman children, in _Classical Review_, Oct. 1896).

Footnote 614:

Varro, ap. S. Aug. _de Civ._ 7. 24; cp. 7. 16. Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 267,
writes, ‘Vesta eadem quae terra,’ but more correctly in 291, ‘Nec tu
aliud Vestam quam vivam intellige flammam.’ Some moderns derive Vesta
from root _vas_ = ‘dwelling,’ and make her the earth in special
relation to the dwelling; e. g. O. Gilbert, i. 348 note.

Footnote 615:

Preuner, _Hestia-Vesta_, p. 221 ‘Gottheit des Feuers, sofern
religiöse, ethische Ideen sich in demselben abspiegeln, nicht des
Feuers als blossen Elements.’ This is surely turning the question
upside down.

Footnote 616:

Tylor, _Prim. Cult._ ii. 251; Grimm, _German Mythology_ (Eng. trans.),
p. 601 foll.

Footnote 617:

In July also the days were _nefasti_ from the Kalends to the 9th; but
to the meaning of this we have no clue whatever.

Footnote 618:

See above, p. 115.

Footnote 619:

_G. B._ ii. 75. In an appendix (p. 373 foll. and esp. 382) will be
found some other examples of the same type of ritual. Cp. also ii. 176
(from Punjaub), which example, however, does not seem in any way
connected with harvest. But the practice of the Creek Indians is so
unusually well attested that it deserves special attention. It is
described by no less than four independent authorities (see Mr.
Frazer’s note on p. 76).

Footnote 620:

Nissen, _Landeskunde_, 399.

Footnote 621:

The whole of Mr. Frazer’s section on the sacramental eating of new
crops should be read in connexion with the Vestalia.

Footnote 622:

Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 7; Liv. 5. 19 and 23. The temple was in
the Forum boarium, near the Circus maximus.

Footnote 623:

Wissowa in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Mater Matuta, 2463.

Footnote 624:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 473 foll.; Cic. _Nat. Deor._ 3. 48; _Tusc._ 1. 28.
Plutarch (_Quaest. Rom._ 16. 1) noted a likeness between her cult and
that of Leucothea in his own city of Chaeroneia; an interesting
passage, though quite inconclusive as to the Greek origin of Mater
Matuta. Plutarch, like Servius (_Aen._ 5. 241) and others, has adopted
Ovid’s legend of Ino by way of explanation of the identity of
Leucothea and Matuta. Merkel (_Fasti_, clxxxiv) believed the cult to
be wholly Greek; Bouché-Leclercq (_Hist. de Divination_, iv. 147)
follows Klausen in identifying Mater Matuta with Tethys (cf. Plut.
_Rom._ 2) and with the deity of the oracle at Pyrgi. But see Wesseling
on Diod. Sic. 15, p. 337; and Strabo, Bk. 5, p. 345.

Footnote 625:

_C. I. L._ i. 176, 177.

Footnote 626:

Liv. 6. 33. 4; Wissowa, _Lex._ 2462.

Footnote 627:

Diod. Sic. 15. 14, p. 337, and Wesseling’s note. The temple at Pyrgi
was an important one, and rich enough to be plundered by Dionysius I
of Syracuse. But it must be admitted that the identification of the
deity of Pyrgi with Mater Matuta is not absolutely certain. Strabo, l.
c., calls her Eileithyia, Aristotle (_Oecon._ 1349 b) Leucothea; and
it is thought that Mater Matuta alone combines the characteristics of
these two. If, however, the goddess of Pyrgi was the deity of the
oracle, she might almost as well have been a Fortuna, like those of
Antium and Praeneste.

Footnote 628:

Tertullian, _de Monogam_. 17.

Footnote 629:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 481, with Plut. _Q. R._ 16; _Camill._ 5.

Footnote 630:

Varro, _L. L._ 5. 106. Ovid (482) writes of _liba tosta_, i. e. cakes
cooked in pans rather than baked, like the _mola salsa_. See above, p.
149; and cp. Ovid, 532 ‘in subito cocta foco.’

Footnote 631:

Plut. ll. cc.; Ovid, 559 foll.

Footnote 632:

See below on Jan. 11. I cannot explain the rule that a woman prayed
for nephews and nieces before her own children, which is peculiar to
this cult.

Footnote 633:

Preller, i. 322; Wissowa in _Lex_.

Footnote 634:

_R. H._ (Eng. trans.) i. 162.

Footnote 635:

Lucr. 5. 654.

Footnote 636:

Paulus, 122 ‘Matrem Matutam antiqui ob bonitatem appellabant, et
maturum idoneum usui,’ &c. See also Curtius, _Gk. Etym._ I. 408.

Footnote 637:

_Fasti_, 6. 569 foll.; 625 foll.: cp. Dionysius, 4. 40. Ovid has three
fanciful explanations of the draping.

Footnote 638:

Ovid, l.c.; Dionys. 4. 40.

Footnote 639:

Varro ap. Nonium, p. 189; Plin. _N. H._ 8. 194, 197. See Schwegler,
_R. G._ i. 712, note 3, and a full discussion in _Lex_. by R. Peter,
s.v. Fortuna, p. 1509.

Footnote 640:

Dio Cassius, 58. 7.

Footnote 641:

Seneca, _Q. N._ 2. 41; Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 83; Dennis,
_Etruria_, i, Introduction lvi. The passage of Seneca is a very
curious one about the Etruscan lightning-lore. O. Müller guesses that
the _di involuti_ were Fates (_Schicksalsgottheiten_), which would
suit Fortuna (cp. Hor. _Od._ 1. 35).

Footnote 642:

There is just a possibility that it was confused with a statue of
Pudicitia, also _in foro boario_, and also said to have been veiled
(Festus, 242). Varro, l. c., calls the goddess of the statue, Fortuna
Virgo, and Preller suggested that she was identical with Pudicitia.
The lines of Ovid seem to favour this view (_Fasti_, 6. 617 foll.):

Veste data tegitur. Vetat hanc Fortuna moveri
Et sic e templo est ipsa locuta suo;
‘Ore revelato qua primum luce patebit
Servius, haec positi prima pudoris erit.
Parcite, matronae, vetitas attingere vestes:
Sollemni satis est voce movere preces.’

Footnote 643:

Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 2, 298.

Footnote 644:

Livy, 9. 30; Val. Max. 2. 5. 4; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 17. Cp. _C. I. L._
vi. 3696 [Magistri] quinq(uennales) [collegi] teib(icinum) Rom(anorum)
qui s(acris) p(ublicis) p(raesto) s(unt) Iov(i) Epul(oni) s(acrum).

Footnote 645:

So Preller, i. 198.

Footnote 646:

Aust, in _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 680. Both here and in his work _de
Aedibus sacris_, this scholar declines to distinguish between Iup.
Invictus and Iup. Victor.

Footnote 647:

For Minerva as the patron of all such guilds see Wissowa in _Lex._ s.
v. Minerva, 2984 foll.

Footnote 648:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 17. There were three days of revelry, according to
Livy (9. 30): did they meet in this temple on each day? The 13th was
the day of the _epulum_; which the other days were we do not know.

Footnote 649:

_L. L._ 6. 17.

Footnote 650:

Festus, 149, s. v. minusculae. Cf. Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 695.

Footnote 651:

Livy, l. c. Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 55, who confuses two Appii
Claudii, and refers the story to the Decemvir instead of to the Censor
of 311 B.C. Livy omits the very Roman trait (Ov. 673 foll.) of the
_libertus_ feigning to be surprised by his _patronus_.

Footnote 652:

Cohen, _Méd. Pl._ 33; Borghesi, _Op._ i. 201 (quoted by Marq. 577).

Footnote 653:

Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 202.

Footnote 654:

_Journal of Philology_, vol. xi. p. 189. It was a short pipe played
with a reed, and no doubt almost the same thing as the short rough
oboes which are still favourites in Italy, and which are still
sometimes played two at a time in the mouth as of old. Their antiquity
is vouched for by the law of the Twelve Tables, which limited the
players at a funeral to ten. See Professor Anderson’s article ‘tibia’
in _Dict. of Ant._ (ed. 2).

Footnote 655:

_Fasti_, 6. 731.

Footnote 656:

Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 13.

Footnote 657:

Not to be confused, as in Livy, _Epit._ 14, with a statue of Summanus
himself on the same temple (in fastigio Iovis: Cicero, _Div._ 1. 10).

Footnote 658:

_de Civ. Dei_, 4. 23.

Footnote 659:

Festus, 229, s. v. Proversum fulgor: ‘Quod diurna Iovis, nocturna
Summani fulgura habentur.’ (Cp. Pliny, _N. H._ 2. 52.) An interesting
inscription (_C. I. L._ vi. 206) runs, ‘Summanium fulgus conditum,’ i.
e. ‘a bolt which fell before dawn was buried here.’

Footnote 660:

_L. L._ 5. 74.

Footnote 661:

Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 60.

Footnote 662:

_Études de Mythologie Gauloise_, i. p. 92. M. Gaidoz looks on these
wheel-cakes as ‘emblematic of Summanus’ as a god of sun and sky.

Footnote 663:

Festus, p. 348. The MS. has ‘finctae.’

Footnote 664:

_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. vii, No. 1 (1886), p. 44 foll.

Footnote 665:

_Fasti_, 6. 775 foll.

Footnote 666:

p. 104.

Footnote 667:

_L. L._ 61. 7.

Footnote 668:

Livy, 10. 46. 17.

Footnote 669:

_Ann._ 2. 41.

Footnote 670:

See above, the heading of this section.

Footnote 671:

_C. I. L._ 320.

Footnote 672:

See above, p. 50.

Footnote 673:

ch. i.

Footnote 674:

Marquardt, p. 2.

Footnote 675:

Pliny, _N. H._ 34. 54.

Footnote 676:

Plut. _Marius_, 26; Pliny, l. c. I follow Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_,
p. 26.

Footnote 677:

Above, p. 156.

Footnote 678:

Ovid is the only authority for the worship of Fortuna on June 11
(_Fasti_, 6. 569); it is not mentioned in the calendars (Tusc. Ven.
Maff.) which have notes surviving for this day.

Footnote 679:

By H. Jordan, _Symbolae ad historiam religionum Italicarum alterae_
(Königsberg, 1885). See also R. Peter, in _Lex._ s. v. Fortuna, 1542,
and Aust, _Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, 647.

Footnote 680:

_C. I. L._ xiv. 2863.

Footnote 681:

_de Div._ 2. 41. 85.

Footnote 682:

Jordan, op. cit. p. 12.

Footnote 683:

See below, p. 223 foll., under Sept. 13.

Footnote 684:

Fernique, _Étude sur Préneste_, pp. 8 and 139 foll.

Footnote 685:

See also his previous letter of March 3.

Footnote 686:

He held ‘birth’ and ‘fortune’ to be words etymologically related. Cp.
a communication from Prof. Kluge in the same number of the _Academy_.

Footnote 687:

_Journal of Philology_, vol. xi. 178; _Studies in Latin Literature_,
p. 60.

Footnote 688:

_de Civ. Dei_, 4. 11. Cp. Serv. _Aen._ 8. 336.

Footnote 689:

l. c. ‘Castissime colitur a matribus.’ One of the ancient inscriptions
from Praeneste (_C. I. L._ xi. 2863) is a dedication ‘nationu cratia’
= _nationis gratia_, which may surely mean ‘in gratitude for
childbirth,’ though Mommsen would refer it to cattle, on the ground of
a gloss of Festus (p. 167).

Footnote 690:

Jordan, op. cit. p. 12.

Footnote 691:

O. Gilbert, _Gesch. u. Topogr. der Stadt Rom_, ii. 260 foll.

Footnote 692:

St. John, iii. 30; St. Augustine, Sermo xii in Nativitate Domini: ‘In
nativitate Christi dies crescit, in Johannis nativitate decrescit.
Profectum plane facit dies, quum mundi Salvator oritur; defectum
patitur quum ultimus prophetarum nascitur.’

Footnote 693:

See many examples in _The Golden Bough_, ii. 258 foll., and Brand’s
_Popular Antiquities_, p. 306.

Footnote 694:

See R. Peter, in _Lex._, s. v. Fortuna, 1506.

Footnote 695:

_Études de Myth. Gaul._ i. 56 foll. On p. 58 we find, ‘La Fortune nous
paraît donc sortir, par l’intermédiaire d’une image, d’une divinité du
soleil.’

Footnote 696:

For the history of these symbols in Greek cults, and especially that
of Tyche, see a paper by Prof. Gardner in _Journal of Hellenic
Studies_, vol. ix. p. 78, on ‘Countries and Cities in ancient art.’
The rudder seems to connect Fortuna with sea-faring; it is often
accompanied by a ship’s prow (R. Peter, _Lex._ 1507); in connexion
with which we may notice that even in Italy her cult is rarely found
far from the sea. Cp. Horace, _Od._ 1. 35, 6 ‘dominam aequoris.’

Footnote 697:

10. 311 foll.; Marq. 578.

Footnote 698:

R. Peter, _Lex._ 1505. She is also often represented with a _modius_,
and with ears of corn. Cp. Horace, l. c. (of the Fortuna of Antium):
‘Te pauper ambit sollicita prece Ruris colonus.’

Footnote 699:

Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 573 foll. Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 711 foll.; Preller,
ii. 180.

Footnote 700:

Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, vol. ii. p. 506;
Gardthausen, ‘Mastarna,’ figures the painting (plate i).

Footnote 701:

Tac. _Ann._ II. 24; the fragments of the original speech are printed
from the inscription at Lyons in Mr. Furneaux’s _Annals of Tacitus_,
vol. ii. p. 210.

Footnote 702:

Juvenal, 10. 74, and note of the Scholiast.

Footnote 703:

Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 52; Dennis, _Cit. and Cem._ ii. 24.

Footnote 704:

Juvenal, l.c.

Footnote 705:

See below on Sept. 13, p. 234.

Footnote 706:

Müller-Deecke, ii. 308. Gaidoz, op. cit. p. 56, on the connexion
between Fortuna, Necessitas, and Nemesis.

Footnote 707:

Gerhard, _Agathodaemon_, p. 30, has other explanations.

MENSIS QUINCTILIS.

The festivals of this month are so exceedingly obscure that it seems hopeless to try to connect them in any definite way with the operations either of nature or of man. We know that this was the time when the sun’s heat became oppressive and dangerous; statistics show at the present day that the rate of mortality rises at Rome to its greatest height in July and August, as indeed is the case in southern latitudes generally. We know also that harvest of various kinds was going on in this month: ‘Quarto intervallo inter solstitium et caniculam plerique messem faciunt,’ writes Varro (_R. R._ 1. 32). We should have expected that the unhealthy season and the harvest would have left their mark on the calendar; but in the scantiness of our information we can find very few traces of their influence. We here lose the company of Ovid, who might, in spite of his inevitable ignorance, have incidentally thrown some ray of light upon the darkness; but it is clear that even Varro and Verrius knew hardly anything of the almost obsolete festivals of this month. The Poplifugia, the Lucaria, the Neptunalia, and the Furrinalia, had all at one time been great festivals, for they are marked in large capitals in the ancient calendars; but they had no more meaning for the Roman of Varro’s time than the lesser saints’-days of our calendar have for the ordinary Englishman of to-day. The ludi Apollinares, of much later date, which always maintained their interest, did not fall upon the days of any of these festivals, or obliterate them in the minds of the people; they must have decayed from pure inanition—want of practical correlation with the life and interests of a great city.

III NON. QUINCT. (JULY 5). NP.

POPLIF[UGIA]. (MAFF. AMIT. ANT.)

FERIAE IOVI. (AMIT.)

The note ‘feriae Iovi’ in the calendar of Amiternum is confirmed in a curious way, by a statement of Dio Cassius[708], who says that in B.C. 42 the Senate passed a decree that Caesar’s birthday should be celebrated on this day[709], and that any one who refused to take part in the celebration should be ‘sacer Iovi et Divo Iulio.’ But we know far too little of the rites of this day to enable us to make even a guess at the meaning of its connexion with Jupiter. It is just worth noting that two days later we find a festival of Juno, the Nonae Caprotinae; the two days may have had some connexion with each other, being separated by an interval of one day, as is the case with the three days of the Lemuria, the two days of the Lucaria in this month, and in other instances[710]; and their rites were explained by two parts of the same aetiological story—viz. that the Romans fled before the Fidenates on the 5th, and in turn defeated them on the 7th[711]. But we are quite in the dark as to the meaning of such a connexion, if such there was. Nor can we explain the singular fact that this is the only festival in the whole year, marked in large capitals in the calendars, which falls _before the Nones_[712].

There is hardly a word in the whole calendar the meaning of which is so entirely unknown to us as this word Poplifugia. Of the parallel one, the Regifugium in February, something can be made out, as we shall see[713]; and it is not unlikely that the ritualistic meaning concealed in both may be much the same. But all attempts to find a definite explanation for Poplifugia have so far been fruitless, with the single exception perhaps of that of Schwegler[714], who himself made the serious blunder of confounding this day with the Nonae Caprotinae. It is true that the two days and their rites were confused even in antiquity, but only by late writers[715]; the calendars, on the other hand, are perfectly plain and so is Varro[716], who proceeds from the one to the other in a way that can leave no doubt that he understood them as distinct.

The simple fact is that the meaning of the word Poplifugia had wholly vanished when the calendar began to be studied. Ingenuity and fancy, as usual, took the place of knowledge, and two legends were the result—the one connecting the word with the flight of the Romans from an army of their neighbours of Fidenae, after the retirement of the Gauls from the city[717]; the other interpreting it as a memorial of the flight of the people after the disappearance of Romulus in the darkness of an eclipse or sudden tempest[718]. The first of these legends may be dismissed at once; the large capitals in which the name Poplifugia appears in the fragments of the three calendars which preserve it, are sufficient evidence that it must have been far older than the Gallic invasion[719]. The second legend might suggest that the story itself of the death of Romulus had grown out of some religious rite performed at this time of year; and it was indeed traditionally connected with the Nones of this month[720]. But that day is unluckily not the day of the Poplifugia, which it is hardly possible to connect with the disappearance of Romulus. There may, however, have been a connexion between the rites of the two days, as has been pointed out above; and this being so, it is worth while to notice a suggestion made by Schwegler, in spite of the fact that he confused the two days together. He saw that the disappearance of Romulus was said to have occurred while he was holding a _lustratio_ of the citizens[721], and concluded that the Poplifugia may have been an ancient rite of lustration—an idea which other writers have been content to follow without always giving him the credit of it[722].

Such a rite may very well be indicated by the following sentence of Varro[723]—the only one which gives us any solid information on the question: _Aliquot huius diei vestigia fugae in sacris apparent, de quibus rebus antiquitatum libri plura referunt_. It seems not unreasonable to guess that the rite was one of those in which the priest, or in this case, as it would seem, the people also, fled from the spot after the sacrifice had been concluded. As the slayer of the ox at the Athenian Bouphonia (which curiously enough took place just at this same time of year) fled as one guilty of blood, so it may possibly have been that priest and people at Rome fled after some similar sacrifice, and for the same reason[724]. Or it may have been that they fled from the victim as a scapegoat which was destined to carry away from the city some pollution or pestilence. It is interesting to find at Iguvium in Umbria some ‘vestigia fugae,’ not of the people, indeed, but of victims, at a _lustratio populi_ which seems to have had some object of this kind[725]. Heifers were put to flight, then caught and killed, apparently in order to carry off evils from the city[726], as well as to represent and secure the defeat of its enemies. Such performances seem especially apt to occur at sickly seasons[727]; and as the unhealthy season began at Rome in July[728], it is just possible that the Poplifugia was a ceremony of this class.

NON. QUINCT. (JULY 7). N.

This day does not appear as a festival in the old calendars; but the late one of Silvius[729] notes it as _Ancillarum Feriae_, or Feast of Handmaids, and adds the explanatory story which is found also in Plutarch and Macrobius[730]. The victorious Fidenates having demanded the surrender of the wives of the Romans, the latter made over to them their _ancillae_, dressed in their mistresses’ robes, by the advice of a certain Philotis, or Tutula[731], one of the handmaids. Ausonius alludes to the custom that gave rise to the story:

Festa Caprotinis memorabo celebria Nonis
Cum stola matronis dempta teget famulas[732].

Plutarch also tells us that on this day the _ancillae_ not only wore the matron’s dress, but had license for what may be described as a game of romps; they beat each other, threw stones at each other, and scoffed at the passers by[733].