Sacra refer Cereri laetis operatus in herbis,
Extremae sub casum hiemis, iam vere sereno.
Tum pingues agni, et tum mollissima vina;
Tum somni dulces densaeque in montibus umbrae.
Cuncta tibi Cererem pubes agrestis adoret,
Cui tu lacte favos et miti dilue Baccho,
Terque novas circum felix eat hostia fruges,
Omnis quam chorus et socii comitentur ovantes,
Et Cererem clamore vocent in tecta; neque ante
Falcem maturis quisquam supponat aristis,
Quam Cereri torta redimitus tempora quercu
Det motus inconpositos et carmina dicat[496].
It is not clear to what festival or festivals Virgil is alluding in the
first few of these lines[497]; probably to certain rustic rites which
did not exactly correspond to those in the city of Rome. But from line
343 onwards the reference is certainly to Ambarvalia of some kind,
perhaps to the private _lustratio_ of the farmer before harvest began,
of which the Roman festival was a magnified copy. His description
answers closely to the well-known directions of Cato[498]; and if it is
Ceres who appears in Virgil’s lines, and not Mars, the deity most
prominent in Cato’s account, this may be explained by the undoubted
extension of the worship of Ceres, and the corresponding contraction of
that of Mars, as the latter became more and more converted into a god of
war[499].
The leading feature in the original rite was the procession of
victims—bull, sheep, and pig—all round the fields, driven by a garlanded
crowd, carrying olive branches and chanting. These victims represent all
the farmer’s most valuable stock, thus devoted to the appeasing of the
god. The time was that when the crops were ripening, and were in
greatest peril from storms and diseases; before the harvest was begun,
and before the Vestalia took place in the early part of June, which was,
as we shall see, a festival preliminary to harvest. Three times the
procession went round the land; at the end of the third round the
victims were sacrificed, and a solemn prayer was offered in antique
language, which ran, in Cato’s formula of the farmer’s lustration, as
follows: ‘Father Mars, I pray and beseech thee to be willing and
propitious to me, my household, and my slaves; for the which object I
have caused this threefold sacrifice to be driven round my farm and
land. I pray thee keep, avert, and turn from us all disease, seen or
unseen, all desolation, ruin, damage, and unseasonable influence; I pray
thee give increase to the fruits, the corn, the vines, and the
plantations, and bring them to a prosperous issue. Keep also in safety
the shepherds and their flocks, and give good health and vigour to me,
my house, and household. To this end it is, as I have said—namely, for
the purification and making due lustration of my farm, my land
cultivated and uncultivated—that I pray thee to bless this threefold
sacrifice of sucklings. O Father Mars, to this same end I pray thee
bless this threefold sacrifice of sucklings[500].’
Not only in this prayer, but in the ritual that follows, as also in
other religious directions given in the preceding chapters, we may no
doubt see examples of the oldest agricultural type of the genuine
Italian worship. They are simple rustic specimens of the same type as
the elaborate urban ritual of Iguvium, fortunately preserved to us[501];
and we may fairly assume that they stood in much the same relation to
the Roman ritual of the Ambarvalia.
Of all the Roman festivals this is the only one which can be said with
any truth to be still surviving. When the Italian priest leads his flock
round the fields with the ritual of the Litania major in Rogation week
he is doing very much what the Fratres Arvales did in the infancy of
Rome, and with the same object. In other countries, England among them,
the same custom was taken up by the Church, which rightly appreciated
its utility, both spiritual and material; the bounds of the parish were
fixed in the memory of the young, and the wrath of God was averted by an
act of duty from man, cattle, and crops. ‘It was a general custom
formerly, and is still observed in some country parishes, to go round
the bounds and limits of the parish on one of the three days before
Ascension-day; when the Minister, accompanied by his Churchwardens and
Parishioners, was wont to deprecate the vengeance of God, beg a blessing
on the fruits of the earth, and preserve the rights and properties of
the parish[502].’
At Oxford, and it is to be hoped in some other places, this laudable
custom still survives. But the modern clergy, from want of interest in
ritual, except such as is carried on within their churches, or from some
strong distrust of any merry-making not initiated by their own zeal, are
apt to drop the ceremonies; and there is some danger that even in Oxford
the processions and peeled wands may soon be things of the past. To all
such ministers I would recommend the practice of the judicious Hooker,
as described by his biographer, Isaak Walton:
‘He would by no means omit the customary time of procession,
persuading all, both rich and poor, if they desired the preservation
of Love, and their Parish rights and liberties, to accompany him in
his Perambulation—and most did so; in which Perambulation he would
usually express more pleasant Discourse than at other times, and
would then always drop some loving and facetious Observations, to be
remembered against the next year, especially by the Boys and young
people; still inclining them, and all his present Parishioners, to
meekness and mutual Kindnesses and Love.’
At Charlton-on-Otmoor, near Oxford, there was a survival of the ‘agri
lustratio’ until recent years. On the beautiful rood-screen of the
parish church there is a cross, which was carried in procession through
the parish[503], freshly decorated with flowers, on May-day; it was then
restored to its place on the screen, and remained there until the
May-day of the next year. It may still be seen there, but it is no
longer carried round, and its decoration seems to have been transferred
from May-day to the harvest-festival[504].
Footnote 363:
Sat. 1. 12. 16.
Footnote 364:
See above, Introduction, p. 11.
Footnote 365:
So Varro also (_L. L._ 6. 33). But Censorinus (_De die natali_, 20. 2)
expressly ascribes to Varro the derivation from Maia; the great
scholar apparently changed his view.
Footnote 366:
For Iup. Maius see Aust, in _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Iuppiter, p. 650.
Footnote 367:
This was probably not the early historian Cincius Alimentus, but a
contemporary of Augustus, Teuffel, _Hist. of Roman Literature_, sec.
106. For the flamen Volcanalis see on Aug 23.
Footnote 368:
i. e. on the Ides: see below, p. 120. The connexion between Mercurius
and Maia seems to arise simply from the fact that the dedication of
the temple of the former was on the Ides of this month.
Footnote 369:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 6. 59 foll.; Mommsen, _Chron._ 218.
Footnote 370:
The etymology was defended by Roscher in Fleckeisen’s _Jahrbuch_ for
1875, and in his _Iuno und Hera_, p. 105.
Footnote 371:
_Fasti_, 5. 129 foll. For the doubtful reading _Curibus_ in 131 see
Peter, ad loc.; Preller-Jordan, ii. 114.
Footnote 372:
_Fasti_, 5. 143; Plutarch, _Quaest. Rom._ 51.
Footnote 373:
This appears on coins of the gens Caesia: Cohen, _Méd. Cons._ pl.
viii. Wissowa, in _Myth. Lex._, s. v. Lares, gives a cut of the coin,
on which the Lares are represented sitting with a dog between them.
See note at the end of this work (Note B) on the further
interpretation of these coins.
Footnote 374:
See Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 414 foll.
Footnote 375:
Farnell, _Cults_, ii. 515. Hekate was certainly a deity of the earth.
Cf. Plut. _Q. R._ 68.
Footnote 376:
See on Robigalia, April 25.
Footnote 377:
_Quaest. Rom._ 52 and 111; cf. _Romulus_ 21.
Footnote 378:
So Jevons, _Roman Questions_, Introduction, xli.
Footnote 379:
De-Marchi, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, 48. Wissowa (_Myth.
Lex._, s. v. Lares, p. 1872) prefers the old interpretation, much as
Plutarch gives it.
Footnote 380:
_Fasti_, 5. 149 foll.
Footnote 381:
Aust, _De Aedibus sacris_, p. 27. It was apparently before 123 B.C.,
when a Vestal Virgin, Licinia, added an _aedicula_, _pulvinar_, and
_ara_ to it (Cic. _de Domo_, 136).
Footnote 382:
Wissowa, in Pauly’s _Real-Encyclopädie_, s. v. Bona Dea, 690. See
above, p. 69.
Footnote 383:
See below, under Dec. 3. There can be hardly a doubt that this
December rite was the one famous for the _sacrilegium_ of Clodius in
62 B.C., though Prof. Beesly rashly assumed the contrary in his essay
on Clodius (_Catiline, Clodius, and Tiberius_, p. 45 note). Plutarch,
_Cic._ 19 and 20; Dio Cass. 37. 35.
Footnote 384:
Ovid, l. c. ‘oculos exosa viriles.’ Cp. _Ars Amat._ 3. 637. On this
and other points in the cult see R. Peter in _Myth. Lex._, and
Wissowa, l. c. The latter seems to refer most of them to the December
rite; but Ovid and Macrobius expressly connect them with the _temple_.
Macr. 1. 12. 25 foll.
Footnote 385:
Propert. 4. 9; Macr. 1. 12. 28.
Footnote 386:
Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 245 foll.
Footnote 387:
See below, p. 143. _Lex. Myth._ s. v. Hercules, 2258.
Footnote 388:
Macr. l. c. Plutarch also knew of this (_Quaest. Rom._ 20).
Footnote 389:
Otherwise in Lactantius, 1. 22. 11, and Arnob. 5. 18, where Fauna is
said to have been beaten because she drank wine; no doubt a later
version. Lactantius quotes Sext. Clodius, a contemporary of Cicero.
Footnote 390:
_H. N._ 14. 88. See above on feriae Latinae, p. 97. Virg. _Ecl._ 5.
66; _Georg._ 1. 344; _Aen._ 5. 77. In the last passage milk is offered
to the _inferiae_ of Anchises: we may note the similarity of the cult
of Earth-deities and of the dead.
Footnote 391:
Plut. _Q. R._ 20; Macrob. l. c.; Lactant. l. c. The myth has been
explained as Greek (Wissowa, in Pauly, 688), but its peculiar feature,
the whipping, could hardly have become attached to a Roman cult unless
there were something in the cult to attach it to, or unless the cult
itself were borrowed from the Greek. That the latter was the case it
is impossible to prove; and I prefer to believe that both cult and
myth were Roman.
Footnote 392:
_Mythologische Forschungen_, 115 foll. Cp. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii.
213 foll.
Footnote 393:
Below, p. 320. See also on July 7 (Nonae Caprotinae).
Footnote 394:
Macrob. l. c. ‘Quidam Medeam putant, quod in aede eius omne genus
herbarum sit ex quibus antistites dant plerumque medicinas.’
Footnote 395:
_C. I. L._ vi. 54 foll.
Footnote 396:
This no doubt gave rise to the myth that Faunus ‘coisse cum filia’ in
the form of a snake. Here again the myth may possibly be Greek, but we
have no right to deny that it may have had a Roman basis. Snakes were
kept in great numbers both in temples and houses in Italy
(Preller-Jordan, i. 87, 385).
Footnote 397:
Plin. _H. N._ 29 _passim_, especially 14, &c., where Cato is quoted as
detesting the new Greek art, and urging his son to stick to the old
simples; some of which, with their absurd charms, are given in Cato,
R. R. 156 foll.
Footnote 398:
Macrob. l. c.; Juv. _Sat._ 2. 86.
Footnote 399:
Marq. 173. Gilbert (_Gesch. und Topogr._ ii. 159, note) has some
impossible combinations on this subject, and concludes that the Bona
Dea was a moon-goddess.
Footnote 400:
See above, p. 72 foll.
Footnote 401:
Paulus, 68 ‘Damium sacrificium, quod fiebat in operto in honorem Bonae
deae, ... dea quoque ipsa Damia et sacerdos eius damiatrix
appellabatur.’
Footnote 402:
R. Peter in _Myth. Lex._, s. v. Damia; Wissowa, l. c.
Footnote 403:
Paulus, l. c.
Footnote 404:
Lactantius, 1. 22; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 314.
Footnote 405:
Preuner, _Hestia-Vesta_, 407 foll. For Lucina, Gilbert, l. c.
Footnote 406:
The combination of the idea of female fecundity with that of the earth
is of course common enough. Here is a good example from Abyssinia:
‘She (Atetie) is the goddess of fecundity, and women are her principal
votaries; but, as she can also make the earth prolific, offerings are
made to her for that purpose’ (Macdonald, _Religion and Myth_, p. 42).
Footnote 407:
_Fasti_, 5. 421 foll.
Footnote 408:
See Introduction, p. 15.
Footnote 409:
Huschke (_Röm. Jahr_, 17) tried to prove that the Lemuria was the
‘Todtenfest’ of the Sabine city, the Feralia that of the Latin; but
his arguments have convinced no one.
Footnote 410:
_Fasti_, 5. 423.
Footnote 411:
_G. B._ ii. 157 foll.; Macdonald, _Religion and Myth_, ch. vi.
Footnote 412:
Introduction, p. 10.
Footnote 413:
Tylor, _Prim. Cult._ ii. 24. The friendly attitude is well illustrated
in F. de Coulanges’ _La Cité antique_, ch. ii.
Footnote 414:
On Hor. _Ep._ 2. 2. 209.
Footnote 415:
Non. p. 135. Cp. Festus, s. v. faba: ‘Lemuralibus iacitur larvis,’ i.
e. ‘the bean is thrown to _larvae_ at the Lemuralia.’ Serv. _Aen._ 3.
63.
Footnote 416:
_de Genio Socratis_, 15. The passage is interesting, but historically
worthless, as is that of Martianus Capella, 2. 162.
Footnote 417:
_Fasti_, 5. 451 foll.; Porph. l. c. Remus, as one dead before his
time, would not lie quiet: ‘Umbra cruenta Remi visa est adsistere
lecto,’ &c.
Footnote 418:
See e. g. Von Duhn’s paper on Italian excavations, translated in the
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_ for 1897.
Footnote 419:
‘Habent vincula nulla pedes’ (_Fasti_, 5. 432). In performing sacred
rites a man must be free; e. g. the Flamen Dialis might not wear a
ring, or anything binding, and a fettered prisoner had to be loosed in
his house (Plut. _Q. R._ 111). Cp. Numa in his interview with Faunus
(Ov. _Fasti_, 4. 658), ‘Nec digitis annulus ullus inest.’ Serv. _Aen._
4. 518; Hor. _Sat._ 1. 8. 24.
Footnote 420:
_Manes_ must be here used, either loosely by the poet, or
euphemistically by the house-father.
Footnote 421:
It is curious to find them used for the very same purpose of
ghost-ridding as far away as Japan (Frazer, _Golden Bough_, ii. 176).
For their antiquity as food, Hehn, _Kulturpflanzen_, 459; Schrader,
_Sprachvergleichung_, 362.
Footnote 422:
A. Lang, _Myth_, &c., ii. 265; Jevons, _Roman Questions_, Introd. p.
lxxxvi; O. Crusius, _Rhein. Mus._ xxxix. 164 foll.; and especially
Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ 251 foll. For superstitions of a similar kind
attached to the mandrake and other plants see Sir T. Browne’s _Vulgar
Errors_, bk. ii. ch. 6; Rhys, _Celtic Mythology_, p. 356 (the berries
of the rowan).
Footnote 423:
There was a notion that beans sown in a manure-heap produced men. Cp.
Plin. _H. N._ 18. 118 ‘quoniam mortuorum animae sint in ea.’
Footnote 424:
Gell. 10. 15. 2 (from Fabius Pictor).
Footnote 425:
Serv. _Ecl._ 8. 82; Marq. 343 note. Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 269,
attempts an explanation of the difficulty arising here from the fact
that in historical times the calendar was some weeks in advance of the
seasons, but without much success.
Footnote 426:
This note is wrongly entered in the Fasti Venusini, under May 16.
Footnote 427:
Festus, 245, s. v. Publica sacra. Cp. Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii.
123. Festus distinguishes _pagi_, _montes_, _sacella_, of which the
festivals would seem to be the Paganalia, Septimontium, and sacra
Argeorum, respectively.
Footnote 428:
See under March 17. We arrive at the procession by comparing the
Varronian extracts from the sacra Argeorum (_L. L._ 545) with Gellius,
10. 15.30, and Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 791. See a restoration of the
itinerary of the procession in Jordan, _Topogr._ ii. 603.
Footnote 429:
Sacella in Varro (_L. L._ 545); sacraria, ib. 548; Argea in Festus,
334, where the word seems to be an adjective; Argei in Liv. 1. 24
‘loca sacris faciendis, quae Argeos pontifices vocant.’ The number
depends on the reading of Varro, 7. 44, xxiv or xxvii; Jordan decided
for xxiv: but see Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, iii. 123.
Footnote 430:
_Fasti_, 3. 791.
Footnote 431:
Jordan, _Topogr._ ii. 271 foll.
Footnote 432:
Dionysius, 1. 38; Ovid, _Fasti_, 5. 621 foll.; Festus, p. 334, s. v.
Sexagenarii; Plutarch, _Q. R._ 32 and 86.
Footnote 433:
Dionysius says there were thirty; he had probably seen the ceremony,
but may have only made a rough guess at the number or have thought of
the thirty Curiae. Ovid writes of two: ‘Falcifero libata seni duo
corpora gentis Mittite,’ &c. (Jordan proposed to read ‘senilia’ for
‘seni duo.’)
Footnote 434:
Festus, 334.
Footnote 435:
Festus, l. c.; Cicero, _pro Roscio Amerino_, 35. 100. _Sexagenarios de
ponte_ was apparently an old saying (cp. ‘depontani,’ Festus, 75); the
earliest notice we have of it, which comes from the poet Afranius,
seems to connect it with the pons sublicius.
Footnote 436:
‘The etymology will of course explain a word, but only if it happens
to be right; the history of the word is a surer guide’ (Skeat). In
this case we have not even the history.
Footnote 437:
See Schwegler, i 383. note; Marq. 183. Mommsen (_Staatsrecht_, iii.
123) reverts to the opinion that Argei is simply Ἀργεῖοι, and
preserves a reminiscence of Greek captives. Nettleship, in his _Notes
in Latin Lexicography_, p. 271, is inclined to connect the word with
‘arcere’, in the sense of confining prisoners. More fanciful
developments in a paper by O. Keller, in Fleckeisen’s _Jahrbuch_,
cxxxiii. 845 foll.
Footnote 438:
The puppets may have been made in March, and then hung in the sacella
till May: so Jordan, _Topogr._ l. c. The writer in _Myth. Lex._ thinks
that human victims were originally kept in these sacella, for whom the
puppets were surrogates.
Footnote 439:
There is an interesting modern parallel in Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 178.
Footnote 440:
Varro, _L. L._ 5. 83, and Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 398. The general
opinion seems now to favour the view that there was an original
connexion between the _pontifices_ and the _pons sublicius_.
Footnote 441:
Varro, _L. L._ 5. 83; Dionys. 2. 73, 3. 45.
Footnote 442:
This was the suggestion of Mr. Frazer in a note in the _Journal of
Philology_, vol. xiv. p. 156. The late Prof. Nettleship once expressed
this view to me.
Footnote 443:
Paulus, p. 15 ‘per Virgines Vestales’; Ovid, _Fasti_, 5. 621.
Footnote 444:
See below, p. 149.
Footnote 445:
Plut. _Quaest. Rom._ 86; Gell. 10. 15; Marq. 318. Her usual head-dress
was the _flammeum_, or bride’s veil. No mention is made of the Flamen
her husband; the prominence of women in all these rites is noticeable.
Footnote 446:
_Baumkultus_, 155, 411, 416. The cult of Adonis has some features like
that of the Argei: e. g. the puppet, the immersion in water and the
mourning (see _Lex._ s. v. Adonis, p. 73; Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 276).
Footnote 447:
i. e. ‘old men must go over the bridge.’ See Cic. _pro Roscio
Amerino_, 35, where the old edition of Osenbrüggen has a useful note.
Also Varro, apud Lactant. _Inst._ 1. 21. 6. Ovid alludes to the
proverb (5. 623 foll.) ‘Corpora post decies senos qui credidit annos
Missa neci, sceleris crimine damnat avos.’
Footnote 448:
Dionys. 1. 38. But he may have been deceived simply by the appearance
of the bindings of the sheaves or bundles, especially if he had been
told beforehand of the proverb.
Footnote 449:
The best known instances of human sacrifice at Rome are collected in a
note to Merivale’s _History_ (vol. iii. 35); and by Sachse, _Die
Argeer_, p. 17. O. Müller thought that it came to Rome from Etruria
(_Etrusker_, ii. 20). For Greece, see Hermann, _Griech. Alt._ ii. sec.
27; Strabo. 10. 8. See also some valuable remarks in Tylor, _Prim.
Cult._ ii. 362, on substitution in sacrifice.
Footnote 450:
Caesar, _B. G._ 6. 16; Tac. _Germ._ 9 and 39. Strabo, 10. 8, is
interesting, as giving an example of the dropping out of the actual
killing, while the form survived. See below on Lupercalia, p. 315.
Footnote 451:
A point suggested to me some years ago by Mr. A. J. Evans.
Footnote 452:
Sir A. Lyall (_Asiatic Studies_, p. 19) writes of human sacrifice as
having been common in India as a last resort for appeasing divine
wrath when manifested in some strange manner; i. e. it was never
regular. So Procopius, _Bell. Goth._ 3. 13. Tacitus, indeed, writes of
‘certis diebus’ (_Germ._ 9), but it is not clear that he meant fixed
recurring days. As a rule in human sacrifice and cannibalism the
victims are captives, who would not be always at hand.
Footnote 453:
Dionysius (1. 38) speaks of sacrifice _before_ the immersion of the
puppets: προθύσαντες ἱερὰ τὰ κατὰ τοὺς νόμους.
Footnote 454:
The βούλιμος and φαρμακός, Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 129 foll.
Footnote 455:
_Germania_, 40: Mannhardt, _Baumkultus_, 567 foll. The evidence is
perhaps hardly adequate as to detail.
Footnote 456:
_Baumkultus_, chapters 3, 4, and 5, which should be used by all who
wish to form some idea of the amount of evidence collected on this one
head.
Footnote 457:
Our Jack-in-the-Green is probably a survival of this kind of rite.
Footnote 458:
Nearly all these customs occur either at Whitsuntide or harvest.
Mannhardt conjectured that the Argei-rite was originally a harvest
custom (_A. W. F._ 269); quite needlessly, I think.
Footnote 459:
_Baumkultus_, 331.
Footnote 460:
Mannhardt allows this, _Baumkultus_, 336 note.
Footnote 461:
_Baumkultus_, 358 foll. His theory is expressed in judicious and by no
means dogmatic language. It may be that he runs his Vegetation-spirit
somewhat too hard—and no mythologist is free from the error of seeing
his own discovery exemplified wherever he turns. But the spirit of
vegetation had been found at Rome long before Mannhardt’s time (see e.
g. Preller’s account of Mars and the deities related to him).
Footnote 462:
_Baumkultus_, 359, 420; _Korndämonen_, 24.
Footnote 463:
_Baumkultus_, 349 foll., 365, 414.
Footnote 464:
Cp. the root _cas-_, which (according to Corssen, _Aussprache_, i. 652
note), appears both in _canus_ and _cascus_, and also in the Oscan
_casnar_ = ‘an old man.’ The word _casnar_ is used by Varro (ap.
Nonium, 86) for _sexagenarius_, or possibly _argeus_: ‘Vix ecfatus
erat cum more maiorum carnales (= casnales) arripiunt et de ponte
deturbant.’ Cf. Varro, _L. L._ 7. 73; Mommsen, _Unteritalische
Dialekten_, p. 268. The root _arg_ may perhaps have meant _holy_ as
well as old or white, like the Welsh _gwen_ (Rhys, _Celtic Mythology_,
527 note).
Footnote 465:
_Baumkultus_, 214-16, 355, &c. On p. 356 is a valuable note giving
examples from America, India, &c. For a remarkable case from ancient
Egypt, of which the object is not rain, but inundation, see Tylor,
_Prim. Cult._ ii. 368. See also Grimm, _Teutonic Mythology_ (E. T.),
p. 593 foll.
Footnote 466:
_Quaest. Rom._ 86. This work is undoubtedly drawn chiefly from Varro’s
writings, but largely through the medium of those of Juba the king of
Mauretania, who wrote in Greek (Barth de Jubae Ὁμοιότησιν in Plutarcho
expressis: Göttingen, 1876).
Footnote 467:
Parallels in _Baumkultus_, pp. 170, 178, 211, 409. These are examples
of May-trees and other objects, sometimes decked out as human beings,
which are hung up in the homestead for a certain time—e. g. in Austria
from May-day to St. John Baptist’s day, a period closely corresponding
both in length and season to that at Rome, from March 15 to May 15. In
the church of Charlton-on-Otmoor, near Oxford, it is hung on the
rood-screen from May 1 onwards.
Footnote 468:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 5. 627; Dionys. 1. 38.
Footnote 469:
See Macrob. 1. 7. 28. In Dionysius’ version, however, of the line it
is Ἅιδης to whom the sacrifice is offered.
Footnote 470:
Festus, 334.
Footnote 471:
_Topogr._ ii. 285.
Footnote 472:
_Lex._ s. v. Mercurius, p. 2804.
Footnote 473:
Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 5.
Footnote 474:
It seems to me probable that there was a Mercurius at Rome before the
introduction of Hermes; but this cannot be proved. It seems likely
that the temple-cult established in 495 B.C. was really that of Hermes
under an Italian name, as in the parallel case of Ceres. This was one
year later than the date of the Ceres-temple (above, p. 74).
Footnote 475:
Mercuriales, or Mercatores (Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 1. 278). They
belonged to the collegia of the pagi.
Footnote 476:
See on March 17 and January 9.
Footnote 477:
i. 262 foll.; Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 445; Gell. _N. A._ 5. 12.
Footnote 478:
_C. I. L._ i. 807; the dedication of an altar (Vediovei Patrei
genteiles Iuliei) found at Bovillae.
Footnote 479:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 429; Gell. 5. 12. It was this temple which had May
21 as its ‘dies natalis.’
Footnote 480:
Liv. 31. 21. 12 (reading Vediovi for deo Iovi, with Merkel and
Jordan).
Footnote 481:
Gell. l. c.; Preller, i. 264, and Jordan’s note.
Footnote 482: