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: