EQ[UIRRIA]. (MAFF. CAER.: cp. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13).
We have no data whatever for guessing why a horse-race should take place
on the last day of February, or why there should be two days of racing,
the second being March 14. This has not, however, prevented
Huschke[1494] from making some marvellous conjectures, in which
ingenuity and learning have been utterly thrown away.
We saw[1495] that the oldest races of this kind were connected with
harvest rejoicings; and Mannhardt[1496] suggested that they originated
in the desire to catch the spirit of vegetation in the last sheaf or in
some animal form. Races also occur in various parts of Europe in the
spring—e. g. at the Carnival, at Easter, and at Whitsuntide; and of
these he says that they correspond with the others, and that the idea at
the bottom of them is ‘die Vorstellung des wetteifernden
Frühlingseinzuges der Vegetationsdämonen.’ However this may be, we
cannot but be puzzled by the doubling of the Equirria, and are tempted
to refer it to the same cause as that of the Salii and Luperci[1497].
That both were connected with the cult of Mars is almost beyond
question. They were held in the Campus Martius, and were supposed to
have been established by Romulus in honour of Mars[1498]; and we have
already had an example of the occurrence of horses in the Mars-cult. It
would seem, then, that the peculiar features of the worship of Mars
began even _before_ March 1. Preller noticed this long ago[1499], and
suggested that even the Lupercalia and the Quirinalia have some relation
to the Mars-cult, and that these fall at the time when the first
beginnings of spring are felt—e. g. when the first swallows
arrive[1500]. We may perhaps add the appearance of the Salii at the
Regifugium to these foreshadowings of the March rites. Ovid seems to
bear out Preller in his lines on this day[1501]:
Iamque duae restant noctes de mense secundo,
Marsque citos iunctis curribus urget equos:
Ex vero positum permansit Equirria nomen,
Quae deus in Campo prospicit ipse suo.
Iuro venis, Gradive. Locum tua tempora poseunt,
Signatusque tuo nomine mensis adest.
I may aptly add Ovid’s next couplet, now that we have at last reached
the end of the Roman year:—
Venimus in portum, libro cum mense peracto.
Naviget hinc alia iam mihi linter aqua.
Footnote 1331:
Paulus, 85 ‘Quaecumque purgamenti causa in quibusque sacrificiis
adhibentur, februa appellantur. Id vero quod purgatur, dicitur
_februatum_.’ The verb februare also occurs. Varro (_L. L._ 6. 13)
says that _februum_ was the Sabine equivalent for _purgamentum_: ‘Nam
et Lupercalia februatio, ut in Antiquitatum libris demonstravi’ (cp.
6. 34). Ovid renders the word by ‘piamen’ (_Fasti_, 2. 19). Februus, a
divinity, is mentioned in Macr. 1. 13. 3; he is almost certainly a
later invention (see _Lex. Myth._ s. v.). The etymology of the word is
uncertain.
Footnote 1332:
Varro, _R. R._ 1. 29. Cp. Colum. xi. 2; and the rustic calendars.
Footnote 1333:
Varro, _R. R._ 1. 28. See above, p. 295.
Footnote 1334:
This is very distinctly stated by Cicero (_de Legibus_, 1. 14. 40 ‘In
deos impietatum nulla expiatio est’: cp. 2. 9. 22 ‘Sacrum commissum
quod neque expiari poterit, impie commissum est’). Even the sailor in
Horace’s ode (1. 28), whose duty does not seem exactly binding, is
told, if he omits it, ‘teque piacula nulla resolvent.’ On the general
question, cp. De Marchi, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, 246; and
Marq. 257. The pontifex Scaevola ‘asseverabat prudentem expiari non
posse’ (Macrob. 1. 16. 10). Ovid’s account (_Fasti_, 2. 35 foll.) is
that of a layman and a modern, but not less interesting for that
reason.
Footnote 1335:
Varro, _L. L._ 6. 30 ‘Praetor qui tum (i.e. die nefasto) fatus est, si
imprudens fecit, piaculari hostia facta piatur; si prudens dixit, Q.
Mucius ambigebat eum expiari ut impium non posse.’
Footnote 1336:
_Fasti_, 2. 33.
Footnote 1337:
Ib. 31.
Footnote 1338:
See Marq. 259; Bouché-Leclercq, _Les Pontifes_, 101 foll.
Footnote 1339:
Marq. 180, Bouché-Leclercq, 178.
Footnote 1340:
See Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 406.
Footnote 1341:
_Fasti_, 2. 19 foll.
Footnote 1342:
This difficult line has occasioned much conjecture, and seems still
inexplicable. See Merkel, _Fasti_, clxvi foll.; and De-Marchi, op.
cit. p. 246.
Footnote 1343:
Aust, _De Aedibus sacris_, pp. 21, 45, 48. On this last page are some
useful remarks on the danger of drawing conclusions as to the
indigenous or foreign origin of deities from the position of their
temples inside or outside the pomoerium.
Footnote 1344:
_Fasti_, 2. 55 foll.
Footnote 1345:
Livy, 33. 42; 34. 53. Jordan, in _Commentationes in hon. Momms._ 359
foll.; Aust, op. cit. p. 20.
Footnote 1346:
See _Dict. of Antiq._ s.v. sacra. Fest. 245 a ‘Publica sacra, quae
publico sumptu pro populo fiunt: quaeque pro montibus, pagis, curiis,
sacellis.’
Footnote 1347:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 527. See under Quirinalia.
Footnote 1348:
See on April 15. There must have been at one time a tendency to
amalgamate the two kinds of _sacra publica_. The _argei_ were also
attended by Pontifices and Vestals. I should conjecture that the
Pontifices claimed supervision over rites in which they had originally
no official _locus standi_, and brought the Vestals with them.
Footnote 1349:
Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_. iii. 1. 89 foll.
Footnote 1350:
Ἱεραὰ οἰκίαι, Dion. Hal. 2. 23; Fest. 174 b; Marq. 195.
Footnote 1351:
Dion. Hal. 2. 23.
Footnote 1352:
Ib. 2. 50. The Latin words are from Paul, 64.
Footnote 1353:
Jordan, on Preller, i. 278 note. Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 596.
Curis = hasta in Sabine; Fest. 49; Roscher, l. c.; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2.
477.
Footnote 1354:
Cp. the parting of the bride’s hair with a spear, Marq. vii. 44 and
note 5; Plut. _Q. R._ 87; Bötticher, _Baumkultus_, 485; Schwegler, _R.
G._ i. 469.
Footnote 1355:
The same connexion between _curiae_ and the armed deity of the female
principle is found at Tibur (Serv. _Aen._ 1. 17), ‘in sacris
Tiburtibus sic precantur: Iuno curritis (sic) tuo curru clipeoque
tuere meos curiae vernulas,’ Jordan, in _Hermes_, 8. 217 foll.
Possibly also at Lanuvium (_Lex._ s. v. Iuno, 595).
Footnote 1356:
Varro, _L. L._ 5. 83 and 155; Marq. 195.
Footnote 1357:
This has been done by O. Gilbert (_Gesch. und Topogr._ 2, 129 foll.),
an author who is not often so helpful. He is followed by Steuding, in
_Lex. Myth._ s. v. Fornax.
Footnote 1358:
Paul. 93 (cp. 83), ‘Fornacalia feriae institutae sunt farris torrendi
gratia quod ad fornacem quae in pistrinis erat sacrificium fieri
solebat.’ Dionysius was probably referring to this when he wrote (2.
23) that he had himself seen ancient wooden tables spread with rude
cakes of primitive fashion in baskets and dishes of primitive make. He
also mentions καρπῶν τινων ἐπαρχάς (cp. Ovid, l. c. 520), which might
indeed suggest a feast of curiae at a different time of year. For the
_far_, see Marq. vii. 399 foll. The cakes were _februa_, according to
Ovid; see above, p. 301.
Footnote 1359:
Comp. Ovid, l. c. with Fest. 254; Paul. 316; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13;
Plut. _Q. R._ 89.
Footnote 1360:
_H. N._ 18. 8; Lange, _Röm. Alt._ 1. 2. 245.
Footnote 1361:
_Fasti_, 2. 527 foll.
Footnote 1362:
That it was so is proved by Fest. 254, and Varro, _L. L._ 6. 13. It
must have been a custom fairly well fixed.
Footnote 1363:
ii. 9.
Footnote 1364:
2. 23, Ἐγὼ γοῦν ἐθεασάμην ἐν ἱεραῖς οἰκάις δεῖπνα προκείμενα θεοῖς ἐπὶ
τραπέζαις ξυλίναις ἀρχαικαῖς, ἐν κάνησι καὶ πινακίσκοις κεραμέοις
ἀλφίτων μάζας καὶ πόπανα καὶ ζέας καὶ καρπῶν τινων ἐπαρχάς &c.
Footnote 1365:
_Fasti_, 2. 525. What does Ovid mean by _fruges_?
Footnote 1366:
Paul. 93, quoted above; Ovid, l. c. 525. Fornax as a spirit may be at
least as old as those of other parts of the house, Janus, Vesta,
Limentinus, &c.
Footnote 1367:
Mommsen, _Röm. Forschungen_, i. 149 foll.
Footnote 1368:
Lydus, _de Mens._ 4. 24. Lydus gives the 22nd as the final day; Ovid,
_Fasti_, 2. 569, gives the 21st (Feralia).
Footnote 1369:
Dion. Hal. 2. 40.
Footnote 1370:
_C. I. L._ I². 309: cf. 297 (Introduction, p. 9). The Lupercalia
(15th) is an exception; but for reasons connected with that festival.
The 21st (Feralia) is F P (Caer.) F (Maff.). See Introduction, p. 10.
F P, according to Mommsen, = fastus principio.
Footnote 1371:
If Ovid reflects it rightly in _Fasti_, 5. 419 foll. Cp. Porph. on
Hor. _Ep._ 2. 2. 209. See on Lemuria, above, p. 107.
Footnote 1372:
On the vast subject of the jus Manium and the worship of the dead, the
following are some of the works that may be consulted: Marq. 307
foll., and vii. 350 foll.; De-Marchi, _Il Culto Privato_, p. 180
foll.; Roscher, _Lex._ articles Manes and Inferi; Bouché-Leclereq,
_Pontifes_, 147 foll.; Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 630 foll. Two old treatises
still form the basis of our knowledge: Gutherius, _de iure Manium_, in
Graevius’ _Thesaurus_, vol. xii.; and Kirchmann, _de Funeribus_
(1605). Valuable matter has still to be collected (for later times)
from the _Corpus Inscriptionum_.
Footnote 1373:
This was the universal practice in Italy from the earliest times, so
far as we have as yet learnt from excavations. For the question
whether burial in or close to the house, or within the city walls,
preceded burial in necropoleis, see _Classical Review_, for February,
1897, p. 32 foll. Servius (Ad _Aen._ 5. 64; 6. 152; cp. Isidorus, 15.
ii. 1) tells us that they once buried in the house, and there were
facts that might suggest this in the cult of the Lares, and in the
private ghost-driving of the Lemuria; but we cannot prove it, and it
is not true of the Romans at any period. Not even the well-known law
of the XII Tables can prove that burial ever regularly took place
within the _existing_ walls of a city.
Footnote 1374:
Cic. _De Legg._ 2. 48. Cp. Virg. _Aen._ 5. 49:
Iamque dies, ni fallor, adest, quern semper acerbum,
Semper honoratum—sic di voluistis—habebo.
Footnote 1375:
Marq. 311 foll.
Footnote 1376:
Purpureosque iacit flores, Virg. _Aen._ 5. 79. Cp. Cic. _pro Flacco_,
38. 95.
Footnote 1377:
_Aeneidea_, 3. 15. He well compares Lucan, 9. 990. Tylor, _Prim.
Cult._ ii. 332. Aeneas is here, as always, the true type of the
practical Roman.
Footnote 1378:
Marq. 311 and reff.
Footnote 1379:
_Fasti_, 2. 617 foll. Among the calendars it is only mentioned in
those of Philocalus and Silvius, and in the rustic calendars. Valerius
Maximus is the next writer after Ovid who mentions it: 2. 1. 8. Cp.
_C. I. L._ vi. 10234. Martial calls it ‘lux propinquorum’ (9. 55, cp.
54). For an interesting conjecture as to the special meaning of
_carus_, see Lattes quoted in De-Marchi, op. cit. 214, note 2.
Footnote 1380:
Val. Max. l. c. and Silvius’ _Calendar_.
Footnote 1381:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 623,
Innocui veniant: procul hinc, procul impius esto
Frater, et in partus mater acerba suos.
Footnote 1382:
Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 633-634. On such occasions the Lares were clothed in
tunics girt at the loins; see a figure of a Lar on an altar from Caere
in Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, vol. i. p. 77.
Footnote 1383:
_Fasti_, 2. 571 foll.
Footnote 1384:
Line 583. See Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Dea Muta.
Footnote 1385:
See e. g. Crooke, _Folklore of Northern India_, ch. 5 (the Black Art),
and especially pp. 264 foll.
Footnote 1386:
See e. g. Leland, _Etruscan Roman remains in popular legend_, pp. 3
and 195 foll.
Footnote 1387:
The chief attempts are those of Unger, in _Rhein. Mus._, 1881, p. 50,
and Mannhardt in his _Mythologische Forschungen_, pp. 72-155. The
former is ingenious, but unsatisfactory in many ways; the latter
conscientious, and valuable as a study in folk-lore, whether its
immediate conclusions be right or wrong. See also Schwegler, _R. G._
i. 356 foll.; Preller, i. 387 foll.; and article s. v. in _Dict. of
Antiquities_ (2nd edition); Marq. 442 foll. The ancient authorities
are Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5, 79, 80; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 267 foll.;
Plutarch, _Caes._ 61, _Rom._ 21; Val. Max. 2. 2. 9; Propert. 5. (4.)
1. 26; and many other passages which will be referred to when
necessary.
Footnote 1388:
Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5.
Footnote 1389:
Jordan, _Kritische Beiträge_, 164 foll. Unger’s attempt, after Serv.
_Aen._ 8. 343. to derive the word from _luo_ (‘to purify’) is
generally rejected.
Footnote 1390:
Wissowa, _Lex._ (s. v. Lupercus) takes the latter view, but rightly,
as I think, rejects the deity.
Footnote 1391:
Virg. _Aen._ 8. 630 ‘Mavortis in antro.’ Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v.
Mars, 2388; Preller, i. 334.
Footnote 1392:
Plut. _Rom_. 21. After mentioning the goats, he says, ἴδιον δὲ τῆς
ἑορτῆς τὸ καὶ κύνα θύειν τοὺς Δουπέρκους (cp. _Q. R._ iii).
Footnote 1393:
Marq. 165. See above, p. 110.
Footnote 1394:
So Val. Max. l.c. From Ovid’s version of the aetiological story of
Romulus and Remus (_Fasti_, 2. 371 foll.) we might infer that the
feasting took place after the running.
Footnote 1395:
‘Cornipedi Fauno caesa de more capella’ (_Fasti_, 2. 361). Cp. 5. 101.
So Plut. _Rom._ l. c.
Footnote 1396:
Livy, 1. 5. Unger (p. 71 foll.) has much to say about Inuus in the
worst style of German pseudo-research. See _Lex._ s. v. (Steuding).
Footnote 1397:
Schwegler, i. 351 foll.; Justin, 43. 1. I had long ago arrived at this
conclusion, and was glad to see it sanctioned by Wissowa in _Lex._ s.
v. Lupercus.
Footnote 1398:
_Aen._ 8. 343: the only reason given is that the goat was Liber’s
victim.
Footnote 1399:
Arnobius, 2. 23. See Mannhardt, 85; Huschke, _Röm. Jahr_, 12.
Footnote 1400:
Schwegler, i. 354 foll.: the general result is given in _Lex._ s. v.
Evander, vol. 1. 1395. Evander himself = Faunus. It is possible that
there may be some basis of truth in the Arcadian legend: we await
further archaeological inquiry.
Footnote 1401:
See on Dec. 5; and _Lex._ s. v. Faunus, p. 1458.
Footnote 1402:
Serv. _Aen._ 2. 351. The whole passage is very interesting. See on
Dec. 21; and Bouché-Leclercq, _Pontifes_, 28 and 49.
Footnote 1403:
_Fasti_, 2. 282; Marq. 443.
Footnote 1404:
Plut. _Q. R._ 111; Gell. 10. 15; Arnob. 7. 21.
Footnote 1405:
_Rom._ 21: quoted above, p. 311. Val. Max. l. c. seems also to imply
it: ‘Facto sacrificio caesisque capris, epularum hilaritate ac vino
largiore provecti, divisa pastorali turba, cincti pellibus immolatarum
hostiarum, iocantes obvios petiverunt.’
Footnote 1406:
Even this point is not quite certain; but see Hartung, _Rel. der
Römer_, ii. 178, and Mannhardt, 78.
Footnote 1407:
Ox, sheep and pig were the usual victims; the dog was only offered to
Robigus (see on April 25), to the Lares Praestites and to Mana Geneta;
the goat only to Bacchus and Aesculapius, foreign deities (Marq. 172).
The goat-skin of Juno Sospita is certainly Greek: _Lex._ s. v. Iuno,
595. The goat was a special Hebrew _piaculum_ (Robertson Smith, 448;
cf. 453).
Footnote 1408:
Robertson Smith, 379.
Footnote 1409:
Ib. 381.
Footnote 1410:
_Rom._ 21 οἱ μὲν ᾐμαγμένῃ μαχαίρᾳ τοῦ μετώπου θιγγάνουσιν, ἕτεροι δ’
ἀπομάττουσιν εὐθὺς ἔριον βεβρεγμένον γάλακτι προσφέροντες. Γελᾶν δὲ
δεῖ τὰ μειρόκια μετὰ τὴν ἀπόμαξιν.
Footnote 1411:
So Schwegler. l. c. and reff. in Marq. 443 notes 11-13. Dion. Hal. (1.
32) compared the human sacrifice in the cult of Zeus Lycaeus in
Arcadia. See Farnell, _Cults_, i. 40 foll.
Footnote 1412:
We ought to have the whole _history_ of the Lupercalia if we are to
explain it rightly; it is impossible to guess through what stages and
changes it may have passed.
Footnote 1413:
4. 478 (quoted in a valuable section (23) of Hermann’s
_Gottesdienstliche Alterthümer der Griechen_).
Footnote 1414:
For examples of this idea see under Feb. 24 (Regifugium); Robertson
Smith, 286; Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._ 58 foll.
Footnote 1415:
It may indeed be misrepresented by Plutarch (who is the only writer
who mentions it), and may have been originally an ἀλολυγή. For the
confusion of mournful and joyful cries at a sacrifice see Robertson
Smith, 411.
Footnote 1416:
Robertson Smith notes (p. 396) that young men, or rather lads, occur
as sacrificers in Exodus xxiv. 5.
Footnote 1417:
p. 91 foll.
Footnote 1418:
Mannhardt is not lucid on this point; he was evidently in difficulties
(pp. 97-99). He seems clear that the application of the blood produces
an _identity_ between victim and youths; but in similar cases it is
not through death that victim, god, and priest become identical, but
through the life-giving virtue of the blood. The blood-application
must surely mean the acquisition of new life; but he makes it symbolic
of death.
Footnote 1419:
Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 242.
Footnote 1420:
Mannhardt seems to have felt this difficulty (p. 86), and to have
tried to overcome it, but without success.
Footnote 1421:
I here omit the feasting, as it is by no means certain at what point
of time it took place. If the victims themselves were eaten, it would
be part of the sacrificial act and would precede the running; but this
is not common in the case of such _piacula_, and one victim, we must
remember, was a dog. It is more likely that Val. Max. is here wrong
(see above, p. 311, note 6).
Footnote 1422:
See Mannhardt, _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, 318 foll., and for other
examples, Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 1 foll.; Preller-Robert, _Griech. Myth._
i. 144 (Zeus-festival on Pelion).
Footnote 1423:
After Schwegler, i. 361; rejected by Marq. (439, note 4).
Footnote 1424:
p. 101. The ‘wolves’ represent of course the Palatine city.
Footnote 1425:
See his eminently modest and sensible remarks at the end of his 5th
section, p. 113.
Footnote 1426:
Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 416 foll.; _Encycl. Brit._
art. ‘Sacrifice’; and for the Lupercalia, _Academy_, Feb. 11, 1888,
where a totemistic origin is suggested.
Footnote 1427:
See also Lobeck, _Aglaoph._ pp. 183-6; Lang, _Myth, Ritual and
Religion_, vol. ii. 177 (cp. 106) and reff., 213; _Dict. of
Antiquities_, art. ‘Sacrificium,’ p. 584.
Footnote 1428:
Festus, p. 57 ‘Creppos, id est lupercos, dicebant a crepitu
pellicularum,’ &c.
Footnote 1429:
Preller, i. 389. On this Jordan has added no comment.
Footnote 1430:
_Ann._ 12. 24; Jordan, _Topogr._ i. 163 foll., has examined Tacitus’s
account with great care. Tacitus starts the pomoerium from the Forum
boarium, while Dionysius and Plutarch start the runners from the
Lupercal; but the two are close together.
Footnote 1431:
The reading is not quite certain; the MSS. have ‘Larum de forumque.’
Footnote 1432:
The Sacellum Larum has generally been supposed to be that in summa
sacra via (Jordan, op. cit. ii. 269). Kiepert and Huelsen make it the
sacellum or ara Larum praestitum at the head of the Vicus Tuscus.
Footnote 1433:
_L. L._ 6. 34. Mommsen proposed ‘a regibus Romanis moenibus cinctum.’
But it is safer to keep to the MS. reading and make the best of it.
Jordan sees in the words a ‘scurrilous’ allusion to the _luperci_.
Footnote 1434:
For modern practices of the kind in England see Brand, _Popular
Antiquities_, ch. 36; and for Oxford, p. 209. As Brand puts it, the
beaters (i. e. ministers, churchwardens, &c.), ‘_beg a blessing on the
fruits of the earth_, and preserve the rights and boundaries of their
parish.’ The analogy with the old Italian processions is very close.
Footnote 1435:
So _C. I. L._ 6. 1933 ‘lupercus Quinctialis vetus.’ See Mommsen,
_Forsch._ i. 117. Unger, however (p. 56 foll.), argues for the form
Quintilianus, as it appears in Fest. 87, and Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 378;
and also denies that the names indicate gentile priesthoods. But his
arguments depend on a doubtful etymology. See Marq. 440, note.
Footnote 1436:
Liv. 5. 46. Mommsen connects the name _Kaeso_, which is found in both
gentes, with the cutting of the strips at the Lupercalia. The Fabii in
Ovid’s story (361 foll.) are led by Remus, and the Quintilii by
Romulus.
Footnote 1437:
See under March 1, p. 41.
Footnote 1438:
So Mannhardt, 101, who tries to explain it as we have seen.
Footnote 1439:
Gilbert, _Gesch. und Topogr._ i. 86, note, tries to make out that the
Fabii belonged to the Palatine proper; and the other guild, not to the
Quirinal, but to the Cermalus, and thus also to account for the fact
that in Ovid’s story the Fabii come first to the feast; but all this
is pure guesswork.
Footnote 1440:
Plut. _Rom._ 21 and _Caes._ 61; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 425 foll.; Paul. 57;
Liv. fragm. 12 (Madvig); Serv. _Aen._ 8. 343. All these passages make
it clear that the object was to procure fertility in women. Nic.
Damasc., _Vita Caesaris_ 21, does not specify women (cp. Dion. Hal. 1.
80).
Footnote 1441:
Liv. l. c. and Serv. l. c. are explicit on this point.
Footnote 1442:
Op. cit. 113 foll. and his _Baumkultus_, p. 251 foll. (see also
Frazer, _G. B._ ii. 214 and 232 foll.). An example of the same kind of
practice in India is in Crooke, _Religion and Folklore_, vol. i. p.
100. See under May 1 (Bona Dea), p. 104.
Footnote 1443:
They were also called ‘amiculum Iunonis’ (Fest. 85: cp. Ovid, _Fasti_,
2. 427 foll.); Juno here, as so often, representing the female
principle. Farnell (_Cults_, i. 100) aptly compares with this the
Athenian custom of carrying Athena’s _aegis_ round Athens, and taking
it into the houses of married women.
Footnote 1444:
Lactantius, _Inst._ 1. 21. 45, describes them as ‘nudi, uncti,
coronati, personati, aut luto obliti currunt’; but we have no certain
confirmation from earlier sources except as to the nakedness (Ovid,
_Fasti_, 2. 267).
Footnote 1445:
‘_Iocantes_ obvios petiverunt’ (Val. Max.). Mannhardt, _Myth. Forsch._
140 foll.
Footnote 1446:
Mon. Ancyr. iv. 2; Marq. 446.
Footnote 1447:
Baronius, _Annal. Eccles._ viii. 60 foll.
Footnote 1448:
Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 11; Jordan, _Eph. Epigr._ iii. 238.
Footnote 1449:
e. g. Cic. _ad Quint. Fratr._ 2. 3. 2.
Footnote 1450:
See other references in Preller, i. 374, note. Ambrosch (_Studien_,
169, note 50) observes that Cicero (_de Off._ 3. 10) writes with a
trace of scepticism: ‘Romulus fratre interempto sine controversia
peccavit, pace vel Quirini vel Romuli dixerim.’
Footnote 1451:
See Jordan on Preller, i. 369. The article ‘Quirinus’ in _Myth. Lex._
has not yet appeared as I write.
Footnote 1452:
_Studien_, 169.
Footnote 1453:
_C. I. L._ i. 41 = vi. 475 and i. 630 = vi. 565. The older one is
attributed by Mommsen to the consul P. Cornelius of B.C. 236: ‘P.
Corn[elios] L. f. coso[l] prob[avit] Mar[te sacrom].’ The other,
‘Quirino L. Aimilius L. f. praitor,’ must be set down to an Aemilius
praetor in 204, 191, or 190. The inference is that Mars became known
as Quirinus in that spot at the end of the third century B.C. It is
worth noting that the legendary smith, Mamurius, had a statue on the
Quirinal (Jord. _Top._ ii. 125).
Footnote 1454:
This is much what Dion. Hal. 2. 48 says was one view held in his time:
οὐκ ἔχοντας εἰπεῖν τὸ ἀκριβὲς εἴτε Ἄρης ἐστὶν εἴτε ἕτερός τις ὁμοίας
Ἄρει τιμὰς ἔχων.
Footnote 1455:
See on Jan. 9. Fest. 254.
Footnote 1456:
Gilbert, i. 283, points out that in the Argean itinerary (Jord. _Top._
ii. 237 foll.) one of the _divisions_ of the Quirinal bears the name,
and infers the gradual spread of the cult of Quirinus over the whole
hill; but he insists that it was introduced from the Palatine. The
general result of his wild but ingenious combinations is to infer a
religious conquest of the Quirinal from the Palatine.
Footnote 1457:
Aust, op. cit. pp. 11 and 33. Mommsen, _C. I. L._ i. 310, takes the
one of unknown date as the older.
Footnote 1458:
Aust, op. cit. 51, where for Liv. 4. 21 read Liv. 5. 40.
Footnote 1459:
Preller, i. 356.
Footnote 1460:
_Q. R._ 46; Ennius ap. Nonium 120; Gell. 13. 23.
Footnote 1461:
Plin. _H. N._ 15. 120.
Footnote 1462:
i. 373.
Footnote 1463:
See under April 25, Aug. 21, Dec. 23. Marq. 335; Schwegler, i. 334.
Footnote 1464:
Liv. 5. 40, 7 and 8.
Footnote 1465:
_L. L._ 6. 13. According to Macrob. (1. 13. 15) the five last days of
February were added after the intercalation, in order that March might
follow on Feb., and not on the intercalated days.
Footnote 1466:
_H. N._ 18. 8. See above, p. 304.
Footnote 1467:
_Fasti_, 2. 643 foll.
Footnote 1468:
Te duo diversa domini pro parte coronant,
Binaque serta tibi binaque liba ferunt.
Footnote 1469: