Part 22
Before leaving the Consualia we may just remark that Consus had no flamen of his own, in spite of his undoubted antiquity; doubtless because his altar was underground, and only opened once or perhaps twice a year. On August 21 his sacrifice was performed, says Tertullian[895], by the Flamen Quirinalis in the presence of the Vestals. This flamen seems to have had a special relation to the corn-crops, for it was he who also sacrificed a dog to Robigus on April 25[896], to avert the mildew from them; and thus we get one more confirmation from the cult of the view taken as to the agricultural origin of the Consualia.
X KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 23). NP.
VOLCANALIA. (PINC. MAFF. VALL. ETC.) VOLCANO IN CIRCO FLAMINIO. (VALL.) VOLCANO. (PINC.)
(A mutilated fragment of the calendar of the Fratres Arvales gives QUIR[INO] IN COLLE, VOLK[ANO] IN COMIT[IO]. OPI OPIFER[AE] IN ..., [NYMP]HIS(?) IN CAMPO).
Of the cult of this day, apart from the extracts from the calendars, we know nothing, except that the heads of Roman families threw into the fire certain small fish with scales, which were to be had from the Tiber fishermen at the ‘area Volcani’[897]. We cannot explain this; but it reminds us of the fish called _maena_, with magical properties, which the old woman offered to Tacita and the ghost-world at the Parentalia[898]. Fish-sacrifices were rare; and if in one rite fish are used to propitiate the inhabitants of the underworld, they seem not inappropriate in another of which the object is apparently to propitiate the fire-god, who in a volcanic country like that of Rome must surely be a chthonic deity.
The antiquity of the cult of Volcanus is shown by the fact that there was a Flamen Volcanalis[899], who on May 1 sacrificed to Maia, the equivalent, as we saw, of Bona Dea, Terra, &c. With Volcanus we may remember that Maia was coupled in the old prayer formula preserved by Gellius (13.23)—_Maia Volcani_. From these faint indications Preller[900] conjectured that the original notion of Volcanus was that of a favouring nature-spirit, perhaps of the warmth and fertilizing power of the earth. However this may be, in later times, under influences which can only be guessed at, he became a hostile fire-god, hard to keep under control. Of this aspect of him Wissowa has written concisely at the conclusion of his little treatise _de Feriis_. He suggests that the appearance of the nymphs[901] in the rites of this day indicates the use of water in conflagrations, and that Ops Opifera was perhaps invoked to protect her own storehouses. The name Volcanus became a poetical word for devouring fire as early as the time of Ennius, and is familiar to us in this sense in Virgil[902]. After the great fire at Rome in Nero’s time a new altar was erected to Volcanus by Domitian, at which (and at all Volcanalia) on this day a red calf and a boar were offered for sacrifice[903]. At Ostia the cult became celebrated; there was an ‘aedes’ and a ‘pontifex Volcani’ and a ‘praetor sacris Volcani faciundis.’ In August the storehouses at Ostia would be full of new grain arrived from Sicily, Africa, and Egypt, and in that hot month would be especially in danger from fire; an elaborate cult of Volcanus the fire-god was therefore at this place particularly desirable.
The aedes Volcani in circo Flaminio was dedicated before 215 B.C.; the exact date is not known[904]. Its position was explained by Vitruvius[905] as having the object of keeping conflagrations away from the city. Mr. Jevons, in his Introduction to a translation of Plutarch’s _Quaestiones Romanae_[906], has argued from this position, outside the pomoerium, and from a doubtful etymology, that the cult of Volcanus was a foreign introduction; but the position of the temple is no argument, as has been well shown by Aust[907], and the chief area Volcani, or Volcanal, was in the Comitium, in the heart of the city[908].
IX KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 24). MUNDUS PATET.
This does not appear in the calendars. We learn from Festus[909] that on this day, on Oct. 5, and Nov. 8, the ‘mundus’ was open. This mundus was a round pit on the Palatine, the centre of Roma quadrata[910]—the concave hollow being perhaps supposed to correspond to the concave sky above[911]. It was closed, so it was popularly believed, by a ‘lapis manalis’ (Festus s. v.). When this was removed, on the three days there was supposed to be free egress for the denizens of the underworld[912].
I am much inclined to see in this last idea a later Graeco-Etruscan accretion upon a very simple original fact. O. Müller long ago suggested this—pointing out that in Plutarch’s description of the foundation of Roma quadrata the casting into the trench of first-fruits of all necessaries of life gives us a clue to the original meaning of the mundus. If we suppose that it was the _penus_ of the new city—a sacred place, of course—used for storing grain, we can see why it should be open on Aug. 24[913]. Nor is it difficult to understand why, when the original use and meaning had vanished, the Graeco-Etruscan doctrine of the underworld should be engrafted on this simple Roman stem. Dis and Proserpina claim the mundus: it is ‘ianua Orci,’ ‘faux Plutonis’[914]—ideas familiar to Romans who had come under the spell of Etruscan religious beliefs.
VIII KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 25). NP.
OPIC[ONSIVIA]. (ALLIF. MAFF. VALL.)
OPICID. (PINC.) The last two letters must be a cutter’s error.
FERIAE OPI; OPI CONSIV. IN REGIA. (ARV.) The last four words seem to belong to Aug. 26 (see Mommsen ad loc.).
This festival follows that of Consus after an interval of three days; and Wissowa[915] has pointed out that in December the same interval occurs between the Consualia (15th) and the Opalia (19th). This and the epithet or cognomen Consiva, which is fully attested[916], led him to fancy that Ops was the wife of Consus, and not the wife of Saturnus, as has been generally supposed both in ancient and modern times[917]. We may agree with him that there is no real evidence for any _primitive_ connexion of Saturnus and Ops of this kind; as far as we can tell the idea was adopted from the relation of Cronos and Rhea. But there was no need to find any husband for Ops; the name Consiva need imply no such relation, any more than Lua Saturni, Moles Martis, Maia Volcani, and the rest[918], or the Tursa Iovia of the Iguvian inscription so often quoted. Both adjectival and genitive forms are in my view no more than examples of the old Italian instinct for covering as much ground as possible in invoking supernatural powers[919]; and this is again a result of the indistinctness with which those powers were conceived, in regard both to their nature and function. A distinct specialization of function was, I am convinced, the later work of the pontifices. Ops and Consus are obviously closely related; and Wissowa is probably right in treating the one as a deity ‘messis condendae,’ and the other as representing the ‘opima frugum copia quae horreis conditur.’ But when he goes further than this, his arguments ring hollow[920].
Of the ritual of the Opiconsivia we know only what Varro tells us[921]: ‘Opeconsiva dies ab dea Ope Consiva, quoius in Regia sacrarium, quod ideo actum (so MSS.) ut eo praeter Virgines Vestales et sacerdotem publicum introeat nemo.’ Many conjectures have been made for the correction of ‘quod ideo actum’[922]; but the real value of the passage does not depend on these words. The Regia is the king’s house, and represents that of the ancient head of the family: the sacrarium Opis was surely then the sacred _penus_ of that house—the treasury of the fruits of the earth on which the family subsisted. It suits admirably with this view that, as Varro says, only the Vestals and a ‘publicus sacerdos’ were allowed to enter it—i. e. the form was retained from remote antiquity that the daughters of the house were in charge of it[923]—the master of the house being here represented by the sacerdos—the rex sacrorum or a pontifex. In this connexion it is worth while to quote a passage of Columella[924] which seems to be derived from some ancient practice of the rural household: ‘Ne contractentur pocula vel _cibi_ nisi aut ab impube aut certe abstinentissimo rebus venereis, quibus si fuerit operatus vel vir vel femina debere eos flumine aut perenni aqua priusquam penora contingant ablui. Propter quod his necessarium esse pueri vel virginis ministerium, per quos promantur quae usus postulaverit.’
VI KAL. SEPT. (AUG. 27). NP.
VOLT[URNALIA]. (ALLIF. MAFF. VALL.)
FERIAE VOLTURNO. (ARV. INTER ADDITA POSTERIORA.)
VOLTURNO FLUMINI SACRIFICIUM. (VALL.)
Of this very ancient and perhaps obsolete rite nothing seems to have been known to the later Latin scholars, or they did not think it worth comment. Varro mentions a Flamen Volturnalis, but tells us nothing about him. From the occurrence of the name for a river in Campania it may be guessed that the god in this case was a river also; and if so, it must be the Tiber. This is Mommsen’s conclusion, and the only difficulty he finds in it is that (in his view) Portunus is also the Tiber[925]. Why did he not see that the same river-god, even if bearing different names, could hardly have two flamines? I am content to see in Volturnus an old name for the Tiber, signifying the winding snake-like river[926], and in Portunus a god of storehouses, as I have explained above.
Here, then, we perhaps have a trace of the lost cult of the Tiber, which assuredly must have existed in the earliest times—and the _flamen_ is the proof of its permanent importance. When the name was changed to Tiber we do not know, nor whether ‘Albula’ marks an intermediate stage between the two; but that this was the work of the pontifices seems likely from Servius[927], who writes ‘Tiberinus ... a pontificibus indigitari solet.’ Of a god Tiberinus there is no single early record.
It should just be mentioned that Jordan[928], relying on Lucretius, 5. 745, thought it probable that Volturnus might be a god of whirlwinds; and Huschke[929] has an even wilder suggestion, which need not here be mentioned.
Footnote 790:
Varro, _R. R._ I. 33, has only the following: ‘Quinto intervallo, inter caniculam et aequinoctium auctumnale oportet stramenta desecari, et acervos construi, aratro offringi, frondem caedi, prata irrigua iterum secari.’
Footnote 791:
This is the natural position for the _ager_ of the oldest community on the Palatine. The Campus Martius was believed to have been ‘king’s land’ of the later developed city (Liv. 2. 5).
Footnote 792:
Liv. 10. 1. 9; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 10.
Footnote 793:
Marq. 377; Dio Cass. 37. 24 and 25; Tac. _Ann._ 12. 23.
Footnote 794:
_C. I. L._ i. 49 and 179.
Footnote 795:
See Preller, ii. 228; and article ‘Sacerdos’ in _Dict. of Antiquities_, new edition.
Footnote 796:
On this difficult subject see _Dict. of Antiquities_, s.v. Indigitamenta; and the long and exhaustive article by R. Peter in Roscher’s _Lexicon_ (which is, however, badly written, and in some respects, I think, misleading).
Footnote 797:
See the valuable summary of Aust (in ten lines).
Footnote 798:
Plin. _N. H._ 35. 19.
Footnote 799:
40. 19.
Footnote 800:
Paulus, 23; Quintil. 1. 7. 12; Varro, _L. L._ 5. 52 (from the ‘sacra Argeorum’), if we read ‘adversum Solis pulvinar cis aedem Salutis.’ The name is said to be connected with the Umbrian and Etruscan god of light, Usil, a word thought to be recognizable in Aurelius (= Auselius, Varro, l. c.), and in the Ozeul of the Salian hymn (Wordsworth, _Fragments and Specimens of Early Latin_, p. 564 foll.).
Footnote 801:
So e. g. Virgil, _Georg._ 1. 498 ‘Di patrii indigites et Romule Vestaque Mater.’ Peter, in _Lex._ s. v. Indigitamenta, 132.
Footnote 802:
i. 325.
Footnote 803:
_Lex._ s. v. Indigitamenta, 137.
Footnote 804:
Wissowa, _de Romanorum Indigetibus et Novensidibus_ (Marburg, 1892).
Footnote 805:
Merkel, _Praef. in Ov. Fastos_, cxxxv; Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 324.
Footnote 806:
_Lex._ s. v. Hercules, 2903 foll., where R. Peter has summarized and criticized all the various opinions.
Footnote 807:
Liv. I. 7.
Footnote 808:
Dionys. I. 40, who says that the duties were performed by slaves in his day. See _Lex._ 2925 for a long list of conjectures about this part of the legend. The Potitii never occur in inscriptions; and I think with Jordan (Preller, ii. 291) that the name is imaginary, invented to account for the functions of the slaves.
Footnote 809:
_C. I. L._ vi. 312-319, found on the site of the _aedes_.
Footnote 810:
Macrob. 3. 12. 2; Varro, _L. L._ 6. 15. The uncovered head also occurs in the cult of Saturnus; and R. Peter argues that the custom may after all be old-Italian (_Lex._ 2928).
Footnote 811:
Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, vol. i, p. 291.
Footnote 812:
See above, p. 142 foll. Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 60; Macrob. 1. 12. 38. In _Q. R._ 90 Plutarch notes that no other god might be mentioned at the sacrifice, and no dog might be admitted.
Footnote 813:
_de Re Rustica_, 83.
Footnote 814:
The word was _profanatum_, opposed to _polluctum_ (see Marq. 149).
Footnote 815:
_Aen._ 8. 281 foll.
Footnote 816:
Salii are found in the cult of Hercules also at Tibur: Macrob. 3. 12. 7. See a note of Jordan in Preller, i. 352.
Footnote 817:
_Lex._ 2931 foll.; _C. I. L._ i. 149 foll.
Footnote 818:
The examples are collected by R. Peter in _Lex._ 2935.
Footnote 819:
Festus, 253, s. v. pollucere merces; Plut. _Qu. Rom._ 18; _Vita Sullae_, 35; _Crassi_, 2; _Lex._ 2032 foll.
Footnote 820:
Marq. 469; Festus, p. 318, s. v. sacrima.
Footnote 821:
Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 233.
Footnote 822:
_G. B._ ii. 373 foll.
Footnote 823:
In the legend Hercules gave a tenth part of his booty to the inhabitants of the place (Dionys 1. 40).
Footnote 824:
See Mommsen in _C. I. L._ i. 150.
Footnote 825:
e. g. in Bréal, _Hercule et Cacus_.
Footnote 826:
See _Lex._ 2286 (R. Peter, quoting Reifferscheid).
Footnote 827:
_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, vol. xiii. 73. Professor Gardner is inclined to consider the myth as Phoenician rather than Greek, and attached to the Phoenician Melcarth = Herakles. The vase is in the Ashmolean Museum, and was found by the Keeper, Mr. Arthur Evans.
Footnote 828:
_Mon. dell’ Inst._ v. 25. But the character of the vase is archaic Ionian, as Prof. Gardner tells me; _Lex._ 2275.
Footnote 829:
H. Peter, _Fragmenta Hist. Rom._ p. 166 (= Solinus, i. 7).
Footnote 830:
_C. I. L._ xiv. 3555; _Lex._ 2278.
Footnote 831:
Robertson Smith, op. cit. pp. 228 foll., and additional note F.
Footnote 832:
The day of the festival at Aricia is thought to have been also Aug. 13 (_Lex._ s. v. Diana, 1006).
Footnote 833:
Beloch, _Italischer Bund_, 180; Cato (ap. Priscian, 7. 337, ed. Jordan, p. 41) gives the names of the towns united in and by the Arician cult—Aricia, Tusculum, Lanuvium, Laurentum, Cora, Tibur, Pometia, Ardea.
Footnote 834:
Liv. I. 45 Dionys. 4. 26; Varro, _L. L._ 5. 43.
Footnote 835:
Dionys. l. c. See Jordan, _Krit. Beiträge_, 253.
Footnote 836:
So Liv. l. c.: other temples of Diana had deers’ horns, according to Plutarch, _Q. R._ 4. The cow was Diana’s favourite victim (Marq. 361); but we cannot be sure that this was not a feature borrowed from the cult of Artemis (Farnell, _Greek Cults_, ii. 592).
Footnote 837:
The passages from Livy quoted by Steuding (_Lex._ 1008) are hardly to the point, as the cult is not mentioned in them.
Footnote 838:
Plut. _Q. R._ 100.
Footnote 839:
Serv. _Aen._ 8. 564: cp. Liv. 22. 1, 26. 11.
Footnote 840:
Mannhardt, _A. W. F._ 328 foll.
Footnote 841:
Festus, 343, ‘Servorum dies.’
Footnote 842:
See above, p. 75.
Footnote 843:
Strabo, Bk. 4, p. 180; Farnell, _Greek Cults_, ii. 529 and 592.
Footnote 844:
Liv. 5. 13: Apollo and Latona, Diana and Hercules, Mercurius and Neptunus.
Footnote 845:
_Lex._ 1007. The excavations at Nemi have produced several votive offerings in terra cotta of women with children in their arms. Cp. Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 269. Plutarch tells us (_Q. R._ 3) that men were excluded from a shrine of Diana in the Vicus Patricius; but of this nothing further is known.
Footnote 846:
Plut. _Q. R._ 100; Jevons, _Introduction_, p. lxviii.
Footnote 847:
Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 187.
Footnote 848:
_C. I. L._ vi. 656, 658.
Footnote 849:
Frazer, _G. B._ i. 105: cp. Robertson Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 128 foll. Serv. _Georg._ 3. 332 ‘Ut omnis quercus Iovi est consecrata, et omnis _lucus_ Dianae.’ (Hor. _Od._ 1. 21.) The reclaiming of Diana from the woodland to the homestead is curiously illustrated by an inscription from Aricia (Wilmanns, _Exempla_, 1767) in which she is identified with Vesta.
Footnote 850:
Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 15.
Footnote 851:
5. (4.) 2.
Footnote 852:
_Metaph._ 14. 623 foll.; Preller, i. 451.
Footnote 853:
Varro. _L. L._ 7. 45. A god Pomonus (gen. Puemones) occurs in the Iguvian ritual (Bücheler, _Umbrica_, 158); who may have been identical with Vortumnus.
Footnote 854:
Varro, _L. L._ 5. 46.
Footnote 855:
Preller, i. 452, and Jordan’s note.
Footnote 856:
Festus, 217, s. v. persillum. All we know of his duties is that he ‘unguit arma Quirini’; the word for the oil or grease he used was ‘persillum.’ Quirinus had his own flamen, who might be supposed to do this office for him; hence Marq. (328 note) inferred that the god in this case was a form of Janus, Janus Quirinus. But there is no other sound evidence for a Janus Quirinus, though Janus and Portunus may be closely connected.
Footnote 857:
_L. L._ 6. 19.
Footnote 858:
_C. I. L._ 325. He thinks that the _atria Tiberina_ mentioned by Ovid (_Fasti_, 4. 329) were a station on the route of the procession.
Footnote 859:
Mommsen has not convinced other scholars, e. g. Jordan on Preller, ii. 133, and Marq. 328, who points out that if Volturnus is an old name for the Tiber, that river-god was already provided with a flamen (Volturnalis), and a festival in this month (see below on Volturnalia). I am disposed to think that Mommsen’s critics have the best of the argument.
Footnote 860:
On _Aen._ 5. 241.
Footnote 861:
_Röm. Jahr_, p. 250. Jordan restored the passage thus: ‘Quo apud veteres aedes in portu et feriae institutae’ (Preller, i. 178 note).
Footnote 862:
See Marquardt, _Privatalterthümer_, p. 226.
Footnote 863:
Paulus, 56.
Footnote 864:
In Festus, 233, _portus_ is said to have been used for a house in the Twelve Tables.
Footnote 865:
_Topogr._ i. 430; Marq. agrees (327 note).
Footnote 866:
Preller, i. 177.
Footnote 867:
It was a late foundation, vowed by C. Duilius in the First Punic War (B.C. 260). When rebuilt by Tiberius (Tac. _Ann._ 2. 49) the dedication-day became Oct. 18. See Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 18.
Footnote 868:
See above on April 23, p. 85.
Footnote 869:
Livy, 10. 31; Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 12.
Footnote 870:
See above, p. 86.
Footnote 871:
Paulus, 264.
Footnote 872:
Preller, i. 196; Marq. 333 note.
Footnote 873:
Varro, _L. L._ 6. 16 ‘Vinalia a vino; Hic dies Iovis, non Veneris; huius rei cura non levis in Latio; nam aliquot locis vindemiae primum a sacerdotibus publicae fiebant, ut Romae etiam nunc; nam flamen Dialis auspicatur vindemiam, et ut iussit vinum legere, agna Iovi facit, inter quoius exta caesa et porrecta flamen primus vinum legit.’ But this note, coming between others on the Cerialia and Robigalia, clearly refers to April 23, and the latter part of it must be taken as simply explaining ‘huius rei cura non levis’ without reference to a
## particular day.
Footnote 874:
See above, p. 110.
Footnote 875:
p. 264.
Footnote 876:
_L. L._ 6. 20. The passage in 6. 16, quoted above, ends thus: ‘In Tusculanis hortis (sortis in MS.) est scriptum: Vinum novum ne vehatur in urbem antequam Vinalia calentur,’ which may refer to a notice put up in the vineyards. Another reading is ‘sacris.’
Footnote 877:
_C. I. L._ 316 and 326; Varro, _R. R._ 1. 65.
Footnote 878:
Cf. Pliny, _N. H._ 18. 284. ‘Tria namque tempora fructibus metuebant, propter quod instituerunt ferias diesque festos, Robigalia, Floralia, Vinalia.’ I do not see why the Vinalia here should not be the Vinalia Rustica. Cp. Virg. _Georg._ 2. 419 ‘Et iam maturis metuendus Iuppiter uvis.’ Hartmann, _Röm. Kal._ 137 foll.
Footnote 879:
Vol. ii. 379.
Footnote 880:
B.C. 272 (Festus, 209; Aust, p. 14).
Footnote 881:
For this altar, Tertull. _Spect._ 5 and 8; Dionys. 1. 33; Tac. _Ann._ 12. 24; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 636.
Footnote 882:
No correction of this word seems satisfactory: see Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 326.
Footnote 883:
Wissowa, _Lex._ s. v. Consus, 926.
Footnote 884:
Suggested by Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 326, and accepted by Wissowa. Unluckily Columella (r. 6), in alluding to the practice, says nothing of its occurrence in Italy. The alternative explanation was suggested to me by Robertson Smith (_Religion of the Semites_, 107): see also a note in Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 100; and below on Terminalia (p. 325).
Footnote 885:
The underground altar of Dis Pater in the Campus Martius, at which the ludi saeculares were in part celebrated (Zosimus, 2. 1), may have had a like origin.
Footnote 886:
_Qu. Rom._ 40: cf. Dionys. 1. 33.
Footnote 887:
Fast. Praen.; _C. I. L._ 237.
Footnote 888:
2. 31, where he says that they were kept up in his own day: cf. Strabo, Bk. 5.3. 2.
Footnote 889:
p. 148.
Footnote 890:
Friedländer in Marq. 482. For the connexion of games with harvest see Mannhardt. _Myth. Forsch._ 172 foll.
Footnote 891:
Varro (ap. Non. p. 13) quotes an old verse which seems to the point here: ‘Sibi pastores ludo faciunt coriis consualia.’
Footnote 892:
Varro, _L. L._ 6. 20; Serv. _Aen._ 8. 636; Dionys. 2. 31; Cic. _Rep._ 2. 12.
Footnote 893:
See above, p. 178.
Footnote 894:
Vol. ii. 171 foll., 372 foll.
Footnote 895:
_de Spect._ 8.
Footnote 896:
See above, p. 89; Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 908.
Footnote 897:
Festus, p. 210, s. v. piscatorii ludi (Varro, _L. L._ 6 20). The latter uses the word ‘animalia,’ and does not mention fish. The fish were apparently sacrificed at the domestic hearth; but it is doubtful whether Volcanus was ever a deity of the hearth-fire (see Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 714; Wissowa, _de Feriis_, xlv).
Footnote 898:
See below, p. 309; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 571 foll.
Footnote 899:
See above on May 23, p. 123; Varro, _L. L._ 5. 84; Macrob. 1. 12. 18; _C. I. L._ vi. 1628.
Footnote 900:
ii. 149.
Footnote 901:
In the mutilated note in Fast. Praen. given above. For Wissowa’s views as to the mistake of supposing Volcanus to have been a god of smiths, see above, p. 123 (May 23).
Footnote 902:
Ennius, _Fragm._ 5. 477; Virg. _Aen._ 5. 662.
Footnote 903:
_C. I. L._ vi. 826.
Footnote 904:
Liv. 24. 10. 9.
Footnote 905:
Vitruv. 1. 7. 1.
Footnote 906:
_Roman Questions_, xviii.
Footnote 907:
_de Aedibus sacris_, p. 47 foll.
Footnote 908:
What this was we do not really know: there were several of them (Preller, ii. 150).
Footnote 909:
Fest. 154, from Ateius Capito; Macrob. 1. 16. 17.
Footnote 910:
Plut. _Rom._ 11; Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 821. Plutarch wrongly describes it as being in the Comitium.
Footnote 911:
This seems to be meant by Cato’s words quoted by Festus, l. c. ‘Mundo nomen impositum est ab eo mundo quod supra nos est ... eius inferiorem partem veluti consecratam dis Manibus clausam omni tempore nisi his diebus (i. e. the three above mentioned) maiores c[ensuerunt habendam], quos dies etiam religiosos judicaverunt.’