Chapter 3 of 39 · 3941 words · ~20 min read

Part 3

Probably by the Decemvirs, B.C. 450, who are said to have made some alteration in the calendar (Macrob. 1. 13. 21.)

Footnote 7:

See _Dict. Ant._ i. 337 and 342. It is highly probable that there was a still older plan, which gave way to this at the time of the Decemvirate: the evidence for this, which is conjectural only, is stated by Mommsen in the first chapter of his _Chronologie_. The number of days in this cycle (also of 4 years) is computed at 1475, and the average in each year at 368-3/4.

Footnote 8:

Or, according to Mommsen, in alternate years after the 23rd and 24th, i. e. in the year of 378 days 23 days were inserted after the _Terminalia_; in the year of 377 days 22 days were inserted after the 24th (_Regifugium_). Thus February would in the one case have 23, and in the other 24 days; the remaining 5 and 4 being added to the intercalated period. The object of the Decemvirs (if it was they who made this change) in this curious arrangement was, in part at least, to keep the festival of the god Terminus on its original day (Mommsen, _Chron._ 38). Terminus would budge neither from his seat on the Capitol (Liv. 1. 55) nor from his place in the calendar.

Footnote 9:

Probably in order that the beginning of the year might coincide with a new moon; which actually happened on Jan. 1, 45, and was doubtless regarded as a good omen.

Footnote 10:

He added 10 days to the normal year of 355: January, Sextilis, December, receiving two; April, June, September, November, one only. These new days were placed at the end of the months, so that the days on which religious festivals fell might remain as before.

Footnote 11:

Mommsen, _Chron._ 220. In no other Italian calendar of which we have any knowledge is March the first month (ib. 218 foll.): but there cannot be much doubt that these too had undergone changes. Festus (150), representing Verrius Flaccus, says, ‘Martius mensis initium fuit anni et in Latio et post Romam conditam,’ &c.

Footnote 12:

Huschke, _Röm. Jahr_, 11 foll.

Footnote 13:

See below, under March 1.

Footnote 14:

Mommsen, _Chron._ 103 foll.

Footnote 15:

Not the real new moon, which is invisible. The period between the new moon and the first quarter varies.

Footnote 16:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 27. This was the method before the publication of the calendar by Flavius: Macr. 1. 15. 9. The meaning of Covella is doubtful; it has generally been connected with _cavus_ and κοῖλος, and explained of the ‘hollow’ crescent of the new moon. See Roscher, _Lex._ s. v. Iuno 586.

Footnote 17:

Aust, s. v. Iuppiter, in Roscher’s _Lexicon_, p. 655.

Footnote 18:

Varro, _L. L._ 6. 29 ‘Dies fasti, per quos praetoribus omnia verba (i. e. do, dico, addico) sine piaculo licet fari.’

Footnote 19:

Liv. 9. 46.

Footnote 20:

Macr. 1. 16. 14. Cp. the mutilated note of Verrius in _Fasti Praenestini_ (Jan. 3).

Footnote 21:

Gell. 4. 9. 5. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 29. 30.

Footnote 22:

Livy, 6. 1. 11. Macrob. i. 16. 22.

Footnote 23:

Festus 165. See Mommsen’s restoration of the passage in _C. I. L._ 290 B.; another, less satisfactory, in Huschke, _Röm. Jahr_, 240.

Footnote 24:

Mommsen (_C. I. L._ 290, A) still holds to his view that NP is only an old form of N, brought into use for purposes of differentiation. His criticism of other views makes it difficult to put faith in them; but I cannot help thinking that the object of the mark was not only to distinguish the religious character of the days from those marked N, but to show that civil business might be transacted on them after the sacrificial rites were over, owing to the rapid increase of legal business. Ovid may be alluding to this, though confusing NP with EN, in _Fasti_ i. 51, where the words, ‘Nam simul exta deo data sunt, licet omnia fari,’ do not suit with Verrius’ note on EN, but may really explain NP.

Footnote 25:

_Fasti Praen._, Jan. 10. Varro, _L. L._ 6. 31. Maer. 1. 16. 3.

Footnote 26:

For the names of the fragments of _Fasti_, see next section.

Footnote 27:

‘Fastos circa forum in albo proposuit, ut quando lege agi posset sciretur,’ Liv. 9. 46. 5; Cic. _Att._ 6. 1. 8. On the latter passage Mommsen has based a reasonable conjecture that the Fasti had been already published in one of the last two of the Twelve Tables, and subsequently again withdrawn. (_Chron._ 31 and note.)

Footnote 28:

Macrob. 1. 12. 16.

Footnote 29:

_C. I. L._ 207 B. Petronius (_Cena_ 30) suggests the way in which copies might be set up in private houses. In municipia copies might be made and given to the town by private persons (so probably were Maff. and Praen.) or put up by order of the decuriones.

Footnote 30:

Including the Fasti Maffeiani, which is almost complete.

Footnote 31:

No. 20 in _C. I. L._ (Guidizzolenses), found at Guidizzolo between Mantua and Verona.

Footnote 32:

Maffeiani, Tusculani, Pinciani, Venusini.

Footnote 33:

Those of Caere, Praeneste, Amiternum, and Antium.

Footnote 34:

Suet. _de Grammaticis_, 19.

Footnote 35:

Circ. A.D. 10: cf. _C. I. L._ 206. There are a few additional notes apparently by a later hand.

Footnote 36:

Menologium rusticum Colotianum, and Men. rusticum Vallense in _C. I. L._ 280, 281.

Footnote 37:

Merkel’s edition (1841), with its valuable Prolegomena, is indispensable; very useful too is that by H. Peter; Leipzig, 1889.

Footnote 38:

_Tristia_, ii. 549.

Footnote 39:

_C. I. L._ 297 foll. (de feriis).

Footnote 40:

To these we may perhaps add the _Poplifugia_ and _Lucaria_ in July, the legends about which we can neither accept nor refute.

Footnote 41:

See Festus, 245; and _Dict. Ant._ s. v. Sacra.

Footnote 42:

Varro’s works, _de Antiquitatibus humanis_ and _divinis_, and many others, only survive in the fragments quoted by later authors.

Footnote 43:

Paul the deacon was one of the scholars who found encouragement at the court of Charles the Great. His work is an abridgement of that of Festus, not of Verrius himself. On Verrius and his epitomators, as well as on the other writers who used his glosses, see H. Nettleship’s valuable papers in _Essays in Latin Literature_, p. 201 foll.

Footnote 44:

For more information about Lydus see Bury, _Later Roman Empire_, ii. 183, and below under March 14.

Footnote 45:

They will be found in Bücheler’s _Umbrica_ (containing the processional inscription of Iguvium with commentary and translation), and Henzen’s _Acta Fratrum Arvalium_.

Footnote 46:

Preller’s _Römische Mythologie_ (ed. 3, by H. Jordan) and Marquardt’s third volume of his _Staatsverwaltung_ (ed. Wissowa) are both masterpieces, not only in matter but in manner.

Footnote 47:

Among the others may especially be mentioned Aust, a pupil of Wissowa, to whom we owe the excellent and exhaustive article on Jupiter; and R. Peter, the author of the article Fortuna and others, who largely reflects the views of the late Prof. Reifferscheid of Breslau.

Footnote 48:

‘Hoc paene unum superest sincerum documentum,’ Wissowa, _de Feriis_, p. 1.

Footnote 49:

This is well illustrated in the _Acta Fratrum Arvalium_ referred to above.

Footnote 50:

A succinct account of these tendencies will be found in Marquardt, p. 72 foll. There is a French translation of this invaluable volume.

Footnote 51:

A short account of these will be found in the author’s articles in the new edition of Smith’s _Dictionary of Antiquities_, on ‘Sacra,’ ‘Sacerdos,’ and ‘Sacrificium.’ On the domestic rites, there is an excellent book in Italian, which might well be translated: _Il Culto privato di Roma antica_, by Prof. De-Marchi of Milan, of which only

## Part I, _La Religione nella vita domestica_, has as yet appeared.

Footnote 52:

Marquardt, _Staatsverwaltung_, iii. p. 2.

Calendar.

MENSIS MARTIUS