Part 34
It may be said that this is all guesswork, and no evidence; but it is borne out by the following passage in Plutarch’s sixty-third Roman question:
Ἔστι γοῦν τις ἐν ἀγορᾷ θυσία πρὸς τῷ λεγομένῳ Κομητίῳ πάτριος, ἣν θύσας ὁ Βασιλεὺς κατὰ τάχος ἄπεισι Φεύγων ἐξ ἀγορϡας.
Whence Plutarch drew this statement we cannot tell. He does not give the day on which the sacrifice and flight took place; and Huschke[1487] has denied that he refers to the Regifugium at all. He believes that Plutarch is thinking of the days marked Q. R. C. F. (March 24 and May 24), on which Varro says, or seems to say, that the Rex sacrorum sacrificed in the Comitium[1488]; and this may have been so, for the note in the Fasti Praenestini on March 24 shows that there was a popular misinterpretation of Q. R. C. F., which took the letters to mean, ‘quod eo die ex comitio fugerit rex.’ In this confusion we can but appeal to the word Regifugium, which is attached to Feb. 24 only. Taking this together with Plutarch’s statement, and remembering the great improbability of the historical explanation being the true one, we are justified in accepting Mommsen’s completion of the passage in Festus, and in concluding that there was really on Feb. 24 a flight of the Rex after a sacrifice.
And this view is strengthened by the frequent occurrence of sacerdotal flights in ancient and primitive religions. These were first collected by Lobeck[1489], and have of late been treated of and variously explained by Mannhardt, Frazer, and Robertson Smith[1490]. The best known examples are those of the Bouphonia (‘ox murder’) at Athens, in which every feature shows that the slain ox was regarded, ‘not merely as a victim offered to a god, but in itself a sacred creature, the slaughter of which was sacrilege or murder’[1491]; and the sacrifice of a bull-calf to Dionysus at Tenedos, where the priest was attacked with stones, and had to flee for his life[1492]. We do not yet know for certain whether the origin of these ideas is to be found in totemism, or in the sanctity of cattle in the pastoral age, or in the representation of the spirit of vegetation in animal form. The second of these explanations, as elucidated by Robertson Smith, would seem most applicable to the Athenian rite; but in the case of the Roman one, we do not know what the victim was. It is also just possible, as Hartung long ago suggested[1493], that the victim was a scapegoat carrying away pollution, and therefore to be avoided; but I do not find any example of flight from a scapegoat, among the many instances collected by Mr. Frazer (_Golden Bough_, ii. 182 foll.).
III KAL. MART. (FEB. 27). NP.
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: