For loca sacra and consecratio see Marquardt,
p. 148 foll.; Wissowa, R.K. p. 400.
 Serv. ad Aen. xii. 119, "Romani moris fuerat
cespitem arae super imponere, et ita sacrificare." Cp.
some valuable remarks of Henzen, Acta Fratr. Arv. p.
23. The altar of the Fratres was in front of their
grove; they used also a movable one (foculus) of
silver, but cespiti ornatus (ib. p. 21): this was
for the preliminary offering of wine and incense
(Wissowa, R.K. p. 351).
 In Aug. Civ. Dei, iv. 31; Agahd's edition of the
fragments of Varro's Ant. rer. div. p. 164.
 Aug. Civ. Dei, iv. 23; Agahd, p. 159. See
Wissowa, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 280 foll.
 Strabo iv. 180.
 Fasti, vi. 305.
 Tibull. ii. 5. 27. The lines of Propertius are iv.
(v.) 2. 59, "Stipes acernus eram, properanti falce
dolatus, Ante Numam grata pauper in urbe deus." The
question is whether these are genuine examples of the
natural evolution of a "stock or stone" into something
in the nature of an anthropomorphic image of a deity, or
whether they are the result of the introduction of Greek
statues acting on the popular mind in rustic parts of
Italy. The passages, so far as I know, stand alone, and
we have no means of deciding whether the anthropomorphic
tendency was native or foreign. Vortumnus was, however,
undoubtedly of Etruscan origin; Wissowa, R.K. p. 233.
The subject of iconic development of this kind is well
summarised in E. Gardner's little volume on Religion
and Art in Ancient Greece, ch. i.
 See Sayce, Gifford Lectures on the Religions of
Egypt and Babylonia, p. 302. An interesting paper on
the evolution of dei at Rome out of functional
numina will be found in von Domaszewski's
Abhandlungen zur röm. Religion, p. 155 foll., based on
Usener's theory of Sondergötter. It is ingenious and
imaginative, but in my view does not square with the
facts as far as we know them. His stages are: (1)
momentary function of numina, e.g. lightning; (2)
elevation of this into a permanent power or function;
(3) consequent limitation of the numen to a special
well-marked function; (4) elevation of the numen to a
deus, conceived in the likeness of man, and male or
female, because man cannot think of power otherwise than
on the analogy of male or female creative energy.
Lastly, when the deus is complete, the functions of
the former numen become attributes or qualities, traces
of which we find in the pairs of deities in Gellius,
xiii. 23, which are discussed later on in this lecture.
Some of these, of course, eventually became separate
deities--Salacia, Maia, Lua. As I cannot accept the view
that the earliest Roman idea of the supernatural is to
be found in comprecationes of a comparatively late
period, i.e. in the so-called Indigitamenta, this
charmingly symmetrical account has no charm for me
beyond its symmetry.
 Henzen, Acta Fratr. Arv. pp. 144, 146; Cato,
R.R. 139; C.I.L. vi. 110 and 111. Other references
are given by Wissowa, R.K. p. 33, note 2.
 For Pales, R.F. p. 80 note; for Pomona, Wissowa,
R.K. p. 165.
 The passage runs thus (Aug. C.D. iv. 32):
"Dicit enim (Varro) de generationibus deorum magis ad
poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos, et
ideo et sexum et generationes deorum maiores suos (id
est veteres credidisse Romanos) et eorum constituisse
coniugia." There is an amusing passage in Lactantius, i.
17 (de Falsa Religione), which Dr. Frazer might read
with advantage. It begins, "Si duo sunt sexus deorum,
sequitur concubitus." Then he goes on mockingly to argue
that the gods must have houses, cities, lands which
they plough and sow, which proves them mortal. Finally
he takes the whole series of inferences backwards,
finishing with "si domibus carent, ergo et concubitu. Si
concubitus ab his abest, et sexus igitur foemineus,"
etc. All this, he means, can be inferred from the fact
that gods are of both sexes; but that they have
concubitus can no more be inferred from his argument
than that they plough and sow.
 Dr. Frazer conjectures a sacred marriage of
Jupiter and Juno under the forms of Janus and Diana, in
Kingship, p. 214; but he is well aware that it is pure
guesswork. There was, indeed, at Falerii such a marriage
of Juno with an unknown deity (Ovid, Amores, iii. 13),
of which, however, we do not know the history. Falerii
was one of those cities, like Praeneste, where Etruscan,
Greek, and Latin influences met. The "Orci nuptiae" on
which Frazer lays stress was simply the Greek marriage
of Pluto and Proserpine: "Orci coniux Proserpina," Aug.
C.D. vii. 23 and 28, Agahd, p. 152. Wissowa shows this
conclusively, R.K. p. 246. Orcus was Graecised as
Plutus, but was himself totally without personality.
 Dr. Frazer wrongly translates this as "ancient
prayers" (p. 411), adding "the highest possible
authority on the subject." Oratio is never used in
this sense until Christian times: the word is always
precatio. All scholars are agreed that what is meant
is invocations to deities in old speeches, such as occur
once or twice in Cicero (e.g. at the end of the
Verrines); cp. Livy xxix. 15. As the recording of
speeches cannot be assumed to have begun before the
third century B.C., this does not carry us very far
back. That century is also the age in which the
pontifices were probably most active in drawing up
comprecationes; see below, p. 285 foll.
 See Appendix B at end of volume.
 Cp. Ovid, Fasti, iii. 850, "forti sacrificare
deae." In R.F. p. 60 foll., I have criticised the
attempts, ancient and modern, to make this Nerio the
subject of myths.
 Macrob. i. 12. 18. This word Maiestas shows the
doubtful nature of these feminine names, and probably
betrays the real meaning of Maia. I may mention here
that Bellona instead of Nerio is ascribed as wife to
Mars by Seneca ap. Aug. C.D. vi. 10; also Venus to
Volcanus instead of Maia. Neither have any connection,
so far as we know, with the gods to whom Seneca ascribes
them as wives: Venus-Vulcan is, of course, Greek. Both
Augustine and Dr. Frazer might with advantage have
abstained from citing Seneca on such a point: as a
Spaniard by birth he was not likely to know much about
technical questions of Roman ritual.
 See Schanz, Gesch. der röm. Literatur, i. 274.
 In the Graeco-Roman age Mars seems to have been
rather a favourite subject of myth-making; see Usener's
article on Italian myths in Rhein. Mus. vol. xxx.;
Roscher in Myth. Lex. for works of Graeco-Etruscan
art in which he appears in certain mythical scenes.
 H. Jordan, quoted in R.F. p. 61 note. I relegate
to an appendix what needs to be said about the other
pairs of deities mentioned by Gellius.
 Leipzig, 1898, p. 7 foll.
 Wissowa, R.K. p. 168. Carter, op. cit. p. 21.
 See Buecheler, Umbrica, pp. 22 and 98.
 So Fides is usually explained, as originally
belonging to Jupiter (Wissowa, R.K. p. 103 foll.); but
a different view is taken by Harold L. Axtell in his
work on the Deification of Abstract Ideas at Rome
(Chicago, 1907), p. 20.
 In the Festschrift f. O. Hirschfeld, p. 243 foll.
 Religion of the Babylonians, introductory
 Op. cit. p. 412.
 L.L. v. 64.
 This fragment is No. 503 in Baehrens, Fragm.
 Lactantius, Div. inst. iv. 3.
 Crawley, The Tree of Life, p. 256; Farnell,
Evolution of Religion, p. 180; von Domaszewski,
Abhandlungen, p. 166, "Man ruft sie an im Gebete als
pater und mater zum Zeichen der Unterwerfung unter ihren
Willen, wie der Sohn dem Gebote des paterfamilias sich
fügt. Der sittlich strenge Gehorsam, der das
Familienleben der Römer beherrscht, die pietas, ist der
Sinn der römischen religio." Cp. also Appel, de Rom.
precationibus, pp. 102-3, who thinks that they regarded
the gods "velut patriarchas sive patres familias." He
quotes Preller-Jordan i. 55 and Dieterich, Eine
Mithrasliturgie, p. 142 sq. So too with mater--"velut
 The expression seems to mean "a father made for
the purpose of the embassy." Wissowa, R.K. p. 477,
 p. 19. This was written, it may be noted, several
years after Aust had thoroughly investigated the cult of
Jupiter for his article in the Mythological Lexicon;
in which cult, if anywhere, one may be tempted to see
evidence of a personal conception of deities. As Dr.
Frazer has referred to the cult of Jupiter at Praeneste,
to which I referred him as evidence of a possibly
personal conception of the god in that Latin city, I may
say here that I adhere to what I said about this in
R.F. p. 226 foll.; no piece of antique cult has
occupied my attention more than this, and I have tried
to lay open every source of confirmation or criticism.
Wissowa has expressed himself in almost exactly the same
terms in R.K. p. 209: we arrived at our conclusions
 Tertullian, ad Nationes 11, and de Anima, 37
foll.; Aug. de Civ. Dei, iv. passim, and especially
ch. xi.; R. Peter compiled a complete list (Myth.
Lex., s.v. "Indigitamenta," p. 143) from these and
 Aug. C.D. vii. 17. That this was what Varro
meant by di certi was first affirmed by Wissowa in a
note to his edition of Marquardt, p. 9; it has been
generally accepted as the true account. A full
discussion will be found in Agahd's edition of the
fragments of Varro's work, p. 126 foll.; cf. Peter's
article quoted above, and Wissowa, R.K. pp. 61 and 65.
A somewhat different view is given in Domaszewski's
article in Archiv for 1907, p. 1 foll., suggested by
 The evidence for this will be found in Marquardt's
note 4 on p. 9. I have no doubt that Wissowa is right in
explaining Indigitamenta as "Gebetsformeln," formulae of
invocation; in which the most important matter, we may
add, would be the name of the deity. See his Gesammelte
Abhandlungen, p. 177 foll. The Indigitamenta contained,
as one section, the invocations of di certi.
 Chiefly by Ambrosch in his Religionsbücher der
Römer. Peter's article contains a useful account of the
whole progress of research on this subject.
 Lex. p. 137; it was that of his master
Reifferscheid. Cp. Wissowa, op. cit. (Ges. Abhandl.
p. 306 foll.).
 R.F. pp. 191, 341.
 "The place of the Sondergötter in Greek
Polytheism," printed in Anthropological Essays
addressed to E. B. Tylor, p. 81. Usener's discussion of
the Roman and Lithuanian Sondergötter is in his
Götternamen, p. 73 foll.
 Wissowa writes (Ges. Abhandl. p. 320 note) that
he has reason to believe that a great number of the
Lithuanian Sondergötter only became such through the
treatment of the subject by the mediaeval writers on
whom Usener relied!
 Ges. Abhandl. p. 304 foll.
 Servius (Interpol.) ad Georg. i. 21.
 Henzen, Acta Fratr. Arv. p. 147; C.I.L. vi.
2099 and 2107.
 Op. cit. p. 323 foll.; for famuli and anculi
divi, Henzen, op. cit. p. 145.
 See above, p. 121.
 p. 312; cp. 320, where he further asserts his
belief that Varro is responsible himself for the
creation of a great number of these Sondergötter, owing
to his extreme desire to fix and define the function of
every deity in relation to human life; just as the
mediaeval writers Laskowski and Pretorius may have
created many Lithuanian Sondergötter. As I am not quite
clear on this point, I have not mentioned it in the
 Op. cit. p. 314, note 1. See above, note 33.
 e.g. Vaticanus, "qui infantum vagitibus
praesidet"; Rusina from rus; Consus from
 See above, p. 84.