[163] The controversy about the Lar may be read in the _Archiv fuer Religionswissenschaft_, 1904, p. 42 foll. (Wissowa), and 1907, p. 368 foll. (Samter in reply). De Marchi (_La Religione_, etc. i. 28 foll.) takes the same view as Samter, who originally stated it in his _Familienfesten_, p. 105 foll., in criticism of Wissowa's view. See also a note by the author in the _Archiv_, 1906, p. 529. [164] Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 148; the details as to the altar occur in _Gromatici vet._ i. 302. It was on this occasion that _maniae_ and _pilae_ were hung on the house and compitum ("pro foribus," Macr. i. 7. 35); see above, p. 61. For the _religio Larium_, Cic. _de Legg._, ii. 19 and 27. That the Compitalia was an old Latin festival is undoubted; but as we are uncertain about the exact nature of the earliest form of landholding, we cannot be sure about the nature of the compita in remote antiquity. The passage from the _Gromatici_ (Dolabella), quoted above, refers to the _fines templares_ of _possessiones_, _i.e._ the boundaries marked by these chapels in estates of later times. See Rudorff in vol. ii. p. 263; Wissowa in Pauly-Wissowa, _s.v._ "Compitum." [165] Varro, _L.L._ vi. 26. I have discussed this passage in _R.F._ p. 294; it is still not clear to me whether Varro is identifying his Paganicae with the Sementivae, but on the whole I think he uses the latter word of a city rite (_dies a pontificibus dictus_), and the former of the country festivals of the same kind. [166] _Fasti_, i. 663. [167] _Cl. Rev._, 1908, p. 36 foll. [168] _Georg._ i. 338 foll. [169] See my discussion of Faunus in _R.F._ p. 258 foll. I am still unable to agree with Wissowa in his view of Faunus (_R.K._ p. 172 foll.). I may here mention a passage of the gromatic writer Dolabella (_Gromatici_, i. 302), in which he says that there were three Silvani to each _possessio_ or large estate of later times: "S. domesticus, possessioni consecratus: alter agrestis, pastoribus consecratus: tertius orientalis, cui est in confinio lucus positus, a quo inter duo pluresque fines oriuntur." Faunus never became domesticated, but he belongs to the same type as Silvanus. Von Domaszewski, in his recently published _Abhandlungen zur roem. Religion_, p. 61, discredits the passage about the three Silvani, following a paper of Mommsen. But his whole interesting discussion of Silvanus shows well how many different forms that curious semi-deity could take. [170] _Odes_, iii. 18. [171] Cic. _de Inventione_, ii. 161. [172] pp. 236-284. [173] _R.F._ 325, condensed from Siculus Flaccus (_Gromatici_, i. 141). [174] _Fasti_, ii. 641 foll. [175] See, _e.g._, Jevons, _Introduction_, etc., p. 138; Robertson Smith, _Semites_, p. 321.