Preller, ii. 273, and Jordan’s note. In M. Gaidoz’s _Études de Mythologie Gauloise_, i. 64, will be found figures of a hand holding a wheel, from Bar-le-Duc (the wrist thrust through one of the holes), which may possibly explain the _urfita_, and which he connects with the Celtic sun-god. In this connexion we may notice the large series of Umbrian and Etruscan coins with the six-rayed wheel-symbol (Mommsen, _Münzwesen_, 222 foll.), which, as Professor Gardner tells me, is more probably a sun-symbol than merely the chariot-wheel convenient for unskilful coiners. Footnote 564: 8. 20. Footnote 565: For the bird, Plin. _N. H._ 10. 20; Festus, 197 s. v. _oscines_, and 317 (_sanqualis avis_). Bouché-Leclercq, _Hist. de la Divination_, iv. 200. For the gate cp. Paulus, 345, with Liv. 8. 20; Jordan, _Topogr._ ii. 264. Footnote 566: Liv. 41. 13, with Weissenborn’s note. The stone was perhaps the same as one which had shortly before fallen into the grove of Mars at Crustumerium (41. 9). Footnote 567: _C. I. L._ vi. 567. 568; and _Bull. dell’Inst._, 1881, p. 38 foll. (This last with a statue, which, however, may not belong to it: Jordan’s note on Preller, ii. 273.) Wilmanns, _Exempla Inscr. Lat._ 1300. Footnote 568: Marq. 263; B.-Leclercq, iv. 51 foll. The Scholiast on Persius, 2. 27, is explicit on the point. But Deecke, in a note to Müller’s _Etrusker_ (ii. 275) doubts the connexion of the _decuria_ with _bidental = puteal_. Footnote 569: Festus, s. v. Scribonianum (p. 333: the restoration can hardly be wrong) ‘[quia ne]fas est integi, semper ibi forami[ne aper]to caelum patet.’ Footnote 570: _L. L._ 5. 66 ‘ut ea videatur divum, id est caelum.’ He connects the word _divum_ with _Dius_ Fidius. See Jordan in the collection of essays ‘in honorem Th. Mommseni,’ p. 369. Footnote 571: Martianus Capella, 1. 45 (p. 47 in Eyssenhardt’s edition). See Nissen’s explanation in _Das Templum_, p. 184, and plate iv. In this account Jupiter occupies the chief place: Sancus is there, alone in the 12th _regio_. But doubt has been cast on Nissen’s view by the discovery of an actual representation of the _caeli templum_ (see Aust, in _Lex._ s. v. Iupiter, 668). Footnote 572: Dionys. 4. 58. In 9. 60 he says that this temple was only vowed by Tarquinius, and not dedicated till 466 B.C. (Aust, _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 6); but there must have been a still earlier sanctuary of some kind (Livy writes of a _sacellum_, 8. 20. 8). Dionysius is interesting and explicit; he calls Dius Fidius Ζεὺς Πίστιος, and adds the name Σάγκος. The treaties next in date, those with Carthage, were kept in the aedilium thesaurus, close to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (Polyb. 3. 22; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. 1 (ed. 2) 481 note). Here we seem to see the authority of the ancient Dius Fidius already losing ground. Footnote 573: