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: