In the mutilated note in Fast. Praen. given above. For Wissowa’s views as to the mistake of supposing Volcanus to have been a god of smiths, see above, p. 123 (May 23). Footnote 902: Ennius, _Fragm._ 5. 477; Virg. _Aen._ 5. 662. Footnote 903: _C. I. L._ vi. 826. Footnote 904: Liv. 24. 10. 9. Footnote 905: Vitruv. 1. 7. 1. Footnote 906: _Roman Questions_, xviii. Footnote 907: _de Aedibus sacris_, p. 47 foll. Footnote 908: What this was we do not really know: there were several of them (Preller, ii. 150). Footnote 909: Fest. 154, from Ateius Capito; Macrob. 1. 16. 17. Footnote 910: Plut. _Rom._ 11; Ovid, _Fasti_, 4. 821. Plutarch wrongly describes it as being in the Comitium. Footnote 911: This seems to be meant by Cato’s words quoted by Festus, l. c. ‘Mundo nomen impositum est ab eo mundo quod supra nos est ... eius inferiorem partem veluti consecratam dis Manibus clausam omni tempore nisi his diebus (i. e. the three above mentioned) maiores c[ensuerunt habendam], quos dies etiam religiosos judicaverunt.’ Footnote 912: Fest. 128. So Varro, ap. Macrob. 1. 16. 18 ‘Mundus cum patet, deorum tristium atque inferum ianua patet.’ _Lex._ s. v. Dis Pater, 1184; Preller, ii. 68. Footnote 913: Müller-Deecke, _Etrusker_, ii. 100. Plutarch is explicit: ἀπαρχαί τε πάντων, ὅσοις νόμῳ μὲν ὡς καλοῖς ἐχρῶντο, φύσει δὲ ὡς ἀναγκαίοις, ἀπετέθησαν ἐνταῦθα. See above on the Consualia for the practice of burying grain, &c. Footnote 914: Macrob. 1. 16. 17. For similar ideas in Greece see A. Mommsen, _Heortologie_, 345 foll. Footnote 915: _de Feriis_, vi. Footnote 916: Varro, _L. L._ 6. 21; Festus, 187. Footnote 917: Varro, _L. L._. 5. 57 and 64; Festus, 186; Macrob. 1. 10. 19. So Preller, ii. 20. The keen-sighted Ambrosch had, I think, a doubt about it (_Studien_, 149), and about the conjugal tie generally among Italian deities. See his note on p. 149. Footnote 918: Gell. 13. 23. Ops Toitesia (if the reading be right) of the Esquiline vase (Jordan in Preller, ii. 22) may be a combination of this kind (toitesia, conn. tutus?): cf. Ops opifera. Footnote 919: Wissowa himself goes so far as to say that male and female divinities were joined together ‘non per iustum matrimonium sed ex officiorum adfinitate,’ op. cit. vi. Footnote 920: Op. cit. vii.; Mommsen, _C. I. L._ 327 declines to follow him here. Footnote 921: _L. L._ 6. 20. The MSS. read Ope Consiva; so Mommsen in _C. I. L._ 327. Wissowa adopts the other form. Footnote 922: See Mommsen, l. c., and Marquardt, 212. Footnote 923: See on Vestalia above, p. 147, and Marq. 251. Footnote 924: Colum. 12 4. Cited in De Marchi, _Il Culto privato di Roma Antica_ (Milan, 1896), p. 56. See my paper in _Classical Review_ for Oct. 1896: vol. x. p. 317 foll. Footnote 925: _C. I. L._ 327. Footnote 926: Preller, ii. 142. Footnote 927: _Aen._ 8. 330. Footnote 928: