Aust, in _Lex._ 676. The idea is that of Helbig in his _Italiker in der Poebene_, 91 foll. Cp. Schwegler, _Röm. Gesch._ i. 681, and Preller, i. 248 foll. H. Nettleship, _Essays in Latin Literature_, p. 35, and Strachan-Davidson (Polybius, _Prolegomena_, viii) discuss the oath _per Iovem lapidem_ usefully. Nettleship saw that the passage of Servius is the only one which ‘gives any real support’ to the notion that the god was represented by a stone; and Strachan-Davidson notes the aetiological method of Servius. Footnote 999: Cp. his note on the ‘sceptrum’ (_Aen._ 12. 206), which he explains as being the substitute for a ‘simulacrum’ of Jupiter. Was this ‘simulacrum’ a stone? If so he would have said so. Obviously he knew little or nothing about these cult-objects. Footnote 1000: _de Civ. Dei_ 2. 29. S. Augustine couples it with the focus Vestae, as something well known: and this could not be said at that time of any object in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius. The epithet Capitolinus would suit the stone of Terminus far better; and this is, in fact, made almost certain by Servius’ language when speaking of Virgil’s ‘Capitoli immobile saxum’ (_Aen._ 9. 448), which he identifies with the ‘lapidem ipsum Termini.’ Doubtless if we could be sure that such a stone existed, we might guess that it was an aerolite (Strachan-Davidson, p. 76, who quotes examples). Footnote 1001: So Nettleship, l. c.: and Strachan-Davidson, l. c. Footnote 1002: He quotes Plin. _N. H._ 37. 135 ‘cerauniae nigrae rubentesque et similes securibus.’ Footnote 1003: Communicated to Mr. Strachan-Davidson, and mentioned by him in a note (op. cit. p. 77). An instance in Retzel, _History of Mankind_, vol. i. p. 175. The other suggestion, that it was a meteoric stone, is also quite possible: for Greek examples, see Schömann, _Griech. Alterthümer_, ii. 171 foll. Footnote 1004: Liv. 30. 43. Footnote 1005: We may compare the ‘orbita’ of the cult of Jupiter Sancius at Iguvium: Bücheler, _Umbrica_, 141. See above, p. 139. Footnote 1006: It may be as well to say, before leaving the subject, that I certainly agree with Mr. Strachan-Davidson that the ordinary oath, ‘per Iovem lapidem,’ where the swearer throws the stone away from him (described by Polybius, 3. 25), has nothing to do with the ritual of the Fetials. Footnote 1007: Festus, p. 2. Cp. 128, where this stone is distinguished from the other, which was the ‘ostium Orci.’ Serv. _Aen._ 3. 175. Footnote 1008: Serv. l. c. Marquardt, and Aust following him, add the matrons with bare feet and the magistrates without their praetexta: but this rests on the authority of Petronius (_Sat._ 44), who surely is not writing of Rome, where the ceremony was only a tradition, to judge by Fest. p. 2. Footnote 1009: Varro, _L. L._ 6. 94. Footnote 1010: