Val. Max. l. c. and Silvius’ _Calendar_. Footnote 1381: Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 623, Innocui veniant: procul hinc, procul impius esto Frater, et in partus mater acerba suos. Footnote 1382: Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 633-634. On such occasions the Lares were clothed in tunics girt at the loins; see a figure of a Lar on an altar from Caere in Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, vol. i. p. 77. Footnote 1383: _Fasti_, 2. 571 foll. Footnote 1384: Line 583. See Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Dea Muta. Footnote 1385: See e. g. Crooke, _Folklore of Northern India_, ch. 5 (the Black Art), and especially pp. 264 foll. Footnote 1386: See e. g. Leland, _Etruscan Roman remains in popular legend_, pp. 3 and 195 foll. Footnote 1387: The chief attempts are those of Unger, in _Rhein. Mus._, 1881, p. 50, and Mannhardt in his _Mythologische Forschungen_, pp. 72-155. The former is ingenious, but unsatisfactory in many ways; the latter conscientious, and valuable as a study in folk-lore, whether its immediate conclusions be right or wrong. See also Schwegler, _R. G._ i. 356 foll.; Preller, i. 387 foll.; and article s. v. in _Dict. of Antiquities_ (2nd edition); Marq. 442 foll. The ancient authorities are Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5, 79, 80; Ovid, _Fasti_, 2. 267 foll.; Plutarch, _Caes._ 61, _Rom._ 21; Val. Max. 2. 2. 9; Propert. 5. (4.) 1. 26; and many other passages which will be referred to when necessary. Footnote 1388: Dion. Hal. 1. 32. 5. Footnote 1389: Jordan, _Kritische Beiträge_, 164 foll. Unger’s attempt, after Serv. _Aen._ 8. 343. to derive the word from _luo_ (‘to purify’) is generally rejected. Footnote 1390: Wissowa, _Lex._ (s. v. Lupercus) takes the latter view, but rightly, as I think, rejects the deity. Footnote 1391: Virg. _Aen._ 8. 630 ‘Mavortis in antro.’ Roscher, in _Lex._ s. v. Mars, 2388; Preller, i. 334. Footnote 1392: Plut. _Rom_. 21. After mentioning the goats, he says, ἴδιον δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς τὸ καὶ κύνα θύειν τοὺς Δουπέρκους (cp. _Q. R._ iii). Footnote 1393: Marq. 165. See above, p. 110. Footnote 1394: So Val. Max. l.c. From Ovid’s version of the aetiological story of Romulus and Remus (_Fasti_, 2. 371 foll.) we might infer that the feasting took place after the running. Footnote 1395: ‘Cornipedi Fauno caesa de more capella’ (_Fasti_, 2. 361). Cp. 5. 101. So Plut. _Rom._ l. c. Footnote 1396: Livy, 1. 5. Unger (p. 71 foll.) has much to say about Inuus in the worst style of German pseudo-research. See _Lex._ s. v. (Steuding). Footnote 1397: Schwegler, i. 351 foll.; Justin, 43. 1. I had long ago arrived at this conclusion, and was glad to see it sanctioned by Wissowa in _Lex._ s. v. Lupercus. Footnote 1398: _Aen._ 8. 343: the only reason given is that the goat was Liber’s victim. Footnote 1399: Arnobius, 2. 23. See Mannhardt, 85; Huschke, _Röm. Jahr_, 12. Footnote 1400: