[20]. Macr. 1. 16. 14. Cp. the mutilated note of Verrius in Fasti Praenestini (Jan. 3).
[21]. Gell. 4. 9. 5. Varro, L. L. 6. 29. 30.
[22]. Livy, 6. 1. 11. Macrob. i. 16. 22.
[23]. Festus 165. See Mommsen’s restoration of the passage in C. I. L. 290 B.; another, less satisfactory, in Huschke, Röm. Jahr, 240.
[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.
[25]. Fasti Praen., Jan. 10. Varro, L. L. 6. 31. Maer. 1. 16. 3.
[26]. For the names of the fragments of Fasti, see next section.
[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that the Fasti had been already published in one of the last two of the Twelve Tables, and subsequently again withdrawn.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.)
[28]. Macrob. 1. 12. 16.
[29]. C. I. L. 207 B. Petronius (Cena 30) suggests the way in which copies might be set up in private houses. In municipia copies might be made and given to the town by private persons (so probably were Maff. and Praen.) or put up by order of the decuriones.