[910]. Plut. Rom. 11; Ovid, Fasti, 4. 821. Plutarch wrongly describes it as being in the Comitium.
[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.’
[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.
[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.
[914]. Macrob. 1. 16. 17. For similar ideas in Greece see A. Mommsen, Heortologie, 345 foll.
[915]. de Feriis, vi.
[916]. Varro, L. L. 6. 21; Festus, 187.
[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.
[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.
[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.