[1479]. Ovid, l. c. 671.
[1480]. See above, p. [140]. Varro, L. L. 5. 66.
[1481]. Plut. Q. R. 28.
[1482]. Ambrosch, Studien, 199 foll.
[1483]. It would exactly correspond to the spot of sacred ground on which the terminus-stone stood between two properties (Rudorff, l. c). In the latter case, it is worth noting, the sacrifices and sacrificers are doubles, as with the Salii, Luperci, &c, of the two Roman settlements. Mr. Granger (Worship of the Romans, 163) suggests that this stone was ‘a relic from the original dwellers by the Tiber,’ i.e. pre-Roman. But the question is, How did the Romans come to associate it with Terminus?
[1484]. Fasti, 2. 685 foll. He is probably following Varro and common opinion, which latter Verrius refers to (Paul. 279) ‘Regifugium sacrum dicebant, quo die rex Tarquinius fugerit e Roma.’ The word dicebant seems to show that this was not Verrius’ own opinion.
[1485]. C. I. L. i. 289. This gloss is no doubt the equivalent in Festus to that of Paulus just quoted; but the leading word Regifugium is lost. I have only quoted so much as is needed for our purpose. For other completions of the gloss see Müller, Festus, l. c, and Huschke, Röm. Jahr, p. 166.
[1486]. If this gloss really refers to Feb. 24, the presence of the Salii is difficult to account for, as their period of activity begins in March. Frazer in an interesting note (G. B. ii. 210) suggests that the use of the Salii was to drive away evil demons; if the Regifugium was a solemn piaculum, and the victim a scapegoat, this explanation might serve for Feb. 24.
[1487]. Röm. Jahr, 166 foll.
[1488]. L. L. 6. 31, where Hirschfeld has conjectured ‘litat ad comitium’ for the MS. ‘dicat.’