_L. L._ 5. 85 ‘Salii a salitando, quod facere in comitio in sacris quotannis et solent et debent.’
i. p. 81 (Keil). Why the _Comitium_ was the scene does not appear. Preller has suggested a reason (i. 364), which is by no means convincing.
It was adopted by Usener (p. 222, note 6), but has obtained no further support. For another curious etymology of the latter part of the word _latrus_, which, however, does not assist us here, see Deecke, _Falisker_, p. 90 (_Dies ater = dies alter = postridie_).
Festus, 254 ‘Quinquatrus appellari quidam putant a numero dierum qui fere his (? feriis iis) celebrantur: qui scilicet errant tam hercule quam qui triduo Saturnalia, et totidem diebus Compitalia; nam omnibus his singulis diebus fiunt sacra. Forma autem vocabuli eius exemplo multorum populorum Italicorum enuntiata est, quod post diem quintum Iduum est is dies festus, ut apud Tusculanos Triatrus,’ &c.
Wissowa, _op. cit._ viii. We find one in April, between the Fordicidia (April 15) and Cerialia (April 19).
Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 809 ‘Una dies media est, et fiunt sacra Minervae,’ &c.
Caelius ex alto qua mons descendit in aequum, Hic ubi non plana est sed prope plana via, Parva licet videas Captae delubra Minervae Quae dea natali coepit habere suo.
As from the note in Praen. we learn that March 19 was also the dedication-day of Minerva on the Aventine, there must either be a confusion between the two, or both had the same foundation-day. About the day of Minerva Capta there is no doubt; for that of Minerva on the Aventine see Aust, _de Aedibus_, p. 42.
Preller, i. 342; Usener, _Rh. Mus._, xxx. 221; Roscher, _Myth. Lex._ s. v. Mars, 2410; _Lyd. de Mens._ 4. 42; Gell. 13. 23 (from _Gellii Annales_) is the _locus classicus_ for Nerio.
Nerio gen. Nerienis (Gell. l. c., who compares Anio Anienis).
Ovid, _Fasti_, 3. 850: ‘_forti_ sacrificare deae,’ though clearly meant to refer to Minerva, is thought to be a reminiscence of a characteristic of Nerio (‘the strong one’), attached to her supplanter.
H. Jordan expressed a somewhat different view in his _Symbolae ad hist. Ital. religionum alterae_, p. 9. He thinks that ‘volgari opinione hominum feminini numinis cum masculo coniunctionem non potuisse non pro coniugali aestimari.’ But this would seem to imply that the _opinio volgaris_ was a mistaken one: and if so, how should it have arisen but under Greek influence?