^{page 57 note 1} There can be little doubt that macte is the vocative of mactus. This is the view of the Thesaurus and of Leumann-Hofmann p. 405. Birt (Rh. M. 77, 199 ff.) has made a laborious attempt to prove that there are two forms: mactē with esse, an adverb of the type of bine sum (this, incidentally, was Nettleship's, view, Contributions p. 520)Google Scholar, and mactê without the verb. Birt claims to have cut through all difficulties with this Alexandrian stroke; but doubts are aroused by the fact that he has to alter the accepted punctuation of Cicero ad Att. XV 29, 3, insert an esto in Cicero Tusc. 1 40, make a verse and avoid a translation of Trag. incert. 231 [age propera macte nitier). None of his quotations from the early poets prove a spondaic value for macte (as he himself recognizes), but he counters this with the remark that a trochaic value is not proved either. But in fact Vergil Aen. IX. 641 is the earliest passage in Roman literature where the quantity is beyond doubt: macte nova virtute fuer. This is the obstacle which Birt surmounts with Roman diplomacy–divide et impera. We feelthat we cannot agree with his own conclusion ‘Es hindert nichts, meiner Auffassung zu folgen’. Kroll, (Glotta, 19, 283 f.)Google Scholar has made this view still more unconvincing by pointing out that it is improbable that an adverb macte was formed at so early a date; aucte occurs first in the fourth century.

^{page 57 note 2} So also Fowler, Warde (op. cit. p. 184)Google Scholar: ‘undoubtedly Servius has made a mistake here’

^{page 58 note 1} Note that magmentnm merely means ‘an offering’. We quote Meillet-Ernout on this word: ‘offrande (supplémentaire, sens développé sous l'influence de magis; cf. Varr, . L.L. 5. 112Google Scholar: Cornutus définit justement le mot “quicquid mactatur”, cf. Thes. Gloss, emend.), offerte aux dieux’.

^{page 58 note 2} This semantic development is explained by the significance which sprinkling has in ritual and in magical operations. On this subject see Eitrem op. cit. index sub besprengen.

^{page 59 note 1} Eitrem, (op. cit. p. 428)Google Scholar observes that the worship of the Lares also shows traces of blood offerings: ‘man darf annehmen, dass der Libation mit reinem Wein äffers ein Libieren mit Blut als ältere der Entwickelung vorausging’. It is remarkable that this author, who has many illuminating pages on the cult of the dead and the ritual substitution of wine for blood, makes no comment on vinum inferium. I have searched the pages of Warde Fowler, Bailey and others in vain for enlightenment on this phrase, which is remarkable both for the frequency with which it is attested and for the antiquity of its usage. Why should the rites of Jupiter Dapalis and Janus involve the use of vinum INFERIUM?

^{page 60 note 1} I would not suggest that Cicero was aware that macto bad this meaning ‘to sprinkle’. He was undoubtedly merely using an archaic phrase from ritual vocabulary without any clear realization of its meaning. Otherwise it might be legitimately pointed out that it was not the feriae Latinae which were sprinkled, but the participants. The juxtaposition of lustrasti makes it clear that Cicero understood the phrase to mean ‘you purified with milk’. Such a semantic progression is both easy and natural.

^{page 61 note 1} It is remarkable that in the ancient formulae quoted by Cato macte and macto are nowhere used of the slaughtering of an animal. Where such a sacrifice takes place the word used is immolare (e.g. 134, 1). This fact is all the more striking in that Servius on Aen. IV, 57 remarks: verbum sacrorum κατ' εὐφημισμ⋯ν dicitur; hostiae immolatae dicebantur mola salsa tactae; cum veroictae et aliquid ex illis in aram datum, mactatae dicebantur per boni ominis significationem. The relative chronology of the development of immolare and mactare is interesting. Even in the traditional prayers preserved in Cato immolare has taken on the general meaning ‘sacrifice’. Servius here contradicts observed usage; but doubtless he is again etymologizing, though this time correctly. But macto in the sense we have postulated would certainly be a euphemism for ‘to slaughter’. The ritual of immolatio is described by Wissowa, (op.cit. p. 417)Google Scholar: ‘die von dem ausführendem Magistrat oder Priester vollzogene Opferhandlung geht in drei Abschnitten vor sich: der Opfernde bringt zunächst auf dem Feuerherd die Vorspende von Weihrauch und Wein dar (ture et vino in igne in focula fecit), sodann sprichter das eigentliche Opfergebet (Cato, de agr. 141Google Scholar) und vollzieht die immolatie (immolavit vino mola cultroque), d.h. er besprengt das Opfertier mit Wein, bestreut es mit mola salsa und zieht mit dem flach gehaltenen Opfermesser einen Strich vom Kopfe bis zum Schwanze des Tieres'. We see here that the word immolare has already so far progressed in meaning that it can be used with vinum and culter as well as with mola, where it is alone etymologically justified. Thus there are three distinct operations characterized by the verb immolare. It is probable that originally each separate ritual act had its own technical term. In view of Servius' evidence we suggest that mactus, macto originally referred to the sprinkling of the victim with blood or wine.