ainly implies that they were husband and wife, and that this is
affirmed by Augustine, Seneca, and Servius. The accumulation of evidence
seems strong; but Varro implies nothing of the kind (_L.L._ v. 72). He
is indulging in fancy etymologies, and derives Neptunus from _nubere_,
"quod mare terras obnubit ut nubes caelum, ab nuptu id est opertione ut
antiqui, a quo nuptiae, nuptus dictus." If he had meant to make Salacia
wife of Neptunus, this last sentence would surely have suggested it; but
he goes on after a full stop, "Salacia Neptuni a salo." It is only the
later writers, ignorant of the real nature of Roman religious ideas, who
make Salacia into a wife. It is worth noting that Varro adds another
feminine deity in his next sentence, Venilia, whom Virgil makes the
mother of Turnus (_Aen._ x. 76); and Servius, commenting on this line,
goes one better, and says she was identical with Salacia. Perhaps both
were sea or water spirits, connected with Neptunus as _famulae_ or
_anculae_ (see Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 19), but they are lost to us, and
speculation is useless. In _R.F._ p. 186, I suggested an explanation of
Salacia which I am disposed to withdraw. But for anyone wishing to study
the treatment of old Roman _numina_ by the mythologists and philosophers
of the Graeco-Roman period, I would recommend an attentive reading of
the whole chapter of Augustine from which Dr. Frazer quotes a few words
(_C.D._ vii. 22); and further a careful study of the Graeco-Roman
methods of fabricating myths about Roman divine names, for which he will
do well to read the passages referred to by Wissowa in _R.K._ pp. 250
and 251, and notes.

Lastly, comes Maia Volcani. Here for once we get a fact of cult, which
is a relief, after the loose and reckless statements of non-Roman and
Christian writers. The flamen Volcanalis sacrificed to Maia on May 1st,
which proves that there was a real and not a fancied connection between
Volcanus and Maia, but certainly not that they were husband and wife.
Dr. Frazer, however, quotes Cincius "on the _Fasti_" as (ap. Macrob. i.
12. 18) stating this, and refers us to Schanz's _Gesch. der roem. Lit._
for information about him. In the second edition of that work he will
find a discussion of the very doubtful question as to whether the
Cincius he quotes is the person whom he asserts him to be, viz., the
annalist of the second Punic War. The writer of the article "Cincius" in
Pauly-Wissowa _Real-Encycl._ is very confid