p. p. 162.) His
explanations are different in detail from mine, but rest on the same
general principle that the names Salacia, etc., indicate functions or
attributes of the male deity to whom they are attached.

[1010] For the taboo on such spoils, and their
destruction, see M. S. Reinach's interesting paper
"Tarpeia," in _Cultes, mythes, et religions_, iii. 221
foll.

APPENDIX IV

(LECTURE VIII., PAGE 169 FOLL.) IUS AND FAS

In historical times the two kinds of _ius_, _divinum_ and _humanum_,
were strongly distinguished (see Wissowa, _R.K._ p. 318, who quotes
Gaius ii. 2: "summa itaque rerum divisio in duos articulos diducitur,
nam aliae sunt divini iuris, aliae humani"). But it is almost certain
that there was originally no such clear distinction. The general opinion
of historians of Roman law is thus expressed by Cuq (_Institutions
juridiques des Romains_, p. 54): "Le droit civil n'a eu d'abord qu'une
portee fort restreinte. Peu a peu il a gagne du terrain, il a entrepris
de reglementer des rapports qui autrefois etaient du domaine de la
religion. Pendant longtemps a Rome le droit theocratique a coexiste avec
le droit civil." (See also Muirhead, _Introduction to Roman Law_, ed.
Goudy, p. 15.) Possibly the formation of an organised calendar, marking
off the days belonging to the deities from those which were not so made
over to them, first gave the opportunity for the gradual realisation of
the thought that the set of rules under which the citizen was
responsible to the divine beings was not exactly the same as that under
which he was responsible to the civil authorities. The distinction took
many ages to realise in all its aspects, and is not complete even under
the XII. Tables or later, because the sanction for civil offences
remained in great part a divine one; on this point Jhering is certainly
wrong (_Geist des roem. Rechts_, i. 267 foll.). As Cuq remarks (p. 54,
note 1), one institution of the _ius divinum_ kept its force after the
complete secularisation of law, and retains it to this day, viz. the
oath.

If there was originally no distinction between religious and civil rules
of law, it follows that there were originally no two distinguishing
terms for them. The earliest passage in which they are distinguished as
_ius divinum_ and _humanum_ (so far as I know) is Cicero's speech for
Sestius (B.C. 56), sec. 91, quoted by Wissowa, p. 319: "domicilia
coniuncta quas urbes dicimus, _in