Plutarch · a new plain-English translation from the Greek
Why do they command the bride to touch fire and water? Is it because these two, as elements and first principles, represent the one the male and the other the female, and the one introduces the principles of motion while the other supplies the power of the underlying substance and matter? Or is it because fire purifies and water cleanses, and the woman who has been married must remain pure and undefiled? Or is it that, just as fire without moisture is unnourished and dry, while water without heat is barren and inert, so too the male is powerless and the female powerless apart from each other, and it is their union that brings about, for those who marry, a shared life together? Or rather, is it that neither partner must be abandoned, and each must share every fortune with the other, even if the only things they are ever to share are fire and water? Why do they light not more, and not fewer, but five torches at weddings, torches which they call "keriones"? Is it, as Varro used to say, because three praetors were employed, and with the aediles more still, and it is from the aediles that those who marry take their fire — or rather is it because, of the numbers in use, the odd number was thought better and more perfect for other purposes and also more fitting for marriage? For the even number admits division, and its equal parts are contentious and opposed to one another, whereas the odd number cannot be split apart completely but always leaves something over, being divided in common. And of the odd numbers the five is especially nuptial, for three is the first odd number and two the first even number, and from these, as it were from male and female, the number five is compounded. Or rather, is it because light is a sign of birth, and a woman by nature bears at most five children at a single birth, that they use that many torches? Or is it because they think that those who marry need five gods — Zeus Teleios ("of Fulfillment") and Hera Teleia, and Aphrodite, and Peitho ("Persuasion"), and above all Artemis, whom women invoke in the pains and travails of childbirth? Why is it that, though there are many temples of Artemis in Rome, men do not enter only the one in the street called the Street of the Patrician? Is it on account of the story that is told — that a woman who was worshipping the goddess there was assaulted by a man and torn apart by dogs, and that ever since, out of the superstitious fear arising from this, men do not enter? Why is it that on the other temples of Artemis they commonly nail up the antlers of deer, but on the one on the Aventine, the horns of oxen? Is it in remembrance of the ancient event? For it is said that among the Sabines, a cow of surpassing appearance and size beyond all others was born to a man named Antron Coratius; and when a certain seer told him that it was fated that whoever should sacrifice that cow to Artemis on the Aventine would become greatest and would rule over the whole of Italy, the man came to Rome intending to sacrifice the cow. But a servant secretly disclosed the prophecy to King Servius, and Servius disclosed it to Cornelius the priest; and Cornelius instructed Antron to bathe before the sacrifice in the Tiber, since it was the custom for those making the sacrifice favorably to do so. Antron accordingly went off to bathe, but Servius, forestalling him, sacrificed the cow to the goddess and nailed its horns up in the temple. This story is related both by Juba and by Varro, except that Varro does not record the name of Antron, and says that the Sabine was tricked not by Cornelius the priest but by the temple warden. Why is it that those who have been falsely reported to have died abroad, even if they return, are not received in through the door, but climb up onto the roof-tile and are let down inside? Varro gives an entirely mythical explanation for this. He says that during the war in Sicily, after a great naval battle, a false report spread that many men had died; and that when these men returned home a short time later, they all in fact died soon afterward, except for one man, for whom, as he was entering, the doors met him closed of their own accord and would not yield however hard they tried to open them. This man, falling asleep before the doors, saw in his dreams a vision instructing him to be let down into the house over the roof; having done this, he lived to a happy and prosperous old age, and from this the custom was established for those who came after. Consider, however, whether this custom in some way resembles Greek practice as well: for the Greeks did not consider such men pure, nor did they mix with them, nor allow them near sacred things, since a funeral procession and burial had already taken place for them as though they were dead. It is said that one of those affected by this superstition, Aristinus, sent to Delphi to beg the god's help and to be released from the difficulties the law imposed on him; and the Pythia replied that whatever a woman undergoes in childbed when giving birth, he must undergo again, and then sacrifice to the blessed gods. So Aristinus, understanding the oracle, presented himself to the women as though he were newly born, to be washed and swaddled and given the breast, and did this, and so too did all the others afterward who were called "those born again after their proper time." Some say, however, that this practice concerning such men existed even before Aristinus, and that the custom is an ancient one. It is therefore no wonder that the Romans too thought that men who were regarded as having already been buried once, and as belonging to the company of the dead, ought not to pass through the courtyard door, sacrificing as they go out and sacrificing as they come in, but were instead ordered to come down from above into the open air out from under a roof — for indeed they perform virtually all their rites of purification in the open air. Why do women kiss their male relatives on the mouth? Is it, as most people suppose, because it was forbidden for women to drink wine, so that if they had been drinking they would not go unnoticed but would be caught out by their relatives when they met them, and so the custom of kissing arose? Or is it for the reason that the philosopher Aristotle records? That much-told story, which is said to have happened in many places, seems indeed to have been dared also by the Trojan women in Italy. For when the men had put ashore, the women burned the ships, wanting above all to be free of their wandering and their fear of the sea; but fearing the men's anger, they greeted their relatives and kinsmen with kisses and embraces as they met them. And when the men's anger subsided and they were reconciled, the women continued ever after to use this same show of affection toward them. Or rather, was this given to the women as conferring both honor and a kind of power for them, if they could be seen to have many good relatives and kinsmen? Or was it that, since it was not the custom to marry blood relations, the show of affection extended only as far as a kiss, and this alone was left as a token and shared mark of kinship? For in earlier times they did not marry those related by blood, just as even now they do not marry aunts or sisters; it was only later that they allowed marriage with cousins, and for the following reason: a man who was poor in money but otherwise of good character and well liked by the people among all those active in politics was thought to have married his cousin, an heiress, and to have grown wealthy from her; and when he was accused on this charge, the people, setting aside the need to prove the accusation, dismissed the charge, and voted that everyone should be permitted to marry as far as the degree of cousins, but that marriage with closer relations should remain forbidden. Why is it forbidden for a husband to accept a gift from his wife, and a wife from her husband? Is it, as Solon wrote making gifts by the dying valid unless someone is compelled by necessity or persuaded by a woman — thus excluding necessity as involving force, and pleasure as involving deception — that gifts between wives and husbands came to be viewed with similar suspicion? Or was it because they considered giving the poorest sign of goodwill — since even strangers give gifts, and people who are merely fond of one another — that they abolished this kind of currying favor from marriage, so that being loved and loving might be without price, freely given, and for its own sake and not for any other reason? Or was it because, since women corrupted by receiving gifts are especially prone to welcome strangers, it seemed a mark of dignity to love one's own without giving gifts? Or rather is it because a husband and wife's possessions ought to be held in common, husband's and wife's alike — for the one who receives a gift learns to consider whatever is not given to be someone else's, so that by giving small things to each other they would in effect be taking away the whole? Why is it forbidden for a bride and groom to accept a gift from a father-in-law or mother-in-law? Is it that from a father-in-law, so that the gift should not seem to pass to the wife by way of her husband's father? And from a mother-in-law, because it seemed just that one who does not give should not receive either? Why is it that, whether returning from the countryside or from abroad, men who have wives at home send word ahead to let them know they are coming? Is it because this is a mark of trusting that one's wife is doing nothing amiss, whereas to arrive suddenly and unexpectedly is like setting a trap and keeping watch on her? Or do they hurry to bring the good news of their arrival to wives who they suppose are longing for and expecting them? Or rather, is it that they themselves are eager to learn about their wives — whether they will find them safe at home and longing for them? Or is it that wives, in their husbands' absence, are occupied with more household management and business, and with disputes and impulses directed at those within the household, so that the advance notice is given in order that, once free of these matters, she may offer her husband a welcome that is untroubled and pleasant? Why is it that when men worship the gods they cover their heads, but when they meet with men who deserve honor, even if they happen to have their cloak over their head, they uncover it? This last fact seems to intensify that same puzzle. Now if the story told about Aeneas is true — that when Diomedes was passing by, he covered his head and completed the sacrifice — this makes sense, and it follows that covering oneself before enemies goes along with uncovering oneself when meeting friends and good men; for the practice toward the gods is not distinctive in itself but a matter of coincidence, and it has persisted as an observance from that time on. But if some other explanation must be given, consider that one need not seek only why men cover their heads when worshipping the gods — the other practice follows from it. For men uncover their heads before those more powerful than themselves, not so as to add to their honor but rather to take away their envy, so that they may not seem to be demanding the same honors as the gods, nor to tolerate or take pleasure in being served in the same way as the gods. And they used to worship the gods in this fashion either humbling themselves by covering the head, or rather, being wary lest some ill-omened and inauspicious sound from outside should fall upon them as they prayed, they drew the cloak up over their ears; for that they guarded strictly against this is clear from the fact that those who approach for divination surround themselves with the clashing noise of bronze vessels. Or, as Castor says, associating Roman practice with Pythagorean teaching, the divine spirit within us has need of the gods outside and supplicates them, and by the covering of the head hints at the enclosure and separation of the soul by the body. Why do they sacrifice to Saturn with the head uncovered? Is it because Aeneas handed down the practice of covering the head, while the sacrifice to Saturn is far more ancient? Or is it that men cover their heads before the heavenly gods, while they consider Saturn a god of the underworld and the earth? Or is it that nothing of truth is hidden or overshadowed, and the Romans believe Saturn to be the father of truth? Why do they consider Saturn the father of truth? Is it, as some philosophers hold, that they think Saturn to be time, and time discovers what is true? Or is it that the life mythically ascribed to the age of Saturn, if it was indeed most just, is likely to have had the greatest share of truth? Why do they also sacrifice to the god called Honos with the head uncovered — Honos being a name one might translate as "reputation" or "honor"? Is it because reputation is bright and conspicuous and open to view, and for the same reason that they uncover their heads before good men who are honored, they also worship in this manner the god named for that same honor? Why is it that at funerals sons carry out their parents with heads covered, while daughters do so with heads bare and hair unbound? Is it that fathers ought to be honored by their sons as gods, but mourned by their daughters as the dead, the law thereby assigning to each what is proper and, from the two together, producing what is fitting? Or is it that what belongs to mourning is what is not customary, and it is more customary for women to go out in public with heads covered, and for men with heads uncovered? For among the Greeks too, when some misfortune occurs, the women cut their hair while the men let it grow long, because for the one sex cutting the hair and for the other letting it grow is the custom. Or was it thought fitting that sons should cover their heads for the reason already given — for indeed at tombs, as Varro says, men turn themselves about, honoring their fathers' monuments as they would sacred shrines of the gods, and after cremating their parents, as soon as they come upon a bone, they say that the dead one has become a god — while women were not permitted to cover their heads at all? It is recorded, at any rate, that the first man to divorce his wife was Spurius Carvilius, on the grounds of childlessness; the second was Sulpicius Gallus, who saw his wife drawing her cloak up over her head; and the third was Publius Sempronius, who divorced his wife for watching a funeral games. Why is it that, though they regard Terminus, to whom they celebrate the Terminalia, as a god, they used to sacrifice no living creature to him? Is it because Romulus set no boundaries for the territory, so that it should be possible to advance and to seize land and consider as one's own whatever a spear could reach, as the Spartan said; whereas Numa Pompilius, a just man, a statesman, and one who had become a philosopher, marked out the land in relation to their neighbors, and having assigned the name Terminus to the boundaries as an overseer and guardian of friendship and peace, thought it right to keep him pure and undefiled by blood and slaughter? Why is the shrine of Leukothea forbidden to slave women, while the women who bring in a single one strike and slap her on the cheek? Is it that this woman's being struck is a token symbol of the fact that others are not permitted to enter, while the others are kept out on account of the myth? For it is said that Ino, out of jealousy over a slave woman on account of her husband, was driven mad in her fury against her own son; and the Greeks say the slave woman was Aetolian by birth and was called Antiphera. This is why, among us too, at Chaeronea, before the shrine of Leukothea, the temple warden takes up a whip and proclaims, "Let no male slave enter, nor female slave, no Aetolian man nor Aetolian woman." Why is it that at the shrine of this goddess they do not pray for good things for their own children, but for those of their sisters? Is it that Ino was fond of her sister and nursed her sister's child, while she herself was unfortunate in regard to her own children? Or is it, quite apart from this, that the custom is a moral and admirable one, one that produces much goodwill among kinsfolk? Why did many of the wealthy dedicate a tenth of their property to Heracles? Is it because Heracles too, in Rome, offered up a tenth of the cattle of Geryon in sacrifice, or because he freed the Romans when they were being made to pay a tenth to the Etruscans? Or is it rather that these explanations do not have reliable historical basis...
...or was it because to gluttonous, hearty-eating Hercules they sacrificed lavishly and without stint? Or rather, because, curbing wealth that had grown burdensome to their fellow citizens — excising it, as it were, the way an athlete at the peak of condition is trimmed back — they believed that this was the way Hercules was most honored, and that he delighted in such curtailments and reductions of excess, since he himself had lived a frugal, self-sufficient, unostentatious life?
"Why do they reckon the month of January as the beginning of the new year?" In old times, in fact, March used to be counted first, as is clear from many other proofs, and especially from the fact that the fifth month from March is called "the fifth" and the sixth "the sixth," and so on for the rest in order down to the last, which they call December, being reckoned the tenth from March. From this some have come to suppose and to say that the Romans of that time completed the year not with twelve months but with ten, adding to some of the months more than thirty days. Others record that December was the tenth month from March, January the eleventh, and February the twelfth, in which month they perform purifications and offer rites to the dead, since the year is ending.
They say that these months were transposed and January made first because on the new moon of this month — the day they call the Kalends of January — the first consuls were installed, once the kings had been expelled. But more plausible are those who say that Romulus, being warlike and battle-mad and reputed to be born of Ares, set March, which bears the name of Ares, before the other months; while Numa, who was in turn a man of peace and eager to turn the city toward the works of the earth and away from war, gave the leading place to January and advanced Janus to great honors, since Janus had become a figure of civic and agricultural rather than military character.
Consider, though, whether it was not rather Numa who, by nature, took the beginning of the year that is most fitting for us. For in general nothing that revolves in a circle is by nature either last or first; it is by convention that different peoples take different points as the beginning of time. But best of all are those who take as the beginning the time after the winter solstice, when the sun, having ceased advancing further away, turns and comes back again toward us. For then it happens for them, in a way, even by nature, that the time of light is increased for us and the time of darkness diminished, and the ruling and guiding power of all fluid substance is brought nearer.
"Why, when the women adorn the shrine of the goddess called the Good Goddess, do they not bring myrtle into the house, although they are eager to use all growing and flowering things?" Was it, as the mythographers relate, because she was the wife of Faunus the seer, and having secretly indulged in wine — and not escaping detection — she was beaten by her husband with rods of myrtle; and so they do not bring in myrtle, but pour libations of wine to her, calling it "milk"? Or is it rather that they perform that rite in a state of purity from many things, but especially from sexual intercourse? For they not only send the men out of the house, but drive out every male creature, whenever they perform the observances ordained for the goddess. They therefore keep away myrtle as sacred to Aphrodite — for indeed the goddess they now call Venus Murcia was, it seems, anciently named Myrtia.
"Why do the Latins hold the woodpecker in reverence, and why do all of them strictly abstain from harming this bird?" Was it because they say that Picus, transformed by his wife's drugs, changed his nature and, becoming a woodpecker, uttered oracles and gave responses to those who consulted him? But this tale is altogether incredible and monstrous. The other story is more plausible: that when Romulus and Remus were exposed, not only did a she-wolf offer them the teat, but also a woodpecker used to visit and feed them with morsels of food. For even now, it is generally true that in mountainous and wooded places wherever a woodpecker appears, a wolf appears there too, as Nigidius records. Or rather, is it that, just as one bird is sacred to one god and another to another, this bird too is held sacred to Ares,
since it is bold and high-spirited, and its beak is so strong that it can overturn oaks, when in pecking it reaches the core? "Why do they suppose that Janus came to have two faces, and so depict and mold him?" Was it because by birth he was a Greek, from Perrhaebia, as they relate, and having crossed over into Italy and settled among the barbarians there, he changed both his tongue and his manner of living?
Or rather was it because he took the people around Italy, who lived by wild and lawless customs, and transformed and refashioned them into another pattern of life, persuading them to till the soil and to live under civic order? "Why do they sell the equipment for burials within the precinct of Libitina, holding Libitina to be Venus?" Was this too one of the philosophical devices of King Numa,
so that people might learn not to be distressed by such things nor to shun them as pollution? Or rather is it a reminder that whatever is born is perishable, since it is a single goddess who oversees both births and deaths? For indeed at Delphi there is a small statue of Aphrodite of the Tomb, before which they call up the departed for their libations. "Why do they have three fixed beginnings and set dates in the month, not taking the same interval of days between them?"
Was it, as those around Juba relate, because on the Kalends the magistrates used to summon the people and announce the Nones for the fifth day, while they regarded the Ides as a sacred day? Or rather was it because, marking time by the phases of the moon, they observed that the moon undergoes, in the course of a month, three principal changes: the first when it is hidden, having come into conjunction with the sun;
the second when, escaping the sun's rays, it first becomes visible in the west; and the third, which concerns its fullness, when the moon becomes full. They call its disappearance and concealment the "Kalends," since everything hidden and secret is "clam" and "celare" means to be concealed; and they call the first appearance the "Nones," by the most fitting
of names, since it is a new moon — for they too, like us, call what is new and fresh by that term. And the "Ides" they name either from the beauty and the appearance (species) the moon presents when it is restored to fullness, or in giving that appellation in honor of Jupiter. One should not, however, chase after the most precise count of days, nor quibble over slight discrepancies, since even now, with astronomy having made such advances,
the irregularity of the moon's motion still eludes exact calculation, escaping the mathematicians' most careful observation. "Why do they set aside as unsuitable for setting out or traveling abroad the day after the Kalends, the Nones, and the Ides?" Was it, as most people suppose and as Livy records, because after the Ides of Quintilis — which they now call the Ides of July — the military tribunes led the army out and were defeated in battle by the Celts near the river Allia
and lost the city; and once the day after the Ides had come to be regarded as inauspicious, custom, as superstition is wont to do, carried the practice further and extended the same scruple to the day after the Nones and the day after the Kalends as well? Or does this explanation involve many inconsistencies? For it was on a different day that they suffered the defeat, the day which they call the day of Allia after the river, and which they hold in abhorrence for that reason;
and though there are many inauspicious days, they do not observe the corresponding days in every month, but only the particular day on which the event fell. And to extend the scruple, without qualification, to all the days after the Nones and the Kalends alike is quite implausible. Consider, then, whether it is not rather this: just as of the months they consecrated the first to the Olympian gods and the second to the gods of the underworld — in which month, too, they perform certain purifications and offer rites to the departed —
so too, of the days, they set apart the first as it were, the principal and governing days — three in number, as has been said — as festal and sacred, while the days that follow them they assigned to the spirits of the dead and to the departed, and regarded as inauspicious and unfit for business. Indeed the Greeks too, in honoring the gods at the new moon, assign the second day to heroes and spirits, and the second mixing-bowl is poured out for heroes and heroines. And
altogether, time is a kind of number, and the beginning of number is divine, for the unit is such a beginning. The dyad that comes after it is opposed to that beginning and is the first of the even numbers. And the even is deficient, incomplete, and indeterminate, just as, in turn, the odd is bounded, brings completion, and is perfect. That is why the Nones fall on the fifth day after the Kalends, and the Ides on the ninth day after the Nones —
for it is the odd numbers that mark the beginnings, whereas the numbers that come right after the beginnings, being even, have no rank or power, and hence people do not begin an undertaking or a journey on those days. Or there is also something in the story about Themistocles — that the day after a festival once quarreled with the festival day itself, complaining that the festival had much business and toil, while the day after offered leisure and quiet to enjoy
the things prepared for the festival; and that the Festival replied to this, "What you say is true, but if I had not existed, you would not exist either." This is what Themistocles used to say later to the generals of the Athenians, that they would have been nowhere had he not himself saved the city. Since, then, every journey and undertaking worth taking seriously requires management and
preparation, and since the Romans of old, during their festivals, managed and thought about nothing else, but were occupied only with matters concerning the gods and busied themselves with that alone — just as even now the priests, on their way to the sacrifices, make proclamation beforehand — it stands to reason that they did not immediately set out on journeys after the festivals, nor undertake business, for they were unprepared; instead they spent that day at home thinking things through and making their preparations. Or, just as even
now, after praying and doing reverence in the temples, people are accustomed to linger and sit a while, so too they did not immediately follow their sacred days with days of active business, but made some pause and interval, since many affairs bring difficulties and unwelcome complications. "Why do women wear white clothing and white headbands in mourning?" Was it, as they say the Magi do, opposing themselves to Hades and
to darkness, and so making themselves resemble what is bright and radiant, that they do this? Or is it rather that, just as they clothe the body of the deceased in white, they think it fitting that the relatives should do likewise? They adorn the body in this way since they cannot adorn the soul; but they wish to send off the soul bright and pure, as one now released and having fought through a great and varied contest to the end. Or is it that plainness and simplicity are especially fitting in
these circumstances, whereas dyed garments show either extravagance or over-elaborate artifice — for it is no less true of black than of purple to say, "Deceitful are the garments, deceitful the colors"; whereas black in its natural, undyed state is colored not by art but by nature, and being mixed with shadow, it has been overcome by it. White alone, then, is
pure and unmixed, unstained and inimitable by dye; it is therefore most fitting for the dead. For the deceased too has become something simple, unmixed, and utterly pure, having been released from the body, which is the source of dye that stains. In Argos, however, they wear white in mourning that has been washed in water, as Socrates says. "Why do they consider every wall sacred and inviolable, but not consider the gates so?"
Was it, as Varro wrote, that the wall must be held sacred, so that men might fight for it eagerly and be willing to die for it? For it is in this light that Romulus is thought to have killed his brother, on the ground that he was attempting to leap over an impassable, sacred spot and to make it passable and profane. As for the gates, it was not possible to consecrate them, since through them many necessities pass, and also
the dead are carried out through them. Hence those who found a city from the beginning, whenever they are about to build up a site, plow around it with a plow, yoking together a male and a female ox; and when they mark out the walls, they lift the plowshare where the gates are to be, measuring off those spaces, and so carry the plow across, so that the entire ground that is plowed will be sacred and inviolable. "Why, when boys swear
an oath by Hercules, do they forbid them to do this under a roof, and bid them go out into the open air?" Was it, as some say, because they believe that Hercules does not delight in staying indoors but in an outdoor life and living under the open sky? Or rather was it because this god is not a native one but comes from afar, a stranger? For indeed they do not swear by Dionysus under a roof either, since he too is a stranger, if indeed he is Dionysus.
Or is this said and done in play with the boys, while in truth it is a way of restraining the readiness and quickness with which people rush into an oath, as Favorinus used to say? For the delay, coming as it were from a kind of preparation, produces hesitation and allows time to deliberate. One might also support Favorinus by pointing out that this practice is peculiar to this god and not common, on the basis of what is said about Hercules.
For it is recorded that he was so scrupulous about oaths that he swore only once, and that only to Phyleus, the son of Augeas; and it is for this reason that the Pythia used to cite these oaths to the Lacedaemonians, as men who kept faith, saying, "It would be better and more advantageous." "Why do they not allow the bride to step over the threshold of the house herself, but those escorting her lift her over it?"
Was it because the first women too were carried in that way, having been seized by force, and did not enter of their own accord? Or do they wish it to appear that the brides enter under compulsion and not willingly, since they are about to have their virginity dissolved? Or is it a symbol that she is not to go out through it herself nor to leave the house, unless compelled, just as she entered it under compulsion? For indeed among us in Boeotia they burn the axle of the wagon before the door,
signifying that the bride must remain, since the means of taking her away has been destroyed. "Why, when they bring in the bride, do they instruct her to say, 'Where you are Gaius, I am Gaia'?" Was it that, as though under stated terms, she immediately enters upon sharing in everything and joint rule with him, the meaning being, "Where you are lord and master of the house, there I too am lady and mistress of the house"? Or do they use these names in another sense, since they are common names, just as
the jurists use "Gaius Seius" and "Lucius Titius," and the philosophers use "Dio" and "Theon"? Or is it because of Gaia Caecilia, a beautiful and virtuous woman who lived with one of the sons of Tarquin, whose bronze statue stands in the temple of Sancus? There used also to lie beside it, in olden times, sandals and a spindle, the one a symbol of her keeping house, the other of her industry. "Why is the much-celebrated song sung..."
Talasius' at weddings? Is it from talasia, wool-working — for they also call the basket a talasos; and when they bring in the bride they spread a fleece under her, and she herself brings in a distaff and spindle, and wreathes the door of the bridegroom's house with wool? Or is what the historians say true, that there was a certain young man, brilliant in war and excellent in other ways, named Talasius; and when the Romans were seizing the daughters of the Sabines who had come to watch the games, a maiden of striking beauty was being carried off for Talasius by some of the common people and his own clients, who shouted for her safety and that no one should approach or lay hold of the girl, since she was being carried off as a wife for Talasius. So the rest, honoring Talasius and joining in the good wishes and acclamations, followed and escorted her along; and from this, since the marriage turned out fortunate, people became accustomed to cry out 'Talasius' at other weddings too, just as the Greeks cry 'Hymenaeus.'
'Why, at the full moon of May, do they throw effigies of men from the wooden bridge into the river, calling the things thrown "Argei"?' Is it that in ancient times the barbarians who dwelt about that place used to destroy in this way any Greeks they captured; but Heracles, admired by them, put an end to the killing of strangers, and taught them the custom of imitating that superstitious practice by throwing effigies instead? And the ancients called all Greeks alike 'Argives' — unless, by Zeus, one supposes that the Arcadians, because of their proximity, regarded the Argives too as enemies, and that the followers of Evander, who had fled from Greece and settled there, kept up the old grudge and hostility.
'Why did they not, in old times, dine out apart from their sons, while these were still boys?' Is it that Lycurgus too instituted this practice, bringing the boys in to the public messes, so that they might grow accustomed not to approach their pleasures like wild animals or without discipline, but with due caution, having their elders as overseers and spectators, as it were? And this practice made the fathers themselves no less restrained and self-controlled in the presence of their sons — for where old men behave shamelessly, as Plato says, there the young are bound to be most shameless of all.
'Why, when the rest of the Romans make libations and offerings to the dead in the month of February, did Decimus Brutus, as Cicero has recorded, do this in December? This was the man who overran Lusitania and was the first to lead an army across the river of forgetfulness.' Is it, just as most people are accustomed to make offerings to the dead as the day ends and the month wanes, reasonable also that, as the year comes to its close, the dead should be honored in the last month — and December is the last of the months? Or is it that honors are due to the gods of the underworld, and it is timely to honor the powers below once all the crops have been gathered in? Or is it that when men break the earth to begin sowing, it is especially fitting to remember those below? Or is it that this month has been consecrated by the Romans to Saturn, and they hold Saturn to be one of the gods below, not of the gods above? Or is it that, since the greatest of their festivals, the Saturnalia, falls in this month, and seems to bring the most gatherings and enjoyments, they thought it right to set apart some of these first-fruits also for the dead? Or is it simply false that Brutus alone made offerings in this month? For indeed they perform the rite for Larentia too, and bring libations to her tomb, in the month of December.
'Why do they honor Larentia so, though she had been a courtesan?' They say there was another Larentia, called Acca, the nurse of Romulus, whom they honor in the month of April; but the courtesan Larentia, they say, had the surname Fabula, and became known for the following reason. A certain temple-attendant of Heracles, enjoying leisure as it seems, was in the habit of spending most of his days at draughts and dice; and once, when none of his usual companions happened to be present to play with him and share the pastime, in his frustration he challenged the god to cast dice against him as if on stated terms — if he won, he was to obtain some benefit from the god; but if he lost, he himself was to provide the god with a dinner, and a beautiful girl to spend the night with him. On these terms he set out the dice, cast one for himself and one for the god, and lost. So, abiding by his own challenge, he prepared a splendid table for the god, and taking Larentia, who was openly a courtesan, he feasted her and laid her to rest in the temple, and on leaving he shut the doors. It is said that in the night the god came to her, not in human fashion, and bade her go at dawn to the marketplace, and whomever she should meet first, to attach herself to him especially and make him her friend. So Larentia rose and went, and met one of the wealthy men, unmarried and past his prime, named Tarrutius; becoming known to him, she ruled his household while he lived, and inherited it when he died; and later, when she herself died in the course of time, she left her estate to the city — for which reason she is accorded these honors.
'Why do they call a certain gate a "window" (thyris) — for this is what "fenestra" signifies — and beside it stands the so-called chamber of Fortune?' Is it because King Servius, who was most fortunate, gained the reputation of being visited by Fortune, who came to him through a window? Or is this a myth, and the truth rather that, when King Tarquinius Priscus died, his wife Tanaquil, a woman of sense and royal bearing, leaned out through a window, addressed the citizens, and persuaded them to proclaim Servius king — and so the place received this name?
'Why is it customary, of all the things dedicated to the gods, to allow only spoils of war to be disregarded as time wears them away, neither doing them reverence nor repairing them?' Is it so that people, supposing the glory to fade along with the earliest trophies, may always seek to bring some fresh memorial of their valor? Or rather, because as time dims the marks of the quarrel with the enemy, it would be invidious and provocative of hostility for men to renew and refurbish them themselves? For among the Greeks too, those who first set up a trophy of stone or bronze do not win approval.
'Why did Quintus Metellus, when he became chief priest — a man otherwise reputed prudent and skilled in public affairs — forbid the taking of auspices after the month of Sextilis, now called August?' Is it that, just as we undertake such business when the day is at its height or just beginning, and when the month is waxing and increasing, but avoid the waning days as unfit for business, so likewise the period eight months into the year is to be reckoned like a kind of evening of the year, a late afternoon already declining and waning? Or is it also that one must use birds that are in their prime and full-grown? These are such before summer; but around autumn, some are weak and sickly, some are still fledglings and immature, and others have vanished altogether, migrating because of the season.
'Why was it not permitted to those who were not on active campaign, but were merely present about the camp in some other capacity, to strike or wound an enemy soldier?' This too Cato the Elder made clear in a certain letter, writing to his son and bidding him, if he had been discharged from the campaign after completing his term of service, to return home; or else, if he remained, to obtain from the general permission to wound and kill an enemy. Is it that necessity alone ought to be the warrant for killing a man, and one who does this without law or command is a murderer — for which reason Cyrus praised Chrysantas, because, though about to kill an enemy and with his sword already raised, on hearing the recall sounded he let the man go and did not strike him, as being now forbidden? Or is it that one who is engaged with the enemy and fighting, should he show cowardice, ought not to go unaccountable or unpunished — for a man does not help his side so much by striking and wounding someone as he harms it by fleeing and retreating. So he who has been discharged from service is released from the laws of the soldier, but he who has asked to be allowed to act as though still serving has once again made himself accountable to the law and to the general.
'Why is the priest of Jupiter not permitted to anoint himself in the open air?' Is it that it was neither holy nor decent for sons to be seen naked by their father, or a son-in-law by his father-in-law, and in old times men did not even bathe together with one another; and Jupiter is the father, and the open air seems, in a way, to be especially in the presence of Jupiter? Or is it that, just as it is forbidden to strip oneself naked in a temple or sanctuary, so they were careful to show the same reverence for the open air beneath the sky, which is likewise full of gods and spirits — for which reason we perform most of our necessary functions under a roof, concealing and covering ourselves within our houses out of respect for the divine? Or is it that some things are enjoined by law upon the priest alone, and others upon everyone through the priest? Thus among us too, the wearing of a garland, the growing of the hair, the not carrying iron, and the not stepping across the borders of the Phocians, are duties peculiar to the archon; but the not tasting of the autumn fruit before the autumnal equinox, nor pruning the vine before the spring equinox, is thereby made known to virtually everyone through the archon — for each is the proper season for that person. In the same way, it seems, it is peculiar to the priest among the Romans neither to ride a horse, nor to be away from home more than three nights, nor to lay aside the cap from which he is even called 'flamen.' But many other things are made known to all through the priest, and one of these is the not anointing oneself in the open air. For the Romans were greatly suspicious of dry-anointing, and they think that nothing has been so much a cause of slavery and softness among the Greeks as the gymnasia and wrestling-schools, which breed much idleness and leisure in their cities, and mischief born of leisure, and pederasty, and the ruin of the young men's bodies through sleep, walks, rhythmic movements, and strict regimens — through which they were unwittingly drained away from arms, and content, instead of being good hoplites and horsemen, to be called witty fellows and fine wrestlers. At any rate, this is a thing men manage to avoid by stripping in the open air; but those who anoint themselves at home and attend to their bodies there do nothing wrong.
'Why did the old coinage on one side bear the two-faced image of Janus, and on the other the stern or prow of a ship engraved upon it?' Is it, as most say, in honor of Saturn, who crossed over to Italy by ship — though this could be said of many, for Janus, Evander, and Aeneas too all arrived by sea? Rather one might conjecture this: that some things are honorable for cities, others necessary; and the greatest of the honorable things is good order, and of the necessary things, abundance of supply. Since, then, Janus established good order for them by civilizing their way of life, while the river, being navigable and bringing down goods both from the sea and from the countryside, supplies abundance of necessities, the coin bore as its symbol the two-faced image of the lawgiver, as has been said, on account of the change he brought, and the ferry-image of the river. They also used another coinage, bearing the device of an ox, a sheep, and a pig, since they derived their wealth chiefly from their livestock and had their property from these — for which reason many of the names among the ancients were Suillius, Bubulcus, and Porcius, as Fenestella has recorded.
'Why do they use the temple of Saturn as a treasury for the public funds, and at the same time as a repository for contracts?' Is it that the belief and tradition prevailed that there was no greed or injustice among men while Saturn reigned, but only good faith and justice? Or is it that the god presides over the excellence of crops, or of husbandry — for this is what the sickle signifies, and not, as Antimachus wrote, following Hesiod, that shaggy Saturn, cutting sideways with the sickle, was fashioned in requital against the genitals of his father Uranus, son of Acmon. Rather, abundance and disposal of crops is the origin of coined money, and so they make the god both the cause and the guardian of prosperity. This is confirmed by the fact that the gatherings held every ninth day for the market, called nundinae, are held sacred to Saturn — for it was the surplus from selling and buying crops that gave rise to the beginning of commerce. Or are these things ancient, while the first man to make the temple of Saturn a treasury, after the kings were overthrown, was Valerius Publicola, who believed the place well-fortified, conspicuous, and hard to plot against?
'And why do envoys arriving at Rome from wherever they come, on going to the temple of Saturn, register their names with the prefects of the treasury?' Is it because Saturn was once a stranger, and therefore delights in strangers; or is this too resolved by history? For it seems that in old times the quaestors used to send gifts of hospitality to envoys (the things sent were called "lautia"), and they took care of them when sick and buried them at public expense when they died; but now, because of the great number of envoys arriving, the practice of such expenditure has lapsed, though the custom of applying first to the prefects of the treasury by registering still remains.
'Why is the priest of Jupiter not permitted to take an oath?' Is it that an oath is a kind of test applied to free men, whereas the body and soul of the priest ought to be beyond all testing? Or is it that it is not fitting for a man entrusted with the greatest and most sacred matters to be distrusted in small ones? Or is it that every oath ends in a curse upon the perjurer, and a curse is an ill-omened and grim thing — for which reason it is not thought right for priests to curse others either. At any rate the priestess at Athens was praised for refusing to curse Alcibiades though the people ordered her to do so, for she said she had become a priestess of prayer, not of cursing. Or is it that the danger of perjury is a common one, if an impious and perjured man should be the one to begin the prayers and sacred rites on behalf of the city?
'Why, at the festival of the Veneralia, do they pour out much wine from the sanctuary of Venus?' Is it, as most say, that Mezentius, general of the Etruscans, sent word to Aeneas offering a truce in exchange for receiving the year's wine; and when Aeneas refused, Mezentius promised the Etruscans that, if victorious in battle, he would give them the wine — but Aeneas, learning of his promise, consecrated the wine to the gods, and after his victory gathered in the harvest and poured it out before the sanctuary of Venus? Or is this too a symbol that one ought to celebrate festivals sober rather than drunk, since the gods take more pleasure in those who pour out their strong wine than in those who drink it?
'Why did the ancients keep the temple of Horta continually open?' Is it, as Antistius Labeo has recorded, that since to urge on is called 'hortari,' they thought that the goddess called Horta, who as it were exhorts and urges men on toward what is honorable, ought, as being always active, never to be thought of as delaying, nor shut up, nor idle...
Or rather, as they now call her — Hora, with the first syllable lengthened — a watchful and much-caring goddess, whom they believed, since she was protective and thoughtful, was never careless or heedless of human affairs? Or, like many other such words, is this too one of the Greek names, and does it signify a goddess who watches over and oversees? Hence, as one unsleeping and unwearied, her shrine was open at all times.
If, however, Labeo is right in supposing that Hora is named from "urging on," then consider whether one ought to say that the "orator" — an exhortatory and urging kind of counselor or popular leader — was named accordingly, and not from "cursing" and "praying," as some say. "Why did Romulus establish the temple of Hephaestus outside the city?" Was it because of the jealousy fabled between Ares and Hephaestus over Aphrodite — since Romulus was thought to be the son of Ares — that he did not make Hephaestus his fellow resident or fellow citizen? Or is this too foolish an explanation, and rather the temple was built from the start as a private council-chamber and meeting place for himself and Tatius, his co-king, so that they might gather there with the elders and, without being disturbed, deliberate on affairs in peace? Or, since Rome from early on was in danger from fire, did they decide to honor the god but settle him outside the city?
"Why, at the festival of the Consualia, do they crown both horses and donkeys with garlands and let them rest from work?" Is it because they hold the festival for Poseidon Hippios, and the donkey shares in the horse's enjoyment and partakes of the immunity from work? Or is it because, once seafaring and transport by sea had appeared, the beasts of burden gained some measure of relief and rest?
"Why was it the custom, as Cato records, for those announcing their candidacy for office to do so wearing only a cloak, without a tunic?" Was it so that they should not bribe voters by carrying money concealed in a fold of the tunic, or rather because they used to judge those worthy to rule not by birth, nor wealth, nor reputation, but by wounds and scars? So that these might be visible to those they met, they went down to their canvassing without tunics. Or, just as by greeting people, calling to them, and bowing before them, so too by this nakedness they humbled themselves and courted the people's favor?
"Why did the priest of Jupiter, when his wife died, lay down his office, as Ateius records?" Was it because a man who had lost the wife he had taken was worse off than one who had never married at all — for the household of a man who has married is complete, while that of one who has married and then lost his wife is not merely incomplete but maimed? Or is it that the wife shares the priesthood with the husband, since many of the sacred rites cannot be performed without his wife being present, and to marry another immediately after losing the first was neither easily possible nor otherwise seemly? For this reason it was not formerly permitted for him even to divorce her, nor, it seems, is it permitted even now — though in our own time Domitian, on being petitioned, granted an exception.
The priests attended the dissolution of the marriage, performing many rites that were dreadful, strange, and grim. One might marvel at this less if one recalls also that when one of the censors died, the other was required to give up his office as well; and when the censor Livius Drusus died, his colleague Aemilius Scaurus refused to resign his office, until some of the tribunes of the people ordered him to be led off to prison.
"Why do the Lares, whom they specifically call 'Praestites,' have a dog standing beside them, while the Lares themselves are clothed in dogskins?" Is it that the 'Praestites' are those set over something, and it is fitting for those set over a household to be watchful guardians of it — fearsome to outsiders, as a dog is, but gentle and mild toward those who dwell within? Or rather is what some of the Romans say true: that, just as the philosophers of Chrysippus' school suppose that base spirits roam about, whom the gods employ as executioners and punishers against unholy and unjust men, so too the Lares are a kind of avenging, punitive spirits, overseers of lives and households — and this is why they are clothed in dogskins, and a dog sits beside them, since dogs are formidable at tracking down and pursuing wrongdoers?
"Why do they sacrifice a dog to the goddess called Geneta Mana, and pray that none of the household-born may turn out virtuous?" Is it because Geneta is a spirit concerned with births and childbirth among mortal things? For her name signifies a kind of flowing, or birth, or "flowing birth." Just as the Greeks sacrifice a dog to Hecate, so the Romans sacrifice a dog to Geneta on behalf of those born in the household. Socrates says that the Argives likewise sacrifice a dog to Eilioneia, because of the ease it brings to childbirth.
As for the prayer itself — is it perhaps not about household-born humans, that none of them turn out virtuous, but about dogs, since dogs need to be fierce and fearsome? Or, hinting darkly at the fact that the dead are politely called "the good," do they through this prayer ask that none of the household die? One need not be astonished at this, for Aristotle too says that in the treaty of the Arcadians with the Spartans it was written that none of the Tegeans loyal to Sparta should be made "good" for the sake of assistance — meaning that none should be put to death.
"Why, at the Capitoline Games, do they still now proclaim Sardians for sale, and lead forth, for mockery, some old man wearing a child's amulet called a bulla around his neck?" Is it because the people called the Veientes — Etruscans — waged war against Romulus for a long time, and this was the last city he captured, and he sold off many prisoners along with their king, mocking his stupidity and foolishness? And since the Etruscans were originally Lydians, and the mother-city of the Lydians is Sardis, they proclaimed the Veientes for sale in this manner, and preserve the custom to this day as a kind of game.
"Why do they call butcher shops 'macella' and 'macelli'?" Is the name corrupted from "magirus" (cook), as many other words have been, and has usage prevailed — for kappa and gamma are related among them, since they came late to using the letter gamma, which Spurius Carvilius introduced; and lambda in turn stands in for those who slip on the letter rho through a slurring of the tongue? Or must this too be resolved by the historical account? For it is said that in Rome a violent, robber-like man, who had plundered many people, named Macellus, was with difficulty caught and punished; and from his confiscated property a public building was constructed, taking its name from him.
"Why is it granted to flute-players, on the Ides of January, to go about the city wearing women's clothing?" Is it for the reason commonly given? For it seems they enjoyed great honors, granted to them by King Numa because of their sanctity in matters of the divine; but later, when these honors were taken from them by the proconsular board of ten, they withdrew from the city. There was then a search for them, and a certain religious scruple troubled the priests, since the sacrifices were being offered without flute music.
Since they would not be persuaded to return when summoned, but remained at Tibur, a freedman secretly promised the magistrates that he would bring them back. Having prepared a lavish feast, as if he had made a sacrifice to the gods, he invited the flute-players; women too were present along with the drinking, and an all-night revel was got up, with games and dancing. Then suddenly the man threw in the claim that his patron was coming upon him, and, feigning distress, persuaded the flute-players to climb onto wagons covered all around with hides, to be carried off to Tibur. But this was a deception: for he drove the wagons around, and, since they could not tell what was happening because of the wine and the darkness, he brought them all unnoticed into Rome by dawn.
Most of them, because of the all-night revel and the drinking, happened to be wearing brightly colored, womanish clothing. So, once they had been persuaded by the magistrates and reconciled, it became the custom that on that day they should parade through the city dressed in this fashion. "Why do the matrons seem to have founded the shrine of Carmenta from the beginning, and to honor it most especially even now?" A certain story is told, that the women were forbidden by the Senate to use yoked carriages; so they agreed among themselves not to conceive or bear children, in retaliation against the men, until the men changed their minds and granted them their wish. And once children had been born, being blessed with good and many children, they founded the shrine of Carmenta.
As for Carmenta — some say she was the mother of Evander, called originally Themis, or, as others say, Nicostrata, who came to Italy, and, because she sang oracles in verse, was called Carmenta by the Latins; for they call verses "carmina." Others hold that Carmenta is Fate herself, and that this is why the matrons sacrifice to her. The etymology of the name is "deprived of mind," because of her states of divine possession. Hence it was not the "carmina" that gave Carmenta her name, but rather she was called by that name because, in her ecstatic possession, she sang her oracles in verse and meter.
"Why, when sacrificing to Rumina, do they pour a libation of milk, and do not bring wine?" Is it because the Latins call the nipple "ruma," and she is said to have been named Ruminalis, since the she-wolf offered her nipple to Romulus? Just as we call women who nurse infants with milk "nurses" (thelonai) from "nipple" (thele), so Rumina, being a kind of nurse and rearer of children, does not accept unmixed wine, since it is harmful to infants.
"Why did they address some senators as 'the enrolled fathers' and others simply as 'fathers'?" Is it because they called those originally chosen by Romulus "fathers" and "patricians," as being well-born, able to name their own fathers, while those later enrolled from the plebeians they named "enrolled fathers"?
"Why was there a common altar of Hercules and the Muses?" Is it because Hercules taught letters to the followers of Evander, as Juba records? And the matter was regarded as a solemn one, teaching being done for friends and relatives; only later did they begin to teach for pay, and the first to open a school for letters was Spurius Carvilius, a freedman of the Carvilius who was the first to divorce his wife.
"Why, when there are two altars of Hercules, do women not partake or taste of what is sacrificed on the greater one?" Is it because those concerned with the rites of Carmenta arrived late, and the family of the Pinarii was also late, and so, being excluded from the feast while the others banqueted, they were named Pinarii? Or is it on account of the myths told about the tunic and Deianira?
"Why is it forbidden to speak of, seek out, or name that god — whether male or female — whose special charge it is to save and guard Rome, and why do they wrap this prohibition in superstitious dread, recounting how Valerius Soranus perished miserably for having revealed it?" Is it, as some Roman writers have recorded, that there are such things as the summoning-out and bewitching-away of gods, by which they believed that they themselves had once drawn certain gods away from their enemies and settled them among themselves; and they feared suffering the same thing at the hands of others?
Just as the Tyrians are said to have bound their images with chains, and others are said to demand sureties when sending a god forth to a bath or a purification, so the Romans thought that the unspoken and unknown was the safest and surest guard of a god — or, just as it is put in Homer, "the earth is still common to all," so that all men might revere and honor all the gods, holding the earth as common possession, so did the ancient Romans conceal the identity of the one in charge of their safety, wishing that not only this god but all the gods be honored by their citizens.
"Why, among those called the Fetiales — in Greek, something like peace-makers or treaty-bearers — was the one called 'pater patratus' held to be the greatest? (This is the man whose father is living and who has children of his own; and even now he retains a certain privilege and trust, for the praetors entrust to such men bodies that, on account of their beauty and youthful charm, require careful and chaste guarding.)" Is it because such men possess both the reverence children have and the fear owed to fathers? Or does the very name suggest the reason? For "patratus" is meant to signify one who is, so to speak, brought to completion and made whole, as being more perfect than others, in that he has come to have a son while his own father is still living.
Or must the one presiding over oaths and peace "look both ahead and behind," as Homer says? And such a man would be especially fit for this who has a son on whose behalf he deliberates, and a father with whom he deliberates. "Why is it forbidden for the one called 'rex sacrorum' — this is the 'king of the sacred rites' — both to hold office and to address the people?"
Is it because in ancient times the kings performed most and the greatest of the sacred rites themselves, and offered the sacrifices along with the priests? But since they did not act with moderation but were arrogant and oppressive, most of the Greeks took away their power but left them only the office of sacrificing to the gods, while the Romans expelled their kings altogether and appointed another to attend to the sacrifices, allowing him neither to hold office nor to court popular favor, so that they might seem to be ruled as kings only in matters of religion, and might tolerate kingship for the sake of the gods. There is, at any rate, a certain ancestral sacrifice performed in the forum near the place called the Comitium, after which the king performs it and departs quickly, fleeing from the forum.
"Why did they not allow the table to be cleared while still bare, but always insisted that something remain upon it?" Is it a hint that one should always leave something from the present for the future, and remember tomorrow even while in today? Or did they consider it refined to restrain and hold back desire even while enjoyment was still present? For people who have grown accustomed to abstaining from what is present desire what is absent less.
Or is the custom also one of kindness toward household slaves? For they are not so pleased by receiving as by sharing, feeling in some sense that they partake of their masters' table. Or is it that nothing sacred should ever be seen left empty, and the table is sacred?
"Why does the husband not first approach his bride by daylight, but rather in darkness?" Is it because he feels shame before consummation, regarding her still as a stranger, or because he is being accustomed to approach even his own wife with modesty? Or, just as Solon wrote that the bride should nibble a quince before entering the bridal chamber, so that the first kiss might not be unpleasant or graceless, so too did the Roman lawgiver, if there were anything unseemly or displeasing about her body, conceal it? Or is what happens rather a kind of veiled reproach against unlawful acts of love, implying that even lawful ones carry with them some measure of shame?
"Why is one of the racecourses called the Flaminian?" Is it because a certain Flaminius of old gave land to the city, and they used the revenues from it for horse races; and since money was still left over, they built a road, which they likewise named the Flaminian Way? "Why do they call the rod-bearers 'lictors'?" Is it because these men used to bind up wrongdoers, and attended upon Romulus carrying thongs in the folds of their garments — for most Romans call binding 'alligare'?
...while those who are careful in their speech say "ligare." Or is it rather that the kappa has now been inserted, and formerly they were called "litores," being a kind of public servants? For that the public treasury is to this day called "leiton" in many of the laws of the Greeks has, one might say, escaped no one's notice.
Why do the Luperci sacrifice a dog? (The Luperci are those who run naked, girt about the loins, through the Lupercalia, striking with strips of leather those they meet.) Is it because the rite performed is a purification of the city? For indeed they call the month "February," and by Zeus that day "februata," and "februare" means to touch with strips of leather, the word signifying "to purify." And nearly all the Greeks, one might say, made use of the dog, and some still do, as a victim for purifications; and they carry out puppies for Hecate along with the other purificatory offerings, and they wipe those who need to be cleansed with puppies, calling this kind of purification "periskylakismos." Or is it that the wolf (lupus) is "loupos," and the Lupercalia are the "Lykaia"; and since the dog is hostile to the wolf, it is for this reason sacrificed at the Lykaia? Or is it because the dogs in the city bark at the Luperci and harass them as they run about? Or is the sacrifice made to Pan, and is the dog dear to Pan on account of the flocks of goats?
Why, at the festival called the Septimontium, did they take care not to use yoked vehicles, and why do those today who do not despise the customs of the ancients still observe this? They date the Septimontium from the fact that a seventh district was added to the city and Rome became a city of seven hills. Is it, as some of the Roman antiquarians suppose, because the city had not yet been completely joined together in all its parts? Or rather, this has nothing to do with Dionysus; but since the great work of the union of the settlements had been accomplished, they thought that the city, having reached this point, had ceased its forward growth, and so they gave themselves a rest and rested also the draft animals that had labored with them, and allowed them to enjoy the leisure of the common festival? Or did they wish always to adorn and honor every festival with the citizens' presence, and especially the one held in celebration of the city's union? In order, then, that they might not leave the city whose festival it was, was it not permitted to make use of teams that day?
Why do they call those condemned for theft or certain other servile offenses "furciferi"? Is this too a proof of the diligence of the ancients? For when a household slave had been convicted of some misdeed of his own, the master would order him to take up the double piece of wood which they place under wagons, and carry it about, in full view of everyone, through the neighborhood or the quarter, so that people would distrust him and be on their guard against him for the future. This piece of wood we call a "prop," but the Romans call it a "furca"; and hence the man who has carried it about is called "furcifer."
Why do they tie hay to the horn of butting oxen, to warn anyone who meets them to be on guard? Is it because from repletion and excess of feeding oxen and horses and asses and even men grow insolent and wanton? As Sophocles somewhere has put it: "But you kick up your heels like a colt well fed, for your belly and your jaw are full." That is why the Romans said that Marcus Crassus "had hay on his horn": for those who tore at others in the political arena were on their guard against him, as a man dangerous and hard to attack. Later, however, it was said again that Caesar had taken the hay from Crassus; for Caesar was the first to stand up against him in politics and to show contempt for him.
Why did the priests concerned with divination by birds, whom they formerly called "auspices" but now call "augurs," think it necessary that their lanterns always be open and their lids not put on? Is it that, just as the Pythagoreans made small things symbols of great ones, forbidding people "to sit on a grain-measure" and "not to stir the fire with a knife," so too the ancients made use of many such riddling precepts, especially in dealing with priests, of which the precept about the lantern is one? For the lantern resembles the body that encloses the soul, since the light within is like the soul; and the intelligent and prudent part of it must always be kept open and clear-sighted, and never shut up or stifled. Now when there are winds, the birds are unsteady and give no reliable signs, on account of their wandering and irregular flight. The custom, then, teaches that the augurs should go about their observations not when there are winds but when there is calm and settled weather, since it is then that they are able to use their lanterns open.
Why, again, was it forbidden for priests who had a sore to sit as observers of the auspices? Is this too a symbol, that those who deal with divine matters should have nothing gnawing at them, no sore of their own so to speak, and no distress of soul, but should be free from grief, whole, and undistracted? Or is it simply reasonable, since one would not use for sacrifice a victim that had a sore, nor birds for augury that had one, that priests should guard against such things in themselves even more, and, having become pure and unharmed and whole, should proceed to the signs given by the gods? For a sore seems to be a kind of mutilation and defilement of the body.
Why did King Servius Tullius found a shrine of Fortuna Parva, which they call "Brevis"? Is it because, being small and engaged in humble occupations, and born of a captive mother, he came by fortune to reign over Rome? Or does this change rather display the greatness of Fortune than her smallness, and did Servius, more than anyone, seem to deify the power of Fortune and to ascribe to her every one of his actions? For he built shrines not only to Fortune of Good Hope, and Fortune Averter of Evil, and Gentle Fortune, and Fortune First-born, and Manly Fortune, but there is also a shrine of Private Fortune, another of Fortune Who Returns, another of Virgin Fortune; and why should one go on to list her other epithets, when there is even a shrine of Fortune the Fowler, whom they call "Viscata," as though we were caught by her from afar and made to cling fast to affairs? Consider, then, whether he had observed how great is the power that Fortune always exercises through small things, and how it has often happened to some that through a small thing happening or not happening they gained or missed the greatest prizes; and so he founded a shrine of Fortuna Parva, teaching men to attend to their affairs and not to despise, because of their smallness, the things that come their way.
Why did they not extinguish a lamp, but let it die out of its own accord? Is it because they reverenced it as kindred to and akin to the unquenchable and immortal fire? Or is this too a symbol, that one ought not to destroy or take the life of a living thing, if it does no harm, since fire resembles a living creature? For indeed it needs nourishment, and moves of itself, and when quenched gives off a sound as though it were being killed. Or does the custom teach us that we ought not to destroy in utter excess fire or water or any other necessity, when we ourselves have enough of it, but should allow those in need to use it, and leave it for others, when we ourselves no longer have need of it?
Why do those thought to excel in noble birth wear crescent moons on their shoes? Is it, as Castor says, a symbol of the dwelling said to be on the moon, and of the belief that after death souls will again have the moon beneath their feet? Or did this belong as a special privilege to the most ancient people, who were Arcadians of the race descended from Evander, called "Proselenians"? Or, like many other things, does this too remind those who are elated and think too highly of themselves of the vicissitude that befalls human affairs in both directions, taking the moon as their example — how it first comes from obscurity, a new face, growing more beautiful and filling out, and then, just when it appears at its fairest, wastes away again and comes to nothing? Or was it a lesson in obedience, that those who live under kings should not chafe, but, like the moon, should be willing to attend upon the greater power and always take the second rank, "gazing toward the rays of the sun," as Parmenides says, so being content with the second place, while enjoying the power and honor that come from the ruler?
Why do they reckon the year as belonging to Zeus, but the months to Hera? Is it because of the invisible and intelligible gods, Zeus and Hera are king and queen, while of the visible gods the sun and moon hold that place? And the sun makes the year, while the moon makes the months. But one must not think of these simply as images of those higher gods, but that Zeus himself is, in matter, the sun, and Hera herself is, in matter, the moon. That is why they call Hera "Iuno," the name signifying "the young" or "the younger," taking it from the moon; and they call Hera "Lucina," as it were "the bright one" or "she who gives light," and believe that she assists at childbirth and labor pains, just as the moon does — "through the dark vault of the stars, through the swift-bearing moon," for they think that women give birth most easily at the full moon.
Why is the bird called the "left" bird considered auspicious? Is this in fact not true, but is the common speech misleading many? For they call "left" "sinistrum," and "to let go" they call "sinere" and "sine," using these words when they bid one let something go. So the bird that lets a course of action go, being "sinisterius," is wrongly taken by most people for "sinistrum," and so named. Or is it, as Dionysius says, that when a flash of lightning bringing victory occurred on the left as Ascanius, son of Aeneas, was drawn up in battle against Mezentius, they took it as an omen and have observed the custom accordingly ever since? Or, as others say, because this happened to Aeneas himself? And indeed the Thebans, after routing and defeating the enemy with their left wing at Leuctra, continued in all their battles thereafter to give the place of command to the left. Or rather, as Juba says, for those who face the rising sun, the north falls on the left, which some reckon to be the right and superior side of the universe. Consider, however, whether it is not that, since the left side is naturally the weaker, those who preside over the auspices thereby, as it were, strengthen and support it, making up for its deficiency of power; or that, believing earthly and mortal things to be opposed to heavenly and divine ones, they supposed that the gods send what is on our left from their own right.
Why was it permitted, once a man who had celebrated a triumph had died and been cremated, to take a bone of his and carry it into the city and deposit it there, as Pyrrho of Lipara has recorded? Is it in honor of the dead man? For indeed to other men of distinction and to generals they granted burial in the forum, not only for themselves but for their descendants after them, as to Valerius and Fabricius; and they say that when the descendants of these men die and are brought to the forum, a burning torch is lowered toward them and then at once removed, they making use of the honor without arousing envy, and only establishing the right to do so.
Why, when they entertained triumphant generals at a public banquet, did they excuse the consuls, and send word asking them not to come to the dinner? Is it because the place of honor at table had to be given to the man who had triumphed, along with an escort home after dinner, and this could not be granted to another while the consuls were present, but only to him?
Why does the tribune of the people not wear the purple-bordered robe, though the other magistrates do? Is it because he is not, strictly speaking, a magistrate at all? For tribunes have no lictors, nor do they conduct business seated on the curule chair, nor do they enter office at the beginning of the year as all the other magistrates do, nor do they cease to hold office when a dictator is chosen — though he transfers to himself every other office — but they alone remain, as though they were not magistrates but held some other kind of position. Just as some orators do not wish the plea in bar to be counted a form of suit, since it acts in a manner opposite to a suit — for the one brings a case in and produces a judgment, the other does away with and dissolves one — in the same way they think the tribunate is more a check upon office and a stand taken against office than an office itself. For to resist the power of a magistrate and to strip away his excessive authority is itself a form of authority and power.
One might say this and other such things, using mere cleverness of argument; but since the tribunate derives its origin from the people, its popular character is a strong one, and it counts for much that the tribune should not think more highly of himself than the rest, but should make himself like the ordinary citizens he encounters, in bearing, dress, and way of life. For pomp befits a consul or a praetor, but the tribune, as Gaius Curio used to say, ought to be trodden underfoot, and should not be solemn in appearance, nor difficult of access, nor harsh to the many, but easy for the people to deal with, though he stands up for others. Hence it is the custom that the door of his house is never shut, but stands open both night and day, like a harbor and refuge for those in need. And the more he lowers himself in outward show, the more he grows in actual power. For they hold him, by virtue of his usefulness, to be common and accessible to all, like an altar; while by the honor paid him they make him sacred, holy, and inviolable — so that wherever he walks in public, it is the law for all to purify and cleanse their persons, as though they had been defiled.
Why are the rods of the praetors carried bound together with the axes fastened to them? Is it because this is a symbol that the anger of the ruler ought not to be quick and unrestrained; and the delay and postponement caused by loosening the rods, one by one and slowly, has often made him change his mind about the punishment? And since some wrongdoing is curable and some incurable, the rods admonish what is capable of being reformed, while the axes cut off what cannot be admonished.
Why, when they learned that the barbarians called the Blesionii had sacrificed a human being to the gods, did they send for their magistrates intending to punish them; but when it appeared that they had done this in accordance with some law of theirs, released them, though forbidding it for the future? Yet not many years before this, they themselves had buried alive two men and two women in the place called the Cattle Market — two Greeks and two Gauls. It seems strange that they should do this themselves while reproaching the barbarians for doing what is unholy.
Is it that they considered it unholy to sacrifice human beings to the gods, but necessary to do so for the daemons? Or did they think that those who did this as a matter of custom and law were doing wrong, while they themselves acted only because commanded by the Sibylline books? For it is said that a certain maiden, Helvia, riding on horseback, was struck by lightning, and the horse was found lying stripped, and she herself naked, her tunic drawn up as though on purpose from her private parts, while her shoes, rings, and hairnet were scattered about apart from one another, and her tongue was thrust out of her mouth. When the seers declared that this portended a terrible disgrace for the sacred virgins, one that would become notorious, and that some outrage would also touch the knights, the slave of a certain barbarian horseman gave information against three maidens...
...three of the Vestal virgins — Aemilia, Licinia, and Marcia — who had all been corrupted at the same time and had long consorted with men, one of whom was Butetius, a barbarian, the master of the informer. Those women were convicted and punished, but since the deed seemed so dreadful, it was resolved that the priests should consult the Sibylline books. And it is said that oracles were found which not only foretold that these things portended evil but also prescribed that, to avert the coming disaster, two Greeks and two Gauls should be buried alive on the spot.
Why do they reckon the beginning of the day from the middle of the night? Is it because the state's constitution was originally a military one, and most useful operations in campaigns are begun beforehand, at night? Or did they make the sunrise the beginning of action, but the night the beginning of preparation — for one must make one's preparations and then act, not act while still preparing, as Myson is said to have told Chilon the sage, when Myson was building a winnowing-fan in the middle of winter? Or, just as midday is, for most people, the limit for transacting public and serious business, so they thought it fitting to make midnight the beginning of the day? A strong proof of this is the fact that a Roman magistrate does not conclude treaties or agreements after midday.
Or is it impossible to take sunset and sunrise as the beginning and end of the day? For if, as most people do, we mark by sense-perception the beginning of day as the first appearance of the sun and the end of night as its final disappearance, we shall not get an equinox: rather, the night which we suppose to be most nearly equal to the day will appear shorter than the day, because of the size of the sun's disk. And this is the very absurdity that the astronomers, in turn, try to cure by positing that the moment when the sun's center touches the horizon marks the boundary of day and night — but this does away with plain observation. For it will follow that, while much light still remains above the earth and the sun is still shining upon us, we must agree that it is not yet day but still night.
Since, then, at the rising and setting of the sun the beginning of the day is hard to fix, for the reasons stated, what is left is to take as the beginning either the moment the sun is at the zenith or the moment it is at the nadir. The second is the better choice: for from midday the sun moves away from us toward its setting, but from midnight it moves toward us, toward its rising.
Why in old times did they not allow women to grind grain or cook? Is it because they were mindful of the pact they made with the Sabines? For after they had seized the Sabines' daughters and then made peace with them after the war, this term too was written into the other agreements: that no Roman wife should grind grain for her husband or do the cooking.
Why do they not marry women in the month of May? Is it because May falls between April and June, of which the one is sacred to Aphrodite and the other to Hera, both gods of marriage, and out of reverence they either take their weddings a little earlier or wait a little later? Or is it because in this month they perform their greatest rite of purification, nowadays throwing effigies from the bridge into the river, but in ancient times throwing in men? For this reason the Flaminica, who is held to be a priestess of Hera, is required by custom to look sorrowful and neither to bathe nor to adorn herself at that time. Or is it because many of the Latins in this month make offerings to the dead, and for that reason perhaps they also worship Hermes in it, since it is named after Maia?
Or, as some say, is the month of Maius named from the elder, and Junius from the younger, age of life? And the young is more suited to marriage, as Euripides too says: "old age dismisses Aphrodite gladly, and Aphrodite is displeased with the old." They do not marry, then, in May, but wait for June, which comes immediately after May.
Why do they part the hair of brides with the point of a spear? Is this a symbol of the fact that the first women were married by force and through war, or do they thus learn, in living with warlike and martial men, to accept an unadorned, unsoftened, and simple style of beautification — just as Lycurgus, by ordering that doors and roofs for houses be made only with saw and axe and that no other tool be used at all, banished every kind of elaborateness and extravagance? Or does what is done hint at the separation to come, as if the marriage were to be dissolved by iron alone? Or is it rather that most matters concerning marriage were attached to Hera, and the spear is held sacred to Hera, and most of her statues are supported by a spear, and the goddess is surnamed Quiritis — for the ancients called the spear "curis" — and hence they say that Enyalius too was named Quirinus.
Why do they call what is performed for public shows "Lucar"? Is it because there are many groves dedicated to the gods around the city, which they call "luci," and they used to spend the revenue from these on the shows? Why do they call the Quirinalia the "festival of fools"? Is it because, as Juba says, they had assigned this day to those who did not know their own curia — or rather to those who, unlike the rest, had not sacrificed by tribes at the Fornacalia, whether through preoccupation, or absence, or ignorance, and so this day was given them to make up for that festival?
Why, when a sacrifice is made to Heracles, do they name no other god, and no dog is seen within the precincts, as Varro has recorded? Is it that they name no other god because they consider him a demigod? And as some say, while Heracles was still living among men, Evander set up an altar to him and offered sacrifice. But of all animals he was most at war with the dog: for this creature caused him a great deal of trouble, both Cerberus himself, and, on top of everything, when Oeonus, son of Licymnius, was killed by the sons of Hippocoon because of a dog, he was forced to join battle and lost, along with many other friends, his own brother Iphicles.
Why were the patricians not permitted to dwell around the Capitol? Is it because Marcus Manlius, who lived there, attempted a tyranny, on whose account it is said to be forbidden by oath for any man of the house of the Manlii to bear the name Marcus? Or was this an old fear? At any rate, they never ceased maligning Publicola, a man most devoted to the people — the powerful slandering him, the many fearing him — because his house seemed to overhang the forum, until he himself tore it down.
Why do they give an oaken crown to the man who has saved a fellow-citizen in war? Is it because oak can be found everywhere and easily on campaign, or because the crown is sacred to Zeus and Hera, whom they consider protectors of the city? Or is this an ancient custom from the Arcadians, who have some kinship with the oak-tree — for they are held to be the first of men to have sprung from the earth, just as the oak is the first of plants?
Why do they use vultures above all for taking auspices? Is it because twelve vultures also appeared to Romulus at the founding of Rome, or because this bird is the least familiar and the least accustomed to human company of all birds? For it is not easy even to come across a vulture's nest; rather, they descend suddenly from somewhere far off — which is why their appearance is regarded as significant. Or did they learn this too from Heracles, if Herodorus speaks truly when he says that Heracles rejoiced more than at any other omen when vultures appeared at the outset of an undertaking, holding the vulture to be the most righteous of all flesh-eating creatures.
For, first, it does not touch anything living nor does it kill any living creature, as eagles and hawks and the night-hunting birds do, but makes use only of things that have died in some other way. And further, it even spares creatures of its own kind: no one has ever seen a vulture feeding on a bird, whereas eagles and hawks, above all, pursue and strike their own kin — and yet, as Aeschylus says, "how could bird be pure that feeds on bird?" And toward men, so to speak, it is the most harmless of creatures, destroying neither crop nor plant nor any tame animal.
But if, as the Egyptians relate in their myths, the whole race is female, and they conceive by taking in the east wind as it blows upon them, just as trees conceive from the west wind, then it is plausible that the signs derived from them are entirely unerring and reliable. In the case of other birds, on the other hand, the flutterings, and further the snatchings and flights and pursuits connected with mating, produce a great deal of confusion and disorder.
Why is the temple of Asclepius outside the city? Is it because they considered dwelling outside healthier than dwelling within the town — indeed the Greeks too have their sanctuaries of Asclepius situated, as a rule, in clean and elevated places? Or is it because they believe the god came summoned from Epidaurus — and at Epidaurus too the sanctuary of Asclepius is not within the city but some way off? Or is it because, when the serpent disembarked from the trireme onto the island and disappeared, they thought the god himself was indicating where his temple should be founded?
Why is it customary for those observing ritual purity to abstain from legumes? Is it, as the Pythagoreans held, that they consecrated beans as forbidden for the reasons commonly given, and likewise the vetch and the chickpea, as being named after Erebus and Lethe? Or is it because legumes are used above all for funeral banquets and for invocations of the dead? Or rather is it because for acts of purification and holiness the body must be kept clean and light — and legumes are gas-producing and create surplus matter requiring a great deal of purging? Or is it also because, on account of their windy and flatulent nature, they stir one toward sexual intercourse?
Why do they not punish in the ordinary way those of the all-holy virgins who have been corrupted, but instead bury them alive? Is it because they cremate the dead, and it was not right to bury with fire one who had not piously kept the divine fire? Or did they consider it not lawful to destroy a body that had been consecrated to the greatest rites of holiness, or to lay hands upon a sacred woman? And so, contriving that she die by her own agency, they brought her down under the earth into a chamber that had been built, where a lamp lay burning, and bread, and a little milk and water; then they covered the chamber over with earth from above. And not even in this way, having performed the rite, have they escaped superstition, but even to this day the priests go to the place and offer expiatory rites there.
Why, when a horse-race is held at the Ides of December, is the winning right-hand trace-horse sacrificed to Mars, while someone cuts off its tail and carries it to the place called the Regia and sprinkles the altar with the blood, while over its head men coming down from what is called the Sacred Way fight it out with men from the Subura? Is it, as some say, that they punish the horse because they believe Troy was captured by means of a horse, seeing that they themselves are the splendid offspring of Trojans mixed with the children of the Latins?
Or is it because the horse is a spirited, warlike, and martial creature, and they sacrifice to the gods the things that are dearest and most fitting to them, and the winner is sacrificed because the god is associated with victory and mastery? Or rather is it because the god's work is a matter of standing firm, and those who hold their ground in formation defeat those who do not hold it but flee — and so speed is punished as an accessory to cowardice, and men learn symbolically that there is no safety for those who flee?
Why, when the censors take up office, do they do nothing else before letting out the contract for feeding the sacred geese and gilding the statue? Is it because they begin from the least costly matters, which require neither much expense nor much trouble? Or is this an ancient gratitude remembered toward these creatures on account of the Gauls — because, when the barbarians were already climbing over the wall of the Capitol by night while the dogs slept, the geese noticed and roused the guards with their cries? Or is it that the censors, being guardians of the greatest matters, and it being fitting for them to oversee and busy themselves with sacred and public affairs, with lives, characters, and modes of living, immediately take account of the most watchful of animals, and at the same time, by their care for these creatures, exhort the citizens not to neglect or grow careless about sacred things? And the gilding of the statue is necessary, since the red pigment with which the ancient statues used to be colored quickly fades.
Why, when they suspend other priests who have been condemned and gone into exile and choose another in their place, do they not, in the case of the augur, take away the priesthood even if he is convicted of the greatest crimes, so long as he lives — though they call those who deal with omens "augurs"? Is it, as some say, that they wish no one who is not a priest to know the secrets of the priesthood? Or, since the augur is bound by oaths never to reveal the secrets of the sacred rites to anyone, are they unwilling to release him from those oaths by making him a private citizen? Or is "augur" not the name of an honor or an office at all, but of a branch of knowledge and skill?
The augur, then, is like a musician or a physician: forbidding a diviner to be a diviner by voting him out is like disqualifying a musician from being a musician or a physician from being a physician — men unable to take away his actual skill, even if they take away his title. And they do not appoint another in his place, quite reasonably keeping the original number of augurs.
Why, on the Ides of August, which used to be called the Sextilian Ides, do all the female and male slaves hold festival, and the women especially make a practice of washing and cleansing their heads? Is it because King Servius was born on this day, of a captive maidservant, and so the household slaves have license from their labors, and the practice of washing heads, having begun with the maidservants because of the festival, spread even to the freeborn?
Why do they adorn boys with the neck-ornaments they call bullae? Is it in honor of the ravished women, as with many other customs, and did they vote that this too should belong to the children born of them? Or is it in honor of the manly courage of Tarquin? For it is said that, while still a boy, in the battle against the Latins together with the Etruscans, he charged into the enemy, and when thrown from his horse he stood his ground boldly against those bearing down on him and rallied the Romans; and when a brilliant rout of the enemy followed, with sixteen thousand slain, he received this as a prize of valor from his father and king.
Or is it that among the ancients, while it was not disgraceful or shameful for men to love slave-boys who were in their prime, as the comedies even now attest, they strongly abstained from freeborn boys, and so that men might not mistake them even if they met them naked, the boys wore this distinguishing badge? Or is it also a safeguard against disorderly conduct, and in a way a bridle upon licentiousness, since boys were ashamed to become men before laying aside the badge of childhood? What the school of Varro says is not persuasive — that, since the bulla was called "bolla" by the Aeolians, the boys wore it as a symbol of good counsel (eubolia). But watch that they do not also wear it on account of the moon...
...the visible shape of the moon, when it is at the full, is not spherical but lens-shaped and disc-shaped, as Empedocles also supposes it to be in its underlying nature. "Why do they give names to boys on the ninth day after birth, but to girls on the eighth?" Is it that for females the earlier day has its cause in nature? For the female grows, reaches its prime, and is completed sooner than the male.
As for the days, they take those after the seventh, for the seventh day is a dangerous one for newborns, both in other respects and with regard to the navel: most infants have the cord detach on the seventh day, and until it does, the infant resembles a plant more than an animal. Or is it rather, as the Pythagoreans held, that of numbers the even is female and the odd is male? For the odd is generative and prevails over the even when combined with it; and when numbers are divided into their units, the even, like the female, yields an empty space between them, whereas of the odd a part always remains full — hence they consider the one suited to the male, the other to the female. Or is it because, of all numbers, nine is the first square derived from three, an odd and perfect number, while eight is the first cube derived from two, an even number? The man ought to be square, odd, and perfect, while the woman, like the cube, ought to be steady, keeping to the house, and hard to move. To this must be added that eight is a cube from the dyad, while nine is a square from the triad; and women use two names, but men three.
"Why do they call fatherless sons 'spurii'?" It is not, as the Greeks suppose and as their orators say in the lawcourts, because they are born of some mixed and common seed; rather, Spurius is one of the first names, like Sextus, Decimus, and Gaius. Now the first names they do not write out in full, but either with one letter, as Titus, Lucius, and Marcus; or with two, as Tiberius and Gnaeus; or with three, as Sextus and Servius. Spurius, then, is among those written with two letters, S and P. And with these same letters they also write, for fatherless children, "sine patre," that is, "without a father," the S signifying "sine" and the P signifying "patre." This, then, gave rise to the error, that "sine patre" and "Spurius" are written with the same letters. One must also mention the other account, which is more far-fetched: they say that the Sabines call a woman's genitals "spurium," and then, as if in mockery, call by this name a child born of an unmarried and unbetrothed woman.
"Why do they call Dionysus 'Liber Pater'?" Is it because he becomes, for those who drink, a father of freedom? For most people grow bold and are filled with frankness of speech in their cups. Or is it because he furnished the libation? Or, as Alexander says, is it from Eleutherae in Boeotia, after which Dionysus is called Eleuthereus? "For what reason is it not customary at public festivals for virgins to be married, though widows are married then?" Is it, as Varro has said, because virgins are married with grief while women who remarry rejoice, and at a festival one ought to do nothing under compulsion or in grief? Or rather is it because for virgins it is honorable to be sought by not a few suitors, while for widows, since many seek them, it is shameful to marry amid such numbers? For a first marriage is enviable, but a second is something to be prayed against: women are ashamed to take another husband while the first still lives, and they lament if he has died. Hence they prefer quiet to noise and processions. And festivals draw the crowd away, so that people have no leisure for such things. Or is it because, when they seized the daughters of the Sabines while they were virgins at a festival and thereby brought on war, they took this as an omen against marrying virgins on sacred days?
"Why do the Romans worship Fortuna Primigenia, which one might call 'first-born Fortune'?" Is it because it was by fortune, as they say, that Servius, born of a slave woman, came to reign over Rome with distinction — for so most Romans call it, "with distinction"? Or rather is it because Fortune furnished Rome's very beginning and origin? Or does the matter admit a more natural and more philosophical explanation, namely that Fortune is the origin of all things, and that nature itself arises out of what comes to be by chance, whenever order comes upon things that had been randomly disposed?
"Why do the Romans call the performers associated with Dionysus 'histriones'?" Is it for the reason that Cluvius Rufus has recorded? For he says that in very ancient times, when Gaius Sulpicius and Licinius Stolo were consuls, a plague occurred in Rome that killed indiscriminately all who came forward onto the stage. When the Romans sent for help, many skilled performers came from Etruria, and the one among them who was most esteemed and who enjoyed the longest success on the stage was named Hister; and it is on account of him, they say, that all such performers came to be called "histriones." "Why do they not marry close relatives?" Is it because, wishing to extend their family connections through marriage, they sought to acquire many kinsmen by giving their women to others and receiving women from others in turn? Or is it because they feared the disputes that arise in marriages between relatives, since such quarrels would destroy even the ties that are naturally just between them? Or is it that, seeing how much help wives need on account of their weakness, they were unwilling to marry them to close relations, so that if their husbands should wrong them, their own kinsmen would be there to help them?
"Why was the priest of Jupiter, whom they call the Flamen Dialis, not permitted to touch flour or leaven?" Is it because flour is an incomplete and unconcocted food? For the wheat has neither remained what it was, nor yet become what it must become, namely bread; rather it has lost the generative power of the seed while not yet acquiring the usefulness of food. Hence the poet, by a figure of speech, called barley-groats "ground by the mill," as though it were something slain and destroyed in the grinding. Leaven, too, arises out of a kind of corruption, and itself corrupts the dough with which it is mixed; for it becomes weak and enervated, and fermentation seems altogether to resemble putrefaction — indeed, in excess it turns entirely sour and spoils the flour. "Why is the priest also forbidden to touch raw flesh?" Is it that the custom turns him far away from raw-eating altogether, or is it for the same reason that they hold flour to be forbidden that they also treat meat as unhallowed? For it is no longer a living creature, nor yet has it become food. Boiling and roasting are a kind of alteration and transformation that change its form; but what is fresh and raw does not even present a clean and unsullied appearance, but rather one that is repulsive and wound-like.
"Why did they order the priest to abstain from dog and goat, neither touching them nor even naming them?" Is it that they abhorred the goat for its lechery and foul smell, or that they feared its liability to disease? For of all animals the goat is thought most subject to seizure by epilepsy, and to communicate the affliction to those who eat or touch it while it is in the grip of the malady. They say the cause is a frequent narrowing of its breathing passages, inferring this from the thinness of its voice; for indeed among men, those who are prone to epileptic fits emit, when they speak, a voice resembling a bleat. As for the dog, it perhaps shares less in lechery and foul odor — though some say that no dog sets foot on the Athenian Acropolis nor on the island of Delos, because of its open mating, just as oxen, pigs, and horses mate in enclosed places but dogs mate openly and without restraint. But such people do not know the true reason: it is that, because the dog is a fighting animal, they exclude it from inviolable and holy sanctuaries, so as to provide suppliants a safe refuge. It is likely, then, that the priest of Jupiter too, being himself, as it were, a living and holy image affording refuge, was to be open to those in need and to suppliants, with no one keeping them away or frightening them off. For this reason a small couch of his stood in the entrance-hall of his house, and whoever fell at his knees had, for that day, immunity from blows and punishment; and if a prisoner in bonds managed to reach him first, he was freed — and his fetters were then thrown out, not through the door, but over the roof. It would have been of no use for the priest to present himself as so gentle and humane if a dog stood guard, frightening off and driving away those who needed to take refuge. Yet the ancients did not consider the dog an altogether pure animal either: it is consecrated to none of the Olympian gods, but is sent as a dinner offering to chthonic Hecate at the crossroads, and so holds a place among things apotropaic and purificatory. At Sparta they sacrifice puppies to Enyalius, the most murderous of the gods; among the Boeotians there is a public rite of purification in which they pass between the two halves of a dog cut in two; and the Romans themselves, at the Lycaea, which they call the Lupercalia, sacrifice a dog in the month of purification. Hence it is not out of keeping that, for those who have taken on the service of the highest and purest of the gods, it is forbidden to keep a dog as a companion and housemate.
"For what reason was the priest of Jupiter forbidden even to touch ivy, or to pass along a road over which a trained vine was trailed from above?" Is this like the prohibitions against "eating from a stool," "sitting on a grain-measure," or "stepping over a broom" — not that the Pythagoreans feared and guarded against these things themselves, but that under these expressions they were forbidding other things? Indeed, passing beneath a vine carried a reference to wine, implying that it was not lawful for the priest to become drunk; for over the heads of those who are drunk hangs wine, and they are weighed down and humbled by it, whereas one ought to be above this pleasure and always master of it rather than mastered by it. As for ivy, is it because, being unfruitful and useless to men, feeble and needing the support of others because of its weakness, yet bewitching most people with its shade and the sight of its greenness, they thought it should not be kept and trained about their houses to no purpose, since, clinging to the plants of the earth that support it, it is harmful to them? For this reason it is excluded from the Olympian sanctuaries, and one would see ivy neither in the temple of Hera at Athens nor in that of Aphrodite at Thebes; but at the Agrionia and the Nyctelia, most of whose rites are performed in darkness, it is present. Or was this too a symbolic prohibition of revel-bands and Bacchic rites? For women subject to Bacchic frenzy rush at once upon the ivy, tearing it apart, seizing it with their hands and devouring it with their mouths; so that those are not entirely unpersuasive who say that ivy, possessing a spirit that rouses and stirs madness, drives people out of their senses and disturbs them, and altogether induces a wineless drunkenness and a pleasure for those who are already disposed to ecstatic frenzy.
"Why were these priests never permitted to seek or hold public office, yet they make use of a lictor and have an official chair as an honor and consolation for not holding office?" Is it, as in some parts of Greece, that the dignity of the priesthood was held to counterbalance that of kingship, and those who failed to obtain the kingship were appointed priests instead? Or rather is it because priests have duties that are fixed, while magistrates have duties that are irregular and undefined, so that it was not possible for the same man to be present at both when the occasions of each coincided at once; rather he would often have had to neglect one or the other when both pressed upon him at the same time, and so at one moment fail in his duty to the gods, at another do harm to the citizens? Or was it that, seeing in human offices necessity attaching no less than power, and that the ruler of the people, as Hippocrates said of the physician, looks upon dreadful things and lays hands upon dreadful things, and reaps private griefs from others' misfortunes, they thought it not holy for a man to sacrifice to the gods and begin sacred rites once he had been involved in the condemnation and execution of citizens — often, indeed, of kinsmen and intimates, as also befell Brutus?