Why, when there are two altars of Hercules, do women receive no share nor taste of the sacrifices offered on the larger altar?

Is it because the friends of Carmenta carne late for the rites, as did also the dan of the Pinarii? Wherefore, as they were excluded from the banquet while the rest were feasting, they acquired the name Pinarii (Starvelings).An attempt to derive the word from Greekπεινῶ, be hungry: see further Livy, i. 7; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, , i. 40. Or is it because of the fable of Deianeira and the shirt?The shirt anointed with the blood of Nessus which Deianeira supposed to be a love charm. She sent the shirt to Heracles and thereby brought about his death; hence Heracles may be supposed to hate all women; see Sophocles, , or Ovid, , ix.

Why is it forbidden to mention or to inquire after or to call by name that deity, whether it be male or female, whose especial province it is to preserve and watch over Rome?Cf. Macrobius, , iii. 9. 3; Pliny, , xxviii. 4 (18). This prohibition they connect with a superstition and relate that Valerius Soranus carne to an evil end because he revealed the name.

Is it because, as certain Roman writers have recorded, there are certain evocations and enchantments affecting the gods, by which the Romans also believed that certain gods had been called forthCf., for example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, , xiii. 3; Livy, v. 21 (the evocatio of Juno from Veii); Macrobius, , iii. 9. 7 and 14-16. from their enemies, and had come to dwell among themselves, and they were afraid of having this same thing done to them by others? Accordingly, as the TyriansCf. Diodorus, xvii. 41. 8; Quintus Curtius, iv. 3. 21. are said to have put chains upon their images, and certain other peoples are said to demand sureties when they send forth their images for bathing or for some other rite of purification, so the Romans believed that not to mention and not to know the name of a god was the safest and surest way of shielding him.

Or as Homer xv. 193. has written, Earth is yet common to all, so that mankind should reverence and honour all the gods, since they possess the earth in common, even so did the Romans of early times conceal the identity of the god who was the guardian of their safety, since they desired that not only this god, but all the gods should be honoured by the citizens?

Why, among those called Fetiales, or, as we should say in Greek, peace-makers or treaty-bringers, was he who was called pater patratus considered the chief? The pater patratus Plutarch here mistakenly explains patrimus instead of patratus: contrast Livy, i. 24. 6; Tacitus, iv. 53. is a man whose father is still alive and who has children; even now he possesses a certain preferment and confidence, for the praetors entrust to him any wards whose beauty and youth require a careful and discreet guardianship.

Is it because there attaches to these men respect for their children and reverence for their fathers?

Or does the name suggest the reason? For patratus means, as it were, completed or perfected, since he to whose lot it has fallen to become a father while he still has a father is more perfect than other men.

Or should the man who presides over oaths and treaties of peace be, in the words of Homer, i. 343, xxiv. 452; Cf. Shakespeare, , iv. iv. 37; Shelley, (18th stanza). one looking before and after? Such a man above all others would be he that has a son to plan for and a father to plan with.

Why is the so-called rex sacrorum, that is to say king of the sacred rites, forbidden to hold office or to address the people?Cf. Livy, ii. 2. 1-2; ix. 34. 12; xl. 42.

Is it because in early times the kings performed the greater part of the most important rites, and themselves offered the sacrifices with the assistance of the priests? But when they did not practise moderation, but were arrogant and oppressive, most of the Greek states took away their authority, and left to them only the offering of sacrifice to the gods: but the Romans expelled their kings altogether, and to offer the sacrifices they appointed another, whom they did not allow to hold office or to address the people, so that in their sacred rites only they might seem to be subject to a king, and to tolerate a kingship only on the gods’ account.Ibid. iii. 39. 4. At any rate, there is a sacrifice traditionally performed in the forum at the place called Comitium, and, when the rex has performed this, he flees from the forum as fast as he can.The ; Cf. Ovid, , ii. 685 ff.: see the , vol. vii. p. 408.

Why did they not allow the table to be taken away empty, but insisted that something should be upon it?Cf., 702 d ff.

Was it that they were symbolizing the necessity of ever allowing some part of the present provision to remain over for the future, and to-day to be mindful of to-morrow, or did they think it polite to repress and restrain the appetite while the means of enjoyment was still at hand? For persons who have accustomed themselves to refrain from what they have are less likely to crave for what they have not.

Or does the custom also show a kindly feeling towards the servants? For they are not so well satisfied with taking as with partaking, since they believe that they thus in some manner share the table with their masters.Cf. Horace, , ii. 6. 66-67.

Or should no sacred thing be suffered to be empty, and the table is a sacred thing?

Why does the husband approach his bride for the first time, not with a light, but in darkness?

Is it because he has a feeling of modest respect, since he regards her as not his own before his union with her? Or is he accustoming himself to approach even his own wife with modesty?

Or, as SolonCf., 138 d; , chap. xx. (89 c). has given directions that the bride shall nibble a quince before entering the bridal chamber, in order that the first greeting may not be disagreeable nor unpleasant, even so did the Roman legislator, if there was anything abnormal or disagreeable connected with the body, keep it concealed?

Or is this that is done a manner of casting infamy upon unlawful amours, since even lawful love has a certain opprobrium connected with it?

Why is one of the hippodromes called Flaminian?

Is it because a certain FlaminiusThe consul defeated at Trasimene. The circus was built circa 221 b.c.; Cf. Varro, , v. 154. long ago bestowed some land upon the city and they used the revenues for the horse-races: and, as there was money still remaining, they made a road, and this they also called Flaminian?The Via Flaminia ran from the Pons Mulvius up the Tiber Valley to Narnia in Umbria; later it was extended over the Apennines to the Port of Ariminum.

Why do they call the rod-bearers lictors?Cf., chap. xxvi. (34 a); Aulus Gellius, xii. 3.

Is it because these officers used both to bind unruly persons and also to follow in the train of Romulus with straps in their bosoms? Most Romans use alligare for the verb to bind, but purists, when they converse, say ligare.Cf. Festus, s.v. lictores; Valgius Rugus, frag. 1 ( i. p. 484).

Or is the c but a recent insertion, and were they formerly called litores, that is, a class of public servants? The fact that even to this day the word public is expressed by leitos in many of the Greek laws has escaped the attention of hardly anyone.

Why do the Luperci sacrifice a dog?Cf. 290 d, infra; , chap. xxi. (31 b ff.); , chap. xix. (72 e); , chap. lxi. (736 d); , chap. xii. (921 b-c); Varro, , vi. 13; scholium on Theocritus, ii. 12. The Luperci are men who race through the city on the Lupercalia, lightly clad in loin-cloths, striking those whom they meet with a strip of leather.

Is it because this performance constitutes a rite of purification of the city? In fact they call this month February, and indeed this very day, februata; and to strike with a kind of leather thong they call februare, the word meaning to purify. Nearly all the Greeks used a dog as the sacrificial victim for ceremonies of purification: and some, at least, make use of it even to this day. They bring forth for HecatêCf. 277 b, supra, and 290 d, infra. puppies along with the other materials for purification, and rub round about with puppiesThat the puppies were later sacrificed we may infer from the practive elsewhere and on other occasions. such persons as are in need of cleansing, and this kind of purification they call periskylakismos (puppifrication).

Or is it that lupus means wolf and the Lupercalia is the Wolf Festival, and that the dog is hostile to the wolf, and for this reason is sacrificed at the Wolf Festival?

Or is it that the dogs bark at the Luperci and annoy them as they race about in the city?

Or is it that the sacrifice is made to Pan, and a dog is something dear to Pan because of his herds of goats?

Why on the festival called SeptimontiumOn this festival see J. B. Carter, (2nd Series), xii. pp. 172 ff.; H. Last in the , vol. vii. pp. 355 ff. were they careful to refrain from the use of horsedrawn vehicles: and why even to this day are those who do not contemn ancient customs still careful about this? The festival Septimontium they observe in commemoration of the addition to the city of the seventh hill, by which Rome was made a city of seven hills.

Is it, as some of the Roman writers conceive, because the city had not yet been completely joined together in all its parts?

Or has this nothing to do with Dionysus Nothing to do with the case: Cf., 615 a, and Lucian, , 5, with Harmon’s note (L.C.L. vol. i. p. 55); see also 388 e and 612 e.? But did they imagine, when their great task of consolidation had been accomplished, that the city had now ceased from further extension: and they rested themselves, and gave respite to the pack-animals, which had helped them in their labours, and afforded the animals an opportunity to enjoy the general festival with no work to do?

Or did they wish that the presence of the citizens should adorn and honour every festival always, and, above all, that one which was held in commemoration of the consolidation of the city? Wherefore in order that they might not leave the City, in whose honour the festival was being held, it was not permitted to make use of vehicles on that day.

Why do they call such persons as stand convicted of theft or of any other servile offences furciferi?Cf., chap. xxiv. (225 d).

Is this also evidence of the carefulness of the men of old? For anyone who had found guilty of some knavery a slave reared in his own household used to command him to take up the forked stick, which they put under their carts, and to proceed through the community or the neighbourhood, observed of all observers, that they might distrust him and be on their guard against him in the future. This stick we call a prop, and the Romans furca (fork): wherefore also he who has borne it about is called furcifer (fork-bearer).

Why do they tie hay to one horn of vicious bulls to warn anyone who meets them to be on guard?

Is it because bulls, horses, asses, men, all wax wanton through stuffing and gorging? So SophoclesNauck, p. 311, Sophocles, Frag. 764; or Pearson, no. 848; Cf. Aeschylus, , 1640-1641; Menander, , 16-17 (p. 291 ed. Allinson in L.C.L.). has somewhere written, You prance, as does a colt, from glut of food, For both your belly and your cheeks are full. Wherefore also the Romans used to say that Marcus CrassusCf., chap. vii. (547 c); Horace, , i. 4. 34 faenum habet in cornu; longe fuge! had hay on his horn: for those who heckled the other chief men in the State were on their guard against assailing him, since they knew that he was vindictive and hard to cope with. Later, however, another saying was bandied about, that Caesar had pulled the hay from Crassus: for Caesar was the first to oppose Crassus in public policy and to treat him with contumely.

Why did they think that the priests that take omens from birds, whom they formerly called Auspices, but now Augures, should always keep their lanterns open and put no cover on them?

Were they like the Pythagoreans,Cf. 290 e, infra, and the notes on , 12 d-e (Vol. I. p. 58). who made small matters symbols of great, forbidding men to sit on a peck measure or to poke a fire with a sword: and even so did the men of old make use of many riddles, especially with reference to priests: and is the question of the lantern of this sort? For the lantern is like the body which encompasses the soul; the soul within is a lightCf., 1130 b. and the part of it that comprehends and thinks should be ever open and clear-sighted, and should never be closed nor remain unseen.

Now when the winds are blowing the birds are unsteady, and do not afford reliable signs because of their wandering and irregular movements. Therefore by this custom they instruct the augurs not to go forth to obtain these signs when the wind is blowing, but only in calm and still weather when they can use their lanterns open.

Why was it forbidden to priests that had any sore upon their bodies to sit and watch for birds of omen?

Is this also a symbolic indication that those who deal with matters divine should be in no way suffering from any smart, and should not, as it were, have any sore or affection in their souls, but should be untroubled, unscathed, and undistracted?

Or is it only logical, if no one would use for sacrifice a victim afflicted with a sore, or use such birds for augury, that they should be still more on their guard against such things in their own case, and be pure, unhurt, and sound when they advance to interpret signs from the gods?Cf., 383 b; Leviticus, xxii. 17-21. For a sore seems to be a sort of mutilation or pollution of the body.

Why did King Servius Tullius build a shrine of Little Fortune, which they call Brevis?Hartman’s theory that Plutarch is rendering Occasio = Fortuna Brevis) is very doubtful.

Is it because although, at the first, he was a man of little importance and of humble activities and the son of a captive woman, yet, owing to Fortune, he became king of Rome? Or does this very change reveal the greatness rather than the littleness of Fortune, and does Servius beyond all other men seem to have deified the power of Fortune,Cf. 273 b, supra. and to have set her formally over all manner of actions? For he not only built shrinesCf. 322 f, infra: the Latin equivalents here are perhaps Felix (?), Averrunca, Obsequens, Primigenia, Virilis, Privata, Respiciens, Virgo, Viscata. of Fortune the Giver of Good Hope, the Averter of Evil, the Gentle, the First-Born,Cf. 289 b, infra. and the Male: but there is also a shrine of Private Fortune, another of Attentive Fortune, and still another of Fortune the Virgin. Yet why need anyone review her other appellations, when there is a shrine of the Fowler’s Fortune, or Viscata, as they call her, signifying that we are caught by Fortune from afar and held fast by circumstances?

Consider, however, whether it be not that Servius observed the mighty potency of Fortune’s ever slight mutation, and that by the occurrence or nonoccurrence of some slight thing, it has often fallen to the lot of some to succeed or to fail in the greatest enterprises, and it was for this reason that he built the shrine of Little Fortune, teaching men to give great heed to events, and not to despise anything that they encountered by reason of its triviality.

Why did they not extinguish a lamp, but suffered it to go out of itself?Cf., 702 d ff.

Did they reverence it as akin and closely related to the inextinguishable and undying fire, or is this also a symbolic indication that we should not destroy nor do away with any living thing, if it does us no harm, since fire is like a living thing? For it needs sustenance, it moves of itself, and when it is extinguished it gives out a sound as if it were being slain.

Or does this custom teach us that we should not destroy fire, water, or any other necessity when we have enough and to spare, but should allow those who have need of these things to use them, and should leave them for others when we ourselves no longer have any use for them?

Why do they that are reputed to be of distinguished lineage wear crescents on their shoes?Cf. Isidore, , xix. 34; Juvenal, vii. 192.

Is this, as Castor says,Jacoby, 250, Frag. 16. an emblem of the fabled residence in the moon, and an indication that after death their souls will again have the moon beneath their feetCf., 943 a ff.; or was this the special privilege of the most ancient families? These were Arcadians of Evander’s following, the so-called Pre-LunarCf. Aristotle, Frag. 591 (ed. V. Rose); Apollonius Rhodius, iv. 264; scholium on Aristophanes, , 398. people.

Or does this also, like many another custom, remind the exalted and proud of the mutability, for better or worse, in the affairs of men, and that they should take the moon as an illustrationNauck, p. 315, Sophocles, Frag. 787; or Pearson, no. 871: the full quotation may be found in , xlv. (911 c). Cf. the variants there and in , 517 d.: When out of darkness first she comes anew Her face she shows increasing fair and full; And when she reaches once her brightest sheen, Again she wastes away and comes to naught?

Or was it a lesson in obedience to authority, teaching them not to be disaffected under the government of kings, but to be even as the moon, who is willing to give heed to her superior and to be a second to him, Ever gazing in awe at the rays of the bright-gleaming Sun-god, as ParmenidesDiels, , i. p. 162, Parmenides, no. b 15. puts it; and were they thus to be content with their second placeo living under their ruler, and enjoying the power and honour derived from him?

Why do they believe that the year belongs to Jupiter, but the months to Juno?

Is it because Jupiter and Juno rule the invisible, conceptual deities, but the sun and moon the visible deities? Now the sun makes the year and the moon the months: but one must not believe that the sun and moon are merely images of Jupiter and Juno, but that the sun is really Jupiter himself in his material form and in the same way the moon is Juno. This is the reason why the Romans apply the name Juno to our Hera, for the name means young or junior, so named from the moon. And they also call her Lucina, that is brilliant or light-giving: and they believe that she aids women in the pangs of childbirth, even as the moonTimotheus, Frag. 28 (ed. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff); Edmonds, , iii. p. 331; better Diels, , ii. p. 152. Cf., 659 a; Macrobius, , vii. 16. 28; see also Roscher, , vol. i. coll. 571-572.: On through the dark-blue vault of the stars, Through the moon that brings birth quickly; for women are thought to have easiest travail at the time of the full moon.

Why of birds is the one called left-hand a bird of good omen?

Is this not really true, but is it the peculiarity of the language which throws many off the track? For their word for left is sinistrum; to permit is sinere: and they say sine when they urge giving permission. Accordingly the bird which permits the augural action to be taken, that is, the avis sinisteria, the vulgar are not correct in assuming to be sinistra and in calling it so.

Or is it, as DionysiusDionysius of Halicarnassus, , ii. 5. 5; Virgil, , ix. 630, and Conington’s note on Virgil, , iv. 7. says, that when Ascanius, son of Aeneas, was drawing up his army against Mezentius, and his men were taking the auspices, a flash of lightning, which portended victory, appeared on the left, and from that time on they observe this practice in divination? Or is it true, as certain other authorities affirm, that this happened to Aeneas? As a matter of fact, the Thebans, when they had routed and overpowered their enemies on the left wing at Leuctra,Cf., xxiii. (289 d-e). continued thereafter to assign to the left the chief command in all battles.

OrCf., 363 e, 888 b. is it rather, as JubaMüller, iii. p. 471. declares, that as anyone looks eastward, the north is on the left, and some make out the north to be the right, or upper, side of the universe?

But consider whether it be not that the left is by nature the weaker side, and they that preside over auguries try to strengthen and prop its deficient powers by this method of equalization.

Or was it that they believed earthly and mortal matters to be antithetical to things heavenly and divine, and so thought that whatever was on the left for us the gods were sending forth from the right?

Why was it permitted to take up a bone of a man who had enjoyed a triumph, and had later died and been cremated, and carry it into the city and deposit it there, as PyrrhonMüller, iv. p. 479. of Lipara has recorded?

Was it to show honour to the dead? In fact, to other men of achievement, as well as to generals, they granted, not only for themselves, but also for their descendants, the right to be buried in the Forum, as they did to ValeriusCf., chap. xxiii. (109 d). and to Fabricius: and they relate that when descendants of these men die and have been conveyed to the Forum, a lighted torch is placed beneath the body and then immediately withdrawn; thus they enjoy the honour without exciting envy, and merely confirm their prerogative.