Quaestiones Romanae

Why in the marriage rites do they light five torches, neither more nor less, which they call cereones?

Is it, as Varro has stated, that while the praetors use three, the aediles have a right[*](Cf. the Lex Coloniae Genetivae, column 62 (C.I.L. i.² 594 = ii. 5439), where it is specified that the aediles shall have the right and power to possess, among other things, cereos.) to more, and it is from the aediles that the wedding party light their torches?

Or is it because in their use of several numbers the odd number was considered better and more perfect for various purposes and also better adapted to marriage? For the even number admits division and its equality of division suggests strife and opposition: the odd number, however, cannot be divided into equal parts at all, but whenever it is divided it always leaves behind a remainder of the same nature as itself. Now, of the odd numbers, five is above all the nuptial number; for three is the first odd number, and two is the first even number, and five is composed of the union of these two, as it were of male and female.[*](Cf.Moralia, 288 d-e, infra, 374 a, 429 a, and 388 a with the note on the last passage; Lydus, De Mensibus, ii. 4.)

Or is it rather that, since light is the symbol of birth, and women in general are enabled by nature to bear, at the most, five children at one birth,[*](Cf.Moralia, 429 f. A few authenticated cases of sextuplets have occurred since Plutarch’s day. See also the passages of Aulus Gellius and Aristotle quoted in Classical Journal, xxx. p. 493.) the wedding company makes use of exactly that number of torches?

Or is it because they think that the nuptial pair has need of five deities: Zeus Teleios, Hera Teleia, Aphrodite, Peitho, and finally Artemis, whom women in child-birth and travail are wont to invoke?

Why is it that, although there are many shrines of Diana in Rome, the only one into which men may not enter is the shrine in the so-called Vicus Patricius?

Is it because of the current legend? For a man attempted to violate a woman who was here worshipping the goddess, and was torn to pieces by the dogs: and men do not enter because of the superstitious fear that arose from this occurrence.

Why do they, as might be expected, nail up stags’ horns in all the other shrines of Diana, but in the shrine on the Aventine nail up horns of cattle?

Is it because they remember the ancient occurrence?[*](Cf. Livy, i. 45; Valerius Maximus, vii. 3. 1.) For the tale is told that among the Sabines in the herds of Antro Curiatius was born a heifer excelling all the others in appearance and size. When a certain soothsayer told him that the city of the man who should sacrifice that heifer to Diana on the Aventine was destined to become the mightiest city and to rule all Italy, the man carne to Rome with intent to sacrifice his heifer. But a servant of his secretly told the prophecy to the king Servius, who told Cornelius the priest, and Cornelius gave instructions to Antro to bathe in the Tiber before the sacrifice: for this, said he, was the custom of those whose sacrifice was to be acceptable. Accordingly Antro went away and bathed, but Servius sacrificed the heifer to Diana before Antro could return, and nailed the horns to the shrine. This tale both Juba[*](Müller,Frag. Hist. Graec. iii. p. 470.) and Varro have recorded, except that Varro has not noted the name of Antro: and he says that the Sabine was cozened, not by Cornelius the priest, but by the keeper of the temple.

Why is it that those who are falsely reported to

Varro gives an explanation of the cause that is quite fabulous. For he says that in the Sicilian war there was a great naval battle, and in the case of many men a false report spread that they were dead. But, when they had returned home, in a short time they all carne to their end except one who, when he tried to enter, found the doors shutting against him of their own accord, nor did they yield when he strove to open them. The man fell asleep there before his threshold and in his sleep saw a vision, which instructed him to climb upon the roof and let himself down into the house. When he had done so, he prospered and lived to an advanced age: and from this occurrence the custom became established for succeeding generations.

But consider if this be not in some wise similar to Greek customs; for the Greeks did not consider pure, nor admit to familiar intercourse, nor suffer to approach the temples any person for whom a funeral had been held and a tomb constructed on the assumption that they were dead. The tale is told that Aristinus, a victim of this superstition, sent to Delphi and besought the god to release him from the difficulties in which he was involved because of the custom: and the prophetic priestess gave response:

1. All that a woman in childbed does at the birth of her baby,
2. When this again thou hast done, to the blessed gods sacrifice offer.

Why do the women kiss their kinsmen on the lips?

Is it, as most authorities believe, that the drinking of wine was forbidden to women,[*](Cf.Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa, chap. iii. (77 b); Polybius, vi. 11 a. 4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, ii. 25. 6; Cicero, De Republica, iv. 6; Valerius Maximus, ii. 1. 5; vi. 3. 9; Pliny, Natural History, xiv. 13 (89); Aulus Gellius, x. 23. 1; Tertullian, Apol. vi.) and therefore, so that women who had drunk wine should not escape detection, but should be detected when they chanced to meet men of their household, the custom of kissing was established?

Or is it for the reason which Aristotle[*](Frag. 609 (ed. V. Rose).) the philosopher has recorded? For that far-famed deed, the scene of which is laid in many different places,[*](Cf.Moralia, 243 e and the note ad loc. (Vol. III. p. 480).) was dared, it appears, by the Trojan women, even on the very shores of Italy. For when they had reached the coast, and the men had disembarked, the women set fire to the ships, since, at all hazards, they desired to be quit of their wanderings and their sea-faring.

Or was this rather bestowed upon the women as a privilege that should bring them both honour and power if they should be seen to have many good men among their kinsmen and in their household?

Or is it that, since it is not the custom for men to marry blood relations,[*](Hatzidakis objects to the formσυγγενίδας; but the very fact that Polux, iii. 30, characterizes it asἐσχάτως βάρβαρον proves (as do inscriptions also) that it was in use.) affection proceeded only so far as a kiss, and this alone remained as a token of kinship and a participation therein? For formerly men did not marry women related to them by ties of blood, just as even now they do not marry their aunts or their sisters[*](Cf. Tacitus, Annals, xii. 5-7.); but after a long time they made the concession of allowing wedlock with cousins for the following reason: a man possessed of no property, but otherwise of excellent character and more satisfactory to the people than other public men, had as wife his cousin, an heiress, and was thought to be growing rich from her estate. He was accused on this ground, but the people would not even try the case and dismissed the charge, enacting a decree that ali might marry cousins or more distant relatives: but marriage with nearer kin was prohibited.

Why is it forbidden for a man to receive a gift from his wife or a wife to receive a gift from her husband?[*](Cf.Moralia, 143 a.)

Is it that, Solon having promulgated a law[*](Cf.Life of Solon, chap. xxi. (90 a); [Demosthenes] xlvi. 14; Hypereides, Against Athenogenes, 17, 18.) that the bequests of the deceased should be valid unless a man were constrained by force or persuaded by his wife, whereby he excepted force as overriding the free will, and pleasure as misleading the judgement, in this way the bequests of wives and husbands became suspect?

Or did they regard giving as an utterly worthless token of aifection (for even strangers and persons with no kindly feelings give gifts), and so deprived the marriage relationship of this mode of giving pleasure, that mutual affection might be unbought and free, existing for its own sake and for no other reason?

Or is it that women are most likely to be seduced and welcome strangers because of gifts they receive from them: and thus it is seen to be dignified for them to love their own husbands even though their husbands give them no gifts?

Or is it rather that both the husbands’ property should be held in common with their wives and the wives’ with their husbands? For anyone who accepts what is given learns to regard what is not given to him as belonging to another, with the result that by giving a little to each other they deprive each other of all else that they own.

Why among the Romans is it forbidden to receive a gift from a son-in-law or from a father-in-law?

Is the father-in-law prevented from receiving a gift from his son-in-law, in order that the gift may not appear ultimately to reach the wife through her father? And is the son-in-law similarly prevented, since it is obviously just that he who may not give shall also not receive?

Why is it that, when men who have wives at home are returning either from the country or from abroad, they send ahead to tell their wives that they are coming?

Is it because this is the mark of a man who is confident that his wife is not up to any mischief, whereas coming suddenly and unexpectedly is, as it were, an arrival by stratagem and unfair vigilance: and are they eager to send good tidings about themselves to their wives as if they felt certain that their wives would be longing for them and expecting them?

Or is it rather that the men themselves long to hear news of their wives, if they shall find them safe at home and longing for their husbands?

Or is it because during their husbands’ absence the wives have more household duties and occupations, and also dissensions and outbursts against those of the household? Therefore the notice is given in advance that the wife may rid herself of these matters and make for her husband his welcome home undisturbed and pleasant.

Why is it that when they worship the gods, they cover their heads, but when they meet any of their fellow-men worthy of honour, if they happen to have the toga over the head, they uncover?[*](Cf. Pliny, Natural History, xxviii. 17 (60).)

This second fact seems to intensify the difficulty of the first. If, then, the tale told of Aeneas[*](Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, xii. 16.) is true, that, when Diomedes passed by, he covered his head and completed the sacrifice, it is reasonable and consistent with the covering of one’s head in the presence of an enemy that men who meet good

But if there is anything else to be said, consider whether it be not true that there is only one matter that needs investigation: why men cover their heads when they worship the gods: and the other follows from this. For they uncover their heads in the presence of men more influential than they: it is not to invest these men with additional honour, but rather to avert from them the jealousy of the gods, that these men may not seem to demand the same honours as the gods, nor to tolerate an attention like that bestowed, on the gods, nor to rejoice therein. But they thus worshipped the gods, either humbling themselves by concealing the head, or rather by pulling the toga over their ears as a precaution lest any ill-omened and baleful sound from without should reach them while they were praying. That they were mightily vigilant in this matter is obvious from the fact that when they went forth for purposes of divination, they surrounded themselves with the clashing of bronze.

Or, as Castor[*](Cf. Jacoby, Frag. der griech. Hist. 250, Frag. 15.) states when he is trying to bring Roman customs into relation with Pythagorean doctrines: the Spirit within us entreats and supplicates the gods without, and thus he symbolizes by the covering of the head the covering and concealment of the soul by the body.

Why do they sacrifice to Saturn with the head uncovered?

Is it because Aeneas instituted the custom of covering the head, and the sacrifice to Satum dates from long before that time?

Or is it that they cover the head before the heavenly deities, but they consider Saturn a god whose realm is beneath the earth? Or is it that no part of Truth is covered or overshadowed, and the Romans consider Saturn father of Truth?

And why do they consider Saturn father of Truth?

Is it that they think, as do certain philosophers,[*](Cf.Moralia, 363 d; Aristotle, De Mundo, chap. vii. ad init. (401 a 15); Cornutus, chap. vi. (p. 7 ed. Lang); Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 8. 7.) that Saturn (Kronos) is Time (Chronos), and Time discovers the truth? Or because it is likely that the fabled Age of Saturn, if it was an age of the greatest righteousness, participated most largely in truth?

Why do they also sacrifice to the god called Honor with the head uncovered? One might translate Honor as renown or honour.

Is it because renown is a brilliant thing, conspicuous, and widespread, and for the reason that they uncover in the presence of good and honoured men, is it for this same reason that they also worship the god who is named for honour?

Why do sons cover their heads when they escort their parents to the grave, while daughters go with uncovered heads and hair unbound?

Is it because fathers should be honoured as gods

Or is it that the unusual is proper in mourning, and it is more usual for women to go forth in public with their heads covered and men with their heads uncovered? So in Greece, whenever any misfortune comes, the women cut off their hair and the men let it grow, for it is usual for men to have their hair cut and for women to let it grow.

Or is it that it has become customary for sons to cover their heads for the reason already given?[*](The first reason above: The father should be honoured as a god.) For they turn about at the graves, as Varro relates, thus honouring the tombs of their fathers even as they do the shrines of the gods: and when they have cremated their parents, they declare that the dead person has become a god at the moment when first they find a bone.[*](Cf. Cicero, De Legibus, ii. 22 (57).)

But formerly women were not allowed to cover the head at all. At least it is recorded that Spurius Carvilius[*](Cf. 278 e, infra; Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa, iii. (77 c); Comparison of Theseus and Romulus, vi. (39 b); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, ii. 25. 7; Valerius Maximus, ii. 1. 4; Aulus Gellius, iv. 3. 2; xvii. 21. 44; Tertullian, Apol. vi., De Monogamia, ix.) was the first man to divorce his wife and the reason was her barrenness: the second was Sulpicius Gallus, because he saw his wife pull her cloak over her head: and the third was Publius Sempronius, because his wife had been present as a spectator at funeral games.[*](Cf. Valerius Maximus, vi. 3. 10.)

Why is it that they were wont to sacrifice no living creature to Terminus,[*](This is certainly not true of later times; Cf. for example, Horace, Epodes, 2. 59.) in whose honour they held the Terminalia, although they regard him as a god?

Is it that Romulus placed no boundary-stones for his country, so that Romans might go forth, seize land, and regard all as theirs, as the Spartan said,[*](Cf.Moralia, 210 e with the note (Vol. III. p. 257).) which their spears could reach; whereas Numa Pompilius,[*](Cf.Life of Numa, xvi. (70 f); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, ii. 74. 2 ff.) a just man and a statesman, who had become versed in philosophy, marked out the boundaries between Rome and her neighbours, and, when on the boundary-stones he had formally installed Terminus as overseer and guardian of friendship and peace, he thought that Terminus should be kept pure and undefiled from blood and gore?