Quaestiones Romanae
Plutarch
Plutarch. Moralia, Vol. IV. Babbitt, Frank Cole, translator. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1936 (printing).
Why did they not allow the table to be taken away empty, but insisted that something should be upon it?[*](Cf.Moralia, 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, Satires, 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 Solon[*](Cf.Moralia, 138 d; Life of Solon, 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?