Quaestiones Romanae

The Roman Questions is an attempt to explain one hundred and thirteen Roman customs, the majority of which deal with religious matters. The treatise is one of three similar compilations of wThich two have been preserved and one, the Quaestiones Barbaricae (No. 139 in Lamprias’s list), has been lost. Plutarch possessed a great desire to know the reason why: besides the many discussions of a similar sort contained in the Symposiacs (Table Talk), there is extant a discussion of Physical Causes, and the titles of other writings of the same sort have been preserved for us in Lamprias’s list of Plutarch’s writings.[*]((149)Αἰτίαι τῶν περιφερομένων Στωικῶν; (160)Αἰτίαι καὶ τοπόι; (161)Αἰτίαι ἀλλαγῶν; (167)Αἰτίαι γυναικῶν.)

The Greek title, which means causes, is twice mentioned by Plutarch himself in the Lives,[*](Life of Romulus, chap. xv. (26 e); Life of Camillus chap. xix. (138 e).) and we might call it The Reasons Why. In nearly every case at least two and often more reasons are given: of these presumably not more than one can be right. Thus the other explanations will embody the results of Plutarch’s researches on the matter or his own quaint speculations. Consequently the book, which is an important source for Roman

This treatise could hardly have been written by a person ignorant of Latin. Plutarch in his Life of Demosthenes, chap, ii., modestly disavows any profound knowledge of Latin: yet he had read a considerable amount in the language and had spent some time in Rome. Hence he was quite able to use Latin works in compiling the Roman Questions. Some Roman writers he mentions by name, especially Varro, and Verrius Flaccus, an antiquarian of the Augustan age. Livy is specifically cited but twice in the Moralia, once in the present work and once in De Fortuna Romanorum; yet he is referred

Other Roman authorities are mentioned occasionally, such as Cato the Elder, Nigidius Figulus, Antistius Labeo, Ateius Capito, and Fenestella: but no doubt they and others are used in accounts introduced by such expressions as they say, some say, the story is told, and the like. Some of these references have, in fact, been traced by scholars to their originals. It has been remarked of Cicero that any statement found in that author’s works appears, or has appeared, elsewhere. The same affirmation might be made of Plutarch with some confidence. Unless he specifically testifies to oral tradition or hearsay, we may be certain that his facts, like Cicero’s, are drawn from his extensive reading.

Critics lay stress on a few mistakes which Plutarch made in interpreting Latin (these will be found noted in Rose and in Hartman), but against them must be set the unnumbered instances in which he is right. He did not, however, have to depend wholly on Latin writers, for he undoubtedly had at hand the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st cent. b.c.) and the works of Juba,[*](Müller, Frag. Hist. Graec. iii. 465-484.) the scholarly king of Mauretania, who as a youth had been brought to Rome in 46 b.c. to grace the triumph of Julius Caesar. Juba became greatly interested in Roman

Many of the matters discussed in the Roman Questions are to be found treated elsewhere in Plutarch’s work, particularly in the Roman Lives. The Lives of Romulus and of Numa are especially rich in parallel passages: for very many of the Roman customs were thought to go back to the earliest period of Roman history.

The book was probably published after the death of Domitian in a.d, 96, though this is a not quite certain inference from the text (276 e). The work is No. 138 in Lamprias’s catalogue of Plutarch’s works. The . ms. tradition (on which see J. B. Titchener, University of Illinois Studies, ix., 1924) is good.

Why do they bid the bride touch fire and water?

Is it that of these two, being reckoned as elements or first principles, fire is masculine and water feminine,[*](Cf. Varro, De Lingua Latina, v. 61. The genders are those of ignis and aqua, not those of the Greek words.) and fire supplies the beginnings of motion and water the function of the subsistent element or the material?

Or is it because fire purifies and water cleanses, and a married woman must remain pure and clean?

Or is it that, just as fire without moisture is unsustaining and arid, and water without heat is unproductive and inactive,[*](Cf.Moralia, 650 b; Servius on Virgil, Aeneid, iv. 167; Lactantius, Institutiones Divinae, ii. 9. 21.) so also male and female apart from each other are inert, but their union in marriage produces the perfection of their life together?

Or is it that they must not desert each other, but must share together every sort of fortune, even if they are destined to have nothing other than fire and water to share with each other?

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?

Why is it that it is forbidden to slave-women to set foot in the shrine of Matuta, and why do the women bring in one slave-woman only and slap her on the head and beat her?[*](Cf.Life of Camillus, v. (131 b-c); Ovid, Fasti, vi. 551 ff. with Frazer’s note.)

Is the beating of this slave but a symbol of the prohibition, and do they prevent the others from entering because of the legend? For Ino[*](Ino is the Greek name for the Greek goddess Leucothea before her violent death and deification; Matuta is the supposed Roman equivalent of both Greek names.) is said to have become madly jealous of a slave-woman on her husband’s account, and to have vented her madness on her son. The Greeks relate that the slave was an Aetolian by birth and that her name was Antiphera. Wherefore also in my native town, Chaeroneia, the temple-guardian stands before the precinct of Leucothea and, taking a whip in his hand, makes proclamation: Let no slave enter, nor any Aetolian, man or woman!

Why is it that in the shrine of this goddess they do not pray for blessings on their own children, but only on their sisters’ children?[*](Cf.Moralia, 492 d.)

Is it because Ino was fond of her sister and suckled her sister’s son also, but was herself unfortunate in her own children? Or is it that, quite apart from this reason, the custom is morally excellent and produces much goodwill among kindred?

Why was it the custom for many of the wealthy to give a tithe of their property to Hercules?[*](Cf.Life of Sulla, chap. xxxv. (474 a); Life of Crassus, ii. (543 d), xii. (550 d).)

Is it because he also sacrificed a tithe of Geryon’s cattle in Rome? Or because he freed the Romans from paying a tithe to the Etruscans?

Or have these tales no historical foundation worthy of credence, but the Romans were wont to sacrifice lavishly and abundantly to Hercules as to an insatiable eater and a good trencher-man?

Or was it rather in curtailing their excessive wealth, since it was odious to their fellow-citizens, and in doing away with some of it, as from a lusty bodily vigour that had reached its culmination,[*](Probably an allusion to the Hippocratic maxim quoted in Moralia, 682 e, 1090 b, and often by Galen.) did they think that thus Hercules would be especially honoured and pleased by such a way of using up and reducing overabundance, since in his own life he was frugal, self-sufficient, and free from extravagance?

Why do they adopt the month of January as the beginning of the new year?[*](Cf.Life of Numa, xviii., xix. (71 e ff.); Lucian, Pseudologista, 8; Varro, De Lingua Latina, vi. 33; Ovid, Fasti, iii. 99-166.)

The fact is that, in ancient days, March was counted before January, as is clear from many different proofs, and particularly from the fact that the fifth month from March is called Quintilis, the sixth Sextilis, and

But more worthy of credence are they who maintain that it was because Romulus was a warrior and a lover of battle, and was thought to be a son of Mars, that he placed first the month which bore Mars’ name. But Numa, in turn, who was a lover of peace, and whose ambition it was to turn the city towards husbandry and to divert it from war, gave the precedence to January and advanced the god Janus to great honours, since Janus[*](Cf. 269 a, infra.) was a statesman and a husbandman rather than a warrior. But consider whether Numa may not have adopted as the beginning of the year that which conforms to our conception of the natural beginning. Speaking generally, to be sure, there is not naturally either last or first in a cycle: and it is by custom that some adopt one beginning of this period and others another. They do best, however, who adopt the beginning