{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_57513/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_57513","id":"gutenberg_57513","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57513","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Rome -- Religion -- Early works to 1800","Rome -- Social life and customs -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Produced by Keith Edkins, Turgut Dincer and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note: Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nPlutarch's Romane Questions. Translated\nA.D. 1603 by Philemon Holland, M.A., Fellow of\nTrinity College, Cambridge. Now again edited\nby Frank Byron Jebons, M.A., Classical\nTutor to the University of Durham\nWith Dissertations on Italian\nCults, Myths, Taboos, Man-\nWorship, Aryan Marriage\nSympathetic Magic\nand the Eating\nof Beans\n\n\n\u2014\u2014\n\n\n_LONDON. MDCCCXCII. PUBLISHED BY DAVID NUTT_\n_IN THE STRAND_\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nOn the whole, with the proper qualifications, Plutarch's _Romane Questions_\nmay fairly be said to be the earliest formal treatise written on the\nsubject of folk-lore. The problems which Plutarch proposes for solution are\nmainly such as the modern science of folk-lore undertakes to solve; and\nthough Plutarch was not the first to propound them, he was the first to\nmake a collection and selection of them and give them a place of their own\nin literature. On the other hand, though Plutarch's questions are in the\nspirit of modern scientific inquiry, his answers\u2014or rather the answers\nwhich he sets forth, for they are not always or usually his own\u2014are\nconceived in a different strain. They are all built on the assumption that\nthe customs which they are intended to explain were consciously and\ndeliberately instituted by men who possessed at least as much culture and\nwisdom as Plutarch himself, or the other philosophers who busied themselves\nwith this branch of antiquities. This assumption, however, that the\nprimitive Italians or the pro-ethnic Aryans shared the same (erroneous)\nscientific and philosophical views as the savants of Plutarch's day, is an\nunverified and improbable hypothesis. The Aryans were in the Stone Age, and\nhad advanced only to such rudimentary agriculture as is possible for a\nnomad people. If, therefore, we are to explain their customs, we must keep\nwithin the narrow circle which bounds the thought and imagination of other\npeoples in the same stage of development. Plutarch, however, in effect asks\nhimself, \"If I had instituted these customs, what would my motives have\nbeen?\" and in reply to his own question he shows what very learned reasons\nmight have moved him; and also, quite unconsciously, what very amiable\nfeelings would in reality have governed him; for, if he ascribes to the\nauthors of these customs the learning of all the many books which he had\nread, he also credits them with a kindliness of character which belonged to\nhimself alone. Thus, to go no further than the first of the _Romane\nQuestions_, viz., _What is the reason that new-wedded wives are bidden to\ntouch fire and water?_ Plutarch first gives four high philosophical\nreasons, which he may have borrowed, but concludes with one which we may be\nsure is his own: \"Or last of all [is it] because man and wife ought not to\nforsake and abandon one another, but to take part of all fortunes; though\nthey had no other good in the world common between them, but fire and water\nonly?\"\n\nThat this, like the rest of Plutarch's reasons, is fanciful, may not be\ndenied, but would not be worth mentioning, were it not that here we have,\nimplicit, the reason why no modern translation could ever vie with Philemon\nHolland's version of the _Romane Questions_. It is not merely because\nPhilemon's antiquated English harmonises with Plutarch's antiquated\nspeculation, and by that harmony disposes the reader's mind favourably\ntowards it; but in Philemon's day, England, like the other countries of\nWestern Europe, was discovering that all that is worth knowing is in Greek.\nThe universal respect felt for Greek in those days, even by schoolmasters\n(Holland was himself Head-master of Coventry Free School), is still\napparent to those who read this translation. But things are now so changed\nthat the English language of to-day cannot provide a seemly garb for\nPlutarch's ancient reasonings. To say in modern English that \"five is the\nodd number most connected with marriage,\" is to expose the Pythagorean\ndoctrine of numbers to modern ridicule. But when Philemon says, \"Now among\nal odde numbers it seemeth that Cinque is most nuptial,\" even the\nirreverent modern cannot fail to feel that Cinque was an eminently\nrespectable character, whose views were strictly honourable and a bright\nexample to other odde numbers. Again, Philemon's insertion of the words \"it\nseemeth\" makes for reverence. The insertion is not apologetic; nor does it\nintimate that the translator hesitates to subscribe to so strange a\nstatement. Rather, it summons the reader to give closer attention to the\nwords which are about to follow\u2014words of wisdom such as is to be found\nnowhere else but only in the fountain of all knowledge, Greek. Insertions\nand amplifications are indeed characteristic of Philemon as a translator.\nBut, though his style is florid, it is lucid; his amplifications make the\nmeaning clearer to the English reader, and, as a rule, only state\nexplicitly what is really implied in the original. Sometimes (_e.g._,\ntowards the end of _R. Q._ 6) he does enlarge on the text beyond all\nmeasure; sometimes, again, defective scholarship leads him to ascribe\nthings to Plutarch which Plutarch never said (_e.g._, in _R. Q._ 5, \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f19\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd does not mean \"this may seeme in some\nsort to have beene derived from the Greeks\"); and sometimes he is mistaken\nas to the meaning of a word (_e.g._, \u1f14\u03bd\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 in _R. Q._ 5). On the other\nhand, where the text is corrupt, he sees and says what the meaning really\nis; and Hearne's verdict that Holland had \"an admirable knack in\ntranslating books\" does not go beyond the mark. Indeed, it does not do\njustice to Philemon, for it hardly prepares us to learn that, in the\ninfancy of the study of Greek in England, Philemon threw off, among other\ntrifles, translations of all the _Moralia_ of Plutarch, the whole of Livy,\nthe enormous _Natural History_ of Pliny, Suetonius, Ammianus Marcellinus,\nthe _Cyrop\u00e6dia_ of Xenophon, and Camden's _Britannia_. Southey is more just\nto the assiduous labours of a life of study carried to the age of\neighty-five, when he calls Philemon \"the best of the Hollands.\" But the\nmost discerning criticism of Holland, as \"translator generall in his age\"\n(Fuller), is contained in Owen's epigram on Holland's translation of the\n_Natural History_, that he was both _plenior_ and _planior_ than Plinius.\n\nTo judge from the _Romane Questions_, Philemon must have used as his text\nthe edition of 1560-70, Venet., for he evidently avails himself of\nXylander's emendations of the Aldine _editio princeps_, 1509-19. One\ncannot, however, be quite certain on this point, for the title-page of\nHolland's translation of the _Moralia_ runs: \"The Philosophie, commonly\ncalled the Morals, written by the learned philosopher Plutarch of\nChaeronea, translated out of Greek into English, and conferred with Latin\nand French.\" Now the Latin translation must have been Xylander's; and the\nonly edition of the text used by Holland may have been that of H. Stephens,\nwith which Xylander's Latin translation and notes were published. The\nFrench with which Philemon conferred was of course that of Jacques Amyot,\nwho had already translated Plutarch's _Lives_ in 1559, and followed up that\ntranslation with one of the _Moralia_ in 1574. Philemon's translation of\nthe _Morals_ appeared in 1603 (\"revised and corrected\" in 1657).\n\nThe _Morals_ in general and the _Romane Questions_ in particular have\nreceived little attention from commentators. The only notes I have\nsucceeded in getting hold of, besides those of Xylander and Reiske\n(complete edition of Plutarch, Lips., 1774-82), are some by Boxhorn (in the\nfifth volume of the _Thesaurus_ of Gr\u00e6vius, 1696), which includes one\nsensible remark (quoted p. xxxii. below), and those by Wyttenbach (Oxford,\n1821), which, if I had looked at them before instead of after writing my\nIntroduction, would have provided me with a good many classical references\nthat, as it is, I have had to put together myself.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nI. THE SUBJECT OF THE \"ROMANE QUESTIONS\" AND OF THIS INTRODUCTION.\n\nThe \"fashions and customes of Rome,\" which prompted Plutarch's questions,\nare directly or indirectly associated with the worship of the gods, while\nthe solutions which he suggests contain occasionally myths. It is not,\nhowever, all Roman gods, cults, and myths that are discussed by Plutarch:\nhe limits himself, on the whole, to those which are purely Roman, or rather\npurely Italian. This limitation is not accidental, and it is significant.\nIt does not indeed appear that Plutarch designed to confine himself thus:\nthe fact seems rather to be that, long before his time, the Romans had\nborrowed the myths, the ritual, and the gods of Greece, and that Plutarch,\nas a Greek, found nothing strange or unintelligible in the resemblances\nwhich the Roman ritual of his day bore to the religion of his native land.\nIt was the points of difference which caught his attention.\n\nAnd here we must note a further limitation of the subject of the _Romane\nQuestions_ and of this Introduction. Surprise and inquiry are excited not\nby the familiar, but by the unusual; so Plutarch's attention was arrested\nnot by customs which, though purely Italian, were universal in Italy,\n_e.g._, the practice of covering the head during worship, but by fashions\nfor which he could find no analogy or parallel in the stage of religion\nwith which alone he was acquainted. In such isolated customs, out of\nharmony with their surroundings, modern science sees \"survivals\" from an\nearlier stage of culture; and it is as survivals that they will be treated\nin this Introduction. Now, the stage of religion with which Plutarch was\nfamiliar, and in which he could find no analogies for those \"fashions and\ncustomes,\" was polytheism; and if those practices are survivals, they must\nbe survivals from a stage of religion earlier than polytheism.\n\nHere, however, a difficulty meets us. If the teaching of the Solar\nMythologists be true, the Aryans, having a mythology, were already\npolytheists: much more, therefore, must the Italians have been polytheists\nfrom the beginning. I am sorry to say that I cannot meet this difficulty: I\ncan only frankly warn the reader that it exists. But in an Introduction\nwhich professes to confine itself to myths and cults which are purely\nItalian, it is impossible to discuss Solar Mythology, for the simple reason\nthat there is no such thing in existence as an Italian solar myth, or\nindeed Nature-myth of any kind. The only story which is seriously claimed\nas a Nature-myth is that of Hercules and Cacus. Cacus, a monster or giant,\nstole some cows from Hercules, and hid them in his cave. Hercules\ndiscovered them, according to some accounts, by the aid of Caca, the sister\nof Cacus, according to other accounts, by the lowing which the cows in the\ncave set up when Hercules went by with the rest of his oxen. Hercules\nforced his way into the cave, and, in spite of the fire and flames which\nCacus spat at him, killed the monster with his club. Then Hercules, in\ncommemoration of the discovery of his cattle, erected an altar to Jupiter\nthe Discoverer (_Jupiter Inventor_). Now a similar story, it would appear,\nis to be found in the Vedas. Vritra, a three-headed snake, steals cows from\nIndra, who discovers them in a cave by their lowing, and kills Vritra with\na club. And the Vaidic story must be a Nature-myth, because the Vedas\nexpressly explain that the cows are clouds, the lowing is thunder, the club\nis the lightning, and Indra, on this occasion, the blue sky. But why is the\ninterpretation given by the Vaidic philosophers to be accepted without\nexamination, when we reject the teaching of the Stoics, who interpreted\nRhea as matter, and Zeus, Posidon, and Hades as fire, water, and air\nrespectively, in accordance with the Stoic philosophy of the universe? I\nsubmit it as a possibility, worth consideration at least, that we have here\nan ordinary folk-tale: the trick of using the bulls to make the cows reveal\ntheir hiding-place is like the trick in the folk-tale about the groom of\nDarius who caused his master's horse to neigh and so secured the Persian\nempire to Darius. The story may have been told of some clever fellow (not\nnecessarily or probably of a god) in pro-ethnic Aryan times, or it may have\nbeen hit on by Hindoo and Italian story-tellers independently. Once\ninvented, however, it was used by each of these two peoples in a\ncharacteristic manner. The learned Roman, whose object was to explain the\norigin of the customs, cults, institutions, &c., of Rome, seized on it as\nthe obvious explanation of two facts which required explanation, viz.,\nfirst, how the altar to Jupiter Inventor came into existence; and second,\nwhy the offering made in gratitude for the recovery of lost property, was\nan ox. The learned Hindoo, on the other hand, had the satisfaction of\nshowing that even the stories with which (alone or chiefly) the common\npeople were acquainted bore unsuspected witness to the truth of the\nreligion he taught. But to return to our interpretation of the \"fashions\nand customes\" of Rome as survivals of a stage of religion earlier than\npolytheism.\n\nA second difficulty remains. Distinguished writers on the philosophy of\nreligion hold that polytheism is not developed out of fetichism or animism,\nbut is primitive and underived from any earlier stage. The survivals, then,\nwhich Plutarch records, could not point to the existence of an earlier\nstage. Here, again, it is not for me to handle such high themes as the\nphilosophy of religion. I am bound down to the humbler task of noting the\nsimple fact that, until borrowed from Hellas, polytheism was unknown in\nItaly.\n\nThis is a very bare statement\u2014so naked as almost to amount to a literary\nimpropriety. I must, therefore, take three sections to clothe it.\n\n\nII. ITALIAN GODS.\n\nThat some of the great gods of Rome were but Greek gods borrowed is\nuniversally admitted (see _e.g._ Mommsen's _History of Rome_, i. 186 _ff._,\nor Ihne, i. 119). Even so strong a supporter of the theory of a\nGr\u00e6co-Italian period as Roscher admits unreservedly that the mythology,\nworship, and the very name of Apollo were borrowed in early but still\nhistoric times (_Lexikon_, i. 446). When, then, we find Plutarch putting\nthe question why the temples of \u00c6sculapius and Vulcan were built outside\nRome (_Romane Questions_, 94 and 47), we at once surmise that these were\nimported gods, whose worship was indeed sanctioned and ordained by the\nRoman State but was not admitted within the sacred circle of the\n_pom\u0153rium_, reserved for the temples of indigenous Roman gods. In the case\nof \u00c6sculapius we have historical proof that his was an imported worship; in\nconsequence of a pestilence in Rome in B.C. 293 the god was fetched from\nEpidaurus, and the temple in question was erected two years afterwards.[1]\nWe do not happen to have any similar historical record of the introduction\nof Vulcan's worship, but the name of the god, be it Cretan or Etruscan, is\nforeign.[2]\n\nHaving eliminated these and other loan-gods, we find that the genuine\nItalian deities which remain fall into two classes. The one class consists\nof such abstractions as Forculus, the spirit of doors; Cardea, that of\nhinges; Limentinus, that of the threshold, &c., which can scarcely be\ndignified by the name of gods, but are rather spirits, and amply warrant\nChantepie de la Saussaye's remark that Roman religion was still steeped in\nanimism.[3] The other class includes such gods as Janus, Jupiter, Mars,\nDiana, Venus, Hercules, &c. It is necessary to note, however, that the\nworship even of these gods can be proved to have been considerably\nHellenised in historic times:[4] some of their ritual and all their\nmythology was borrowed from Greece, as we shall subsequently see. And when\nthe loan-myths and loan-cults have been removed, the genuine Italian gods\nstand forth essentially and fundamentally different from those of\nGreece.[5] Here, too, we may note that if comparative mythologists adhere\nto their principle of not identifying the gods of different nations, unless\ntheir names can be shown by comparative philology to be identical, they\nmust admit that Mars and Ares, Venus and Aphrodite, Diana and Artemis, Juno\nand Hera, and all the other pairs of deities which the ancients identified,\nare, with the sole exception of Jupiter and Zeus and of Vesta and Hestia,\nnot of cognate but of diverse origin. In fine, the differences between\nGreek and Italian gods are fundamental and original: the resemblances can\nbe shown to be due to borrowing in historic times.\n\nThere is, however, one of the great Roman gods who was never identified\nwith any Hellenic deity, Janus. Now, although Janus ranks with Jupiter and\nMars in the Roman system as an indubitable god, yet in origin and function\nhe is not to be distinguished from those inferior, animistic powers to whom\nthe title of spirit is the highest that can be assigned. Janus is the\nspirit that resides in or presides over door-openings (_ianus_, _ianua_),\njust as Forculus has to do with doors (_fores_), Limentinus with the\nthreshold (_limen_), and Cardea with the hinges (_cardo_). He is also the\n\"spirit of opening,\"[6] who was to be invoked at the commencement of every\nact. Plutarch's questions why he should be represented with two heads, and\nwhy the year should begin with the month named after him, January (_R. Q._,\n22 and 19), are thus at once explained: \"The double-head looking both ways\nwas connected with the gate that opened both ways;\" and in January, \"after\nthe rest of the middle of winter, the cycle of the labours of the field\nbegan afresh.\"[7]\n\nThat the door or the threshold is the seat of a tutelary spirit or genius\nis a belief familiar enough in folk-lore: the door must not be banged,[8]\nnor wood chopped on the threshold,[9] for fear of disturbing him. He is apt\nto disappear, taking the luck of the house with him, if a cat is\nmaliciously buried under the door-sill,[10] or if human hair is so\nburied.[11] The importance of the door as a possible entrance for evil\nspirits, or exit for lucky ones, is manifest in many customs, _e.g._,\nnailing a horse-shoe on the door or sticking a knife into the door, and in\nsuch beliefs as that when a door opens (apparently) of itself, a spirit is\nentering.\n\nWhether the Italian spirit of the doorway, who in origin is\nindistinguishable from the similar though nameless spirits to be found\nelsewhere, was capable by his own unaided efforts of raising himself to the\nrank of a god, is matter for speculation. What is clear is that he had not\nthe chance: the introduction of Greek polytheism into Italy promoted him\nwithout exertion on his part.\n\nAs, thus far, I have assumed a distinction between \"gods\" and \"spirits,\"\nand have also assumed that a belief in the latter may exist without\npolytheism and precede it, it will be well here to state explicitly the\ndistinction. And that I may not be suspected of drawing the distinction so\nas to suit my own ends, I shall here borrow from a standard work, Chantepie\nde la Saussaye's _Religionsgeschichte_ (i. 90). De la Saussaye notes five\ncharacteristics involved in the conception of \"gods.\" First, they are\nrelated to one another as members of a family or community, and as subject\nto one god, who is either lord of all, or at any rate _primus inter pares_.\nSecond, with the growth of art, they are represented plastically and are\nmade in the image of man. Third, as ethics advance, moral benefits are\nassociated with their worship. Hence, in the fourth place, the gods are\nconceived as personal, individual beings, ideally good and beautiful.\nFinally, the human intellect demands that the relations of the gods to one\nanother and to Nature should be co-ordinated into a system, and so\ntheogonies and cosmogonies are invented.\n\nNow, if these be the marks whereby gods are distinguished from spirits, I\nsubmit that, before the introduction of Greek gods and cults, the Romans\nhad not advanced as far as polytheism, but were still in the purely\nanimistic stage. Here again, to avoid the temptation of interpreting the\nevidence unduly in favour of the conclusion to which it seems to me to\npoint, I will confine myself to quotations. Ihne (_Hist. of Rome_, i. 118)\nsays that to the Romans, before the period of Hellenic influence, \"the gods\nwere only mysterious spiritual beings, without human forms, without human\nfeelings and impulses, without human virtues or weaknesses.... Though the\ndivine beings were conceived as male or female, they did not join in\nmarriage or beget children.... No genuine Roman legend tells of any race of\nnobles sprung from gods.\" Again, \"The original Roman worship had no images\nof the gods or houses set apart for them\" (Mommsen, i. 183). \"A simple\nspear, even a rough stone, sufficed as a symbol\" (Ihne, 119). Roman\nreligion had nothing to do with morality: \"it was designed for use in\npractical life\" (_Ibid._ 120). \"The religion of Rome had nothing of its own\npeculiar growth even remotely parallel to the religion of Apollo investing\nearthly morality with its halo of glory\" (Mommsen, 172). Mommsen's\nobservation that \"the hero-worship of the Greeks was wholly foreign to the\nRomans\" (174) is explained by the fact that a hero is a being of human\norigin raised by good deeds to the rank of a god, and the Romans had no\ngods. Myths about the love-adventures of the gods and theogonies were\nunknown to early Rome.[12] An Italian cosmogony has not yet been\ndiscovered, and even the wide-spread belief in the union of Father Sky and\nMother Earth had not been evolved in Italy.\n\nIn fine \"the beings which the Romans worshipped were rather _numina_ than\npersonal gods.\"[13] Even the spirits whom we can trace back under definite\nnames to the purely Italian period, such as Jupiter, Juno, Vesta, Mars, are\nnot individual, personal beings. Each of these names is the name of a class\nof spirits. \"Each community of course had its own Mars, and deemed him to\nbe the strongest and holiest of all\" (Mommsen, i. 175). Each household had\nits own Vesta. There were many Jupiters, many Junos. In England, in the\nsame way, the name of Puck, who is a definite individual personality in one\nstage of our fairy mythology, was originally a class-name of the spirits\nwhom, as Burton says in his _Anatomy_, \"we commonly call poukes.\"\n\nI will conclude this section with quotations from two distinguished\nauthorities on Mythology, who would both dissent from the views which have\nbeen advanced above, but whose words seem to me to bear unintentional\ntestimony in favour of those views. E. H. Meyer, in his _Indogermanische\nMythen_ (ii. 612), says, \"Roman religion seldom displays more than the\n_elementary rudiments_, or rather let us say the last remnants of\nmythology,\" and \"whereas the cult of the greater gods is known to us in a\nform greatly affected by Hellenism, ... the local gods usually scarcely\nrise above the rank of spirits (_sich meistens kaum \u00fcber daemonischen Rang\nerheben_).\" Preller, in his _R\u00f6mische Mythologie_ (i. 48), says, \"The\nRomans' belief in gods would be termed more rightly _pand\u00e6monism_ than\n_polytheism_.... One is involuntarily reminded of those Pelasgians of\nDodona who, according to Herodotus, assigned neither names nor epithets to\ntheir gods.... Indeed, most of the names of the oldest Roman gods have such\na shifting, indefinite meaning, that they can scarcely be regarded as\nproper names, as the names of persons.\"\n\n\nIII. ITALIAN CULTS.\n\nThe Italians borrowed cults as well as gods from Greece, but \"these\nexternal additions gathered round the kernel of the Roman religion without\naffecting or transforming its inmost core\" (Ihne, i. 119). The\ndistinguishing characteristic of the religion of Rome is that \"it was\ndesigned for use in practical life\" (_Ibid._ 120), \"The god of the Italian\nwas above all things an instrument for helping him to the attainment of\nvery solid earthly objects\" (Mommsen, i. 181). In fact, the Italian god was\na fetich, _i.e._, a magical implement; and in this sense of the word it is\ntrue that \"the Romans saw everywhere and in all things the agency and the\ndirection of the gods\" (Ihne, i. 118). Every act of life was entangled in a\ncomplicated network of ritual.[14] Every part of the house, the door,\ndoorway, threshold, hinges, every process of farming, sowing, manuring,\n&c., every act of life from birth to burial, had its own particular spirit;\nand the object of the Roman with reference to each particular spirit was\n\"to manage, and even in case of need to over-reach or to constrain him\"\n(Mommsen, i. 177). Preller in his _R\u00f6mische Mythologie_ characterises the\nreligion of Rome as, above all things, \"a cultus-religion.\" We may add that\nin Rome, as in China, Assyria, and Babylonia, the cult was nothing but\norganised magic,[15] the superstitious customs, charms, and incantations\nfamiliar to the folk-lorist in all countries were organised by the\npractical Roman and were state-established by him. In fine, the Romans \"in\ntheir gods worshipped the abstract natural forces, to whose power man is\nconscious that he is subject every instant, but which he can win over and\nrender subservient to his purposes by scrupulously obeying the external\ninjunctions which the State issues for the worship of the gods.\"[16]\n\nA fundamental difference between the Greek and Roman religions manifests\nitself in the matter of magic. Magic was foreign to the Greeks, and was\ndisliked by them: when it appears in their mythology, it is practised by\nforeigners\u2014_e.g._, Medea, Circe, Hecate\u2014and is \"barbarous.\" In fact, magic\nbelongs to the animistic stage, and is opposed to the higher tendencies of\npolytheism. The forces of Nature, conceived as _numina_ rather than as\nmoral ideals, may well be influenced by magic to the advantage of the\nsavage; but to control a deity by means other than prayer and good life is\nantitheistic.\n\nFinally, it is not accidental or unmeaning that, on the one hand, the\nGreeks had oracles while the Italians had none; and on the other hand, that\nin China and Babylon (which resemble Rome in other pertinent points)\ndivination played as large and as official a part as at Rome. An oracle is\nthe voice of a god; whereas divination is simply sympathetic magic\ninverted.[17]\n\n\nIV. ITALIAN MYTHS.\n\nIn sect. 1 it has been said that the Italians had no Nature-myths. The\nreason why they had none should now be clear: the Italians had no\nNature-gods. The sky-spirit, Jupiter, was undoubtedly distinguished from\nthe vault of heaven by the primitive Italians, but he was not generically\ndifferent from the spirits of vegetation, of sowing, of manuring, &c., and\nhe seems to have been even of inferior dignity to the spirit of\ndoorways.[18] The earth, on the other hand, does not seem to have been\nconceived of as a spirit even, much less as a goddess; but, if worshipped\nat all, was worshipped as a fetich.[19] Hence, the absence from Italy of\nany trace of the myth of the origin of all living creatures from a union\nbetween the earth and the sky.\n\nIndeed, if by a myth we mean a tale told about gods or heroes, there are no\nItalian myths.[20] Myths attached to Greek loan-gods were borrowed with the\ngods from Greece. Myths in which Italian gods figure were borrowed or\ninvented when the Italian gods were identified with Greek gods. Thus the\nGolden Age myth, for instance, can be referred to the time (A.U.C. 257)\nwhen Saturnus was identified with Kronos.[21] And of course, all the myths\nin which \u00c6neas appears, and the whole mythical connection between Rome and\nGreece or Troy, are late.[22] Evander,[23] again, who figures in various\npassages of the _Romane Questions_, owes his existence wholly and solely to\nthe attempt to connect Rome with Greece.\n\nIf, on the other hand, under the head of myth we include \"the popular\nexplanation of observed facts,\" then early Roman history, as Ihne says (i.\n17), \"is really nothing more than a string of tales, in which an attempt is\nmade to explain old names, religious ceremonies and monuments, political\ninstitutions and antiquities, and to account for their origin.\" Some\nexamples of this may be drawn from the _Romane Questions_. Marriage by\ncapture has left traces behind it in the wedding customs of many countries,\nand the meaning of these survivals is usually wholly forgotten. But the\nhistoric consciousness of the Romans was so far alive to the actual facts\nof the case that the mock capture was explained as the commemoration of an\nactual historical rape\u2014the Rape of the Sabines. Thus were explained the\nlifting of the bride over the threshold (_Q. R._ 19), the use of a javelin\npoint to divide the bride's hair (_Ibid._ 87), the hymeneal cry _Talassio_\n(_Ibid._ 31), and the fact that maids might not (though widows might) marry\non festival days (_Ibid._ 105). The first of these customs is probably a\nsurvival from marriage by capture, and the last is indirectly connected\nwith it. In Rome,[24] as in many other places,[25] the lamentations of the\nbride who was actually captured survived in the formal, extravagant\nlamentations of the bride who, in quieter times, was more peacefully won;\nand these cries would have been of bad omen on a day dedicated to the\nworship of the gods. Lamentation seems not to have been required of widows.\nThe use of an iron javelin point is probably due to the dangers which, in\nthe opinion of primitive man, attend on those about to marry, and require\nto be averted by the use of iron,[26] from the head[27] especially. The\norigin of the cry _Talassio_ is beyond recovery.[28]\n\nBut though the chief branch of Italian folk-tales consisted of popular\nexplanations of observed facts, we can detect traces of those other\nfolk-tales which from the beginning must have been designed simply and\nsolely to gratify man's inherent desire for tales of adventure and the\nmarvellous. Here it must suffice to point to two of the _Romane Questions_.\nIn the fourth question we have a tale told of successful trickery on the\npart of Servius Tullius, which may well have formed part of some story of a\nMaster Thief; and in _Romane Questions_ 36, the nightly visits of Fortuna\nthrough the window to her lover, Servius Tullius, at once remind us of the\n\"soul-maidens\" and \"swan-maidens,\" who visit, and eventually desert, their\nhuman lover through the window or the keyhole[29]\u2014the orthodox means of\nentrance and exit for spirits from the time of Homer at least.\n\n\nIV. THE SOUL.\n\nThe customs and beliefs, the superstitious practices and supernatural\nbeings, of modern European folk-lore are sometimes explained as the wrecks\nand remnants of the Pagan polytheism which preceded Christianity. And if\nthe Aryan peoples were from the very beginning polytheists; if the Hellenes\nand the Hindoos, the Teutons and the Scandinavians, brought their myths and\ntheir cults with them from the original Aryan home, then this explanation\nseems more reasonable than that which proceeds on a mere conjecture, a pure\nassumption that the Aryan religion was animistic ere it was polytheistic;\nfor then we are obliged to relegate Aryan animism almost to the \u00e6on \"of\nchaos and eternal night,\"\u2014at any rate, to an abysm of time which is such\nthat neither linguistic pal\u00e6ontology nor any other science has dared\n\n                \"to venture down\n  The dark descent and up to reascend.\"\n\nBut if the proposition submitted in the previous sections be sound, if in\nearly but still historic times Italian religion was still in a stage\nanterior to polytheism, then Aryan animism is no longer a mere assumption,\nand need no longer be thrust back into pro-ethnic times. Early Italian\ncustoms and beliefs will not be the _d\u00e9bris_ of a previous polytheism, and\nit will therefore be unreasonable to explain their counterparts in modern\nfolk-lore as mutilated myths or as the cult of gods degraded but worshipped\nstill.\n\nPlutarch, in the fifth of his _Romane Questions_ (p. 8 below), propounds an\ninteresting problem: _Why are they who have beene falsly reported dead in a\nstrange countrey, although they returne home alive, not received nor\nsuffred to enter directly at the dores, but forced to climbe up to the\ntiles of the house, and so to get down from the roufe into the house?_ This\nremarkable custom continued to be practised long after its origin and\nobject had been forgotten; for Plutarch relates a tale which is obviously a\npopular explanation, invented to account for a practice the _rationale_ of\nwhich had become unintelligible.[30] Hard, however, as Plutarch's question\nappears at first sight, it may by the aid of modern folk-lore and savage\ncustom be explained. We have to note, in the first place, that the mode of\nentry prescribed for the returned traveller is not spontaneously adopted by\nhim; and presumably, therefore, is not prescribed in his interest: it is\nenforced by his relatives, and probably for their own protection. In the\nnext place, though the traveller himself knows, of course, that he has not\nreturned from that bourne from which no traveller returns, his relatives\nhave no such assurance: it may be, indeed, that he did not die whilst away,\nas they were informed or led to believe; but, on the other hand, he may be\n\"the ghost of their dear friend dead,\" seeking to obtain an entrance into\nhis old home. The reasonable course for them to pursue, therefore, is to\ntreat him as though he were a ghost: if he is no ghost, it will do him no\nharm; if he is, they will have protected themselves.\n\nThus far our explanation is hypothetical: to verify the hypothesis it is\nnecessary to show that the dead are or were as a matter of fact treated as\nthe Roman custom prescribes that the _soi disant_ living man shall be\ntreated. That the spirits of the dead are considered unwelcome visitors\nboth in modern folk-lore and by savage man, has been insisted on most\nrecently by Mr. G. L. Gomme.[31] I will, therefore, only add one or two\ninstances of the precautions taken to prevent the return of the deceased to\nhis home.[32] The first thing is to get the soul out of the house; this may\nbe effected by sweeping out the house and by flapping dusters about, care\nbeing taken to shake and turn upside down all vessels, meal-boxes, &c., in\nwhich the soul might take refuge. Then the coffin must be carried foot\nforemost through the door; for if the corpse's face be turned to the house,\nthe ghost can return. In Siam they run the corpse three times round the\nhouse, apparently on the same principle as, in the game of blind-man's\nbuff, the blind-man is spun round in order to make him lose his bearings.\nIn Bohemia they turn the coffin about cross-wise, outside the house-door,\nto prevent the dead man from coming back.\n\nMore pertinent for our present purpose are the precautions taken to prevent\nthe dead from obtaining access to the house through the door. The safest\ncourse is to carry the corpse out, not through the door, for that gives the\ndead man the right of way which it is sought to bar, but through some\nopening which is specially made for the purpose and can be permanently\nclosed. Thus the Hottentots make a breach through the wall for the purpose.\nThe ancient Norsemen did the same.[33] The Teutons, in pre-Christian times,\ndug a hole under the threshold and pulled the corpse through with a rope.\nIn Christian times they only treated the bodies of criminals and suicides\nin this way, though in the thirteenth century Brother Berthhold of\nRegensburg recommended it in the case of heretics and usurers.\n\nWhen circumstances make it difficult or impossible to construct a special\nexit of this kind for the corpse, then some other means is found to avoid\ncarrying the corpse through the door. The Eskimo take the body through a\nwindow; and a window was in 1858 used in Sonneberg in the case of a hanged\nman; while even now in East Prussia, if several children have died one\nafter another, the corpse of the next to die is conveyed through the\nwindow.\n\nEventually it comes to be considered sufficient if a special means of\negress is provided, not for the corpse, which is not likely to \"walk,\" but\nfor the spirit, which may want to return. Thus in China, at the moment of\ndeath, a small hole is made through the roof; while the custom of opening\nthe window, to allow the soul of the dying man to depart, is universal in\nGermany and not unknown in England.\n\nFinally, all that is considered necessary to bar the right of way to the\ndead man's spirit is to close the house-door immediately after the\ndeparture of the corpse, and keep it closed until the return of the funeral\nparty.\n\nIf the explanation which has now been given of Plutarch's fifth question be\ncorrect, we must ascribe to the early Italians beliefs and customs similar\nto or identical with those quoted above from modern folk-lore; and it will\nnot be illegitimate to seek further parallels to Italian religion from the\nsame source. Thus, in _Romane Questions_, 51, Plutarch inquires why the\nLares Pr\u00e6stites are represented as clad in dog-skins and as having a dog by\ntheir side.[34] Now, it is universally admitted that the Lar Familiaris of\nthe Romans is the same as the house-spirit of the Teutons, and that both\nare the spirits of a deceased ancestor, the founder of the family and its\nspirit guardian. In the absence of any presumption to the contrary, we may\nconclude that the Lares Pr\u00e6stites were also spirits of deceased ancestors.\nThe dog which accompanies the Lares was explained by the ancients as a\nsymbolic representation of the fidelity and watch-dog functions of the\nLares.[35] So, too, the priests of ancient Egypt said that the animal forms\nin which their gods were represented were merely symbolical.[36] But it may\nsafely be laid down as a law in the evolution of religion that\nbeast-worship is primitive, and that the theory of symbolism is but a _via\nmedia_ whereby more elevated conceptions of deity are reconciled with the\nolder and more savage worship. Analogy, then, is all in favour of the\nsupposition that the Lares Pr\u00e6stites were originally conceived not in human\nshape, but in the form of dogs. What we require to confirm the analogy is\nevidence that the dead\u2014if possible, evidence that guardian\nspirits\u2014sometimes appear in the shape of a dog. As a matter of fact, the\nbelief that a dead man's spirit may manifest itself in the likeness of a\nblack dog still survives in Germany.[37] As for the guardian spirit, I\nwould suggest that the Mauthe dog of Peel Castle is a house-spirit; for as\nthe hearth was the peculiar seat of the Lar Familiaris and of the H\u00fbsing or\nHerdgota, and as the English house-spirit\n\n          \"Stretch'd out all the chimney's length\n  Basks at the fire;\"\n\nso the Mauthe dog, \"as soon as candles were lighted, came and lay down\nbefore the fire.\"[38] From this point of view we may consider that the\nblack dog, which in modern folk-lore comes and lies down or howls before a\nhouse, in token that one of the inmates is about to die, was originally a\nspirit summoning the inmate to join the dead. This belief, it may further\nbe conjectured, has been incorporated into Hindoo mythology, where a dog\nacts as the messenger of the death-god, Yama; and probably the Greek dog,\nCerberus, was taken up into the literary mythology of Hellas from the same\nfolk-belief.\n\nFinally, we may here notice the fifty-second of Plutarch's Questions,\nwherein he wonders why a dog was sacrificed to Genita Mana, and a prayer\nmade to her that none born in the house should become Manes. Genita Mana\nwas, as her name plainly indicates, a spirit of birth and of death; and the\nprayer was such as might properly be offered to her. The sacrifice may be\nexplained on the principle laid down by Professor Robertson Smith,[39] that\nan animal sacrificed to a deity was itself originally the deity. That one\nand the same spirit should have to do with \"the child from the womb and the\nghost from the tomb,\" points to the existence of a belief among the Romans\nsimilar to one held by the Algonkins. \"Algonkin women who wished to become\nmothers flocked to the side of a dying person, in the hope of receiving and\nbeing impregnated by the passing soul.\"[40]\n\nLet us now turn to another point in which early Italian beliefs and modern\nfolk-lore mutually illustrate each other. On the origin of fairies various\ntheories have been held, and without denying that fairies are sometimes the\nrepresentatives of earlier gods, sometimes of still earlier satyrs, fauns,\nnymphs, and wild men of the wood, we may recognise that they are sometimes\nspirits of the departed. In the first place, as the Italians called the\ndead \"the good,\" _manes_, so in England and in Ireland fairies are \"the\ngood people.\"[41] Next, fairies are small; and the savage conceives the\nsoul of man as a smaller man. It is, according to Hurons, \"a complete\nlittle model of the man himself,\" like the man, but smaller, of course,\nbecause, as the Australian blacks explain, it is within the man's\nbreast.[42] According to Kaffir ideas, the world of _manes_ is exactly like\nthat of the living, only much smaller, and the dead are themselves but\nmannikins.[43] Again, the Teutonic house-spirit on the one hand is\nadmittedly a deceased ancestor, and on the other is an indubitable fairy.\nFurther, fairies are sometimes explicitly stated in folk-tales to be\ndeceased spirits.[44]\n\nNow, one of most marked differences between the Greek and the Roman modes\nof worship was that the Greeks worshipped with their heads uncovered, the\nRomans with heads covered, _velato capite_. Roman antiquaries explained the\npractice as due to fear lest the worshipper should see anything of evil\nomen during his prayer. But I submit that we must connect it with the\nfolk-belief that fairies resent being seen by mortals. \"They are fairies;\nhe that speaks to them shall die.\" If fairies were originally departed\nsouls, the fear and the danger of seeing them is at once explained. On the\nother hand, the Roman custom of worshipping _velato capite_ dates from a\ntime before the introduction of polytheism, and must therefore have been\nattached originally to the worship of some beings other than gods. It is at\nleast plausible, therefore, to conjecture that it was a precaution adopted\nin the worship of deceased ancestors and of spirits, which, like Genita\nMana, are best explained as spirits of the departed. The conjecture is\nsomewhat confirmed by the fact that the Romans veiled their heads at the\nfuneral of father or mother (_R. Q._ 14).\n\n\nV. GENII.\n\nNo form of religion is easily or at once rooted out, even by a new\nreligion. A _modus vivendi_ has to be found between the old faith and the\nnew. The animal, which was once itself worshipped, is tolerated merely as\nthe symbol of some divine attribute. The nixies continue to ply their old\ncalling under the new name of Old Nick. The sacrifices to the dead,\ncondemned by the Indiculus Superstitionum, are subsequently licensed by the\nChurch as the Feast of All Souls.[45] Hence it comes about that what means\none thing to the apostle of the new religion is long understood as\nsomething very different by the reluctant convert. The devil of folk-lore\nhas attributes quite different from those assigned to him in any scheme of\nChristian theology.\n\nIf, therefore, polytheism was, as I have suggested, an importation into\nItaly, forced by the State on a people not yet prepared for anything higher\nthan animism and ancestor-worship, we should expect to find the borrowed\nworship of a Greek loan-god sometimes concealing a native Italian cult of\nvery dissimilar nature. Instances of the kind are forthcoming, and this\nsection will be devoted to some of them.\n\nThe spirits which after the death of the body were termed _manes_ by the\nRomans, were during its life called _genii_ (or in the case of women\n_Junones_). The belief in genii was not borrowed from Greece. How primitive\nit is may be seen from two facts. First, it is itself the essence of\nanimism, for not only had every man a genius, but every place and every\nthing had, in the belief of the Romans, a soul, to which the same name,\ngenius, was given.[46] Next, the genius was, I submit, the \"external soul,\"\nwhich, as Mr. Frazer has shown, appears in the folk-tales of every Aryan\nnation, and in the religions of many savage peoples. The genius of a man\ndid not reside inside the man. Amongst the Romans, as amongst the Zulus, it\nresided in a serpent. As, according to the Banks Islanders, \"the life of\nthe man is bound up with the life of his tamanin,\"[47] so with the Romans,\nthe man's health depended on his genius.[48] When the serpent which was the\ngenius of the father of the Gracchi was killed, Tiberius died;[49] and, as\nall Romans were liable to the same mischance, these snakes were carefully\nprotected from all harm, were reared in the house and the bed-chamber, and\nconsequently grew so numerous, that Pliny says, had their numbers not been\nkept down by occasional conflagrations, they would have crowded out the\nhuman inhabitants of Rome.[50]\n\nThis belief in the genius, however etherealised and spiritualised the form\nin which it appears in Horace or was held by highly-educated Romans,\ncontinued even in Imperial times amongst all other classes as primitive as\nit was tenacious. Its hold over the ordinary Italian mind was much greater\nthan the Hellenised gods ever secured; for, in order to make them even\ncomprehensible, the average Italian had to suppose that these fashionable,\nState-ordained gods were really worked by genii\u2014just as it is self-evident\nto the savage that, if a locomotive engine moves, it is because it has\nhorses inside. This, I suggest, is the explanation, in accord with the\nprinciple laid down at the beginning of this section, which must be given\nof the remarkable fact that, beginning from B.C. 58,[51] and in\never-increasing numbers afterwards, inscriptions are found which ascribe a\ngenius to Apollo, Asclepius, Mars, Juno, Jupiter, &c.\n\nIn this case Italian animism has held its own, not unsuccessfully, against\nimported polytheism. Our second instance, however, will show it less\nsuccessful. When polytheism was spreading from Hellas over Italy, there\nwould be no difficulty in adding the myths and cult of the Greek god Zeus\nbodily on to the worship of the Italian sky-spirit Jupiter. Nor would the\nprocess be much harder even when the Greek god and the Italian spirit were\nof totally different origin (as _e.g._ Hermes and Mercury, Kronos and\nSaturn), provided that some point of resemblance, in attribute or function,\ncould be discovered between them. It was only one, and the least important\nof Hermes' functions, to protect traders, but it was quite enough to lead\nto the identification of the Greek god with the Italian spirit of gain\n(_Mercurius_, from _merces_). The case of Heracles, however, presented more\ndifficulty; he was a hero, and the very conception of a hero was new to the\nItalians. Being new, it was, not unnaturally, misunderstood. The nearest\nparallel which Italian religion offered to a being who was in a way a man\nand yet was also a sort of god was the genius, who also was in a way the\nman himself, and yet was worshipped like a god. Heracles, therefore, was\nidentified with the genius, his name was Latinised into the form _Hercules_\n(cf. _\u00c6sculapius_, from _Asclepios_), and the cults of the two were\namalgamated. This amalgamation is the source and the explanation of some of\nPlutarch's _Roman Questions_. Plutarch was puzzled by the fact that on the\none hand some elements in the cult of Hercules had counterparts in the\nworship of the Greek god, while on the other hand there were elements which\nreceived no explanation from a comparison of the cult of the Greek\nHeracles. Thus Plutarch is surprised to find an altar common to Hercules\nand to the Muses (_R. Q._ 59); but this is simply a loan from the ritual of\nthe Greek Heracles, Musag\u00eat\u00eas. On the other hand, as Plutarch informs us\n(_R. Q._ 60), there was an altar of Hercules from which women were\nexcluded. This is a non-Greek element in the cult of Hercules, with which\nwe may safely compare the fact, that whereas a man might swear \"by his\nHercules,\" a woman might not. Here the imported god has taken the place of\nthe native genius both in the oath and at the altar; for the reason why the\noath \"me hercule\" was restricted to men is that, until Hercules and the\ngenius were identified, a man swore by his genius and a woman by her Juno.\nAgain, in the time before Italy was invaded by the gods of Greece, in the\ntime when temples were as yet unknown, the genius was worshipped and\ninvoked, like other spirits, in the open air; and even after the Italians\nhad learned from the Greeks that the gods were shaped in the likeness of\nmen, and, like men, must have houses, an oath was felt to be more sacred\nand more binding if taken in the open air in the old fashion, than if sworn\nin the new way under a roof.[52] Eventually, however, the old custom died\nout, and in Plutarch's day it was only children who were told that they\nmust go out of doors if they wanted to swear \"by Hercules\" (_R. Q._ 28).\nPlutarch's attention was also arrested by the custom of giving tithes to\nHercules (_R. Q._ 18). The practice is undoubtedly purely and\ncharacteristically Italian; but there is no evidence to show whether it was\never the custom to offer tithes to the genius. Another point, however,\nwhich is noted by Plutarch (_R. Q._ 90) in the cult of Hercules, may be\nmore satisfactorily explained. When sacrifice was being offered to\nHercules, no dog was suffered _to be seene, within the purprise and\nprecinct of the place where the sacrifice is celebrated_. Now, if Hercules\nrepresents the genius, and if the dog was the shape in which a departed\nspirit appears, then the danger lest the genius should be tempted away by\nthe Manes is great enough to account for the prohibition.\n\nThis identification of Heracles with the genius shows in a striking way how\nfar the Italians were from having reached the belief in personal individual\ngods at the time when Greek religion found its way into Italy, and how\nartificially Greek polytheism was superimposed on native beliefs. There\nwere as many _genii virorum_ as there were living men, and yet they were\nidentified with Heracles.[53] To the Italian convert, doubtless, it seemed\nnothing strange that every man should have his Hercules; while his Greek\nteacher probably never fully realised the catechumen's point of view.\n\nThe case is parallel to that of Hestia and Vesta. Both before and after the\nappearance in Italy of the anthropomorphised Hestia, every Roman household\nrevered its own \"hearth-spirit;\" yet this class of spirits came to be\nidentified with the personal individual goddess from Greece. Doubtless,\nalso, in course of time Romans who shook off animism and became true\npolytheists explained the relation between their \"hearth-spirits\" and the\nState-goddess by regarding the former as so many manifestations of the\nlatter. But it is, I submit, a mistake on the part of modern mythologists\nto accept this piece of late theology as primitive\u2014unless, indeed, we are\nalso prepared to say that the Lares were regarded as so many manifestations\nof one Lar, or all the many Manes as manifestations of one dead man. The\n_genii virorum_, at any rate, were not, in the first instance, so many\nmanifestations of Hercules: on the contrary, they existed (in Italy), to\nbegin with, and Heracles afforded them a collective name and a Greek cult.\n\nIn the same way, I submit, the original Italian Juno was no Nature-deity,\nno moon-goddess\u2014the name was that of a class of spirits, like the\ncorrelative term _genii virorum_. There were many Junones, as there were\nmany fauns in Italy, many satyrs and nymphs in Greece, many Pucks and\nfairies in England. When the Italians learnt that Hera was the goddess\nunder whose protection the Greek women were, they naturally thought of the\nJuno who was the guardian-spirit of each Italian woman, and applied to Juno\nthe cult and myths that belonged to Hera. Hence the answer to Plutarch's\nquestion, why were the months sacred to Juno? (_R. Q._ 77). Because they\nwere sacred to Hera.\n\nBut there were other spirits whom Italian women invoked besides their\nJunones, such as Juga, who yoked man and wife, Matrona, Pronuba, Domiduca,\nUnxia, Cinxia, Fluonia, Lucina, and other departmental spirits or\n_indigetes_, whose names appear in the _Indigitamenta_. These spirits, when\nonce Juno had become a personal individual deity, came to be explained as\nspecial manifestations of the goddess, who was consequently called Juno\nJuga, Juno Matrona, &c.[54]\n\n\nVI. DI INDIGETES.\n\nBefore Greek gods and myths were known to them, the Italians worshipped not\nonly Lares, Manes, Genii, and Junones, but also the spirits known as Di\nIndigetes. These spirits were not conceived in human or in animal form.\nThey had not human parts or passions. They did not form a community. They\nhad no common abode. There is nothing in Italian religion corresponding to\nthe Olympus of Greek mythology. They did not marry or give in marriage.\nAbove all, what distinguishes them both from Greek gods and from the\ntree-spirits, which also were worshipped by the Italians, is that they were\nrather _numina_ or forces than beings. They were the forces which regulated\nand controlled all human actions, psychological and physiological, and\nthrough which all the work of man's hands could alone be brought to a\nfavourable issue. When, however, we come to examine these _numina_, we find\nthat the name of the _Indiges_ is simply the name of the action which he\ncontrols: the _Indiges_ of sowing is Saturnus; of remembering, Minerva; of\nsuckling, Rumina, and so on. It is a canon of savage logic that he who\npossesses the name of a person or thing has that person or thing in his\npower; hence the Roman's belief that he could control any process,\npsychical or physical, if only he could put a name to it. This primitive\nform of magic was organised by the Roman State. The pontiffs were intrusted\nwith the duty of drawing up catalogues (_indigitamenta_) of all the stages\nand processes of a man's life, from his begetting and birth to his death\nand burial; and as the State was but a community of farmers, similar\ncatalogues were made of all the agricultural operations by which crops are\nraised. To be effectual, it was necessary that these lists should be\ncomplete. As the Roman could avert or remedy any evil by simply naming the\nproper spirit, it was essential that his roll of spirits should have no\nomissions. Then, if he were in doubt what spirit to name, he could make\nassurance doubly sure by naming all.\n\nLet it not be imagined that this State-organised magic, though it appear to\nus inconsistent with civilisation, is mere matter of inference, or belongs\npurely to pre-historic times. Not only did it survive the introduction of\npolytheism, it was a firm article of Roman faith in the most glorious days\nof the Republic, and until B.C. 211 or later, the belief was so living as\nto give birth continually to fresh spirits, as fresh departments of human\nactivity were opened up.[55] Nor did it cease then. It changed, but it did\nnot die. In the worship of such abstractions as Fortuna, Spes, Juventas,\nConcordia, Pietas, Libertas, Felicitas, Annona, &c., we have evidence that\nabstract names exercised as great a hold over the minds of Romans of the\nEmpire as they had over the earliest Italians.\n\nOn some _indigetes_ Greek cults and myths were grafted, and these _numina_,\nwhich were in truth but _nomina_, henceforth lived as gods. Mercurius was\ndeclared to be Hermes. Minerva, the spirit of memory, was seen to be\nAth\u00ean\u00ea, the goddess of wisdom. Saturnus was identified with Kronos, and was\nhenceforth worshipped in the Greek fashion with uncovered head (_R. Q._\n13). Opis was identified with D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, Venus with Aphrodit\u00ea, and Libitina,\nthe _numen_ of funerals, was interpreted, by a pedantic etymological\nconfusion with Libentina, as a bye-name of the new goddess (_R. Q._ 23).\nThe _indiges_ Liber[56] was recognised in Dionysius Eleutherios (_R. Q._\n104).\n\nIn all these cases the identification proceeded on a fancied resemblance in\nname or an actual similarity of function. There seems to be only one\ninstance of identification based on similarity of cult, that of the Roman\nMatuta and the Greek Leucothea. According to Plutarch (_R. Q._ 16)\nmaid-servants were excluded from the temples of both, except when _the\nDames of Rome, bringing in thither one alone and no more with them, fall to\ncuffing and boxing her about the eares and cheeks_. Here the servant is the\nscapegoat, to whom are transferred the evils which may or might afflict the\nfree women of the community, and the beating is done for purification. It\nis just conceivable that the Greek cult may have been borrowed by the\nRomans; but the use of a scapegoat and of beating in this way is so\nwide-spread over all the world, and so deeply seated in European folk-lore,\nthat it is difficult to imagine it was unknown to the Romans. As a matter\nof fact, even in the _Roman Questions_, without going further, we have\nindications that both practices were known in Italy. In _R. Q._ 20 a myth\nis given, the earlier form of which is to be found in Macrobius (_S._ i.\n12), who states that the Bona Dea was on a day scourged with myrtles. On\nthe principle that customs often give rise to myths but cannot be\noriginated by them, we may infer that the representative, or else the\nworshippers of the Bona Dea, were purified by scourging. Still less can it\nbe doubted after Mannhardt's exhaustive investigation (_Myth. Forsch._, pp.\n72 _ff._), that the Luperci, described in _R. Q._ 68, drove out the evil\nspirits of disease, sterility, &c., by the blows from their scourges.\nAgain, the expulsion of evil tends in many places to become periodic; a day\nor season is devoted annually to the driving out of all devils and evil\nspirits, after which the community is expected to live sober and clean. The\ncommunity, not unnaturally, indulges in a kind of carnival immediately\nbefore this season, and allows itself all sorts of license: slaves behave\nas though they were masters, men dress up in women's clothes, &c. This,\npresumably, is the explanation of the fact related by Plutarch (_R. Q._\n55), that _upon the Ides of Januarie, the minstrels at Rome who plaied upon\nthe hautboies, were permitted to goe up and downe the city disguised in\nwomen's apparell_.[57]\n\nThough the influence of Hellenic religion failed to transform the many\nother _indigetes_ into gods, still it affected their cult in other ways.\nFor one thing, it provided them now for the first time with temples or\nchapels. This innovation was doubtless found strange by the folk to whom\nthe fashionable ideas from Hellas penetrated slow and late. In the case of\nCarmenta it must have seemed particularly strange. Carmenta was one of the\nseveral _indigetes_ whose power was manifested in the various processes of\ngestation;[58] and she was invoked as Porrima (Prorsa or Antevorta) or\nPostverta, according as the child came into the world head or foot\nforemost. From the mention of a _saxum Carment\u00e6_,[59] near which was the\n_porta Carmentalis_, and near which the temple in question was erected, we\nmay venture to infer that this rock was originally the local habitation of\nthe spirit. Why then needed she to have a temple built? This was a point\nwhich, to the popular mind, required explanation; and a popular explanation\nwas accordingly forthcoming, which has fortunately been preserved to us by\nPlutarch. It starts from a folk-etymology or confusion between the name\nCarmenta and the word _carpenta_, meaning \"coaches,\" and may be read at\nlength in _R. Q._ 56.\n\nThere remains one other _indiges_ who is mentioned in the _Romane\nQuestions_\u2014Rumina (_R. Q._ 57) the _numen_ of suckling. As the temple of\nCarmenta was erected near the _saxum Carment\u00e6_, so the _sacellum_ of Rumina\nwas built near the _ficus Ruminalis_; and as we may conjecture that the\nrock was in the nature of a fetich, so we may infer that Rumina was a\ntree-spirit. It is easy to understand why a fig-tree was chosen as the\nabode of the spirit of suckling; the sap of this tree resembles milk and\nwas known to the Romans as _lac_. The fact reported by Plutarch,[60] that\nmilk, not wine, was offered in the cult of Rumina, is quite in accord with\nthe principles of sympathetic magic.\n\nThe worship of this spirit bears every mark of hoar antiquity, and it was\nworked into the legend of the foundation of Rome by the device of making\nthe wolf suckle the twins under the _ficus Ruminalis_.\n\n\nVII. TREE AND FIELD CULTS.\n\nWhenever two peoples come into contact with each other for the first time,\na comparison of religions is set up; and one of the first-fruits of this\nearliest exercise of the comparative study of religions is that\nidentification of gods and borrowing of cults and myths to which the term\n\"syncretism\" is applied. The part played by syncretism in the history of\nItalian religion is of singular importance: the Italian's misty, vaporous\nbelief in abstract, impersonal spirits was precipitated into premature\npolytheism by the introduction of the anthropomorphic gods of Greece.\nFortunately, the process being premature, was, and to the end remained,\nincomplete; and we are therefore able to employ the survivals from the\nolder form of belief so as to form some idea of the original Italian\nreligion. To the last, many spirits resisted the individualising process,\nwhich is the essence and condition of polytheism: the Lares and the Manes\nnot only never became gods, but none of them was dignified by a proper\nname, or attained even so much individuality as Puck or Robin Goodfellow.\nNot can such general abstract appellations as Bona Dea, Dea Dia, be\nregarded as personal names, _i.e._, as the names of definite, individual,\npersonal beings: they have not the personality of Venus or Vulcan, and yet\nthey were the beings whom the people at large worshipped in preference to\nthe State-gods, whose cult and myths were fashionably Hellenised.\n\nShe who, under the influence of Greek religion, became the goddess Diana,\nwas originally a tree-spirit, having no personal name, but known only by an\nappellation as general and abstract as that of Bona Dea. The proof that the\nqualities and attributes of the Greek goddess Artemis were attached by\nsyncretism to the Italian tree-spirit is brought to light by two of\nPlutarch's penetrating questions (_R. Q._ 3 and 4), why harts' horns are\nset up in all the temples of Diana save that on Mount Aventine, in which\nare ox-horns? and why men are excluded from one particular temple of the\nsame goddess? These differences in cult obviously point to the worship of\ndifferent goddesses under the same name; and, as a matter of fact, we know\nfirst that harts were sacred to the Greek goddess, Artemis, whereas the\ngenuine Italian Diana was the goddess of oxen; next, we know that the\nidentification of Artemis and Diana was effected by Servius Tullius.[61] To\nunderstand the exclusion of men from the temple in the Patrician Street,\nhowever, we must inquire into the nature of the Italian Diana. With this\nobject, we may either assume that the pro-ethnic Aryans were polytheists,\nand that therefore the primitive Italians also worshipped Nature-gods; in\nwhich case, starting from the etymology of the word Diana (from the root\n_div_, \"shine\"), we must either at once make Diana a moon-goddess,[62] and\nthus account for the fact that she was a goddess of child-birth, and\ntherefore men were excluded from her temple. But this seems improbable even\nto a writer in Roscher's _Lexikon_ (Birt), who very properly notes (p.\n1007) that \"it is doubtful whether the belief that the moon influenced\nchild-birth can be shown to be Italian.\" Birt, therefore, interprets the\nname to mean \"the bright goddess,\" _i.e._, the goddess of bright daylight,\nand boldly writes it down as a matter of course that the first attribute of\na daylight or sky goddess is her close relation to vegetable nature,\nespecially woods and forests. Those who find this mortal leap beyond their\npower to follow, and who prefer to argue to the original nature of the\ngoddess from what we know of her cult as a matter of fact, rather than from\nhypotheses as to the Nature-myths of the primitive Aryans, will note first\nthat her name is as purely general and abstract as that of the Dea Dia or\nthe Bona Dea, and means simply a bright spirit, or possibly simply a\nspirit. Next, wherever Diana was worshipped in Italy, she was originally\nworshipped in woods and groves, _e.g._, in the forests on Mount Tifata,\nMount Algidus at Anagnia, Corne, and Aricia. Indeed, in Aricia the place of\nher worship was simply called _Nemus_, and the goddess herself plain\n_Nemorensis_. In the next place, her worship is frequently associated with\nthat of Silvanus,[63] who is plainly a wood-spirit, and who is also a\npatron-spirit of domestic cattle.[64] From this we may venture to class her\nwith the \"agrestes femin\u00e6 quas silvaticas vocant\" of Burchard of Worms:[65]\nshe is a wood-spirit who became a goddess because of her likeness to the\nGreek Artemis. Her connection with child-birth does not indicate that she\nwas a moon-goddess. Roman women in primitive times, like Swedish women,\n\"twined their arms about a tree to ensure easy delivery in the pangs of\nchild-birth; and we remember how, in our English ballads, women, in like\ntime of need, 'set their backs against an oak.'\"[66] Finally, the annual\nwashing and cleansing of the head, which Plutarch mentions in _R. Q._ 100,\nwas done on a day sacred to Diana, probably because, on the one hand, women\nfelt that they were under her protection specially, while, on the other, so\ngreat is the sanctity of the head amongst primitive peoples,[67] that\nwashing it is not to be undertaken lightly: \"the guardian spirit of the\nhead does not like to have the hair washed too often, it might injure or\nincommode him.\"[68]\n\nThe _Romane Questions_ afford another instance in which syncretism has\nobscured the original nature of an Italian field-spirit, and in which the\ncult of the Hellenised deity still betrays the primitive object of worship.\nIn the pages of Virgil, Mars has so completely assumed the guise of the\nGreek Ares, that if we had only the verses and the mythology of the\ncourt-poet to instruct us, we could never even suspect that Mars had other\nfunctions than those of a war-god. When, however, we turn from myth to\ncult, and are confronted by the ceremony of the October horse, described in\n_R. Q._ 97, we find, that though Mars was sung as \"Lenker der Schlachten,\"\nhe was worshipped as the spirit that makes the corn to grow. At Rome the\ncorn-spirit was represented as a horse, as it still is amongst the peasants\nof Europe, not only near Stuttgart, but in our own country, in\nHertfordshire and in Shropshire. The fructifying power of the spirit is\nsupposed in modern folk-lore and in Africa, as it was at Rome, to reside\nspecially in the animal's tail, which therefore was preserved over the\nhearth of the king's house, in order to secure a good harvest next year.\nThe antiquity of this custom at Rome, and the fact that it dates from long\nbefore the Romans knew anything of the Greek Ares, are shown by the fight\nfor the horse's head waged between the inhabitants of the two wards, the\nVia Sacra and the Subura, a fight which shows that the ceremonial goes back\nto a time when the Subura and Rome were separate and independent villages.\n\nIn connection with the killing of the corn-spirit, we may note a passage of\nthe _Romane Questions_ (63) which has not yet taken its place in modern\nworks on the subject. Speaking of the _rex sacrorum_, Plutarch says, \"Neere\nunto _Comitium_, they use to have a solemn sacrifice for the good estate of\nthe citie; which, so soone as ever this king hath performed, he taketh his\nlegs and runnes out of the place as fast as ever he can.\" Necessary as it\nwas, according to primitive notions, that the vegetation-spirit should be,\nas it were, decanted into a new vessel, when the animal in which he was for\nthe time residing was threatened with infirmity and decay, still the\nkilling of the sacred animal was a dangerous and semi-sacrilegious act.\nHence in Greece, the man who killed the ox in the sacrifice known as the\n_bouphonia_ ran away as soon as he had felled the animal, and was\nsubsequently tried for murder, but was acquitted on the ground that the axe\nwas the real murderer; and so the axe was found guilty and cast into the\nsea. The Roman _regifugium_ is obviously a fragment of a similar rite. The\nfolk-explanation treated it as a symbol commemorative of the expulsion of\nthe Tarquinii.\n\n\nVIII. MAN-WORSHIP.\n\nThe rules of life prescribed for the priest of Jupiter, the Flamen Dialis,\nare given in part by Plutarch (_Q. R._ 40, 44, 50, 109, 110, 111, 112, and\n113),[69] and are a signal instance of the necessity of explaining Roman\ncults, not by reference to the artificial mythology of the Vedas or to the\ncivilised myths of Greece, but to the customs of peoples who are still\nsteeped in animism. That a spirit may take up its abode as a Dryad in a\ntree or in an animal, as in the beasts worshipped by the ancient Egyptians,\nor may temporarily take possession of a human being, as Apollo possessed\nthe Pythian priestess, is easily comprehended. But that a spirit should\npermanently dwell in a man, and that the man should exercise all the powers\nand receive all the worship that belong to the spirit, would be almost\nincredible were it not for the numerous instances of such worship collected\nby the erudition of Mr. Frazer.[70] In Japan the sun-goddess dwelt in the\nMikado; in Lower Guinea and among the Zapotecs of South Mexico the\nsun-spirit takes human form. In Cambodia the spirit of fire and the spirit\nof water manifest themselves in the (human) kings of fire and water.\nRain-kings are found on the Congo, the Upper Nile, and among Abyssinian\ntribes. The weather-spirit is worshipped in the kings of Loango, Mombaza,\nQuiteva, the Banjars, and the Muyscas. In the South Sea Islands, generally,\n\"every god can take possession of a man and speak through him.\"[71]\n\nIn the next place, these divine kings or priests are all charged with a\nforce which enables them to control the course of Nature. Lest, therefore,\nthis force should be inadvertently and unintentionally discharged, with\nresults disastrous to the recipient of the shock or to the universe at\nlarge, the divine priest or king must be insulated. And this insulation is\neffected by taboos: every action is taboo to him which might bring him into\ndangerous contact with others.[72]\n\nWhen, therefore, we learn that the Flamen Dialis was subject to a very\nlarge number of taboos, all of which find analogies, while some find their\nexact counterparts, in the taboos laid on the divine priests and kings\npreviously mentioned; and when we further discover that Preller,[73] on\ntotally different grounds, considered the Flamen to have been \"the living\ncounterpart\" of Jupiter, it seems not unreasonable to regard the Flamen\nDialis as the human embodiment of the sky-spirit.\n\nThe Flamen, according to Plutarch (_R. Q._ 40), was forbidden to anoint his\nbody in the open air, _i.e._ _sub Jove_; and of the Mikado we are told,\n\"Much less will they suffer that he should expose his sacred person to the\nopen air.\"[74] The Flamen was forbidden to touch meal or raw meat, _i.e._,\nmeal or meat which might be consumed by others; so, too, the vessels used\nby the Mikado were \"generally broke, for fear they should come into the\nhands of laymen; for they believe religiously that if any layman should\npresume to eat his food out of these sacred dishes, it would swell and\ninflame his mouth and throat.\"[75]\n\nFor the many other taboos imposed on the Flamen, I must refer to Mr.\nFrazer's great work.[76] I will here only mention one, which is not\nexplicitly explained in the _Golden Bough_. If the Flamen's wife died, he\nhad to resign (_Q. R._ 50). Now, it is obvious from this that a widowed\nFlamen was somehow dangerous or in danger, and that the danger was one\nwhich re-marriage would not avert. I submit, therefore, that a widowed\nFlamen was considered in danger of sudden death, and that this danger (a\ndanger to the community, which might thus lose the sky-spirit) consisted in\nthe probability that the soul of the departed wife might tempt away the\nsoul of the living Flamen. In Burmah, proper precautions are taken to\nprevent a baby's soul from following that of its dead mother, or the soul\nof a bereaved husband or wife from rejoining the lost one, or to prevent\nthe soul of a dead child \"from luring away the soul of its playmate to the\nspirit-land.\"[77] But accidents will happen, and it is so important for an\nagricultural community to have the sky-spirit under direct control, that\nthe Romans were doubtless well advised in running no risks, and in\ntransferring the spirit into another Flamen.\n\n\nIX. TABOOS.\n\nIn fairy tales it is not surprising that the hero should be forbidden to\nsee his wife on certain days, or whilst she is washing, or at night, and\nthat he should be required to take precautions lest he should take her\nunawares in one of the forbidden moments.[78] But it is surprising to find\nthat the prosaic Roman punctiliously observed fairy etiquette in these\nmatters, and habitually behaved like an inhabitant of fairy-land. See _R.\nQ._ 9 and 65. It is also surprising to discover that in Italy, where, owing\nto \"the vigorous development of the marital authority, regardless of the\nnatural rights of persons as such,\" the wife's \"moral subjection became\ntransformed into legal slavery,\"[79] the wife was \"exempted from the tasks\nof corn-grinding and cooking,\" because, according to Mommsen, those tasks\nwere menial.[80] The exemption is mentioned by Plutarch in _R. Q._ 85; but\nwe must take leave to question Mommsen's explanation. The exemption is not\nan exemption, but a prohibition: it is identical with the taboo laid on the\nFlamen Dialis (_R. Q._ 109), and has the same object. Doubtless if a Roman\nate food touched by a woman, \"it would swell and inflame his mouth or\nthroat,\" or have some disastrous effect. For that even indirect contact\nwith women at certain periods, _e.g._ child-birth, &c., is highly\ndangerous, is a belief found amongst the Australian blacks and the Eskimo,\nthe Indians of North America, and the Kafirs of South Africa. An Australian\nblackfellow, having been brought accidentally into this dangerous contact,\ndied of terror within a fortnight.[81] It is not strange, therefore, that\nthe Romans, returning home after absence, _if their wives were at home,\nused to send a messenger unto them before, for to give warning and\nadvertisement of their comming_. And we can understand that the primitive\npublic for whom the fairy tales in question were composed found the\nincident of the violated taboo as thrilling and as full of \"actuality\" as a\nmodern reader finds the latest sensational novel.\n\nThe belief that a mother and her new-born babe are peculiarly at the mercy\nof malevolent spirits is world-wide. In the fairy tales of Christian Europe\nthe period of danger is terminated by baptism, until which time various\nprecautions, such as burning a light in the chamber, must be observed.[82]\nIn ancient Italy the danger ended when the child received its name, which,\nas Plutarch (_R. Q._ 103) informs us, was on the ninth day after birth in\nthe case of boys, on the eighth in the case of girls. Until that day a\ncandle was to be kept lighted, and the spirit Candelifera was to be\ninvoked. On that day the child was purified (which indicates an original\ntaboo), and received the _bulla_, mentioned by Plutarch (_R. Q._ 102), to\npreserve him henceforth from evil spirits and the evil eye. Whether the\n_bulla_ derived its virtue from the substances which were enclosed in it,\nas in a box, or from its moon shape, is uncertain. If the latter be the\ntrue explanation, we may compare the fact recorded by Plutarch (_R. Q._\n76), _that those who are descended of the most noble and auncient houses of\nRome carried little moones upon their shoes_. The daughters of Sion also\nwore as amulets \"round tires like the moon\" (Isaiah, iii. 18). The\nmoon-spirit sends disease or takes possession of the person who is\n\"lunatick\" or \"moon-struck.\" But the spirit may be deluded, and will enter\nany moon-shaped object which the person attacked is wearing. The Chald\u00e6ans\ndiverted the spirit of disease from the sick man by providing an image in\nthe likeness of the spirit to attract the plague.[83]\n\n\nX.\u2014SYMPATHETIC MAGIC.\n\nThe traveller who has little or no acquaintance with the language of the\nland in which he is, resorts naturally to the language of gesture, and\nmimics the thing which he wishes to have done. Primitive man communicates\nhis wishes to Nature in exactly the same way: if he wishes to have game\ncaught in the trap which he sets, he first pretends to fall into it\nhimself. He has not learnt to \"interrogate\" Nature in her own language by\nmeans of experiment and crucial instances, but he has a presentiment of the\nmethod of Concomitant Variations and of the Substitution of Similars. If a\nthing is itself beyond his reach, he substitutes its counterpart, its image\nor its name, or something related to it or connected with it, in confidence\nthat any changes he may work in the one will be accompanied by concomitant\nvariations in the other. Hence the reluctance shown by many savages to\nallow their likenesses to be taken or their names to be known, as with the\nname or the likeness the man himself would pass into the power of the\nstranger.[84] So the Romans, as Plutarch informs us (_R. Q._ 61), kept the\nname of their tutelar god secret, for the same reason, as Plutarch acutely\nobserves, as other nations kept the images of their gods chained;[85]  and\nfor the same reason, we may add, as the Romans forbade the living\ncounterpart of the sky-spirit to leave the city, viz., lest he should pass\nout of their control.\n\nIn the same spirit, the Romans would not allow a table to be completely\nstripped of food (_R. Q._ 64) or a light to be extinguished (75): the\naction might produce permanent effects. The same feeling prevailed or\nprevails with regard to the table in Chemnitz, though it is regarded as a\nsign of death if a light goes out of its own accord.[86]\n\nThe practice of allowing the spoils taken from an enemy to rust\u2014a practice\nwhich Plutarch (37) cannot comprehend\u2014was doubtless a piece of sympathetic\nmagic: as the armour rusted, the enemy's power of armed resistance would\ndiminish.\n\nAnother interesting instance of sympathetic magic lurks in _R. Q._ 32. The\nimages which, as Plutarch says, were thrown into the river, represented a\nspirit of vegetation or a corn-spirit; and the object of plunging them into\nthe river was thereby to secure that the crops should be correspondingly\ndrenched with rain.[87] This rite also illustrates the origin of a\nconception which has its roots in sympathetic magic and yet exerts\nconsiderable influence in the civilised world\u2014the conception of \"legal\nfictions.\" The images, undoubtedly, were substitutes for human beings who\nwere (as representing the corn-spirit) drowned in the Tiber. Human\nsacrifice, though exceptional, was not unknown at Rome in historic times,\nas appears from _R. Q._ 83; and the substitution of animals or of inanimate\nobjects for human beings is not peculiar to Rome, but is the usual means by\nwhich the transition from the more to the less barbarous custom is\neffected. But the Romans, who were practical and logical to the extreme,\nwho reduced magic to a system whereby they regulated their daily life,\nconsistently enough also utilised sympathetic magic as a legal instrument.\nFor it would be a great mistake to infer from the ridicule poured by Cicero\n(_Pro Murena_, xii. 62) on the fictions of Roman law, that those symbolisms\nwere puerile mummeries designed to benefit the legal profession at the\nexpense of its clients. The clod of earth which was brought into court was\nno mere symbol, but gave to those who held it exactly the same control over\nthe estate from which it came, as the image of a god gives to its\npossessor, or as the hair or clothing of a person who is to be bewitched\ngives to the worker of the spell.\n\nA form of sympathetic magic which is practised by agricultural peoples all\nover the world is a \"sacred marriage,\" whereby two spirits or their images,\nor their living representatives, are united, in order that their union may\nbe sympathetically followed by fertility in flock and field. The ceremony\nof the \"sacred marriage\" frequently survives when its purpose has been\nforgotten, and then a popular explanation is invented for and by the folk.\nThe myth of Acca Larentia, given by Plutarch, _R. Q._ 35, seems to me a\npiece of folk-lore of this kind. To begin with, it is not uncommon to find\nin Greek and Asiatic cults, for instance,[88] a woman shut up with a god in\nhis temple. And the result of this union is an increase in the agricultural\nwealth or fertility of the community. The same result appears in the\n\"rationalised\" explanation of the \"sacred marriage\" of Acca Larentia and\nHercules, given by Plutarch. Further, an exactly similar tale is told of\nHercules and Flora,[89] whose name shows that she is a spirit of flowering\nand blossoming vegetation, whilst her cult points to a realistic sacred\nmarriage in which she took part.[90] Again, Acca Larentia and Flora were\nevidently felt to be spirits of the same class as the Dea Dia, for\nsacrifices were offered to them as part of the worship of the Dea Dia; and\nthe Dea Dia was a corn-spirit, as is plainly shown by the _Acta Arvalium\nFratrum_.[91] At the same time, though Acca Larentia, Flora, and the Dea\nDia were all spirits of the same class, it is clear that they were\ndistinguished from each other, for the Arval Brothers sacrificed to each of\nthem separately and under distinct names. Finally, whether Acca Larentia\nhad originally anything to do with the Lares seems doubtful,[92] and in\nspite of the fact that, in later times at any rate, she was called \"the\nmother of the Lares,\" one cannot build much on the etymology which makes\n\"Acca\" mean \"mother.\"[93] Certain it is, however, that the Arval Brothers,\nin worshipping the Dea Dia, began their famous and very ancient song with\nan invocation of the Lares.[94] It is plain, therefore, that there was from\npre-historic times a tendency to associate the worship of the kindly Lares\nwith that of spirits of the class to which the Dea Dia and Acca Larentia\nbelonged. But the feast of the Larentalia (or Larentinalia), to which\nPlutarch alludes in _R. Q._ 34, was evidently a piece of ancestor-worship,\nand may therefore have been part of the worship of the Lares from the\nbeginning. If this really be so, Acca Larentia will be a soul promoted to\nthe rank of a spirit of vegetation.\n\nThe theory of sympathetic magic may perhaps afford the solution of\nPlutarch's problem (97), why they that would live chaste were forbidden to\neat pulse. Plutarch suggests that as far as beans are concerned the reason\nmay be that the Pythagoreans abominated them. This \"symbol\" of the\nPythagoreans is well-known. Milton was inspired by it to put the case\u2014\n\n                    \"If all the world\n  Should in a fit of temp'rance feed on pulse,\"\n\nand, according to Neanthes, quoted by Iamblichus in his life of Pythagoras,\nthe prohibition extended even to treading down the growing bean; for, he\ninforms us, Pythagoras inculcated the virtue of chastity so successfully\nthat when ten of his disciples, being attacked, might have escaped by\ncrossing a bean-field, they died to a man rather than tread down the beans:\nand when another disciple, who was shortly afterwards captured and brought\nbefore Dionysius, was bidden by that tyrant to explain the strange conduct\nof his fellows, he replied, \"They suffered themselves to be put to death\nrather than tread beans under foot; and I will rather tread beans under\nfoot than reveal the reason.\"\n\nThis is sufficiently mysterious; and the Pythagorean symbol can scarcely be\nsaid to explain the Italian prohibition. But though Plutarch has committed\nthe error of defining _ignotum per ignotius_, he has nevertheless been led\nby a sound instinct, in comparing the two things together. Mr. Frazer (in\n_Folk-Lore_, i. 145 _ff._) has abundantly shown that many of the symbols of\nPythagoras are but maxims of folk-lore which have gathered round the name\nof that mysterious philosopher. It would be nothing strange, then, if a\npiece of Italian folklore should be fathered on Pythagoras, for Magna\nGraecia was the home of Pythagoreanism.\n\nNow the folk has at all times been fond of discovering resemblances between\nplants and other objects, as the common names of flowers, &c., sufficiently\nshow. Further, according to popular notions, these resemblances do not\nexist for nothing: between the plant and the object it resembles there\nexists an occult but potent relation. The \"Doctrine of Signatures\" was a\nquasi-scientific organisation of this branch of folk-lore. \"Turmeric has a\nbrilliant yellow colour, which indicates that it has the power of curing\njaundice; for the same reason, poppies must relieve diseases of the head,\"\nto take a couple of instances from the _Pharmacologia_ of Dr. Paris (p.\n43). The ancient Romans who substituted an offering of poppy-heads for a\nsacrifice of human beings were not practising a childish cheat on the gods:\non all sound principles of folk-lore they were offering a perfectly valid\nequivalent.\n\nWhen then we find Porphyry, in his life of Pythagoras (\u00a7 43), saying that\nPythagoras bade his followers \"abstain from beans as from human flesh,\" we\nmay reasonably infer that beans were regarded, in the folk-lore of the day,\nas resembling some part of the human body, and as having a mysterious\naffinity with it. This conjecture receives some support from the fact that,\nwhereas Porphyry explains all the other \"symbols\" as allegorical statements\nof various moral and civic duties, he explains this by a piece of folk-lore\nof the same kind as the modern popular belief that a hair kept in water\nwill turn into an eel. The exact part of the body to which beans were\nsupposed to bear a resemblance may be difficult at this distance of time to\ndetermine. The passage in Porphyry gives some hints.[95]\n\nA more interesting fact is that, according to Herodotus, ii. 37, the\nEgyptians had the same aversion to eating beans, and that Egyptian priests\nmight not even look at a bean, so unclean was it considered. From this\npassage it is usually inferred that Pythagoras obtained this piece of his\ndoctrine from the Egyptians; and V. D. Link (_Die Urwelt_, 225) sought to\nsupport the inference by the suggestion that the prohibition originally had\nreference to the sacred Egyptian bean, and was subsequently extended to the\ncommon bean (_faba vulgaris_). Pursuing this line of thought, we are at\nonce struck by the fact that the sacred Egyptian bean (_nelumbium\nspeciosum_) is a lotus; and the lotus, both as a plant and as a symbol,[96]\ncarries our thoughts to India. We thus seem to see a piece of folk-lore\nmigrating, along with the plant to which it was attached, from India to\nEgypt, from Egypt to Europe.\n\nBut when did this interesting migration take place? The prohibition was\nknown pretty early in Sicily, for it makes its appearance in the fragments\nof Empedocles, who was born at Agrigentum, B.C. 490. We can, however, trace\nit back much earlier in Italy. There it dates from pre-historic times, for\nit was one of the taboos laid upon the flamen Dialis. And the idea that\nbeans were human flesh is implied in the part which they played in the\nfuneral ceremonies of the primitive Italians. That part is remarkably\ninteresting. Plutarch tells us that \"the solemne suppers and bankets at\nfunerals for the dead were usually served with pulse above all other\nviands.\" This is a strange contrast to the aversion shown otherwise for\neating beans, and it cries aloud for explanation.\n\nMr. E. S. Hartland, in _Folk Lore_, III. ii., has put forward the theory\nthat the practice of sin-eating is the transformed survival of a savage\ncustom of eating deceased kinsmen. Even those who dissent from his\nconclusion will not be able to deny that the custom does exist among\nsavages, and that the object of cannibalism is to secure to the eater the\ncourage, cunning, strength, &c., of the person eaten; nor will it be denied\nthat on the first movement from savagery a tendency would manifest itself\nto substitute for the corpse anything which, according to the canons of\nsavage logic, might be regarded as an equivalent substitute. The Italians,\nregarding beans as human flesh, might, we may conjecture, substitute beans;\nas the Bavarian peasant substitutes _Leichen-nudeln_. Before, however, we\ncan regard this as anything more than a guess, we want proof that the\nItalians did really look upon the beans which they ate at funeral feasts as\nrepresentative of the deceased. That proof is forthcoming, I submit, in the\nbelief mentioned by Pliny (_N. H._, xviii. 30. 2) that \"the spirit of the\ndeceased was in the bean\" (_mortuorum anim\u00e6 sint in ea_, _i.e._, in the\n_faba_). And inasmuch as the law forbade them that would be chaste to eat\npulse, it seems probable that the object of eating beans at funeral\nbanquets was to convey the propagating powers of the deceased to his\nkinsmen.\n\nIf then the superstition about the bean was borrowed by the Italians, it\nmust have been borrowed in primitive times; and we must think that the\nbelief reached the Italians at the same time as the cultivation of the bean\nitself spread from its original (unknown) home. But, if we may trust\ncomparative philology, the bean was probably known to the European Aryans\nbefore they divided into separate peoples, such as Slavs, Italians, &c. And\nthus we can catch glimpses of this piece of folk-lore on its travels in\npro-ethnic times. But this, I confess, I find it rather hard to believe. Of\ncourse, if there were channels of communication by which the plant itself\ncould travel in that \"time long past,\" then by those same channels the\nsuperstition might be conveyed. But on the other hand, if one people could\nsee a resemblance between the bean and some part of the human body, so\nmight another. We do not imagine that because some of the taboos laid on\nthe Mikado were the same as some laid on the flamen Dialis, they were\ntherefore borrowed. Why, then, should we resort to the hypothesis of\nborrowing to account for the fact the flamen of pre-historic times was\nforbidden, exactly in the same way as the priests of ancient Egypt, to see\nor name a bean?\n\nFolk-lorists will naturally inquire whether any traces of the conceptions\nand customs we have been examining can be found in fairy-tales.\n\nI may therefore conclude by pointing out that in a Lithuanian tale,\npublished and translated into German in the _Litauische Volkslieder und\nM\u00e4rchen_ of A. Leskien and K. Brugman (p. 202 and p. 471), the bean has the\nsame \"signature\" as it had in ancient Italy. Another story in the same\ncollection (pp. 363-371 and 490-494) should also be noticed here: a maiden\nis given the heart of a dead man to eat, and two hours afterwards she bore\na son, who could speak and run the moment he was born.\n\n\nXI. ARYAN MARRIAGE.\n\nIn the _Romane Questions_[97] Plutarch has preserved for us various\nmarriage customs, which raise the whole question, not perhaps of human\nmarriage, but certainly of Aryan marriage. Has monandry always been the\nprevailing form among the Aryan-speaking peoples? Among those peoples has\nthe family, as far as we can see or guess, from the beginning been\npatriarchal and agnatic?\n\nAs a starting-point for the discussion of this question, two propositions\nmay be laid down as broadly true. The first is, that at some period or\nother, all Aryans have been in the habit of obtaining their wives (or some\nof their wives) by capture and by purchase. This fact may ultimately imply\nscarcity of native women, female infanticide, polyandry, and kinship\nthrough the female line; or it may prove to be perfectly compatible with a\npatriarchal and agnatic system. But it is a fact, and a fact of the first\nimportance for this discussion. The second proposition that may safely be\nmade is, that in historical times at least, the patriarchal form of family\nhas always been the prevailing form amongst Aryan nations. The exceptions\nmay be real, or they may be due to faulty observation; they may be of the\nhighest importance, as being the sole indications of a prior and very\ndifferent form of family life, or they may be merely local, transient\ndepartures from the normal patriarchal form, and so be insignificant or\ndeceptive; but in any case, they are relatively so few as to leave it a\npractically true statement to say that the patriarchal family has been\nnormal among the Aryans in historic times.\n\nThe evidence of the existence of marriage by capture is furnished by\nfolk-lore. It is not necessary, nor is this the place to review that\nevidence; but the survivals of this form of marriage which are recorded in\nthe _Romane Questions_ must be mentioned. The Romans, Plutarch says (_R.\nQ._, 29), \"_would not permit the new wedded bride to passe of herself over\nthe door-sill or threshold, when she is brought home to her husband's\nhouse, but they that accompanie her must lift her up between them from the\nground, and so convey her in_.\"[98] That the Romans themselves were dimly\nconscious of the real origin of this custom is implied in the first\nsolution suggested by Plutarch, viz., that the ceremony was \"in remembrance\nof those first wives whom they ravished perforce from the Sabines;\" and\nRossbach, in his great work on Roman marriage,[99] sees in the custom a\nsurvival from times when the bride, captured by force, was conveyed against\nher will into the house (or den) of her captor. Parallels to the Roman\ncustom are to be found elsewhere. Among the modern Greeks the bride is\nlifted over the threshold, as it would be most unlucky if she touched it in\ncrossing.[100] It is the most important wedding-guest among the\nServians,[101] the bride's nearest relation in Lorraine,[102] who carries\nher in his arms from the waggon into her new home. Among the North Frisians\nthe \"bride-lifter\" (_bridlefstr_) is a regular wedding-official.[103] The\nceremony seems to have been known to the ancient Hindoos also.[104] The\nFinnish-Ugrians, whether they borrowed or lent, or independently developed\nthe custom, uniformly practise it.[105] It is further noteworthy that the\nFinnish-Ugrians agree with the Romans, the Hindoos, and the Russians in\nthis, viz., that the bride is not only carried over the threshold by some\nof the bridal party (not by the bridegroom) but is then caused by them \"to\nsit upon a fliece of wooll.\"[106] The meaning and object of this strange\nproceeding were quite unknown to the Romans, who practised it in Plutarch's\ntime, as they are to the Finnish-Ugrians and Russians who still observe the\ncustom. Rossbach rightly compares the ancient Roman custom of making the\n_flamen_ and _flaminica_, when married _per farreationem_, sit upon the\nfleece of the sheep that was slaughtered during the wedding\nceremonies;[107] he then refers to the Roman practice of sitting for a\nshort time after prayer in silent meditation, and this he thinks explains\nthe custom in question. But surely it leaves unexplained just that which\nrequires explanation. Granted, that the Romans showed more reverence than,\nsay the Scots whom Dr. Boyd can remember; still, are we to imagine them so\nrapt into \"the mind's internal heaven\" that they could sit down in the\ngrease and the gore of a freshly-slaughtered sheep's fell, \"nor heed nor\nsee what things these be\"? Why did they not sit down somewhere else?\n\nA possible answer to this question may be found in the following\nconsiderations. Many savages consider themselves peculiarly liable on their\nwedding-day to the attacks of evil spirits. The Hindoos and the\nFinnish-Ugrians unanimously regard the seating of the bride on the fleece\nas the right time for exorcising evil spirits and purifying the bride: the\nHindoos recite an incantation, the Esthonians clash daggers over her head,\nfor iron is generally dreaded by spirits. It is, therefore, an easy\ninference that the fleece itself had purificatory powers; and, as a matter\nof fact, we find that the Greeks, at any rate, regarded a sheepskin in this\nlight, for in the preliminary ceremonies of the Eleusinia was a\npurificatory rite which was known as the Zeus-fleece.[108] In the\ncollection of the H\u00f4tel Lambert[109] is a red-figured vase bearing a\nrepresentation of this rite, in which the person purified is represented as\ncrouching on the fleece.\n\nIn days when marriage by capture was real, and not merely symbolical, it\nwas highly important that a strange woman should, immediately on entering\nthe house, be, so to speak, spiritually disinfected, lest she should\nintroduce unwelcome spirits into her new home; or, in the intimate\nrelations which were to subsist between her and her captor,[110] should\nbring him into the power of strange and hostile gods. Hence the close\nadhesion of the ceremony of the fleece, long after its meaning was\nforgotten, to that of lifting the bride over the threshold.\n\nBut it was necessary not merely to detach the strange woman from her own\ngods, she must also be introduced to the gods of her new home. This\nintroduction survived in the Roman custom, whereby _new wedded wives are\nbidden to touch fire and water_ (_R. Q._ 1).[111] That this custom goes\nback to the time when wives were captured is indicated by the words \"are\nbidden:\" the force which was at first necessarily used survives in this\ngentle compulsion. Parallels to this custom are forthcoming: the Hindoo\nbride, according to the K\u00e2u\u00e7ikas\u00fbtra (77. 16), was led thrice round the\nhearth in the bridegroom's house. Exactly the same ceremony not only was\npractised by the ancient Teutons, but is still observed in some places in\nNorth Germany and in Westphalia.[112] The Esthonians and Wotjaks still\nhonour the custom.[113] The first thing a Servian bride has to do on\nentering her new home is to mend the fire,[114] and in ancient Greece she\nwas taken at once to the hearth. It need hardly be said that the hearth is\nthe abode of the house-spirit and the centre of the family worship. At\nRome, we find from Festus,[115] the bride was also sprinkled with water. In\nSardinia,[116] her mother-in-law empties a glass of water over her. Amongst\nthe ancient Hindoos[117] this was the bridegroom's duty; with the Servians\nit is the function of the _Djewer_.[118] That this sprinkling was\noriginally an introduction of the strange woman to the local water-spirit\nseems indicated by the fact that amongst the Servians the sprinkling is\nperformed at the well, in the Unterkrain at the burn,[119] in Albania[120]\nat the village-spring, while in modern Greece the bride casts offerings\ninto the spring.[121]\n\nThe conventionally extravagant lamentation which was required of the Roman\nbride[122] is regarded by Rossbach (p. 329) as a survival of marriage by\ncapture, and may be paralleled amongst many Aryan nations: with the Hindoos\nit was part of the officially prescribed programme;[123] in the Oberpfalz\nit is obligatory; in Bohemia and in Russia it is required by public\nopinion.[124]\n\nThe evidence of folk-lore (so far as it is called for by the _Romane\nQuestions_) that the Aryans obtained wives by capturing the women of other\nhouseholds or family groups than their own, has now been stated. It does\nnot suffice to show that an Aryan was forbidden to marry a woman of his own\nhousehold; but a wider survey of early Aryan wedding-customs would bring\nout this important fact, that however other parts of the ceremony vary,\nthere is one which is always present, and which may be regarded as\nessential\u2014that is the _domum deductio_, the bringing-home of the bride; and\nfrom this fact we may fairly draw the conclusion that normally, and\u2014so\nstrong is custom\u2014probably uniformly, the bride and the bridegroom belonged\nto different households, and that the bride came to live in the home of the\nbridegroom.\n\nMarriage by purchase does not happen to be mentioned in the _Romane\nQuestions_, nor is it necessary to prove what is universally admitted. All\nthat need be remarked here is that purchase was not necessarily preceded by\na state of things in which capture prevailed; frequently it may have been a\npeaceable remedy for the grievances caused by capture, but quite as often\nit may have been practised side by side with capture from the beginning.\nFurther, the purchase, like the capture, of wives implies that husband and\nwife belonged to different households; and purchase indicates that the wife\nthus bought was the property of the husband, or at least that she was\nsubject to him.\n\nLet us now turn to the evidence showing that the family was patriarchal and\nagnatic. The evidence is furnished by the comparative study of law,\nespecially the law regulating the order in which the relatives of a dead\nman shall succeed to his property. The order of succession prescribed by\nthe earliest legal codes is strikingly similar among all the Aryan peoples;\nfirst, the deceased's male descendants to the third generation (his sons,\ngrandsons, and great-grandsons); next, the male descendants of the\ndeceased's father to the third generation (_i.e._, the deceased's brothers,\nnephews, and grand-nephews); then the male descendants of the deceased's\ngrandfather to the third generation (_i.e._, his uncles, cousins, and their\nchildren); and finally, the male descendants of his great-grandfather to\nthe third generation (_i.e._, his great-uncles, his first cousins once\nremoved, and his second cousins once removed). Beyond these degrees, kin\nwas not counted; and if no heir were forthcoming within them, the property\nwent, amongst the Hindoos, to those of the same name as the deceased;\namongst the Romans, to the members of his _gens_; in Crete, to the village\ncommunity. What is the origin of this unanimous and well-marked distinction\nbetween the Near and the Remote Kin? Why were the _anchisteis_, \"the\nnearest relations,\" as the Greeks technically named them, so sharply\ndistinguished from the others?\n\nTo begin with, it is clear that the distinction, being common to all the\nAryans, was not developed subsequently to their dispersion, but is\npre-historic\u2014indeed, pro-ethnic. Hence it follows that the distinction was\nnot the work of any legislator or of any individual; it could not have been\na law enacted by a lawgiver and enforced by the State under pains and\npenalties, for the simple reason that the Aryans, previous to their\ndispersion, were not organised into a State, and had no government to issue\nor execute laws. But before Law, Custom was, and \"Kin and Custom go\ntogether and imply each other, as do Law and State. Law is the enactment of\nthe State\u2014Custom is the habit of the Kin. And as Custom precedes Law, so\nthe State is preceded by kin or sib associations. The earliest form of the\nState is modelled on that of the sib associations out of which it is\ndeveloped, and the first laws promulgated by the State are but the old\ncustoms committed to writing.\"[125]\n\nIn what pro-ethnic Aryan custom, then, are we to seek the origin of the\nclear and deep-cut line between the Near and the Remote Kin? The answer is\nfurnished by what is known among the Slavonians as the house community, and\nto Anglo-Indian lawyers as \"the joint undivided family.\" As it exists now\nin India, the joint undivided family consists, or may consist, of the sons,\ngrandsons, and great-grandsons of a man (deceased), who, on the death of\ntheir common ancestor, do not separate, but continue to live on the\nundivided estate and worship their deceased ancestor as their house-spirit.\nThe family, as defined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,[126]\nis \"joint in food, worship, and estate.\"\n\nNow, the relatives whom the earliest Aryan codes, the laws of the Twelve\nTables, the laws of Solon, of Menu, the Gortyn Code, &c., specify as a\nman's heirs-at-law are in every case precisely those relatives who\nbelonged, or might at some time have belonged, to the same joint undivided\nfamily as the deceased. It is worth while to note that at different times a\nman might belong to four different joint undivided families: he might be\nborn into a family which still united in worshipping the spirit of his\ngreat-grandfather: and thus his cousins, his first cousins once removed,\nand his second cousins once removed, would dwell in the same household with\nhim. His grandfather might then die and become a house-spirit: in that\nevent, his grand-uncle (and descendants) would have to set up a family of\nhis own, for they only can belong to a joint undivided family who are\ndescended from a common house-father. Now, my grand-uncle, being the\nbrother of my grandfather, is not descended from my grandfather, therefore\ncannot worship his spirit, therefore cannot belong to the joint undivided\nfamily which worships my grandfather's spirit. On the other hand, the\nfamily, of which my (deceased) grandfather is the house-spirit, includes my\ngrandfather's descendants to the third generation, _i.e._, includes not\nonly my cousins, but also their sons. This (cousins' sons) is the limit of\nthe second joint undivided family to which it is possible for a man to\nbelong. Thirdly, when my father becomes a house-spirit, and is worshipped\nby his children's children, I dwell in the same household as my nephews and\ngrand-nephews. Finally, when I am gathered to my fathers, I dwell, in the\nspirit, with my sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons.\n\nHere we obviously have the key to the order of succession prescribed by the\nearliest Aryan codes: my own descendants (if any) are called first, because\nthey constitute the joint undivided family, with which, at the time of\ndying, I am presumably dwelling. My father's descendants come next, because\nthat was the family I had previously belonged to; and on the same principle\nmy grandfather's descendants, and then those of my great-grandfather were\ncalled.\n\nSo long as the joint undivided family was a living institution, so long\nthere was no need (as there was no thought) of specifying who a man's heirs\nwere, and so long a man could be in no doubt as to who his Near Kin\nwere\u2014they were those who had been brought up in the same family as himself.\nIt was only when this unwieldy form of family came to be disintegrated by\nthe advance of civilisation that it became necessary to specify the order\nof succession, and to determine who were a man's Near Kin; and, as we have\nseen, the earliest laws on this subject are but the old customs reduced to\nwriting.\n\nTwo facts of importance in the history of Aryan marriage have now been\nshown. The first, inferred from the _domum deductio_ and from the existence\nof marriage by capture and by purchase, is that amongst the undispersed\nAryans a man customarily abstained from marrying a woman belonging to his\nown family group. The second is that the family groups in which the Aryans\nlived, if not originally, certainly for some time before their dispersion,\nwere joint undivided families. The Aryan was averse to marrying women of\nhis Near Kin; the difficult question now arises, whether he was equally\naverse to marrying into his Remote Kin? The \"prohibited degrees\" of\nhistoric times do not help us much in answering this question. The\nAthenians had lost the Aryan aversion to marriages within the near kin:\nthey married their cousins, and even half-sisters. There is no evidence to\nshow that the Romans ever abstained from marrying their Remote Kin.\nRossbach maintains that the prohibition extended only to first cousins;\nKlenze, Walter, Burchardy, G\u00f6ttling, and Gerlach make it go as far as the\nextreme limit of the Near Kin, _i.e._, to second cousins once removed\u2014no\nwriter on Roman law or marriage supports a wider prohibition; and the _jus\nosculi_[127] (which, by the way, was accorded by men to men as well as by\nwomen to men) extended only to the near kin. The Hindoos, again, were\naverse to marriage between any persons of the same name.\n\nDoes the Hindoo system come down from pro-ethnic times, or is it a\ndevelopment peculiar among Aryan nations to the Hindoos? Many savages have\na much wider circle of prohibited degrees than civilised peoples possess,\nand amongst civilised peoples themselves the number of prohibited degrees\nhas even in historic times diminished. We thus seem to get a sort of law of\ndiminishing degrees, which would point to the Hindoo system as that which\nwas known to the pro-ethnic Aryans. But though some savages have more\nprohibited degrees than civilised men have, other savages have few or none.\nThe downward movement, therefore, from the maximum to the minimum number of\nprohibited degrees which is observable in historic times must have been\npreceded in pre-historic ages by an upward movement from the minimum to the\nmaximum; and, as far as the evidence at present goes, though the upward\nmovement may, in pro-ethnic times, have proceeded as far as the Remote Kin,\nit may equally well only have reached to the limits of the Near Kin; while,\nafter the Aryan dispersion, the movement may have continued upwards amongst\nthe Hindoos, downwards amongst the Athenians, and, for a long time, have\nceased to move in any direction amongst the conservative Romans.\n\nA more important point to notice is that, if we believe the Hindoo system\nto date from pro-ethnic times, we must also assume that the Hindoo system\nof naming is pro-ethnic, _i.e._, we must assume that each Aryan had two\nnames, one distinguishing him personally from other people, the other\nindicating what kin he belonged to; and in this event, the Near and the\nRemote Kin must, in pro-ethnic times, have had a common name. There is,\nhowever, very little evidence to show that this was the case: gentile names\nare found among the Hindoos and the Romans alone of Aryan peoples. It is,\nof course, possible that, before the dispersion, the Aryans had gentile\nnames, and that, after the dispersion, all the Aryans, with the exception\nof the Romans and the Hindoos, lost them entirely. On the other hand, if\nthere was a time when gentile names had not yet been invented, if they have\nhad a history and growth, we must consider it as at least possible that\ngentile names had not been evolved at the time of the dispersion, and were\nonly developed subsequently by the Romans and Hindoos.\n\nWhether the undispersed Aryans had gentile names, and at the same time an\naversion to marriages between persons of the same name, is a question on\nwhich it were vain to pronounce confidently. We may more safely consider\nboth these equally possible alternatives, together with the consequences\nwhich flow from each. Let us assume that marriage was, amongst the Aryans\nas amongst the Hindoos, prohibited between persons of the same gentile\nname: is there anything in the social organisation presupposed by this\nprohibition incompatible with the patriarchal system? According to Mr. D.\nM\u2018Lennan there is: not only are there \"numerous societies of which the\npatriarchal theory does not even attempt to give any account,\" but \"in the\nsocieties upon contemplation of which it was formed, a most serious\ndifficulty for it is presented by the tribes, which consist of several\nclans, each clan considered separate in blood from all the others. The\npatriarchal theory, of course, involves that the clans are all of the same\nblood.\"[128] Mr. M\u2018Lennan's difficulty seems to be this: where inheritance\n(of family name, property, sacra, &c.) is confined to the male line, the\ndescendants of a common ancestor must all have the same family or gentile\nname; persons having different names cannot be descended from the same\nancestor\u2014that is to say, different _gentes_ or clans cannot have a common\norigin. A tribe, therefore, which consists of several clans cannot consist\nof descendants of a common ancestor. Yet, these clans believe they have an\nancestor, however remote, in common. If their belief is incorrect (if the\n_gentes_ have not a common origin), how did the error arise? If, on the\nother hand, the different _gentes_ of the same tribe have a common origin,\nhow came they to have different names?\n\nThe source of this difficulty plainly is the assumption that the original\nancestor of the tribe had a family name, which was inherited by all his\ndescendants. It is impossible to disprove or to prove this assumption. We\nmay, however, note that the Teutons (according to Dr. Taylor[129]) rejoiced\nin only one name a-piece. An Athenian added to his own name his father's.\nAnd\u2014to set assumption against assumption\u2014we may conjecture that as\npatronymics are formed from personal names, so gentile names were developed\nout of patronymics. At first, a man's sons bore nothing in their names to\nindicate from what father they were sprung. In course of time the sons of\nAnchises were known as Anchisiad\u00e6; and as long as the family group\nconsisted only of parents and children, this system of nomenclature would\nsuffice. It might even continue into times when the family group included\nthree generations: Iulus, as well as his father, \u00c6neas, might be an\nAnchisiades. And here we may note that if all the members of a joint\nundivided family bore the surname Anchisiades, an aversion to marriage in\nthe near kin would forbid the marriage of any two Anchisiad\u00e6. When,\nhowever, owing to natural growth, the joint undivided family of Anchises\nbecomes so large that it is necessary for his younger (married) sons to go\nout into the world and start joint undivided families of their own, leaving\n\u00c6neas and his children in possession of the old home, it is obvious that\npersons who once had belonged to the same joint undivided family, and\ntherefore had possessed the same family name, and had been prohibited to\nintermarry, would now belong to different families, and (being named after\nthe respective house-fathers of the newly formed families) would have\ndifferent patronymics, and would be allowed to marry persons whom\npreviously they were forbidden to wed. In these circumstances an extension\nboth of prohibited degrees and of the family name might very naturally be\nthe ultimate result. Iulus, who for years had worshipped Anchises as\nhouse-spirit, and had consequently been an Anchisiades, might, when \u00c6neas\nbecame his house-spirit, come to be known as an \u00c6n\u00e6ades, but on the other\nhand the old patronymic might stick to him and to his children for ever. In\nthe same way, the aversion to marrying women who belonged to the same joint\nundivided family might cease when they ceased to belong to the same family,\nbut it might continue. Hence a continual tendency to extend the family\nname, and to enlarge the number of prohibited degrees.\n\nThe transition from the system of naming by patronymics to that of gentile\nnames would not be made in a day or in a generation, and during the\ntransition the usage would fluctuate: the descendants of \u00c6neas might choose\nto be known as \u00c6n\u00e6ad\u00e6 rather than as the sons of Anchises, while the\nchildren of \u00c6neas' brothers might retain the name of Anchisiad\u00e6, because\ntheir fathers were less distinguished than their grandfather. The period of\nthis fluctuation in usage may be assumed to have been long enough to allow\nof the requisite diversity of gentile names, while the fact that the number\nof _gentes_ is always fixed, however far back they can be historically\ntraced, shows that the fluctuation at last hardened into unyielding custom.\n\nIt was pointed out in the last paragraph but one that second cousins once\nremoved (the great-grandchildren of a common house-father) might at one\ntime belong to the same joint undivided family, and subsequently to\ndifferent families, and that they might wish to continue, after their\nseparation, to consider each other as relatives. Language afforded them no\nmeans of indicating their relationship, for there was no word in the\noriginal Aryan language for \"cousin,\" much less for \"second cousin.\" And\nbefore patronymics had been stereotyped into gentile names, it might seem\nthat the Aryan system of naming at that time afforded no means of binding\nthese relatives together either. But a certain Athenian custom may perhaps\nbe taken, both as evidence of the existence of the desire in question, and\nas an indication of the means taken for gratifying it. At Athens it was the\ncustom to name a child after its grandfather; and if we assume this\npractice to have obtained in Aryan times, we have here a ready means for\nindicating the fact that second cousins are related without the aid of a\ngentile name; for if I and my first cousin are both named after our common\ngrandfather, then our children (who are second cousins once removed) will\nhave the same patronymic, and therefore will be related, and thence again\nprohibited to marry. This may be illustrated by an imaginary pedigree,\nwhich will also serve to show how\u2014when once patronymics, such as \"John's\nson,\" became stereotyped into true family or gentile names, such as\n\"Johnson\"\u2014all the _gentes_ of a tribe might be descended from a common\nancestor. Thus:\u2014\n\n                                     John.\n                                       |\n                                     Will,\n                                   John's son.\n                                       |\n                   +\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-+\n                   |                                     |\n                 John,                                  Tom,\n              Will's son.                            Will's son.\n                   |                                     |\n         +\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-+\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014+                  +\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014-+\u2014\u2014\u2014-+\n         |                  |                  |                 |\n        Will,              Harry,             Will,            Jack,\n      John's son.        John's son.        Tom's son.       Tom's son.\n         |                  |                  |                 |\n    +\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014+        +\u2014\u2014+\u2014\u2014-+        +\u2014-+\u2014-+       +\u2014\u2014-+\u2014\u2014+\n    |         |        |          |        |       |       |          |\n   John     Frank     John      Bill      Tom     Dick    Tom     Richard\n  Wilson.  Wilson. Harrison. Harrison.  Wilson. Wilson. Jackson.  Jackson.\n\nWe may now sum up. The oldest form of family organisation historically\ntraceable amongst the Aryans is that of the joint undivided family. The\npro-ethnic Aryans were probably averse to marriages between members of the\nsame joint undivided family. They may also have been averse to marriages\nbetween second cousins once removed, even when those second cousins had\nceased to dwell in the same joint household. If so, then, as language\nafforded no term even for \"cousins,\" the memory of the relationship may\nhave been kept up in one of three ways. As the members of a _genos_ at\nAthens had no common family name, and as they were notoriously related, not\nby blood, but merely by the possession of a joint-worship, so amongst the\nAryans a joint-worship may have served as the mark of kinship (as it does\namong the Hindoos still). Or the remote kin may have been enabled to claim\nkindred by means of a patronymic system, which survived at Athens. Or,\nthird, gentile names may have been developed out of patronymics even in\npro-ethnic times, in which case marriage would be prohibited, as amongst\nthe Hindoos, between all persons of the same family name.\n\nBut there is nothing in this patriarchal organisation of the family and of\nthe tribe which compels us to assume that it was evolved out of some\nearlier non-patriarchal form of family. The warrant for such an assumption,\nif to be found, must be sought elsewhere. Let us seek. Analogy will not\nhelp us. The patriarchal system may, elsewhere in the world, have been\nevolved out of the matriarchate; but, as the late Mr. M\u2018Lennan warned us,\nwe may not assume that marriage has everywhere had the same history. The\nwidest survey of the various forms of human marriage (Westermarck's) that\nhas yet been made warrants no presumption in favour of the priority of the\nmatriarchate. If the matriarchate was a pro-ethnic Aryan institution, it is\non Aryan ground that traces of it must be discovered. Such traces are said\nto be discernible.\n\nThere are traces amongst some Aryan peoples of the levirate. The levirate\nis said to indicate polyandry, and polyandry to presuppose the\nmatriarchate. This is a perfectly legitimate line of argument, but before\nresorting to polyandry for an explanation of the Aryan levirate, it is\nworth while to inquire whether there is anything in known Aryan customs\ncapable of supplying an explanation. According to Aryan custom, the estate\nof a man who leaves no son passes to the next of kin, _i.e._, his brother,\nor it may be a more distant relative. If the deceased leaves no son, but a\ndaughter, then according to Athenian law, according to the Gortyn Code, and\nprobably also according to Aryan custom, the next of kin (whether brother\nor not) must not only take the estate, but also marry the heiress, if any\n(whether wife or daughter of the deceased). According to the Gortyn Code,\nif the next of kin is married, he must put away his wife; if the heiress is\nalready married, she must leave her husband. Now, if the obligation to\nraise up seed to the deceased extended only to his brothers, the Tibetan\nform of polyandry would afford an explanation which, whether correct or\nnot, would, at any rate, account for all the facts. But inasmuch as the\nobligation is binding on all the near kin, and extends to the daughter as\nwell as the wife of the deceased, it cannot be explained by the hypothesis\nof the Tibetan form of polyandry or any other form short of incest in every\ndegree possible, not only amongst the members of the same joint undivided\nfamily, but also with the women who have married out of that family into\nsome other. In truth, so far from _mutterrecht_ being the source of the\nAryan custom, that custom bears on its face the marks of the rudest and\nmost savage application of the agnatic theory. The provisions of the Gortyn\nCode which require that the next of kin shall marry the heiress, even if\nthe marriage necessitate divorce on both sides, show that the mother was\nheld absolutely incapable of transmitting rights\u2014only a kinsman could do\nthat. A devotion to the principle of agnation so strong as to over-ride the\ninnate Aryan aversion to endogamous marriages, so strong even in the days\nof civilised Athens as to afford the Orestes of \u00c6schylus with the defence\nthat the mother whom he had killed was not of his blood, cannot be\nexplained as a survival from times when kinship was counted exclusively\nthrough the female line. The savage practice must have its roots in some\nequally crude and savage theory. What the Aryan theory was we can hardly\nhope to discover, but we may conjecture that it was at least as barbarous\nas that which leads savages to eat their dead kinsmen, and European\npeasants to eat corpse-cakes, in the belief that thereby \"the virtues and\nadvantages of the departed ... and the living strength of the deceased\npassed over ... into the kinsman who consumed them, and so were retained\nwithin the kindred\" (Mr. E. S. Hartland in _Folk Lore_, III. ii. 149). The\n_Leichen-nudeln_ of the Bavarian peasant, or the beans of the primitive\nItalian funeral feasts, would, when eaten, qualify the next of kin to wed\nthe heiress and to raise up seed to the dead kinsman.\n\nBefore leaving the subject of the levirate we may note that the joint\nundivided family survived in historic times at Athens and in Sparta, and\nthat in both places brothers lived on the joint-estate as well after the\ndeath as during the life of their father. In Sparta, if one only of the\nbrothers had a son, that son was naturally heir to the joint-estate, and\nwas considered the son of all. Amongst the Hindoos, too, Vasishtha says\n(xvii. 10), \"If amongst many brothers who are begotten by one father, one\nhave a son, they all have offspring through that son\" (_cf._ Vishnu, xv.\n42).[130] Now, a casual observer, ignorant of the nature and constitution\nof the joint undivided family, might thus easily draw the mistaken\ninference that the wife of one brother was common to them all; and this may\nbe the origin of C\u00e6sar's statement with regard to the polyandry of the\nancient Britons, and of Polybius' with regard to the Spartans. Or, again,\nit is possible that the joint undivided family may in these instances have\ngiven rise to this form of polyandry. It is thus not safe to infer that\nwhere polyandry is, the matriarchate must previously have been.\n\nThere remains the argument from totems. Unfortunately their very existence\nin Europe is questioned, and this is not the place to discuss the question.\nIt is safer not to meddle in European totems at present. Their appearance\nin Greek mythology, however, may fittingly here be made the subject of a\nbrief allusion. The value, to the anthropologist, of ancient Roman customs\nand beliefs is that they show us the Italians at a much lower stage of\ncivilisation than that in which the Vedas show us the Hindoos or the\nHomeric poems the Greeks. They show us an Aryan people having no mythology,\nand they warrant the inference that myths were unknown to the pro-ethnic\nAryans. The Greek myths about the amours of Zeus in animal form cannot go\nback, therefore, to Aryan times. They may be the peculiar invention of the\nearly Greeks, or it may be that the families which claimed to be descended\nfrom animals were pre-Hellenic, and that, when they joined the immigrating\nGreeks, they learnt the worship of Zeus, and were aided in their conversion\nby identifying Zeus with their animal ancestor.\n\nAgainst the instances of polyandry and the survivals of totemism, which may\nor may not show that the matriarchate was known to Aryan peoples, we may\nfairly set the evidence of comparative philology. The original Aryan\nlanguage possessed terms for grandfather, father, son, and grandson; and\nthese are just the direct ascendants and descendants who could compose a\njoint undivided family. There was a word for the paternal uncle, whom the\nchildren brought up in such a family would know; there is none for the\nmaternal uncle, with whom they would not dwell. There were special\ndesignations for husband's father, husband's mother, husband's brother,\nhusband's sister, and even for husband's brothers' wives\u2014just the words\nwhich would be required if the wife left her own family to dwell in that of\nher husband. There were none for wife's father, mother, &c., which would be\nrequired if the husband became a member of his wife's family. And\nthis\u2014which is inconsistent with the matriarchal system\u2014is in accord with\nthe evidence afforded by wedding customs, viz., that the wife left father\nand mother, and was brought, by the _domum deductio_, to her husband's\nhome.\n\nStill, it would be as unjustifiable to say that the matriarchate could\nnever have established itself on Aryan ground, as it is to say that the\nagnatic family must have been developed out of the system of \"maternal\nrights\" and \"female descent.\" The list of prohibited degrees varies among\nearly Aryan peoples from the minimum possible for a civilised people (as at\nAthens) to the maximum possible even for savages (as amongst the Hindoos).\nThere may have been a similar variation in the organisation of the family.\nNor can we say with confidence that the pro-ethnic Aryans were more uniform\nthan their descendants. The different languages evolved out of the common\nAryan tongue existed as dialects from the beginning, and in the beginning\nthere may have been differences in social organisation. But whereas we can\ncertainly trace the joint undivided family and the principle of agnation as\nfar back as modern science enables us to trace the Aryans at all, the\nevidence for the existence of the matriarchate at any time amongst any\nAryan people is inferior both in amount and in value.\n\n\nXII. CONCLUSION.\n\nAfter writing a hundred pages as though one knew something, it is a relief\nto confess one's ignorance. So I shall do myself the pleasure of concluding\nwith a list of Romane Questions which are too hard for me. Why _they kept\nthe temple of the goddesse Horta open alwaies_ I own to me is a mystery\nyet. I cannot even conjecture _what is the reason that Quintus Metellus\nforbad to observe auspices after the moneth Sextilis_, nor why _they\nthought Aruspices ought to have their lanterns and lampes alwaies open_,\nnor why _obsserve they the vultures most of any other fowles in taking of\npresages_. White, as a mourning colour, which is prescribed in _R. Q._ 26,\nmay be paralleled in the customs of Gambreion, in Asia Minor, and in Argos,\nbut the explanation is beyond me. The origin of the proverb _Sardi\nvenales_, and of the interesting custom associated with it (_R. Q._ 53),\ncan scarcely be said to be explained either by Festus (p. 322) or by Cicero\n(VII. _Fam._, 24). Nor do I know why boys were named on the ninth, whereas\ngirls were named on the eighth day of birth. And _why_ did the Romans of\nold time invariably, when they went out to supper, take with them _their\nyoung sonnes_, _even when they were but in their very infancie and\nchildhood_?\n\nROMANE QVESTIONS,\n\nTHAT IS TO SAY,\n\nAN ENQUIRIE INTO THE\n\nCAUSES OF MANIE FASHIONS\nAND CUSTOMES OF ROME.\n\n_A Treatise fit for them who are conversant\nin the reading_\nof Romane histories and antiquities, giving\na light\n_to many places otherwise obscure and hard_\nto be understood.\n\nROMANE QVESTIONS.\n\n1.\n\n  _What is the reason that new wedded wives are bidden to touch fire and\n  water?_\n\n\n\nIs it because that among the elements and principles, whereof are composed\nnaturall bodies, the one of these twaine, to wit, fire is the male, and\nwater the female, of which, that infuseth the beginning of motion, and this\naffoordeth the propertie of the subject and matter?\n\n2. Or rather, for that, as the fire purgeth, and water washeth; so a wife\nought to continue pure, chaste and cleane all her life.\n\n3. Or is it in this regard, that as fire without humidity, yeeldeth no\nnourishment, but is dry; and moisture without heat is idle, fruitlesse and\nbarren; even so the male is feeble, and the female likewise, when they be\napart and severed a sunder: but the conjunction of two maried folke\nyeeldeth unto both, their cohabitation and perfection of living together.\n\n4. Or last of all, because man and wife ought not to forsake and abandon\none another, but to take part of all fortunes; though they had no other\ngood in the world common betweene them, but fire and water onely.\n\n\n2.\n\n  _How is it, that they use to light at weddings five torches, and neither\n  more nor lesse, which they call Wax-lights._\n\n1. WHETHER is it as _Varro_ saith, because the Pr\u00e6tours or generals of\narmies use three, and the Aediles two: therefore it is not meet that they\nshould have more than the Pr\u00e6tours and Aediles together: considering that\nnew maried folke goe unto the Aediles to light their fire?\n\n2. Or, because having use of many numbers, the odde number seemed unto them\nas in all other respects better, and more perfect than the even: so it was\nfitter and more agreeable for mariage: for the even number implieth a kinde\nof discord and division, in respect of the equall parts in it, meet for\nsiding, quarrell, and contention: whereas the odde number cannot be divided\nso just and equally, but there will remaine somewhat still in common for to\nbe parted. Now among al odde numbers, it seemeth that Cinque is most\nnuptial, & best beseeming mariage; for that Trey is the first odde number,\n& Deuz the first even; of which twaine, five is compounded, as of the male\nand the female.\n\n3. Or is it rather, because light is a signe of being and of life: and a\nwoman may beare at the most five children at one burden; and so they used\nto cary five tapers or waxe candels?\n\n4. Or lastly, for that they thought, that those who were maried had need of\nfive gods and goddesses: namely, _Jupiter_[131] genial, _Juno_ genial,\n_Venus_, _Suade_, and above all _Diana_; whom (last named) women in their\nlabour and travell of childe-birth, are wont to call upon for helpe.\n\n\n3.\n\n  _What is the cause that there being many Temples of_ Diana _in_ Rome,\n  _into that onely which standeth in the Patrician street, men enter not_.\n\n1. IS it not because of a tale which is told in this maner: In old time a\ncerteine woman being come thither for to adore and worship this goddesse,\nchaunced there to bee abused and suffer violence in her honor: and he who\nforced her, was torne in pieces by hounds: upon which accident, ever after,\na certeine superstitious feare possessed mens heads, that they would not\npresume to goe into the said temple.\n\n\n4.\n\n  _Wherefore is it, that in other temples of_ Diana _men are woont\n  ordinarily to set up and fasten Harts hornes; onely in that which is upon\n  mount_ Aventine; _the hornes of oxen and other beefes are to be seen_.\n\nMAY it not be, that this is respective to the remembrance of an ancient\noccurrent that sometime befell? For reported it is that long since in the\nSabines countrey, one _Antion Coratius_ had a cow, which grew to be\nexceeding faire and woonderfull bigge withall above any other: and a\ncerteine wizard or soothsaier came unto him and said: How predestined it\nwas that the citie which sacrificed that cow unto _Diana_ in the mount\n_Aventine_, should become most puissant and rule all _Italy_: This\n_Coratius_ therefore came to _Rome_ of a deliberate purpose to sacrifice\nthe said cow accordingly: but a certaine houshold servant that he had, gave\nnotice secretly unto king _Servius Tullius_ of this prediction delivered by\nthe abovesaid soothsaier: whereupon _Servius_ acquainted the priest of\n_Diana_, _Cornelius_, with the matter: and therefore when _Antion_\n_Coratius_ presented himselfe for to performe his sacrifice, _Cornelius_\nadvertised him, first to goe downe into the river, there to wash; for that\nthe custome and maner of those that sacrificed was so to doe: now whiles\n_Antion_ was gone to wash himselfe in the river, _Servius_ steps into his\nplace, prevented his returne, sacrificed the cow unto the goddesse, and\nnailed up the hornes when he had so done, within her temple. _Juba_ thus\nrelateth this historie, and _Varro_ likewise, saving that _Varro_\nexpressely setteth not downe the name of _Antion_, neither doth he write\nthat it was _Cornelius_ the priest, but the sexton onely of the church that\nthus beguiled the Sabine.\n\n\n5.\n\n  _Why are they who have beene falsly reported dead in a strange countrey,\n  although they returne home alive, not received nor suffred to enter\n  directly at the dores, but forced to climbe up to the tiles of the house,\n  and so to get downe from the roufe into the house?_\n\n_Varro_ rendreth a reason heereof, which I take to be altogether fabulous:\nfor hee writeth, that during the Silician warre, there was a great battell\nfought upon the sea, and immediately upon it, there ranne a rumour of many\nthat they were dead in this fight; who notwithstanding, they returned home\nsafe, died all within a little while after: howbeit, one there was among\nthe rest, who when he would have entred into his owne house, found the dore\nof the owne accord fast shut up against him; and for all the forcible\nmeanes that was made to open the same, yet it would not prevaile: whereupon\nthis man taking up his lodging without, just before his dore, as he slept\nin the night, had a vision which advertised and taught him how he should\nfrom the roofe of the house let himselfe downe by a rope, and so get in:\nnow when he had so done, he became fortunate ever after, all the rest of\nhis life; and hee lived to be a very aged man: and heereof arose the\nforesaid custome, which alwaies afterwards was kept and observed.\n\nBut haply this fashion may seeme in some sort to have beene derived from\nthe Greeks: for in _Greece_ they thought not those pure and cleane who had\nbeene caried foorth for dead to be enterred; or whose sepulchre and\nfunerals were solemnized or prepared: neither were such allowed to frequent\nthe company of others, nor suffred to come neere unto their sacrifices. And\nthere goeth a report of a certaine man named _Aristinus_, one of those who\nhad beene possessed with this superstition, how he sent unto the oracle of\n_Apollo_ at _Delphos_, for to make supplication and praier unto the god,\nfor to bee delivered out of this perplexed anxietie that troubled him by\noccasion of the said custome or law then in force: and that the prophetesse\n_Pythia_ returned this answer:\n\n  _Looke whatsoever women doe in childbed newly laid,\n  Unto their babes, which they brought foorth, the verie same I say\n  See that be done to thee againe: and after that be sure,\n  Unto the blessed gods with hands to sacrifice, most pure._\n\nWhich oracle thus delivered, _Aristinus_ having well pondered and\nconsidered, committed himselfe as an infant new borne unto women for to be\nwashed, to be wrapped in swadling clothes, and to be suckled with the\nbrest-head: after which, all such others, whom we call _Hysteropotmous_,\nthat is to say, those whose graves were made, as if they had beene dead,\ndid the semblable. Howbeit, some doe say, that before _Aristinus_ was\nborne, these ceremonies were observed about those _Histropotmi_, and that\nthis was a right auncient custome kept in the semblable case: and therefore\nno marvell it is, that the Romans also thought, that such as were supposed\nto have beene once buried, and raunged with the dead in another world,\nought not to enter in at the same porch, out of which they goe, when they\npurpose to sacrifice unto the gods, or at which they reenter when they\nreturne from sacrifice: but would have them from above to descend through\nthe tiles of the roufe into the close house, with the aire open over their\nheads: for all their purifications ordinarily they performed without the\nhouse abroad in the aire.\n\n\n6.\n\n  _Why doe women kisse the lips of their kinsfolks?_\n\nIS it as most men thinke, for that women being forbidden to drinke wine,\nthe manner was brought up: That whensoever they met their kinsfolke, they\nshould kisse their lips, to the end they might not be unknowen, but\nconvicted if they had drunke wine? or rather for another reason, which\n_Aristotle_ the philosopher hath alledged? for as touching that occasion,\nwhich is so famous and commonly voiced in every mans mouth, yea, and\nreported of divers and sundrie places; it was no doubt the hardy attempt\nexecuted by the dames of _Troie_, and that upon the coasts of _Italy_; for\nwhen the men upon their arrivall were landed; the women in the meanewhile\nset fire upon their ships, for very desire that they had to see an end\nonce, one way or other of their long voiage, & to be delivered fr\u00f5 their\ntedious travel at sea: but fearing the fury of their men, when they should\nreturne, they went forth to meet their kinsfolke and friends upon the way,\nand welcomed them with amiable embracing & sweet kisses of their lips: by\nwhich means having appeased their angrie mood, and recovered their favours,\nthey continued ever after, the custome of kind greeting and loving\nsalutation in this manner.\n\nOr was not this a priviledge granted unto women for their greater honour\nand credit; namely, to be knowen and seen for to have many of their race\nand kinred, and those of good worth and reputation?\n\nOr because it was not lawfull to espouse women of their blood and kinred,\ntherefore permitted they were to entertaine them kindly and familiarly with\na kisse, so they proceeded no farther; insomuch as this was the onely marke\nand token left of their consanguinitie. For before time, they might not\nmarrie women of their owne blood; no more than in these daies their aunts\nby the mothers side, or their sisters: and long it was ere men were\npermitted to contract marriage with their cousin germains; and that upon\nsuch an occasion as this. There was a certaine man of poore estate and\nsmall living, howbeit otherwise of good and honest cariage, and of all\nothers that managed the publike affairs of State most popular and gracious\nwith the commons: who was supposed to keepe as his espoused wife a\nkinswoman of his and cousin germain, an inheritresse; by whom he had great\nwealth, and became verie rich: for which he was accused judicially before\nthe people; but upon a speciall favour that they bare unto him, they would\nnot enquire into the cause in question; but not onely suppressed his bill\nof enditement, and let her go as quit of all crime, but also even they,\nenacted a statute; by vertue whereof, lawfull it was for all men from that\ntime forward to marrie, as far as to their cousin germains, but in any\nhigher or neerer degree of consanguinitie, they were expresly forbidden.\n\n\n7.\n\n  _Wherefore is it not lawfull either for the husband to receive a gift of\n  his wife, or for the wife of her husband._\n\nMAY it not be, for that, as _Solon_ ordained that the donations and\nbequests, made by those that die shall stand good, unlesse they be such as\na man hath granted upon necessitie, or by the inducement and flatterie of\nhis wife: in which proviso, he excepted necessitie, as forcing and\nconstraining the will; and likewise pleasure, as deceiving the judgement;\neven so have men suspected the mutuall gifts passing between the husband\nand the wife, and thought them to be of the same nature.\n\nOr was it not thought, that giving of presents was of all other the least &\nworst signe of amity and goodwill (for even strangers and such as beare no\nlove at all use in that sort to be giving) and in that regard they would\nbanish out of marriage such kind of pleasing and curring favour; to the end\nthat the mutuall love and affection between the parties should be free and\nwithout respect of salarie and gaine, even for it selfe and nothing else in\nthe world.\n\nOr because women commonly admit and entertaine straungers, as corrupted by\nreceiving of presents and gifts at their hands, it was thought to stand\nmore with honour and reputation, that wives should love their owne\nhusbands, though they gave them nothing by way of gift.\n\nOr rather, for that it was meet and requisit, that the goods of the husband\nshould be common to the wife, and to the wife likewise of the husband: for\nthe partie who receiveth a thing in gift, doth learne to repute that which\nwas not given, to be none of his owne, but belonging to another: so that\nman and wife in giving never so little one to another, despoil and defraud\nthemselves of all that is beside.\n\n\n8.\n\n  _What might be the cause that they were forbidden to receive any gift\n  either of [132]Sonne in law, or [133]Father in law?_\n\nOF Sonne in law, for feare lest the gift might be thought by the meanes of\nthe Father to passe about the returne unto the wife: and of the Father in\nlaw, because it was supposed meet and just, that he who gave not, should\nnot likewise receive ought.[134]\n\n\n9.\n\n  _What should be the reason that the Romans when they returned from some\n  voyage out of a farre and forraine countrey, or onely from their ferme\n  into the citie; if their wives were at home, used to send a messenger\n  unto them before, for to give warning and advertisement of their\n  comming?_\n\nEITHER it was because this is a token of one that beleeveth and is verily\nperswaded that his wife intendeth no lewdnesse, nor is otherwise busied\nthan well: whereas to come upon her at unwares and on a sodain, is a kind\nof forlaying and surprize. Or for that they make haste to send them good\nnewes of their comming, as being assured that they have a longing desire,\nand doe expect such tidings.\n\nOr rather because themselves would be glad to heare from them some good\nnewes, to wit, whether they shall find them in good health when they come,\nand attending affectionately and with great devotion, their returne.\n\nOr else because women ordinarily, when their husbands be away and from\nhome, have many petie businesses and house affaires: and other whiles there\nfall out some little jarres and quarrels within doores with their servants,\nmen or maidens: to the end therefore all such troubles and inconveniences\nmight be overblowen, and that they might give unto their husbands a loving\nand amiable welcome home, they have intelligence given unto them before\nhand of their arrivall and approch.\n\n\n10.\n\n  _What is the cause that when they adore and worship the gods, they cover\n  their heads: but contrariwise when they meet with any honourable or\n  worshipfull persons, if their heads haplie were then covered with their\n  cover, they discover the same, and are bare headed._\n\nFOR it seemeth that this fashion maketh the former doubt and braunch of the\nquestion more difficult to be assoiled: and if that which is reported of\n_Aeneas_ be true; namely, that as _Diomedes_ passed along by him whiles he\nsacrificed, he covered his head, and so performed his sacrifice; there is\ngood reason and consequence, that if men be covered before their enemies,\nthey should be bare when they encounter either their friends, or men of\nwoorth and honour: for this maner of being covered before the gods, is not\nproperly respective unto them, but occasioned by accident, and hath, since\nthat example of _Aeneas_, beene observed and continued.\n\nBut if we must say somewhat else beside, consider whether it be not\nsufficient to enquire onely of this point; namely, why they cover their\nheads when they worship the gods, seeing the other consequently dependeth\nheereupon: for they stand bare before men of dignitie and authoritie, not\nto doe them any more honor thereby, but contrariwise to diminish their\nenvie, for feare they might be thought to require as much reverence and the\nsame honor as is exhibited to the gods, or suffer themselves, and take\npleasure to bee observed and reverenced equally with them: as for the gods\nthey adored them after this sort; either by way of lowlinesse and humbling\nthemselves before their majestie, in covering and hiding their heads; or\nrather because they feared lest as they made their praiers, there should\ncome unto their hearing, from without, any sinister voice or inauspicate\nand ominous osse: and to prevent such an object they drew their hood over\ntheir eares: And how true it is that they had a carefull eie and regard to\nmeet with all such accidents, it may appeere by this, that when they went\nto any oracle for to be resolved by answer from thence upon a scrupulous\ndoubt, they caused a great noise to be made all about them, with ringing of\npannes or brasen basons.\n\nOr it may well be, (as _Castor_ saith, comparing in concordance the Romane\nfashions with the rites of the Pythagoreans) for that the D\u00e6mon or good\nangell within us, hath need of the gods helpe without, and maketh\nsupplication with covering the head, giving thus much covertly to\nunderstand thereby, that the soule is likewise covered and hidden by the\nbodie.\n\n\n11.\n\n  _Why sacrifice they unto_ Saturne _bare-headed_.\n\nIS it because _Aeneas_ first brought up this fashion of covering the head\nat sacrifice; and the sacrifice to _Saturnus_ is much more auncient than\nhis time?\n\nOr, for that they used to be covered unto the celestiall gods: but as for\n_Saturne_ he is reputed a Subterranean or terrestriall god?\n\nOr, in this respect, that there is nothing hidden, covered, or shadowed in\nTrueth? For among the Romans, _Saturne_ was held to be the father of\nVeritie.\n\n\n12.\n\n  _Why doe they repute_ Saturne _the father of Trueth_.\n\nIS it for that (as some Philosophers deeme) they are of opinion that\n[135]_Saturne_ is [136]Time? and Time you know well findeth out and\nrevealeth the Truth.\n\nOr, because as the Poets fable, men lived under _Saturnes_ reigne in the\ngolden age: and if the life of man was then most just and righteous, it\nfolloweth consequently that there was much trueth in the world.\n\n\n13.\n\n  _What is the reason that they sacrificed likewise unto the god whom they\n  tearmed_ Honor, _with bare head? now a man may interpret_ Honor _to be as\n  much as Glory and Reputation_.\n\nIT is haply because Honor and glory is a thing evident, notorious, and\nexposed to the knowledge of the whole world: and by the same reason that\nthey veile bonet before men of worship, dignitie, and honor, they adore\nalso the deitie that beareth the name of Honor, with the head bare.\n\n\n14.\n\n  _What may be the cause, that sonnes cary their Fathers and Mothers foorth\n  to be enterred, with their heads hooded and covered: but daughters bare\n  headed, with their haires detressed and hanging downe loose._\n\nIS it for that Fathers ought to be honored as gods by their male children,\nbut lamented and bewailed as dead men by their daughters, and therefore the\nlaw having given and graunted unto either sex that which is proper, hath of\nboth together made that which is beseeming and convenient.\n\nOr, it is in this regard, that unto sorrow and heaviness, that is best\nbeseeming which is extraordinarie and unusuall: now more ordinarie it is\nwith women to go abroad with their heads veiled and covered: and likewise\nwith men, to be discovered and bare headed. For even among the Greeks when\nthere is befallen unto them any publike calamitie, the manner and custome\nis, that the women should cut of the hayres of their head, and the men\nweare them long; for that otherwise it is usuall that men should poll their\nheads, and women keepe their haire long. And to prove that sonnes were wont\nto be covered; in such a case, and for the said cause, a man may alledge\nthat which _Varro_ hath written; namely, that in the solemnitie of\nfunerals, and about the tombs of their fathers, they carry themselves with\nas much reverence and devotion as in the temples of the gods: in such sort,\nas when they have burnt the corps in the funeral fire, so soone as ever\nthey meet with a bone, they pronounce, that he who is dead, is now become a\ngod. On the contrary side, women were no wise permitted to vaile and cover\ntheir heads. And we find upon record, that the first man who put away and\ndivorced his wife was _Spurius Carbilius_, because she bare him no\nchildren; the second, _Sulpitius Gallus_, for that he saw her to cast a\nrobe over her head: and the third _Publius Sempronius_, for standing to\nbehold the solemnitie of the funerall games.\n\n\n15.\n\n  _How it commeth to passe, that considering the Romans esteemed Terminus a\n  god, and therefore in honour of him celebrated a feast called thereupon_\n  Terminalia, _yet they never killed any beast in sacrifice unto him_?\n\nIT is because _Romulus_ did appoint no bonds and limits of his countrey, to\nthe end that he might lawfully set out and take in where pleased him, and\nrepute all that land his owne so far as, (according to that saying of the\nLaced\u00e6monian) his speare or javelin would reach? But _Numa Pompilius_ a\njust man and politick withall, one who knew well how to govern, and that by\nthe rule of Philosophie, caused his territorie to be confined betweene him\nand his neighbour nations, and called those frontier bonds by the name of\n_Terminus_ as the superintendent, over-seer and keeper of peace and amitie\nbetween neighbours; and therefore he supposed, that this _Terminus_ ought\nto be preserved pure and cleane from all blood, and impollute with any\nmurder.\n\n\n16.\n\n  _What is the reason that it is not lawfull for any maid servants to enter\n  into the temple of the goddesse_ [137]Leucothea? _and the Dames of_ Rome,\n  _bringing in thither one alone and no more with them, fall to cuffing and\n  boxing her about the eares and cheeks_.\n\nAS for the wench that is thus buffeted, it is a sufficient signe and\nargument, that such as she, are not permitted to come thither: now for all\nothers they keepe them out in regard of a certaine poeticall fable reported\nin this wise: that ladie _Ino_ being in times past jealous of her husband,\nand suspecting him with a maid servant of hers, fell mad, and was enraged\nagainst her owne sonne: this servant the Greeks say, was an Aetolian borne,\nand had to name Antiphera: and therefore it is that heere among us in the\ncitie of _Ch\u00e6ronea_, before the temple or chappell of _Matuta_, the sexton\ntaking a whip in his hand crieth with a loud voice: No man servant or maid\nservant be so hardie as to come in heere; no Aetolian hee or shee presume\nto enter into this place.\n\n\n17.\n\n  _What is the cause that to this goddesse, folke pray not for any\n  blessings to their owne children, but for their nephews onely, to wit,\n  their brothers or sisters children?_\n\nMAY it not be that _Ino_ being a ladie that loved her sister wonderous\nwell, in so much as she suckled at her owne breast a sonne of hers: but was\ninfortunate in her owne children?\n\nOr rather, because the said custome is otherwise very good and civill,\ninducing and moving folks hearts to carie love and affection to their\nkinreds.\n\n\n18.\n\n  _For what cause, were many rich men wont to consecrate and give unto_\n  Hercules _the Disme or tenth of all their goods_?\n\nWHY may it not be upon this occasion, that _Hercules_ himselfe being upon a\ntime at [138]_Rome_, sacrifice the tenth cow of all the drove which he had\ntaken from _Gerion_?\n\nOr for that he freed and delivered the Romans from the tax and tribute of\nthe Dismes which they were wont to pay out of their goods unto the Tuskans.\n\nOr in case this may not go current for an authenticall historie, and\nworthie of credit; what and if we say that unto _Hercules_ as to some great\nbellie god, and one who loved good cheere, they offered and sacrificed\nplenteously and in great liberalitie?\n\nOr rather, for that by this meanes they would take downe and diminish a\nlittle, their excessive riches which ordinarily is an eie-sore and odious\nunto the citizens of a popular state, as if they meant to abate and bring\nlow (as it were) that plethoricall plight and corpulency of the bodie,\nwhich being growen to the height is daungerous: supposing by such cutting\noff, and abridging of superfluities, to do honour and service most pleasing\nunto _Hercules_, as who joied highly in frugalitie: for that in his life\ntime he stood contented with a little, and regarded no delicacie or excesse\nwhatsoever.\n\n\n19.\n\n  _Why begin the Romans their yeere at the moneth Januarie?_\n\nFOR in old time the moneth of March was reckoned first, as a man may\ncollect by many other conjectures, and by this specially, that the fift\nmoneth in order after March was called _Quintilis_, and the sixt moneth\n_Sextilis_, and all the rest consequently one after another until you come\nto the last, which they named December, because it was the tenth in number\nafter March: which giveth occasion unto some for to thinke & say, that the\nRomans (in those daies) determined and accomplished their compleat yeere,\nnot in twelve moneths but in ten: namely, by adding unto everie one of\nthose ten moneths certain daies over and above thirtie. Others write, that\nDecember indeed was the tenth moneth after March; but Januarie was the\neleventh, and Februarie the twelfth: in which moneth they used certaine\nexpiatorie and purgatorie sacrifices, yea, and offered oblations unto the\ndead (as it were) to make an end of the yere. Howbeit afterwards they\ntransposed this order, and ranged Januarie in the first place, for that\nupon the first day thereof, which they call the Calends of Januarie; the\nfirst Consuls that ever bare rule in _Rome_ were enstalled, immediatly upon\nthe deposition and expulsion of the kings out of the citie. But there\nseemeth to be more probability & likelihood of truth in their speech, who\nsay, that _Romulus_ being a martiall prince, and one that loved warre and\nfeats of armes, as being reputed the sonne of _Mars_, set before all other\nmoneths, that which caried the name of his father: howbeit _Numa_ who\nsucceeded next after him, being a man of peace, and who endevored to\nwithdraw the hearts and minds of his subjects and citizens from warre to\nagriculture, gave the prerogative of the first place unto Januarie, and\nhonoured _Janus_ most, as one who had beene more given to politick\ngovernment, and to the husbandrie of ground, than to the exercise of warre\nand armes.\n\nConsider moreover, whether _Numa_ chose not this moneth for to begin the\nyeere withall, as best sorting with nature in regard of us; for otherwise\nin generall, there is no one thing of all those that by nature turne about\ncircularly, that can be said first or last, but according to the severall\ninstitutions and ordinances of men, some begin the time at this point,\nothers at that. And verely they that make the Winter solstice or hibernall\nTropick the beginning of their yeere, do the best of all others: for that\nthe Sunne ceasing then to passe farther, beginneth to returne and take his\nway againe toward us: for it seemeth, that both according to the course of\nnature, and also in regard of us, this season is most befitting to begin\nthe yeere: for that it increaseth unto us the time of daie light, and\ndiminisheth the darknesse of night, and causeth that noble starre or planet\nto approch neerer and come toward us, the lord governour and ruler of all\nsubstance transitorie and fluxible matter whatsoever.\n\n\n20.\n\n  _Why do women when they dresse up and adorne the chappell or shrine of\n  their feminine goddesse, whom they call_ Bona, _never bring home for that\n  purpose any branches of Myrtle tree: and yet otherwise have a delight to\n  employ all sorts of leaves and flowers_?\n\nMAY it not be, for that, as some fabulous writers tell the tale, there was\none [139]_Flavius_ a soothsaier had a wife, who used secretely to drinke\nwine, and when she was surprised and taken in the manner by her husband,\nshe was well beaten by him with myrtle rods: and for that cause they bring\nthither no boughs of myrtle: marry they offer libations unto this goddesse\nof wine, but forsooth they call it Milke.\n\nOr is it not for this cause, that those who are to celebrate the ceremonies\nof this divine service, ought to be pure and cleane from all pollutions,\nbut especially from that of _Venus_ or lechery? For not onely they put out\nof the roome where the service is performed unto the said goddesse _Bona_,\nall men, but also whatsoever is besides of masculine sex; which is the\nreason that they so detest the myrtle tree, as being consecrated unto\n_Venus_, insomuch as it should seeme they called in old time that _Venus_,\n_Myrtea_, which now goeth under the name, of _Murcia_.\n\n\n21.\n\n  _What is the reason that the Latines doe so much honour and reverence the\n  Woodpecker, and forbeare altogether to do that bird any harme?_\n\nIS it for that _Picus_ was reported in old time by the enchantments and\nsorceries of his wife, to have changed his owne nature, and to be\nmetamorphozed into a Woodpecker; under which forme he gave out oracles, and\ndelivered answeres unto those who propounded unto him any demaunds?\n\nOr rather, because this seemeth a meere fable, and incredible tale: there\nis another storie reported, which carieth more probabilitie with it, and\nsoundeth neerer unto trueth. That when _Romulus_ and _Remus_ were cast\nfoorth and exposed to death; not onely a female woolfe gave them her teats\nto sucke, but also a certeine Woodpecker flew unto them, and brought them\nfood in her bill, and so fedde them: and therefore haply it is, that\nordinarily in these daies wee may see, as _Nigidius_ hath well observed;\nwhat places soever at the foot of an hill covered and shadowed with oakes\nor other trees a Woodpecker haunteth, thither customably you shall have a\nwoolfe to repaire.\n\nOr peradventure, seeing their maner is to consecrate unto every god one\nkinde of birde or other, they reputed this Woodpecker sacred unto _Mars_,\nbecause it is a couragious and hardy bird, having a bill so strong, that he\nis able to overthrow an oke therewith, after he hath jobbed and pecked into\nit as farre as to the very marrow and heart thereof.\n\n\n22.\n\n  _How is it that they imagine_ Janus _to have had two faces, in which\n  maner they use both to paint and also to cast him in mold_.\n\nIS it for that he being a Gr\u00e6cian borne, came from _Perrh\u0153bia_, as we finde\nwritten in histories; and passing forward into _Italy_, dwelt in that\ncountrey among the Barbarous people, who there lived, whose language and\nmaner of life he changed?\n\nOr rather because he taught and perswaded them to live together after a\ncivill and honest sort, in husbandry and tilling the ground; whereas before\ntime their manners were rude, and their fashions savage without law or\njustice altogether.\n\n\n23.\n\n  _What is the cause that they use to sell at_ Rome _all things perteining\n  to the furniture of Funerals, within the temple of the goddesse_\n  Libitina, _supposing her to be Venus_.\n\nTHIS may seeme to be one of the sage and philosophicall inventions of king\n_Numa_, to the end that men should learne not to abhorre such things, nor\nto flie from them, as if they did pollute and defile them?\n\nOr else this reason may be rendred, that it serveth for a good record and\nmemoriall, to put us in minde, that whatsoever had a beginning by\ngeneration, shall likewise come to an end by death; as if one and the same\ngoddesse were superintendent and governesse of nativitie and death: for\neven in the city of _Delphos_ there is a pretie image of _Venus_, surnamed\n_Epitymbia_; that is to say sepulchrall: before which they use to raise and\ncall foorth the ghosts of such as are departed, for to receive the\nlibaments and sacred liquors powred foorth unto them.\n\n\n24.\n\n  _Why have the Romans in every moneth three beginnings as it were, to wit,\n  certeine principall and prefixed or preordeined[140] daies, and regard\n  not the same intervall or space of daies betweene?_\n\nIS it because as _Juba_ writeth in his chronicles, that the chiefe\nmagistrates were wont upon the first day of the moneth to call and summon\nthe people; whereupon it tooke the name of _Calends_: and then to denounce\nunto them that the _Nones_ should be the fift day after; and as for the\n_Ides_ they held it to be an holy and sacred day?\n\nOr for that they measuring and determining the time according to the\ndifferences of the moone, they observed in her every moneth three\nprincipall changes and diversities: the first, when she is altogether\nhidden, namely during her conjunction with the sunne; the second when she\nis somewhat remooved from the beames of the sunne, & beginneth to shew\nherselfe croissant in the evening toward the West whereas the sunne\nsetteth; the third, when she is at the full: now that occultation and\nhiding of hers in the first place, they named Calends, for that in their\ntongue whatsoever is secret & hidden, they say it is [_Clam_] and to hide\nor keepe close, they expresse by this word [_Celare_;] and the first day of\nthe moones illumination, which wee heere in _Greece_ tearme _Noumenia_,\nthat is to say, the new-moone, they called by a most just name _Non\u00e6_, for\nthat which is new and yoong, they tearme _Novum_, in manner as wee doe\n\u03bd\u1f72\u03bf\u03bd. As for the _Ides_, they tooke their name of this word \u03b5\u1f36\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2, that\nsignifieth beautie; for that the moone being then at the full, is in the\nvery perfection of her beautie: or haply they derived this denomination of\n_Dios_, as attributing it to _Jupiter_: but in this we are not to search\nout exactly the just number of daies, nor upon a small default to slander\nand condemne this maner of reckoning, seeing that even at this day, when\nthe science of Astrologie is growen to so great an increment, the\ninequalitie of the motion, and course of the moone surpasseth all\nexperience of Mathematicians, and cannot be reduced to any certeine rule of\nreason.\n\n\n25.\n\n  _What is the cause that they repute the morrowes after_ Calends, Nones,\n  _and_ Ides, _disasterous or dismall daies, either for to set forward upon\n  any journey or voiage, or to march with an army into the field_?\n\nIS it because as many thinke, and as _Titus Livius_ hath recorded in his\nstorie; the Tribunes militarie, at what time as they had consular and\nsoveraigne authoritie, went into the field with the Romane armie the morrow\nafter the _Ides_ of the moneth _Quintilis_, which was the same that July\nnow is, and were discomfited in a battell by the Gaules, neere unto the\nriver _Allia_: and c\u00f5sequently upon that overthrow, lost the very city it\nselfe of _Rome_: by which occasion the morrow after the _Ides_, being held\nand reputed for a sinister and unluckie day; superstition entring into mens\nheads, proceeded farther (as she loveth alwaies so to doe) and brought in\nthe custome for to hold the morrow after the _Nones_, yea, and the morrow\nafter the _Calends_, as unfortunate, and to be as religiously observed in\nsemblable cases.\n\nBut against this there may be opposed many objections: for first and\nformost, they lost that battell upon another day, and calling it\n_Alliensis_, by the name of the river _Allia_, where it was strucken, they\nhave it in abomination for that cause. Againe, whereas there be many daies\nreputed dismal and unfortunate, they doe not observe so precisely and with\nso religious feare, other daies of like denomination in every moneth, but\nech day apart onely in that moneth wherein such and such a disaster,\nhapned: and that the infortunitie of one day should draw a superstitious\nfeare simply upon all the morrowes after _Calends_, _Nones_, and _Ides_,\ncarieth no congruitie at all, nor apparence of reason.\n\nConsider moreover and see, whether, as of moneths they used to consecrate\nthe first to the gods celestiall; the second to the terrestriall, or\ninfernall, wherein they performe certeine expiatorie ceremonies and\nsacrifices of purification, and presenting  offirings and services to the\ndead: so of the daies in the moneth, those which are chiefe and principall,\nas hath beene said, they would not have to be kept as sacred and festivall\nholidaies; but such as follow after, as being dedicated unto the spirits,\ncalled _D\u00e6mons_, and those that are departed; they also have esteemed\nc\u00f5sequently as unhappy, & altogether unmeet either for to execute or to\ntake in hand any businesse: for the Greeks adoring and serving the gods\nupon their new moones and first daies of the moneth, have attributed the\nsecond daies unto the demi-gods and _D\u00e6mons_: like as at their feasts also\nthey drinke the second cup unto their demi-gods, and demi-goddesses. In\nsumme, Time is a kinde of number, and the beginning of number is (I wot not\nwhat,) some divine thing, for it is Unitie: and that which commeth next\nafter it is Deuz or two, cleane opposite unto the said beginning, and is\nthe first of all even numbers: as for the even number it is defective,\nunperfect, and indefinit, whereas contrariwise, the uneven or odde number\nit selfe is finite, complet, and absolute: and for this cause like as the\n_Nones_ succeed the _Calends_ five daies after; so the _Ides_ follow the\n_Nones_ nine daies after them; for the uneven and odde numbers doe\ndetermine those beginnings, or principall daies; but those which presently\nensue after the said principall daies being even, are neither ranged in any\norder, nor have power and puissance: and therefore men doe not enterprise\nany great worke, nor set foorth voiage or journey upon such daies: and\nheereto wee may to good purpose annex that pretie speech of _Themistocles_:\nFor when the morrow (quoth he) upon a time quarrelled with the festivall\nday which went next before it, saying, that herselfe was busied and tooke a\ngreat deale of pains, preparing & providing with much travel those goods\nwhich the feast enjoied at her ease, with all repose, rest, and leisure:\nthe Festivall day made this answer: Thou saidst true indeed; but if I were\nnot, where wouldst thou be? This tale _Themistocles_ devised, and delivered\nunto the Athenian captaines, who came after him; giving them thereby to\nunderstand, that neither they nor any acts of theirs would ever have beene\nseene, unlesse hee before them had saved the citie of Athens. Forasmuch\nthen, as every enterprise and voiage of importance hath need of provision,\nand some preparatives; and for that the Romans in old time upon their\nfestivall daies, dispensed nothing, nor took care for any provision; being\nwholy given and devoted at such times to the service & worship of God,\ndoing that, and nothing else; like as even yet at this day, when the\npriests begin to sacrifice, they pronounce with a loud voice before all the\ncompanie there assembled HOC AGE, that is to say, Minde this, and doe no\nother thing: verie like it is, and standeth to great reason, that they used\nnot to put themselves upon the way for any long voiage, nor tooke in hand\nany great affaire or businesse presently after a festivall day, but kept\nwithin house all the morrow after, to thinke upon their occasions, and to\nprovide all things necessarie for journey or exploit: or we may conjecture,\nthat as at this very day the Romans after they have adored the gods, and\nmade their praiers unto them within their temples, are woont to stay there\na time, and sit them downe; even so they thought it not reasonable to cast\ntheir great affaires so, as that they should immediately follow upon any of\ntheir festivall daies; but they allowed some respit and time betweene, as\nknowing full well, that businesses carie with them alwaies many troubles\nand hinderances, beyond the opinion, expectation, and will of those who\ntake them in hand.\n\n\n26.\n\n  _What is the cause that women at_ Rome, _when they mourne for the dead,\n  put on white robes, and likewise weare white cawles, coifes and kerchiefs\n  upon their heads_.\n\nMAY it not be that for to oppose themselves against hell and the darkenesse\nthereof, they conforme their raiment and attire to that colour which is\ncleere and bright?\n\nOr doe they it not rather for this: that like as they clad and burie the\ndead corps in white clothes, they suppose, that those who are next of kin,\nand come neerest about them, ought also to weare their liverie? Now the\nbodie they doe in this wise decke, because they cannot adorne the soule so;\nand it they are willing to accompanie as lightsome, pure and net, as being\nnow at the last delivered and set free, and which hath performed a great a\nvariable combat.\n\nOr rather, we may guesse thus much thereby: that in such cases, that which\nis most simple and least costly, is best beseeming; whereas clothes of any\nother colour died, do commonly bewray either superfluitie or curiositie:\nfor we may say even aswell of blacke, as of purple: These robes are\ndeceitfull: these colours also are counterfeit. And as touching that which\nis of it selfe blacke, if it have not that tincture by diers art, surely it\nis so coloured by nature, as being mixed and compounded with obscuritie:\nand therefore there is no colour els but white, which is pure, unmixt, and\nnot stained and sullied with any tincture, and that which is inimitable; in\nwhich regard, more meet and agreeable unto those who are interred,\nconsidering that the dead is now become simple, pure, excempt from all\nmixtion, and in very trueth, nothing els but delivered from the bodie, as a\nstaine and infection hardly scowred out and rid away. Semblably, in the\ncitie of _Argos_, whensoever they mourned, the maner was to weare white\ngarments, washed (as _Socrates_ said) in faire and cleere water.\n\n\n27.\n\n  _What is the reason that they esteeme all the walles of the citie sacred\n  and inviolable, but not the gates._\n\nIS it (as _Varro_ saith) because we ought to thinke the walles holie, to\nthe end that we may fight valiantly, and die generously in the defence of\nthem? for it seemeth that this was the cause, why _Romulus_ killed his owne\nbrother _Remus_, for that he presumed to leape over an holy and inviolable\nplace: whereas contrariwise, it was not possible to consecrate and hallow\nthe gates, thorow which there must needs be transported many things\nnecessary, and namely, the bodies of the dead. And therefore, they who\nbegin to found a citie, environ and compasse first with a plough all that\npourprise and precinct wherein they meant to build, drawing the said plough\nwith an oxe and a cow coupled together in one yoke: afterwards, when they\nhave traced out all the said place where the walles should stand, they\nmeasure out as much ground as will serve for the gates, but take out the\nplough-share, and so passe over that space with the bare plough, as if they\nmeant thereby, that all the furrow which they cast up and eared, should be\nsacred and inviolable.\n\n\n28.\n\n  _What is the reason, that when their children are to sweare by_ Hercules,\n  _they will not let them do it within doores, but cause them to go forth\n  of the house, and take their oath abroad_?\n\nIS it because (as some would have it) that they thinke _Hercules_ is not\ndelighted with keeping close within house and fitting idely, but taketh\npleasure to live abroad and lie without?\n\nOr rather, for that of all the gods, _Hercules_ is not (as one would say)\nhome-bred, but a stranger, come amongst them from afarre? For even so they\nwould not sweare by _Bacchus_, under the roofe of the house, but went forth\nto do it; because he also is but a stranger among the gods.\n\nOr haply, this is no more but a word in game and sport, given unto\nchildren: and besides (to say a trueth) it may be a meanes to withholde and\nrestraine them from swearing so readily and rashly, as _Phavorinus_ saith:\nfor this device causeth a certeine premeditate preparation, and giveth them\n(whiles they goe out of the house) leasure and time to consider better of\nthe matter. And a man may conjecture also with _Phavorinus_, and say with\nhim: That this fashion was not common to other gods, but proper to\n_Hercules_: for that we finde it written, that he was so religious, so\nrespective and precise in his oath, that in all his life time he never\nsware but once, and that was onely to _Phileus_ the sonne of _Augias_. And\ntherefore, the prophetisse at _Delphos_, named _Pythia_, answered thus upon\na time to the Laced\u00e6monians:\n\n  _When all these oaths you once forfend,\n  Your state (be sure) shall dayly mend._\n\n\n29.\n\n  _What should be the reason, that they would not permit the new wedded\n  bride to passe of herselfe over the doore-sill or threshold, when she is\n  brought home to her husband's house, but they that accompanie her, must\n  lift her up betweene them from the ground, and so convey her in._\n\nIS it in remembrance of those first wives whom they ravished perforce from\nthe Sabines, who entred not into their houses of themselves with their good\nwill, but were carried in by them, in this maner?\n\nOr is it perhaps, because they would be thought to goe against their willes\ninto that place where they were to lose their maidenhead?\n\nOr haply it may be, that a wedded wife ought not to goe foorth of her\ndoores, and abandon her house, but perforce, like as she went first into it\nby force. For in our countrey of _B\u00e6otia_, the maner is, to burne before\nthe doore where a new married wife is to dwell, the axel tree of that\nchariot or coatch in which she rode when she was brought to her husbands\nhouse. By which ceremonie, thus much she is given to understand, that will\nshe nill she, there she must now tarrie, considering that it which brought\nher thither, is now gone quite and consumed.\n\n\n30.\n\n  _Wherefore do they at_ Rome, _when they bring a new espoused bride home\n  to the house of her husband_, _force her to say these words unto her\n  spouse_: Where you are _Cajus_, I will be _Caja_?\n\nIS it to testifie by these words, that she entreth immediately to\ncommunicate with him in all goods, and to be a governesse and commaunder in\nthe house as well as he? for it implieth as much, as if she should say;\nwhere you are lord and master, I will be lady and mistres. Now these names\nthey used as being common, and such as came first to hand, and for no other\nreason else: like as the Civill lawiers use ordinarily these names,\n_Cajus_, _Seius_, _Lucius_, and _Titius_: the Philosophers in their\nschooles, _Dion_ and _Theon_.\n\nOr peradventure it is in regard of _Caia C\u00e6cilia_ a beautifull and vertuous\nlady, who in times past, espoused one of the sonnes of king _Tarquinius_:\nof which dame there is yet to be seene even at this day one image of\nbrasse, within the temple of the god _Sanctus_: and there likewise in old\ntime, her slippers, her distaffe and spindels laid up for to bee seene: the\none to signifie that she kept the house well, and went not ordinarily\nabroad; the other to shew how she busied herselfe at home.\n\n\n31.\n\n  _How commeth it, that they use to chaunt ordinarily at Weddings_, _this\n  word so much divulged_, Talassio?\n\nIS it not of _Talasia_, the Greeke word, which signifieth yarne: for the\nbasket wherein women use to put in their rolles of carded wooll, they name\n_Talosos_ in Greeke, and _Calathus_ in Latine? Certes they that lead the\nbride home, cause her to sit upon a fliece of wooll, then bringeth she\nfoorth a distaffe and a spindle, and with wooll all to hangeth and decketh\nthe dore of her husbands house.\n\nOr rather, if it be true which historians report: There was sometime a\ncerteine yoong gentleman, very valiant and active in feats of armes, and\notherwise of excellent parts and singular wel conditioned, whose name was\n_Talasius_: and when they ravished and caried away the daughters of the\nSabines who were come to _Rome_, for to behold the solemnitie of their\nfestivall games and plaies: certaine meane persons, such yet as belonged to\nthe traine & retinue of _Talasius_ aforesaid, had chosen foorth & were\ncarying away, one damosel above the rest most beautiful of visage, and for\ntheir safety and securitie as they passed along the streets, cried out\naloud _Talasio_, _Talasio_, that is to say, for _Talasius_, for _Talasius_;\nto the end that no man should be so hardy as to approch nere unto them, nor\nattempt to have away the maiden from them, giving it out, that they caried\nher for to be the wife of _Talasius_; and others meeting them upon the way,\njoined with them in company for the honour of _Talasius_, and as they\nfollowed after, highly praised their good choice which they had made,\npraying the gods to give both him and her joy of their marriage, and\ncontentment to their hearts desire. Now for that this marriage prooved\nhappy and blessed, they were woont ever after in their wedding songs to\nrechant and resound this name, _Talasius_, like as the maner is among the\nGreeks to sing in such carrols, _Hymen\u00e6us_.\n\n\n32.\n\n  _What is the reason that in the moneth of May, they use at Rome to cast\n  over their woodden bridge into the river_, _certaine images of men, which\n  they call_ Argeos?\n\nIS it in memoriall of the Barbarians who sometimes inhabited these parts,\nand did so by the Greeks, murdering them in that maner as many of them as\nthey could take? But _Hercules_ who was highly esteemed among them for his\nvertue, abolished this cruell fashion of killing of strangers, and taught\nthem this custome to counterfet their auncient superstitions, and to fling\nthese images in stead of them: now in old time our ancestors used to name\nall Greeks of what countrey soever they were, _Argeos_: unlesse haply a man\nwould say, that the Arcadians reputing the Argives to be their enemies, for\nthat they were their neighbour borderers, such as fled with _Evander_ out\nof _Arcadia_, and came to inhabit these quarters, reteined still the old\nhatred and ranckor, which time out of minde had taken root, and beene\nsetled in their hearts against the said Argives.\n\n\n33.\n\n  _What is the cause that the Romans in old time never went foorth out of\n  their houses to supper, but they caried with them their yoong sonnes,\n  even when they were but in their very infancie and childhood._\n\nWAS not this for the very same reason that _Lycurgus_ instituted and\nordeined, that yoong children should ordinarily be brought into their\nhalles where they used to eat in publicke, called _Phiditia_, to the end\nthat they might be inured and acquainted betimes, not to use the pleasures\nof eating and drinking immoderately, as brutish and ravenous beasts are\nwont to doe; considering that they had their elders to oversee them, yea,\nand to controll their demeanour: and in this regard haply also, that their\nfathers themselves should in their carriage be more sober, honest, and\nfrugall, in the presence of their children: for looke where old folke are\nshamelesse, there it can not chuse but (as _Plato_ saith) children and\nyouth will be most gracelesse and impudent.\n\n\n34.\n\n  _What might the reason be, that whereas all other Romans made their\n  offerings, ceremonies, and sacrifices for the dead, in the moneth of\n  February_: Decimus Brutus _as_ Cicero _saith, was wont to doe the same in\n  the moneth of December: now this_ Brutus _was he who first invaded the\n  countrey of_ Portugall, _and with an armie passed over the river of_\n  Lethe, _that is to say, oblivion_.\n\nMAY it not be, that as the most part of men used not to performe any such\nservices for the dead, but toward the end of the moneth, and a little\nbefore the shutting in of the evening; even so it seemeth to carie good\nreason, to honour the dead at the end of the yeere; and you wot well that\nDecember was the last moneth of all the yeere.\n\nOr rather, it is because this was an honour exhibited to the deities\nterrestriall: and it seemeth that the proper season to reverence and\nworship these earthly gods, is when the fruits of the earth be fully\ngathered and laid up.\n\nOr haply, for that the husband men began at this time to breake up their\ngrounds against their seednesse: it was meet and requisite to have in\nremembrance those gods which are under the ground.\n\nOr haply, because this moneth is dedicate and consecrated by the Romans to\n_Saturne_; for they counted _Saturne_ one of the gods beneath, and none of\nthem above: and withall, considering the greatest and most solemne feast,\nwhich they call _Saturnalia_, is holden in this moneth, at what time as\nthey seeme to have their most frequent meeting, and make best cheere, he\nthought it meet and reasonable that the dead also should enjoy some little\nportion thereof.\n\nOr it may be said, that it is altogether untrue that _Decimus Brutus_ alone\nsacrificed for the dead in this moneth: for certeine it is that there was a\ncerteine divine service performed to _Acca Larentia_, and solemne effusions\nand libaments of wine and milke were powred upon her sepulchre in the\nmoneth of December.\n\n\n35.\n\n  _Why honoured the Romans this_ Acca Larentia _so highly, considering she\n  was no better than a strumpet or courtisan_?\n\nFOR you must thinke, that the histories make mention of another _Acca\nLarentia_, the nurse of _Romulus_, unto whom they do honour in the moneth\nof Aprill. As for this courtizan _Larentia_, she was (as men say) surnamed\n_Fabula_, and came to be so famous and renowmed by such an occasion as\nthis. A certeine sexton of _Hercules_ his temple, having little els to doe,\nand living at ease (as commonly such fellowes doe) used for the most part\nto spend all the day in playing at dice and with cokall bones: and one day\nabove the rest, it fortuned, that meeting with none of his mates and\nplay-fellowes who were woont to beare him company at such games, and not\nknowing what to do nor how to passe the time away, he thought with himselfe\nto challenge the god whose servant he was, to play at dice with him, upon\nthese conditions: That if himselfe woon the game, _Hercules_ should be a\nmeanes for him of some good lucke and happy fortune; but in case he lost\nthe game, he should provide for _Hercules_ a good supper, and withall, a\npretie wench and a faire, to be his bedfellow: these conditions being\nagreed upon and set downe, he cast the dice, one chance for himselfe, and\nanother for the god; but his hap was to be the loser: whereupon minding to\nstand unto his challenge, and to accomplish that which he had promised, he\nprepared a rich supper for _Hercules_ his god, and withall, sent for this\n_Acca Larentia_, a professed courtisan and common harlot, whom he feasted\nalso with him, and after supper bestowed her in a bed within the very\ntemple, shut the doores fast upon, and so went his way. Now the tale goes\nforsooth, that in the night, _Hercules_ companied with her, not after the\nmaner of men, but charged her, that the next morning betimes she should go\ninto the market-place, and looke what man she first met withall, him she\nshould enterteine in all kindnesse, and make her friend especially. Then\n_Larentia_ gat up betimes in the morning accordingly, and chanced to\nencounter a certeine rich man and a stale bacheler, who was now past his\nmiddle age, and his name was _Taruntius_; with him she became so familiarly\nacquainted, that so long as he lived, she had the command of his whole\nhouse; and at his death, was by his last will and testament instituted\ninheritresse of all that he had. This _Larentia_ likewise afterward\ndeparted this life, and left all her riches unto the citie of _Rome_:\nwhereupon this honour abovesaid was done unto her.\n\n\n36.\n\n  _What is the cause, that they name one gate of the citie_ Fenestra,\n  _which is as much to say, as window; neere unto which adjoineth the\n  bed-chamber of Fortune_?\n\nIS it for that king _Servius_ a most fortunate prince, was thought & named\nto lie with Fortune, who was woont to come unto him by the window? or is\nthis but a devised tale? But in trueth, after that king _Tarquinius\nPriscus_ was deceased, his wife _Tanaquillis_ being a wise ladie, and\nendued with a roiall mind, putting forth her head, and bending forward her\nbodie out of her chamber window, made a speech unto the people, perswading\nthem to elect _Servius_ for their king. And this is the reason that\nafterwards the place reteined this name, _Fenestra_.\n\n\n37.\n\n  _What is the reason, that of all those things which be dedicated and\n  consecrated to the gods, the custome is at_ Rome, _that onely the spoiles\n  of enemies conquered in the warres, are neglected and suffered to run to\n  decay in processe of time: neither is there any reverence done unto them,\n  nor repaired be they at any time, when they wax olde_?\n\nWHETHER is it, because they (supposing their glory to fade and passe away\ntogether with these first spoiles) seeke evermore new meanes to winne some\nfresh marks and monuments of their vertue, and to leave them same behinde\nthem.\n\nOr rather, for that seeing time doth waste and consume these signs and\ntokens of the enmity which they had with their enemies, it were an odious\nthing for them, and very invidious, if they should refresh and renew the\nremembrance thereof: for even those among the Greeks, who first erected\ntheir trophes or pillars of brasse and stone, were not commended for so\ndoing.\n\n\n38.\n\n  _What is the reason that_ Quintus Metellus _the high priest, and reputed\n  besides a wise man and a politike, forbad to observe auspices, or to take\n  presages by flight of birds, after the moneth_ Sextilis, _now called\n  August_.\n\nIS it for that, as we are woont to attend upon such observations about\nnoone or in the beginning of the day, at the entrance also and toward the\nmiddle of the moneth: but we take heed and beware of the daies declination,\nas inauspicate and unmeet for such purposes; even so _Metellus_ supposed,\nthat the time after eight moneths was (as it were) the evening of the\nyeere, and the latter end of it, declining now and wearing toward an end.\n\nOr haply, because we are to make use of these birds, and to observe their\nflight for presage, whiles they are entire, perfect and nothing defective,\nsuch as they are before Summer time. But about Autumne some of them moult,\ngrow to be sickly and weake; others are over young and too small; and some\nagaine appeare not at all, but like passengers are gone at such a time into\nanother countrey.\n\n\n39.\n\n  _What is the cause, that it was not lawfull for them who were not prest\n  soldiors by oth and enrolled, although upon some other occasions they\n  conversed in the campe, to strike or wound an enemie? And verely_ Cato\n  _himselfe the elder of that name signified thus much in a letter missive\n  which he wrote unto his sonne: wherein he straitly charged him, that if\n  he had accomplished the full time of his service, and that his captain\n  had given him his conge and discharge, he should immediately returne: or\n  in case he had leifer stay still in the campe, that he should obtaine of\n  his captaine permission and licence to hurt and kill his enemie_.\n\nIS it because there is nothing else but necessitie alone, doeth warrantize\nthe killing of a man: and he who unlawfully and without expresse\ncommaundement of a superiour (unconstrained) doth it, is a meere homicide\nand manslaier. And therefore _Cyrus_ commended _Chrysantas_, for that being\nupon the verie point of killing his enemie, as having lifted up his cemiter\nfor to give him a deadly wound, presently upon the sound of the retreat by\nthe trumpet, let the man go, and would not smite him, as if he had beene\nforbidden so to do.\n\nOr may it not be, for that he who presenteth himselfe to fight with his\nenemie, in case he shrink, and make not good his ground, ought not to go\naway cleere withal, but to be held faulty and to suffer punishment: for he\ndoth nothing so good service that hath either killed or wounded an enemie,\nas harme and domage, who reculeth backe or flieth away: now he who is\ndischarged from warfare, and hath leave to depart, is no more obliged and\nbound to militarie lawes: but he that hath demaunded permission to do that\nservice which sworne and enrolled souldiers performe, putteth himselfe\nagaine under the subjection of the law and his owne captaine.\n\n\n40.\n\n  _How is it, that the priest of_ Jupiter, _is not permitted to annoint\n  himselfe abroad in the open aire_?\n\nIS it for that in old time it was not held honest and lawfull for children\nto do off their clothes before their fathers; nor the sonne in law in the\npresence of his wives father; neither used they the stouph or bath\ntogether: now is _Jupiter_ reputed the priests or _Flamines_ father: and\nthat which is done in the open aire, seemeth especially to be in the verie\neie and sight of _Jupiter_?\n\nOr rather, like as it was thought a great sinne and exceeding irreverence,\nfor a man to turne himselfe out of his apparrell naked, in any church,\nchappell, or religious and sacred place; even so they carried a great\nrespect unto the aire and open skie, as being full of gods, demi-gods, and\nsaints. And this is the verie cause, why we doe many of our necessarie\nbusinesses within doores, enclosed and covered with the roofe of our\nhouses, and so remooved from the eies as it were of the deitie. Moreover,\nsome things there be that by law are commaunded and enjoined unto the\npriest onely; and others againe unto all men, by the priest: as for\nexample, heere with us in _B\u0153otia_; to be crowned with chaplets of flowers\nupon the head; to let the haire grow long; to weare a sword, and not to set\nfoot within the limits of _Phocis_, pertaine all to the office and dutie of\nthe captaine generall and chiefe ruler: but to tast of no new fruits before\nthe Autumnall Aequinox be past; nor to cut and prune a vine but before the\nAequinox of the Spring, be intimated and declared unto all by the said\nruler or captaine generall: for those be the verie seasons to do both the\none & the other. In like case, it should seeme in my judgement that among\nthe Romans it properly belonged to the priest; not to mount on horseback;\nnot to be above three nights out of the citie; not to put off his cap,\nwhereupon he was called in the Roman language, _Flamen_. But there be many\nother offices and duties, notified and declared unto all men by the priest,\namong which this is one, not to be enhuiled or anointed abroad in the open\naire: For this manner of anointing drie without the bath, the Romans\nmightily suspected and were afraid of: and even at this day they are of\nopinion, that there was no such cause in the world that brought the Greeks\nunder the yoke of servitude and bondage, and made them so tender and\neffeminate, as their halles and publike places where their yong men\nwrestled & exercised their bodies naked: as being the meanes that brought\ninto their cities, much losse of time, engendred idlenesse, bred lazie\nslouth, and ministred occasion & opportunity of lewdnesse and vilany; as\nnamely, to make love unto faire boies, and to spoile and marre the bodies\nof young men with sleeping, with walking at a certeine measure, with\nstirring according to motions, keeping artificiall compasse, and with\nobserving rules of exquisit diet. Through which fashions, they see not, how\n(ere they be aware) they be fallen from exercises of armes, and have cleane\nforgotten all militarie discipline: loving rather to be held and esteemed\ngood wrestlers, fine dauncers, conceited pleasants, and faire minions, than\nhardie footmen, or valiant men of armes. And verely it is an hard matter to\navoid and decline these inconveniences, for them that use to discover their\nbodies naked before all the world in the broad aire: but those who annoint\nthemselves closely within doores, and looke to their bodies at home are\nneither faulty nor offensive.\n\n\n41.\n\n  _What is the reason that the auncient coine and mony in old time, caried\n  the stampe of one side of_ Ianus _with two faces: and on the other side,\n  the prow or the poope of a boat engraved therein_.\n\nWAS it not as many men do say, for to honour the memorie of _Saturne_, who\npassed into _Italy_ by water in such a vessel? But a man may say thus much\nas well of many others: for _Janus_, _Evander_, and _Aeneas_, came thither\nlikewise by sea; and therefore a man may peradventure gesse with better\nreason; that whereas some things serve as goodly ornaments for cities,\nothers as necessarie implements: among those which are decent and seemely\nornaments, the principall is good government and discipline, and among such\nas be necessary, is reckoned, plentie and abundance of victuals: now for\nthat _Janus_ instituted good government, in ordeining holsome lawes, and\nreducing their manner of life to civilitie, which before was rude and\nbrutish, and for that the river being navigable, furnished them with store\nof all necessary commodities, whereby some were brought thither by sea,\nothers from the land; the coine caried for the marke of a law-giver, the\nhead with two faces, like as we have already said, because of that change\nof life which he brought in; and of the river, a ferrie boate or barge: and\nyet there was another kinde of money currant among them, which had the\nfigure portraied upon it, of a beefe, of a sheepe, and of a swine; for that\ntheir riches they raised especially from such cattle, and all their wealth\nand substance consisted in them. And heereupon it commeth, that many of\ntheir auncient names, were _Ovilij_, _Bubulci_ and _Porcij_, that is to\nsay, Sheepe-reeves, and Neat-herds, and Swineherds according as\n_Fenestella_ doth report.\n\n\n42.\n\n  _What is the cause that they make the temple of_ Saturne, _the chamber of\n  the citie, for to keepe therein the publicke treasure of gold and silver:\n  as also their arches, for the custodie of all their writings, rolles,\n  contracts and evidences whatsoever_.\n\nIS it by occasion of that opinion so commonly received, and the speech so\nuniversally currant in every mans mouth, that during the raigne of\n_Saturne_, there was no avarice nor injustice in the world; but loialtie,\ntruth, faith, and righteousnesse caried the whole sway among men.\n\nOr for that he was the god who found out fruits, brought in agriculture,\nand taught husbandry first; for the hooke or sickle in his hand signifieth\nso much, and not as _Antimachus_ wrote, following therein and beleeving\n_Hesiodus_:\n\n  _Rough_ Saturne _with his hairy skinne, against all law and right,\n  Of_ Aemons _sonne, sir_ Ouranus, _or_ C\u0153lus _sometime hight,\n  Those privy members which him gat, with hooke a-slant off-cut.\n  And then anon in fathers place of reigne, himselfe did put._\n\nNow the abundance of the fruits which the earth yeeldeth, and the vent or\ndisposition of them, is the very mother that bringeth foorth plentie of\nmonie: and therefore it is that this same god they make the author and\nmainteiner of their felicitie: in testimonie whereof, those assemblies\nwhich are holden every ninth day in the c\u00f5mon place of the city, called\n_Nundin\u00e6_, that is to say, Faires or markets, they esteeme consecrated to\n_Saturne_: for the store & foison of fruits is that which openeth the trade\n& comerce of buying and selling. Or, because these reasons seeme to be very\nantique; what and if we say that the first man who made (of _Saturns_\ntemple at _Rome_) the treasurie or chamber of the citie was _Valerius\nPoplicola_, after that the kings were driven out of _Rome_, and it seemeth\nto stand to good reason that he made choise thereof, because he thought it\na safe and secure place, eminent and conspicuous in all mens eies, and by\nconsequence hard to be surprised and forced.\n\n\n43.\n\n  _What is the cause that those who come as embassadours to_ Rome, _from\n  any parts whatsoever, go first into the temple of_ Saturne, _and there\n  before the Questors or Treasurers of the citie, enter their names in\n  their registers_.\n\nIS it for that _Saturne_ himselfe was a stranger in _Italy_, and therefore\nall strangers are welcome unto him?\n\nOr may not this question be solved by the reading of histories? for in old\ntime these Questors or publick Treasurers, were wont to send unto\nembassadors certeine presents, which were called _Lautia_: and if it\nfortuned that such embassadors were sicke, they tooke the charge of them\nfor their cure; and if they chanced to die, they enterred them likewise at\nthe cities charges. But now in respect of the great resort of embassadors\nfrom out of all countries, they have cut off this expense: howbeit the\nauncient custome yet remaineth, namely, to present themselves to the said\nofficers of the treasure, and to be registred in their booke.\n\n\n44.\n\n  _Why is it not lawfull for_ Jupiters _priest to sweare_?\n\nIS it because an oth ministered unto free borne men, is as it were the\nracke and torture tendred unto them? for certeine it is, that the soule as\nwell as the bodie of the priest, ought to continue free, and not be forced\nby any torture whatsoever.\n\nOr, for that it is not meet to distrust or discredit him in small matters,\nwho is beleeved in great and divine things?\n\nOr rather because every oth ended with the detestation and malediction of\nperjurie: and considering that all maledictions be odious and abominable;\ntherefore it is not thought good that any other priests whatsoever, should\ncurse or pronounce any malediction: and in this respect was the priestresse\nof _Minerva_ in _Athens_ highly commended, for that she would never curse\n_Alcibiades_, notwithstanding the people commanded her so to doe: For I am\n(quoth she) ordeined a priestresse to pray for men, and not to curse them.\n\nOr last of all, was it because the perill of perjurie would reach in common\nto the whole common wealth, if a wicked, godlesse and forsworne person,\nshould have the charge and superintendance of the praiers, vowes, and\nsacrifices made in the behalfe of the citie.\n\n\n45.\n\n  _What is the reason that upon the festivall day in the honour of_ Venus,\n  _which solemnitie they call_ Veneralia, _they use to powre foorth a great\n  quantitie of wine out of the temple of_ Venus.\n\nIS it as some say upon this occasion, that _Mezentius_ sometime captaine\ngenerall of the Tuscans, sent certeine embassadors unto _Aeneas_, with\ncommission to offer peace unto him, upon this condition, that he might\nreceive all the wine of that [141]yeeres vintage. But when _Aeneas_ refused\nso to doe, _Mezentius_ (for to encourage his souldiers the Tuskans to fight\nmanfully) promised to bestow wine upon them when he had woon the field: but\n_Aeneas_ understanding of this promise of his, consecrated and dedicated\nall the said wine unto the gods: and in trueth, when he had obteined the\nvictorie, all the wine of that yeere, when it was gotten and gathered\ntogether, he powred forth before the temple of _Venus_.\n\nOr, what if one should say, that this doth symbolize thus much: That men\nought to be sober upon festivall daies, and not to celebrate such\nsolemnities with drunkennesse; as if the gods take more pleasure to see\nthem shed wine upon the ground, than to powre overmuch thereof downe their\nthroats?\n\n\n46.\n\n  _What is the cause that in ancient time they kept the temple of the\n  goddesse_ Horta, _open alwaies_.\n\nWHETHER was it (as _Antistius Labeo_ hath left in writing) for that, seeing\n_Hortari_ in the Latine tongue signifieth to incite and exhort, they\nthought that the goddesse called _Horta_, which stirreth and provoketh men\nunto the enterprise and execution of good exploits, ought to be evermore in\naction, not to make delaies, nor to be shut up and locked within dores, ne\nyet to sit still and do nothing?\n\nOr rather, because as they name her now a daies _Hora_, with the former\nsyllable long, who is a certeine industrious, vigilant and busie goddesse,\ncarefull in many things: therefore being as she is, so circumspect and so\nwatchfull, they thought she should be never idle, nor rechlesse of mens\naffaires.\n\nOr els, this name _Hora_ (as many others besides) is a meere Greeke word,\nand signifieth a deitie or divine power, that hath an eie to overlooke, to\nview and controll all things; and therefore since she never sleepeth, nor\nlaieth her eies together, but is alwaies broad awake, therefore her church\nor chapel was alwaies standing open.\n\nBut if it be so as _Labeo_ saith, that this word _Hora_ is rightly derived\nof the Greeke verbe \u1f41\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd or \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c1\u03bc\u1fb6\u03bd, which signifieth to incite or\nprovoke; consider better, whether this word _Orator_ also, that is to say,\none who stirrith up, exhorteth, encourageth, and adviseth the people, as a\nprompt and ready counseller, be not derived likewise in the same sort, and\nnot of \u1f00\u03c1\u03b1 or \u03b5\u1f50\u03c7\u1f74, that is to say, praier and supplication, as some would\nhave it.\n\n\n47.\n\n  _Wherefore founded_ Romulus _the temple of_ Vulcane _without the citie\n  of_ Rome?\n\nIS it for the jealousie (which as fables do report) _Vulcane_ had of\n_Mars_, because of his wife _Venus_: and so _Romulus_ being reputed the\nsonne of _Mars_, would not vouchsafe him to inhabit and dwell in the same\ncitie with him? or is this a meere foolerie and senselesse conceit?\n\nBut this temple was built at the first, to be a chamber and parlour of\nprivie counsell for him and _Tatius_ who reigned with him; to the end that\nmeeting and sitting there in consultation together with the Senatours, in a\nplace remote from all troubles and hinderances, they might deliberate as\ntouching the affaires of State with ease and quietnesse.\n\nOr rather, because _Rome_ from the very first foundation was subject to\nfire by casualtie, hee thought good to honour this god of fire in some\nsort, but yet to place him without the walles of the citie.\n\n\n48.\n\n  _What is the reason, that upon their festivall day called_ Consualia,\n  _they adorned with garlands of flowers as well their asses as horses, and\n  gave them rest and repose for the time_?\n\nIS it for that this solemnitie was holden in the honour of _Neptune_\nsurnamed _Equestris_, that is to say, the horseman? and the asse hath his\npart of this joyfull feast, for the horses sake?\n\nOr, because that after navigation and transporting of commodities by sea\nwas now found out and shewed to the world, there grew by that meanes (in\nsome sort) better rest and more ease to poore labouring beasts of draught\nand carriage.\n\n\n49.\n\n  _How commeth it to passe, that those who stood for any office and\n  magistracie, were woont by an old custome (as_ Cato _hath written) to\n  present themselves unto the people in a single robe or loose gowne,\n  without any coat at all under it_?\n\nWAS it for feare lest they should carrie under their robes any money in\ntheir bosomes, for to corrupt, bribe, and buy (as it were) the voices and\nsuffrages of the people?\n\nOr was it because they deemed men woorthy to beare publicke office and to\ngoverne, not by their birth and parentage, by their wealth and riches, ne\nyet by their shew and outward reputation, but by their wounds and scarres\nto be seene upon their bodies. To the end therefore, that such scarres\nmight be better exposed to their fight whom they met or talked withall,\nthey went in this maner downe to the place of election, without inward\ncoats in their plaine gownes.\n\nOr haply, because they would seeme by this nuditie and nakednesse of\ntheirs, in humilitie to debase themselves, the sooner thereby to curry\nfavor, and win the good grace of the commons, even as well as by taking\nthem by the right hand, by suppliant craving, and by humble submission on\ntheir very knees.\n\n\n50.\n\n  _What is the cause that the Flamen or priest of_ Jupiter, _when his wife\n  was once dead, used to give up his Priesthood or Sacerdotall dignitie,\n  according as_ Ateius _hath recorded in his historie_.\n\nWAS it for that he who once had wedded a wife, and afterwards buried her,\nwas more infortunate, than he who never had any? for the house of him who\nhath maried a wife, is entire and perfect, but his house who once had one,\nand now hath none, is not onely unperfect, but also maimed and lame?\n\nOr might it not bee that the priests wife was consecrated also to divine\nservice together with her husband; for many rites and ceremonies there\nwere, which he alone could not performe, if his wife were not present: and\nto espouse a new wife immediately upon the decease of the other, were not\nperadventure possible, nor otherwise would well stand with decent and\ncivill honesty: wherupon neither in times past was it lawful for him, nor\nat this day as it should seem, is he permitted to put away his wife: and\nyet in our age _Domitian_ at the request of one, gave licence so to doe: at\nthis dissolution and breach of wedlocke, other priests were present and\nassistant, where there passed among them many strange, hideous, horrible,\nand monstrous ceremonies.\n\nBut haply a man would lesse wonder at this, if ever he knew and understood\nbefore, that when one of the Censors died, the other of necessity must\nlikewise quit & resigne up his office. Howbeit, when _Livius Drusus_ was\ndeparted this life, his companion in office _Aemylius Scaurus_, would not\ngive over and renounce his place, untill such time as certeine Tribunes of\nthe people, for his contumacie commanded, that he should be had away to\nprison.\n\n\n51.\n\n  _What was the reason that the idols_ Lares, _which otherwise properly be\n  called_ Pr\u00e6stites, _had the images of a dogge standing hard by them, and\n  the_ Lares _themselves were portraied clad in dogges skinnes_?\n\nIS it because this word _Pr\u00e6stites_ signifieth as much as \u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, that\nis to say, Presidents, or standing before as keepers: and verily such\nPresidents ought to be good house-keepers, and terrible unto all strangers,\nlike as a dogge is; but gentle and loving to those of the house.\n\nOr rather, that which some of the Romans write is true, like as\n_Chrysippus_ also the philosopher is of opinion; namely, that there be\ncerteine evill spirits which goe about walking up and downe in the world;\nand these be the butchers and tormentors that the gods imploy to punish\nunjust and wicked men: and even so these _Lares_ are held to be maligne\nspirits, & no better than divels, spying into mens lives, and prying into\ntheir families; which is the cause that they now be arraied in such\nskinnes, and a dogge they have sitting hard by them, whereby thus much in\neffect is given to understand, that quicke sented they are, and of great\npower both to hunt out, and also to chastice leud persons.\n\n\n52.\n\n  _What is the cause that the_ Romans _sacrifice a dogge unto the goddesse\n  called_ Genita-Mana, _and withall make one praier unto her, that none\n  borne in the house might ever come to good_?\n\nIS it for that this _Genita-Mana_ is counted a _D\u00e6mon_ or goddesse that\nhath the procuration and charge both of the generation and also of the\nbirth of things corruptible? for surely the word implieth as much, as a\ncerteine fluxion and generation, or rather a generation fluent or fluxible:\nand like as the Greeks sacrificed unto _Proserpina_, a dog, so do the\nRomans unto that _Genita_, for those who are borne in the house. _Socrates_\nalso saith, that the Argives sacrificed a dogge unto _Ilithya_, for the\nmore easie and safe deliverance of child-birth. Furthermore, as touching\nthat Praier, that nothing borne within the house might ever proove good, it\nis not haply meant of any persons, man or woman, but of dogges rather which\nwere whelped there; which ought to be, not kinde and gentle, but curst and\nterrible.\n\nOr peradventure, for that they [142]that die (after an elegant maner of\nspeech) be named Good or quiet: under these words they covertly pray, that\nnone borne in the house might die. And this need not to seeme a strange\nkinde of speech; for _Aristotle_ writeth, that in a certeine treatie of\npeace betweene the Arcadians & Lacedemonians, this article was comprised in\nthe capitulations: That they should make none [143]of the Tegeates, Good,\nfor the aid they sent, or favour that they bare unto the Laced\u00e6monians; by\nwhich was meant, that they should put none of them to death.\n\n\n53.\n\n  _What is the reason, that in a solemne procession exhibited at the\n  Capitoline plaies, they proclame (even at this day) by the voice of an\n  herald, port-sale of the Sardians? and before all this solemnitie and\n  pompe, there is by waye of mockerie and to make a laughing stocke, an\n  olde man led in a shew, with a jewell or brooch pendant about his necke,\n  such as noble mens children are woont to weare, and which they call_\n  Bulla?\n\nIS it for that the Veientians, who in times past being a puissant State in\nTuscane, made warre a long time with _Romulus_: whose citie being the last\nthat he woonne by force, he made sale of many prisoners and captives,\ntogether with their king, mocking him for his stupiditie and grosse follie.\nNow for that the Tuscans in ancient time were descended from the Lydians,\nand the capitall citie of _Lydia_ is _Sardis_, therefore they proclamed the\nsale of the Veientian prisoners under the name of the Sardians; and even to\nthis day in scorne and mockerie, they reteine still the same custome.\n\n\n54.\n\n  _Whence came it, that they call the shambles or butcherie at_ Rome _where\n  flesh is to be solde_, Macellum?\n\nIS it for that this word _Macellum_, by corruption of language is derived\nof \u039c\u03ac\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, that in the Greek tonge signifieth a cooke? like as many other\nwords by usage and custome are come to be received; for the letter C. hath\ngreat affinitie with G. in the Romane tongue: and long it was ere they had\nthe use of G. which letter _Spurius Carbillius_ first invented. Moreover,\nthey that maffle and stammer in their speech, pronounce ordinarily L.\ninstead of R.\n\nOr this question may be resolved better by the knowledge of the Romane\nhistorie: for we reade therein, that there was sometime a violent person\nand a notorious thiefe at _Rome_, named _Macellus_, who after he had\ncommitted many outrages and robberies, was with much ado in the end taken\nand punished: and of his goods which were forfeit to the State, there was\nbuilt a publike shambles or market place to sell flesh-meats in, which of\nhis name was called _Macellum_.\n\n\n55.\n\n  _Why upon the Ides of Januarie, the minstrels at_ Rome _who plaied upon\n  the hautboies, were permitted to goe up and downe the city disguised in\n  womens apparell_?\n\nAROSE this fashion upon that occasion which is reported? namely, that king\n_Numa_ had granted unto them many immunities and honorable priviledges in\nhis time, for the great devotion that hee had in the service of the gods?\nand for that afterwards, the Tribunes militarie who governed the citie in\nConsular authority, tooke the same from them, they went their way\ndiscontented, and departed quite from the citie of _Rome_: but soone after,\nthe people had a misse of them, and besides, the priests made it a matter\nof conscience, for that in all the sacrifices thorowout the citie, there\nwas no sound of flute or hautboies. Now when they would not returne againe\n(being sent for) but made their abode in the citie _Tibur_; there was a\ncerteine afranchised bondslave who secretly undertooke unto the\nmagistrates, to finde some meanes for to fetch them home. So he caused a\nsumptuous feast to be made, as if he meant to celebrate some solemne\nsacrifice, and invited to it the pipers and plaiers of the hautboies\naforesaid: and at this feast he tooke order there should be divers women\nalso; and all night long there was nothing but piping, playing, singing and\ndancing: but all of a sudden this master of the feast caused a rumor to be\nraised, that his lord and master was come to take him in the maner;\nwhereupon making semblant that he was much troubled and affrighted, he\nperswaded the minstrels to mount with all speed into close coatches,\ncovered all over with skinnes, and so to be carried to _Tibur_. But this\nwas a deceitfull practise of his; for he caused the coatches to be turned\nabout another way, and unawares to them; who partly for the darkenesse of\nthe night, and in part because they were drowsie and the wine in their\nheads, tooke no heed of the way, he brought all to _Rome_ betimes in the\nmorning by the breake of day disguised as they were, many of them in light\ncoloured gownes like women, which (for that they had over-watched and\nover-drunke themselves) they had put on, and knew nor therof. Then being\n(by the magistrates) overcome with faire words, and reconciled againe to\nthe citie, they held ever after this custome every yeere upon such a day:\nTo go up and downe the citie thus foolishly disguised.\n\n\n56.\n\n  _What is the reason, that it is commonly received, that certein matrons\n  of the city at the first founded and built the temple of_ Carmenta, _and\n  to this day honour it highly with great reverence_?\n\nFOR it is said, that upon a time the Senat had forbidden the dames and\nwives of the city to ride in coatches: whereupon they tooke such a stomacke\nand were so despighteous, that to be revenged of their husbands, they\nconspired altogether not to conceive or be with child by them, nor to bring\nthem any more babes: and in this minde they persisted still, untill their\nhusbands began to bethinke them selves better of the matter, and let them\nhave their will to ride in their coatches againe as before time: and then\nthey began to breede and beare children a fresh: and those who soonest\nconceived and bare most and with greatest ease, founded then the temple of\n_Carmenta_. And as I suppose this _Carmenta_ was the mother of _Evander_,\nwho came with him into _Italy_; whose right name indeed was _Themis_, or as\nsome say _Nicostrata_: now for that she rendred propheticall answeres and\noracles in verse, the Latins surnamed her _Carmenta_: for verses in their\ntongue they call _Carmina_. Others are of opinion, that _Carmenta_ was one\nof the Destinies, which is the cause that such matrons and mothers\nsacrifice unto her. And the Etymologie of this name _Carmenta_, is as much\nas _Carens mente_, that is to say, beside her right wits or bestraught, by\nreason that her senses were so ravished and transported: so that her verses\ngave her not the name _Carmenta_, but contrariwise, her verses were called\n_Carmina_ of her, because when she was thus ravished and caried beside\nherselfe, she chanted certeine oracles and prophesies in verse.\n\n\n57.\n\n  _What is the cause that the women who sacrifice unto the goddesse_\n  Rumina, _doe powre and cast store of milke upon their sacrifice, but no\n  wine at all do they bring thither for to be drunke_?\n\nIS it, for that the Latins in their tongue call a pap, _Ruma_? And well it\nmay so be, for that the wilde figge tree neere unto which the she wolfe\ngave sucke with her teats unto _Romulus_, was in that respect called _Ficus\nRuminalis_. Like as therefore we name in our Greeke language those milch\nnourses that suckle yoong infants at their brests, _Thelona_, being a word\nderived of _Thele_, which signifieth a pap; even so this goddesse _Rumina_,\nwhich is as much to say, as Nurse, and one that taketh the care and charge\nof nourishing and rearing up of infants, admitteth not in her sacrifices\nany wine; for that it is hurtfull to the nouriture of little babes and\nsucklings.\n\n\n58.\n\n  _What is the reason that of the Romane Senatours, some are called\n  simply_, Patres; _others with an addition_, Patres conscripti?\n\nIS it for that they first, who were instituted and ordeined by _Romulus_,\nwere named _Patres & Patritii_, that is to say, Gentlemen or Nobly borne,\nsuch as we in _Greece_, tearme _Eupatrides_?\n\nOr rather they were so called, because they could avouch and shew their\nfathers; but such as were adjoined afterwards by way of supply, and\nenrolled out of the Commoners houses, were _Patres conscripti_, thereupon?\n\n\n59.\n\n  _Wherefore was there one altar common to_ Hercules _and the Muses_?\n\nMAY it not be, that for _Hercules_ taught _Evander_ the letters, according\nas _Juba_ writeth? Certes, in those daies it was accounted an honhourable\noffice for men to teach their kinsefolke and friends to spell letters, and\nto reade. For a long time after it, and but of late daies it was, that they\nbegan to teach for hire and for money: and the first that ever was knowen\nto keepe a publicke schoole for reading, was one named _Spurius Carbilius_,\nthe freed servant of that _Carbilius_ who first put away his wife.\n\n\n60.\n\n  _What is the reason, that there being two altars dedicated unto_\n  Hercules, _women are not partakers of the greater, nor tast one whit of\n  that which is offered or sacrificed thereupon_?\n\nIS it, because as the report goes _Carmenta_ came not soone enough to be\nassistant unto the sacrifice: no more did the family of the _Pinarij_,\nwhereupon they tooke that name? for in regard that they came tardie,\nadmitted they were not to the feast with others who made good cheere; and\ntherefore got the name _Pinarij_, as if one would say, pined or famished?\n\nOr rather it may allude unto the tale that goeth of the shirt empoisoned\nwith the blood of _Nessus_ the Centaure, which ladie _Deianira_ gave unto\n_Hercules_.\n\n\n61.\n\n  _How commeth it to passe, that it is expresly forbidden at_ Rome, _either\n  to name or to demaund ought as touching the Tutelar god, who hath in\n  particular recommendation and patronage, the safetie and preservation of\n  the citie of_ Rome: _nor so much as to enquire whether the said deitie be\n  male or female? And verely this prohibition proceedeth from a\n  superstitious feare that they have; for that they say that_ Valerius\n  Soranus _died an ill death, because he presumed to utter and publish so\n  much_.\n\nIS it in regard of a certaine reason that some latin historians do alledge;\nnamely, that there be certaine evocations and enchantings of the gods by\nspels and charmes, through the power whereof they are of opinion, that they\nmight be able to call forth and draw away the Tutelar gods of their\nenemies, and to cause them to come and dwell with them: and therefore the\nRomans be afraid lest they may do as much for them? For, like as in times\npast the Tyrians, as we find upon record, when their citie was besieged,\nenchained the images of their gods to their shrines, for feare they would\nabandon their citie and be gone; and as others demanded pledges and\nsureties that they should come againe to their place, whensoever they sent\nthem to any bath to be washed, or let them go to any expiation to be\nclensed; even so the Romans thought, that to be altogether unknowen and not\nonce named, was the best meanes, and surest way to keepe with their Tutelar\ngod.\n\nOr rather, as _Homer_ verie well wrote:\n\n  _The earth to men all, is common great and small:_\n\nThat thereby men should worship all the gods, and honour the earth; seeing\nshe is common to them all: even so the ancient Romans have concealed and\nsuppresse the god or angell which hath the particular gard of their citie,\nto the end that their citizens should adore, not him alone but all others\nlikewise.\n\n\n62.\n\n  _What is the cause that among those priests whom they name_ F\u00e6ciales,\n  _signifying as much as in greeke \u03b5\u1f30\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, that is to say, Officers\n  going between to make treatie of peace; or \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9, that is to say,\n  Agents for truce and leagues, he whom they call_ Pater Patratus _is\n  esteemed the chiefest? Now_ Pater Patratus _is he, whose father is yet\n  living, who hath children of his owne: and in truth this chiefe F\u00e6cial or\n  Herault hath still at this day a certain prerogative, & special credit\n  above the rest. For the emperours themselves, and generall captains, if\n  they have any persons about them who in regard of the prime of youth, or\n  of their beautifull bodies had need of a faithfull, diligent, and trustie\n  guard, commit them ordinarily into the hands of such as these, for safe\n  custodie._\n\nIS it not, for that these _Patres Patrati_, for reverent feare of their\nfathers of one side, and for modest shames to scandalize or offend their\nchildren on the other side, are enforced to be wise and discreet?\n\nOr may it not be, in regard of that cause which their verie denomination\ndoth minister and declare: for this word PATRATUS signifieth as much as\ncompleat, entire and accomplished, as if he were one more perfect and\nabsolute every way than the rest, as being so happie, as to have his owne\nfather living, and be a father also himselfe.\n\nOr is it not, for that the man who hath the superintendence of treaties of\npeace, and of othes, ought to see as _Homer_ saith, \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03c3\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c9,\nthat is to say, before and behind. And in all reason such an one is he like\nto be, who hath a child for whom, and a father with whom he may consult.\n\n\n63.\n\n  _What is the reason, that the officer at_ Rome _called_ Rex sacrorum,\n  _that is to say, the king of sacrifices, is debarred both from exercising\n  any magistracie, and also to make a speech unto the people in publike\n  place_?\n\nIS it for that in old time, the kings themselves in person performed the\nmost part of sacred rites, and those that were greater, yea and together\nwith the priests offered sacrifices; but by reason that they grew insolent,\nproud, and arrogant, so as they became intollerable, most of the Greeke\nnations, deprived them of this authoritie, and left unto them the\npreheminence onely to offer publike sacrifice unto the gods: but the Romans\nhaving cleane chased and expelled their kings, established in their stead\nanother under officer whom they called King, unto whom they granted the\noversight and charge of sacrifices onely, but permitted him not to exercise\nor execute any office of State, nor to intermedle in publick affaires; to\nthe end it should be knowen to the whole world, that they would not suffer\nany person to raigne at _Rome_, but onely over the ceremonies of\nsacrifices, nor endure the verie name of Roialtie, but in respect of the\ngods. And to this purpose upon the verie common place neere unto\n_Comitium_; they use to have a solemn sacrifice for the good estate of the\ncitie; which so soone as ever this king hath performed, he taketh his legs\nand runnes out of the place, as fast as ever he can.\n\n\n64.\n\n  _Why suffer not they the table to be taken cleane away, and voided quite,\n  but will have somewhat alwaies remaining upon it?_\n\nGIVE they not heereby covertly to understand, that wee ought of that which\nis present to reserve evermore something for the time to come, and on this\nday to remember the morrow.\n\nOr thought they it not a point of civill honesty and elegance, to represse\nand keepe downe their appetite when they have before them enough still to\ncontent and satisfie it to the full; for lesse will they desire that which\nthey have not, when they accustome themselves to absteine from that which\nthey have.\n\nOr is not this a custome of courtesie and humanitie to their domesticall\nservants, who are not so well pleased to take their victuals simply, as to\npartake the same, supposing that by this meanes in some sort they doe\nparticipate with their masters at the table.\n\nOr rather is it not, because we ought to suffer no sacred thing to be\nemptie; and the boord you wot well is held sacred.\n\n\n65.\n\n  _What is the reason that the Bridegrome commeth the first time to lie\n  with his new wedded bride, not with any light but in the darke?_\n\nIS it because he is yet abashed, as taking her to be a stranger and not his\nowne, before he hath companied carnally with her?\n\nOr for that he would then acquaint himselfe, to come even unto his owne\nespoused wife with shamefacednesse and modestie?\n\nOr rather, like as _Solon_ in his Statutes ordeined, that the new married\nwife should eat of a quince before she enter into the bride bed-chamber, to\nthe end that this first encounter and embracing, should not be odious or\nunpleasant to her husband? even so the Romane law-giver would hide in the\nobscuritie of darkenesse, the deformities and imperfections in the person\nof the bride, if there were any.\n\nOr haply this was instituted to shew how sinfull and damnable all unlawfull\ncompanie of man and woman together is, seeing that which is lawfull and\nallowed, is not without some blemish and note of shame.\n\n\n66.\n\n  _Why is one of the races where horses use to runne, called the_ Cirque\n  _or_ Flaminius.\n\nIS it for that in old time an ancient Romane named _Flaminius_ gave unto\nthe citie, a certeine piece of ground, they emploied the rent and revenues\nthereof in runnings of horses, and chariots: and for that there was a\nsurplussage remaining of the said lands, they bestowed the same in paving\nthat high way or causey, called _Via Flaminia_, that is to say, _Flaminia_\nstreet?\n\n\n67.\n\n  _Why are the Sergeants or officers who carie the knitches of rods before\n  the magistrates of_ Rome, _called_ Lictores.\n\nIS it because these were they who bound malefactors, and who followed after\n_Romulus_, as his guard, with cords and leather thongs about them in their\nbosomes? And verily the common people of _Rome_ when they would say to\nbinde or tie fast, use the word _Alligare_, and such as speake more pure\nand proper Latin, _Ligare_.\n\nOr is it, for that now the letter _C_ is interjected within this word,\nwhich before time was _Litores_, as one would say \u039b\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03b9, that is to\nsay, officers of publike charge; for no man there is in a maner, ignorant,\nthat even at this day in many cities of _Greece_, the common-wealth or\npublicke state is written in their lawes by the name of \u039b\u1fc6\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd:\n\n\n68.\n\n  _Wherefore doe the_ Luperci _at_ Rome _sacrifice a Dogge? Now these_\n  Luperci _are certeine persons who upon a festivall day called_\n  Lupercalia, _runne through the citie all naked, save that they have\n  aprons onely before their privy parts, carying leather whippes in their\n  hands, wherewith they flappe and scourge whomsoever they meet in the\n  streets_.\n\nIS all this ceremoniall action of theirs a purification of the citie?\nwhereupon they call the moneth wherein this is done _Februarius_, yea, and\nthe very day it selfe _Febraten_, like as the maner of squitching with a\nleather scourge _Februare_, which verbe signifieth as much as to purge or\npurifie?\n\nAnd verily the Greeks, in maner all, were wont in times past, and so they\ncontinue even at this day, in all their expiations, to kill a dogge for\nsacrifice. Unto _Hecate_ also they bring foorth among other expiatorie\noblations, certeine little dogges or whelpes: such also as have neede of\nclensing and purifying, they wipe and scoure all over with whelpes skinnes,\nwhich maner of purification they tearme _Periscylacismos_.\n\nOr rather is it for that _Lupus_ signifieth a woolfe, & _Lupercalia_, or\n_Lyc\u00e6a_, is the feast of wolves: now a dogge naturally, being an enemie to\nwoolves, therefore at such feasts they sacrificed a dogge.\n\nOr peradventure, because dogges barke and bay at these _Luperci_, troubling\nand disquieting them as they runne up and downe the city in maner\naforesaid.\n\nOr else last of all, for that this feast and sacrifice is solemnized in the\nhonor of god _Pan_; who as you wot well is pleased well enough with a\ndogge, in regard of his flocks of goates.\n\n\n69.\n\n  _What is the cause that in auncient time_, _at the feast called_\n  Septimontium, _they observed precisely not to use any coaches drawen with\n  steeds, no more than those doe at this day, who are observant of old\n  institutions and doe not despise them. Now this_ Septimontium _is a\n  festivall solemnity, celabrated in memoriall of a seventh mountaine, that\n  was adjoined and taken into the pourprise of_ Rome _citie, which by this\n  meanes came to have seven hilles enclosed within the precinct thereof_?\n\nWHETHER was it as some Romans doe imagine, for that the city was not as yet\nconjunct and composed of all her parts? Or if this may seeme an impertinent\nconjecture, and nothing to the purpose: may it not be in this respect, that\nthey thought they had atchieved, a great piece of worke, when they had thus\namplified and enlarged the compasse of the citie, thinking that now it\nneeded not to proceed any further in greatnesse and capacitie: in\nconsideration whereof, they reposed themselves, and caused likewise their\nlabouring beasts of draught and cariage to rest, whose helpe they had used\nin finishing of the said enclosure, willing that they also should enjoy in\ncommon with them, the benefit of that solemne feast.\n\nOr else we may suppose by this, how desirous they were that their citizens\nshould solemnize and honour with their personall presence all feasts of the\ncitie, but especially that which was ordeined and instituted for the\npeopling and augmenting thereof: for which cause they were not permitted\nupon the day of the dedication, and festival memorial of it, to put any\nhorses in geeres or harnesse for to draw; for that they were not at such a\ntime to ride forth of the citie.\n\n\n70.\n\n  _Why call they those who are deprehended or taken in theft, pilferie or\n  such like servile trespasses_, Furciferos, _as one would say, Fork\n  bearers_.\n\nIS not this also an evident argument of the great diligence and carefull\nregard that was in their ancients? For when the maister of the family had\nsurprised one of his servants or slaves, committing a lewd and wicked\npranck, he commaunded him to take up and carrie upon his necke betweene his\nshoulders a forked piece of wood, such as they use to put under the spire\nof a chariot or waine, and so to go withall in the open view of the world\nthroughout the street, yea and the parish where he dwelt, to the end that\nevery man from thence forth should take heed of him. This piece of wood we\nin Greeke call \u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1, and the Romanes in the Latin tongue _Furca_, that\nis to say, a forked prop or supporter: and therefore he that is forced to\ncarie such an one, is by reproch termed _Furcifer_.\n\n\n71.\n\n  _Wherefore use the_ Romans _to tie a wisp of hey unto the hornes of kine,\n  and other beefes, that are woont to boak and be curst with their heads,\n  that by the meanes thereof folke might take heed of them, and looke\n  better to themselves when they come in their way_?\n\nIS it not for that beefes, horses, asses, yea and men become fierce,\ninsolent, and dangerous, if they be highly kept and pampered to the full?\naccording as _Sophocles_ said:\n\n  _Like as the colt or jade doth winse and kick,\n  In case he find his provender to prick:\n  Even so do'st thou: for lo, thy paunch is full\n  Thy cheeks be puft, like to some greedie gull._\n\nAnd thereupon the Romans gave out, that _Marcus Crassus_ caried hey on his\nhorne: for howsoever they would seeme to let flie and carpe at others, who\ndealt in the affaires of State, and government, yet beware they would how\nthey commersed with him as being a daungerous man, and one who caried a\nrevenging mind to as many as medled with him. Howbeit it was said\nafterwards againe on the other side, that _C\u00e6sar_ had plucked the hey from\n_Crassus_ his horne: for he was the first man that opposed himselfe, and\nmade head against him in the management of the State, and in one word set\nnot a straw by him.\n\n\n72.\n\n  _What was the cause that they thought those priests who observed\n  bird-flight, such as in old time they called_ Aruspices, _and now a\n  daies_ Augures, _ought to have their lanterns and lamps alwaies open, and\n  not to put any lid or cover over them_?\n\nMAY it not be, that like as the old Pythagorean Philosophers by small\nmatters signified and implied things of great consequence, as namely, when\nthey forbad their disciples to sit upon the measure Ch\u00e6nix; and to stirre\nfire, or rake the hearth with a sword; euen so the ancient Romans used many\n\u00e6nigmes, that is to say, outward signes and figures betokening some hidden\nand secret mysteries; especially with their priests in holy and sacred\nthings, like as this is of the lampe or lanterne, which symbolizeth in some\nsort the bodie that containeth our soule. For the soule within resembleth\nthe light, and it behooveth that the intelligent and reasonable part\nthereof should be alwaies open, evermore intentive and seeing, and at no\ntime enclosed and shut up, nor blowen upon by wind. For looke when the\nwinds be aloft, fowles in their flight keepe no certaintie, neither can\nthey yeeld assured presages, by reason of their variable and wandering\ninstabilitie: and therefore by this ceremoniall custome they teach those\nwho do divine and fortell by the flight of birds, not to go forth for to\ntake their auspices and observations when the wind is up, but when the aire\nis still, and so calme, that a man may carie a lanterne open and uncovered.\n\n\n73.\n\n  _Why were these Southsaiers or Augures forbidden to go abroad, for to\n  observe the flight of birds, in case they had any sore or ulcer upon\n  their bodies?_\n\nWAS not this also a significant token to put them in minde, that they ought\nnot to deale in the divine service of the gods, nor meddle with holy and\nsacred things if there were any secret matter that gnawed their minds, or\nso long as any private ulcer or passion setled in their hearts: but to be\nvoid of sadnesse and griefe, to be sound and sincere, and not distracted by\nany trouble whatsoever?\n\nOr, because it standeth to good reason; that if it be not lawfull nor\nallowable for them to offer unto the gods for an oast or sacrifice any\nbeast that is scabbed, or hath a sore upon it, nor to take presage by the\nflight of such birds as are maungie, they ought more strictly and precisely\nto looke into their owne persons in this behalfe, and not to presume for to\nobserve celestiall prognostications and signes from the gods, unlesse they\nbe themselves pure and holy, undefiled, and not defective in their owne\nselves: for surely an ulcer seemeth to be in maner of a mutilation and\npollution of the bodie.\n\n\n74.\n\n  _Why did king_ Servius Tullus _found and build a temple of little Fortune\n  which they called in Latine_ Brevis fortun\u00e6, _that is to say, of Short\n  fortune_?\n\nWAS it not thinke you in respect of his owne selfe, who being at the first\nof a small and base condition, as being borne of a captive woman, by the\nfavour of Fortune grew to so great an estate that he was king of _Rome_?\n\nOr for that this change in him sheweth rather the might and greatnesse,\nthan the debilitie and smallnesse of Fortune. We are to say, that this king\n_Servius_ deified Fortune, & attributed unto her more divine power than any\nother, as having entituled and imposed her name almost upon every action:\nfor not onely he erected temples unto Fortune, by the name of Puissant, of\nDiverting ill lucke, of Sweet, Favourable to the first borne and masculine;\nbut also there is one temple besides, of private or proper Fortune; another\nof Fortune returned; a third of confident Fortune and hoping well; and a\nfourth of Fortune the virgine. And what should a man reckon up other\nsurnames of hers, seeing there is a temple dedicated (forsooth) to glewing\nFortune, whom they called _Viscata_; as if we were given thereby to\nunderstand, that we are caught by her afarre off, and even tied (as it\nwere) with bird-lime to businesse and affaires.\n\nBut consider this moreover, that he having knowen by experience what great\npower she hath in humane things, how little soever she seeme to be, and how\noften a small matter in hapning or not hapning hath given occasion to some,\neither to misse of great exploits, or to atcheive as great enterprises,\nwhether in this respect, he built not a temple to little Fortune, teaching\nmen thereby to be alwaies studious, carefull and diligent, and not to\ndespise any occurrences how small soever they be.\n\n\n75.\n\n  _What is the cause that they never put foorth the light of a lampe, but\n  suffered it to goe out of the owne accord?_\n\nWAS it not (thinke you) uppon a certeine reverent devotion that they bare\nunto that fire, as being either cousen germaine, or brother unto that\ninextinguible and immortall fire.\n\nOr rather, was it not for some other secret advertisment, to teach us not\nto violate or kill any thing whatsoever that hath life, if it hurt not us\nfirst; as if fire were a living creature: for need it hath of nourishment\nand moveth of it selfe: and if a man doe squench it, surely it uttereth a\nkinde of voice and scricke, as if a man killed it.\n\nOr certeinly this fashion and custome received so usually, sheweth us that\nwe ought not to marre or spoile, either fire or water or any other thing\nnecessarie, after we our selves have done with it, and have had sufficient\nuse thereof, but to suffer it to serve other mens turnes who have need,\nafter that we ourselves have no imploiment for it.\n\n\n76.\n\n  _How commeth it to passe that those who are defended of the most noble\n  and auncient houses of_ Rome, _caried little moones upon their shoes_.\n\nIS this (as _Castor_ saith) a signe of the habitation which is reported to\nbe within the bodie of the moone?\n\nOr for that after death, our spirits and ghosts shall have the moone under\nthem?\n\nOr rather, because this was a marke or badge proper unto those who were\nreputed most ancient, as were the Arcadians descended from _Evander_, who\nupon this occasion were called _Proseleni_, as one would say, borne before\nthe moone?\n\nOr, because this custome as many others, admonisheth those who are lifted\nup too high, and take so great pride in themselves, of the incertitude and\ninstabilitie of this life, and of humane affaires, even by the example of\nthe moone,\n\n  _Who at the first doth new and yoong appeere,\n  Where as before she made no shew at all;\n  And so her light increaseth faire and cleere,\n  Untill her face be round and full withall:\n  But then anon she doth begin to fall,\n  And backward wane from all this beautie gay,\n  Untill againe she vanish cleane away._\n\nOr was not this an holsome lesson and instruction of obedience, to teach\nand advise men to obey their superiors, & not to thinke much for to be\nunder others: but like as the moone is willing to give eare (as it were)\nand apply her selfe to her better, content to be ranged in a second place,\nand as _Parmenides_ saith,\n\n  _Having aneie and due regard\n  Alwaies the bright Sun beames toward;_\n\neven so they ought to rest in a second degree, to follow after, and be\nunder the conduct and direction of another, who sitteth in the first place,\nand of his power, authority and honor, in some measure to enjoy a part.\n\n\n77.\n\n  _Why think they the yeeres dedicated to_ Jupiter, _and the moneths to_\n  Juno?\n\nMAY it not be for that of Gods invisible and who are no other wise seene\nbut by the eies of our understanding: those that reigne as princes be\n_Jupiter_ and _Juno_; but of the visible, the Sun and Moone? Now the Sun is\nhe who causeth the yeere, and the Moone maketh the moneth. Neither are we\nto thinke, that these be onely and simply the figures and images of them:\nbut beleeve we must, that the materiall Sun which we behold, is _Jupiter_,\nand this materiall Moone, _Juno_. And the reason why they call her _Juno_,\n(which word is as much to say as yoong or new) is in regarde of the course\nof the Moone: and otherwhiles they surname her also _Juno-Lucina_, that is\nto say; light or shining: being of opinion that she helpeth women in\ntravell of child-birth, like as the Moone doth, according to these verses:\n\n  _By starres that turne full round in Azur skie:\n  By Moone who helps child-births right speedily._\n\nFor it seemeth that women at the full of the moone be most easily delivered\nof childbirth.\n\n\n78.\n\n  _What is the cause that in observing bird-flight, that which is presented\n  on the [144]left hand is reputed lucky and prosperous?_\n\nIS not this altogether untrue, and are not many men in an errour by\nignorance of the equivocation of the word _Sinistrum_, & their maner of\nDialect; for that which we in Greeke call \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, that is to say, on the\nauke or left hand, they say in Latin, _Sinistrum_; and that which\nsignifieth to permit, or let be, they expresse by the verbe _Sinere_, and\nwhen they will a man to let a thing alone, they say unto him, _Sine_;\nwhereupon it may seeme that this word _Sinistrum_ is derived. That\npresaging bird then, which permitteth and suffreth an action to be done,\nbeing as it were _Sinisterion_; the vulgar sort suppose (though not aright)\nto be _Sinistrum_, that is to say, on the left hand, and so they tearme it.\n\nOr may it not be rather as _Dionysius_ saith, for that when _Ascanius_ the\nsonne of _Aeneas_ wanne a field against _Mezentius_ as the two armies stood\narranged one affronting the other in battel ray, it thundred on his left\nhand; and because thereupon he obteined the victory, they deemed even then,\nthat this thunder was a token presaging good, and for that cause observed\nit, ever after so to fall out. Others thinke that this presage and\nforetoken of good lucke hapned unto _Aeneas_: and verily at the battell of\n_Leuctres_, the Thebanes began to breake the ranks of their enemies, and to\ndiscomfit them with the left wing of their battel, and thereby in the end\natchieved a brave victorie; whereupon ever after in all their conflicts,\nthey gave preference and the honour of leading and giving the first charge,\nto the left wing.\n\nOr rather, is it not as _Juba_ writeth, because that when we looke toward\nthe sunne rising, the North side is on our left hand, and some will say,\nthat the North is the right side and upper part of the whole world.\n\nBut consider I pray you, whether the left hand being the weaker of the\ntwaine, the presages comming on that side, doe not fortifie and support the\ndefect of puissance which it hath, and so make it as it were even and\nequall to the other?\n\nOr rather considering that earthly and mortall things they supposing to be\nopposite unto those that be heavenly and immortall, did not imagine\nconsequently, that whatsoever was on the left in regard of us, the gods\nsent from their right side.\n\n\n79\n\n  _Wherefore was it lawfull at_ Rome, _when a noble personage who sometime\n  had entred triumphant into the city, was dead, and his corps burnt (as\n  the maner was) in a funerall fire, to take up the reliques of his bones,\n  to carie the same into the city, and there to strew them, according as_\n  Pyrrho _the Lyparean hath left in writing_.\n\nWAS not this to honour the memorie of the dead? for the like honourable\npriviledge they had graunted unto other valiant warriors and brave\ncaptaines; namely, that not onely themselves, but also their posteritie\ndescending lineally from them, might be enterred in their common market\nplace of the city, as for example unto _Valerius_ and _Fabricius_: and it\nis said, that for to continue this prerogative in force, when any of their\nposteritie afterwards were departed this life, and their bodies brought\ninto the market place accordingly, the maner was, to put a burning torch\nunder them, and doe no more but presently to take it away againe; by which\nceremonie, they reteined still the due honour without envie, and confirmed\nit onely to be lawfull if they would take the benefit thereof.\n\n\n80.\n\n  _What is the cause that when they feasted at the common charges, any\n  generall captaine who made his entrie into the citie with triumph, they\n  never admitted the_ Consuls _to the feast; but that which more is, sent\n  unto them before-hand messengers of purpose, requesting them not to come\n  unto the supper_?\n\nWAS it for that they thought it meet and convenient to yeeld unto the\ntriumpher, both the highest place to sit in, and the most costly cup to\ndrinke out of, as also the honour to be attended upon with a traine home to\nhis house after supper? which prerogatives no other might enjoy but the\nConsuls onely, if they had beene present in the place.\n\n\n81.\n\n  _Why is it that the_ Tribune _of the commons onely, weareth no embrodered\n  purple robe, considering that all other magistrates besides doe weare the\n  same_.\n\nIS it not, for that they (to speak properly) are no magistrates? for in\ntruth they have no ushers or vergers to carie before them the knitches of\nrods, which are the ensignes of magistracie; neither sit they in the chaire\nof estate called _Sella curulis_, to determine causes judicially, or give\naudience unto the people; nor enter into the administration of their office\nat the beginning of the yeere, as all other magistrates doe: neither are\nthey put downe and deposed after the election of a Dictatour: but whereas\nthe full power and authoritie of all other magistrates of State, he\ntransferred from them upon himselfe: the Tribunes onely of the people\ncontinue still, and surcease not to execute their function, as having\nanother place and degree by themselves in the common-weale: and like as\nsome oratours and lawiers doe hold, that exception in law is no action,\nconsidering it doth cleane contrary to action; for that action intendeth,\ncommenseth, and beginneth a processe or sute; but exception or inhibition,\ndissolveth, undooeth, and abolisheth the same: semblably, they thinke also,\nthat the Tribunate was an empeachment, inhibition, and restraint of a\nmagistracie, rather than a magistracie it selfe: for all the authority and\npower of the Tribune, lay in opposing himselfe, and eroding the\njurisdiction of other magistrates, and in diminishing or repressing their\nexcessive and licentious power.\n\nOr haply all these reasons and such like, are but words, and devised\nimaginations to mainteine discourse: but to say a trueth, this Tribuneship\nhaving taken originally the first beginning from the common people, is\ngreat and mighty in regard that it is popular; and that the Tribunes\nthemselves are not proud nor highly conceited of themselves above others,\nbut equall in apparell, in port, fare, and maner of life, to any other\ncitizens of the common sort: for the dignity of pompe and outward shew,\napperteineth to a Consull or a Pr\u00e6tour: as for the Tribune of the people,\nhe ought to be humble and lowly, and as _M. Curio_ was woont to say; ready\nto put his hand under every mans foot; not to carie a loftie, grave, and\nstately countenance, nor to bee hard of accesse, nor strange to be spoken\nwith, or dealt withall by the multitude; but howsoever he behave himselfe\nto others, he ought to the simple and common people, above the rest, for to\nbe affable, gentle, and tractable: and heereupon the maner is, that the\ndore of his house should never be kept shut, but stand open both day and\nnight, as a safe harbour, sure haven, and place of refuge, for all those\nwho are distressed and in need: and verilie the more submisse that he is in\noutward appeerance, the more groweth hee and encreaseth in puissance; for\nthey repute him as a strong hold for common recourse and retrait, unto al\ncomers, no lesse than an altar or priviledged sanctuary. Moreover, as\ntouching the honour that he holdeth by his place, they count him holy,\nsacred, and inviolable, insomuch as if he doe but goe foorth of his house\nabroad into the citie, and walke in the street,[145] the maner was of all,\nto clense and sanctifie the body, as if it were steined and polluted.\n\n\n82.\n\n  _What is the reason that before the Pr\u00e6tors, generall Captaines and head\n  Magisrates, there be caried bundels of roddes, together with hatchets or\n  axes fastned unto them?_\n\nIS it to signifie, that the anger of the magistrate ought not to be prompt\nto execution, nor loose and at libertie?\n\nOr, because that to undoe and unbinde the said bundels, yeeldeth some time\nand space for choler to coole, and ire to asswage, which is the cause\notherwhiles that they change their mindes, and doe not proceed to\npunishment?\n\nNow forasmuch as among the faults that men commit, some are curable, others\nremedilesse: the roddes are to reforme those who may be amended; but the\nhatchets to cut them off who are incorrigible.\n\n\n83.\n\n  _What is the cause that the Romanes having intelligence given vnto them,\n  that the Bletonesians, a barbarous nation, had sacrificed unto their\n  gods, a man; sent for the magistrates peremptorily, as intending to\n  punish them: but after they once understood, that they had so done\n  according to an ancient law of their countrey, they let them go againe\n  without any hurt done unto them; charging them onely, that from thence\n  foorth they should not obey such a law; and yet they themselves, not many\n  yeeres before, had caused for to be buried quicke in the place, called\n  the Beast Market, two men and two women, that is to say, two Greekes, and\n  two Gallo-Greekes or Galatians? For this seemeth to be verie absurd, that\n  they themselves should do those things, which they reprooved in others as\n  damnable._\n\nMAY it not be that they judged it an execrable superstition, to sacrifice a\nman or woman unto the gods, marie unto divels they held it necessarie?\n\nOr was it not for that they thought those people, who did it by a law or\ncustome, offended highly: but they themselves were directed thereto by\nexpresse commaundement out of the bookes of _Sibylla_. For reported it is,\nthat one of their votaries or Vestall nunnes named _Helbia_, riding on\nhorse-backe, was smitten by a thunderbolt or blast of lightning; and that\nthe horse was found lying along all bare bellied, and her selfe likewise\nnaked, with her smocke and petticote turned up above her privie parts, as\nif she had done it of purpose: her shooes, her rings, her coife and head\nattire cast here and there apart from other things, and withall lilling the\ntoong out of her head. This strange occurrent, the soothsayers out of their\nlearning interpreted to signifie, that some great shame did betide the\nsacred virgins, that should be divulged and notoriously knowen; yea, and\nthat the same infamie should reach also as far, as unto some of the degree\nof gentlemen or knights of _Rome_. Upon this there was a servant belonging\nunto a certeine Barbarian horseman, who detected three Vestal virgins to\nhave at one time forfeited their honor, & been naught of their bodies, to\nwit, _Aemilia_, _Licinia_, & _Martia_; and that they had companied too\nfamiliarly with men a long time; and one of their names was _Eutetius_, a\nBarbarian knight, and master to the said enformer. So these vestall\nVotaries were punished after they had beene convicted by order of law, and\nfound guiltie: but after that this seemed a fearfull and horrible accident:\nordeined it was by the Senate, that the priests should peruse over the\nbookes of _Sibyllaes_ prophesies, wherein were found (by report) those very\noracles which denounced and foretold this strange occurrent, and that it\nportended some great losse and calamitie unto the common-wealth: for the\navoiding and diverting whereof, they gave commaundement to abandon unto (I\nwot not what) maligne and divelish strange spirits, two Greekes, and two\nGalatians likewise; and so by burying them quicke in that verie place, to\nprocure propitiation at Gods hands.\n\n\n84.\n\n  _Why began they their day at midnight?_\n\nWAS it not, for that all policie at the first had the beginning of\nmilitarie discipline? and in war, and all expeditions the most part of\nwoorthy exploits are enterprised ordinarily in the night before the day\nappeare?\n\nOr because the execution of desseignes, howsoever it begin at the sunne\nrising; yet the preparation thereto is made before day-light: for there had\nneed to be some preparatives, before a worke be taken in hand; and not at\nthe verie time of execution, according as _Myson_ (by report) answered unto\n_Chilo_, one of the seven sages, when as in the winter time he was making\nof a van.\n\nOr haply, for that like as we see, that many men at noone make an end of\ntheir businesse of great importance, and of State affaires; even so, they\nsupposed that they were to begin the same at mid-night. For better proofe\nwhereof a man may frame an argument hereupon, that the Roman chiefe ruler\nnever made league, nor concluded any capitulations and covenants of peace\nafter mid-day.\n\nOr rather this may be, because it is not possible to set downe\ndeterminately, the beginning and end of the day, by the rising and setting\nof the sunne: for if we do as the vulgar sort, who distinguish day and\nnight by the sight and view of eie, taking the day then to begin when the\nsunne ariseth; and the night likewise to begin when the sunne is gone\ndowne, and hidden under our horizon, we shall never have the just Aequinox,\nthat is to say, the day and night equall: for even that verie night which\nwe shall esteeme most equall to the day, will proove shorter than the day,\nby as much as the body or biggenesse of the sunne containeth. Againe, if we\ndoe as the Mathematicians, who to remedie this absurditie and\ninconvenience, set downe the confines and limits of day and night, at the\nverie instant point when the sunne seemeth to touch the circle of the\nhorizon with his center; this were to overthrow all evidence: for fall out\nit will, that while there is a great part of the sunnes light yet under the\nearth (although the sunne do shine upon us) we will not confesse that it is\nday, but say, that it is night still. Seeing then it is so hard a matter to\nmake the beginning of day and night, at the rising or going downe of the\nsunne, for the absurdities abovesaid, it remaineth that of necessitie we\ntake the beginning of the day to be, when the sunne is in the mids of the\nheaven above head, or under our feet, that is to say, either noon-tide or\nmid-night. But of twaine, better it is to begin when he is in the middle\npoint under us, which is just midnight, for that he returneth then toward\nus into the East; whereas contrariwise after mid-day he goeth from us\nWestward.\n\n\n85.\n\n  _What was the cause that in times past they would not suffer their wives,\n  either to grinde corne, or to lay their hands to dresse meat in the\n  kitchin?_\n\nWAS it in memoriall of that accord and league which they made with the\nSabines? for after that they had ravished & carried away their daughters,\nthere arose sharpe warres betweene them: but peace ensued thereupon in the\nend; in the capitulations whereof, this one article was expresly set downe,\nthat the Roman husband might not force his wife, either to turne the querne\nfor to grinde corne, nor to exercise any point of cookerie.\n\n\n86.\n\n  _Why did not the Romans marie in the moneth of May?_\n\nIS it for that it commeth betweene Aprill and June? whereof the one is\nconsecrated unto _Venus_, and the other to _Juno_, who are both of them the\ngoddesses which have the care and charge of wedding and marriages, and\ntherefore thinke it good either to go somewhat before, or else to stay a\nwhile after.\n\nOr it may be that in this moneth they celebrate the greatest expiatorie\nsacrifice of all others in the yeere? for even at this day they fling from\noff the bridge into the river, the images and pourtraitures of men, whereas\nin old time they threw downe men themselves alive? And this is the reason\nof the custome now a daies, that the priestresse of _Juno_ named _Flamina_,\nshould be alwaies sad and heavie, as it were a mourner, and never wash nor\ndresse and trim her selfe.\n\nOr what and if we say, it is because many of the Latine nations offered\noblations unto the dead in this moneth: and peradventure they do so,\nbecause in this verie moneth they worship _Mercurie_: and in truth it\nbeareth the name of _Maja_, _Mercuries_ mother.\n\nBut may it not be rather, for that as some do say, this moneth taketh that\nname of _Majores_, that is to say, ancients: like as June is termed so of\n_Juniores_, that is to say yonkers. Now this is certaine that youth is much\nmeeter for to contract marriage than old age: like as _Euripides_ saith\nverie well:\n\n\n  _As for old age it_ Venus _bids farewell,\n  And with old folke_, Venus _is not pleasd well_.\n\nThe Romans therefore maried not in May, but staied for June which\nimmediatly followeth after May.\n\n\n87.\n\n  _What is the reason that they divide and part the haire of the new brides\n  head, with the point of a javelin?_\n\nIS not this a verie signe, that the first wives whom the Romans espoused,\nwere compelled to mariage, and conquered by force and armes.\n\nOr are not their wives hereby given to understand, that they are espoused\nto husbands, martiall men and soldiers; and therefore they should lay away\nall delicate, wanton, and costly imbelishment of the bodie, and acquaint\nthemselves with simple and plaine attire; like as _Lycurgus_ for the same\nreason would that the dores, windowes, and roofes of houses should be\nframed with the saw and the axe onely, without use of any other toole or\ninstrument, intending thereby to chase out of the common-weale all\ncuriositie and wastfull superfluitie.\n\nOr doth not this parting of the haires, give covertly to understand, a\ndivision and separation, as if mariage & the bond of wedlock, were not to\nbe broken but by the sword and warlike force?\n\nOr may not this signifie thus much, that they referred the most part of\nceremonies concerning mariage unto _Juno_: now it is plaine that the\njavelin is consecrated unto _Juno_, insomuch as most part of her images and\nstatues are portraied resting and leaning upon a launce or or javelin. And\nfor this cause the goddesse is surnamed _Quiritis_, for they called in old\ntime a speare _Quiris_, upon which occasion _Mars_ also (as they say) is\nnamed _Quiris_.\n\n\n88.\n\n  _What is the reason that the monie emploied upon plates and publike\n  shewes is called among them, Lucar?_\n\nMAY it not well be that there were many groves about the citie consecrated\nunto the gods, which they named _Lucos_: the revenues whereof they bestowed\nupon the setting forth of such solemnities?\n\n\n89.\n\n  _Why call they_ Quirinalia, _the Feast of fooles_?\n\nWHETHER it is because (as _Juba_ writeth) they attribute this day unto\nthose who knew not their owne linage and tribe? or unto such as have not\nsacrificed, as others have done according to their tribes, at the feast\ncalled _Fornacalia_. Were it that they were hindred by other affaires, or\nhad occasion to be forth of the citie, or were altogether ignorant, and\ntherefore this day was assigned for them, to performe the said feast.\n\n\n90.\n\n  _What is the cause, that when they sacrifice unto_ Hercules, _they name\n  no other God but him, nor suffer a dog to be seene, within the purprise\n  and precinct of the place where the sacrifice is celebrated, according\n  as_ Varro _hath left in writing_?\n\nIS not this the reason of naming no god in their sacrifice, for that they\nesteeme him but a demigod; and some there be who hold, that whiles he lived\nheere upon the earth, _Evander_ erected an altar unto him, and offered\nsacrifice thereupon. Now of all other beasts he could worst abide a dog,\nand hated him most: for this creature put him to more trouble all his life\ntime, than any other: witnesse hereof, the three headed dog _Cerberus_, and\nabove all others, when _Oeonus_ the sonne of _Licymnius_ was slaine [146]by\na dog, he was enforced by the Hippocoontides to give the battell, in which\nhe lost many of his friends, and among the rest his owne brother\n_Iphicles_.\n\n\n91.\n\n  _Wherefore was it not lawfull for the Patricians or nobles of_ Rome _to\n  dwell upon the mount Capitoll_?\n\nMIGHT it not be in regard of _M. Manlius_, who dwelling there attempted and\nplotted to be king of _Rome_, and to usurpe tyrannie; in hatred and\ndetestation of whom, it is said, that ever after those of the house of\n_Manlij_, might not have _Marcus_ for their fore-name?\n\nOr rather was not this an old feare that the Romans had (time out of mind)?\nFor albeit _Valerius Poplicola_ was a personage verie popular and well\naffected unto the common people; yet never ceased the great and mightie men\nof the citie to suspect and traduce him, nor the meane commoners and\nmultitude to feare him, untill such time as himselfe caused his owne house\nto be demolished and pulled down, because it seemed to overlooke and\ncommaund the common market place of the citie.\n\n\n92.\n\n  _What is the reason, that he who saved the life of a citizen in the\n  warres, was rewarded with a coronet made of oake braunches?_\n\nWAS it not for that in everie place and readily, they might meet with an\noake, as they marched in their warlike expeditions.\n\nOr rather, because this maner of garland is dedicated unto _Jupiter_ and\n_Juno_, who are reputed protectors of cities?\n\nOr might not this be an ancient custome proceeding from the Arcadians, who\nhave a kind of consanguinitie with oakes, for that they report of\nthemselves, that they were the first men that issued out of the earth, like\nas the oake of all other trees.\n\n\n93.\n\n  _Why observe they the Vultures or Geirs, most of any other fowles, in\n  taking of presages by bird-flight?_\n\nIS it not because at the foundation of _Rome_, there appeared twelve of\nthem unto _Romulus_? Or because, this is no ordinarie bird nor familiar;\nfor it is not so easie a matter to meete with an airie of Vultures; but all\non a sudden they come out of some strange countrey, and therefore the fight\nof them doth prognosticke and presage much.\n\nOr else haply the Romains learned this of _Hercules_, if that be true which\n_Herodotus_ reporteth: namely, that _Hercules_ tooke great contentment,\nwhen in the enterprise of any exploit of his, there appeared Vultures unto\nhim: for that he was of opinion, that the Vulture of all birds of prey was\nthe justest: for first and formost never toucheth he ought that hath life,\nneither killeth hee any living creature, like as eagles, falcons, hauks,\nand other fowles do, that prey by night, but feedeth upon dead carrions:\nover and besides, he forbeareth to set upon his owne kind: for never was\nthere man yet who saw a Vulture eat the flesh of any fowle, like as eagles\nand other birds of prey do, which chase, pursue and plucke in pieces those\nespecially of the same kind, to wit, other fowle. And verily as _Aeschylus_\nthe poet writeth:\n\n  _How can that bird, which bird doth eat,\n  Be counted cleanly, pure and neat._\n\nAnd as for men, it is the most innocent bird, and doth least hurt unto them\nof all other: for it destroieth no fruit nor plant whatsoever, neither doth\nit harme to any tame creature. And if the tale be true that the Aegyptians\ndoe tell, that all the kinde of these birds be females; that they conceive\nand be with yoong, by receiving the East-wind blowing upon them, like as\nsome trees by the Western wind, it is verie profitable that the signes and\nprognosticks drawen from them, be more sure and certaine, than from any\nothers, considering that of all, besides their violence in treading and\nbreeding time; their eagernesse in flight when they pursue their prey;\ntheir flying away from some, and chasing of others, must needs cause much\ntrouble and uncertaintie in their prognostications.\n\n\n94.\n\n  _Why stands the temple of_ Aesculapius _without the citie of_ Rome?\n\nIS it because they thought the abode without the citie more holesome, than\nthat within? For in this regard the Greekes ordinarily built the temples of\n_Aesculapius_ upon high ground, wherein the aire is more pure and cleere.\n\nOr in this respect, that this god _Aesculapius_ was sent for out of the\ncitie _Epidaurus_. And true it is that the Epidaurians founded his temple;\nnot within the walles of their city, but a good way from it.\n\nOr lastly, for that the serpent when it was landed out of the galley in the\nIsle, and then vanished out of sight, seemed thereby to tell them where he\nwould that they should build the place of his abode.\n\n\n95.\n\n  _Why doth the law forbid them that are to live chaste, the eating of\n  pulse?_\n\nAS touching beanes, is it not in respect of those very reasons for which it\nis said: That the Pythagoreans counted them abominable? And as for the\nrichling and rich pease, whereof the one in Greeke is called \u03bb\u03ac\u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and\nthe other \u1f10\u03c1\u03b5\u03b2\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 which words seeme to be derived of _Erebus_, that\nsignifieth the darknesse of hell, and of _Lethe_, which is as much as\noblivion, and one besides of the rivers infernall, it carieth some reason\nthat they should be abhorred therfore.\n\nOr it may be, for that the solemne suppers and bankets at funerals for the\ndead, were usually served with pulse above all other viands.\n\nOr rather, for that those who are desirous to be chaste, and to live an\nholy life, ought to keepe their bodies pure and slender; but so it is that\npulse be flateous and windy, breeding superfluous excrements in the body,\nwhich had need of great purging and evacuation.\n\nOr lastly, because they pricke and provoke the fleshly lust, for that they\nbe full of ventosities.\n\n\n96.\n\n  _What is the reason that the Romans punish the holy Vestall Virgins (who\n  have suffered their bodies to be abused and defiled) by no other meanes,\n  than by interring them quicke under the ground?_\n\nIS this the cause, for that the maner is to burne the bodies of them that\nbe dead: and to burie (by the meanes of fire) their bodies who have not\ndevoutly and religiously kept or preserved the divine fire, seemed not just\nnor reasonable?\n\nOr haply, because they thought it was not lawfull to kill any person who\nhad bene consecrated with the most holy and religious ceremonies in the\nworld; nor to lay violent hands upon a woman consecrated: and therefore\nthey devised this invention of suffering them to die of their owne selves;\nnamely, to let them downe into a little vaulted chamber under the earth,\nwhere they left with them a lampe burning, and some bread, with a little\nwater and milke: and having so done, cast earth and covered them aloft. And\nyet for all this, can they not be exempt from a superstitious feare of them\nthus interred: for even to this day, the priests going over this place,\nperforme (I wot not what) anniversary services and rites, for to appease\nand pacifie their ghosts.\n\n\n97.\n\n  _What is the cause that upon the thirteenth day of December, which in\n  Latine they call the_ Ides _of December, there is exhibited a game of\n  chariots running for the prize, and the horse drawing on the right hand\n  that winneth the victorie, is sacrificed and consecrated unto_ Mars, _and\n  at the time thereof, there comes one behinde, that cutteth off his taile,\n  which he carrieth immediatly into the temple called_ Regia, _and\n  therewith imbrueth the altar with blood: and for the head of the said\n  horse, one troupe there is comming out of the street called_ Via sacra,\n  _and another from that which they name_ Suburra, _who encounter and trie\n  out by fight who shall have it_?\n\nMAY not the reason be (as some doe alledge) that they have an opinion, how\nthe citie of _Troy_ was sometime woon by the meanes of a woodden horse; and\ntherefore in the memoriall thereof, they thus punished a poore horse?\n\n\n  _As men from blood of noble_ Troy _descended\n  And by the way with_ Latins _issue blended_.\n\nOr because an horse is a couragious, martiall and warlike beast; and\nordinarily, men use to present unto the gods those Sacrifices which are\nmost agreeable unto them, and sort best with them: and in that respect,\nthey sacrifice that horse which wan the prize, unto _Mars_, because\nstrength and victorie are well beseeming him.\n\nOr rather because the worke of God is firme and stable: those also be\nvictorious who keepe their ranke and vanquish them, who make not good their\nground but fly away. This beast therefore is punished for running so swift,\nas if celeritie were the maintenance of cowardise: to give us thereby\ncovertly to understand, that there is no hope of safetie for them who seeke\nto escape by flight.\n\n\n98.\n\n  _What is the reason that the first worke which the Censors go in hand\n  with, when they be enstalled in the possession of their magistracie, is\n  to take order upon a certaine price for the keeping and feeding of the\n  sacred geese, and to cause the painted statues and images of the gods to\n  be refreshed?_\n\nWHETHER is it because they would begin at the smallest things, and those\nwhich are of least dispense and difficultie?\n\nOr in commemoration of an ancient benefit received by the meanes of these\ncreatures, in the time of the Gaules warre: for that the geese were they\nwho in the night season descried the Barbarians as the skaled and mounted\nthe wall that environed the Capitol fort (where as the dogs slept) and with\ntheir gagling raised the watch?\n\nOr because, the Censors being guardians of the greatest affaires, and\nhaving that charge and office which enjoyneth to be vigilant and carefull\nto preserve religion; to keepe temples and publicke edifices; to looke into\nthe manners and behaviour of men in their order of life; they set in the\nfirst place the consideration and regard of the most watchfull creature\nthat is: and in shewing what care they take of these geese, they incite and\nprovoke by that example their citizens, not to be negligent and retchlesse\nof holy things. Moreover, for refreshing the colour of those images and\nstatues, it is a necessarie piece of worke; for the lively red vermilion,\nwherewith they were woont in times past to colour the said images, soone\nfadeth and passeth away.\n\n\n99.\n\n  _What is the cause that among other priests, when one is condemned and\n  banished, they degrade and deprive him of his priesthood, and choose\n  another in his place: onely an Augur, though he be convicted and\n  condemned for the greatest crimes in the world, yet they never deprive in\n  that sort so long as he liveth? Now those priests they call Augurs, who\n  observe the flights of birds, and foreshewed things thereby._\n\nIS it as some do say, because they would not have one that is no priest, to\nknow the secret mysteries of their religion and their sacred rites?\n\nOr because the Augur being obliged and bound by great oaths, never to\nreveale the secrets pertaining to religion, they would not seeme to free\nand absolve him from his oath by degrading him, and making him a private\nperson.\n\nOr rather, for that this word Augur, is not so much a name of honor and\nmagistracie, as of arte and knowledge. And all one it were, as if they\nshould seeme to disable a musician for being any more a musician; or a\nphysician, that he should bee a physician no longer; or prohibit a prophet\nor soothsayer, to be a prophet or soothsayer: for even so they, not able to\ndeprive him of his sufficiency, nor to take away his skill, although they\nbereave him of his name and title, do not subordaine another in his place:\nand by good reason, because they would keepe the just number of the ancient\ninstitution.\n\n\n100.\n\n  _What is the reason that upon the thirteenth day of August, which now is\n  called the Ides of August, and before time the Ides of_ Sextilis, _all\n  servants as well maids, as men make holy-day and women that are wives\n  love then especially to wash and cleanse their heads_?\n\nMIGHT not this be a cause, for that king _Servius_ upon such a day was\nborne of a captive woman, and therefore slaves and bond-servants on that\nday have libertie to play and disport themselves? And as for washing the\nhead; haply at the first the wenches began so to do in regard of that\nfestivall day, and so the custome passed also unto their mistresses and\nother women free borne?\n\n\n101.\n\n  _Why do the Romanes adorne their children with jewels pendant at their\n  necks, which they call_ Bull\u00e6?\n\nPERADVENTURE to honor the memorie of those first wives of theirs, whom they\nravished: in favour of whom they ordained many other prerogatives for the\nchildren which they had by them, and namely this among the rest?\n\nOr it may be, for to grace the prowesse of _Tarquinius_? For reported it is\nthat being but a verie child, in a great battell which was fought against\nthe Latines and Tuskanes together, hee rode into the verie throng of his\nenemies, and engaged himselfe so farre, that being dismounted and unhorsed;\nyet notwithstanding he manfully withstood those who hotly charged upon him,\nand encouraged the Romanes to stand to it, in such sort as the enemies by\nthem were put to plaine flight, with the losse of 16000. men whom they left\ndead in the place: and for a reward of this vertue and valour, received\nsuch a jewell to hang about his necke, which was given unto him by the king\nhis father.\n\nOr else, because in old time it was not reputed a shamfull and villanous\nthing, to love yoong boyes wantonly, for their beauty in the flowre of\ntheir age, if they were slaves borne, as the Comedies even at this day do\ntestifie: but they forbare most precisely, to touch any of them who were\nfree-borne or of gentle blood descended. To the end therefore man might not\npretend ignorance in such a case, as if they knew not of what condition any\nboyes were, if they mette with them naked, they caused them to weare this\nbadge and marke of nobilitie about their neckes.\n\nOr peradventure, this might be also as a preservative unto them of their\nhonor, continence and chastitie, as one would say, a bridle to restraine\nwantonnesse and incontinencie, as being put in mind thereby to be abashed\nto play mens parts, before they had laid off the marks and signes of\nchildhood. For there is no apparance or probabilitie, of that which _Varro_\nalledgeth, saying: That because the Aeolians in their Dialect do call\n\u0392\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7, that is to say, Counsell, \u0392\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1, therefore such children for a signe\nand presage of wisdome and good counsell, carried this jewell, which they\nnamed _Bulla_.\n\nBut see whether it might not be in regard of the moone that they weare this\ndevice? for the figure of the moone when shee is at the full, is not round\nas a bal or boule, but rather flat in maner of a lentill or resembling a\ndish or plate; not onely on that side which appeareth unto us, but also (as\n_Empedocles_ saith) on that part which is under it.\n\n\n102.\n\n  _Wherefore gave they fore-names to little infants, if they were boies\n  upon the ninth day after their birth, but if they were girls, when they\n  were eight daies olde?_\n\nMAY there not be a naturall reason rendred hereof, that they should impose\nthe names sooner upon daughters than sonnes: for that females grow apace,\nare quickly ripe, and come betimes unto their perfection in comparison of\nmales; but as touching those precise daies, they take them that immediatly\nfollow the seventh: for that the seventh day after children be borne is\nvery dangerous, as well for other occasions, as in regard of the\nnavill-string: for that in many it will unknit and be loose againe upon the\nseventh day, and so long as it continueth so resolved and open, an infant\nresembleth a plant rather than any animall creature?\n\nOr like as the Pythagoreans were of opinion, that of numbers the even was\nfemale and the odde, male; for that it is generative, and is more strong\nthan the even number, because it is compound: and if a man divide these\nnumbers into unities, the even number sheweth a void place betweene,\nwhereas the odde, hath the middle alwaies fulfilled with one part thereof:\neven so in this respect they are of opinion, that the even number eight,\nresembleth rather the female and the even number nine, the male.\n\nOr rather it is because of all numbers, nine is the first square comming of\nthree, which is an odde and perfect number: and eight the first cubick, to\nwit foure-square on every side like a die proceeding from two, an even\nnumber: now a man ought to be quadrat odde (as we say) and singular, yea\nand perfect: and a woman (no lesse than a die) sure and stedfast, a keeper\nof home, and not easily removed. Heereunto we must adjoyne thus much more\nalso, that eight is a number cubick, arising from two as the base and foot:\nand nine is a square quadrangle having three for the base: and therefore it\nseemeth, that where women have two names, men have three.\n\n\n103.\n\n  _What is the reason, that those children who have no certeine father,\n  they were woont to tearme_ Spurios?\n\nFOR we may not thinke as the Greeks holde, and as oratours give out in\ntheir pleas, that this word _Spurius_, is derived of _Spora_, that is to\nsay, naturall seed, for that such children are begotten by the seed of many\nmen mingled and confounded together.\n\nBut surely this _Spurius_, is one of the ordinary fore-names that the\nRomans take, such as _Sextus_, _Decimus_, and _Caius_. Now these fore-names\nthey never use to write out at full with all their letters, but marke them\nsometime with one letter alone, as for example, _Titus_, _Lucius_, and\n_Marcius_, with _T_, _L_, _M_; or with twaine, as _Spurius_ and _Cneus_,\nwith _Sp._ and _Cn._ or at most with three as _Sextus_ & _Servius_, with\n_Sex._ and _Ser._ _Spurius_ then is one of their fore-names which is noted\nwith two letters _S._ and _P._ which signifieth asmuch, as _Sine Patre_,\nthat is to say, without a father; for _S._ standeth for _Sine_, that is to\nsay, without; and _P._ for _patre_, that is to say a father. And heereupon\ngrew the error, for that _Sine patre_, and _Spurius_ be written both with\nthe same letters short, _Sp._ And yet I will not sticke to give you another\nreason, though it be somewhat fabulous, and carieth a greater absurdity\nwith it: forsooth they say that the Sabines in olde time named in their\nlanguage the nature or privities of a woman, _Sporios_, and thereupon\nafterwards as it were by way of reproch, they called him _Spurius_, who had\nto his mother a woman unmaried and not lawfully espoused.\n\n\n104.\n\n  _Why is_ Bacchus _called with them_, Liber Pater?\n\nIS it for that he is the authour and father of all liberty unto them who\nhave taken their wine well; for most men become audacious and are full of\nbolde and franke broad speech, when they be drunke or cup-shotten?\n\nOr because he it is that ministred libations first, that is to say, those\neffusions and offrings of wine that are given to the gods?\n\nOr rather (as _Alexander_ said) because the Greeks called _Bacchus,\nDionysos Eleuthereus_, that is to say, _Bacchus_ the Deliverer: and they\nmight call him so, of a city in _B\u0153otia_, named _Eleuther\u00e6_.\n\n\n105.\n\n  _Wherefore was it not the custome among the Romans, that maidens should\n  be wedded upon any dates of their publicke feasts; but widdowes might be\n  remarried upon those daies?_\n\nWAS it for that (as _Varro_ saith) virgins be [147]ill-apaid and heavie\nwhen they be first wedded; but such as were wives before, [148]be glad and\njoyfull when they marrie againe? And upon a festivall holiday there should\nbe nothing done with an ill will or upon constraint.\n\nOr rather, because it is for the credit and honour of young damosels, to be\nmaried in the view of the whole world; but for widowes it is a dishonour\nand shame unto them, to be seene of many for to be wedded a second time:\nfor the first marriage is lovely and desireable; the second, odious and\nabominable: for women, if they proceed to marrie with other men whiles\ntheir former husbands be living, are ashamed thereof; and if they be dead,\nthey are in mourning state of widowhood: and therefore they chuse rather to\nbe married closely and secretly in all silence, than to be accompanied with\na long traine and solemnity, and to have much adoe and great stirring at\ntheir marriage. Now it is well knowen that festivall holidaies divert and\ndistract the multitude divers waies, some to this game and pastime, others\nto that; so as they have no leisure to go and see weddings.\n\nOr last of all, because it was a day of publicke solemnitie, when they\nfirst ravished the Sabines daughters: an attempt that drew upon them,\nbloudy warre, and therefore they thought it ominous and presaging evill, to\nsuffer their virgins to wed upon such holidaies.\n\n\n106.\n\n  _Why doe the Romans honour and worship Fortune, by the name of_\n  Primigenia, _which a man may interpret First begotten or first borne_?\n\nIS it for that (as some say) _Servius_ being by chance borne of a\nmaid-servant and a captive, had Fortune so favourable unto him, that he\nreigned nobly and gloriously, king at _Rome_? For most Romans are of this\nopinion.\n\nOr rather, because Fortune gave unto the city of _Rome_ her first originall\nand beginning of so mightie an empire.\n\nOr lieth not herein some deeper cause, which we are to fetch out of the\nsecrets of Nature and Philosophie; namely, that Fortune is the principle of\nall things, insomuch, as Nature consisteth by Fortune; namely, when to some\nthings concurring casually and by chance, there is some order and dispose\nadjoined.\n\n\n107.\n\n  _What is the reason that the Romans call those who act comedies and other\n  theatricall plaies_, Histriones?\n\nIS it for that cause, which as _Claudius Rufus_ hath left in writing? for\nhe reporteth that many yeeres ago, and namely, in those daies when _Cajus\nSulpitius_ and _Licinius Stolo_ were Consuls, there raigned a great\npestilence at _Rome_, such a mortalitie as comsumed all the stage plaiers\nindifferently one with another. Whereupon at their instant praier and\nrequest, there repaired out of _Tuscane_ to _Rome_, many excellent and\nsingular actours in this kinde: among whom, he who was of greatest\nreputation, and had caried the name longest in all theaters, for his rare\ngift and dexteritie that way, was called _Hister_; of whose name all other\nafterwards were tearmed _Histriones_.\n\n\n108.\n\n  _Why espoused not the Romans in mariage those women who were neere of kin\n  unto them?_\n\nWAS it because they were desirous to amplifie and encrease their alliances,\nand acquire more kinsfolke, by giving their daughters in mariage to others,\nand by taking to wife others than their owne kinred?\n\nOr for that they feared in such wedlock the jarres and quarrels of those\nwho be of kin, which are able to extinguish and abolish even the verie\nlawes and rights of nature?\n\nOr else, seeing as they did, how women by reason of their weaknesse and\ninfirmitie stand in need of many helpers, they would not have men to\ncontract mariage, nor dwell in one house with those who were neere in blood\nto them, to the end, that if the husband should offer wrong and injurie to\nhis wife, her kinsfolke might succour and assist her.\n\n\n109.\n\n  _Why is it not lawfull for_ Jupiters _priest, whom they name_ Flamen\n  Dialis _to handle or once touch meale or leaven_.\n\nFOR meale, is it not because it is an unperfect and raw kind of\nnourishment? for neither continueth it the same that it was, to wit, wheat,\n&c. nor is that yet which it should be, namely bread: but hath lost that\nnature which it had before of seed, and withall hath not gotten the use of\nfood and nourishment. And hereupon it is, that the poet calleth meale (by a\nMetaphor or borrowed speech) _Mylephaton_, which is as much to say, as\nkilled and marred by the mill in grinding: and as for leaven, both it selfe\nis engendered of a certaine corruption of meale, and also corrupteth (in a\nmaner) the whole lumpe of dough, wherein it is mixed: for the said dough\nbecommeth lesse firme and fast than it was before, it hangeth not together;\nand in one word the leaven of the paste seemeth to be a verie putrifaction\nand rottennesse thereof. And verely if there be too much of the leaven put\nto the dough, it maketh it so sharpe and soure that it cannot be eaten, and\nin verie truth spoileth the meale quite.\n\n\n110.\n\n  _Wherefore is the said priest likewise forbidden to touch raw flesh?_\n\nIS it by this custome to withdraw him farre from eating of raw things?\n\nOr is it for the same cause that he abhorreth and detesteth meale? for\nneither is it any more a living animall, nor come yet to be meat: for by\nboiling and rosting it groweth to such an alteration, as changeth the verie\nforme thereof: whereas raw flesh and newly killed is neither pure and\nimpolluted to the eie, but hideous to see to; and besides, it hath (I wot\nnot what) resemblance to an ougly sore or filthie ulcer.\n\n\n111.\n\n  _What is the reason that the Romans have expresly commaunded the same\n  priest or_ Flamen _of_ Jupiter, _not onely to touch a dogge or a goat,\n  but not so much as to name either of them_?\n\nTO speake of the Goat first, is it not for detestation of his excessive\nlust and lecherie; and besides for his ranke and filthie savour? or because\nthey are afraid of him, as of a diseased creature and subject to maladies?\nfor surely, there seemeth not to be a beast in the world so much given to\nthe falling sicknesse, as it is; nor infecteth so soone those that either\neat of the flesh or once touch it, when it is surprised with this evill.\nThe cause whereof some say to be the streightnesse of those conduits and\npassages by which the spirits go and come, which oftentimes happen to be\nintercepted and stopped. And this they conjecture by the small and slender\nvoice that this beast hath; & the better to continue the same, we do see\nordinarily, that men likewise who be subject to this malady, grow in the\nend to have such a voice as in some sort resembleth the bleating of goats.\nNow, for the Dog, true it is haply that he is not so lecherous, nor\nsmelleth altogether so strong and so ranke as doth the Goat; and yet some\nthere be who say, that a Dog might not be permitted to come within the\ncastle of _Athens_, nor to enter into the Isle of _Delos_, because forsooth\nhe lineth bitches openly in the sight of everie man, as if bulls, boares,\nand stalions had their secret chambers, to do their kind with females, and\ndid not leape and cover them in the broad field and open yard, without\nbeing abashed at the matter.\n\nBut ignorant they are of the true cause indeed: which is, for that a Dog is\nby nature fell, and quarelsome, given to arre and warre upon a verie small\noccasion: in which respect men banish them from sanctuaries, holy churches,\nand priviledged places, giving thereby unto poore afflicted suppliants,\nfree accesse unto them for their safe and sure refuge. And even so verie\nprobable it is, that this _Flamen_ or priest of _Jupiter_ whom they would\nhave to be as an holy, sacred, and living image for to flie unto, should be\naccessible and easie to be approached unto by humble suters, and such as\nstand in need of him, without any thing in the way to empeach, to put\nbacke, or to affright them: which was the cause that he had a little bed or\npallet made for him, in the verie porch or entrie of his house; and that\nservant or slave, who could find meanes to come and fall downe at his feet,\nand lay hold on his knees was for that day freed from the whip, and past\ndanger of all other punishment: say he were a prisoner with irons, and\nbolts at his feet that could make shift to approch neere unto this priest,\nhe was let loose, and his gives and fetters were throwen out of the house,\nnot at the doore, but flung over the verie roofe thereof.\n\nBut to what purpose served all this, and what good would this have done,\nthat he should shew himselfe so gentle, so affable, and humane, if he had a\ncurst dog about him to keepe his doore, and to affright, chase and scarre\nall those away who had recourse unto him for succour. And yet so it is,\nthat our ancients reputed not a dog to be altogether a clean creature: for\nfirst and formost we doe not find that he is consecrated or dedicated unto\nany of the celestial gods; but being sent unto terrestrial & infernall\n_Proserpina_ into the quarrefires and crosse high waies to make her a\nsupper, he seemeth to serve for an expiatorie sacrifice to divert and turne\naway some calamitie, or to cleanse some filthie ordure, rather than\notherwise: to say nothing, that in _Laced\u00e6mon_, they cut and slit dogs down\nalong the mids, and so sacrifice them to _Mars_ the most bloody god of all\nothers. And the Romanes themselves upon the feast _Lupercalia_, which they\ncelebrate in the lustrall moneth of Purification, called February, offer up\na dog for a sacrifice: and therefore it is no absurditie to thinke, that\nthose who have taken upon them to serve the most soveraigne and purest god\nof all others, were not without good cause forbidden to have a dog with\nthem in the house, nor to be acqainted and familiar with him.\n\n\n112.\n\n  _For what cause was not the same priest of_ Jupiter _permitted, either to\n  touch an ivie tree, or to passe thorow a way covered over head with a\n  vine growing to a tree, and spreading her branches from it_?\n\nIS not this like unto these precepts of _Phythagoras_: Eat not your meat\nfrom a chaire: Sit not upon a measure called _Ch\u0153nix_: Neither step thou\nover a broome or [149]besoome. For surely none of the Pythagoreans feared\nany of these things, or made scruple to doe, as these words in outward\nshew, and in their litterall sense do pretend: but under such speeches they\ndid covertly and figuratively forbid somewhat else: even so this precept:\nGo not under a vine, is to be referred unto wine, and implieth this much;\nthat it is not lawfull for the said Priest to be drunke; for such as over\ndrinke themselves, have the wine above their heads, and under it they are\ndepressed and weighed downe, whereas men and priests especially ought to be\nevermore superiors and commanders of this pleasure, and in no wise to be\nsubject unto it. And thus much of the vine.\n\nAs for the ivie, is it not for that it is a plant that beareth no fruit,\nnor any thing good for mans use: and moreover is so weake, as by reason of\nthat feeblenesse it is not able to sustaine it selfe, but had need of other\ntrees to support and beare it up: and besides, with the coole shadowe that\nit yeelds, and the greene leaves alwaies to be seene, it dazeleth, and as\nit were bewitcheth the eies of many that looke upon it: for which causes,\nmen thought that they ought not to nourish or entertaine it about an house,\nbecause it bringeth no profit; nor suffer it to claspe about any thing,\nconsidering it is so hurtfull unto plants that admit it to creepe upon\nthem, whiles it sticketh fast in the ground: and therefore banished it is\nfrom the temples and sacrifices of the celestiall gods, and their priests\nare debarred from using it: neither shall a man ever see in the sacrifices\nor divine worship of _Juno_ at _Athens_, nor of _Venus_ at _Thebes_, any\nwilde ivie brought out of the woods. Mary at the sacrifices and services of\n_Bacchus_, which are performed in the night and darknesse, it is used.\n\nOr may not this be a covert and figurative prohibition, of such blind\ndances and fooleries in the night, as these be, which are practised by the\npriests of _Bacchus_? for those women which are transported with these\nfurious motions of _Bacchus_, runne immediately upon the ivie, and catching\nit in their hands, plucke it in pieces, or else chew it betweene their\nteeth; in so much as they speake not altogether absurdly, who say, that\nthis ivie hath in it a certaine spirit that stirreth and mooveth to\nmadnesse; turneth mens mindes to furie; driveth them to extasies; troubleth\nand tormenteth them; and in one word maketh them drunke withoute wine, and\ndoth great pleasure unto them, who are otherwise disposed and enclined of\nthemselves to such fanaticall ravishments of their wit and understanding.\n\n\n113.\n\n  _What is the reason that these Priests and Flamins of_ Jupiter _were not\n  allowed, either to take upon them, or to sue for any government of State,\n  but in regard that they be not capable of such dignities, for honour sake\n  and in some sort to make some recompense for that defect, they have an\n  usher or verger before them carrying a knitch of rods, yea and a curall\n  chaire of estate to sit upon_?\n\nIS it for the same cause, that as in some cities of _Greece_, the\nsacerdotall dignitie was equivalent to the royall majestie of a king, so\nthey would not chuse for their priests, meane persons and such as came next\nto hand.\n\nOr rather, because Priests having their functions determinate and certaine,\nand the kings, undeterminate and uncertaine, it was not possible, that when\nthe occasions and times of both concurred together at one instant, one and\nthe same person should be sufficient for both: for it could not otherwise\nbe, but many times when both charges pressed upon him and urged him at\nones, he should pretermit the one or the other, and by that meanes one\nwhile offend and fault in religion toward God, and anotherwhile do hurt\nunto citizens and subjects.\n\nOr else, considering, that in governments among men, they saw that there\nwas otherwhiles no lesse necessitie than authority; and that he who is to\nrule a people (as _Hippocrates_ said of a physician, who seeth many evill\nthings, yea and handleth many also) from the harmes of other men, reapeth\ngriefe and sorrow of his owne: they thought it not in policy good, that any\none should sacrifice unto the gods, or have the charge and superintendence\nof sacred things; who had been either present or president at the\njudgements and condemnations to death of his owne citizens; yea and\notherwhiles of his owne kinsfolke and allies, like as it befell sometime to\n_Brutus_.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n----\n\n\n_Printed by_ BALLANTYNE, HANSON & CO.\n_Edinburgh and London_\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOTH\u00c8QUE DE CARABAS.\n\n_Crown 8vo Volumes, Printed on Hand-made Paper,\nwith Wide Margins and Uncut Edges, done\nup in Japanese Vellum Wrappers._\n\nIssued under the general Editorship of\nMr. ANDREW LANG.\n\n_THESE VOLUMES WILL NEVER BE REPRINTED._\n\n\n  I. _CUPID AND PSYCHE_: The Most Pleasant and Delectable Tale of the\n  Marriage of Cupid and Psyche. Done into English by WILLIAM ADLINGTON, of\n  University College in Oxford. With a Discourse on the Fable by ANDREW\n  LANG, late of Merton College in Oxford. Frontispiece by W. B. RICHMOND,\n  and Verses by the EDITOR, MAY KENDALL, J. W. MACKAIL, F. LOCKER-LAMPSON,\n  and W. H. POLLOCK. (lxxxvi. 66 pp.) 1887. _Out of print._\n\n\n  II. _EUTERPE_: The Second Book of the Famous History of Herodotus.\n  Englished by B. R. 1584. Edited by ANDREW LANG, with Introductory Essays\n  on the Religion and the Good Faith of Herodotus. Frontispiece by A. W.\n  TOMSON; and Verses by the EDITOR and GRAHAM R. TOMSON. (xlviii. 174 pp.)\n  1888. 10_s._ _Out of print._\n\n    \"Mr Lang deserves no small thanks from all who love the quaint and\n    delightful stories of Kings and their tombs, of gods and their temples,\n    told to Herodotus by the priests of Egypt, and by him to the\n    world.\"\u2014_The Spectator._\n\n    \"It is not necessary to quote or point out the best of the many good\n    things which will be found in 'B. R.'s' translation of 'Euterpe.' To\n    begin it is to read it to the end.\"\u2014_The Saturday Review._\n\n\n  III. _THE FABLES OF BIDPAI_; OR, THE MORALL PHILOSOPHIC OF DONI: Drawne\n  out of the auncient writers, a work first compiled in the Indian tongue.\n  Englished out of Italian by THOMAS NORTH, Brother to the Right Honorable\n  Sir ROGER NORTH, Knight, Lord NORTH of Kyrtheling, 1570. Now again edited\n  and induced by JOSEPH JACOBS, together with a Chronologico-Biographical\n  Chart of the translations and adaptations of the Sanskrit Original, and\n  an Analytical Concordance of the Stories. With a full-page Illustration\n  by EDWARD BURNE JONES, A.R.A., Frontispiece from a 16th century MS. of\n  the Anvari Suhaili, and facsimiles of Woodcuts in the Italian Doni of\n  1532. (lxxxii. 264 pp.) 1888. The few remaining copies, 12_s._\n\n    \"We have nothing but praise to bestow upon this reprint, which forms\n    the latest volume of Mr. Nutt's delightful 'Biblioth\u00e8que de\n    Carabas.'... With its scholarly disquisition and its lovely paper and\n    type, the book makes an appeal which will, in many quarters at least,\n    be irresistible.\"\u2014_Notes and Queries._\n\n\n  IV-V. _THE FABLES OF \u00c6SOP_, as first printed by W. CAXTON in 1484. Now\n  again edited and induced by J. JACOBS. With Introductory Verse by Mr.\n  ANDREW LANG. 2 Vols. 1890. \u00a31, 1_s._\n\n\n  VI. _THE ATTIS OF CAIUS VALERIUS CATULLUS._ Translated into English\n  Verse, with Dissertations on the Myth of Attis, on the Origin of\n  Tree-Worship, and on the Galliambic Metre. By GRANT ALLEN, B.A., formerly\n  Postmaster of Merton College, Oxford. (xvi. 154 pp.) 1892. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n\nNotes\n\n  [1] Livy, x. 47, 7, _Ep._ 11; Val. Max., I. viii. 2; Strabo, xii. p. 567;\n      Ovid, _F._, i. 291; _M._, xv. 622; Oros, iii. 22; Lactant., _Inst._,\n      II. vii. 13; Arnob., vii. 44; Augustin, _C. D._, iii. 17; Aurel.\n      Vict., _De V. Ill._, 25; Dion., v. 13; Pliny, _N. H._, 29, 16.\n\n  [2] Schrader, _Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_, p. 162.\n\n  [3] _Religionsgeschichte_, ii. 203.\n\n  [4] Meyer, _Indogermanische Mythen_, ii. p. 612.\n\n  [5] Marquardt, _R\u00f6mische Staatsverwaltung_^2, iii. p. 2.\n\n  [6] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, i. 173.\n\n  [7] _Ibid._; _cf._ Roscher, _Lexikon_, s.v. _Ianus_.\n\n  [8] Rochholz, _Deutscher Glaube_, ii. 136.\n\n  [9] Wuttke, _Deutscher Volksaberglaube_^2, \u00a7 57.\n\n [10] _Ibid._, \u00a7 177, 388.\n\n [11] _Ibid._, \u00a7 395; _cf._ Pliny, _N. H._, 28, 86.\n\n [12] Marquardt, iii. 6.\n\n [13] De la Saussaye, ii. 203.\n\n [14] Marquardt, p. 7.\n\n [15] De la Saussaye, i. 53.\n\n [16] Marquardt, p. 6.\n\n [17] _Folk-Lore_, vol. ii. p. 235.\n\n [18] Marquardt, p. 25.\n\n [19] \"Chez les Chinois _Ti_ est bien et uniquement la terre ... qui n'a\n      aucun personalit\u00e9, aucun aspect anthropologique.\"\u2014De Rialle,\n      _Mythologie Compar\u00e9e_, i. 235. As in Rome, so in China, though the\n      sky advanced to the rank of a spirit, the earth remained a fetich.\n\n [20] Preller, _R. M._, i. 1 and 2, points out that Italian mythology is\n      \"quite different\" from the Greek; that it is only in \"a certain\n      sense\" that there can be said to be a Roman mythology; that it is a\n      very different thing from Greek, Hindoo, Persian, Teutonic, and\n      Scandinavian mythology; that the Romans had not advanced far in\n      personifying and individualising their gods, and consequently could\n      not develop much mythology. Finally, Italian religion was \"far less\n      widely removed\" from the primitive Aryan belief than Greek religion\n      and mythology were.\n\n [21] Livy, ii. 21; Dion., vi. i.\n\n [22] Mommsen, _Hist. of Rome_, i. 482 _ff._\n\n [23] According to Schwegler, _R\u00f6m. Gesch._, i. 354-383, \u0395\u1f54\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 is simply\n      Greek for _Faunus_ = _Favinus_, \"the benevolent\" or \"good\" god. _Cf._\n      Fauna = Bona Dea.\n\n [24] \"Rapi ... similatur virgo ex gremio matris ... cum ad virum trahitur,\n      quod videlicet ea res feliciter Romulo cessit.\"\u2014Festus, s.v. _rapi_.\n\n [25] _E.g._, among the Esthonians, Finns, Wotjaks, Mordwins, Vedic\n      Hindoos, and Bohemians.\n\n [26] For the use of the sword, axe, or dagger to keep off evil spirits\n      from a wedding, see Schroeder, _Hochzeitsbr\u00e4uche der Ester_, 99-102.\n\n [27] For the sacredness of the head especially, see the _Golden Bough_, i.\n      187-193.\n\n [28] The myth, as given by Plutarch, is to be found also in Livy, i. 9;\n      Serv. ad \u00c6n., vi. 55; and in Varro, quoted by Festus, p. 351. The\n      word occurs in Martial, i. 35. 6 and 7; iii. 93. 25; xii. 42. 4, 95.\n      5 (Friedl\u00e4nder says nothing), and Catullus, lxi. 134 (Robinson Ellis\n      has nothing to say).\n\n [29] Hartley, _Science of Fairy Tales_, pp. 279-281, for examples. The\n      tale of Servius is also told by Ovid, _F._, vi. 577.\n\n [30] It is interesting to note that two hundred years ago Boxhorn, in\n      commenting on this passage of Plutarch, laid down a fundamental\n      proposition of the science of folk-lore:\u2014\"Mortales cum inquirerent in\n      caussas rerum, nec invenirent, pro libitu suo verisimiles sunt\n      commenti. Sic ut fabul\u00e6 proponerentur tanquam causs\u00e6 rerum, cum res\n      ips\u00e6 essent cause\u00e6 fabularum.\" See his edition of the _Roman\n      Questions_, printed in vol. v. of the _Thesaurus_ of Gr\u00e6vius (Lugd.,\n      Batavor, 1696).\n\n [31] _Ethnology in Folk-Lore_, pp. 120 _ff._ Mr. Gomme, however, argues\n      that the fear of dead kindred was borrowed by the Aryans from the\n      non-Aryan inhabitants of Europe. But why may not the pro-ethnic\n      Aryans, as well as other savages, have had, at one stage of their\n      development, a fear of dead kindred?\n\n [32] My authorities for the customs quoted in the next few pages are\n      (unless special references are given) Wuttke, _Deutsche\n      Volksaberglaube_, \u00a7\u00a7 725-756; Rochholz, _Deutscher Glaube und\n      Brauch_, ii. pp. 170-173; and De Rialle, _Mythologie Compar\u00e9e_, i. p.\n      125.\n\n [33] Weinhold, _Altnord. Leben_, 476.\n\n [34] The Lares are thus represented on a coin of the gens C\u00e6sia. See\n      Cohen, _M\u00e9d. Cons._, pl. viii, _C\u00e6sia_.\n\n [35] Ovid, _F._, v. 129-147.\n\n [36] De la Saussaye, _Religionsgeschichte_, i. 281.\n\n [37] Wuttke, \u00a7 755.\n\n [38] Waldron's _Isle of Man_, p. 103.\n\n [39] _Encyc. Britan._, art. \"Sacrifice.\"\n\n [40] Frazer, _G. B._, i. 239.\n\n [41] _Daoine Shie_ or _Sluagh Maith_.\n\n [42] Frazer, i. 122.\n\n [43] De Rialle, i. 190.\n\n [44] See _The Secret Commonwealth_ by Mr. Robert Kirk, Minister of\n      Aberfoyle, 1691.\n\n [45] See Saupe's edition of the _Indiculus_, p. 9.\n\n [46] Servius on Georg., i. 302, and Prudent, _c. Symm._, ii. 444.\n\n [47] Frazer, ii. 332.\n\n [48] Preller, _R. M._^3, ii. 198.\n\n [49] Cic. _de Div._, i. 18, 36; Plut. _Ti. Gracch._, i. A similar story is\n      related of D. Laelius, _Jul. Op. seq._ 58.\n\n [50] _H. N._, xxix. 72.\n\n [51] _C. I. L._, i. 603.\n\n [52] We have no direct evidence of this, but we may infer it from the\n      analogous case of Dius Fidius:\u2014\"Qui per Dium Fidium iurare vult,\n      prodire solet in compluvium.\"\u2014Non. Marc., p. 494, quoting Varro. The\n      temples of Dius Fidius had a hole specially made in the roof\n      (\"perforatum tectum,\" Varro, _L. L._ v. 66), under which one might\n      swear. Probably the temples of Hercules were similarly provided;\n      certainly those of Terminus were (\"exiguum templi tecta foramen\n      habent.\"\u2014Ov. _F._ ii. 672).\n\n [53] Reifferscheid, in the _Annali dell' Instituto_ for 1867, p. 352\n      _ff._, identifies Hercules with the _genius Jovis_. But, in the first\n      place, this seems to me the wrong inference from his own facts, which\n      all have exclusively to do with the _genii virorum_. Next, the\n      _genius Jovis_ is not known before B.C. 58. Schwegler, before\n      Reifferscheid, noticed that in Gellius, xi. 6. 1, \"der r\u00f6mische\n      Hercules erscheint als identisch mit dem genius der M\u00e4nner.\"\u2014_R. G._,\n      i. 367 _n._\n\n [54] Roscher's arguments to show that Juno is the moon are not\n      satisfactory. He assumes without proof that Juno was always Lucina\n      (whereas Lucina was an independent spirit worshipped in woods,\n      _Lexikon_, pp. 583 and 602), that Lucina was the moon (whereas she is\n      the spirit that brings children to light, and is not = Luna), that\n      the Italians connected the moon with child-birth (which, as Birt\n      says, lacks proof), that the name _Juno_ indicates a light-giving\n      deity (whereas, though from the root *Div, it does not imply the\n      giving of light any more than _deus_ does, which is applied to the\n      _di manes_, the _di indigetes_, _dea bona_, _dea dia_, &c.). The\n      arguments drawn by Roscher from works of art are untrustworthy,\n      because borrowing is specially probable in their case. Finally, the\n      hypothesis of a Gr\u00e6co-Italian period, on which Roscher relies to\n      prove that Juno = Hera = the moon, is now discredited.\n\n [55] In B.C. 361 an Aius Locutius was produced (Liv. v. 32. 6, 50. 6, 52.\n      11); in 211 a Rediculus Tutanus (Festus s.v.); in or after 269 a\n      spirit of silver coin, Argentinus (August., _C. D._ iv. 21 and 28);\n      but no spirit was forthcoming for gold coin, which was first struck\n      in B.C. 217. See further Roscher's _Lexikon_, s.v. _Indigitamenta_.\n\n [56] So called \"quod marem effuso semine liberat.\"\u2014Augustin, _C. D._ vii.\n      2.\n\n [57] Finally, with regard to _Matuta_, the very remarkable fact recorded\n      in _Romane Questions_, 17, that people prayed to her not for any\n      blessings to their own children, but for their nephews only\n      (brothers' or sisters' children), immediately suggests that we have\n      here an indication that the Nair type of family was once known in\n      Italy. But the indication, being isolated, has perhaps not much\n      value.\n\n [58] She occurs in the following series:\u2014Fluvionia, Mena, Vitumnus,\n      Sentinus, Alemona, Nova, Decima, Partula, Carmenta, Lucina, for which\n      see S. August., _C. D._ vii. 3; Tertull., _De An._ 37, and _Ad Nat._\n      ii. 11.\n\n [59] Liv. v. 47; Dion. Hal. i. 32; Serv. on \u00c6n. viii. 337; W. Becker,\n      _Handb. d. r\u00f6m. Altert._, i. 137.\n\n [60] Derived probably from Varro, _R. R._ II. xi. 5.\n\n [61] Livy, i. 45. 3; Dionys., iv. 25; Aur. Vict., _De Vir. Ill._, vii. 9.\n\n [62] As Preller does, _R. M._^3, i. 313.\n\n [63] _e.g._, _C. I. L._ vi. 656, 658, &c.\n\n [64] _C. I. L._, vii. 451.\n\n [65] Grimm, _D. M._^4, iii. 104; _cf._ Gummere, _Germanic Origins_, 383.\n      \"Special influence over cattle is ascribed to wood-spirits\" (_Golden\n      Bough_, i. 105).\n\n [66] Gummere, p. 387; _cf._ Bugge, _Studien_, p. 393 _ff._\n\n [67] _Golden Bough_, i. 187 _ff._\n\n [68] _Ibid._, 188. The date of the rite was 13th August; _cf._ Auson., _De\n      Fer. Rom._, 6; Martial, 12, 67, 2. The asylum for runaway slaves\n      afforded by the temple finds a folk-lore explanation in a\n      folk-etymology. \"\u00c6dem Dian\u00e6 dedicaverit in Aventino, cuius tutel\u00e6\n      sint cervi, a quo celeritate fugitivos vocent cervos\" (Festus, p.\n      343^a, 7, s.v. _Servorum dies_). Birt (Roscher's _Lexikon_, i. 1008)\n      seems to take this explanation seriously; but the temple on the\n      Aventine was precisely the temple in which the goddess of _cervi_ was\n      not worshipped. Possibly the right of asylum was conferred on the\n      temple as part of the political changes brought about by the\n      formation of the Latin confederacy, for this temple was the religious\n      centre of the Latin alliance, \"Commune Latinorum Dian\u00e6 templum\"\n      (Varro, _L. L._ v. 43). Hence, then, the folk-story that Servius\n      Tullius, \"natus servus\" (Festus, _l.c._), built the temple and gave\n      it the right of asylum.\n\n [69] For the full list see Marquardt, 328-331.\n\n [70] _Golden Bough_, i. 37 _ff._\n\n [71] _Ibid._, i. 39.\n\n [72] _Golden Bough_, ch. ii.\n\n [73] _R\u00f6m. Mythol._^3, i. 201.\n\n [74] K\u00e6mpfer, _History of Japan_, quoted by Mr. Frazer, i. 110.\n\n [75] K\u00e6mpfer, _History of Japan_, quoted by Mr. Fraser, i. 110.\n\n [76] With _Q. R._, 111, _cf._ _Golden Bough_, i. 207; with _Q. R._, 112,\n      _cf._ _G. B._, i. 183; and generally see i. 117.\n\n [77] _G. B._, i. 130.\n\n [78] For instances see Hartland, _Science of Fairy Tales_, pp. 272-274.\n\n [79] Momms., _R. H._, i. 25.\n\n [80] _Ibid._, i. 60.\n\n [81] _G. B._, i. 170. I may point out that in some parts of Europe these\n      taboos still survive. For six weeks after delivery, the young mother\n      is forbidden to enter a strange house, or go shopping, or draw water\n      from a well, or walk over a sowed field (Grimm, _D. M._^4, iii. pp.\n      435, 464, Nos. 35, 844, 845). The Esthonians also regard a new-born\n      child as tabooed, and indirect contact with it as dangerous (_Ibid._,\n      p. 488, No. 28). For the death-dealing qualities of women, _cf._\n      Burchard von Worms, _Samlung der Decrete_, Coln, 1548, p. 201_a_\n      (quoted by Grimm, iii. 410). Amongst the Eskimo, as amongst the\n      Germans, the young mother is forbidden to leave the house for six\n      weeks (Reclus, _Primitive Folk_, 36); she is also tabooed by the\n      Badagas of the Neilgherrie Hills (_Ibid._, 192).\n\n [82] Hartland, _S. of F. T._, p. 93 _ff._ for instances.\n\n [83] \"Make of it an image in his likeness (_i.e._, of Namtar, the plague);\n      apply (the image) to the living flesh of his body (_i.e._, of the\n      sick man). May the malevolent Namtar who possesses him pass into the\n      image\" (Lenormant, _Chald\u00e6an Magic_, p. 51). The Buddhists of Ceylon\n      cure disease in exactly the same way (J. Roberts, _Oriental\n      Illustrations of Scripture_, p. 171).\n\n [84] _Cf._ C. F. Gordon Cumming, _Two Happy Years in Ceylon_, i. p. 278,\n      \"The astrologer is called in to preside at baby's 'rice feast,' when\n      some grains of rice are first placed in its month. He selects for the\n      little one a name which is compounded from the name of the ruling\n      planet of that moment. This name he tells only to the father, who\n      whispers it low in baby's ear\u2014no one else must know it, and, like the\n      Chinese 'infantile name,' this  'rice name'  is never used lest\n      sorcerers should hear it and be able to work malignant spells.\"\n\n [85] For instances see _Folk Lore_, iii. 137. The Romans themselves\n      fettered the image of Saturnus (Macrob., i. 8. 5; Stat. Silv., i. 6.\n      4; Arnob., iv. 24; Minuc. Fel., c. 22. 5).\n\n [86] _Chemnitzer Rockenphilosophie_, 16 and 325 (Grimm, _D. M._^4, iii.\n      435 and 445).\n\n [87] The classical references are: Festus, p. 143 and 385; Dionys., i. 38;\n      Ov., _F._, i. 56, iii. 791, v. 62 _ff._; Varro, _L. L._, vii. 44;\n      Paul. Diac., p. 15; Lact, I. i. 21. 6; Macrob., i. 5. 10, and 11. 47;\n      Prudent. _C. Symmach._, ii. 295; Cicero _pro Roscio Am._, 35. 100;\n      Catull., xvii. 8. 23; Non. Marc., p. 358b.; Liv. i. 21, iv. 12. The\n      modern literature: first and foremost and final, Mannhardt, _Wald-\n      und Feldkulte_, p. 265 _ff._, whose explanation is adopted in\n      Roscher's _Lexikon_; further, Preller, _R\u00f6m. M._^3, ii. 135 _ff._;\n      Marquardt, 190 _ff._; Grimm, _D. M._, 733, _n._ 4. The meaning of the\n      word _Argei_ has received no satisfactory explanation yet. The number\n      of the images is accounted for by the fact that each of the\n      twenty-four quarters of ancient Rome required rain for its crops.\n\n [88] See _Rhein. Museum_, 1867, p. 129.\n\n [89] Macrob., i. 10, 11 _ff._; Gell., _N. A._, vii. (vi.) 7; Plut.,\n      _Rom._, 4. 5; Lactant., i. 20. 5.\n\n [90] \"Exuuntur etiam vestibus populo flagitante meretrices, qu\u00e6 tunc\n      (_i.e._, at the Floralia) mimarum funguntur officio\" (Lact. _l.c._).\n      _Cf._ Val. Max., 2. 10. 8; Senec., _Ep._, 97. 7; Mart., 1 _pr\u00e6f._;\n      Ov., _F._, iv. 946, v. 183; Tertull., _De Spect._, 17; Min. Felix,\n      25. 8; Augustin, _C. D._, ii. 27.\n\n [91] The Arval Brothers wore a harvest-crown, _vittis spiceis coronati_,\n      _C. I. L._, vi. 2104^a 16. They preserved a sheaf of corn (corn-baby,\n      mother, &c.) from the previous year's harvest; this is the _fruges\n      aridas_ of _C. I. L._, _l.c._ 6. They consecrated the old corn, the\n      green corn of the new year, and a loaf, _fruges aridas et virides\n      contigerunt et panes laureatos_, l.c.; and they sacramentally \"ate\n      the god,\" _fruges libatas_.\n\n [92] Mommsen, _Die echte und die falsche Acca Larentia_, 3 A. 3.\n\n [93] Jordan, _Krit. Beitr._, 75, compares Italian _atta_, \"mother\" and\n      Greek \u1f00\u03ba\u03ba\u03ce?\n\n [94] \"E nos Lases iuvate\" = Age nos, Lares, iuvate.\n\n [95] The classical references on this subject of beans are: Diog. Laert.,\n      viii. 24 and 34 (quoting Aristotle, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f30\u03b4\u03bf\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u1f45\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9),\n      Gellius, N. A., iv. 11; Cic., _de Div._, i. 30, ii. 58; Pliny _N.\n      H._, xviii. 12; Didymus in Geopon., ii. 58; Sext. Emp., _Pyrrh.\n      Hyp._, iii. 224; Iambl., _Vit. Pyth._, 109 and _Protrept. extr.\n      Symb._, 37; Anon. (e. Photio), _Vit. Pyth._, 7; Pseudo-Orig., Philos.\n      ii.; Apollon. Dysc., _Mirab. Hist._, c. 46; Eudocia, p. 368; Suidas,\n      _s. v._ \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2. \u03a0\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b3..; Eustath., _N._, p. 948.\n\n [96] For its meaning as a symbol, see Westropp, _Primitive Symbolism_, p.\n      28.\n\n [97] _R. Q._, 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 29, 30, 31, 65, 86, 87, 105, 108.\n\n [98] The custom is also testified to by Serv. on Virg., _Ecl._, viii. 29;\n      Isid., _Orig._, ix. 8; Plaut., _Cas._, IV. iv. 1; Catull., lxi. 159;\n      Lucan, _Phars._, ii. 358.\n\n [99] _Ueber die r\u00f6mische Ehe_, p. 360.\n\n[100] Reinsberg-D\u00fcringsfeld, _Hochzeitsbuch_, p. 57.\n\n[101] _Ibid._, 84.\n\n[102] _Ibid._, 251.\n\n[103] Weinhold, _Die deutschen Frauen_^2, i. 410.\n\n[104] Haas in Weber's _Ind. Stud._, v. 324, 359, 373.\n\n[105] V. Schroeder, _Hochzeitsbr\u00e4uche der Esten_, pp. 88 _ff._\n\n[106] Plutarch, _R. Q._, 31. _Cf._ Festus, \"In pelle lanata nova nupta\n      considere solet.\"\n\n[107] Serv. ad \u00c6n., iv. 374.\n\n[108] \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u1ff4\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, Suidas, s.v.\n\n[109] De Witte, _Descr. des Antiq. de l'H\u00f4tel Lambert_, p. 68, pl. 22\n      (reproduced in Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict._, s.v., and in Duruy,\n      _Hist. des Grecs_, i. 786). The right interpretation of this scene\n      was first given by Lenormant, _Contemporary Review_, 1880, p. 137.\n\n[110] The Roman, at this crisis of his personal history, placed himself\n      under the protection of a series of Di Indigetes, _e.g._, Subigus,\n      Prema, Pertunda (S. August., _C. D._, vi. 9).\n\n[111] The Latin phrase is \"Aqua et igni accipi.\" The custom is testified to\n      by _Dion. Hal._, ii. 30; Varro, _L. L._, v. 61; Serv. ad _\u00c6n._, iv.\n      167; Ov., _F._, iv. 787; Fest. s.v. Sc\u00e6v., _Dig._, 24. 1. 66; Stat.,\n      _Silv._ I. ii. 3; Val. Fl., _Argon._, viii. 244.\n\n[112] Weinhold, i. 375 and 408.\n\n[113] Schr\u0153der, 128 _ff._\n\n[114] Reinsb.-D\u00fcringsfeld, 84.\n\n[115] \"Aqua aspergebatur nova nupta,\" s.v. Facem in nuptiis.\n\n[116] Reinsb.-D\u00fcringsfeld, 59.\n\n[117] Haas, 358.\n\n[118] Reinsb.-D\u00fcringsfeld, 73.\n\n[119] _Ibid._, 92.\n\n[120] _Ibid._, 63.\n\n[121] _Ibid._, 59.\n\n[122] Cat., lxi, 81-86, 110, 119; Claud., _Fescenn._, 106; _De Rapt.\n      Pros._, ii. 335.\n\n[123] Haas, 327.\n\n[124] Schr\u0153der, 87.\n\n[125] F. B. Jevons, _Kin and Custom_, in the \"Journal of Philology,\" xvi.\n      pp. 87 _ff._\n\n[126] Moore, _Indian Appeals_, ii. 75.\n\n[127] For which see _R. Q._ 6.\n\n[128] In Chambers's _Encyclop\u00e6dia_, s.v. \"Family.\"\n\n[129] In Chambers's _Encylop\u00e6dia_, s.v. \"Names.\"\n\n[130] This custom also crops out in fairy tales. See Mr. J. Jacob's _Indian\n      Fairy Tales_, p. 28.\n\n[131] Or, nuptiall.\n\n[132] Daughters husband.\n\n[133] Wives father.\n\n[134] This may seeme to have some reference to the former question.\n\n[135] \u039a\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[136] \u03a7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n[137] Or Matuta.\n\n[138] By _Prolepsis_, meaning the place where afterwards Rome stood.\n\n[139] Or Phaulius.\n\n[140] That is to say, _Kalends_, _Nones_, & _Ides_.\n\n[141] \u1f14\u03c0\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f30\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, or, a certeine quantitie of wine yeerely, as some\n      interpret it.\n\n[142] \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2.\n\n[143] \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\n[144] \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2, sinistra.\n\n[145] I suspect this place to be corrupt in the originall.\n\n[146] Or about a dog by the Hippocoontides.\n\n[147] Or, feele paine: alluding haply _Ad rupturam Hymenis_.\n\n[148] Or take delight and pleasure.\n\n[149] \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.","title":"Plutarch's Romane Questions: With dissertations on Italian cults, myths, taboos, man-worship, aryan marriage, sympathetic magic and the eating of beans","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":54314}