διὰ τί τὴν γαμουμένην ἅπτεσθαι πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος κελεύουσι πότερον τούτων ὡς ἐν στοιχείοις καὶ ἀρχαῖς τὸ μὲν ἄρρεν ἐστὶ τὸ δὲ θῆλυ, καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀρχὰς κινήσεως ἐνίησι τὸ δʼ ὑποκειμένου καὶ ὕλης δύναμιν· διότι τὸ πῦρ καθαίρει καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἁγνίζει, δεῖ δὲ καθαρὰν καὶ ἁγνὴν διαμένειν τὴν γαμηθεῖσαν; ὅτι, καθάπερ τὸ πῦρ χωρὶς ὑγρότητος ἄτροφόν ἐστι καὶ ξηρὸν τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ ἄνευ θερμότητος ἄγονον καὶ ἀργόν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἄρρεν ἀδρανὲς καὶ τὸ θῆλυ χωρὶς ἀλλήλων ἡ δὲ σύνοδος ἀμφοῖν ἐπιτελεῖ τοῖς γήμασι τὴν συμβίωσιν; ἢ οὐκ ἀπολειπτέον καὶ κοινωνητέον ἁπάσης τύχης, κἂν ἄλλου μηδενὸς ἢ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος μέλλωσι κοινωνεῖν ἀλλήλοις;
Question 1. Wherefore do the Romans require a new-married woman to touch fire and water?
Solution. Is it not for one of these reasons; amongst elements and principles, one is masculine and the other feminine;— one (fire) hath in it the principles of motion, the other (water) hath the faculty of a subject and matter? Or is it because fire refines and water cleanseth, and a married wife ought to continue pure and chaste? Or is it because fire without moisture doth not nourish, but is adust, and water destitute of heat is barren and sluggish; so both the male and female apart are of no force, but a conjunction of both in marriage completes society? Or is the meaning that they must never forsake each other, but must communicate in every fortune, and although there be no goods, yet they may participate with each other in fire and water?
διὰ τί οὐ πλείονας οὐδʼ ἐλάττονας ἀλλὰ πέντε λαμπάδας ἅπτουσιν ἐν τοῖς γάμοις, ἃς κηρίωνας ὀνομάζουσιν πότερον, ὡς Βάρρων ἔλεγεν, ὅτι τῶν στρατηγῶν τρισὶ χρωμένων, σὺν τοῖς ἀγορανόμοις πλείονας, παρὰ δὲ τῶν ἀγορανόμων ἅπτουσι τὸ πῦρ οἱ γαμοῦντες, ἢ διότι πλείοσι χρωμένων ἀριθμοῖς, πρός τε τὰ ἄλλα βελτίων καὶ τελειότερος ὁ περιττὸς ἐνομίζετο καὶ πρὸς γάμον ἁρμοδιώτερος; ὁ γὰρ ἄρτιος διάστασίν τε δέχεται καὶ τὸ ἴσον αὐτοῦ μάχιμόν ἐστι καὶ ἀντίπαλον, ὁ δὲ περιττὸς οὐ δύναται, διασχισθῆναι παντάπασιν, ἀλλʼ ὑπολείπει τι, κοινὸν ἀεὶ μεριζόμενος. τοῦ δὲ, περιττοῦ μάλιστα γαμήλιος ἡ πεντάς ἐστι· τὰ γὰρ τρία πρῶτος περιττὸς καὶ τὰ δύο πρῶτος ἄρτιος· ἐκ δὲ τούτων ὥσπερ ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος ἡ πεντὰς μέμικται. ἢ μᾶλλον, ἐπεὶ τὸ φῶς γενέσεώς ἐστι σημεῖον, γυνὴ δʼ ἄχρι πέντε τίκτειν ὁμοῦ τὰ πλεῖστα πέφυκε, τοσαύταις χρῶνται λαμπάσιν; ἢ ὅτι πέντε δεῖσθαι θεῶν τοὺς γαμοῦντας οἴονται, Διὸς τελείου καὶ Ἥρας τελείας καὶ Ἀφροδίτης καὶ Πειθοῦς, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δʼ Ἀρτέμιδος, ἣν ταῖς λοχείαις καὶ ταῖς ὠδῖσιν αἱ γυναῖκες ἐπικαλοῦνται;
Question 2. Why do they light at nuptials five torches, neither more nor less, which they call waxen tapers?
Solution. Whether it be (as Varro saith) that the Praetors use three, but more are permitted to the Aediles, and married persons do light the fire at the Aediles’ torches? Or is it that, having use of many numbers, the odd number was reckoned better and perfecter upon other accounts, and therefore more adapted to matrimony? For the even number admits of division, and the equal parts of opposition and repugnancy, whenas the odd cannot be divided, but being divided into parts leaves always an inequality. The number five is most matrimonial of odd numbers, for three is the first odd and two is the first even, of which five is compounded, as of male and female.
Or rather, because light is a sign of generation, and it is natural to a woman, for the most part, to bring forth so far as five successively, and therefore they use five torches? Or is it because they suppose that married persons have occasion for five Gods, Nuptial Jupiter, Nuptial Juno, Venus, Suada, and above all the rest Diana, whom women invocate in their travail and child-bed sickness?
διὰ τί, πολλῶν ὄντων ἐν Ῥώμῃ ναῶν Ἀρτέμιδος, εἰς μόνον τὸν ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ Πατρικίῳ στενωπῷ ἄνδρες οὐκ εἰσίασιν; ἦ διὰ τὸν λεγόμενον μῦθον; γυναῖκα γὰρ αὐτόθι τὴν θεὸν σεβομένην βιαζόμενός τις ὑπὸ τῶν κυνῶν διεσπάσθη, καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου δεισιδαιμονίας γενομένης ἄνδρες οὐκ εἰσίασι.
Question 3. What is the reason that, seeing there are so many of Diana’s temples in Rome, the men refrain going into that only which stands in Patrician Street?
Solution. Is it upon the account of the fabulous story, that a certain man, ravishing a woman that was there worshipping the Goddess, was torn in pieces by dogs; and hence this superstitious practice arose, that men enter not in?
διὰ τί τοῖς ἄλλοις Ἀρτεμισίοις ἐπιεικῶς ἐλάφων κέρατα προσπατταλεύουσι, τῷ δʼ ἐν Ἀβεντίνῳ βοῶν; ἦ τοῦ παλαιοῦ συμπτώματος ἀπομνημονεύοντες; λέγεται γὰρ ἐν Σαβίνοις Ἄντρωνι Κορατίῳ βοῦς ἐκπρεπὴς ὄψει καὶ μεγέθει διαφέρουσα τῶν ἄλλων γενέσθαι· μάντεως δέ τινος αὐτῷ φράσαντος, ὅτι τοῦ καθιερεύσαντος Ἀρτέμιδι τὴν βοῦν ἐκείνην ἐν Ἀβεντίνῳ πέπρωται μεγίστην γενέσθαι καὶ βασιλεῦσαι τῆς Ἰταλίας, ἁπάσης τὴν πόλιν, ἐλθεῖν μὲν εἰς Ῥώμην τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὡς θύσοντα τὴν βοῦν οἰκέτου δὲ κρύφα τῷ βασιλεῖ Σερουίῳ τὸ μάντευμα φράσαντος, ἐκείνου δὲ Κορνηλίῳ τῷ ἱερεῖ, προστάξαι τὸν Κορνήλιον τῷ Ἄντρωνι λούσασθαι πρὸ τῆς θυσίας ἀπὸ τοῦ Θύμβρεως· νενομίσθαι γὰρ οὕτω τοὺς καλλιεροῦντας. ἐκεῖνον μὲν οὖν ἀπελθόντα λούσασθαι, τὸν δὲ Σερούιον φθάσαντα θῦσαι τῇ θεῷ τὴν βοῦν καὶ τῷ ἱερῷ τὰ κέρατα προσπατταλεῦσαι. ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Ἰόβας ἱστόρηκε καὶ Βάρρων, πλὴν ὅτι τοὔνομα τοῦ Ἄντρωνος Βάρρων οὐ γέγραφεν, οὐδʼ ὑπὸ Κορνηλίου φησὶ τοῦ ἱερέως ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ νεωκόρου παρακρουσθῆναι τὸν Σαβῖνον.
Question 4. Why do they in all other temples of Diana ordinarily nail up stags’ horns against the wall, whenas in that of the Aventine they nail up the horns of cattle?
Solution. Was it to put them in mind of an old casualty? For it is said, that among the Sabines one Antro Coratius had a very comely cow, far excelling all others in handsomeness and largeness, and was told by a certain diviner that whoever should offer up that cow in sacrifice to Diana on the Aventine, his city was determined by fate to be the greatest in the world and have dominion over all Italy. This man came to Rome, with an intention to sacrifice his cow there; but a servant acquainted King Servius privately with this privacy, and the king making it known to Cornelius the priest, Cornelius strictly commands Antro to wash in Tiber before he sacrificed, for the law requires men so to do who would sacrifice acceptably. Wherefore, whilst Antro went to wash, Servius took the opportunity to sacrifice the cow to the Goddess, and nailed up the horns to the wall in the temple. These things are storied by Juba and Varro, only Varro hath not described Antro by that name, neither doth he say that the Sabine was choused by Cornelius the priest, but by the sexton.
διὰ τί τοὺς τεθνάναι φημισθέντας ἐπὶ ξένης ψευδῶς, κἂν ἐπανέλθωσιν, οὐ δέχονται κατὰ θύρας, ἀλλὰ τῷ κεράμῳ προσβαίνοντες εἴσω καθιᾶσιν αὑτούς; ὁ μὲν γὰρ Βάρρων αἰτίαν μυθικὴν ὅλως ἀποδίδωσι. φησὶ γάρ, ἐν τῷ περὶ Σικελίαν πολέμῳ ναυμαχίας μεγάλης γενομένης καὶ κατὰ πολλῶν φήμης οὐκ ἀληθοῦς ὡς ἀπολωλότων ῥυείσης, ἐπανελθόντας αὐτοὺς ὀλίγῳ χρόνῳ πάντας τελευτῆσαι, ἑνὶ δʼ εἰσιόντι τὰς θύρας ἀπαντῆσαι κλειομένας ἀπʼ αὐτομάτου καὶ μὴ χαλᾶν ἐπιχειρούντων ἀνοίγειν. τὸν δʼ ἄνθρωπον αὐτοῦ καταδαρθόντα πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν ἰδεῖν κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους ὄψιν ὑφηγουμένην αὐτῷ τὴν ὑπὲρ τὸ τέγος εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν καθίμησιν· ποιήσαντα δʼ οὕτως εὐτυχῆ γενέσθαι καὶ γηραιόν· ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὸ ἔθος καταστῆναι τοῖς ὕστερον. ὅρα δὲ μὴ καὶ ταῦτα τρόπον τινὰ τοῖς Ἑλληνικοῖς ἔοικεν· οὐ γὰρ ἐνόμιζον ἁγνοὺς οὐδὲ κατεμίγνυσαν ἑαυτοῖς οὐδʼ εἴων ἱεροῖς πλησιάζειν, οἷς ἐκφορὰ γεγόνει καὶ τάφος ὡς τεθνηκόσι. λέγεται δέ τινα τῶν ἐνόχων ταύτῃ τῇ δεισιδαιμονίᾳ γεγονότων Ἀριστῖνον εἰς Δελφοὺς ἀποστείλαντα δεῖσθαι τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ παραιτεῖσθαι τὰς παρούσας αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν νόμον ἀπορίας· τὴν δὲ Πυθίαν εἰπεῖν ὅσσαπερ ἐν λεχέεσσι γυνὴ τίκτουσα τελεῖται, / ταῦτα πάλιν τελέσαντα θύειν μακάρεσσι θεοῖσι. / τὸν οὖν Ἀριστῖνον συμφρονήσαντα παρασχεῖν ἑαυτὸν ὥσπερ ἀρχῆς τικτόμενον ταῖς γυναιξὶν ἀπολοῦσαι καὶ σπαργανῶσαι καὶ θηλὴν ἐπισχεῖν, οὕτω τε δρᾶν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἅπαντας, ὑστεροπότμους προσαγορευομένους. ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ Ἀριστίνου ταῦτα γενέσθαι περὶ τοὺς ὑστεροπότμους καὶ τὸ ἔθος εἶναι παλαιόν. οὐδὲν οὖν θαυμαστόν, εἰ καὶ Ῥωμαῖοι τοῖς δοκοῦσιν ἅπαξ τεθάφθαι καὶ γεγονέναι τῆς τῶν φθιτῶν μερίδος οὐκ ᾤοντο δεῖν παριέναι τὴν αὔλειον, ᾗ θύσοντες ἐξίασι καὶ θύσαντες εἰσίασιν, ἀλλʼ ἄνωθεν ἐκέλευον εἰς τὰ ὕπαιθρα καταβαίνειν ἐκ τοῦ περιέχοντος· καὶ γὰρ τοὺς καθαρμοὺς ἐπιεικῶς πάντας ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ τελοῦσι.
Question 5. Wherefore is it that those that are falsely reported to be dead in foreign countries, when they return, they receive not by the doors, but getting up to the roof of the house, they let them in that way?
Solution. Verily the account which Varro gives of this matter is altogether fabulous. For he saith, in the Sicilian war, when there was a great naval fight, and a very false report was rumored concerning many as if they were slain, all of them returning home in a little time died. But as one of them was going to enter in at his doors, they shut together against him of their own accord, neither could they be opened by any that attempted it. This man, falling in a sleep before the doors, saw an apparition in his sleep advising him to let himself down from the roof into the house, and doing so, he lived happily and became an old man; and hence the custom was confirmed to after ages. But consider if these things be not conformable to some usages of the Greeks. For they do not esteem those pure nor keep them company nor suffer them to approach their sacrifices, for whom any funeral was carried forth or sepulchre made as if they were dead; and they say that Aristinus, being one that was become an object of this sort of superstition, sent to Delphi to beg and beseech of the God a resolution of the anxieties and troubles which he had by reason of the custom then in force. Pythia answered thus:— The sacred rites t’ which child-bed folks conform, / See that thou do to blessed Gods perform. /
Aristinus, well understanding the meaning of the oracle, puts himself into the women’s hands, to be washed and wrapped in swaddling clouts, and sucks the breasts, in the same manner as when he was newly born; and thus all others do, and such are called Hysteropotmi (i.e. those for whom a funeral was made while living). But some say that these ceremonies were before Aristinus, and that the custom was ancient. Wherefore it is not to be wondered at, if the Romans, when once they suppose a man buried and to have his lot among the dead, do not think it lawful for him to go in at the door whereat they that are about to sacrifice do go out or those that have sacrificed do enter in, but bid them ascend aloft into the air, and thence descend into the open court of the house. For they constantly offer their sacrifices of purification in this open court.
διὰ τί τοὺς συγγενεῖς τῷ στόματι φιλοῦσιν αἱ γυναῖκες; πότερον ὡς οἱ πλεῖστοι νομίζουσιν ἀπειρημένον ἦν πίνειν οἶνον ταῖς γυναιξίν, ὅπως οὖν πιοῦσαι μὴ λανθάνωσιν ἀλλʼ ἐλέγχωνται περιτυγχάνουσαι τοῖς οἰκείοις, ἐνομίσθη καταφιλεῖν· ἢ διʼ ἣν Ἀριστοτέλης ὁ φιλόσοφος αἰτίαν ἱστόρηκε; τὸ γὰρ πολυθρύλητον ἐκεῖνο καὶ πολλαχοῦ γενέσθαι λεγόμενον ὡς ἔοικεν ἐτολμήθη καὶ ταῖς Τρῳάσι περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν. τῶν γὰρ ἀνδρῶν, ὡς, προσέπλευσαν, ἀποβάντων ἐνέπρησαν τὰ πλοῖα, πάντως ἀπαλλαγῆναι τῆς πλάνης δεόμεναι καὶ τῆς θαλάττης φοβηθεῖσαι δὲ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἠσπάζοντο τῶν συγγενῶν καὶ οἰκείων μετὰ τοῦ καταφιλεῖν καὶ περιπλέκεσθαι τοὺς προστυγχάνοντας. παυσαμένων δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλλαγέντων, ἐχρῶντο καὶ τοῦ λοιποῦ ταύτῃ τῇ φιλοφροσύνῃ πρὸς αὐτούς. ἢ μᾶλλον ἐδόθη τοῦτο ταῖς γυναιξὶν ὡς τιμὴν ἅμα καὶ δύναμιν αὐταῖς φέρον, εἰ φαίνοιντο πολλοὺς καὶ ἀγαθοὺς ἔχουσαι συγγενεῖς καὶ οἰκείους; ἤ, μὴ νενομισμένου συγγενίδας γαμεῖν, ἄχρι φιλήματος ἡ φιλοφροσύνη προῆλθεν καὶ τοῦτο μόνον ἀπελείφθη σύμβολον καὶ κοινώνημα τῆς συγγενείας; πρότερον γὰρ οὐκ ἐγάμουν τὰς ἀφʼ αἵματος, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ νῦν τηθίδας οὐδʼ ἀδελφὰς γαμοῦσιν, ἀλλʼ ὀψὲ συνεχώρησαν ἀνεψιαῖς συνοικεῖν ἐκ τοιαύτης αἰτίας. ἀνὴρ χρημάτων ἐνδεὴς τὰ δʼ ἄλλα χρηστὸς καὶ παρʼ ὁντινοῦν τῷ δήμῳ τῶν πολιτευομένων ἀρέσκων, ἐπίκληρον ἀνεψιὰν ἔχειν ἔδοξε καὶ πλουτεῖν ἀπʼ αὐτῆς· ἐπὶ τούτῳ δὲ γενομένης αὐτοῦ κατηγορίας, ὁ δῆμος ἀφεὶς τὴν αἰτίαν ἐλέγχειν ἔλυσε τὸ ἔγκλημα, ψηφισάμενος πᾶσιν ἐξεῖναι γαμεῖν ἄχρι ἀνεψιῶν, τὰ δʼ ἀνωτέρω κεκωλῦσθαι.
Question 6. Wherefore do women salute their relations with their mouth?
Solution. What if it should be (as many suppose) that women were forbid to drink wine; therefore that those that drank it might not be undiscovered, but convicted when they met with their acquaintance, kissing became a custom? Or is it for the reason which Aristotle the philosopher hath told us? Even that thing which was commonly reported and said to be done in many places, it seems, was enterprised by the Trojan women in the confines of Italy. For after the men arrived and went ashore, the women set the ships on fire, earnestly longing to be discharged of their roving and seafaring condition; but dreading their husbands’ displeasure, they fell on saluting their kindred and acquaintance that met them, by kissing and embracing; whereupon the husbands’ anger being appeased and they reconciled, they used for the future this kind of compliment towards them. Or rather might this usage be granted to women as a thing that gained them reputation and interest, if they appeared hereby to have many and good kindred and acquaintance? Or was it that, it being unlawful to marry kinswomen, a courteous behavior might proceed so far as a kiss, and this was retained only as a significant sign of kindred and a note of a familiar converse among them? For in former time they did not marry women nigh by blood,— as now they marry not aunts or sisters,—but of late they allowed the marrying of cousins for the following reason. A certain man, mean in estate, but on the other hand an honest and a popular man among the citizens, designed to marry his cousin being an heiress, and to get an estate by her. Upon this account he was accused; but the people took little notice of the accusation, and absolved him of the fault, enacting by vote that it might be lawful for any man to marry so far as cousins, but prohibited it to all higher degrees of consanguinity.
διὰ τί δὲ δῶρον λαβεῖν ἀνδρὶ παρὰ γυναικὸς καὶ γυναικὶ παρʼ ἀνδρὸς ἀπείρηται πότερον, ὡς Σόλων γράψας τὰς δόσεις κυρίας εἶναι τῶν τελευτώντων, πλὴν εἰ μή τις ἀνάγκῃ συνεχόμενος ἢ γυναικὶ πειθόμενος τὴν μὲν ἀνάγκην ὡς βιαζομένην ὑπεξείλετο, τὴν δʼ ἡδονὴν ὡς παραλογιζομένην, οὕτως ὑπενοήθησαν αἱ γυναικῶν καὶ ἀνδρῶν δόσεις· ἢ φαυλότατον ἡγούμενοι σημεῖον εὐνοίας τὸ διδόναι (διδόασι γὰρ καὶ ἀλλότριοι καὶ μὴ φιλοῦντες ἐκ τοῦ γάμου τὴν τοιαύτην ἀρέσκειαν ἀνεῖλον, ὅπως ἄμισθον ᾖ καὶ προῖκα καὶ διʼ αὑτὸ μὴ διʼ ἄλλο τὸ φιλεῖσθαι καὶ φιλεῖν; ὅτι τῷ λαμβάνειν διαφθειρόμεναι μάλιστα προσίενται τοὺς ἀλλοτρίους, σεμνὸν ἐφάνη τὸ μὴ διδόντες ἀγαπᾶν τοὺς ἰδίους; ἢ μᾶλλον ὅτι δεῖ καὶ γυναιξὶ κοινὰ τὰ ἀνδρῶν εἶναι καὶ ἀνδράσι τὰ γυναικῶν; μανθάνει γὰρ ὁ λαβὼν τὸ δοθὲν ἀλλότριον ἡγεῖσθαι τὸ μὴ δοθέν, ὥστʼ ὀλίγον διδόντες ἀλλήλοις τὸ πᾶν ἀφαιροῦνται.
Question 7. Why is a husband forbid to receive a gift from his wife, and a wife from her husband?
Solution. What if the reason be as Solon writes it,—describing gifts to be peculiar to dying persons, unless a man being entangled by necessity or wheedled by a woman be enslaved to force which constrains him, or to pleasure which persuades him,—that thus the gifts of husbands and wives became suspected? Or is it that they reputed a gift the basest sign of benevolence (for strangers and they that have no love for us do give us presents), and so took away such a piece of flattery from marriage, that to love and be beloved should be devoid of mercenariness, should be spontaneous and for its own sake, and not for any thing else? Or because women, being corrupted by receiving gifts, are thereby especially brought to admit strangers, did it seem to be a weighty thing to require them to love their own husbands that give them nothing? Or was it because all things ought to be common between them, the husbands’ goods being the wives’, and the wives’ goods the husbands’? For he that accepts that which is given learns thereby to esteem that which is not given the property of another; so that, by giving but a little to each other, they strip each other of all.
διὰ τί δὲ παρὰ γαμβροῦ καὶ παρὰ πενθεροῦ λαβεῖν ἐκείνοις κεκώλυται δῶρον; ἦ παρὰ γαμβροῦ μέν, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ διὰ τοῦ πατρὸς εἰς τὴν γυναῖκα περιχωρεῖν τὸ δῶρον· παρὰ πενθεροῦ δέ, ὅτι τὸν μὴ διδόντα δίκαιον ἐφάνη μηδὲ λαμβάνειν;
Question 8. Why were they prohibited from taking a gift of a son-in-law or of a father-in-law?
Solution. Is it not of a son-in-law, that a man may not seem to convey a gift to his wife by his father’s hands? and of a father-in-law, because it seems just that he that doth not give should not receive?
διὰ τί, κἂν ἐξ ἀγροῦ κἂν ἀπὸ ξένης ἐπανίωσιν, ἔχοντες οἴκοι γυναῖκας προπέμπουσι δηλοῦντες αὐταῖς ὅτι παραγίγνονται; πότερον ὅτι τοῦτο πιστεύοντός ἐστι τὴν γυναῖκα μηδὲν ῥᾳδιουργεῖν τὸ δʼ ἐξαίφνης καὶ ἀπροσδοκήτως οἷον ἐνέδρα καὶ, παρατήρησις, ἢ σπεύδουσιν ὡς ποθούσαις καὶ προσδεχομέναις εὐαγγελίζεσθαι περὶ αὑτῶν; ἢ μᾶλλον αὐτοὶ περὶ ἐκείνων πυθέσθαι ποθοῦσιν, εἰ σῳζομένας καὶ ποθούσας ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκίας καταλαμβάνουσιν; ἢ πλείονες ταῖς γυναιξὶν οἰκονομίαι καὶ ἀσχολίαι, τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀπόντων, τυγχάνουσι καὶ διαφοραὶ καὶ ὁρμαὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἔνδον· ἵνʼ οὖν ἀπαλλαγεῖσα τούτων ἀθόρυβον τῷ ἀνδρὶ παρέχῃ τὴν ὑποδοχὴν καὶ ἡδεῖαν, ἡ προδήλωσις γίγνεται;
Question 9. Wherefore is it that they that have wives at home, if they be returning out of the country or from any remote parts, do send a messenger before, to acquaint them that they be at hand?
Solution. Is not this an argument that a man believes his wife to be no idle gossip, whereas to come upon her suddenly and unexpectedly has a show as though he came hastily to catch her and observe her behavior? Or do they send the good tidings of their coming beforehand, as to them that are desirous of them and expect them? Or rather is it that they desire to enquire concerning their wives whether they are in health, and that they may find them at home looking for them? Or because, when the husbands are wanting, the women have more family concerns and business upon their hands, and there are more dissensions and hurly-burly among those that are within doors; therefore, that the wife may free herself from these things and give a calm and pleasant reception to her husband, she hath forewarning of his coming?
Cite This Text