διὰ τί τῷ τοῦ Κρόνου ναῷ χρῶνται ταμιείῳ τῶν δημοσίων χρημάτων, ἅμα δὲ καὶ φυλακτηρίῳ τῶν συμβολαίων; πότερον ὅτι δόξα κατεῖχε καὶ λόγος οὐκ εἶναι πλεονεξίαν ἐν ἀνθρώποις οὐδʼ ἀδικίαν Κρόνου βασιλεύοντος, ἀλλὰ πίστιν καὶ δικαιοσύνην· ἢ ὅτι καρπῶν ἀρετῆς ἢ γεωργίας ἡγεμὼν ὁ θεός; ἡ γὰρ ἅρπη τοῦτο σημαίνει καὶ οὐχ ὡς γέγραφεν Ἀντίμαχος Ἡσιόδῳ πειθόμενος λέχρις δὲ δρεπάνῳ τέμνων ἀπὸ μήδεα πατρὸς / οὐρανοῦ Ἀκμονίδεω λάσιος Κρόνος ἀντιτέτυκτο. / καρπῶν δʼ ἀφθονία καὶ διάθεσις γένεσίς ἐστι νομίσματος· διὸ τὸν αἴτιον καὶ φύλακα ποιοῦνται τῆς εὐδαιμονίας. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τούτῳ τὸ τὰς ἀγομένας διʼ ἐννέα ἡμερῶν ἐπʼ ἀγορὰν συνόδους, νουνδίνας δὲ καλουμένας, ἱερὰς τοῦ Κρόνου νομίζεσθαι· πράσεως γὰρ καὶ ὠνῆς περιουσία καρπῶν ἀρχὴν παρέσχεν. ἢ ταῦτα μέν ἐστι παλαιά, πρῶτος δὲ ταμιεῖον ἀπέδειξε τὸ Κρόνιον, τῶν βασιλέων καταλυθέντων, Οὐαλέριος Ποπλικόλας πειθόμενος εὐερκῆ καὶ καταφανῆ καὶ δυσεπιβούλευτον εἶναι τὸν τόπον;
Question 42. Why do they use the temple of Saturn for a chamber of public treasury, as also an office of record for contracts?
Solution. Is not this the reason, because this saying hath obtained credit, that there was no avarice or injustice among men while Saturn ruled, but faith and righteousness? Or was it that this God presided over the fruits of the field and husbandry? For the sickle signified as much, and not, as Antimachus was persuaded and wrote with Hesiod,— With crooked falk Saturn ’gainst heavens fought, / off his father’s privities, foul bout. /
Money is produced from plenty of fruit and the vent of them, therefore they make Saturn the author and preserver of their felicity. That which confirms this is that the conventions assembled every ninth day in the marketplace (which they call Nundinae) they reckon sacred to Saturn, because the abundance of fruit gave the first occasion of buying and selling. Or are these things farfetched, and was the first that contrived this Saturnine chamber of bank Valerius Publicola, upon the suppression of the kings, being persuaded it was a strong place, conspicuous, and not easily undermined by treachery?
διὰ τί δʼ οἱ πρεσβεύοντες εἰς Ῥώμην ὁποθενοῦν ἐπὶ τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου ναὸν βαδίζοντες ἀπογράφονται πρὸς τοὺς ἐπάρχους τοῦ ταμιείου; πότερον ὡς ξένου τοῦ Κρόνου γενομένου καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς ξένοις χαίροντος, ἢ καὶ τοῦτο λύεται τῇ ἱστορίᾳ; τὸ γὰρ παλαιὸν ὡς ἔοικεν οἱ ταμίαι ξένια τοῖς πρεσβεύουσιν ἔπεμπον (ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ λαύτια τὰ πεμπόμενα), καὶ νοσούντων ἐπεμέλοντο καὶ τελευτήσαντας ἔθαπτον ἐκ δημοσίου νῦν δʼ ὑπὸ πλήθους τῶν ἀφικνουμένων πρέσβεων ἐκλέλειπται τὸ τῆς δαπάνης, μένει δʼ ἔτι τὸ τοῖς ἐπάρχοις τοῦ ταμιείου προεντυγχάνειν διὰ τῆς ἀπογραφῆς.
Question 43. Wherefore did ambassadors, from whencesoever they came to Rome, go to Saturn’s temple, and there have their names recorded before the treasurers?
Solution. Was this the cause, that Saturn was a foreigner, and therefore much rejoiced in strangers? Or is this better resolved by history? Anciently (as it seems) the quaestors sent entertainment to the ambassadors (they called the present lautia), they took care also of the sick, and buried their dead out of their public stock; but now of late, because of the multitude of ambassadors that come, that expense is left off; yet it remains still in use to bring the ambassadors unto the treasurers, that their names may be recorded.
διὰ τί τῷ ἱερεῖ τοῦ Διὸς οὐκ ἔξεστιν ὀμόσαι; πότερον ὅτι βάσανός τις ἐλευθέρων ὁ ὅρκος ἐστί, δεῖ δʼ ἀβασάνιστον εἶναι καὶ τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ ἱερέως· ἢ ὅτι περὶ μικρῶν ἀπιστεῖσθαι τὸν τὰ θεῖα καὶ μέγιστα πεπιστευμένον οὐκ εἰκὸς ἐστιν; ἢ ὅτι πᾶς ὅρκος εἰς κατάραν τελευτᾷ τῆς ἐπιορκίας, κατάρα δὲ δύσφημον καὶ σκυθρωπόν; ὅθεν οὐδʼ ἄλλοις ἐπαρᾶσθαι νομίζεται τοὺς ἱερεῖς. ἐπῃνέθη γοῦν Ἀθήνησιν ἡ ἱέρεια μὴ θελήσασα καταράσασθαι τῷ Ἀλκιβιάδῃ τοῦ δήμου κελεύοντος· ἔφη γὰρ εὐχῆς οὐ κατάρας ἱέρεια γεγονέναι. ἢ κοινὸς ὁ τῆς ἐπιορκίας κίνδυνος, ἂν ἀνὴρ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἐπίορκος εὐχῶν κατάρχηται καὶ ἱερῶν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως;
Question 44. Why is it not lawful for Jupiter’s priests to swear?
Solution. Is it not the reason, that an oath is a kind of test imposed on a free people, but the body and mind of a priest ought to be free from imposition? Or is it not unlikely that he will be disbelieved in smaller matters, who is entrusted with divine and greater? Or is it that every oath concludes with an execration of perjury? And an execration is a fearful and a grievous thing. Hence neither is it thought fit that priests should curse others. Wherefore the priestess at Athens was commended for refusing to curse Alcibiades, when the people required her to do it; for she said, I am a praying not a cursing priestess. Or is it that the danger of perjury is of a public nature, if a perjured and impious person presides in offering up prayers and sacrifices on the behalf of the city?
διὰ τί τῶν Οὐενεραλίων τῇ ἑορτῇ πολὺν οἶνον ἐκχέουσιν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης; πότερον, ὡς οἱ πλεῖστοι λέγουσι, Μεζέντιος ὁ Τυρρηνῶν στρατηγὸς ἔπεμψε πρὸς Αἰνείαν σπενδόμενος ἐπὶ τῷ λαβεῖν τὸν ἐπέτειον οἶνον· ἀρνησαμένου δʼ ἐκείνου, τοῖς Τυρρηνοῖς ὑπέσχετο κρατήσας μάχῃ δώσειν τὸν οἶνον· Αἰνείας δὲ τὴν ὑπόσχεσιν αὐτοῦ πυθόμενος τοῖς θεοῖς τὸν οἶνον καθιέρωσε, καὶ μετὰ τὸ νικῆσαι συναγαγὼν τὸ καρπευθὲν ἐξέχεε πρὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης· ἢ καὶ τοῦτο σύμβολόν ἐστι τοῦ χρῆναι νήφοντας ἑορτάζειν ἀλλὰ μὴ μεθύοντας, ὡς τῶν θεῶν μᾶλλον τοῖς ἐκχέουσι χαιρόντων τὸν πολὺν ἄκρατον ἢ τοῖς πίνουσι;
Question 45. Why is it that in the solemn feast called Veneralia they let wine run so freely out of the temple of Venus?
Solution. Is this the reason (as some say), that Mezentius the Etrurian general sent to make a league with Aeneas, upon the condition that he might have a yearly tribute of wine; Aeneas refusing, Mezentius engaged to the Etrurians that he would take the wine by force of arms and give it to them; Aeneas, hearing of his promise, devoted his wine to the Gods, and after the victory he gathered in the vintage, and poured it forth before the temple of Venus? Or is this a teaching ceremony, that we should feast with sobriety and not excess, as if the Gods were better pleased with the spillers of wine than with the drinkers of it?
διὰ τί τὸν τῆς Ὅρτας ναὸν ἀνεῳγμένον εἶχον οἱ παλαιοὶ διὰ παντός; πότερον, ὡς Ἀντίστιος Λαβεὼν ἱστόρηκε, τοῦ παρορμᾶν ὁρτάρι λεγομένου, τὴν οἷον ἐγκελευομένην πρὸς τὰ καλὰ καὶ παρορμῶσαν θεὸν Ὅρταν λεγομένην ᾤοντο δεῖν ὡς ἐνεργὸν ἀεὶ μηδέποτε μέλλειν μηδʼ ἀποκεκλεῖσθαι μηδʼ ἐλινύειν· ἢ μᾶλλον ὡς νῦν ὀνομάζουσιν αὐτὴν Ὥραν μηκυνομένης τῆς προτέρας συλλαβῆς, ἐπιστρεφῆ τινα καὶ πολυωρητικὴν θεόν, ἣν διαφυλακτικὴν καὶ φροντιστικὴν οὖσαν οὐδέποτε ῥάθυμον οὐδʼ ὀλίγωρον εἶναι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἐνόμιζον; ἤ, καθάπερ ἄλλα πολλά, καὶ τοῦτο τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ὀνομάτων ἐστὶ καὶ δηλοῖ θεὸν ἐπισκοποῦσαν καὶ ἐφορῶσαν; ὅθεν ὡς ἀκοιμήτου καὶ ἀύπνου διὰ παντὸς ἀνεῳγμένον ἦν τὸ ἱερὸν αὐτῆς. εἰ μέντοι τὴν ὥραν ὀρθῶς ὁ Λαβεὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ παρορμᾶν ὠνομάσθαι δέδεκται, σκόπει μὴ τὸν ὡράτορα προτρεπτικόν τινα καὶ παρορμητικὸν ὄντα σύμβουλον ἢ δημαγωγὸν οὕτως ὠνομάσθαι φατέον, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρᾶς καὶ εὐχῆς ὡς ἔνιοι λέγουσι.
Question 46. Wherefore would the ancients have the temple of Horta to stand always open?
Solution. Is this the reason (as Antistius Labeo hath told us), that hortari signifies to quicken one to an action, that Horta is such a Goddess as exhorts and excites to good things, and that they suppose therefore that she ought always to be in business, never procrastinate, therefore not to be shut up or locked? Or is it rather that Hora, as now they call her (the first syllable pronounced long), being a kind of an active and busy Goddess, very circumspect and careful, they were of opinion that she was never lazy nor neglectful of human affairs? Or is it that this is a Greek name, as many others of them are, and signifies a Goddess that always oversees and inspects affairs; and that therefore she has her temple always open, as one that never slumbers nor sleeps? But if Labeo deduceth Hora aright from hortari, consider whether orator may not rather be said to be derived from thence,—since the orator, being an exhorting and exciting person, is a counsellor or leader of the people,—and not from imprecation and prayer (orando), as some say.
διὰ τί τὸ τοῦ Ἡφαίστου ἱερὸν ἔξω πόλεως ὁ Ῥωμύλος ἱδρύσατο; πότερον διὰ τὴν μυθολογουμένην πρὸς Ἄρη ζηλοτυπίαν τοῦ Ἡφαίστου διʼ Ἀφροδίτην υἱὸς εἶναι δοκῶν Ἄρεος οὐκ ἐποιήσατο σύνοικον οὐδʼ ὁμόπολιν αὐτόν· ἢ τοῦτο μὲν ἀβέλτερον, ᾠκοδομήθη δʼ ὁ ναὸς ἐξ ἀρχῆς συνέδριον καὶ βουλευτήριον ἀπόρρητον αὐτῷ μετὰ Τατίου τοῦ συμβασιλεύσαντος, ὅπως συνιόντες ἐνταῦθα μετὰ τῶν γερόντων ἄνευ τοῦ παρενοχλεῖσθαι καθʼ ἡσυχίαν βουλεύοιντο περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων; ἢ πρὸς ἐμπρησμὸν ἄνωθεν ἐπισφαλῶς τῆς Ῥώμης ἐχούσης, ἔδοξε τιμᾶν μὲν ἐξοικίσαι δὲ τῆς πόλεως τὸν θεόν;
Question 47. Why did Romulus build the temple of Vulcan without the city?
Solution. What if it were by reason of that fabled grudge which Vulcan had against Mars for the sake of Venus, that Romulus, being reputed the son of Mars, would not make Vulcan a cohabitant of the same house or city with him? Or may this be a silly reason; and was that temple at first built by Romulus for a senate house and a privy council, for him to consult on state affairs together with Tatius, where they might be retired with the senators, and sit in consultation about matters quietly without interruption from the multitude? Or was it that Rome was formerly in danger of being burnt from heaven; and he thought good to adore that God, but to place his habitation without the city?
διὰ τί τῇ τῶν Κωνσυαλίων ἑορτῇ καὶ τοὺς ἵππους καὶ τοὺς ὄνους στεφανοῦσι καὶ σχολάζειν ἐῶσι; πότερον ὅτι Ποσειδῶνι μὲν ἄγουσιν Ἱππείῳ τὴν ἑορτὴν, ὁ δʼ ὄνος τῷ ἵππῳ συναπολαύει καὶ συμμετέχει τῆς ἀδείας· ἢ ὅτι, ναυτιλίας φανείσης καὶ κομιδῆς κατὰ θάλατταν, ὑπῆρξέ τις ἀμωσγέπως ῥᾳστώνη καὶ ἀνάπαυσις τοῖς ὑποζυγίοις;
Question 48. Wherefore did they, in the feasts called Consualia, put garlands on the horses and asses, and take these beasts off from all work?
Solution. Was it not because they celebrated that feast to Neptune the cavalier, who was called Consus, and the ass takes part and share with the horse in his rest from labor? Or was it that, after navigation came in and traffic by sea, there succeeded a kind of ease and leisure to the cattle in some kind or other?
διὰ τί τοὺς παραγγέλλοντας ἀρχὴν ἔθος ἦν ἐν ἱματίῳ τοῦτο ποιεῖν ἀχίτωνας, ὡς Κάτων ἱστόρηκε; πότερον ἵνα μὴ δεκάζωσιν ἀργύριον ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ κομίζοντες, ἢ μᾶλλον ὅτι τοὺς ἀξίους ἄρχειν οὐ γένεσιν οὐδὲ χρήμασιν οὐδὲ δόξαις ἀλλὰ τραύμασι καὶ ὠτειλαῖς ἔκρινον; ὅπως οὖν ταῦτα καθορῷτο τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσιν, ἀχίτωνες ἐπὶ τὰς παραγγελίας κατῄεσαν; ἢ καθάπερ τῷ δεξιοῦσθαι καὶ παρακαλεῖν καὶ ὑποπίπτειν, οὕτω τῇ γυμνότητι ταπεινοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς ἐδημαγώγουν;
Question 49. Wherefore was it a custom among the candidates for magistracy to present themselves in their togas without tunics, as Cato tells us?
Solution. Was it not that they should not carry money in their bosoms to buy votes with? Or is it that they preferred no man as fit for the magistracy for the sake of his birth, riches, or honors, but for his wounds and scars; and that these might be visible to them that came about them, they came without tunics to the elections? Or, as by courteous behavior, supplication, and submission, so by humbling themselves in nakedness did they gain on the affections of the common people?
διὰ τί ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Διός, ἀποθανούσης αὐτῷ τῆς γυναικός, ἀπετίθετο τὴν ἀρχήν, ὡς Ἀτήιος ἱστόρηκε; πότερον ὅτι τοῦ μὴ λαβόντος ὁ λαβὼν εἶτʼ ἀποβαλὼν γυναῖκα γαμετὴν ἀτυχέστερος ὁ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ γεγαμηκότος οἶκος τέλειος, ὁ δὲ τοῦ γήμαντος εἶτʼ ἀποβαλόντος οὐκ ἀτελὴς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πεπηρωμένος· ἢ συνιερᾶται μὲν ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρὶ (ὡς καὶ πολλὰ τῶν ἱερῶν οὐκ ἔστι δρᾶσαι μὴ γαμετῆς συμπαρούσης), τὸ δὲ γαμεῖν εὐθὺς ἑτέραν ἀποβαλόντα τὴν προτέραν οὔτʼ ἴσως δυνατὸν οὔτʼ ἄλλως ἐπιεικές; ὅθεν οὐδʼ ἀποπέμψασθαι πρότερον ἐξῆν, οὐδὲ νῦν ὡς ἔοικεν ἔξεστιν, ἀλλʼ ἐφʼ ἡμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ἐντευχθεὶς Δομετιανός. οἱ δʼ ἱερεῖς παρεγένοντο τῇ τοῦ γάμου διαλύσει, πολλὰ φρικώδη καὶ ἀλλόκοτα καὶ σκυθρωπὰ δρῶντες. ἧττον δʼ ἄν τις τοῦτο θαυμάσειε προσιστορήσας, ὅτι καὶ τῶν τιμητῶν θατέρου τελευτήσαντος ἔδει καὶ τὸν ἕτερον πεπαῦσθαι τῆς ἀρχῆς· ἀποθανόντος δὲ τιμητοῦ Λιβίου Δρούσου, Σκαῦρος Αἰμίλιος συνάρχων οὐκ ἐβούλετο τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπείπασθαι, μέχρι οὗ τῶν δημάρχων τινὲς αὐτὸν ἐκέλευον εἰς τὸ δεσμωτήριον ἀπάγεσθαι.
Question 50. Why did the Flamen Dialis (Jupiter’s priest), when his wife died, lay down his priestly dignity, as Ateius tells us?
Solution. Is it not for this reason, because he that marries a wife and loses her after marriage is more unfortunate than he that never took a wife; for the family of a married man is completed, but the family of him that is married and loseth his wife is not only incomplete but mutilated? Or is it because his wife joins with the husband in consecration (as there are many sacred rites that ought not to be performed unless the wife be present), but to marry another immediately after he hath lost the former wife is not perhaps easy to do, and besides is not convenient? Hence it was not lawful formerly to put away a wife, nor is it at this present lawful; except that Domitian in our remembrance, being petitioned, granted it. The priests were present at this dissolution of marriage, doing many terrible, strange, and uncouth actions. But thou wilt wonder less, if thou art informed by history that, when one of the censors died, his partner was required to lay down his place. When Livius Drusus died, Aemilius Scaurus his colleague would not abandon his government before one of the tribunes of the people committed him to prison.
διὰ τί τῶν Λαρητῶν, οὓς ἰδίως πραιστίτεις καλοῦσι, τούτοις κύων παρέστηκεν, αὐτοὶ δὲ κυνῶν διφθέραις ἀμπέχονται; ἦ πραιστίτεις μὲν οἱ προεστῶτές εἰσι, τοὺς δὲ προεστῶτας οἴκου φυλακτικοὺς εἶναι προσήκει, καὶ φοβεροὺς μὲν τοῖς ἀλλοτρίοις, ὥσπερ ὁ κύων ἐστίν, ἠπίους δὲ καὶ πράους τοῖς συνοικοῦσιν; ἢ μᾶλλον, ὃ λέγουσιν ἔνιοι Ῥωμαίων, ἀληθές ἐστι καί, καθάπερ οἱ περὶ Χρύσιππον οἴονται φιλόσοφοι φαῦλα δαιμόνια περινοστεῖν, οἷς οἱ θεοὶ δημίοις χρῶνται καὶ κολασταῖς ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀνοσίους καὶ ἀδίκους ἀνθρώπους, οὕτως οἱ Λάρητες ἐρινυώδεις τινές εἰσι καὶ ποίνιμοι δαίμονες, ἐπίσκοποι βίων καὶ οἴκων· διὸ καὶ κυνῶν δέρμασιν ἀμπέχονται, καὶ κύων πάρεδρός ἐστιν, ὡς δεινοῖς οὖσιν ἐξιχνεῦσαι καὶ μετελθεῖν τοὺς πονηρούς;
Question 51. Why is a dog set before the Lares, whom they properly call Praestites, while the Lares themselves are covered with dogs’ skins?
Solution. Is it that Praestites are they that preside, and it is fit that presidents should be keepers, and should be frightful to strangers (as dogs are) but mild and gentle to those of the family? Or is it rather what some Romans assert, that—as some philosophers who follow Chrysippus are of the opinion that evil spirits wander up and down, which the Gods do use as public executioners of unholy and wicked men—so the Lares are a certain sort of furious and revengeful daemons, that are observers of men’s lives and families, and are here clothed with dogs’ skins and have a dog sitting by them, as being sagacious to hunt upon the foot and to prosecute wicked men?
διὰ τί τῇ καλουμένῃ Γενείτῃ Μάνῃ κύνα θύουσι καὶ κατεύχονται μηδένα χρηστὸν ἀποβῆναι τῶν οἰκογενῶν; ἦ ὅτι δαίμων ἐστὶν ἡ Γενείτα περὶ τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τὰς λοχείας τῶν φθαρτῶν; ῥύσιν γάρ τινα σημαίνει τοὔνομα καὶ γένεσιν ἢ ῥέουσαν γένεσιν. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ Ἕλληνες τῇ Ἑκάτῃ, καὶ τῇ Γενείτῃ κύνα Ῥωμαῖοι θύουσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν οἰκογενῶν. Ἀργείους δὲ Σωκράτης φησὶ τῇ Εἰλιονείᾳ κύνα θύειν διὰ τὴν ῥᾳστώνην τῆς λοχείας. τὸ δὲ τῆς εὐχῆς πότερον οὐκ ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπων ἐστὶν οἰκογενῶν, μηδένα χρηστὸν γενέσθαι, ἀλλὰ κυνῶν· χαλεποὺς γὰρ εἶναι δεῖ καὶ φοβεροὺς τοὺς κύνας· ἢ διὰ τὸ χρηστοὺς κομψῶς λέγεσθαι τοὺς τελευτῶντας αἰνιττόμενοι, διὰ τῆς εὐχῆς αἰτοῦνται μηδένα τῶν συνοίκων ἀποθανεῖν; οὐ δεῖ δὲ τοῦτο θαυμάζειν καὶ γὰρ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν ταῖς Ἀρκάδων πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους συνθήκαις γεγράφθαι φησὶ μηδένα χρηστὸν ποιεῖν βοηθείας χάριν τοῖς λακωνίζουσι τῶν Τεγεατῶν, ὅπερ εἶναι μηδένα ἀποκτιννύναι.
Question 52. Why do they sacrifice a dog to Mana Geneta, and pray that no home-born should become good?
Solution. Is the reason that Geneta is a deity that is employed about the generation and purgation of corruptible things? For this word signifies a certain flux (i.e. Mana from manare) and generation, or a flowing generation; for as the Greeks do sacrifice a dog to Hecate, so do the Romans to Geneta on the behalf of the natives of the house. Moreover, Socrates saith that the Argives do sacrifice a dog to Eilioneia (Lucina) to procure a facility of delivery. But what if the prayer be not made for men, but for dogs puppied at home, that none of them should be good; for dogs ought to be currish and fierce? Or is it that they that are deceased are pleasantly called good; and hence, speaking mystically in their prayer, they signify their desire that no home-born should die? Neither ought this to seem strange; for Aristotle says that it is written in the treaty of the Arcadians with the Lacedaemonians that none of the Tegeates should be made good on account of aid rendered to the party of the Lacedaemonians, i.e. that none should be slain.
διὰ τί τοῖς Καπιτωλίοις θέας ἄγοντες ἔτι νῦν κηρύττουσι Σαρδιανοὺς ὠνίους, καὶ γέρων τις ἐπὶ χλευασμῷ προάγεται παιδικὸν ἐναψάμενος περιδέραιον, ὃ καλοῦσι βοῦλλαν; ἦ ὅτι Ῥωμύλῳ πολὺν χρόνον ἐπολέμησαν οἱ λεγόμενοι Οὐήιοι Τυρρηνῶν, καὶ ταύτην πόλιν ἐσχάτην εἷλε, καὶ πολλοὺς αἰχμαλώτους ἀπεκήρυξε μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπισκώπτων αὐτοῦ τὴν ἠλιθιότητα καὶ τὴν ἀβελτερίαν; ἐπεὶ δὲ Λυδοὶ μὲν ἦσαν οἱ Τυρρηνοὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς, Λυδῶν δὲ μητρόπολις αἱ Σάρδεις, οὕτω τοὺς Οὐηίους ἀπεκήρυττον καὶ μέχρι νῦν ἐν παιδιᾷ τὸ ἔθος διαφυλάττουσι.
Question 53. Why is it that to this very day, while they hold the games at the Capitol, they set Sardians to sale by a crier, and a certain old man goes before in way of derision, carrying a child’s bauble about his neck, which they call bulla?
Solution. Was it because a people of the Tuscans called Veientes maintained a fight a long time with Romulus, and he took this city last of all, and exposed them and their king to sale by an outcry, upbraiding him with his madness and folly? And since the Tuscans were Lydians at first, and Sardis was the metropolis of the Lydians, so they set the Veientes to sale under the name of Sardians, and to this day they keep up the custom in a way of pastime.
Cite This Text