ROMAN P ROB LEMS FR OM A N D A FTE R P LUTARCH’ S ROMAN QUE STION S S A C R IF IC IA L S C E N E R O A N — E M W O R L O U V R . ( K) . ROMAN PROBLEMS FROM AN D AFTE R PLUTARCH’S ROMAN QUESTIONS WITH IN TROD U CTORY E S SAY ON ROMAN WORSHIP A N D B E LIE F L A G . O . A LE N , M . B I A D M A S T E B O I C R A N L E IG H S C H O O L W ITH ILLU S TR A TIO N S L O N D O N B ICKERS SON , 1 LEICE STER SQ UARE 1904 P R E F A C E ’ THE Roman Questions on which this small work is a a 1 D . based were written by Plut rch bout the year 00 A . h a s as a . They form , been s id by Mr Jevons in his luminous introductory essay to the translation by ‘ a a f a a Philemon Holl nd , the e rliest orm l tre tise written ’ - on the subject of folk lore . The problems which Plutarch sets himself to solve range over a wide field nd a d a in Roman a It lian arch aeology . They e l with a a m tters of ritu l in the worship of the gods , the rules a a a a a a of ugury, us ges in m rri ge , buri l , public g mes and a ffi a a a festiv ls , the o ces of st te , the C lend r, customs and a superstitions of Rom n domestic life . Questions on such subject - matter as this could a a l ina d e h rdly f il to be deep y interesting , however ’ qu atel y they were treated ; and in Plutarch s treatment of them not the least ch arm is the geni al kindliness and spirit of broad tolerant wisdom in which he offers i f . s o ur a a his solutions There , co se , no ttempt to rrive at them by anything like modern scientific criticism he would h ave been nearly two thousand years in vi PREFACE advance of his time if he h ad been able to apply the methods of investigation which have been made am a P M ax Mii l l er or f ili r to us by rofessor Mr . J . G . r . r L a Fra zer o Mr And ew ng . His plan is rather to put forward the suggestions which have been made by such writers as he h as consulted , supplementing or correcting them by own a dl a theories of his ; both , it is h r y necess ry to f nd sa a a . y, being wholly f nci ul unscientific Nor does he seem to h ave selected for his authorities any of the writers whom he might h ave been expected to consult a before others . He does not quote single word from an of a a a and y the gre t cl ssic l poets Vergil , Ovid , Horace ; there is nothing to indicate that he ever ‘ ’ ‘ ’ E a opened the neid or the F sti , though he would h ave found in each a treasure - house of Roman folklore 1 and of religious and legal usa ges . Cicero is never men tioned Y u and as , nor Pliny the Elder or o nger to Livy, a wh o m a a . he y h ve sh red the opinion of Dr Arnold , thought that the chi ef use of reading him wa s like the of w a use the drunken Helot , to show h t ought to be a an a voided . His chief uthority is the tedious d T r . e entiu s a industrious M V rro , who spent his long life in compiling some six or seven hundred volumes of and a a history ntiquities , the gre ter p art of which are a happily lost . Plut rch m ay quite reasonably have ’ considered that Varro s undoubted cap acity for taking He deals of course with many p oints mentioned in th em ; but he n r r rs ir ct i h eve efe d e ly to e t er. PREFACE vfi p ains rendered him a more trustworthy authority than 1 wh o a a one , like Livy, s ys he is content if wh t is 2 probable be a ccepted a s true ; but the value of even ’ Varro s industry was largely discounted by a l ack of a a a R . V critic l cumen Plut rch himself, in Q , quotes an explan ation given by Varro which he considers and a wholly untrustworthy f bulous . O t w are are a her riters to whom we referred C stor, a Li arsean Anti stiu s Rufus , Curio , Jub , Pyrrho the p , a d I I a a n . L beo , Dionysius Of the first five regret h ve nothing to s ay ; I do not even know whether Pyrrho was of and the philosopher Elis , if he were , his merits u an u n a a wo ld still be to me nk own qu ntity . L beo , the ’ a a sturdy republic n of Augustus s time , uthor of four hundred books on Roman l aw (of which only fragments i s a a and m a on survive) , more t ngible person , we y feel surer ground when we find Plutarch relying on him ’ and a a . on Dionysius , the uthor of Rom n Antiquities a al l a But the uthority of , including Plut rch himself , is vitiated by the fa ct that they did not conduct their inquiries by pla cing themselves within the intellectual and mora l limits of the primitive ages they were a n and a n investig ti g , comp ring the customs survivi g with those of other n ations in a like stage of develop . a a own ment Inste d of this , they ttributed their Th e i i n one a a wh i i m t n i h R . s ss r s n io n t e . p ge e e L vy e ed Q XXV. with r r nc h h A i h r t r u t s wh r efe e e to t e defeat at t e ll a . O t e fac s a e q o ed el e e e m wh ich a ri rom i b ut with out ac now m nt e . th e y be de ved f L vy , k ledg e , g i c n R . cr i . sa . and a as i in R . fi e Q IV , T l s o Q XXXI Liv. 2 v 1 . viii PREFACE motives and environments to an age and a people which were as far removed from themselves as the a f of modern Americ n is rom the court King Arthur . ’ a a a Consequently the chief v lue of Plut rch s tre tise , a a a of a a p rt from its ch rm m nner, lies r ther in the a a a i questions sked th n in the nswers g ven . Our interest is stimulated less by what is s aid than by what n a is left u s id . In the selection which I have m ade from the one hundred and thirteen questions on Roman customs and a I a a ntiquities , h ve confined myself lmost wholly to the problems of ritu a l and religion ; prefacing ' Plutarch s queries with a sketch of R om an and Itali an and a a beliefs , supplementing them with dozen extr questions on subjects which Pluta rch might have asked I a a a but did not . h ve tried in these l st to im gine what Plutarch would h ave written if he h a d lived in and h ad h a d a modern times , ccess to the sources of n a . as a modern i form tion If, is not unlikely, the ttempt h a s a a u not been f il re , the responsibility is with the authorities but with the la ck of skill in h andling them . Some word of apology is also due for the translation ’ ’ off evons s a a ered of Plutarch s work . Mr . J very ttr ctive ’ edition of Philemon Holland s version h as a lready been mentioned ; and it wa s the study of this which ’ led me to comp are Holland s translation with the a and F a origin l with the rench version by J cques Amyot , PREFACE ix ‘ B ell ozane and Abbot of , Bishop of Auxerre Great ’ a Al moner of Fr nce . The result of my compa rison was to strengthen the impression which I h a d ’ previously formed that Philemon s version is not a ’ a a at all tr nsl tion from the Greek , but , like North s ‘ ’ a a a tr nsl tion of the Lives , simply rendering more F or less literal of the rench . Philemon states on his title -page that he h as conferred his version with ’ nd a a the French a L atin .