Why do the women kiss their kinsmen on the lips?

Is it, as most authorities believe, that the drinking of wine was forbidden to women,Cf., chap. iii. (77 b); Polybius, vi. 11 a. 4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, , ii. 25. 6; Cicero, , iv. 6; Valerius Maximus, ii. 1. 5; vi. 3. 9; Pliny, , xiv. 13 (89); Aulus Gellius, x. 23. 1; Tertullian, vi. and therefore, so that women who had drunk wine should not escape detection, but should be detected when they chanced to meet men of their household, the custom of kissing was established?

Or is it for the reason which AristotleFrag. 609 (ed. V. Rose). the philosopher has recorded? For that far-famed deed, the scene of which is laid in many different places,Cf., 243 e and the note ad loc. (Vol. III. p. 480). was dared, it appears, by the Trojan women, even on the very shores of Italy. For when they had reached the coast, and the men had disembarked, the women set fire to the ships, since, at all hazards, they desired to be quit of their wanderings and their sea-faring. But they were afraid of their husbands, and greeted with a kiss and a warm embrace such of their kinsmen and members of their household as they encountered: and when the men had ceased from their wrath and had become reconciled, the women continued thereafter as well to employ this mark of affection towards them.

Or was this rather bestowed upon the women as a privilege that should bring them both honour and power if they should be seen to have many good men among their kinsmen and in their household?

Or is it that, since it is not the custom for men to marry blood relations,Hatzidakis objects to the formσυγγενίδας; but the very fact that Polux, iii. 30, characterizes it asἐσχάτως βάρβαρον proves (as do inscriptions also) that it was in use. affection proceeded only so far as a kiss, and this alone remained as a token of kinship and a participation therein? For formerly men did not marry women related to them by ties of blood, just as even now they do not marry their aunts or their sistersCf. Tacitus, , xii. 5-7.; but after a long time they made the concession of allowing wedlock with cousins for the following reason: a man possessed of no property, but otherwise of excellent character and more satisfactory to the people than other public men, had as wife his cousin, an heiress, and was thought to be growing rich from her estate. He was accused on this ground, but the people would not even try the case and dismissed the charge, enacting a decree that ali might marry cousins or more distant relatives: but marriage with nearer kin was prohibited.

Why is it forbidden for a man to receive a gift from his wife or a wife to receive a gift from her husband?Cf., 143 a.

Is it that, Solon having promulgated a lawCf., chap. xxi. (90 a); [Demosthenes] xlvi. 14; Hypereides, , 17, 18. that the bequests of the deceased should be valid unless a man were constrained by force or persuaded by his wife, whereby he excepted force as overriding the free will, and pleasure as misleading the judgement, in this way the bequests of wives and husbands became suspect?

Or did they regard giving as an utterly worthless token of aifection (for even strangers and persons with no kindly feelings give gifts), and so deprived the marriage relationship of this mode of giving pleasure, that mutual affection might be unbought and free, existing for its own sake and for no other reason?

Or is it that women are most likely to be seduced and welcome strangers because of gifts they receive from them: and thus it is seen to be dignified for them to love their own husbands even though their husbands give them no gifts?

Or is it rather that both the husbands’ property should be held in common with their wives and the wives’ with their husbands? For anyone who accepts what is given learns to regard what is not given to him as belonging to another, with the result that by giving a little to each other they deprive each other of all else that they own.

Why among the Romans is it forbidden to receive a gift from a son-in-law or from a father-in-law?

Is the father-in-law prevented from receiving a gift from his son-in-law, in order that the gift may not appear ultimately to reach the wife through her father? And is the son-in-law similarly prevented, since it is obviously just that he who may not give shall also not receive?

Why is it that, when men who have wives at home are returning either from the country or from abroad, they send ahead to tell their wives that they are coming?

Is it because this is the mark of a man who is confident that his wife is not up to any mischief, whereas coming suddenly and unexpectedly is, as it were, an arrival by stratagem and unfair vigilance: and are they eager to send good tidings about themselves to their wives as if they felt certain that their wives would be longing for them and expecting them?

Or is it rather that the men themselves long to hear news of their wives, if they shall find them safe at home and longing for their husbands?

Or is it because during their husbands’ absence the wives have more household duties and occupations, and also dissensions and outbursts against those of the household? Therefore the notice is given in advance that the wife may rid herself of these matters and make for her husband his welcome home undisturbed and pleasant.