Why, when there are two altars of Hercules, do women receive no share nor taste of the sacrifices offered on the larger altar?

Is it because the friends of Carmenta carne late for the rites, as did also the dan of the Pinarii? Wherefore, as they were excluded from the banquet while the rest were feasting, they acquired the name Pinarii (Starvelings).An attempt to derive the word from Greekπεινῶ, be hungry: see further Livy, i. 7; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, , i. 40. Or is it because of the fable of Deianeira and the shirt?The shirt anointed with the blood of Nessus which Deianeira supposed to be a love charm. She sent the shirt to Heracles and thereby brought about his death; hence Heracles may be supposed to hate all women; see Sophocles, , or Ovid, , ix.

Why is it forbidden to mention or to inquire after or to call by name that deity, whether it be male or female, whose especial province it is to preserve and watch over Rome?Cf. Macrobius, , iii. 9. 3; Pliny, , xxviii. 4 (18). This prohibition they connect with a superstition and relate that Valerius Soranus carne to an evil end because he revealed the name.

Is it because, as certain Roman writers have recorded, there are certain evocations and enchantments affecting the gods, by which the Romans also believed that certain gods had been called forthCf., for example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, , xiii. 3; Livy, v. 21 (the evocatio of Juno from Veii); Macrobius, , iii. 9. 7 and 14-16. from their enemies, and had come to dwell among themselves, and they were afraid of having this same thing done to them by others? Accordingly, as the TyriansCf. Diodorus, xvii. 41. 8; Quintus Curtius, iv. 3. 21. are said to have put chains upon their images, and certain other peoples are said to demand sureties when they send forth their images for bathing or for some other rite of purification, so the Romans believed that not to mention and not to know the name of a god was the safest and surest way of shielding him.

Or as Homer xv. 193. has written, Earth is yet common to all, so that mankind should reverence and honour all the gods, since they possess the earth in common, even so did the Romans of early times conceal the identity of the god who was the guardian of their safety, since they desired that not only this god, but all the gods should be honoured by the citizens?

Why, among those called Fetiales, or, as we should say in Greek, peace-makers or treaty-bringers, was he who was called pater patratus considered the chief? The pater patratus Plutarch here mistakenly explains patrimus instead of patratus: contrast Livy, i. 24. 6; Tacitus, iv. 53. is a man whose father is still alive and who has children; even now he possesses a certain preferment and confidence, for the praetors entrust to him any wards whose beauty and youth require a careful and discreet guardianship.

Is it because there attaches to these men respect for their children and reverence for their fathers?

Or does the name suggest the reason? For patratus means, as it were, completed or perfected, since he to whose lot it has fallen to become a father while he still has a father is more perfect than other men.

Or should the man who presides over oaths and treaties of peace be, in the words of Homer, i. 343, xxiv. 452; Cf. Shakespeare, , iv. iv. 37; Shelley, (18th stanza). one looking before and after? Such a man above all others would be he that has a son to plan for and a father to plan with.

Why is the so-called rex sacrorum, that is to say king of the sacred rites, forbidden to hold office or to address the people?Cf. Livy, ii. 2. 1-2; ix. 34. 12; xl. 42.

Is it because in early times the kings performed the greater part of the most important rites, and themselves offered the sacrifices with the assistance of the priests? But when they did not practise moderation, but were arrogant and oppressive, most of the Greek states took away their authority, and left to them only the offering of sacrifice to the gods: but the Romans expelled their kings altogether, and to offer the sacrifices they appointed another, whom they did not allow to hold office or to address the people, so that in their sacred rites only they might seem to be subject to a king, and to tolerate a kingship only on the gods’ account.Ibid. iii. 39. 4. At any rate, there is a sacrifice traditionally performed in the forum at the place called Comitium, and, when the rex has performed this, he flees from the forum as fast as he can.The ; Cf. Ovid, , ii. 685 ff.: see the , vol. vii. p. 408.

Why did they not allow the table to be taken away empty, but insisted that something should be upon it?Cf., 702 d ff.

Was it that they were symbolizing the necessity of ever allowing some part of the present provision to remain over for the future, and to-day to be mindful of to-morrow, or did they think it polite to repress and restrain the appetite while the means of enjoyment was still at hand? For persons who have accustomed themselves to refrain from what they have are less likely to crave for what they have not.

Or does the custom also show a kindly feeling towards the servants? For they are not so well satisfied with taking as with partaking, since they believe that they thus in some manner share the table with their masters.Cf. Horace, , ii. 6. 66-67.

Or should no sacred thing be suffered to be empty, and the table is a sacred thing?