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?

Why does the husband approach his bride for the first time, not with a light, but in darkness?

Is it because he has a feeling of modest respect, since he regards her as not his own before his union with her? Or is he accustoming himself to approach even his own wife with modesty?

Or, as SolonCf., 138 d; , chap. xx. (89 c). has given directions that the bride shall nibble a quince before entering the bridal chamber, in order that the first greeting may not be disagreeable nor unpleasant, even so did the Roman legislator, if there was anything abnormal or disagreeable connected with the body, keep it concealed?

Or is this that is done a manner of casting infamy upon unlawful amours, since even lawful love has a certain opprobrium connected with it?