Why are the rods of the praetors carried in bundles with axes attached? Is it because this is a symbolic indication that the temper of the official should not be too quick or unrestrained? Or does the deliberate unfastening of the rods, which creates delay and postponement of his iit of temper, oftentimes cause him to change his mind about the punishment? Now since some badness is curable, but other badness is past remedy, the rods correct that which may be amended and the axes cut off the incorrigible. When the Romans learned that the people called Bletonesii, Of Bletisa in Spain, according to Cichorius, Römische Studien (Berlin, 1922). a barbarian tribe, had sacrificed a man to the gods, why did they send for the tribal rulers with intent to punish them, but, when it was made plain that they had done thus in accordance with a certain custom, why did the Romans set them at liberty, but forbid the practice for the future? Yet they themselves, not many years before, had buried alive two men and two women, two of them Greeks, two Gauls, in the place called the Forum Boarium. It certainly seems strange that they themselves should do this, and yet rebuke barbarians on the ground that they were acting with impiety. Did they think it impious to sacrifice men to the gods, but necessary to sacrifice them to the spirits? Or did they believe that men who did this by tradition and custom were sinning, whereas they themselves did it by command of the Sibylline books? For the tale is told that a certain maiden, Helvia, was struck by lightning while she was riding on horseback, and her horse was found lying stripped of its trappings: and she herself was naked, for her tunic had been pulled far up as if purposely: and her shoes, her rings, and her head-dress were scattered apart here and there, and her open mouth allowed the tongue to protrude. The soothsayers declared that it was a terrible disgrace for the Vestal Virgins, that it would be bruited far and wide, and that some wanton outrage would be found touching the knights also. Thereupon a barbarian slave of a certain knight gave information against three Vestal Virgins, Aemilia, Licinia, and Marcia, that they had all been corrupted at about the same time, and that they had long entertained lovers, one of whom was Vetutius Barrus, Cf. Cicero, Brutus , 46 (169); Horace, Satires , i. 6. 30, if the emendation is right. the informer’s master. The Vestals, accordingly, were convicted and punished: but, since the deed was plainly atrocious, it was resolved that the priests should consult the Sibylline books. They say that oracles were found foretelling that these events would come to pass for the bane of the Romans, and enjoining on them that, to avert the impending disaster, they should offer as a sacrifice to certain strange and alien spirits two Greeks and two Gauls, buried alive on the spot. Cf. Life of Marcellus , chap. iii. (299 d); Livy, xxii. 57. Why do they reckon the beginning of the day from midnight? Cf. Pliny, Natural History , ii. 77 (188); Aulus Gellius, iii. 2; Macrobius, Saturnalia , i. 3. Is it because the Roman State was based originally on a military organization and most of the matters that are of use on campaigns are taken up beforehand at night? Or did they make sunrise the beginning of activity, and night the beginning of preparation? For men should be prepared when they act, and not be making their preparations during the action, as Myson, Similar foresight, regarding a plough instead of a fork is reported by Diogenes Laertius, i. 106. who was fashioning a grain-fork in wintertime, is reported to have remarked to Chilon the Wise. Or, just as noon is for most people the end of their transaction of public or serious business, even so did it seem good to make midnight the beginning? A weighty testimony to this is the fact that a Roman official does not make treaties or agreements after midday. Or is it impossible to reckon the beginning and end of the day by sunset and sunrise? For if we follow the method by which most people formulate their definitions, by their perceptions, reckoning the first peep of the sun above the horizon as the beginning of day, and the cutting off of its last rays as the beginning of night, we shall have no equinox: but that night which we think is most nearly equal to the day will plainly be less than that day by the diameter of the sun. Long before Plutarch’s day the Greeks had calculated the angle subtended by the sun with an accuracy that stood the test of centuries, and was not modified until comparatively recent times. Cf. Archimedes, Arenarius , i. 10 (J. L. Heiberg’s ed. ii. p. 248). But then again the remedy which the mathematicians apply to this anomaly, decreeing that the instant when the centre of the sun touches the horizon is the boundary between day and night, is a negation of plain fact; for the result will be that when there is still much light over the earth and the sun is shining upon us, we cannot admit that it is day, but must say that it is already night. Since, therefore, the beginning of day and night is difficult to determine at the time of the risings and settings of the sun because of the irrationalities which I have mentioned, there is left the zenith or the nadir of the suii to reckon as the beginning. The second is better; for from noon on the sun’s course is away from us to its setting, but from midnight on its course is towards us to its rising. Why in the early days did they not allow their wives to grind grain or to cook? Cf. Life of Romulus , chap. xv. (26 d), xix. (30 a). Was it in memory of the treaty which they made with the Sabines? For when they had carried off the Sabines’ daughters, and later, after warring with the Sabines, had made peace, it was specified among the other articles of agreement that no Sabine woman should grind grain for a Roman or cook for him.