Question 71. Why do they bind hay about the horns of oxen that are wont to push, that they may be shunned by him that meets them? Solution. It is that by reason of gormandizing and stuffing their guts oxen, asses, horses, and men become mischievous, as Sophocles somewhere saith, full-fed colt thou kickest up heels, From stuffed paunch, cheeks, and full meals? Therefore the Romans say that M. Crassus had hay about his horns, for they that were turbulent men in the commonwealth were wont to stand in awe of him as a revengeful man and one scarce to be meddled with; although afterwards it was said again, that Caesar had taken away Crassus’s hay, being the first man of the republic that withstood and affronted him. Question 72. Why would they have the lanthorns of the soothsaying priests (which formerly they called Auspices, and now Augures) to be always open at top, and no cover to be put upon them? Solution. Is it as the Pythagoreans do, who make little things symbols of great matters,—as forbidding to sit down upon a bushel and to stir up the fire with a sword,—so that the ancients used many enigmatical ceremonies, especially about their priests, and such was this of the lanthorn? For the lanthorn is like the body encompassing the soul, the soul being the light withinside, and the understanding and judgment ought to be always open and quick-sighted, and never to be shut up or blown out. And when the winds blow, the birds are unsettled and do not afford sound prognostics, by reason of their wandering and irregularity in flying; by this usage therefore they teach that their soothsayers must not prognosticate when there are high winds, but in still and calm weather, when they can use their open lanthorns. Question 73. Why were priests that had sores about them forbid to use divination. Solution. Is not this a significant sign that, whilst they are employed about divine matters, they ought not to be in any pain, nor have any sore or passion in their minds, but to be cheerful, sincere, and without distraction? Or it is but rational, if no man may offer a victim that hath a sore, nor use such birds for soothsaying, that much more they should themselves be free from these blemishes, and be clean, sincere, and sound, when they go about to inspect divine prodigies; for an ulcer seems to be a mutilation and defilement of the body. Question 74. Why did Servius Tullius build a temple of Small Fortune, whom they call Brevis? Solution. Was it because he was of a mean original and in a low condition, being born of a captive woman, and by fortune came to be king of Rome? Or did not that change of his condition manifest the greatness rather than the smallness of his fortune? But Servius most of all of them seems to ascribe divine influence to Fortune, giving thereby a reputation to all his enterprises. For he did not only build temples of Hopeful Fortune, of Fortune that averteth evil, of Mild, Primogenial, and Masculine Fortune; but there is a temple also of Private Fortune, another of Regardful Fortune, another of Hopeful Fortune, and the fourth of Virgin Fortune. But why should any one mention any more names, seeing there is a temple also of Ensnaring Fortune, which they name Viscata, as it were ensnaring us when we are as yet afar off, and enforcing us upon business. For an account of the various titles of Fortune at Rome, see Preller, Römische Mythologie, X. §1; and Plutarch on the Fortune of the Romans, §5, §10. (G.) Consider this now, whether it be that Servius found that great matters are effected by a small piece of Fortune, and that it often falls out that great things are effected by some or do come to nought by a small thing being done or not done. He built therefore a temple of Small Fortune, teaching us to take care of our business, and not contemn things that happen by reason of their smallness. Question 75. Why did they not extinguish a candle, but suffer it to burn out of its own accord. Solution. Is this the reason, that they adored it as being related and akin to unquenchable and eternal fire? Or is it a significant ceremony, teaching us that we are not to kill and destroy any animated creature that is harmless, fire being as it were an animal? For it both needs nourishment and moves itself, and when it is extinguished it makes a noise as if it were then slain? Or doth this usage instruct us that we ought not to make waste of fire or water, or any other necessary thing that we have a superabundance of, but suffer those that have need to use them, leaving them to others when we ourselves have no further use for them?