Delphi Complete Works of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Illustrated) (Delphi Ancient Classics Book 79)

by Dionysius of Halicarnassus

  [5] ἐγὼ γοῦν ἐθεασάμην ἐν ἱεραῖς οἰκίαις δεῖπνα προκείμενα θεοῖς ἐπὶ τραπέζαις ξυλίναις ἀρχαϊκαῖς ἐν κάνησι καὶ πινακίσκοις κεραμεοῖς, ἀλφίτων μάζας καὶ πόπανα καὶ ζέας καὶ καρπῶν τινων ἀπαρχὰς καὶ ἄλλα τοιαῦτα λιτὰ καὶ εὐδάπανα καὶ πάσης ἀπειροκαλίας ἀπηλλαγμένα: καὶ σπονδὰς εἶδον ἐγκεκραμένας οὐκ ἐν ἀργυροῖς καὶ χρυσοῖς ἄγγεσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὀστρακίναις κυλίσκαις καὶ πρόχοις, καὶ πάνυ ἠγάσθην τῶν ἀνδρῶν ὅτι διαμένουσιν ἐν τοῖς πατρίοις ἔθεσιν οὐδὲν ἐξαλλάττοντες τῶν ἀρχαίων ἱερῶν εἰς τὴν ἀλαζόνα πολυτέλειαν.

  [5] At any rate, I myself have seen in the sacred edifices repasts set before the gods upon ancient wooden tables, in baskets and small earthen plates, consisting of barley bread, cakes and spelt, with the first-offerings of some fruits, and other things of like nature, simple, cheap, and devoid of all vulgar display. I have seen also the libation wines that had been mixed, not in silver and gold vessels, but in little earthen cups and jugs, and I have greatly admired these men for adhering to the customs of their ancestors and not degenerating from their ancient rites into a boastful magnificence.

  [6] ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἃ καὶ Νόμας Πομπίλιος ὁ μετὰ Ῥωμύλον ἄρξας τῆς πόλεως κατεστήσατο μνήμης ἄξια καὶ λόγου, περιττὸς τὴν γνώμην ἀνὴρ καὶ τὰ θεῖα ἐξηγήσασθαι σοφὸς ἐν ὀλίγοις, ὑπὲρ ὧν ὕστερον ἐρῶ, καὶ Τύλλος Ὁστίλιος ὁ τρίτος ἀπὸ Ῥωμύλου βασιλεύσας καὶ πάντες οἱ μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον γενόμενοι βασιλεῖς: ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τὰ σπέρματα καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς αὐτοῖς παρασχὼν καὶ τὰ κυριώτατα καταστησάμενος τῶν περὶ τὰ θεῖα νομίμων Ῥωμύλος ἦν. [p. 186]

  [6] There are, it is true, other institutions, worthy to be both remembered and related, which were established by Numa Pompilius, who ruled the city after Romulus, a man of consummate wisdom and of rare sagacity in interpreting the will of the gods, and of them I shall speak later; and yet others were added by Tullus Hostilius, the second king after Romulus, and by all the kings who followed him. But the seeds of them were sown and the foundations laid by Romulus, who established the principal rites of their religion.

  [1] δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἄλλης εὐκοσμίας, ᾗ χρώμενοι Ῥωμαῖοι διεφύλαξαν εὐδαιμονοῦσαν τὴν πόλιν ἐπὶ πολλὰς γενεάς, ἐκεῖνος ἄρξαι νόμους καλοὺς καὶ συμφέροντας ἀγράφους μὲν τοὺς πλείστους, ἔστι δ᾽ οὓς καὶ ἐν γράμμασι κειμένους καταστησάμενος, ὧν ἐγὼ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους οὐδὲν δέομαι γράφειν, οὓς δὲ πάντων μάλιστα τεθαύμακα καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὑπείληφα καταφανῆ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην τοῦ ἀνδρὸς γενήσεσθαι νομοθεσίαν, ὡς αὐστηρὰ καὶ μισοπόνηρος ἦν καὶ πολλὴν ἔχουσα πρὸς τοὺς ἡρωικοὺς βίους ὁμοιότητα,

  [24.1] Romulus also seems to have been the author of that good discipline in other matters by the observance of which the Romans have kept their commonwealth flourishing for many generations; for he established many good and useful laws, the greater part of them unwritten, but some committed to writing. There is no need for me to mention most of them, but I will give a short account of those which I have admired most of all and which I have regarded as suitable to illustrate the character of the rest of this man’s legislation, showing how austere it was, how averse to vice, and how closely it resembled the life of the heroic age.

  [2] δἰ ὀλίγης ὑπομνήσεως σημανῶ, τοσοῦτο προειπών, ὅτι μοι δοκοῦσιν ἅπαντες οἱ διατάξαντες τάς τε βαρβαρικὰς καὶ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πολιτείας τὸ μὲν κοινὸν ὀρθῶς ἰδεῖν, ὅτι πόλιν ἅπασαν ἐκ πολλῶν οἴκων συνεστῶσαν ὀρθήν τε πλεῖν εἰκὸς ὅταν οἱ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν εὐσταθῶσι βίοι, καὶ χειμῶνα πολὺν ἄγειν ὅταν κακῶς ἑκάστοις ἔχῃ τὰ ἴδια, καὶ ὅτι δεῖ τὸν νοῦν ἔχοντα πολιτικὸν ἐάν τε νομοθέτης ἐάν τε βασιλεὺς ᾖ, ταῦτα νομοθετεῖν, ἃ ποιήσει δικαίους καὶ σώφρονας τοὺς τῶν ἰδιωτῶν βίους.

  [2] However, I will first observe that all who have established constitutions, barbarian as well as Greek, seem to me to have recognized correctly the general principle that every State, since it consists of many families, is most likely to enjoy tranquillity when the lives of the individual citizens are untroubled, and to have a very tempestuous time when the private affairs of the citizens are in a bad way, and that every prudent statesman, whether he be a lawgiver or a king, ought to introduce such laws as will make the citizens just and temperate in their lives.

  [3] ἐξ ὧν δ᾽ ἂν ἐπιτηδευμάτων καὶ δι᾽ οἵων γένοιντο τοιοῦτοι νόμων, οὐκέθ᾽ ὁμοίως ἅπαντες δοκοῦσί μοι συνιδεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔνιοί γε πολλοῦ καὶ τοῦ παντός, ὡς εἰπεῖν, ἐν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις καὶ πρώτοις μέρεσι τῆς νομοθεσίας ἁμαρτεῖν.

  [3] Yet by what practices and by what laws this result may be accomplished they do not all seem to me to have understood equally well, but some of them seem to have gone widely and almost completely astray in the principal and fundamental parts of their legislation.

  [4] αὐτίκα περὶ γάμων καὶ τῆς πρὸς γυναῖκας ὁμιλίας, ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἄρχεσθαι δεῖ τὸν νομοθέτην, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ [p. 187] φύσις ἁρμόττειν τοὺς βίους ἡμῶν ἤρξατο, οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν θηρίων τὸ παράδειγμα λαβόντες ἀφέτους καὶ κοινὰς τὰς μίξεις ἐποίησαν τῷ ἄρρενι πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ, ὡς ἐρωτικῶν τε οἴστρων ἐλευθερώσοντες τοὺς βίους καὶ ζήλων ἀλληλοκτόνων ἐξελούμενοι καὶ πολλῶν ἄλλων ἀπαλλάξοντες κακῶν, ἃ καταλαμβάνει τούς τε ἰδίους οἴκους καὶ τὰς πόλεις ὅλας διὰ γυναῖκας:

  [4] For example, in the matter of marriage and commerce with women, from which the lawgiver ought to begin (even as Nature has begun thence to form our lives), some, taking their example from the beasts, have allowed men to have intercourse with women freely and promiscuously, thinking thus to free their lives from the frenzies of love, of save them from murderous jealousy, and to deliver them from many other evils which come upon both private houses and whole States through women.

  [5] οἱ δὲ ταύτας μὲν ἐξήλασαν ἐκ τῶν πόλεων τὰς ἀγερώχους καὶ θηριώδεις συνουσίας ἄνδρα συναρμόσαντες εἰς γυναῖκα μίαν, περὶ δε φυλακῆς γάμων καὶ σωφροσύνης γυναικῶν νομοθετεῖν οὔτε μεῖζον οὔτ᾽ ἔλαττον οὐδὲν ἐπεχείρησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἀδυνάτου πράγματος ἀπέστησαν:

  [5] Others have banished this wanton and bestial intercourse from their States by joining a man to one woman; and yet for the preservation of the marriage ties
and the chastity of women they have never attempted to make even the slightest regulation whatsoever, but have given up the idea as something impracticable.

  [6] οἱ δὲ οὔτε ἀνεγγύους ἐποίησαν ὥσπερ ἔνιοι τῶν βαρβάρων τὰς ἀφροδισίους μίξεις οὔτε ἀφῆκαν ὥσπερ Λακεδαιμόνιοι τὰς τῶν γυναικῶν φυλακάς, ἀλλὰ πολλοὺς ἔθεσαν ἐπ᾽ αὐταῖς νόμους σωφρονιστάς. εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἳ καὶ ἀρχήν τινα κατέστησαν ἐπιμελησομένην εὐκοσμίας γυναικῶν: οὐ μὴν ἀποχρῶσά γε ἡ πρόνοια αὐτῶν τῆς τηρήσεως, ἀλλὰ μαλακωτέρα τοῦ δέοντος ἐγένετο καὶ οὐχ ἱκανὴ τὴν μὴ σπουδαίᾳ φύσει κεκραμένην εἰς ἀνάγκην βίου σώφρονος ἀγαγεῖν.

  [6] Others have neither permitted sexual intercourse without marriage, like some barbarians, nor neglected the guarding of their women, like the Lacedaemonians, but have established many laws to keep them within bounds. And some have even appointed a magistrate to look after the good conduct of women; this provision, however, for their guarding was found insufficient and too weak to accomplish its purpose, being incapable of bringing the woman of unvirtuous nature to the necessity of a modest behaviour.

  [1] ὁ δὲ Ῥωμύλος οὔτε ἀνδρὶ κατὰ γυναικὸς ἐγκλήματα δοὺς φθαρείσης ἢ τὸν οἶκον ἀδίκως ἀπολιπούσης οὔτε γαμετῇ κατ᾽ ἀνδρὸς αἰτιωμένῃ κάκωσιν [p. 188] ἢ ἄδικον ἀπόλειψιν οὔτε περὶ προικὸς ἀποδόσεως ἢ κομιδῆς νόμους θεὶς οὔτε ἄλλο τῶν παραπλησίων τούτοις διορίσας οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν, ἕνα δὲ νόμον ὑπὲρ ἁπάντων εὖ ἔχοντα, ὡς αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα ἐδήλωσε, καταστησάμενος εἰς σωφροσύνην καὶ πολλὴν εὐκοσμίαν ἤγαγε τὰς γυναῖκας.

  [25.1] But Romulus, without giving either to the husband an action against his wife for adultery or for leaving his home without cause, or to the wife an action against her husband on the ground of ill-usage or for leaving her without reason, and without making any laws for the returning or recovery of the dowry, or regulating anything of this nature, by a single law which effectually provides for all these things, as the results themselves have shown, led the women to behave themselves with modesty and great decorum.

  [2] ἦν δὲ τοιός2δε ὁ νόμος: γυναῖκα γαμετὴν τὴν κατα γάμους ἱεροὺς συνελθοῦσαν ἀνδρὶ κοινωνὸν ἁπάντων εἶναι χρημάτων τε καὶ ἱερῶν. ἐκάλουν δὲ τοὺς ἱεροὺς καὶ νομίμους οἱ παλαιοὶ γάμους Ῥωμαϊκῇ προσηγορίᾳ περιλαμβάνοντες φαρραχείους ἐπὶ τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ φαρρός, ὃ καλοῦμεν ἡμεῖς ζέαν. αὕτη γὰρ ἦν ἀρχαία καὶ μέχρι πολλοῦ συνήθης ἅπασιν αὐτοῖς ἡ τροφή: φέρει δὲ πολλὴν καὶ καλὴν ἡ Ῥωμαίων γῆ τὴν ζέαν. καὶ ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς οἱ Ἕλληνες τὸν κρίθινον καρπὸν ἀρχαιότατον ὑπολαμβάνοντες ἐπὶ τῶν θυσιῶν κριθαῖς καταρχόμεθα οὐλὰς αὐτὰς καλοῦντες, οὕτω Ῥωμαῖοι τιμιώτατόν τε καρπὸν καὶ ἀρχαιότατον εἶναι νομίζοντες τὰς ζέας διὰ τούτων ἁπάσης ἐμπύρου θυσίας κατάρχονται. μένει γὰρ ἔτι καὶ οὐ μεταπέπτωκεν εἰς πολυτελεστέρας ἀπαρχὰς τὸ

  [2] The law was to this effect, that a woman joined to her husband by a holy marriage should share in all his possessions and sacred rites. The ancient Romans designated holy and lawful marriages by the term “farreate,” from the sharing of far, which we call zea; for this was the ancient and, for a long time, the ordinary food of all the Romans, and their country produces an abundance of excellent spelt. And as we Greeks regard barley as the most ancient grain, and for that reason begin our sacrifices with barley-corns which we call oulai, so the Romans, in the belief that spelt is both the most valuable and the most ancient of grains, in all burnt offerings begin the sacrifice with that. For this custom still remains, not having deteriorated into first-offerings of greater expense.

  [3] ἔθος. τὸ δὴ κοινωνοὺς τῆς ἱερωτάτης τε καὶ πρώτης τροφῆς γενέσθαι γυναῖκας ἀνδράσι καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ ὅλῃ συνελθεῖν τύχῃ τὴν μὲν ἐπίκλησιν τῆς κοινωνίας τοῦ [p. 189] φαρρὸς εἶχεν, εἰς σύνδεσμον δ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον οἰκειότητος ἔφερεν ἀδιαλύτου, καὶ τὸ διαιρῆσον τοὺς γάμους τούτους οὐδὲν ἦν.

  [3] The participation of the wives with their husbands in this holiest and first food and their union with them founded on the sharing of all their fortunes took its name from this sharing of the spelt and forged the compelling bond of an indissoluble union, and there was nothing that could annul these marriages.

  [4] οὗτος ὁ νόμος τάς τε γυναῖκας ἠνάγκασε τὰς γαμετάς, οἷα δὴ μηδεμίαν ἐχούσας ἑτέραν ἀποστροφήν, πρὸς ἕνα τὸν τοῦ γεγαμηκότος ζῆν τρόπον, καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ὡς ἀναγκαίου τε καὶ

  [4] This law obliged both the married women, as having no other refuge, to conform themselves entirely to the temper of their husbands, and the husbands to rule their wives as necessary and inseparable possessions.

  [5] ἀναφαιρέτου κτήματος τῆς γυναικὸς κρατεῖν. σωφρονοῦσα μὲν οὖν καὶ πάντα τῷ γεγαμηκότι πειθομένη γυνὴ κυρία τοῦ οἴκου τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἦν, ὅνπερ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ, καὶ τελευτήσαντος ἀνδρὸς κληρονόμος ἐγίνετο τῶν χρήματων, ὡς θυγάτηρ πατρός, εἰ μὲν ἄπαις τε καὶ μηδὲν διαθέμενος ἀποθάνοι πάντων οὖσα κυρία τῶν ἀπολειφθέντων, εἰ δὲ γενεὰν ἔχοι τοῖς παισὶν ἰσόμοιρος γινομένη.

  [5] Accordingly, if a wife was virtuous and in all things obedient to her husband, she was mistress of the house to the same degree as her husband was master of it, and after the death of her husband she was heir to his property in the same manner as a daughter was to that of her father; that is, if he died without children and intestate, she was mistress of all that he left, and if he had children, she shared equally with them. But if she did any wrong, the injured party was her judge and determined the degree of her punishment.

  [6] ἁμαρτάνουσα δέ τι δικαστὴν τὸν ἀδικούμενον ἐλάμβανε καὶ τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς τιμωρίας κύριον. ταῦτα δὲ οἱ συγγενεῖς μετὰ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐδίκαζον: ἐν οἷς ἦν φθορὰ σώματος καί, ὁ πάντων ἐλάχιστον ἁμαρτημάτων Ἕλλησι δόξειεν ἂν ὑπάρχειν, εἴ τις οἶνον εὑρεθείη πιοῦσα γυνή. ἀμφότερα γὰρ ταῦτα θανάτῳ ζημιοῦν συνεχώρησεν ὁ Ῥωμύλος, ὡς ἁμαρτημάτων γυναικείων αἴσχιστα, φθορὰν μὲν ἀπονοίας ἀρχὴν νομίσας, μέθην δὲ φθορᾶς.

  [6] Other offences, however, were judged by her relations together with her husband; among them was adultery, or where it was found she had drunk wine — a thing which the Greeks would look upon as the least of all faults. For Romulus permitte
d them to punish both these acts with death, as being the gravest offences women could be guilty of, since he looked upon adultery as the source of reckless folly, and drunkenness as the source of adultery.

  [7] καὶ μέχρι πολλοῦ διέμεινε χρόνου ταῦτ᾽ ἀμφότερα παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἀπαραιτήτου τυγχάνοντα ὀργῆς. μάρτυς δὲ τοῦ καλῶς ἔχειν τὸν περὶ τῶν γυναικῶν νόμον ὁ πολὺς χρόνος. ὁμολογεῖται γὰρ ἐντὸς ἐτῶν εἴκοσι καὶ πεντακοσίων [p. 190] μηδεὶς ἐν Ῥώμῃ λυθῆναι γάμος: κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἑβδόμην ἐπὶ ταῖς τριάκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ὀλυμπιάσιν ὑπατευόντων Μάρκου Πομπωνίου καὶ Γαΐου Παπιρίου πρῶτος ἀπολῦσαι λέγεται τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα Σπόριος Καρουΐλιος ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἀφανής, ἀναγκαζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν τιμητῶν ὀμόσαι τέκνων ἕνεκα γυναικὶ συνοικεῖν ῾ἦν δ᾽ αὐτῷ στείρα ἡ γυνή᾽, ὃς ἐπὶ τῷ ἔργῳ τούτῳ καίτοι δι᾽ ἀνάγκην γενομένῳ μισούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου διετέλεσεν.

  [7] And both these offences continued for a long time to be punished by the Romans with merciless severity. The wisdom of this law concerning wives is attested by the length of time it was in force; for it is agreed that during the space of five hundred and twenty years no marriage was ever dissolved at Rome. But it is said that in the one hundred and thirty-seventh Olympiad, in the consulship of Marcus Pomponius and Gaius Papirius, Spurius Carvilius, a man of distinction, was the first to divorce his wife, and that he was obliged by the censors to swear that he had married for the purpose of having children (his wife, it seems, was barren); yet because of his action, though it was based on necessity, he was ever afterwards hated by the people.