---
title: "Life of Numa · Νομᾶς"
author: "Plutarch"
translator: "Bernadotte Perrin"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Classical Greek"
section: 1 of 4
url: https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-numa/1/
cite: "Plutarch, tr. Bernadotte Perrin, Life of Numa · Νομᾶς, section 1. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-numa/1/"
---

# Life of Numa · Νομᾶς

*Plutarch, tr. Bernadotte Perrin*

Rome’s second king, a peaceful Sabine who gave the city its priesthoods, calendar and gods; with the Comparison of Lycurgus and Numa.

> Greek: ed. Bernadotte Perrin, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0007.tlg005, tlg0007.tlg006, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Bernadotte Perrin, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0007.tlg005.perseus-eng2, tlg0007.tlg006.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 1. Chapters 1–8

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-numa/1/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-numa/1/#p-N

[¶0] 1.1. There is likewise a vigorous dispute about the time at which King Numa lived, although from the beginning down to him the genealogies seem to be made out accurately. But a certain Clodius, in a book entitled An Examination of Chronology, insists that the ancient records were lost when the city was sacked by the Gauls, and that those which are now exhibited as such were forged, their compilers wishing to gratify the pride of certain persons by inserting their names among the first families and the most illustrious houses, where they had no cause to appear.

> Greek: 1.1. ἔστι δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν Νομᾶ τοῦ βασιλέως χρόνων, καθʼ οὓς γέγονε, νεανικὴ διαφορά, καίπερ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰς τοῦτον κατάγεσθαι τῶν στεμμάτων ἀκριβῶς δοκούντων. ἀλλὰ Κλώδιός τις ἐν ἐλέγχῳ χρόνων οὕτω γάρ πως ἐπιγέγραπται τὸ βιβλίον ἰσχυρίζεται τὰς μὲν ἀρχαίας ἐκείνας ἀναγραφὰς ἐν τοῖς Κελτικοῖς πάθεσι τῆς πόλεως ἠφανίσθαι, τὰς δὲ νῦν φαινομένας οὐκ ἀληθῶς συγκεῖσθαι διʼ ἀνδρῶν χαριζομένων τισὶν εἰς τὰ πρῶτα γένη καὶ τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους οἴκους ἐξ οὐ προσηκόντων εἰσβιαζομένοις.

[¶1] 1.2. Accordingly, when it is said that Numa was an intimate friend of Pythagoras, some deny utterly that Numa had any Greek culture, holding either that he was naturally capable of attaining excellence by his own efforts, or that the culture of the king was due to some Barbarian superior to Pythagoras. Others say that Pythagoras the philosopher lived as many as five generations after Numa, but that there was another Pythagoras, the Spartan, who was Olympic victor in the foot-race for the sixteenth Olympiad (in the third year of which Numa was made king), and that in his wanderings about Italy he made the acquaintance of Numa, and helped him arrange the government of the city, whence it came about that many Spartan customs were mingled with the Roman, as Pythagoras taught them to Numa. And at all events, Numa was of Sabine descent, and the Sabines will have it that they were colonists from Lacedaemon.

> Greek: 1.2. λεγομένου δὲ οὖν ὡς Νομᾶς γένοιτο Πυθαγόρου συνήθης, οἱ μὲν ὅλως ἀξιοῦσι μηδὲν Ἑλληνικῆς παιδεύσεως Νομᾷ μετεῖναι, καθάπερ ἢ φύσει δυνατὸν καὶ αὐτάρκη γενέσθαι πρὸς ἀρετὴν ἢ βελτίονι Πυθαγόρου βαρβάρῳ τινὶ τὴν τοῦ βασιλέως ἀποδοῦναι παίδευσιν οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν μὲν ὀψὲ γενέσθαι, τῶν Νομᾶ χρόνων ὁμοῦ τι πέντε γενεαῖς ἀπολειπόμενον, Πυθαγόρου δὲ τὸν Σπαρτιάτην Ὀλύμπια νενικηκότα στάδιον ἐπὶ τῆς ἑκκαιδεκάτης Ὀλυμπιάδος, ἧς ἔτει τρίτῳ Νομᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν κατέστη, πλανηθέντα περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν συγγενέσθαι τῷ Νομᾷ καὶ συνδιακοσμῆσαι τὴν πολιτείαν, ὅθεν οὐκ ὀλίγα τοῖς Ῥωμαϊκοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι τῶν Λακωνικῶν ἀναμεμῖχθαι Πυθαγόρου διδάξαντος, ἄλλως δὲ Νομᾶς γένος μὲν ἦν ἐκ Σαβίνων, Σαβῖνοι δὲ βούλονται Λακεδαιμονίων ἑαυτοὺς ἀποίκους γεγονέναι.

[¶2] 1.4. Chronology, however, is hard to fix, and especially that which is based on the names of victors in the Olympic games, the list of which is said to have been published at a late period by Hippias of Elis, who had no fully authoritative basis for his work. I shall therefore begin at a convenient point, and relate the noteworthy facts which I have found in the life of Numa.

> Greek: 1.4. τοὺς μὲν οὖν χρόνους ἐξακριβῶσαι χαλεπόν ἐστι, καὶ μάλιστα τοὺς ἐκ τῶν Ὀλυμπιονικῶν ἀναγομένους, ὧν τὴν ἀναγραφὴν ὀψέ φασιν Ἱππίαν ἐκδοῦναι τὸν Ἠλεῖον, ἀπʼ οὐδενὸς ὁρμώμενον ἀναγκαίου πρὸς πίστιν ἃ δὲ παρειλήφαμεν ἡμεῖς ἄξια λόγου περὶ Νομᾶ, διέξιμεν ἀρχὴν οἰκείαν λαβόντες.

[¶3] 2.1. For thirty-seven years, now, Rome had been built and Romulus had been its king; and on the fifth of the month of July, which day they now call the Capratine Nones, Romulus was offering a public sacrifice outside the city at the so-called Goat’s Marsh, in the presence of the senate and most of the people.

> Greek: 2.1. ἕβδομον ἐνιαυτὸν ἡ Ῥώμη καὶ τριακοστὸν ἤδη Ῥωμύλου βασιλεύοντος ᾠκεῖτο· πέμπτῃ δὲ ἱσταμένου μηνός, ἣν νῦν ἡμέραν νώνας Καπρατίνας καλοῦσι, θυσίαν τινὰ δημοτελῆ πρὸ τῆς πόλεως ὁ Ῥωμύλος ἔθυε περὶ τὸ καλούμενον Αἰγὸς ἕλος, καὶ παρῆν ἥ τε βουλὴ καὶ τοῦ δήμου τὸ πλεῖστον.

[¶4] 2.2. Suddenly there was a great commotion in the air, and a cloud descended upon the earth bringing with it blasts of wind and rain. The throng of common folk were terrified and fled in all directions, but Romulus disappeared, and was never found again either alive or dead. Upon this a grievous suspicion attached itself to the patricians, and an accusing story was current among the people to the effect that they had long been weary of kingly rule, and desired to transfer the power to themselves, and had therefore made away with the king. And indeed it had been noticed for some time that he treated them with greater harshness and arrogance.

> Greek: 2.2. ἐξαίφνης δὲ μεγάλης περὶ τὸν ἀέρα τροπῆς γενομένης καὶ νέφους ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἐρείσαντος ἅμα πνεύματι καὶ ζάλῃ, τὸν μὲν ἄλλον ὅμιλον ἐκπλαγέντα συνέβη φυγεῖν καὶ σκεδασθῆναι, τὸν δὲ Ῥωμύλον ἀφανῆ γενέσθαι, καὶ μήτε αὐτὸν ἔτι μήτε σῶμα τεθνηκότος εὑρεθῆναι, χαλεπὴν δὲ τινʼ ὑπόνοιαν ἅψασθαι τῶν πατρικίων, καὶ ῥυῆναι λόγον ἐν τῷ δήμῳ κατʼ αὑτῶν ὡς πάλαι βαρυνόμενοι τὸ βασιλεύεσθαι καὶ μεταστῆσαι τὸ κράτος εἰς αὑτοὺς θέλοντες ἀνέλοιεν τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ γάρ ἐδόκει τραχύτερον ἤδη προσφέρεσθαι καὶ μοναρχικώτερον αὐτοῖς.

[¶5] 2.3. This suspicion the patricians sought to remove by ascribing divine honours to Romulus, on the ground that he was not dead, but blessed with a better lot. And Proculus, a man of eminence, took oath that he had seen Romulus ascending to heaven in full armour, and had heard his voice commanding that he be called Quirinus.

> Greek: 2.3. ἀλλὰ ταύτην μὲν τὴν ὑποψίαν ἐθεράπευον εἰς θεῶν τιμὰς ἀνάγοντες ὡς οὐ τεθνηκότα τὸν Ῥωμύλον, ἀλλὰ κρείττονος ὄντα μοίρας· καὶ Πρόκλος, ἀνὴρ ἐπιφανής, διωμόσατο Ῥωμύλον ἰδεῖν εἰς οὐρανὸν σὺν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἀναφερόμενον, καὶ φωνῆς ἀκοῦσαι κελεύοντος αὐτὸν ὀνομάζεσθαι Κυρῖνον.

[¶6] 2.4. The city was now beset with fresh disturbance and faction over the king to be appointed in his stead, for the new comers were not yet altogether blended with the original citizens, but the commonalty was still like a surging sea, and the patricians full of jealousy towards one another on account of their different nationalities. It is indeed true that it was the pleasure of all to have a king, but they wrangled and quarrelled, not only about the man who should be their leader, but also about the tribe which should furnish him.

> Greek: 2.4. ἑτέρα δὲ ταραχὴ καὶ στάσις κατελάμβανε τὴν πόλιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἀποδειχθήσεσθαι βασιλέως, οὔπω τῶν ἐπηλύδων κομιδῇ τοῖς πρώτοις συγκεκραμένων πολίταις, ἀλλʼ ἔτι τοῦ τε δήμου πολλὰ κυμαίνοντος ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ τῶν πατρικίων ἐν ὑποψίαις ἐκ τοῦ διαφόρου πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὄντων, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ βασιλεύεσθαι μὲν ἐδόκει πᾶσιν, ἤρισαν δὲ καὶ διέστησαν οὐχ ὑπὲρ ἀνδρὸς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ γένους, ὁπότερον παρέξει τὸν ἡγεμόνα, καὶ γάρ οἱ μετὰ Ῥωμύλου·

[¶7] 2.5. For those who had built the city with Romulus at the outset thought it intolerable that the Sabines, after getting a share in the city and its territory, should insist on ruling those who had received them into such privileges; and the Sabines, since on the death of their king Tatius they had raised no faction against Romulus, but suffered him to rule alone, had a reasonable ground for demanding that now the ruler should come from them. They would not admit that they had added themselves as inferiors to superiors, but held rather that their addition had brought the strength of numbers and advanced both parties alike to the dignity of a city. On these questions, then, they were divided into factions.

> Greek: 2.5. πρῶτοι συνοικίσαντες τὴν πόλιν οὐκ ἀνασχετὸν ἐποιοῦντο πόλεως καὶ χώρας τοὺς Σαβίνους μεταλαβόντας ἄρχειν βιάζεσθαι τῶν ἐπὶ ταῦτα δεξαμένων, καὶ τοῖς Σαβίνοις ἦν τις εὐγνώμων λόγος, ἐπεὶ Τατίου τοῦ βασιλέως αὑτῶν ἀποθανόντος οὐκ ἐστασίασαν πρὸς Ῥωμύλον, ἀλλʼ εἴασαν ἄρχειν μόνον, αὖθις ἀξιούντων τὸν ἄρχοντα γενέσθαι παρʼ αὑτῶν, οὔτε γάρ ἐκ ταπεινοτέρων κρείττοσι προσγενέσθαι, καὶ προσγενόμενοι πλήθει τε ῥῶσαι καὶ προαγαγεῖν εἰς ἀξίωμα πόλεως ἐκείνους μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν, ὑπὲρ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἐστασίαζον.

[¶8] 2.6. But in order that their factions might not produce utter confusion from the absence of all authority, now that the administration of affairs was suspended, it was arranged by the senators, who were one hundred and fifty in number, that each of them in his turn should assume the insignia of royalty, make the customary sacrifices to the gods, and transact public business, for the space of six hours by day and six hours by night.

> Greek: 2.6. ὅπως δὲ μὴ σύγχυσιν ἐκ τῆς ἀναρχίας ἡ στάσις ἀπεργάσεται, μετεώρου τοῦ πολιτεύματος ὄντος, ἔταξαν οἱ πατρίκιοι, πεντήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν ὄντων αὑτῶν, ἕκαστον ἐν μέρει τοῖς βασιλικοῖς παρασήμοις κοσμούμενον θύειν τε τοῖς θεοῖς τὰ νενομισμένα καὶ χρηματίζειν ἓξ μὲν ὥρας τῆς νυκτός, ἓξ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας.

[¶9] 2.7. This distribution of times seemed well adapted to secure equality between the two factions, and the transfer of power likely to remove all jealousy on the part of the people, when they saw the same man, in the course of a single day and night, become king and then a private citizen again. This form of government the Romans call interregnum.

> Greek: 2.7. καὶ γὰρ ἡ διανομὴ τῶν καιρῶν ἑκατέρου πρὸς ἱσότητα καλῶς ἔχειν ἐδόκει τοῖς ἄρχουσι, καὶ πρὸς τὸν δῆμον ἡ μεταβολὴ τῆς ἐξουσίας ἀφαιρεῖν τὸν φθόνον, ὁρῶντα τῆς αὐτῆς ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς τὸν αὐτὸν ἰδιώτην ἐκ βασιλέως γινόμενον. τὸ δὲ σχῆμα τοῦτο τῆς ἀρχῆς μεσοβασιλείαν Ῥωμαῖοι καλοῦσιν.

[¶10] 3.1. But although in this way the senators were thought to rule constitutionally and without oppression, they roused suspicions and clamorous charges that they had changed the form of government to an oligarchy, and were holding the state in tutelage among themselves, and were unwilling to be ruled by a king. Therefore it was agreed by both factions that one should appoint a king from the other.

> Greek: 3.1. ἀλλὰ καίπερ οὕτω πολιτικῶς καὶ ἀνεπαχθῶς ἀφηγεῖσθαι δοκοῦντες, ὑπονοίαις καὶ θορύβοις περιέπιπτον, ὡς μεθιστάντες εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν τὰ πράγματα καὶ διαπαιδαγωγοῦντες ἐν σφίσιν αὐτοῖς τὴν πολιτείαν, βασιλεύεσθαι δὲ οὐκ ἐθέλοιεν. ἐκ τούτου συνέβησαν ἀμφότεραι πρὸς ἀλλήλας αἱ στάσεις, ὥστε τὴν ἑτέραν ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας ἀποδεῖξαι βασιλέα·

[¶11] 3.2. This was thought the best way to end their prevailing partisanship, and the king thus appointed would be equally well-disposed to both parties, being gracious to the one as his electors, and friendly to the other because of his kinship with them. Then, as the Sabines gave the Romans their option in the matter, it seemed to them better to have a Sabine king of their own nomination, than to have a Roman made king by the Sabines.

> Greek: 3.2. μάλιστα γάρ ἂν οὕτως ἔν τε τῷ παρόντι παύσασθαι τὴν φιλονεικίαν, καὶ τὸν ἀποδειχθέντα πρὸς ἀμφοτέρους ἴσον γενέσθαι, τοὺς μὲν ὡς ἑλομένους ἀγαπῶντα, τοῖς δὲ εὔνουν ὄντα διὰ συγγένειαν, ἐπιτρεψάντων δὲ προτέροις τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις τῶν Σαβίνων τὴν αἵρεσιν, ἔδοξε μᾶλλον ἑλέσθαι Σαβῖνον αὐτοὺς ἀποδείξαντας ἢ παρασχεῖν Ῥωμαῖον ἐκείνων ἑλομένων.

[¶12] 3.3. They took counsel, therefore, among themselves, and nominated Numa Pompilius from among the Sabines, a man who had not joined the emigrants to Rome, but was so universally celebrated for his virtues that, when he was nominated, the Sabines accepted him with even greater readiness than those who had chosen him. Accordingly, after making their decision known to the people, the leading senators of both parties were sent as ambassadors to Numa, begging him to come and assume the royal power.

> Greek: 3.3. καὶ βουλευσάμενοι καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς ἀποδεικνύουσιν ἐκ Σαβίνων Νομᾶν Πομπίλιον, ἄνδρα τῶν μὲν εἰς Ῥώμην ἀπῳκισμένων οὐ γενόμενον. γνώριμον δ’ οὕτω διʼ ἀρετὴν ὄντα πᾶσιν ὥστε τῶν ἑλομένων προθυμότερον ὀνομασθέντος αὐτοῦ δέξασθαι τοὺς Σαβίνους, φράσαντες οὖν τῷ δήμῳ τὰ δεδογμένα, πρέσβεις ἐκπέμπουσι πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα κοινῇ τοὺς πρωτεύοντας ἀπʼ ἀμφοτέρων, ἥκειν δεησομένους καὶ παραλαβεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.

[¶13] 3.4. Numa belonged to a conspicuous city of the Sabines called Cures, from which the Romans, together with the incorporated Sabines, took the joint name of Quirites. He was a son of Pompon, an illustrious man, and was the youngest of four brothers. He was born, moreover, by some divine felicity, on the very day when Rome was founded by Romulus, that is, the twenty-first day of April.

> Greek: 3.4. ἦν δὲ πόλεως μὲν ὁ Νομᾶς ἐπιφανοῦς ἐν Σαβίνοις τῆς Κύρεων, ἀφʼ ἧς καὶ Κυρίτας Ῥωμαῖοι σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἅμα τοῖς ἀνακραθεῖσι Σαβίνοις προσηγόρευσαν, υἱὸς δὲ Πόμπωνος, ἀνδρὸς εὐδοκίμου, τεσσάρων ἀδελφῶν νεώτατος· ἡμέρᾳ δὲ γεγονὼς κατὰ δή τινα θείαν τύχην ἐν ᾗ τὴν Ῥώμην ἔκτισαν οἱ περὶ Ῥωμύλον αὕτη δὲ ἐστι πρὸ δεκαμιᾶς καλανδῶν Μαΐων.

[¶14] 3.5. By natural temperament he was inclined to the practice of every virtue, and he had subdued himself still more by discipline, endurance of hardships, and the study of wisdom. He had thus put away from himself not only the infamous passions of the soul, but also that violence and rapacity which are in such high repute among Barbarians, believing that true bravery consisted in the subjugation of one’s passions by reason.

> Greek: 3.5. φύσει δὲ πρὸς πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν εὖ κεκραμένος τὸ ἦθος, ἔτι μᾶλλον αὑτὸν ἐξημέρωσε διὰ παιδείας καὶ κακοπαθείας καὶ φιλοσοφίας, οὐ μόνον τὰ λοιδορούμενα πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν εὐδοκιμοῦσαν ἐν τοῖς βαρβάροις βίαν καὶ πλεονεξίαν ἐκποδὼν ποιησάμενος, ἀνδρείαν δὲ ἀληθῆ τὴν ὑπὸ λόγου τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐν αὑτῷ κάθειρξιν ἡγούμενος.

[¶15] 3.6. On this account he banished from his house all luxury and extravagance, and while citizen and stranger alike found in him a faultless judge and counsellor, he devoted his hours of privacy and leisure, not to enjoyments and money-making, but to the service of the gods, and the rational contemplation of their nature and power. In consequence he had a great name and fame, so that Tatius, the royal colleague of Romulus at Rome, made him the husband of his only daughter, Tatia.

> Greek: 3.6. ἐκ δὲ τούτου πᾶσαν οἴκοθεν ἅμα τρυφὴν καὶ πολυτέλειαν ἐξελαύνων, παντὶ δὲ πολίτῃ καὶ ξένῳ χρῆσθαι παρέχων ἑαυτὸν ἄμεμπτον δικαστὴν καὶ σύμβουλον, αὐτὸς δ’ ἑαυτῷ σχολάζοντι χρώμενος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡδυπαθείας καὶ πορισμούς, ἀλλὰ θεραπείαν θεῶν καὶ θεωρίαν διὰ λόγου φύσεώς τε αὐτῶν καὶ δυνάμεως, ὄνομα μέγα καὶ δόξαν εἶχεν, ὥστε καὶ Τάτιον τὸν ἐν Ῥώμῃ συμβασιλεύσαντα Ῥωμύλῳ, μιᾶς αὐτῷ θυγατρὸς οὔσης Τατίας, ποιήσασθαι γαμβρὸν ἐκεῖνον.

[¶16] 3.7. He was not, however, so exalted by his marriage as to go to dwell with his royal father-in-law, but remained among the Sabines ministering to his aged father. Tatia, too, preferred the quiet life which her husband led as a private citizen to the honour and fame which she had enjoyed at Rome because of her father. But she died, as we are told, in the thirteenth year after her marriage.

> Greek: 3.7. οὐ μὴν ἐπήρθη γε τῷ γάμῳ μετοικίσασθαι πρὸς τὸν πενθερόν, ἀλλʼ αὐτοῦ περιέπων πατέρα γηραιὸν ἐν Σαβίνοις ὑπέμενεν, ἅμα καὶ τῆς Τατίας ἑλομένης τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἰδιωτεύοντος ἡσυχίαν πρὸ τῆς ἐν Ῥώμῃ διὰ τὸν πατέρα τιμῆς καὶ δόξης, αὕτη μὲν οὖν λέγεται τρίτῳ καὶ δεκάτῳ μετὰ τὸν γάμον ἔτει τελευτῆσαι.

[¶17] 4.1. Then Numa, forsaking the ways of city folk, determined to live for the most part in country places, and to wander there alone, passing his days in groves of the gods, sacred meadows, and solitudes. This, more than anything else, gave rise to the story about his goddess. It was not, so the story ran, from any distress or aberration of spirit that he forsook the ways of men, but he had tasted the joy of more august companionship and had been honoured with a celestial marriage; the goddess Egeria loved him and bestowed herself upon him, and it was his communion with her that gave him a life of blessedness and a wisdom more than human.

> Greek: 4.1. ὁ δὲ Νομᾶς ἐκλείπων τὰς ἐν ἄστει διατριβὰς ἀγραυλεῖν τὰ πολλὰ καὶ πλανᾶσθαι μόνος ἤθελεν, ἐν ἄλσεσι θεῶν καὶ λειμῶσιν ἱεροῖς καὶ τόποις ἐρήμοις ποιούμενος τὴν δίαιταν. ὅθεν οὐχ ἥκιστα τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ περὶ τῆς θεᾶς ἔλαβε λόγος, ὡς ἄρα Νομᾶς ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἀδημονίᾳ τινὶ ψυχῆς καὶ πλάνῃ τὸν μετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέλοιπε βίον, ἀλλὰ σεμνοτέρας γεγευμένος ὁμιλίας καὶ γάμων θείων ἠξιωμένος, Ἠγερίᾳ δαίμονι συνὼν ἐρώσῃ καὶ συνδιαιτώμενος, εὐδαίμων ἀνήρ καὶ τὰ θεῖα πεπνυμένος γέγονεν.

[¶18] 4.2. However, that this story resembles many of the very ancient tales which the Phrygians have received and cherished concerning Attis, the Bithynians concerning Herodotus, the Arcadians concerning Endymion, and other peoples concerning other mortals who were thought to have achieved a life of blessedness in the love of the gods, is quite evident.

> Greek: 4.2. ὅτι μὲν οὖν ταῦτα πολλοῖς τῶν πάνυ παλαιῶν μύθων ἔοικεν, οὓς οἱ Φρύγες τε περὶ Ἄττεω καὶ Βιθυνοὶ περὶ Ἡροδότου καὶ περὶ Ἐνδυμίωνος Ἀρκάδες ἄλλοι τε περὶ ἄλλων εὐδαιμόνων δή τινων καὶ θεοφιλῶν γενέσθαι δοκούντων παραλαβόντες ἠγάπησαν, οὐκ ἄδηλόν ἔστι.

[¶19] 4.3. And there is some reason in supposing that Deity, who is not a lover of horses or birds, but a lover of men, should be willing to consort with men of superlative goodness, and should not dislike or disdain the company of a wise and holy man. But that an immortal god should take carnal pleasure in a mortal body and its beauty, this, surely, is hard to believe.

> Greek: 4.3. καί που λόγον ἔχει τὸν θεόν, οὐ φίλιππον οὐδὲ φίλορνιν, ἀλλὰ φιλάνθρωπον ὄντα, τοῖς διαφερόντως ἀγαθοῖς ἐθέλειν συνεῖναι, καὶ μὴ δυσχεραίνειν μηδὲ ἀτιμάζειν ἀνδρὸς ὁσίου καὶ σώφρονος ὁμιλίαν. ὡς δὲ καὶ σώματος ἀνθρωπίνου καὶ ὥρας ἐστί τις θεῷ καὶ δαίμονι κοινωνία καὶ χάρις, ἔργον ἤδη καὶ τοῦτο πεισθῆναι.

[¶20] 4.4. And yet the Aegyptians make a distinction here which is thought plausible, namely, that while a woman can be approached by a divine spirit and made pregnant, there is no such thing as carnal intercourse and communion between a man and a divinity. But they lose sight of the fact that intercourse is a reciprocal matter, and that both parties to it enter into a like communion. However, that a god should have affection for a man, and a so-called love which is based upon affection, and takes the form of solicitude for his character and his virtue, is fit and proper.

> Greek: 4.4. καίτοι δοκοῦσιν οὐκ ἀπιθάνως Αἰγύπτιοι διαιρεῖν ὡς γυναικὶ μὲν οὐκ ἀδύνατον πνεῦμα πλησιάσαι θεοῦ καί τινας ἐντεκεῖν ἀρχὰς γενέσεως, ἀνδρὶ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι σύμμιξις πρὸς θεὸν οὐδὲ ὁμιλία σώματος. ἀγνοοῦσι δὲ ὅτι τὸ μιγνύμενον ᾧ μίγνυται τὴν ἴσην ἀνταποδίδωσι κοινωνίαν. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ φιλίαν γε πρὸς ἄνθρωπον εἶναι θεῷ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ ταύτῃ λεγόμενον ἔρωτα καὶ φυόμενον εἰς ἐπιμέλειαν ἤθους καὶ ἀρετῆς, πρέπον ἂν εἴη.

[¶21] 4.5. And therefore it is no mistake when the ancient poets tell their tales of the love Apollo bore Phorbas, Hyacinthus, and Admetus, as well as the Sicyonian Hippolytus also, of whom it is said, that, as often as he set out to sail from Sicyon to Cirrha, the Pythian priestess, as though the god knew of his coming and rejoiced thereat, chanted this prophetic verse:—
Lo, once more doth beloved Hippolytus hither make voyage.

> Greek: 4.5. καὶ οὐ πλημμελοῦσιν οἱ τὸν Φόρβαντα καὶ τὸν Ὑάκινθον καὶ τὸν Ἄδμητον ἐρωμένους Ἀπόλλωνος γεγονέναι μυθολογοῦντες, ὥσπερ αὖ καὶ τὸν Σικυώνιον Ἱππόλυτον, ᾧ δὴ καί φασιν, ὁσάκις τύχοι διαπλέων εἰς Κίρραν ἐκ Σικυῶνος, τὴν Πυθίαν, οἷον αἰσθανομένου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ χαίροντος, ἀποθεσπίζειν τόδε τὸ ἡρῷον καὶ δ’ αὖθʼ Ἱππολύτοιο φίλον κάρα εἰς ἅλα βαίνει.

[¶22] 4.6. There is a legend, too, that Pan became enamoured of Pindar and his verses. And the divine powers bestowed signal honour on Archilochus and Hesiod after their deaths, for the sake of the Muses. Again, there is a story, still well attested, that Sophocles, during his life, was blessed with the friendship of Aesculapius, and that when he died, another deity procured him fitting burial.

> Greek: 4.6. Πινδάρου δὲ καὶ τῶν μελῶν ἐραστὴν γενέσθαι τὸν Πᾶνα μυθολογοῦσιν. ἀπέδωκε δέ τινα τιμὴν καὶ Ἀρχιλόχῳ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ τελευτήσασι διὰ τὰς Μούσας τὸ δαιμόνιον. Σοφοκλεῖ δὲ καὶ ζῶντι τὸν Ἀσκληπιὸν ἐπιξενωθῆναι λόγος ἐστὶ πολλὰ μέχρι δεῦρο διασώζων τεκμήρια, καὶ τελευτήσαντι τυχεῖν ταφῆς ἄλλος θεός, ὡς λέγεται, παρέσχεν.

[¶23] 4.7. Is it worth while, then, if we concede these instances of divine favour, to disbelieve that Zaleucus, Minos, Zoroaster, Numa, and Lycurgus, who piloted kingdoms and formulated constitutions, had frequent audience of the Deity? Is it not likely, rather, that the gods are in earnest when they hold converse with such men as these, in order to instruct and advise them in the highest and best way, but use poets and warbling singers, if at all, for their own diversion?

> Greek: 4.7. ἆρα οὖν ἄξιὸν ἔστι, ταῦτα συγχωροῦντας ἐπὶ τούτων, ἀπιστεῖν εἰ Ζαλεύκῳ καὶ Μίνῳ καὶ Ζωροάστρῃ καὶ Νομᾷ καὶ Λυκούργῳ βασιλείας κυβερνῶσι καὶ πολιτείας διακοσμοῦσιν εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ ἐφοίτα τὸ δαιμόνιον, ἢ τούτοις μὲν εἰκὸς ἔστι καὶ σπουδάζοντας θεοὺς ὁμιλεῖν ἐπὶ διδασκαλίᾳ καὶ παραινέσει τῶν βελτίστων, ποιηταῖς δὲ καὶ λυρικοῖς μινυρίζουσιν, εἴπερ ρ ἄρα, χρῆσθαι παίζοντας;

[¶24] 4.8. However, if any one is otherwise minded, I say with Bacchylides, “Broad is the way.” Indeed there is no absurdity in the other account which is given of Lycurgus and Numa and their like, namely, that since they were managing headstrong and captious multitudes, and introducing great innovations in modes of government, they pretended to get a sanction from the god, which sanction was the salvation of the very ones against whom it was contrived.

> Greek: 4.8. εἰ δὲ λέγει τις ἄλλως, κατὰ Βακχυλίδην, πλατεῖα κέλευθος. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἅτερος λόγος ἔχει τι φαῦλον, ὃν περὶ Λυκούργου καὶ Νομᾶ καὶ τοιούτων ἄλλων ἀνδρῶν λέγουσιν, ὡς δυσκάθεκτα καὶ δυσάρεστα πλήθη χειρούμενοι καὶ μεγάλας ς ἐπιφέροντες ταῖς πολιτείαις καινοτομίας, προσεποιήσαντο τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ δόξαν, αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις πρὸς οὓς ἐσχηματίζοντο σωτήριον οὖσαν.

[¶25] 5.1. But to resume the story, Numa was already completing his fortieth year when the embassy came from Rome inviting him to take the throne. The speakers were Proculus and Velesus, one or the other of whom the people was expected to choose as their king, Proculus being the favourite of the people of Romulus, and Velesus of the people of Tatius. These speakers, then, were brief supposing that Numa would welcome his good fortune.

> Greek: 5.1. ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἔτος ἤδη διατελοῦντι τῷ Νομᾷ τεσσαρακοστὸν ἧκον ἀπὸ Ῥώμης οἱ πρέσβεις παρακαλοῦντες ἐπὶ τὴν βασιλείαν. τοὺς δὲ λόγους ἐποιήσατο Πρόκλος καὶ Οὐέλεσος, ὧν πρότερον ἐπίδοξος ἦν ὁ δῆμος αἱρήσεσθαι τὸν ἕτερον βασιλέα, Πρόκλῳ μὲν τῶν Ῥωμύλου λαῶν, Οὐελέσῳ δὲ τῶν Τατίου μάλιστα προσεχόντων. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν βραχέα διελέχθησαν, οἰόμενοι τῷ Νομᾷ τὴν συντυχίαν ἀσπαζομένῳ γεγονέναι·

[¶26] 5.2. It was, however, no slight task, but one requiring much argument and entreaty, to persuade and induce a man who had lived in peace and quiet, to accept the government of a city which owed its existence and growth, in a fashion, to war. His reply, therefore, in the presence of his father and one of his kinsmen named Marcius, was as follows. “Every change in a man’s life is perilous; but when a man knows no lack, and has no fault to find with his present lot, nothing short of madness can change his purposes and remove him from his wonted course of life, which, even though it have no other advantage, is at least fixed and secure, and therefore better than one which is all uncertain.” “But the lot of one who becomes your king cannot even be called uncertain, judging from the experience of Romulus, since he himself was accused of basely plotting against his colleague Tatius, and involved the patricians in the charge of having basely put their king out of the way. And yet those who bring these accusations laud Romulus as a child of the gods, and tell how he was preserved in an incredible way and fed in a miraculous manner when he was still an infant. But I am of mortal birth, and I was nourished and trained by men whom you know.”

> Greek: 5.2. ἦν δ’ οὐ μικρόν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἔργον, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγων πολλῶν καὶ δεήσεως τὸ πεῖσαι καὶ μεταστῆσαι γνώμην ἀνδρὸς ἐν ἡσυχία καὶ εἰρήνῃ βεβιωκότος εἰς ἀρχὴν πόλεως τρόπον τινὰ καὶ γεγενημένης πολέμῳ καὶ συνηυξημένης. ἔλεγεν οὖν τοῦ τε πατρὸς αὐτοῦ παρόντος καὶ Μαρκίου, τῶν συγγενῶν ἑνός, ὡς πᾶσα μὲν ἀνθρωπίνου βίου μεταβολὴ σφαλερὸν ᾧ δὲ μήτʼ ἄπεστί τι τῶν ἱκανῶν μήτε μεμπτόν ἐστι τῶν παρόντων, τοῦτον οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ἄνοια μετακοσμεῖ καὶ μεθίστησιν ἐκ τῶν συνήθων οἷς κἂν εἰ μηδὲν ἕτερον προσείη, τῷ βεβαιοτέρῳ διαφέρει τῶν ἀδήλων, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ ἄδηλα τὰ τῆς βασιλείας τοῖς Ῥωμύλου τεκμαιρομένῳ παθήμασιν, ὡς πονηρὰν μὲν αὐτὸς ἔλαβε δόξαν ἐπιβουλεῦσαι τῷ συνάρχοντι Τατίῳ, πονηρὰν δὲ τοῖς ὁμοτίμοις περιεποίησεν ὡς ἀνῃρημένος ὑπʼ αὐτῶν, καίτοι Ῥωμύλον μὲν οὗτοι παῖδα θεῶν ὑμνοῦσι φήμαις, καὶ τροφήν τινα δαιμόνιον αὐτοῦ καὶ σωτηρίαν ἄπιστον ἔτι νηπίου λέγουσιν ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ γένος θνητόν ἐστι καὶ τροφὴ καὶ παίδευσις ὑπʼ ἀνθρώπων ὧν οὐκ ἀγνοεῖτε γεγενημένη·

[¶27] 5.4. “Moreover, the very traits in my disposition which are commended, are far from marking a man destined to be a king, namely, my great love of retirement, my devotion to studies inconsistent with the usual activities of men, and my well-known strong and inveterate love of peace, of unwarlike occupations, and of men who come together only for the worship of the gods and for friendly intercourse, but who otherwise live by themselves as tillers of the soil or herdsmen.”

> Greek: 5.4. τὰ δ’ ἐπαινούμενα τοῦ τρόπου βασιλεύειν πόρρω μέλλοντος ἀνδρός, ἡσυχία τε πολλὴ καὶ διατριβὴ περὶ λόγους ἀπράγμονας, ὅ τε δεινὸς οὗτος καὶ σύντροφος εἰρήνης ἔρως καὶ πραγμάτων ἀπολέμων καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἐπὶ τιμῇ θεῶν καὶ φιλοφροσύναις εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ συνιόντων, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα καθʼ ἑαυτοὺς γεωργούντων ἢ νεμόντων.

[¶28] 5.5. “Whereas, unto you, O Romans, whether you want them or not, Romulus has bequeathed many wars, and to make head against these the city needs a king with a warrior’s experience and strength. Besides, the people has become much accustomed to war, and eager for it because of their successes, and no one is blind to their desire for growth by conquest. I should therefore become a laughing-stock if I sought to serve the gods, and taught men to honour justice and hate violence and war, in a city which desires a leader of its armies rather than a king.”

> Greek: 5.5. ὑμῖν δέ, ὦ Ῥωμαῖοι, πολλοὺς μὲν ἴσως ἀβουλήτους ἀπολέλοιπε πολέμους Ῥωμύλος, οἷς ἀντερείδοντος ἡ πόλις ἐμπείρου δεῖται βασιλέως καὶ ἀκμάζοντος· πολλὴ δὲ καὶ συνήθεια καὶ προθυμία διʼ εὐτυχίαν γέγονε τῷ δήμῳ, καὶ οὐδένα λέληθεν αὔξεσθαι καὶ κρατεῖν ἑτέρων βουλόμενος, ὥστε καὶ γέλως ἂν εἴη τἀμά, θεραπεύοντος θεούς, καὶ δίκην τιμᾶν, βίαν δὲ καὶ πόλεμον ἐχθαίρειν διδάσκοντος πόλιν στρατηλάτου μᾶλλον ἢ βασιλέως δεομένην.

[¶29] 6.1. With such words did Numa decline the kingdom. Then the Romans put forth every effort to meet his objections, and begged him not to plunge them again into faction and civil war, since there was none other on whom both parties could unite. His father also and Marcius, when the envoys had withdrawn, beset him privately, and tried to persuade him to accept so great a gift of the gods.

> Greek: 6.1. τοιούτοις λόγοις ἀφοσιουμένου τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ ἀνδρός, οἵ τε Ῥωμαῖοι πᾶσαν ἐποιοῦντο σπουδὴν ἀντιβολοῦντες καὶ δεόμενοι μὴ σφᾶς αὖθις εἰς στάσιν ἐμβαλεῖν καὶ πόλεμον ἐμφύλιον, οὐκ ὄντος ἑτέρου πρὸς ὃν ἀμφότεραι συννεύσουσιν αἱ στάσεις, ὅ τε πατήρ καὶ ὁ Μάρκιος ἐκείνων μεταστάντων ἰδίᾳ προσκείμενοι τὸν Νομᾶν ἔπειθον δέχεσθαι μέγα καὶ θεῖον δῶρον.

[¶30] 6.2. “Even though,” they said, “thou neither desirest wealth for thyself, because thou hast enough, nor covetest the fame which comes from authority and power, because thou hast the greater fame which comes from virtue, yet consider that the work of a true king is a service rendered to God, who now rouses up and refuses to leave dormant and inactive the great righteousness which is within thee. Do not, therefore, avoid nor flee from this office, which a wise man will regard as a field for great and noble actions, where the gods are honoured with magnificent worship, and the hearts of men are easily and quickly softened and inclined towards piety, through the moulding influence of their ruler.”

> Greek: 6.2. εἰ δὲ αὐτὸς οὔτε πλούτου δέῃ διʼ αὐτάρκειαν οὔτε δόξαν ἀρχῆς καὶ δυναστείας ἐζήλωκας κρείσσονα τὴν ἀπʼ ἀρετῆς ἔχων, ἀλλʼ ὑπηρεσίαν γε θεοῦ τὸ βασιλεύειν ἡγούμενος, ὅς γε ἀνίστησι καὶ οὐκ ἐᾷ κεῖσθαι καὶ ἀργεῖν τὴν ἐν σοὶ τοσαύτην δικαιοσύνην, μὴ φεῦγε μηδὲ ἀποδίδρασκε τὴν ἀρχήν, ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ πράξεων καλῶν καὶ μεγάλων οὖσαν χώραν, ἐν ᾗ καὶ θεραπεῖαι θεῶν μεγαλοπρεπεῖς εἰσι καὶ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν ἀνθρώπων ἡμερώσεις ῥᾷστα καὶ τάχιστα μετακοσμουμένων ὑπὸ τὸν κρατοῦντος, οὗτοι καὶ Τάτιον ἔστερξαν ἔπηλυν ἡγεμόνα, καὶ τὴν Ῥωμύλου μνήμην ἀποθεοῦσι ταῖς τιμαῖς.

[¶31] 6.3. “This people loved Tatius, though he was a foreign prince, and they pay divine honours to the memory of Romulus. And who knows but that the people, even though victorious, is sated with war, and, now that it is glutted with triumphs and spoils, is desirous of a gentle prince, who is a friend of justice, and will lead them in the paths of order and peace? But if, indeed, they are altogether intemperate and mad in their desire for war, then were it not better that thou, holding the reins of government in thy hand shouldst turn their eager course another way, and that thy native city and the whole Sabine nation should have in thee a bond of goodwill and friendship with a vigorous and powerful city?”

> Greek: 6.3. τίς δὲ οἶδεν εἰ καὶ νικῶντι δήμῳ πολέμου κόρος ἐστί, καὶ μεστοὶ θριάμβων καὶ λαφύρων γεγονότες ἡγεμόνα πρᾷον καὶ δίκης ἑταῖρον ἐπʼ εὐνομίᾳ καὶ εἰρήνῃ ποθοῦσιν; εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ παντάπασιν ἀκρατῶς ἔχουσι καὶ μανικῶς πρὸς πόλεμον, ἆρʼ οὐχὶ βέλτιον ἀλλαχόσε τὴν ὁρμὴν αὐτῶν τρέπειν, διὰ χειρὸς ἔχοντα τὰς ἡ νίας, τῇ δὲ πατρίδι καὶ παντὶ τῷ Σαβίνων ἔθνει σύνδεσμον εὐνοίας καὶ φιλίας πρὸς πόλιν ἀκμάζουσαν καὶ δυνατὴν γενέσθαι;

[¶32] 6.4. These appeals were strengthened, we are told, by auspicious omens and by the zealous ardour of his fellow-citizens, who, when they learned of the embassy from Rome, begged him to return with it and assume the royal power there, in order to unite and blend together the citizens.

> Greek: 6.4. τούτοις προσῆν, ὡς λέγεται, σημεῖά τε χρηστὰ καὶ σπουδὴ τῶν πολιτῶν καὶ ζῆλος, ὡς ἐπύθοντο τὴν πρεσβείαν, δεομένων βαδίζειν καὶ παραλαμβάνειν τὴν βασιλείαν ἐπὶ κοινωνίᾳ καὶ συγκράσει τῶν πολιτῶν.

[¶33] 7.1. Numa therefore decided to yield, and after sacrificing to the gods, set out for Rome. The senate and people met him on his way, filled with a wondrous love of the man; women welcomed him with fitting cries of joy; sacrifices were offered in the temples, and joy was universal, as if the city were receiving, not a king, but a kingdom. When they were come down into the forum, Spurius Vettius whose lot it was to be “interrex” at that hour, called for a vote of the citizens, and all voted for Numa. But when the insignia of royalty were brought to him, he bade the people pause, and said his authority must first be ratified by Heaven.

> Greek: 7.1. ὡς οὖν ἐδέδοκτο, θύσας τοῖς θεοῖς προῆγεν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην. ἀπήντα δὲ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἔρωτι θαυμαστῷ τοῦ ἀνδρός, εὐφημίαι τε πρέπουσαι γυναικῶν ἐγίνοντο καὶ θυσίαι πρὸς ἱεροῖς καὶ χαρὰ πάντων, ὥσπερ οὐ βασιλέα τῆς πόλεως, ἀλλὰ βασιλείαν δεχομένης, ἐπεὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν ἀγορὰν κατέστησαν, ὁ μὲν ταῖς ὥραις ἐκείναις συνειληχὼς μες ο βασιλεὺς Σπόριος Οὐέττιος ψῆφον ἐπέδωκε τοῖς πολίταις καὶ πάντες ἤνεγκαν, προσφερομένων δ’ αὐτῷ τῶν βασιλικῶν παρασήμων ἐπισχεῖν κελεύσας ἔφη δεῖσθαι καὶ θεοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν ἐμπεδοῦντος αὐτῷ.

[¶34] 7.2. Then taking with him the augurs and priests, he ascended the Capitol, which the Romans of that time called the Tarpeian Hill. There the chief of the augurs turned the veiled head of Numa towards the south, while he himself, standing behind him, and laying the right hand on his head, prayed aloud, and turned his eyes in all directions to observe whatever birds or other omens might be sent from the gods.

> Greek: 7.2. παραλαβὼν δὲ μάντεις καὶ ἱερεῖς ἀνέβαινεν εἰς τὸ Καπιτώλιον Ταρπήϊον αὐτὸ λόφον οἱ τότε Ῥωμαῖοι προσηγόρευον. ἐνταῦθα τῶν μάντεων ὁ πρωτεύων τὸν μὲν εἰς μεσημβρίαν τρέψας ἐγκεκαλυμμένον, αὐτὸς δὲ παραστὰς ἐξόπισθεν καὶ τῇ δεξιᾷ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἐφαπτόμενος αὐτοῦ κατεύξατο, καὶ περιεσκόπει τὰ παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐν οἰωνοῖς ἢ συμβόλοις προφαινόμενα, πανταχόσε τὰς ὄψεις περιφέρων.

[¶35] 7.3. Then an incredible silence fell upon the vast multitude in the forum, who watched in eager suspense for the issue, until at last auspicious birds appeared and approached the scene on the right. Then Numa put on his royal robes and went down from the citadel to the multitude, where he was received with glad cries of welcome as the most pious of men and most beloved of the gods.

> Greek: 7.3. σιγὴ δὲ ἄπιστος ἐν πλήθει τοσούτῳ τὴν ἀγορὰν κατεῖχε καραδοκούντων καὶ συναιωρουμένων τῷ μέλλοντι, μέχρι οὗ προὐφάνησαν ὄρνιθες ἀγαθοὶ καὶ δεξιοὶ ἐπέτρεψαν οὕτω δὲ τὴν βασιλικὴν ἀναλαβὼν ἐσθῆτα κατέβαινε Νομᾶς εἰς τὸ πλῆθος ἀπὸ τῆς ἄκρας, τότε δὲ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ δεξιώσεις ἦσαν ὡς εὐσεβέστατον καὶ θεοφιλέστατον δεχομένων.

[¶36] 7.4. His first measure on assuming the government was to disband the body of three hundred men that Romulus always kept about his person, and called Celeres (that is, swift ones ); for he would not consent to distrust those who trusted him, nor to reign over those who distrusted him. His second measure was to add to the two priests of Jupiter and Mars a third priest of Romulus, whom he called the Flamen Quirinalis.

> Greek: 7.4. παραλαβὼν δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν πρῶτον μὲν τὸ τῶν τριακοσίων σύστημα διέλυσεν, οὓς Ῥωμύλος ἔχων ἀεὶ περὶ τὸ σῶμα Κέλερας προσηγόρευσεν, ὅπερ ἐστὶ ταχεῖς· οὔτε γὰρ ἀπιστεῖν πιστεύουσιν οὔτε βασιλεύειν ἀπιστούντων ἠξίου. δεύτερον δὲ τοῖς οὖσιν ἱερεῦσι Διὸς καὶ Ἄρεως τρίτον Ῥωμύλου προσκατέστησεν, ὃν Φλάμινα Κυρινάλιον ὠνόμασεν.

[¶37] 7.5. Now before this time the Romans called their priests flamines, from the close-fitting “piloi,” or caps, which they wear upon their heads, and which have the longer name of “pilamenai,” as we are told, there being more Greek words mingled with the Latin at that time than now. Thus also the name laena, which the Romans give to the priestly mantle, Juba says is the same as the Greek “chlaina”; and that the name Camillus, which the Romans give to the boy with both parents living who attends upon the priest of Jupiter, is the same as that which some of the Greeks give to Hermes, from his office of attendant.

> Greek: 7.5. ἐκάλουν δὲ καὶ τοὺς προγενεστέρους Φλάμινας ἀπὸ τῶν περικρανίων πίλων οὓς περὶ ταῖς κεφαλαῖς φοροῦσι, πιλαμένας τινὰς ὄντας, ὡς ἱστοροῦσι, τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ὀνομάτων τότε μᾶλλον ἢ νῦν τοῖς Λατίνοις ἀνακεκραμένων. καὶ γάρ ἃς ἐφ ό ρουν οἱ ἱερεῖς λαίνας ὁ Ἰόβας χλαίνας φησὶν εἶναι, καὶ τὸν ὑπηρετοῦντα τῷ ἱερεῖ τοῦ Διὸς ἀμφιθαλῆ παῖδα λέγεσθαι Κάμιλλον, ὡς καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν οὕτως ἔνιοι τῶν Ἑλλήνων Κάμιλλον ἀπὸ τῆς διακονίας προσηγόρευον.

[¶38] 8.1. After taking such measures to secure the goodwill and favour of the people, Numa straightway attempted to soften the city, as iron is softened in the fire, and change its harsh and warlike temper into one of greater gentleness and justice. For if a city was ever in what Plato calls a “feverish” state, Rome certainly was at that time. It was brought into being at the very outset by the excessive daring and reckless courage of the boldest and most warlike spirits, who forced their way thither from all parts, and in its many expeditions and its continuous wars it found nourishment and increase of its power; and just as what is planted in the earth gets a firmer seat the more it is shaken, so Rome seemed to be made strong by its very perils. And therefore Numa, judging it to be no slight or trivial undertaking to mollify and newly fashion for peace so presumptuous and stubborn a people, called in the gods to aid and assist him.

> Greek: 8.1. ταῦτα δὲ ὁ Νομᾶς ἐπʼ εὐνοίᾳ καὶ χάριτι τοῦ δήμου πολιτευσάμενος εὐθὺς ἐπεχείρει τὴν πόλιν, ὥσπερ σίδηρον, ἐκ σκληρᾶς καὶ πολεμικῆς μαλακωτέραν ποιῆσαι καὶ δικαιοτέραν. ἀτεχνῶς γὰρ ἣν Πλάτων ἀποκαλεῖ φλεγμαίνουσαν πόλιν ἐκείνη τότʼ ἦν, συστᾶσα μὲν εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς τόλμῃ τινὶ καὶ παραβόλῳ θρασύτητι τῶν θρασυτάτων καὶ μαχιμωτάτων ἐκεῖ πανταχόθεν ὠσαμένων, ταῖς δὲ πολλαῖς στρατείαις καὶ τοῖς συνεχέσι πολέμοις τροφῇ χρησαμένη καὶ αὐξήσει τῆς δυνάμεως, καὶ καθάπερ τὰ καταπηγνύμενα τῷ σείεσθαι μᾶλλον ἑδράζεται, ῥώννυσθαι δοκοῦσα διὰ τῶν κινδύνων, οὕτω δὴ μετέωρον καὶ τετραχυμένον δῆμον οὐ μικρᾶς οὐδὲ φαύλης οἰόμενος εἶναι πραγματείας μεταχειρίσασθαι καὶ μετακοσμῆσαι πρὸς εἰρήνην, ἐπηγάγετο τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν θεῶν βοήθειαν,

[¶39] 8.3. It was for the most part by sacrifices, processions, and religious dances, which he himself appointed and conducted, and which mingled with their solemnity a diversion full of charm and a beneficent pleasure, that he won the people’s favour and tamed their fierce and warlike tempers. At times, also, by heralding to them vague terrors from the god, strange apparitions of divine beings and threatening voices, he would subdue and humble their minds by means of superstitious fears.

> Greek: 8.3. τὰ μὲν πολλὰ θυσίαις καὶ πομπαῖς καὶ χορείαις, ἃς αὐτὸς ὠργίασε καὶ κατέστησεν, ἅμα σεμνότητι διαγωγὴν ἐπίχαριν καὶ φιλάνθρωπον ἡδονὴν ἐχούσαις, δημαγωγῶν καὶ τιθασεύων τὸ θυμοειδὲς καὶ φιλοπόλεμον ἔστι δ’ ὅτε καὶ φόβους τινὰς ἀπαγγέλλων παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φάσματα δαιμόνων ἀλλόκοτα καὶ φωνὰς οὐκ εὐμενεῖς, ἐδούλου καὶ ταπεινὴν ἐποίει τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν ὑπὸ δεισιδαιμονίας.

[¶40] 8.4. This was the chief reason why Numa’s wisdom and culture were said to have been due to his intimacy with Pythagoras; for in the philosophy of the one, and in the civil polity of the other, religious services and occupations have a large place. It is said also that the solemnity of his outward demeanour was adopted by him because he shared the feelings of Pythagoras about it.

> Greek: 8.4. ἐξ ὧν καὶ μάλιστα λόγον ἔσχεν ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ παίδευσις τοῦ ἀνδρός, ὡς Πυθαγόρᾳ συγγεγονότος. μέγα γὰρ ἦν μέρος, ὡς ἐκείνῳ τῆς φιλοσοφίας, καὶ τούτῳ τῆς πολιτείας ἡ περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἁγιστεία καὶ διατριβή. λέγεται δὲ καὶ τὸν ἔξωθεν ὄγκον καὶ σχηματισμὸν ἀπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς Πυθαγόρᾳ διανοίας περιβαλέσθαι.

[¶41] 8.5. That philosopher, indeed, is thought to have tamed an eagle, which he stopped by certain cries of his, and brought down from his lofty flight; also to have disclosed his golden thigh as he passed through the assembled throngs at Olympia. And we have reports of other devices and performances of his which savoured of the marvellous, regarding which Timon the Phliasian wrote:—
Down to a juggler’s level he sinks with his cheating devices,
Laying his nets for men, Pythagoras, lover of bombast.

> Greek: 8.5. καὶ γάρ ἐκεῖνος ἀετόν τε δοκεῖ πραῦναι, φωναῖς τισιν ἐπιστήσας καὶ καταγαγὼν ὑπεριπτάμενον, τόν τε μηρὸν ὑποφῆναι χρυσοῦν Ὀλυμπίασι διαπορευόμενος τὴν πανήγυριν· ἄλλας τε τερατώδεις μηχανὰς αὐτοῦ καὶ πράξεις ἀναγγέλλουσιν, ἐφʼ αἷς καὶ Τίμων ὁ Φλιάσιος ἔγραψε·
Πυθαγόρην δὲ γόητας ἀποκλίνοντʼ ἐπὶ δόξας
θήρῃ ἐπʼ ἀνθρώπων, σεμνηγορίης ὀαριστὴν τῷ δὲ Νομᾷ δρᾶμα θεᾶς τινος ἢ νύμφης ὀρείας ἔρως ἦν καὶ συνουσία πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀπόρρητος, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, καὶ κοιναὶ μετὰ Μουσῶν διατριβαί.