Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae, ed. William W. Goodwin, 109

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

[109]

Question 109.

Why is it not lawful for the high priest of Jupiter, which they call Flamen Dialis, to touch meal or leaven?

Solution. Is it because meal is imperfect and crude nourishment? For the wheat neither hath continued what it was, neither is it made into bread as it must be; but it hath lost the faculty of seed, and hath not attained to usefulness for food. Wherefore the poet hath named meal, by a metaphor, mill-murdered ( μυλήφατον), as if the corn were spoiled and destroyed by grinding. Leaven, as it is made by corruption, corrupts the mass that it is mingled with, for it is made thereby looser and weaker; and fermentation is a kind of corruption, which, if it be overmuch, makes the bread sour and spoils it.

Quaestiones Romanae. Plutarch. ed. William W. Goodwin. Boston. 1874.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

Roman Questions (English) (Plutarch. Plutarch's Morals, Vol. II. Goodwin, William W., editor; Chauncy, Isaac translator. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; Cambridge: Press of John Wilson and Son, 1874.)

Editions (2)

Αἴτια Ῥωμαϊκά Perseus (Plutarch. Moralia, Vol. IV. Babbitt, Frank Cole, editor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1936 (printing).) — 109 focus

[109] διὰ τί τῷ ἱερεῖ τοῦ Διός, ὃν Φλάμινα Διᾶλιν καλοῦσιν, οὐκ ἐξῆν ἀλεύρου θιγεῖν, οὐδὲ ζύμης;

ἢ τὸ μὲν ἄλευρον ἀτελὴς τροφὴ καὶ ἄπεπτός ἐστιν; οὔτε γὰρ ὃ ἦν μεμένηκεν ὁ πυρὸς οὔθʼ ὅ δεῖ γενέσθαι γέγονεν ὁ ἄρτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν σπέρματος 289f δύναμιν ἀπολώλεκεν ἅμα καὶ τὴν σιτίου χρείαν οὐκ ἔσχηκε. διὸ καὶ μυλήφατον ὁ ποιητὴς ἄλφιτον ἐκ μεταφορᾶς ὠνόμασεν ¹ ὥσπερ φονευόμενον ἐν τῷ ἀλέτῳ καὶ φθειρόμενον.

ἡ δὲ ζύμη καὶ γέγονεν ἐκ φθορᾶς αὐτὴ καὶ φθείρει τὸ φύραμα μειγνυμένη· γίγνεται γὰρ ἄτονον καὶ ἀδρανὲς καὶ ὅλως ἔοικε σῆψις ἡ ζύμωσις εἶναι· πλεονάσασα γοῦν ἀποξύνει παντάπασι καὶ φθείρει τὸ ἄλευρον.

Κεφαλαίων καταγραφή Ῥωμαϊκά Perseus (Plutarch. Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, Vol IΙ. Vernardakēs, Grēgorios N., editor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1889.) — 109 focus

[109] διὰ τί τῷ ἱερεῖ τοῦ Διός, ὃν Φλάμινα Διᾶλιν καλοῦσιν, οὐκ ἐξῆν ἀλεύρου θιγεῖν, οὐδὲ ζύμης; ἦ τὸ μὲν ἄλευρον ἀτελὴς τροφὴ καὶ ἄπεπτός ἐστιν; οὔτε γὰρ ὃ ἦν μεμένηκεν ὁ πυρὸς οὔθʼ ὃ δεῖ γενέσθαι γέγονεν ὁ ἄρτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν σπέρματος δύναμιν ἀπολώλεκεν ἅμα καὶ τὴν σιτίου 5 289f χρείαν οὐκ ἔσχηκε. διὸ καὶ μυλήφατον¹ ὁ ποιητής ἄλφιτον ἐκ μεταφορᾶς ὠνόμασεν ὥσπερ φονευόμενον ἐν τῷ ἀλέτῳ καὶ φθειρόμενον· ἡ δὲ ζύμη καὶ γέγονεν ἐκ φθορᾶς αὐτὴ καὶ φθείρει τὸ φύραμα μιγνυμένη· γίγνεται γὰρ ἄτονον καὶ ἀδρανὲς καὶ 10 ὅλως ἔοικε σῆψις ἡ ζύμωσις εἶναι· πλεονάσασα γοῦν ἀποξύνει παντάπασι καὶ φθείρει τὸ ἄλευρον.

Translations (1)

The Roman Questions Perseus (Plutarch. Moralia, Vol. IV. Babbitt, Frank Cole, translator. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1936 (printing).) — 109 focus

[109] Why was it not permitted for the priest of Jupiter, whom they call the Flamen Dialis, to touch either flour or yeast?¹

Is it because flour is an incomplete and crude food? For neither has it remained what it was, wheat, nor has it become what it must become, bread; but it has both lost the germinative power of the seed and at the same time it has not attained to the usefulness of food. Wherefore also the Poet by a metaphor applied to barley-meal the epithet mylephatosas,² if it were being killed or destroyed in the grinding.

Yeast is itself also the product of corruption, and produces corruption in the dough with which it is mixed: for the dough becomes flabby and inert, and altogether the process of leavening seems to be one of putrefaction³; at any rate if it goes too far, it completely sours and spoils the flour.

Plutarch Quaestiones Romanae 109

ed. William W. Goodwin

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Question 109.

Current edition Perseus

Stable identifiers