Public Portents in Republican Rome 8882652408, 9788882652401

Table of contents :
PUBLIC PORTENTS IN REPUBLICAN ROME......Page 4
CONTENTS......Page 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......Page 8
INTRODUCTION......Page 10
1. SOURCES AND APPROACHES......Page 16
2.1 PRODIGIA......Page 36
2.2. EXTA......Page 118
2.3. AUSPICIA......Page 150
2.4. PRIESTS, MAGISTRATES, AND SENATE......Page 170
3. CICERO AND PUBLIC DIVINATION......Page 184
4. DIVINATION AS SCIENCE......Page 200
5. PUBLIC PORTENTS AND AGER ROMANUS VERSUS AGER PEREGRINUS......Page 220
6. PUBLIC PORTENTS, RELIGIO-POLITICS, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMAN IDENTITY......Page 242
CONCLUSION......Page 258
DANISH SUMMERY......Page 264
BIBLIOGRAPY......Page 268
ILLUSTRATIONS......Page 282
MAP INDEX: LOCATIONS OUTSIDE ROME......Page 283
MAPS......Page 288
GENERAL INDEX......Page 294

Citation preview

PimT.ic PORTENTS IN REPUBLICAN ROME

ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI Supplementum XXXIV

PUBLIC PORTENTS IN REPUBLICAN ROME

BY SUSANNE WILLIAM RASMUSSEN

«L'ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER ROME MMIII

ANALECTA ROMANA INSTITUTI DANICI, SUPPL. XXXIV Accademia di Danimarca, 18, Via Omero, 1-00197, Rome © 2003 «L'Erma» di Bretschneider, Rome ISBN 88-8265-240-8

Published with the support of grants from: Statens Humanistiske Forskningsrad

Rasmussen, Susanne William Public portents in republican Rome / by Susanne William Rasmussen. Roma : «L'ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER, 2003. - 296 p. : ill. ; 32 cm. (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. Supplementum ; 34) ISBN 88-8265-240-8 CDD21.

292.07

1. Religione romana

2. Presagi - Roma antica

Denne afhandling er den 6. november 2001 antaget af det Humanistiske Fakultet ved Kobenhavns Universitet til offentligt forsvar for den filosofiske doktorgrad.

Dekan JOHN KUHLMANN MADSEN

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

7

INTRODUCTION

9

1. SOURCES AND APPROACHES

15

2. TYPES OF PORTENTS AND PRIESTHOODS 2.1 Prodigia 2.2 Exta 2.3 Auspicia 2.4 Priests, Magistrates, and Senate

35 35 117 149 169

3. CICERO AND PUBLIC DIVINATION

183

4. DIVINATION AS SCIENCE

199

5. PUBLIC PORTENTS AND AGER ROMANUS VERSUS AGER PEREGRINUS

219

6. PUBLIC PORTENTS, RELIGIO-POLITICS, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROMAN IDENTITY

241

CONCLUSION

257

DANISH SUMMERY

263

BIBLIOGRAPHY

267

ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS

281

MAPS

287

GENERAL INDEX

293

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book was written during the years 1997-2000 after a three-year research grant from the Carlsberg Foundation enabled me to continue my studies of Roman public portents. Thus, having earned my PhD in 1997, I was able to pursue the Danish degree of dr. phil, and I sincerely thank both the Carlsberg Foundation and the Danish Research Council for the Humanities for their gen­ erous financing of the translation and publication of this volume. My research has benefited from the involvement of a wide variety of people and institutions, and, not least importantly, from my years as an assistant pro­ fessor at the Department of Ancient History at the University of Copenhagen. In that connection I owe special thanks to professor emeritus, dr. phil. Jens Erik Skydsgaard for his unfailing willingness to discuss all manner of issues, portentous or otherwise. I am also grateful for discussions with dr. Veit Rosenberger and professor, dr. phil., Jorgen Christian Meyer, and for the sup­ port I have received through the years, particularly in the field of philology, from dr. phil. Jens Vanggaard. Likewise, I am grateful to PhD Robin Lorsch Wildfang for her constructive review of the English text. I also owe special thanks to Heidi Flegal, who translated my Danish manuscript into English with great diligence. This was not an easy task, and she should certainly not be held responsible for any remaining obscurities or awkward turns of phrase. I am further indebted to those who have sponsored my studies in Italy: the Danish Research Training Council, the Carlsberg Foundation, Julie von Mullens Fond, Gads Fond, Christian og Otilia Brorsons rejselegat for yngre videnskabsmaend og kvinder, and Dronning Ingrids Romerske Fond. I also thank Bikubenfonden for several stays at Skejten on Lolland, where Nature provided a splendid and suitably mysterious setting for my studies. Additionally, I would like to thank the Danish Academy in Rome, and particu­ larly cand.mag. Karen Ascani for her kind assistance in publishing this book as a supplementum to the series of Analecta Romana Instituti Danici. Last but not least, I thank Thea for her proofreading, and Christian, Vera, and Michael for their support, patience, and enthusiasm throughout this project. Copenhagen, April 2003

Susanne William Rasmussen

INTRODUCTION The dual aim of this work is to provide a comprehensive study of public por­ tents as observed and dealt with in Roman religion and history during the Republic, and to take a sociological approach to the sources in an attempt to deal with a number of unanswered questions and unresolved issues relating to the divination and public portents of Rome. As will become evident, both types of study are absent not only from the modern scholarly treatment of Ancient History, but also from that of the History and Sociology of Religion. Chapter 1 accordingly deals with the sources of information on public por­ tents, including a critical examination of some general characteristics in the modern scholarly works on divination and portents in Roman religion. Based on literary, epigraphical, and archaeological material, chapter 2 goes on to present a critical examination of the sources for the three main groups that make up official public portents: prodigia, exta, and auspicia. This chapter also deals with a number of questions and issues connected with these three different types of portents, reviewing the relevant priesthoods, their recruit­ ment, and their religio-political procedures. It also considers the interaction between the priesthoods, magistrates, and Senate in connection with portents. Since Cicero figures as a central, but in my view frequently misunderstood, source on this topic, chapter 3 deals exclusively with Cicero and public divina­ tion. This chapter presents a critical discussion, from a religio-sociological per­ spective, of a number of dominant views that give rise to certain methodologi­ cal problems and inappropriate value judgments in the research on Cicero. The chapter also offers other angles that can help promote a better understanding of both Cicero and divinatio, since an additional aim of this approach is to establish a more satisfactory coherence between the sources. The approach covers not only public portents as an institution, but Cicero's own perception of divination and its significance to Roman society as well. As for the method­ ological and theoretical implications of this discussion, chapter 3 also contains deliberations on the essential differences between philosophy and religion, the­ ory and practice, individual and society, belief and behaviour, and - most essentially - the question of divination as a public matter and not as a matter of individual concern. The importance of divination as a public affair is explored further in chap­ ter 4, which clarifies the scientific nature of the ancient interpretation of pub­ lic portents. The chapter discusses and confronts the prevailing theories that perceive portents as magic and superstition, defying the application by modern scholarship of the magic-versus-religion dichotomy in relation to Roman reli­ gion. Continuing along these lines, the chapter suggests defining the concepts religio and superstitio from a sociological point of view, focusing on the insti­ tutionalized religio-political actions discernible in the sources concerning div­ ination and portents.

10 Chapter 5 deals with the scope of public portents, with particular emphasis on the religio-political significance of portents and their expiation in relation to ager Romanus and ager peregrinus. Different theories in modern scholarship dealing with this question are discussed on the basis of the empirical material presented. Chapter 5 also uses a sociological point of view to focus on the man­ ner in which public portents came to serve as a common religious frame of ref­ erence transcending legal and territorial boundaries, and regarding the Senate in Rome as the decisive point of religio-political focus. This further leads to a discussion of public portents as an important religio-political institution, and of this institution's role in the Romanization of Italy. The present study's con­ clusions on these issues contradict the theories of a number of earlier scholars as well as some of the most recent research on Ancient History. Based on the analyses and conclusions of the preceding chapters, the final chapter in this work, chapter 6, presents a sociological hypothesis on the sig­ nificance of public portents to Roman religio-politics and the construction of Roman identity. In relation to this hypothesis, the final chapter also specifies important sociological mechanisms that have become visible throughout the study, and which concern the roles and functions of public portents in Roman society. My professional interest and perspectives spring from two academic enter­ prises. The first was the completion of my initial education in the Sociology of Religion at the University of Copenhagen (earning the title of mag. art.), which bears the mark of the late professor, dr. phil. Arild Hvidtfeldt's soberminded and highly valuable research into religion, placing emphasis on soci­ ological, philological, and historical methodology. Two of the many seminal issues explored during this period were the fundamental importance of Robertson Smith's presentation of religion as an integral part of organized social life,1 and of the Robertson Smith-inspired Emile Durkheim's sociolog­ ical methodology and investigations of so-called primitive classification.2 Among the specific contributions of Danish scholarship on religion, the influence of Vilhelm Gronbech should also be mentioned, particularly because of his book on so-called primitive religion and his published paper Soul or Mana, both of which stress the importance of studying a society on its own terms whenever possible.3 Particular insight into the historical context and the relationship between cult and myth were gained from the general introduction in Hvidtfeldt's dis­ sertation Teotl and*Ixiptlatli, and Svend Aage Pallis's dissertation The Akitu Festival* 1

Smith (1889) 1894) pp. 17-23; cf. Warburg (1985) pp. 9-34. Durkheim (1895); Durkheim (1912). 3 Gronbech (1915); cf. Rothstein (1996); Vanggaard (1985); Gronbech (1913). 4 Hvidtfeldt (1958). For more on the question of temporal perception in relation to the cult, see Pallis (1926). As regards the question of historical priority, Hvidtfeldt deviates unmistakably - and in 2

11 After completing my education in the Sociology of Religion, I had the opportunity to further explore the theories and methods of Ancient History during the subsequent writing of my PhD thesis on public prodigies in Roman religion.5 As a PhD student at the Department of History at the University of Copenhagen, I benefited immensely from the exceedingly knowledgeable, inspiring, and always enjoyable guidance of Professor of Ancient History, dr. phil. Jens Erik Skydsgaard. I consequently found myself embarking on into the second academic enterprise decisive to the present study. The combination of these two academic fields is reflected in the methodol­ ogy applied to this study, which features a critical and diachronic examination of the sources and the different aspects of Roman history, combined with a sociological, synchronic perspective in the analysis of the functions and mean­ ings of public portents in order to clarify the significance of this institution to Roman Republican religion and history. As will become evident, public por­ tents involve a whole range of social contexts and processes, and as far as the sociological perspective is concerned, this study takes its cue from the theories formed on investigations and reconstructions of cultural relations as presented by such scholars as E. Durkheim, PL. Berger and T. Luckmann, and J. Assmann.6 This applies, for instance, to the perceptions of the dialectic ele­ ments in the social construction of reality (processes of externalization, objectivation, and internalization), and to theories of the building of identity and the perception of the past as a social construction dependant upon the contempo­ rary norms, values, and frames of reference prevailing at any given time.7 Finally, it is worth noting that in certain respects this study has developed into something of an inter-disciplinary undertaking, in the sense that in addi­ tion to my own professional fields of Sociology of Religion and Ancient History, I have, to varying degrees, ventured boldly into the domains of ager peregrinus - aspiring to manoeuvre through no less than four different disci­ plines I have not studied at university level. There are the fields of Classical Philology (including Etruscology), Classical Archaeology, Philosophy, and Assyriology. Although for most of my years as a student and scholar I have read many sources in Latin and Greek, and although I have consulted long-suffermy opinion justifiably - from Gronbech's strictly synchronic interpretations, so unwilling to allow diachronic points of view. 5 Thus, as concerns the treatment of prodigies, this study contains portions of my PhD thesis (accepted in 1997). The conclusions on Cicero and divination have been partially published in the arti­ cle referred to as Rasmussen (2000). 6 Durkheim (1895); Durkheim (1912); Berger & Luckmann (1966); Berger (1967); Assmann ((1992) 1999). As is well-known, sociological studies and cultural theories involve a large number of historians, historians of religion, sociologists, and ethnologists, ranging from J.G. Herder and Karl Marx to Clifford Geertz and Mary Douglas. However, as emphasized in Assmann (1999) p. 19, only a negligible number of modern scholars of the Ancient World have systematically tried their hand in the field. 7 Cf. Berger (1967); Assmann (1999); Halbwachs (1925).

12 ing experts in the various fields, any errors or omissions occurring in any of the areas dealt with are, of course, mine and mine alone.8 In my view, public portents have not received adequate attention from mod­ ern scholarship on the Ancient World. Accounts of portents are often inserted as quaint little items that can enliven dry, historical subject matter, serving as entertaining examples of concepts such as irrationality or political manipula­ tion, deception, and humbug. Many a discussion has dwelled upon the ques­ tion of how on earth the Romans could put their faith in portents based on entrails, blood raining from the sky, sweating statues of deities, seasick hens that refused to eat, and so on and so forth. As this study will demonstrate, in certain areas the research in this field seems to bear a disquieting resemblance to St Augustine's presentation of the pagan (mal)practices of divination. Since, strictly speaking, Roman portents can only be correctly interpreted by Roman and Etruscan priests, and with the aid of various non-surviving libri, my current intentions do not include attempting to (re)interpret the portents. Nor do I seek to establish either the psychological mechanisms involved or the potential causal relations between natural phenomena. In other words, the object of this study is not to carry out an examination of the mentality of Reatine peasants and Roman citizens, theorizing on their psychological reac­ tions to fertile mules or other omens. I am primarily concerned with examin­ ing social, religious, and political behaviour, as well as the significance and functions of public portents as an institution in a variety of social and religiopolitical contexts. When describing public portents as an institution, I simply mean that the perceptions and the religio-political behaviour that can be deduced from the sources represent a system of ideas and fixed behavioural patterns that are repeated throughout the entire Republic. Furthermore, this study's repetitive use of the term religio-political is meant to underscore the indissoluble connec­ tion existing in the Roman res publica between the two categories of religion and politics, which are, for all intents and purposes, kept segregated in today's Western civilizations. My choice of focusing on the sociological rather than, for instance, the psy­ chological dimension of the institution of public portents is not based on any lack of appreciation for the psychological importance of public divination to Roman religion. My primary motivation lies in the sources, which I unfortu­ nately find inadequate to shed sufficient light on this side of the matter. Although admittedly (religio-)psychology can lead to a certain understanding of the significance of various institutions, I doubt that it would be possible to explain the public portents of Republican Rome based on the existing sources 8

As regards the literary sources, I have used Loeb editions where no alternative is noted. As for Cicero's philosophical works, see also the Danish translation in Ciceros filosofiske skrifter, vols I and III, translated by F. Blatt, T. Hastrup, and P. Krarup (1969/1970). Throughout this study I have only includ­ ed translations for passages of crucial religio-historical significance, and passages for which my transla­ tions may deviate from those referred to above.

13 by applying modern psychological laws and terminology. Indeed, the history of research into the Ancient World contains a variety of such attempts, as dis­ cussed in chapter 1. All in all, I have sought to deal with the public portents of Rome in a man­ ner that will hopefully present a more meaningful picture than the usual ones, in which portents appear as bizarre elements in Roman religion and history. This has led onwards to new perspectives and connections in the sources, which have far-ranging ramifications for various aspects of Roman religio-politics and the construction of Roman identity. Hence, in addition to the actual religious rituals and beliefs, this investigation into Roman public portents and divination as a whole also involves the examination of a series of historical, religio-histor­ ical, and sociological issues. Such issues include the state's internal and external political affairs and relations, and the demonstration, legitimization, and con­ solidation of religio-political power and expansion. They also take into consid­ eration the influence that the various ancient acculturation processes had on the institution of public portents and divination, and on Roman identity.

1. SOURCES AND APPROACHES It is well known that the works of ancient authors have been influenced by a variety of factors ranging from individual authors' special interests to their methods of composition, research, and use of sources. Moreover, a desire to include only interesting stories and details while omitting boring ones has also played a role. And so, of course, has each particular author's focus on natural history, philosophy, religion, or other topics, his desire to glorify earlier tradi­ tions or eras, his feelings of moral superiority or indignation, and so on. To some extent these factors also apply to the fragmentary sources on public por­ tents, and because of this, finding full agreement between the sources, for instance regarding terminology, is rare indeed.9 Even so, our main sources for these portents - that is, Livy, Julius Obsequens, and Cicero - actually exhibit such agreement to quite a startling degree as far as some of the portents are concerned. Naturally, one cannot expect complete accuracy and total concord down to the minutest details in the various descriptions of the portents, but the variations are really surprisingly few, and often of negligible importance. What is more, these sources uniformly speak of the same, firmly established proce­ dures governing the treatment of the various types of public portents. In general, the sources on public portents do not seem to present an embel­ lished picture, with features like conspicuously literary staging, nor do they suf­ fer from such utterly impossible deficiencies as occasionally characterize frag­ mentary sources on the history and religion of Rome. Admittedly, there are undeniably large holes in our knowledge, but overall, the sources on divination and public portents during the Republic are, in all significant respects, good and trustworthy, especially when compared to those dealing with the many other aspects of Roman religion. As explained in the following, the greatest wealth of sources is found in the area of prodigies, which enables us to make a systematic, diachronic analysis of these portents. This stands in contrast to the fields of auspicy and extispicy which must to a greater extent be compiled from small, unrelated fragments found in different works from different periods, and then corroborated with the relevant archeological evidence. My treatment of prodigies contains a schematic review, which I refer to as the "prodigy table". In addition to stating the sources, this table provides chronological and geographical information, specifies the prodigies themselves and lists the priesthoods involved, and the expiations prescribed. As this study progresses, the reader will often come across references to the relevant numbers in this prodigy table (written PT 1, PT 2, and so on). 9

For example, in some of the sources the terms prodigium, omen, portentum, and ostentum are fair­ ly interchangeable, with the same portent being randomly described using one, then another of these terms. Consequently, apart from the categorization of auspicia, exta and prodigia, I have not attempted to make any conceptual distinctions between all the different terms regarding portents, nor have I intended to carry out any etymological investigations.

16 The earliest historical records of the type of portents referred to as prodi­ gia were the tabulae pontificum, originally compiled annually by the pontif­ ex maximus. In the 120s BC, P. Mucius Scaevola edited and published the most important of these pontifical annals under the title of annates maximi. The annales maximi have since been lost, but were said at the time of pub­ lication to have been a collection of eighty books providing the historians with a valuable body of information on matters of state and religion including records of public prodigies. Our knowledge of the annales maxi­ mi is quite limited, which has given rise to a series of speculative and hypo­ thetical reconstructions of these works. This study will refrain from recount­ ing the far-reaching general discussion and the numerous points of con­ tention in the scholarly treatments of the annales maximi.10 Instead, I shall limit my observations to aspects of direct relevance to the public prodigies.11 Additionally, in the following I will have to broach some research-historical elements and problems that will be dealt with in greater depth in the remain­ ing chapters of this work.

10

Cf. RE; Wülker (1903) p. 64ff; Luterbacher (1904) p. 60ff; E.Kornemann (1911); Westrup (1929); Crake (1940); Walsh (1961) pp. 110-137; Peter (1967) pp. III-XXIX; Macbain (1975); Frier (1979). 11 The most important information on these records can be found in: Cic. De or. 2.12.51: Erat enim historia nihil aliud nisi annalium confectio, cujus rei memoriaeque publicae retinendae causa ab initio rerum Romanorum usque ad P. Mucium pontificem maximum res omnes singulorum annorum mandabat litteris pontifex maximus referebatque in album et proponebat tabulam domi, potestas ut esset populo cognoscendi; ei qui nunc annales maximi nominantur. Livy 6.1.2: [...] res cum vetustate nimia obscuras, velut quae magno ex intervallo loci vix cernuntur, turn quod parvae et rarae per eadem tempora litterae fuere, una custodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum, et quod, etiam si quae in commentariis pontificum aliisque publicis privatisque erant monumentis, incensa urbe pleraeque interiere. Livy 9.46.5: [...] civile jus, repositum in penetralibus pontificum, evolgavit fastosque circa forum in albo proposuit, ut quando lege agiposset sciretur [...] Serv. Aen. 1.373: Tabulam dealbatam quotannis pontifex maximus habuit, in qua praescriptis consulum nominibus et aliorum magistratuum digna memoratu notare consueverat domi militiaeque terra marique gesta per singulos dies, cuius diligentiae annuos commentarios in octoginta libros veteres rettulerunt eosque a pontificibus maximis, a quibus fiebant, annales maximos appellarunt. Cato Agr. Orig. 4 (in Gell. NA 2.28.6): Non lubet scribere, quod in tabula apudpontificem maximum est, quotiens annona cara, quotiens lunae aut solis lumine caligo aut quid obstiterit. Macrob. Sat. 3.2.17: Pontificibus enim permissa est potestas memoriam rerum gestarum in tabulas conferendi et hos annales appellant equidem maximos quasi a pontificibus maximis factos. Dion. Hal. 1.74.3: ov yap fi^iouv [...] em TO0 napa Tolg apxi€p€i)ai K€in.€vou mvaKoa kvbo TT|V TTICFTIV d|3aaaviaTov KaTaAiTT€iv. Gell. NA 4.5.6: Ea historia de aruspicibus ac de versu isto senario scripta est in Annalibus Maximis, libro undecimo, et in Verri Flacci libro primo Rerum Memoria Dignarum. This last Gellius account concerns a description of a prodigy (PT 24) in which the haruspices attempt to deceive the Romans through an intentionally erroneous interpretation. As is evident from the quote, Gellius attributes the entire story (4.5.1-7) to the annales maximi and Verrius Flaccus. Gellius most likely got the whole account from Verrius Flaccus (and/or elaborated on it himself), and the annales maximi simply contained a brief note regarding the haruspices, cf. Skydsgaard (1968) pp. 103-104.

17 In her discussion of the annales maximi and the prodigies, E. Rawson 12 believes that our principal sources for these prodigies do not rely on the annales maximi, but rather on certain special local collections of prodigies compiled by Varro and others. Rawson further assumes that Varro's and Livy's sources include Coelius Antipater and Sisenna, and that these two used the accounts of portents found in the Hellenistic historiography as their sources. Consequently, we are, according to Rawson, dealing with sources written after the Social War, at which time the distinction between ager Romanus and ager peregrinus no longer existed. In Rawson's view, this is why the prodigies from "ager peregrinus" surface in Livy and Obsequens, proving that the annales maximi are not Livy's source. 13 As chapter 5 will show, however, Rawson's ideas of such local collections of prodigies rely on dubious statistical reasoning - particularly concerning fertile mules in Reate. Although it is a matter of some dispute, both in general terms and specifi­ cally in relation to prodigies, I do not think one can totally reject the idea that Livy may have directly used the annales maximi, though naturally annalists such as Valerius Antias, Calpurnius Piso, and Claudius Quadrigarius may have been intermediate sources.14 Alternatively, Livy may have had both the annales maximi and the works of the annalists at his disposal. We can never know for sure, but the fact that he does not explicitly refer to the annales maximi cannot be used to argue that Livy did not use these books, since generally the ancient historians only named their source explicitly if they were criticizing it or offer­ ing different versions of the same event. One reason that the annales maximi are such an extraordinary source is that, since they represent mos maiorum, the information they contain has been used by later historians and antiquarians such as Livy and Varro not simply as a record, but also as a guideline for the religious norms and prac­ tices of Roman society. This leads one to wonder which sources on prodigies were used after the editing of the annales maximi. As there are no signs of interruptions or notable changes in the prodigy descriptions around the time that this editing took place, one must assume the people responsible for recording these events simply continued to chronicle them. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose the pontifices stopped doing so simply because editing of their works was in progress. Livy's Ab urbe condita and Julius Obsequens' Ab anno-urbis conditae DV prodigiorum liber are among our main sources on public portents, and as a whole they provide quite a good picture of portents during the Republic, thanks not least to the regularity of the accounts of prodigies and the consid-

12

Rawson (1971). Rawson (1971) p. 165. 14 Cf. Luterbacher (1904) pp. 64-65. 13

18 erable time span covered by the two sources in conjunction. Thus, Julius Obsequens to some extent compensates for the fact that no more than rough­ ly one fourth of Livy's Ab urbe condita has survived. The portions directly handed down from Livy are: • Preface and Books 1-10, covering the period from Aeneas up to 293 BC • Books 21-30, on the Second Punic War • Books 31-45, on the continuation of the account of the Roman conquests up to 167 BC • Scattered fragments and the later so-called Periochae All we know of Livy's sources is that he made use of such authors as Valerius Antias, Claudius Quadrigarius, Coelius Antipater, and Polybius. Despite attempts by scholars working on Livy to delve into the smallest details of this problem, the occasional references to individual sources do not provide any real grounds for concluding that they were the main sources in this context. A more significant element in connection with this study, however, is the very composition of the work. Livy's books are organized around both an annalistic principle and a dramatic principle. Their annalistic structure revolves around accounts of recurring events such as the inauguration of new magistrates and priests, elections, Senate meetings, temple foundations, annual celebrations, and, not least, the reporting of prodigies and their subsequent expiations. Yet the annalistic structure does not follow each individual book. On the contrary, each book has drama and the recounting of a good story as its main focus. This is significant for a critical examination of the sources on prodigies, which are actually dealt with primarily according to the annalistic system, whereas in much of his other material, Livy chooses instead to move within a period of several years. In my view, this particular circumstance, seen in conjunction with the almost formulaic language typical of the prodigy reports, indicates that as far as prodigies were concerned, Livy was basically employing an annalistic source such as the annales maximi or some work derived from them.15 This assumption is further supported by the observation that Livy's work contains no references to different versions of the individual prodigies and related ritu­ als, a practice Livy sometimes uses when describing other types of events. It is noteworthy that Livy incorporates these records of prodigies into his work using a stiff, formulaic style, and does not make use of editing or embel­ lishing the information with phrasing that is more striking and elegant, an art he certainly masters in many other connections. Walsh points out that "Livy belonged to the class of those who sought to present the research undertaken by others in a more attractive literary setting", 16 and in this light it is suggestive

"Cf. Skydsgaard (1968) pp. 112-113. 16 Walsh (1961) p. 114; cf. p. 51: "From this cumulative evidence of carelessness in translation, of failure to eliminate factual errors in his sources, and of confusion in reconciling his sources, one must conclude that Livy's standards of concentration and accuracy inspire little confidence. But there is

19 that precisely his reporting on the prodigies appears in an exceptionally "unre­ fined" form. This might be a result of Livy's respect for the tradition, the tabu­ lae pontificum/annates maximi, as a source. It might also be the result of a more conscious intention to retain the naked form and annalistic structure of the records, with the specific aim of reflecting the tabulae pontificum and creating an impression of authenticity. Nonetheless, in a certain sense Livy can even make use of these "unrefined" prodigy lists to obtain a dramatic effect. There are traces of a partial pattern, which has been emphasized repeatedly by scholars, namely the occurrence of large numbers of prodigies in times of crisis (see below). Of course, this pat­ tern could reflect an actual increase in the number of reports, but it could also be a result of Livy's dramatic treatment of the subject matter, in that he rein­ forces an existing sense of crisis by recounting many prodigies, while limiting such references when dealing with more peaceful periods. At the same time there is also the obvious, and at times clearly manifest, possibility that the author abbreviated the prodigy lists to make room for other events.17 The extensive body of research on Livy contains just as many interpretations of his views on religion as there are works on the subject. In my view, one cannot form a clear picture of Livy's perception of portents, and it is not surprising that the scholarship on this subject is far from reaching a consensus. However, it is not necessary to deal with the issue in depth here, nor with the many answers that various scholars offer, bestowing upon Livy views that range from the greatest scepticism to the deepest piety and respect for all things divine.18 The multifarious answers often cling tenaciously to their own collections of scattered comments found in Livy's work - comments which should probably only be analysed in light of their actual contexts, rather than being interpreted as expressions of Livy's general opinions. I, for my part, am convinced that D.S. Levene's formulation of the question is the most realistic: Thus the search for the "belief of Livy" is illusory. It could be that he was a sceptic, that he was a believer, or that he actually did equivocate between the two, but there is nothing in the work itself to provide us with evidence on this score, since all three attitudes are present, but present with a view to the appropriate construction of the narrative rather than as an expres­ sion of conviction.19

something to be said on the other side. His conscientiousness in listing the details which originally appeared in the annales maximi is noteworthy." 17 Cf. D.S. Levene's treatment of this question in Levene (1993) p. 243: "The fact that religion is allotted a greater role in the narratives of the Third and Fifth Decades than it usually is in the Fourth should not be assumed to reflect the relative significance of religion in the political and military events of the respective periods." 18 Cf. Levene (1993) pp. 16-30. ^Levene (1993) p. 30.

20

The point is that, regardless of Livy's opinion on portents, his work bears witness to the social, religious, and political aspects of public divination. Here the portents demonstrate the state of society's collective welfare, indicating to Livy the state of public morals as well - an area of great concern to him, and one about which he habitually worried. In effect, then, Livy's presentation is coloured by the idea that a society's sta­ bility depends upon its relationship to the gods and to the past: if mos maiorum and pax deorum are undermined or ignored, Roman society is weakened. The past - in idealized form - is a religious and moral exemplum, and in Livy's pres­ entation public divination plays a significant role in this past. This is illustrat­ ed in the following passage, which also confirms Livy's application of the annalistic principle in terms of his source,20 referring back to the tabulae pontificum: Livy 43.13.1-3: Non sum nescius ab eadem neglegentia qua nihil deos portendere vulgo nunc credant, neque nuntiari admodum ulla prodigia in pub­ licum neque in annales referri. Ceterum et mihi vetustas res scribenti nescio quo pacto antiquusfit animus et quaedam religio tenet, quae illi prudentissimi viri publice suscipienda censuerint, ea pro indignis habere, quae in meos annales referam. It is a well-known observation that in Livy's works the reader searches in vain for social and economic explanations of history.21 There are, however, two other factors decisive to Livy's perception of history, namely the personal qual­ ifications, thoughts, and actions of the individual statesmen, and the interven­ tion of the gods in societal affairs. In consequence of this second factor, public portents have particular significance as a direct manifestation of divine inter­ vention. Divination and the various religio-political procedures involved in it are used as a means to interpret the (dis)approval of the gods, and any unfavourable omens are expiated, thereby re-establishing the social and histor­ ical equilibrium. The prodigy table will make it clear that in quite a number of cases, even the main sources, Livy and Obsequens, do not stipulate the substance of or the procedure for an expiation. Presumably - as is so often the case in ancient affairs - this simply reflects the fact that the procedures were fully and implic­ itly understood and the substance fairly stereotypical. Therefore, in opposition to other scholars' points of views on this matter (cf. chapters 2.1 and 5), I do not believe one can deduce from this absence of information that the non-spec­ ified expiations did not take place, nor do I think they should be perceived as insignificant. All in all, there seems to be some uncertainty as to which sources Livy used. However, as far as the prodigies are concerned, it is probably not of vital 20 21

Cf. Levene (1993) pp. 22-23. Cf. Walsh (1961) p. 34.

21 importance whether Livy copied the records of the annalists or copied direct­ ly from the annales maxirni. The text in question consists of relatively dry albeit selective - lists, and such material is not easily misunderstood or distort­ ed by annalists, for instance through the integration of details from their con­ temporary life. From a purely critical point of view, the various accounts of the interpretations of exta and auspicia are far more complicated, since such por­ tents are normally only recounted in detail if they are regarded as particularly unfavourable or noteworthy omens, such as vitia in connection with consular elections and similar events. The accounts of the interpretations of exta and auspicia more readily invite exaggeration and distortion of matters relating to certain individuals or to political issues (cf. chapters 2.2 and 2.3), and Livy blends details and accounts of the interpretation of exta and auspicia into both annalistic and dramatic portions of his text. Our second main source, Julius Obsequens' Ab anno urbis conditae DVprodigiorurn liber, hands down reports of prodigies dating from 190-11 BC in chronological order. In other words, the work does not include the prodigies dating as far back as 249 BC, which Obsequens' book ostensibly contained. The general principle for Obsequens' presentation of the prodigies is - like Livy's - annalistic, but not all years are included. His records consist of three elements: 1) a specification of time and place 2) the nature of the prodigy itself and the relevant expiation 3) subsequent brief notes on historical events around the time of the prodi­ gy in question The dating of Obsequens' book is uncertain, and the scholarly attempts to do so variously place the book in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD.22 Scholars have also discussed whether Obsequens directly uses Livy as a source or has one or two intermediate sources. One seminal contribution to this dis­ cussion is P.L. Schmidt's theory that the prodigy lists in Obsequens are direct excerpts from a complete Livy text.23 The most important aspect of this issue of sources, however, is that whatever the case, it is indisputable that Julius Obsequens can ultimately be traced back to Livy. His work exhibits consider­ able compositional and stylistic dependency on Livy. As for content, Obsequens is not overly concerned with accuracy, and in certain places he omits prodigies, in other places expiations. In yet other instances, he radically reduces or abridges his account. Material on expiation in particular is absent from Obsequens' records, and this tendency becomes more pronounced as time goes by. One feature typical of Obsequens is his lack of any rigid distinc­ tion between private and public portents. This could mean two things: either 22 2

Schmidt (1968a) p. 161.

3 Schmidt (1968a); (1968b).

22

Livy had already applied a loose distinction, or based on scattered information from Livy, Obsequens included these "private" portents in his list because he found them interesting. Additionally, the Senate could choose to approve seemingly "private" portents, provided they were of political and societal rele­ vance (cf. chapter 2.1). Another topic of debate is whether Obsequens was a Christian or a pagan author. Since, as mentioned earlier, we do not have Obsequens' account of the first prodigies, an instructive preface on the subject may have been lost as well. Therefore all possibilities remain open, a circumstance that has been exploit­ ed, with varying degrees of success, since the first critical text edition of Obsequens from 1853 (O. Jahn). Suffice it to say that Mommsen portrays Obsequens as a Christian,24 whereas Rossbach dates the work to an earlier peri­ od and refers to Obsequens as a heathen soul.25 Subsequent scholarship has more or less adopted the latter view, and the picture of Obsequens as a pagan author makes this collection of prodigies one of the pagan world's last stands against Christianity in the fourth century AD. Although Obsequens' religious inclinations cannot be established with any certainty, there is nothing in his atti­ tude, choice of words, style, or content that suggests any adherence to Christianity,26 and the contrast to the highly emotional enmity and indignation of such authors as Augustine and Orosius speak against Mommsen's hypothe­ sis on this count. Furthermore, Obsequens' systematic approach to the topic seems to indicate a professional interest in portents rather than any propagandistic Christian intentions, and I find it difficult to imagine that a Christian writing at this time in Late Antiquity would be able to deal with pagan portents at all in any other way than polemically.27 The principal sources on public portents and divination additionally include two of Cicero's philosophical pieces, De divinatione and De natura deorum, passages from his theoretical works on the state, De legibus and De republica, and, not least, two of his speeches, De domo and De haruspicum responso. These sources will be dealt with separately in chapter 3. 24

Mommsen (1853 (1909)) p . 169: et mibi quidem veri simile videtur, Obsequentem

Orosium ratione excerpta sua eum in finem conposuisse, ut christianorum rum inmanibus prodigiis

simili

temporum felicitatem

atque ethnico-

inlustraret.

25 Rossbach (1898 (1910)) Rh.M. LII (p. XXXiii in the text edition from 1910). 26

Obsequens is completely devoid of such elements as pro-Christian additions and comparisons, as

seen in Orosius and others. Oros. 5.18.5: [...] cruor e mediis panibus quasi ex vulneribus corporum

flux-

it (my underlining) (PT 124: in Arretium blood flows from the bread as it is broken). 27

T h e later author Isidorus Hispalensis, bishop of Seville, eminently exemplifies the difference

between the pagan and Christian perceptions of portents {Etymologiarum PORTENTIS.

sive originum

11.3.1: DE

Portenta esse Varro ait quae contra naturam nata videntur: sed non sunt contra

naturam,

quia divina voluntate fiunt, cum voluntas Creatoris cuiusque conditae rei natura sit. Vnde et ipsi gentiles Deum modo Naturam, modo Deum appellant. Portentum

ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est

nota natura. To Isidorus, the etymologies reflect the pagan misconceptions and delusions, presenting portents as yet another example of pre-Christian misinterpretation. Isidore seems to be considerably more tolerant of non-Christian culture than Augustine and Orosius, probably for the very reason that he is from a later period in which the heated polemicizing against paganism had ceased.

23

Pliny's Naturalis historia also contains numerous details on various types of portents. Pliny's accounts are in places strongly marked by his own views, and when dealing with history and the history of religion he can seem unclear and imprecise in his rendering of detail. The main reason for this is probably that his interests lay in the field of natural science, making him a relatively selective source with an inconsistent eye for historical and religio-historical details. Pliny's account is characterized by a certain scepticism regarding matters of a religious nature, and he is clearly interested in portents as scientific phenome­ na rather than as religious and political matters of public interest. Nevertheless, Pliny's works do occasionally provide valuable information on divination and public portents, particularly thanks to his interpretatio naturae, which gives some interesting details on extispicy. Important aspects of divination, and its Etruscan elements, also belong within the field and genre of antiquarian interest, which had its heyday during the last century of Republican Rome, exemplified by such authors as Aelius Stilo and his student Varro, for whom the annales maximiwere undoubtedly a significant source. Information can additionally be found in Appian, who concentrated on Rome's various wars and on Roman domestic policy (Bella Civilia), in Cassius Dio's history of Rome, and in works by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Cassius Dio writes with great interest of dreams and portents, and much seems to indicate that in general, he himself had a positive attitude towards such things - which is, of course, no guarantee that he is a good source in the present context. The question is which sources he used, but as in the case of Appian, discussions of this matter can only rely on conjecture. As for the period after the Second Punic War, Livy is probably one of Cassius Dio's main sources, but in the mat­ ter of prodigies Cassius certainly seems to have had one or more sources besides Livy, since occasionally Cassius notes details and prodigies not men­ tioned by Livy or Obsequens (PT 148 and elsewhere). Other sources that contain scattered comments relevant to the subject are Valerius Maximus, Suetonius, Ovid, Seneca, Aulus Gellius, and Macrobius. Additional information can be found in Diodorus and Strabo, as well as in Plutarch's antiquarian pieces (particularly Quaestiones Romanae) and his par­ allel biographies. Finally the Christian sources, such as Augustine's De civitate Dei and Orosius' Historiarum adversum paganos, should be mentioned, although due to their underlying Christian motivation they are not among the most trustworthy or use­ ful sources on pre-Christian divination. One reason for this is that these Christian sources aim to portray the pagan period and culture as sinful. Hence they prefer to preoccupy themselves with what are - according to Christian ideals - the most bizarre portents of all, namely the prodigies. In the eyes of the fathers of the Church, this type of portent is the very proof of the infamy of paganism. By the same token, the occurrence of the most catastrophic prodigies

24 in itself proves the vainness and uselessness of the pagan gods.28 Christian sources therefore include portents based on a criterion of horror, dwelling on that which is terrifying, obscene, or gruesome. They distort and often deal care­ lessly with details and such information as where the prodigies took place which is, of course, totally inconsequential from a Christian point of view (as in PT 26 and elsewhere). At the same time, when it comes to portraying prodigies, their accounts of ghastly or outrageous events abound in dreadful and elaborate detail and exaggeration (as in PT 106), or make use of Christian terminology (PT 124), interpretation, and moralization. And yet these sources should not be writ­ ten off, even though Augustine and Orosius admittedly - and not surprisingly reflect a lack of knowledge of, and a systematic interest in, describing divination and portents. The church fathers perceive pre-Christian divination and portents as a result of, at best, ignorance and stupidity and, at worst, the futility and per­ version of paganism. It is quite intriguing, not least in this perspective, that one encounters a number of the pagan characteristics of prodigies in Christianity's so-called miracles, such as weeping statues or blood flowing from pieces of bread. From a Christian point of view, this is naturally a different matter alto­ gether, but that is another and later story that will not be dealt with here. Archaeological and epigraphical sources that are deemed relevant to the subject matter will also be treated as the study progresses. The various scholarly contributions to this field will be discussed throughout the study as they become relevant. To maintain a general perspective, the remainder of this chapter will therefore focus on just a few significant modern works and theories on the subject of divination and public portents. Surprisingly enough, portents have often been treated superficially, if not virtually ignored, by scholars working with ancient history and the history of religion. The point of view that the procedures concerning public portents consist more or less of empty formalities is asserted by, among others, Kurt Latte in his Romische Religionsgeschichte (cf. chapter 2.1). This sort of postulate is probably one of the reasons why the subject has been more or less overlooked. In Denmark, this ten­ dency becomes obvious, for instance, when the author of a general and often-used introduction to Roman religion omits a discussion of public portents, only to claim that the entire empty and formalistic practice of omens and portents, the back­ ground of which Cicero deals with in his work De divinatione, greatly contributed to the dissolution of the Roman state religion in the later years of the Republic.29 Furthermore, some of the modern scholarship that has dealt with portents, most notably with the prodigies, is marked by a few narrow-minded, rigid views.30 28

August. De civ. D. 3.31. Latte (1960) pp. 266-267. Jensen (1968) p. 199. 30 It should, however, be emphasized that this applies neither to the most excellent general presen­ tation of Roman religion in Beard et al. (1998), nor to the specific treatment of prodigies in Rosenberger 29

25 As will become evident along the way it seems that - generally speaking the treatment accorded to public portents in modern scholarship is based upon one of two rather extreme views, which take: a) an approach - primarily religio-historical - that psychologizes the interpre­ tation of portents, and in particular the prodigies, as phenomena attributa­ ble to collective mass hysteria. (I shall refer to these as "stress hypotheses", as discussed below.) Such scholars often refer to portents as magic to create a sort of contradiction, or subordination to, religion, cf. chapter 4. b) an approach - primarily historical - that focuses on the interpretation of por­ tents solely as a means of political manipulation, that is, solely as a tool used for political manoeuvring, cf. in particular chapters 2.3 and 3. (These I shall refer to as "manipulation hypotheses", as will also be discussed below.) In my estimation, both types of approach are inadequate when viewed in iso­ lation, and misleading if taken to extremes. They lack any real sociological per­ spective - any ability to see things in a social and religious context - and they are unable to examine public divination as an institution. Another trait com­ mon to both types of approach is that they mainly regard portents as a by-prod­ uct of "real" circumstances and events, whereas the investigations in this study treat the portents as "real" in the sense that they played a role as a significant religious and political institution in the perception and construction of reality of the people of Republican Rome. The historians of religion who lean towards stress hypotheses cling to a handful of very specific elements within the total source material, which they can use to reduce public divination to an issue of the fears and ignorance of the mob leading to panic and hysteria. They additionally present psycholo­ gized postulates on cause and effect in a way that seems to say more about modern scholarship in the twentieth century than about public divination in ancient Rome. The stress hypotheses mainly ignore two things. Firstly, barring a few scat­ tered comments, we unfortunately have no sources originating from this pur­ portedly terrified, ignorant, and hysterical mob. Secondly, they ignore the overall picture, which clearly shows that as phenomena, all types of public portents played a far more important role in terms of history/politics and religion/sociology than they did in terms of personal psychological condi­ tions and/or mass hysteria. As subsequent discussion in this study will show, the historians who solely or primarily regard portents as a means of political manipulation in a cynical power game tend to overlook quite a sizeable body of sources to which their explana­ tion is clearly not applicable. This is, not least, relevant to the social and religious (1998). Both of these works were published during the three-year research period in which this study was written, and each in its own uplifting way represents a paradigm shift in relation to previous pre­ sentations of Roman religion in general and public portents in particular.

26 prestige that is per se connected with the priesthoods, and the importance of mos maiorum to the prevailing religious and political institutions, norms, and values of which public divination was an integral part throughout the Republic.31 Rarely in modern scholarship have public prodigies enjoyed the undivided attention of the historians, since this type of portent was seldom rooted in firm­ ly established historical contexts. Conversely, historians often present manipu­ lation hypotheses when dealing with the interpretation of exta and auspicia in connection with specific political and personal matters. Furthermore, as mentioned above, some of the scholarly treatments of por­ tents, both within stress hypotheses and manipulation hypotheses, are based on a dogged insistence on the dichotomy of magic and religion. The present study of public divination and portents nevertheless seeks to demonstrate that it is meaningless to apply such contradictory religio-historical concepts in this con­ text. On the contrary, the sources generally seem to reveal this dichotomy as artificial and distorted when attempts are made to use it as a modern, religiohistorical premise in connection with public portents. The underlying idea in the approaches I refer to as stress hypotheses is that many portents arise as a result of primarily psychological circumstances, as when individuals alone or in groups experience fear, amazement, mental pres­ sure, confusion, ignorance, and so on. Such a view is clearly evident in Franklin B. Krauss's work on portents, which is often quoted in the later literature.32 Krauss's hypothesis relies on the assumption that portents come into existence in connection with phenomena that were not, at the time, readily explainable from a scientific point of view. According to this type of hypothesis, the Romans became alarmed by such things as inexplicable natural phenomena, and according to Krauss, it is a matter of a mental and moral degeneration towards magic/superstition.33 From Krauss's point of view, the interpretation of portents thus represents a preliminary stage of, or a contradiction to, the socalled real religion.34 Krauss is an evolutionistic textbook example of both the stress hypothesis and the categorization of portents as superstition: He [the Roman] remained for the most part the simple child of Nature, either rejoiced or dismayed by, yet always wondering at phenomena which his senses apprehended but which his mind failed to comprehend. Even when in a later day he came to view supernatural forces in anthropomorphic guise, he was only a step in advance of animism. How easy it was for him in times of individual or national stress and anxiety to slip back to his former 31 As will become clear, the two extreme points of view have their roots in ancient explanation mod­ els, according to which authors like Livy and Cicero have a few comments that stress a link between anxiety, fear, and prodigies, whereas Polybius and others emphasize a politically tactical exploitation of Roman religion.

32 Krauss (1930). 33 Krauss (1930) p . 25. 34 Cf. Krauss (1930) p p . 23-24; 25.

27

self and to resort to magical and primitive methods of warding off the dark­ some and evil influences that clouded his mental tranquillity. [...] A consid­ eration of the portents and prodigies occurring in the writings of Livy, Tacitus and Suetonius will demonstrate in striking fashion the amazing prevalence of superstition in the Roman mind over a period of eight hun­ dred and fifty years, namely from the founding of Rome to the close of Domitian's reign. Referring to stress, for instance, Krauss interprets a prodigy (PT 71 from 177 BC), in which an errant bull mounts a bronze cow in Syracuse,35 as follows: "Such unusual behavior of the beast probably signified to excited minds that the assault of Roman arms would be wasted and come to naught."36 From a sociological point of view, one major objection to Krauss's work is that it deals only with the workings of "the Roman mind", omitting any sys­ tematic treatment of the behaviour itself as represented, for example, in the procedures or the expiations linked to the portents.37 His depiction of pub­ lic divination is therefore a lopsided and disjointed one that fails to present divination and portents as an integral part of the official religion. In his work, portents are presented as a type of magic/superstition expressing either a "fear of the unknown" (p. 26) or ignorance, as he claims that "all beliefs in omens and prodigies arose in consequence of the ignorance of natural laws" (p. 186). In Krauss's view, this is unfortunately the point at which the petri­ fied Roman loses his footing and slips down the ladder of evolution. Although one cannot reproach scholars from an earlier era for their evolu­ tionist thinking, this perception of public divination has profoundly influ­ enced later scholarship, as will be demonstrated repeatedly to readers of this study. It gives one food for thought to find that many of the stereotypes of evolutionism are still perpetuated in research into ancient history and reli­ gion, although to some degree, scholars seek to disengage themselves from the principle of the evolutionist hierarchy.38

35

Krauss (1930) p. 122. For more on the bronze cow as topos and on naturalistic representations, see Pliny on the cow of Myron, Plin.HN 34.57-59; 34.10; cf. Ridgway (1970) p. 86; Robertson (1975) pp. 344; 361; Boardman (1985) p. 80. 36 Fowler (1911), a classic work, also touches on the prodigies, and it is worth noting that this author - who is otherwise so well known for his strong interest in the psychological dimension of reli­ gion - acknowledges in connection with a prodigy (p. 317) that "The mental explanation of all this is lost to us." 37 Cf. Bloch (1963) p. 78 for the author's plainly evolutionist and psychological point of view in sub­ sequent research: "Nous tenterons donc pour notre part de retrouver les stades succesifs, de la con­ science religieuse romaine face au prodige. " 38 Krauss begins his work with a quote from Nietzsche: "Es gibt gar keine moralischen Phänomene, sondern nur eine moralische Ausdeutung von Phänomenen." Here one might be tempted to add: und es gibt gar keine evolutionistischen religioesen Phänomene, sondern nur eine evolutionistische Ausdeutung von religioesen Phänomenen.

28

The work of Krauss and later scholars is in part founded on Franz Luterbacher's dissertation on prodigies,39 which also regards the prodigies as pure Aberglaube. Luterbacher does not specify his selection criteria, and he does not make any attempt to systematize the prodigies selected.40 It should nevertheless be underscored that in addition to the question of Aberglaube, he also deals with the expiations of the prodigies, and therefore in some measure includes procedure and cult. Luterbacher's best chapter is, however, the philo­ logical section in which he speaks of a special sermo prodigialis characteristic of Livy.41 In this section, Luterbacher examines some of the words and the cases applied most frequently in connection with the prodigies in Livy and other sources as well. Another very early work on the subject upon which later scholars rely is Ludwig Wülker's treatment of public prodigies.42 In general, Wülker's presentation of public divination and portents is slightly more critical and systematically orient­ ed than those of both Luterbacher and the later Krauss. It is evident that Wülker was a devoted student of Wissowa, and just as in Wissowa's classic and still indispensable work on Roman religion, there is in Wülker's work an absence of far-ranging hypotheses.43 Like Luterbacher, Wülker also includes the expiations of the prodigies and emphasizes their importance during particular­ ly gruesome periods, while portraying them as insignificant during peaceful periods, a perception that is also observable in later treatments of the subject.44 The expiation of portents is, however, prescribed according to a firmly established religio-political procedure in the Senate involving several different priesthoods, and characterizing such procedure as insignificant seems rather untenable. What is more, the table of prodigies (PT) will show examples of comprehensive expiations occurring in peacetime as well. Moreover, certain prodigies appear somewhat stereotypical, a fact that does not make them insignificant. Finally, in certain cases expiations have been omitted in the sources, presumably because the expiations were regarded as understood. Georges Dumézil's influential work on Roman religion45 perpetuates the psy­ chologized point of view and represents a (slightly different) variant of the stress

39 Luterbacher (1904). Cf. Luterbacher (1904) p. 18. Luterbacher concentrates on the period 218-42 BC. 41 Luterbacher (1904) p. 43. 42 Wülker (1903). 43 Wissowa (1912). See chapter 2.1 of this study for more on the positivistic distinction between "genuine" and "false" prodigies in the works of Luterbacher, Wülker, Wissowa, and later scholars. 44 Wülker (1903) p. 72: "In ruhigen Zeiten schenkten die Römer den Schreckzeichen wenig Aufmerksamkeit; in den Nöten des Staates jedoch suchten sie mit allen Mitteln sich die Götter gnädig zu stimmen. Der Umfang der Sühnungen zeigt noch deutlicher die herrschende Stimmung als die Meldung der Prodigien, denn bisweilen lässt sich erkennen, dass man für zahlreiche Prodigien wegen der Friedenszeiten eine geringe Sühnung als ausreichend erachtete." «Dumézil (1970). 40

29 hypothesis as applied to public divination in Rome. My current intention is not to analyse the main hypothesis of Dumezil's work, but simply to touch upon a single issue of direct relevance to the treatment of portents in Roman religion.46 Dumezil seeks to clarify the nature of public divination and portents using modern psychiatric terminology (vol. 1, p. 119): Not only does public credulity dangerously multiply prodigies, during crises and even in periods of calm, but the anxious waiting for the auspicia oblativa, the disposition to hear omina everywhere, reminds us of familiar mental trou­ bles. Does the religious life of individuals and of the state suggest psychiatry? In continuation of this thinking he wishes to explain the prodigies as based on the idea of a collective psychosis during the period around the Second Punic War (vol. 2, p. 513): It was in fact a true psychosis, with outbursts of terror and paroxysms of panic, which possessed the Roman mob during these terrible years. While magistrates and priests calmly administered sacred affairs, this psychosis was generating secret mysteries in a kind of anarchy; the proliferation of prodi­ gies announced in good faith was an almost yearly symptom of this disease, which Livy recognized as such.47 It is true that the period in question was extremely troubled, and Livy actually does describe a certain connection between such times and the increased reporting of prodigies. Nonetheless, if one takes an overall view of the annual reporting of prodigies throughout the Roman Republic (as in the prodigy table), the psychosis from which Roman society was suffering, according to Dumezil's interpretation of Livy, was dubiously, if not indeed preposterously, long. Nor, in my view, can the application of modern psychiatric terminology used for abnormal mental states contribute to an understanding of public div­ ination and portents in ancient Rome.48 Finally, with regard to the stress hypotheses it should be noted that the sources such authors use to support their claims of a hysterical, anxious mob are a very few vague passages from Livy taken from the period around the Second Punic War.49 46 Dumezil does, however, have a useful appendix on the Etruscans (p. 625ff.) - not least in its con­ siderations regarding criticism of the sources. 47 Cf. chapter 4 - including the panic of the Senate, which is an aspect Dumezil does not notice, since here he unreservedly adheres to Livy's version of the situation. 48 It is also indicative of a superior ethnocentric attitude that Dumezil refers to certain prodigies as "child­ ish" (vol. 1, p. 121, and vol. 2, p. 461), which seems to be a rather poor choice of words, particularly in light of the author's stated intention to characterize "Roman religious thought" (vol. 1, p. 134, cf. p. XVII). 49 Livy 1.62.1: Romae aut circa urbem multa ea hiemeprodigia facta aut, quod evenire solet motis semel in religionem animis, multa nuntiata et temere credita sunt.

30

Naturally it is conceivable that, as Livy intimates, in difficult and turbulent times, not least during the Second Punic War, parts of the Roman population could sometimes be characterized as an unstable and gullible group. One might, however, also consider whether this description represents a stereotyp­ ical feature in Livy's presentation. It is common knowledge that Livy has a ten­ dency to idealize the Senate and aristocratic traditions, whereas the masses in his presentation are characterized by terror ac tumultus.50 Be that as it may, the "explanations" of public divination that fall into the stress hypothesis category tend to generalize, based on Livy's description of a set of exceptional historical circumstances. In my view, these explanations are too frail, and apply to too brief a period, to have carried public divination and portents onwards as a religio-political institution for several centuries. Based on this argument and the present study, I would say the decisive factor lies neither in the volatile mind of the individual, nor in waves of mass hysteria. The mainstay of the institution is a collective, social and religio-political aim at keeping an equilibrium and a pax between society and the gods. That is one of the reasons why public divination must be regarded from a sociological (rather than a psychological) perspective as an institution firmly rooted in the religio-political tradition and the quest to maintain the balance between gods and men in order to ensure the continuity and welfare of society. As for the political aspect of public divination, Dumézil refers to Rigobert Günther,51 thus leading on to the second main category of hypotheses relating to public divination and portents. As this study will show, what I refer to as "manipulation hypotheses" occur sporadically and superficially in much of the currently accepted research into ancient history that in different ways involves divination and portents. Günther will therefore only serve here to emphasize a single and more extreme example of the manipulation hypotheses. The foundation on which Günther's thesis relies mainly consists in empha­ sizing the (well-known) fact that a number of members of the senatorial aris­ tocracy also held religious offices (cf. chapter 2.4). Günther's thesis can be fur­ ther subdivided into two principal assertions regarding the prodigies and their expiations. The first is that various social rebellions can be linked to the occur­ rence of prodigies,52 and the second is that public prodigies involve the sena­ torial aristocracy's cynical subjugation and manipulation of suppressed social 24.10.6: Prodigia eo anno multa nuntiata sunt, quae quo magis credebant simplices ac religiosi homines, eo plura nuntiabantur [...] 29.14.2: Impleverat ea res superstitionum animos, pronique et ad nuntianda et ad credenda prodigia erant. *>Walsh(1961)p. 152. 51 Dumézil (1970) vol. 2, p. 600, note 11. Günther (1964). 52 Günther (1964) p. 209: "Aufstände unterdrückter Klassen waren von Prodigien begleitet."; p. 214: "Vor allem Sonnen-, Mond-, Stern- und Feuerprodigien bedeuteten Kämpfe gegen Sklaven, aufständische Provinzen und eindringende fremde Stämme."; p. 215: "Die Prodigien kennzeichneten den Aufstand mit Zeichen, die für soziale und politische Bewegungen typisch waren. Eine brennende Fackel war am Himmel gesehen worden, und Waffenlärm wurde aus der Unterwelt gehört."

31 groups. 53 Establishing such a link between the occurrence of "heavenly prodi­ gies" and social rebellions does, however, seem somewhat arbitrary. As the prodigy table will show, there are numerous examples of "heavenly prodigies" that are not, to our knowledge, linked to rebellions, and vice versa: rebellions take place without any known "heavenly prodigies". 54 Furthermore, Günther makes extensive generalizations without, for instance, distinguishing between Roman history's many different types of rebellions, with their extremely varied historical, social, and political contexts. There are also a number of weaknesses in the idea that the senatorial aris­ tocracy suppressed and manipulated the lower social classes by means of pub­ lic divination. It builds on a Marxist theory of exploitation and class divisions in ancient society and is weakened by, among other things, the fact that prodi­ gies - to the extent that they are used for political purposes at all - appear in the conflicts of Roman political life within the ranks of the senatorial aristocra­ cy itself. Günther 's thesis moreover presumes that in the so-called politico-ide­ ological disputes, the senatorial aristocracy primarily used the public prodigies as a manipulative tool. His interpretation therefore does not involve the other social and religious aspects of the institution, including the fundamental links to mos maiorum and the social and religious prestige related per se to the reli­ gious offices involved (cf. chapter 2.4).55 Chapters 2.2 and 2.3 in this study will involve and criticize other (more bal­ anced) varieties of the manipulation hypothesis regarding auspicia and the interpretation of exta presented by such scholars as Lily Ross Taylor and H.H. Scullard.56 The manipulation hypotheses are, to a certain degree, linked to the scholar­ ly assumption of a religious decline towards the end of the Republic. This is seen for instance in Toynbee's description of public portents and divination:57 53

Günther (1964) p. 210: "Die herrschende Klasse Roms hatte demnach die grosse politische Bedeutung dieser religiösen Einrichtungen erkannt."; p. 209: "Die procuratio erforderte alle Massnahmen, die der schnellen Unterdrückung des Aufstandes dienten. Die Underdrückungspolitik der herrschenden Klasse erhielt damit eine religiöse Weihe. " 54 In connection with the slave uprising in 73-71 BC (PT 132), for instance, none of the prodigy types mentioned by Günther appear, nor is such an event as the political rebellion in Fregellae in 125 BC fore­ shadowed or accompanied by heavenly prodigies (PT 98). It would presumably be more relevant to turn to certain of the reported story's own links, such as foaling mules (PT 142) or tumbled masonry (PT 118) as a sign of impending rebellion. 55 I shall refrain from discussing Günther's third hypothetical section: Rome's politico-ideological battle against social Utopia based on a Sun cult, and social utopia/the Sun as a symbol of freedom (p. 23 6f£). Even though the general theme is a conflagration in the sky, this section of the article seems too airy and speculative to be relevant to our subject matter. 56 Taylor (1949/1975) chapter IV, p p . 7 6 - 9 7 : "Manipulating T h e State Religion"; Scullard (1951). 57 Toynbee (1965) vol. 2, pp. 409-410; cf. Polybius's view (6.56.6-13) stating that the purpose of Roman religion and "deisidaimonia" was to control the passions and violent anger of the multitude in order to maintain the cohesion of the state. Incidentally, Toynbee's classic work also presents several good examples of the effect of religion on politics and military operations (p. 408ff.). Concerning the issue of the decline of religion in the late Republic, see in particular Liebeschuetz (1979).

32 The observation of a meteorological portent, or even the formal announce­ ment, by a public officer, that he was scanning the sky on the chance that a meteorological portent might catch his eye, was enough to place an embar­ go on all political activities. This shameless misuse of the official Roman reli­ gion for political purposes raises, once again, a question that has been touched upon at the beginning of this chapter. During the last two centuries of the republican period of Roman history, did the Hellenically-educated members of the Roman "Establishment" disbelieve completely in the truth and efficacy of their ancestral religion? In continuing to make an outward show of respect for it, were they utterly insincere? In manipulating it for political purposes, did they have their tongues in their cheeks? However, Toynbee seems to be posing his question from a point of view centred on the religious conviction of the individual, not on the collective ideas and actions concerning the welfare of Roman society as a whole. As will be discussed further in chapters 2,3, and 4, Toynbee s sort of question seems much less relevant in rela­ tion to public divination than one might initially think. In addition, Toynbee lets Polybius (6.56) formulate an affirmative answer to the question, although he him­ self suggests the possibility that here Polybius may be drawing a somewhat sim­ plified picture. Perhaps Polybius' opinion and simplification are, after all, too steeped in Greek tradition and philosophy to be able to answer expansive ques­ tions about Roman religio-political affairs. To the extent that Polybius' presenta­ tion and opinion are aimed at public divination in Rome, it is an obvious possi­ bility that such an interpretation could be conditioned by the considerable differ­ ences between public divination in Greece and Rome. Portents in ancient Greek religion were not part of the public domain in the same way Roman public por­ tents were, and apart from a few oracles, such as the Delphic Oracle, divinatio and the consultation of oracles in Greece was a matter far more often left to private specialists. Seen in this light, the linking of public divination and res publica must seem outlandish to Polybius - and therefore a feature for which one explanation might be the aristocracy's control and manipulation of the people. Kurt Latte's classic work on Roman religion also strongly emphasizes both the decline of religion and the political abuse of religion during the later years of the Republic: 58 Für die Oberschicht hatte die römische Religion im letzen Jahrhundert der Republik jede Kraft verloren. Höchstens war sie noch ein Mittel, politische Aktionen zu verhindern, und auch diese Aufgabe erfüllte sie nur solange, als der Gegner sich an die Spielregeln hielt. The sources on public divination and portents do, however, give rise to a num­ ber of considerations regarding Latte's assertion and certain aspects of both reli­ gion and policy, as well as the concept of abuse in an ancient Roman context. 58

Latte (1960) pp.287-288; cf. chapter X, "Der Verfall der altrömischen Religion" pp. 264-294.

33

The work of Bruce Macbain is a balanced, hybrid form of the stress hypoth­ esis and the politico-historical manipulation hypothesis.59 Macbain's main hypothesis is that prodigies as a type of portent are an expression of political communication between Rome and various locations in Italy and the provinces, the objective of which is to promote Roman imperialism.60 As stressed in the following chapters, it can be advantageous to regard pub­ lic divination and portents as a field of interaction. All the same, Macbain's interpretation of the main function of this institution as a finely-tuned sig­ nalling system and part of a premeditated "religious ostracism" within a strate­ gically established imperialism is probably too all-encompassing,61 and at all events, this complex discussion is a far cry from involving imperialism in the modern sense of the word. In connection with the above, this study also examines the correlation between public divination and ager Romanus/peregrinus. With regard to this issue several investigations into ancient history rely on Mommsen's method and results, and chapter 5 therefore deals with Mommsen's thesis on how prodigies were only approved by the Senate as public if they occurred on ager Romanus.62 Finally, the most recent and excellent scholarly work on public portents in Roman religion is Veit Rosenberger's weighty treatment and inspirational inter­ pretation of public prodigies.63 Rosenberger's anthropological approach and liminal thesis, influenced by the likes of Arnold Van Gennep and his ground-break­ ing work on rites of passage,64 explains prodigies as the violation of limits, and the expiations of the prodigies as the symbolic re-establishment of these limits.65 59 Macbain (1975); (1982). 60

Macbain (1975) pp. 6-7. "The thesis which we propose to develop is that the prodigy-expiation complex functioned throughout much of the republican period as a signalling system, a mode of com­ munication, between Rome and her Italian allies, by which Rome acknowledged their anxieties and iden­ tified herself with their religious sensibilities at times of particular stress upon the whole fabric of the con­ federation, occasionally conveyed warnings to them, and, overall, by appropriating to herself the respon­ sibility to expiate their local prodigies, asserted her hegemony over Italy in the religious sphere parallel to her assertion of hegemony in the secular sphere." Cf. Macbain (1982) p. 41: "Romans were alarmed by untoward events in the natural order and found psychic relief in making ritualized responses to them." 61 Macbain (1975) p. 167: "Rome assumes as her right and duty the obligation to maintain the pax deorum on behalf of her allies as well as her own citizens. In this context, then, the non-acceptance of a peregrine prodigy may equally signal that the town in question has, for some reason, been placed beyond the pale. It is a form of religious ostracism and constitutes an assertion of the separateness of the peregrine town when it is politically desirable to emphasize that." (Macbain's italics.) 62 Mommsen(1853). 63 Rosenberger(1998). 64 Van Gennep (1909). 65 Rosenberger (1998) pp. 91-196. Rosenberger's liminal thesis is, however, slightly contradicted by the admittedly very few examples in the sources of phenomena violating limits that are subsequently interpreted as favourable omens (cf. PT 75; 77; 117; 128). What is more, Rosenberger sometimes unfor­ tunately relies on R. Gunther's presentation of the prodigy sources, which is marred by a number of errors. This chiefly influences conclusions that relate to the frequency of prodigies (Rosenberger (1998) pp. 36-37; Giinther (1965) pp. 234f.). For instance, it is incorrect that sweating statues of deities were

34

To give a single example, Rosenberger interprets the above-mentioned prodigy involving the bull and the bronze cow in Syracuse (PT 71) on the basis of no fewer than four liminal violations:66 Hier last sich in vier Stufen liminales Verhalten konstatieren: 1. verliess der Stier die Herde und ging seinen eigenen Weg; 2. da es sich wohl um eine Kultstatue handelte, überschritt der Stier die Grenze eines Temenos, mögli­ cherweise sogar innerhalb der Stadt; 3. ist die Paarung mit einem Wesen, das einer anderen Gattung angehört, als Vermischung anzusehen; 4. besitzt der Samen, vom Inneren des Körpers, nach aussen kommend, liminale Qualität. Although in this case the liminal interpretations may seem even more over­ whelming than the rutting bull gone astray, when applied, Rosenberger's view of prodigies as profane violations of sacred areas in many instances proves to be exceedingly convincing.

not observed until the first century BC, and it is likewise untrue that swarms of bees were only seen from 118 BC onwards. As seen in the prodigy table, in 217 BC the statue of Mars on the via Appia sweated, as did the images of the wolves (PT 35); in 210 BC four statues sweated blood on the ager Capenas (PT 44); and swarms of bees were observed in 214 BC (PT 40), 208 BC (PT 46), and 193 BC (PT 58). 66 Rosenberger (1998) pp. 113-114.

2. TYPES OF PORTENTS AND PRIESTHOODS 2.1

PRODIGIA

Cicero links the discipline of interpreting and expiating prodigia to the Etruscans,67 and as is evident from the prodigy table the haruspices are regularly involved in interpretations and expiations throughout the Republican period. I define as zprodigium any unusual event reported to the Senate and approved by that body as a prodigium publicum, an unfavourable portent that is usually rel­ evant to society as a whole and requires ritual expiation. Thus, a prodigy is a peculiar event described in the sources as a sign that the pax deorum has been dis­ turbed, and this type of portent calls for expiation to be performed in public.68 The prodigy table in the present work contains a scattering of prodigies that would appear at first glance to be "private".69 This occasionally makes the dis­ tinction between public and private prodigies seem unclear. However, when events that appeared to be private prodigies occurred in connection with "pub­ lic" individuals, those prodigies could obviously become a matter of public rel­ evance.70 This custom, combined with religio-political procedure, shows that the rule applied in practice to the recognition of a public prodigy was the Senate's approval of the prodigy rather than a theoretically rigid distinction between private and public affairs. The same applies to the question of the prodigies and the distinction between the ager Romanus and the ager peregrinus, which will be discussed in chapter 5. Cicero's role as an important source on the institution of public prodigies, and as an implicated party in a case regarding this institution, will be dealt with separately in chapter 3. The prodigy table The nature of the literary sources, that is Livy's and Julius Obsequens' contin­ uous listings of prodigies and their expiations, makes it possible to diachronically review the occurrence of this type of portent. The present chapter there­ fore includes a schematic presentation of public prodigies occurring during the Republic pp. 53-116). By structuring the information in a table, I have sought to systematically organize the data on public prodigies according to the fol­ lowing factors: a) literary sources b) chronology 67

Cic. Div. 1.3: Cumque magna vis videretur esse et inpetriendis consulendisque rebus et [in] monstris interpretandis ac procurandis in haruspicum disciplina, omnem banc ex Etruria scientiam adhibebant, ne genus esset ullum divinationis quod neglectum ab Us videretur. 68 Cf. the prodigies listed in Mommsen (1853); Wulker (1903); Luterbacher (1904); Krauss (1930); Bloch (1963); Rawson (1971); Ruoff-Vaananen (1972); Macbain (1975); (1982); Rosenberger (1998). 69 See for instance PT 72; 90; 94; 131; 144; 146; 147. 70 Cf. PT 147, under Comments.

36 c) geographical locations and incidences d) substance of the events reported e) priesthoods involved f) expiations prescribed I have also included comments on relevant historical events, as well as supple­ mentary information, references, et cetera. In the translation, the prodigies are listed in the order indicated by the principal sources. The actual number of prodigies reviewed is 828, but numbers for individual years can only serve as a very rough estimate, since in many cases the sources abbreviate and summarize within a given year.71 Hence I use the designation "{legio)" in the prodigy table, which means that while the sources explicitly state that there were many prodi­ gies during the year, they only mention a few. The prodigy table's information on historical events should only be seen as an "indicative chronology". In other words, only rarely should the events be viewed as having any causal connection with the prodigies. In addition, a graphic presentation of the physical distribution of the prodi­ gies is found in maps A, B, C, and D, which are accompanied by an index of the locations.72 A number of sociological and religio-political implications and relationships con­ cerning public prodigies are exemplified and examined in detail in some of the following chapters and will therefore not be discussed here. Nor will the prodi­ gy table be used as the basis for claiming any specific religious development of public prodigies as an institution during the Republic. Despite the extensive duration of the period with which we are familiar, no development can be proved on the basis of the sources. Finally - apart from certain exceptions - it seems impossible to establish any systematic, thematic connection between the sub­ stance of the prodigies and the substance of their expiations, or any link between certain prodigies and specific deities. The very unclear picture we have here is probably a result of the fragmentary ancient material on the expiations and, not least, a result of our general lack of knowledge of the interpretations applied in each individual case. The expiations of the public prodigies appear as purely rit­ ual actions relating to the prodigial interpretations. I shall begin by raising a methodical, critical issue concerning the treatment and categorization of the prodigy material. This will be followed by a sociolog­ ically based distinction of the material, and supplemented by a review of the 71

Moreover, the number of prodigies naturally depends on how one chooses to define "a prodigy", cf. note 68. Some scholars would, for instance, choose to distinguish between "genuine" and "false" prodigies (see below), and one could likewise discuss whether a report of multiple strokes of lightning within the same area should be perceived as one prodigy or several. 72 The designations on the maps mark the geographical locations linked with the prodigies in the sources. Names of towns, rivers, and lakes appear in small lettering, while geographical areas and regions appear in larger lettering.

37 actual religio-political procedure associated with the prodigies and priesthoods involved. Some of the early prodigies may strike the reader as atypical, and over the years scholars have sought to distinguish between genuine and apocryphal prodigies and prodigial expiations, particularly labelling certain older prodi­ gies as "false".73 This is in part a reflection of a general and quite seminal dis­ cussion within ancient Roman history and history of religion. However, in the present study of the official public prodigies, the issue of whether a prodigy is "genuine" or "false" (constructed) seems to be of minor significance. Consequently the prodigy table in this study, unlike other previous treatments of the subject, includes such events as the unusual rise in the water level of the Lacus Albanus (PT 13, 398 BC). One reason this episode has been included is that according to the sources, the rising water level was treated as a prodigy and the subsequent drainage as a kind of expiation. The second - and decisive reason is that, according to the tradition, the Senate, the libri fatales, and the Delphic Oracle were involved in the matter.74 According to Cicero, the Lacus Albanus account is found in the annales. In keeping with the philosophical structure of Cicero's work De divinatione (see chapter 3), the account of the Lacus Albanus is used in the first book as an example intended to justify div­ ination, whereas the second book raises doubts as to the divinatory aspect, referring instead to the functional explanation of the lake's drainage.75 73 Cf. Wülker (1903) p. 86; Wissowa (1912) p. 541, note 2; Macbain (1975) pp. 19-20. 74 Livy 5.51.6: lam omnium primum Veiens bellum - per quot annos quanto labore gestum! - non ante cepit finem quam monitu deorum aqua ec lacu Albano emissa est. 5.15.3: Quidnam eo di portenderent prodigio missi sciscitatum oratores ad Delphicum. Sedpropior interpres fatis oblatus senior quidam Veiens, qui inter cavillantes in stationibus ac custodiis milites Romanos Etruscosque vaticinantis in modum cecinit priusquam ex lacu Albano aqua emissa foret nunquam potiturum Veiis Romanum. [...] 5.15.8: Qui cum perductus ad imperatorem, inde Romam ad senatum missus esset, sciscitantibus quidnam id esset quod de lacu Albano docuisset [...] 5.15.11: Sic igitur libris fatalibus, sic disciplina traditum esse, quando aqua Albana abundasset, turn si earn Romanus rite emisisset victoriam de Veientium deserturos non esse. Plut. Vit. Cam. 3-4: καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ἤν ποιμένων θαῦμα καὶ βοτήρων. ἐπεὶ δέ, τοῦ διείργοντος ἀπὸ τῆς κάτω χώρας οἷον ἰσθμοῦ τὴν λίμνην ὑπεκραγέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους καὶ βάρους, μέγα ῥεῦμα κατέβαινε διὰ τῶν ἀρουμένων καὶ φυτευομένων ἐπὶ τὴν θάλατταν, οὐ μόνον αὐτοις παρεἸχε Ῥωμαίοις ἐκπληξιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσιν ἐδόκει τοἸς τὴν Ἰταλίαν καταοικοῦσι μηδενὸς μικροῦ σημεἸον εἶναι. Dion. Hal. 12.12.2: ἐν τοιαύτη δ' άμηχανία της βουλής ύπαρχοΰοης παρήσαν οί προαποσταλέντ€ς €ΐσ Δ€λφούς θ€Οπρποι χρησμούς κομίζοντ€ς τοις ύπο του Τυρρηνου πρότβρον άπηγγ€λμένοις συνάδοντας·. Cf. Dion. Hal. 12.10.2ff. 75 Cic. Div. 1.100: Quid quod in annalibus habemus Veienti bello, cum lacus Albanus praeter modum crevisset, Veientem quendam ad nos hominem nobilem perfugisse, eumque dixisse ex fatis, quae Veientes scripta haberent, Vetos capi non posse, dum lacus is redundaret, et si lacus emissus lapsu et cursu suo ad mare profluxisset, perniciosum populo Romano; sin autem ita esset eductus, ut ad mare pervenire non pos­ set, turn salutare nostris fore. Ex quo ilia mirabilis a maioribus Albanae aquae facta deductio est. Cum autem Veientes bello fessi legatos ad senatum misissent, turn ex Us quidam dixisse dicitur non omnia ilium transfugam ausum esse senatui dicere; in isdem enim fatis scriptum Veientes habere fore ut brevi a Gallis Roma caperetur, quod quidem sexennio post Vetos captos factum esse videmus. 2.69: Nam ilia praedicta Veientium, si lacus Albanus redundasset isque in mare fluxisset, Romam perituram, si repressus esset, Vetos [...] ita aqua Albana deducta ad utilitatem agri suburbani non ad arcem urbemque retinendam.

38 Although Alföldi's rejection - "nor as the Roman Annals pretend, was its pur­ pose to expiate a prodigium" 76 - may seem even more categorical than Cicero's rebuttal in his second book, the presentation in the sources of the unusual rise in water level, and of the measures taken in that connection, are at any rate important in relation to the history of religion, and relevant to the study of prodigies. The various sources inform us of 1) the role of the Senate, 2) the involvement of the libri fatales, 3) the involvement of the haruspices, 4) the con­ sultation of the Delphic Oracle, and 5) the religious motivation for an exten­ sive and ingenious technological project in which the drainage of the Lacus Albanus included the construction of an emissarium. Portions of this emissarium have been preserved, but unfortunately archaeological dating is difficult. Castagnoli dates the emissary to around 400 BC, which is concordant with the prodigy, while Alföldi holds that the channel may well have been constructed around the sixth century BC, and if so, it was probably restored or expanded around 400 BC.77 Regardless of whether the aim of constructing the emissary (or resuming use of an already existing one) was the prevention of floods, and/or the increase of arable land, and/or the expiation of the prodigy in ques­ tion, the sources dealing with the event bear witness to the decisive importance and considerable age attributed to the institution of public portents. Another event included in my prodigy table is the Lacus Curtius prodigy from 362 BC (PT 15). Wissowa and Macbain consider this apocryphal mate­ rial, and Wülker does not list it as a prodigy. 78 It nonetheless fulfils the crite­ ria I use to define a prodigy: an unusual event is reported (the earth opens into a chasm), approved by the Senate, and expiated by a sacrifice of the things most precious to the Roman people, namely weapons and valour personified by Marcus Curtius, who throws himself into the pit, fully armed and on horseback. Three versions of the Curtius legend have been handed down: 1) The earth opens into a pit, and because closing it requires the sacrifice of quo plurimum populus Romanus posset, the valiant Roman equestrian Marcus Curtius, riding his horse, plunges into the chasm, fully armed, after which the earth closes. 2) Mettius Curtius was the name of a Sabine who, during the conflict that followed the rape of the Sabine women, became mired in this marshy place and had to sacrifice his horse to save his life. 3) Lacus Curtius is a place where lightning had struck, and which was there­ fore made sacred by means of a puteal (a well-head) constructed by C. Curtius, consul in 445 BC.

76 Alföldi (1965) p . 244. 77

78

Alföldi (1965) p. 244; on Castagnoli, cf. Alföldi (1965).

Wülker (1903) p. 86; Wissowa (1912) p. 541, note 2; Macbain (1975) pp. 19-20. For the sources, seePTl5.

39

Fig. 1. Lacus Curtius, a puteal bordered by a twelvesided stone kerb.

Fig. 2. Inscription at the middle of the forum, identical to the inscription on the back of the Lacus Curtius relief (see Figure 4).

A key element in all three versions is the emphasis on the importance of the location itself, and versions 1 and 3 in particular directly indicate the cultic aspect, which is still clearly visible today at the Forum Romanum (see Figures 1 and 2). In light of this similarity, and of the existence of the Curtius relief,79 version 1 represents what in a prodigial context would be an obvious religious explanation of the Lacus Curtius and the aura of great religious respect surrounding this location. Scholarship in the fields of archaeology and art history generally attribute the Curtius relief to version 2, but in this connection it is not necessarily a question of choosing one version and rejecting the others. 8o Consequently, I find it of relatively little use to determine whether the story of the prodigy is actually constructed, and whether perhaps originally the Lacus Curtius at the centre of the forum may simply have marked a location where lightning had struck or some -other, similar event had occurred. The crucial point is that one of the versions describes the event as a prodigy that is expiated, and that the sources bear witness to the procedural aspects of the occurrence. The scholarly distinction between "genuine" and "false" prodigies also involves the issue of plausibility, with physically impossible portents (such as speaking cattle) on the one hand and physically possible portents in the form of abnormalities (such as hermaphrodites) on the other. Luterbacher is one of those who insist on making such a distinction:81 "So sind sicherlich samtliche Angaben iiber sprechende Tiere und Sauglinge pure Erfindungen, z. B. dass ein Ochse des Konsuls Domitius 192 ausgerufen habe: 'Rom, sei auf der Hut'." (PT 59) . 79 See Figures 3 and 4. Thus, the Lacus Curtius relief may illustrate the expiation of a prodigy. Datings of the relief range from the second century BC to the end of the first century BC, cf. Nash (1961) pp. 542-544; Propyliien Kunstgeschichte (1967) p . 224; Platner et at. (1929) p. 310. 80Cf. Bremmer (1993) pp. 165-170; cf. Ampolo (1990) p. 212. 81 Luterbacher (1904) chapter 4.

40

Fig. 3. The Lacus Curtius relief.

Scholars count talking cattle among the more peculiar prodigies. Even so, in my view the question of bovine eloquence is of secondary interest and cannot be resolved here. 82 The main point of interest is this: the sources show that such phenomena as speaking cattle were reported as unusual events, approved by the Senate as prodigies, and expiated as such. This counters the desire to distinguish between genuine and false prodigies. The prodigy table shows that speaking cattle made up a type of prodigy that by no means occurred rarely (cf. PT 7; 59; 77; 92; 93; 112; 123). This is incidentally confirmed by Pliny, who also reports that after prodigies involving speaking cattle, the Senate was to assemble outdoors (Naturalis Historia 8.183): est /requens in prodigiis priscorum bovem locutum, quo nuntiato senatum sub diu haberi solitum.

The sources occasionally report that the speaking ox was to be handed over to the state and allowed to graze on public lands, and was diligently fed and cared for.83 This emphasizes the prodigy as a public affair, and in an ancient Roman context, no scientific distinction seems to be reflected in sources concerning the official treatment of the prodigies. Hence, the basic assumptions of this work and its definition of prodigies do not regard such a distinction as necessary. Based on the prodigy table, I do not believe that a modern scientific distinction between genuine and false prodigies would serve any actual purpose in this context, and it is impossible to establish any critical criteria for doing so 82 I have, however, personally come across cows emanating sounds caused by ruminatio that might easily have been mistaken for Latin speech. 83 Livy 35 .21.5: bovem cum cura servari alique haruspices iusserunt . Cf. Obseq. 27: Bos locutus et nutritus publice; Livy 41.13.3 : [. .. J et in Campania bos alenda publice data [, ..1 For details on the ager publicus, cf. Crawford (1989) pp. 93-98; Gargola (1995) .

41

Fig. 4. The back of the Lacus Curtius relief.

in the relevant source examples. Therefore the distinction between genuine and false prodigies in this study of the significance of public portents is only interesting in those few cases where ancient sources themselves indicate that a portent has been manufactured for a certain religio-political occasion. 84 A sociological point of view, however, offers another noteworthy distinction, as a particular group of prodigies sets itself apart from the other unusual events featured in the prodigy table. Examples of this group of prodigies include the incestum of Vestal Virgins (as in PT 38), the impudicitia of Roman matrons (as in PT 30), and a consul's violation of religious practice (as in PT 36). An element common to these prodigies is that their breach of the pax deorum consists in tangible, incorrect and unusual human behaviour. Treating, for instance, the incestum of the Vestal Virgins and the impudicitia of the matrons as prodigies would be an obvious reaction,85 in light of the normal Roman perception that these would constitute serious violations of the salus publica, the welfare of Roman society, and the security of the state. It is therefore no wonder that such violations and the public handling of the women's pudicitia and castitas can appear as prodigies and expiations, respectively. In the cases in question, the expiations involve firstly the dedication of a statute to Venus Verticordia (PT 30), and secondly the prescription of what Livy refers to as extraordinary, un-Roman expiations consisting of the burial alive of a Gallic man and a Gallic woman, as well as a Greek man and woman, at the Forum Boarium (PT 38).86 Incestum and impudicitia 84 Cf. Meyer (2002).

Cf. PT 3 and 4, in which the incestum of the Vestal Virgins is also said to have given rise to other prodigies. See also chapter 6. 86 Such sacrifices are, however, not completely exceptional, cf. PT 32. It would seem that human sacrifices were prohibited in 97 BC. Plin. HN 28.3.12-13; De Sanctis (1953) vol. 4, p . 320; cf. chapter 6. 85

42

also give rise to a prodigy that Orosius feels moved to describe as both obscene and sad (PT 106): the daughter of a Roman equestrian87 was struck dead by lightning while riding on horseback, and she was found with her tongue stick­ ing out and her dress lifted above her sexual organs, as if the lightning had flashed over her lower limb to her mouth.88 Thus the prodigy and its responsum show a nefas of a sexual nature and are linked with an account of three Vestal Virgins and a number of Roman equestrians who were sentenced to pun­ ishment at the same time for committing incestum. To expiate the prodigy a temple was built in honour of Venus Verticordia.89 Likewise, incidents such as scandals involving Roman matrons and poison are treated as prodigies that call for expiation (PT 18). In the same way as the religious and social violations of the Vestal Virgins and the matrons were viewed as prodigies that threatened the welfare of Roman society, an event such as Flaminius' religious violations in a military context (in 217 BC) was also treated as a prodigy and perceived as giving rise to other prodigies (PT 36).90 Finally, the sanctioning effect of public prodigies in relation to correct behaviour in the political sphere is clearly exemplified by a prodigy recorded in 42 BC (PT 148) involving a praetor who deprives a colleague of his appoint­ ment due to a disagreement. Obsequens explicitly states that this was regard­ ed as a prodigy, and that no one who acted in this fashion would live for more than a year afterwards. Obsequens then produces a list of names to substanti­ ate the practice.91 Based on the records of the prodigies, one must therefore conclude that besides peculiar phenomena such as speaking cattle and fertile mules, exam-

87

The Roman equestrian Publius Elvius was returning to Apulia from the Roman Games, cf. Obseq. 37. 88 Obseq. 37; for the other sources, cf. PT 106. 89 1 do not agree with the identification between the cults of Venus Verticordia and Fortuna Virilis that scholars have sometimes deduced. There is obviously some source-related confusion and uncer­ tainty as to the two cults and their mutual relationship, but as far as content is concerned, they seem to differ significantly. The aim of the Venus Verticordia cult is clearly as described in relation to the prodi­ gies, whereas the Fortuna Virilis cult seems to have been a women's cult with a sexually promoting aim involving, among others, the Roman meretrices - which is admittedly a far cry from the aim of the Venus Verticordia cult, cf. Ov. Fast. 4.145ff.; Verrius Flaccus in CIL I2 p. 314. 90 Cf. PT 84 and 139 (54 BC), in which M. Crassus also ignores prodigies in a military context. It is precisely the violations of Flaminius that cause Plutarch to make an assessment that is highly indicative of the politico-military significance of the Roman public prodigies, Plut. Vit. Marc. 4.4: OIJTCJ rrdvTa T& npdy\±aTa 'Pcojiaiois- ei? T6V 0€OV dvrjyeTo, jiavTeiojv 6e KCCI aTpioav urrepo^iav ou§ ' em Tea? \±€yioTais euTTpa^iais- drreSe'xovTO, |i€i£ov f)yo\j|ji€voi TTpo? acoTripiav TToXecog TO GauiidCeiv TO. 6€ia TOIJ? tfpxovTas- TOO KpaTelv TOOV TTOA€|J.I