The dissemination of divination in roman republican times

It can be seen that Latte's as well as Bloch's explanations emphasize historical influences in
the explanation of Roman divination. We also see the more traditional explanations, such as
divination being an instrument of manipulation and divination being a function of fear.
Fear and trembling...
From the 1970s onwards fear as an explanatory category came back in to focus in the attempt
to explain divination in Rome. A number of explanations from this period develop the earlier
ideas in light of philosophy, psychology and sociology. One of the exponents of this type of
argument, Georges Dumezil, is one of the great historians of religion. Although he was most
famous for his Indo-European thesis, he did valuable work on Roman religion as well. In his
main contribution, Archaic Roman Religion, he writes: "The concern for discovering the
feelings of the gods is very close to an obsession. Not only does public credulity dangerously
multiply prodigies, during crises and even in periods of calm, but the anxious waiting for
auspicia oblativa, the dispositions to hear omina everywhere, reminds us of familiar mental
troubles. Does the religious life of individuals and of the state suggest psychiatry?" (Dumezil
1970: 119). According to Dumezil divination is best seen as a kind of collective psychosis
brought about by crises. In line with earlier research he also sees the Romans as insincere in
general (Dumezil 1970: 121). Thus, during the last centuries of the Roman republic,
divination declined into being mere manipulation which fed on collective psychosis (Dumezil
1970: 121-122, 610).
Johan Hugo Wolfgang Gideon Liebeschuetz's Continuity and Change in Roman Religion
from 1979 is another influential general treatment of Roman Religion. In this treatment
divination plays a central role. According to Liebeschuetz divination had the central function
of maintaining public confidence and avoiding panic: "This would calm the emotions, reduce
defeatism and obviate the search for scapegoats. An atmosphere was created in which senate
and people could decide on future strategy in a rational matter" (Liebeschuetz 1979: 10). He
is also the first to suggest an explanation of why it is that the Romans did not find out that the
system didn't work. This is due to what he calls a "kink" in human psychology: "divination
enables the client to think out his own solution to the problem, but owing to a ‘kink’ in
human psychology, the real working of the system is not scrutinized" (Liebeschuetz 1979:
20). He refers here to William Bascom's work (Bascom 1969; Bascom 1941). The vagueness
of divination and the fact that only successes are remembered are contributing factors to the
125