The dissemination of divination in roman republican times

Lienard & Feeney 2006), prayer (Barrett 2001), sacrifice (Høgh-Olsen 2006), prophetism
(Levy 2007), holy texts (Pyysiäinen 1999), fundamentalism (Malley 2004) and afterlife-
beliefs (Bering, McLeod & Schackleford 2005). The first part of this dissertation is a similar
endeavor; the second part is an empirical investigation based on the insights provided.
In a sense this dissertation is an experiment. Probably only few readers will not find
something that provokes or offends them. It is truly not intended. I hope the reader will
forgive me and not take offense at the dispositions this experiment has necessitated. Let me
try to preempt some of the most obvious criticisms.
The form is a consequence of what I have felt was necessary to complete the task. Since
many different fields of research are touched upon, and since the addition of every new field
exponentially increases the possible objections and need for further contextualization, many
may feel dismay at the dispositions made. First of all, the reader will often miss reservations
and discussions of alternative ways of accounting for the data. This may make the exposition
appear much more confident than is the case. The reason for this is that the flow of the
dissertation would be jeopardized and the exposition would be too lengthy if I were to make
all relevant reservations and take into account all other possible accounts for the material
every time some result or theory is presented. I have tried as far as possible to include
references to works where such discussions and elaborations are undertaken.
Second, parts of the dissertation may appear congested. Some things could have been more
thoroughly discussed, explained or presented. Again this is a consequence of the spatial
constraints of the dissertation. This congestion has also resulted in the move of discussions
related to source criticism, central for the historian, from the main text to the footnotes and
appendices. This is not a depreciation of source criticism, but a decision made for the
dissertation to have a better flow.
Third, many historians will probably react with shock at the extended use of quantitative
analysis of historical data. There is a reason for this (I mean for the use of quantitative
analysis, but probably also for the shock. That is, however, another story). The sort of
analysis I am trying here, with a heavy reliance on quantitative data, is not without
precedence in historical research. The annales school of history inaugurated by Marc Bloch
and Lucien Febvre and continued by Ferdinand Braudel championed exactly this type of
analysis. There are even more parallels to this approach: as a summary of the work of
15