09.06.2013 Views

The dissemination of divination in roman republican times

The dissemination of divination in roman republican times

The dissemination of divination in roman republican times

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Year BCE<br />

218-190 189-162 160-132 131-103 102-74 73-44 Total<br />

Years with most CI 16 12 8 9 9 2 56<br />

Years with most BIZ 9 5 2 6 3 2 27<br />

Years with equal 2 2 3 1 4 1 13<br />

N(report<strong>in</strong>g years) 27 19 13 16 16 5 96<br />

Table 10.3 Amount <strong>of</strong> counter<strong>in</strong>tuitive and bizarre prodigies per report<strong>in</strong>g<br />

year.<br />

It therefore seems safe to conclude that the more attention demand<strong>in</strong>g the occurrence the more<br />

probable was it that it would be identified as a prodigy. Prodigies are thus a type <strong>of</strong> sign that <strong>in</strong><br />

itself is attention demand<strong>in</strong>g and thus achieves salience as an omen.<br />

Relatio<br />

<strong>The</strong> new consuls seem to have related the reported prodigies to the senate (Liv.22.1.14;<br />

Cic.Har.62). This is one <strong>of</strong> the obligatory actions the newly elected consuls had to carry out<br />

when they entered <strong>of</strong>fice. In Livy (Liv.22.1.14) we hear <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>terrogation by the senate <strong>of</strong> the<br />

persons who reported the prodigy, but this was hardly the usual procedure.<br />

Susceptio<br />

Susceptio means acceptance <strong>of</strong> a report as a prodigy. <strong>The</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciples beh<strong>in</strong>d acceptance or<br />

rejection has been the focus <strong>of</strong> much previous research (Krauss 1933; Latte 1960; Luterbacher<br />

1967; MacBa<strong>in</strong> 1982; Rasmussen 2003; Rawson 1991a; Rosenberger 1998; Warde-Fowler 1971;<br />

Wülker 1903). Unfortunately it is one <strong>of</strong> the most obscure parts <strong>of</strong> the process. Except for two<br />

examples we only have evidence <strong>of</strong> the prodigies that were accepted. We are therefore left to<br />

guess what pr<strong>in</strong>ciples lay beh<strong>in</strong>d the acceptance procedure.<br />

<strong>The</strong> key evidence is two prodigies that were not accepted. <strong>The</strong> passage runs as follows: “Two<br />

portents were not treated as public matters, the one because it took place <strong>in</strong> a privately owned<br />

spot: “Titus Marcius Figulus reported that a palm had sprung up <strong>in</strong> his catch-bas<strong>in</strong>”. <strong>The</strong> other<br />

because it had occurred <strong>in</strong> a non-Roman place: “at Fregellae, <strong>in</strong> the house <strong>of</strong> Lucius Atreus, a<br />

209

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!