(David Wardle) Cicero On Divination Book 1

C L A R E N D O N A N C I E N T H I S TO RY S E R I E S
General Editors
Brian Bosworth
Miriam GriYn
David Whitehead
Susan Treggiari
The aim of the CLARENDON ANCIENT HISTORY SERIES is to provide

authoritative translations, introductions, and commentaries to a wide range
of Greek and Latin texts studied by ancient historians. The books will be of
interest to scholars, graduate students, and advanced undergraduates.
CICERO ON
DIVINATION
De Divinatione
BOOK 1
Translated
with Introduction and Historical Commentary by
DAV ID WA RD L E
CLARENDON PRESS
OXFORD
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With oYces in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
David Wardle 2006
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published 2006
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., Kings Lynn, Norfolk
ISBN 0-19-929791-6 978-0-19-929791-7
ISBN 0-19-929792-4 (Pbk.) 978-0-19-929792-4(Pbk.)
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Preface
In his excellent book on Roman ruler cult Ittai Gradel issues the
following caution: Only with extreme caution should philosophical
treatises, such as Ciceros De Natura Deorum or De Divinatione be
employed in the study of Roman religion; and as for its interpretation, they are best left out of account altogether. In trying to teach a
course to postgraduates at the University of Cape Town on Roman
religion, I have used De Divinatione as a central text. Through
reading it, in a relatively short compass, students are exposed to a
wide range of divinatory practices and diVering views on their status
and validity in a way that stimulates discussion and occasional
interest. It is because Peases magniWcent, monumental commentary
proved impenetrable for students without an excellent command of
both Latin and Greek and because in the eighty years since it was
published scholarly approaches to Roman religion have changed,
that I embarked somewhat ambitiously on a new commentary. Recurrent fears of hubris were somewhat allayed by the appearance in
Italian (Timpanaro), German (Schaublin) and French (Scheid and
Freyburger and Kany-Turpin) of modern translations with commentaries of varying scope which suggested that others too were thinking
that something new was needed for the late twentieth century.
The further into this project I have gone the deeper my appreciation of Peases work has grown and greater has become my realization of the range of expertises necessary to understand Ciceros
achievement. Although De Divinatione has justly been called the
least philosophical of all Ciceros philosophical dialogues, an ancient
historian has had to grapple with material and ideas he thought he
had gratefully done with in Mods. If there are any philosophical
pitfalls that I have avoided I owe that to Clive Chandler and David
Charles. If it is the least philosophical, then it is also the most
historical of Ciceros philosophical works; for book 1 in particular
the Stoic case for divination relies upon a mass of historical exempla
and even if individually they are mostly well-known, in their deployment Cicero has created an argument which needs to be assessed
vi
Preface
overall and in its various parts. On such a basis this book has found a
home in the Clarendon Ancient History Series.
Of the editors Miriam GriYn has nobly read through the whole in
various forms at various times and Susan Treggiari has suVered a late
draft. The anonymous reader for the press, Professor A. R. Dyck,
did a painstakingly detailed job which alerted me to many shortcomings. For advice on things avian I thank the late Nan Dunbar, for
things pharmacological John Scarborough, for reading the philosophical bits David Charles, and last, but certainly not least, for
casting an eagle eye over the proofs and compiling the index, Gerald
Groenewald.
This project has been completed through three periods of study
and research leave granted by the University of Cape Town in 1997,
2001, and 2004 and was assisted by a research grant in 1997 from the
then Centre for Science Development (now National Research Foundation) of South Africa. I have been fortunate to spend each of those
three periods in Oxford and to enjoy the unparalleled resources of
the Bodleian and Ashmolean libraries. Latterly the Sackler experience has proved interesting: the academic habit of going round in
small circles has gained a physical dimension: perhaps the need to
relearn where everything is when once you knew is an illuminating
parallel for writing about divination. As always, the interlibrary-loan
staV of the University of Cape Town have eYciently and cheerfully
procured for me a wide range of obscure materials unavailable
locally.
D.W.
Cape Town
Contents
Abbreviations
INTRODUCTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Divination in Republican Rome

Cicero on Divination outside De Divinatione
Nature, Form, and Purpose of the Work
The Sources of De Divinatione
Dramatic Date, Date of Composition, and
Publication
6. The Text and Translation
viii
1
1
5
8
28
37
44
TRANSLATION
45
COMMENTARY
90
Bibliography
Index
427
443
Abbreviations
Abbreviations of ancient authors follow those used by the Oxford
Classical Dictionary, 3rd edn. (1996), and LAnnee Philologique.
A&A
Antike und Abendland
A&R
Atene e Roma
ABSA
AC
Annual of the British School at Athens

LAntiquite Classique
AClass
Acta Classica (Pretoria)
ACUSD
AFLP
Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debrecenensis

Annali della Facolta` di Lettere e FilosoWa. Perugia
AJA
American Journal of Archaeology
AJP
American Journal of Philology
ALL
Archiv fur lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik
AM
Athenische Mitteilungen
Anc. Soc.
Ancient Society
Anc. W
Ancient World
ANRW
H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und

Niedergang der romischen Welt (Berlin, 1972 ).
ARW
Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
Arch. Class.
Archeologia Classica
ARG
Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte
ASAA
Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene
ASGP
Annali del Seminario Giuridico dellUniversita` di

Palermo
ASNP
Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa
BABesch
Bulletin Antieke Beschaving
BBG
Blatter fur das Bayerische Gymnasial-Schulwesen
Abbreviations
BCAR
ix
BCH
Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale

di Roma
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique
BICS
Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies
BMCR
Bryn Mawr Classical Review
BNP
M. Beard, J. North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome

(Cambridge, 1998).
BStudLat
Bollettino di Studi Latini
CA
Classical Antiquity
CAH
Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn. (Cambridge,

1990 ).
CB
Classical Bulletin
CCAG
F. Cumont et al. (eds.), Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum (Brussels, 195389).

Cuadernos di Filologia Clasica. Estudios Latinos
CFC
CGL
H. Keil (ed.), Grammatici Latini (Leipzig, 1855

1923).
CHI
I. Gershevitch (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, ii

(Cambridge, 1985).
CIL
T. Mommsen et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863 ).
CISA
Contributi dellIstituto di Storia Antica
CJ
Classical Journal
CP
Classical Philology
CQ
Classical Quarterly
CR
Classical Review
CRAI
Comptes Rendus de lAcademie des Inscriptions et

Belles-Lettres
CSCA
California Studies in Classical Antiquity
CW
Classical World
Echos du Monde Classique
EMC
FGrH
F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

(Berlin and Leiden, 1923 ).
G&R
Greece and Rome
Abbreviations
GRBS
Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies
HSCP
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
ICS
Illinois Classical Studies
IG
Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin, 1873 ).
IGRRP
R. Cagnat (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas

pertinentes (Paris, 190127).
IGUR
L. Moretti (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae

(Rome 1968 ).
II
Inscriptiones Italicae.
JDI
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts
JHA
Journal for the History of Astronomy
JHI
Journal of the History of Ideas
JHP
Journal of the History of Philosophy
JHS
Journal of Hellenic Studies
JNES
Journal of Near-Eastern Studies
JRS
Journal of Roman Studies
JWIC
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes
LCM
Liverpool Classical Monthly
LIMC
Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae

(Zurich, 198197).
LTUR
M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae

(Rome, 1999).
OLD
P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford,

196882).
ORF
H. Malcovati (ed.), Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, 4th edn. (Turin, 1967).
MD
MEFRA
Materiali e Discussioni
Melanges de lEcole Francaise de Rome (Antiquite)
MGR
Miscellanea Greca e Romana
MH
Museum Helveticum
Mnem.
Mnemosyne
MNIR
Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome
NGG
Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaft zu

Gottingen
Abbreviations
xi
NJ
Jahrbuch fur klassische Philologie
OSAP
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
PBSR
Papers of the British School at Rome
PCPS
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
PHJ
Philosophisches Jahrbuch
PhW
Philologisches Wochenschrift
PLLS
Papers of the Liverpool (Leeds) Latin Seminar
PP
La Parola del Passato
PRIA
Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy
QS
Quaderni di Storia
QUCC
Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica
RCCM
Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale
RdA
Rivista di Archeologia
RE
A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll (eds.), RealEncyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft

(Berlin, 18931980).
Revue des Etudes Anciennes
REA
REG
REL
Revue des Etudes Grecques

Revue des Etudes Latines
RFIC
Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica
RGEDA
RHDFE
R. K. Sherk, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of

Augustus (Cambridge, 1984).
Revue Historique de Droit Francais et Etranger
RhM
Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie
RHR
Revue de lHistoire des Religions
RIL
RPh
Rendiconti dell Istituto Lombardo

Revue de Philologie, de Litterature et dHistoire
Anciennes
RPL
Res Publica Litterarum
RRC
M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage

(Cambridge, 1974).
RSA
Rivista di Studi Antici
SBAW
Sitzungberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaft
xii
Abbreviations
SCO
Studi Classici e Orientali
SE
Studi Etruschi
SIFC
Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica
SJP
Southern Journal of Philosophy
SLLRH
C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and

Roman History (Brussels, 1979 ).
SMSR
Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni
SO
Symbolae Osloenses
SVF
H. F. A. von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta

(Leipzig, 190324), iiii.
TAPA
Transactions of the American Philological Association
WJA
Wurzburger Jahrbucher fur die Altertumswissenschaft
WS
Wiener Studien
YCS
Yale Classical Studies
ZPE
Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Introduction
1 . D I V I NATION IN R E P U BL IC AN RO ME
Divination is a phenomenon common to all human societies, to be
deWned in its broadest sense as methods by which knowledge is
obtained of the future or of anything whose signiWcance cannot be
determined by ordinary perception, a means of extending the realm
of rationality.1 In the ancient Mediterranean world divination took
many forms, some speciWc or particularly signiWcant to individual
peoples.2 In the Roman context divinatory techniques were integral
to the religious and political life of the state, and contributed to
a distinctiveness in Roman religious practice that was commented on
by outsiders such as Polybius.3
It would be wrong to take De Divinatione in isolation from
Ciceros other philosophical works and claim that divination was
a topic of particular importance for intellectual discussion in the
mid-Wrst century bc, even though various members of the elite
produced works on diVerent aspects of its theory and practice.4
Nonetheless, the importance of divinatory practices within the state
religion and particularly within the wider religious market which
resulted from Romes interactions with the wider Mediterranean
1 See e.g. the deWnitions in OED, J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics (Edinburgh, 190826), iv. 775 (H. J. Rose), or M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopaedia of
Religion (New York, 1986), iv. 375 (E. M. Zuesse) and the insightful summary of
W. Burkert in Johnston and Struck 2005: 30.
2 For a convenient treatment, see New Pauly, iv. 56477.
3 See e.g. Scheid 2003: 11124; Polyb. 6. 56.
4 See e.g. Rawson 1985: 299316; Momigliano 1984.
Introduction
world should not be minimized.5 It could have been a subject with as

practical a relevance for Ciceros contemporary, elite audience as his
De OYciis, but he chooses to argue in his own persona that it is an
empty idiocy, proven to have no philosophical validity, useful only
for the manipulation of the masses. While Ciceros attitude is not
unique, it should not blinker us to the wider realities of the Roman
world in the Late Republic and in particular to the sheer vitality of its
religious life.
Scholarly approaches to Roman religion have changed dramatically since the inXuential monograph of Georg Wissowa that
presented a ritualistic and legalistic religious system from which
any original spiritual element had been drained before Roman
historians began to write their history, and which was a tool for the
elite to use in political and factional contests.6 Now there is a more
sympathetic understanding of the interplay of the political and
religious in the Roman context: the ability of ritual as a means by
which the Roman worshipper could conceptualize his position in
the world is better appreciated; and the problems of judging
Roman religion from a perspective unavoidably inXuenced by
Christian or christianizing assumptions on the centrality of belief
are consciously acknowledged.7 Rather than being a dead or
fossilized system, the Roman state religion of the Middle and Late
Republic emerges as far more dynamic, capable of incorporating new
rituals and of adapting to the challenges caused by becoming a world
power.8
Within the state religion divination played an important role: of
the three major colleges of priests, two were charged with oversight
of areas of divination: the augurs and the Quindecimviri sacris
faciundis (Board of Fifteen for Ritual Action). In addition the
haruspices, although they were Etruscan exponents of the Etrusca
disciplina, were inspanned to deal with lightning, portents, and the
examination of entrails. The operation of these bodies has often
5 For the use of market, see Bendlin 2000: 134.
6 See e.g. Scheid 1987.
7 Bendlin (2000: 11520) provides a succinct summary of the traditional and new
orthodoxies with references to the key bibliography. King 2003 now presents a
nuanced argument on the deWnition and place of belief in Roman polytheism.
8 e.g. North 1976, 1979.
Divination in Republican Rome
been presented from the perspective of the elitethe augurs and

the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis were comprised of the Roman
elite,9 and the haruspices were members of the Etruscan elite and
played a limited role in Roman public life only at the direct invitation
of the Senate as interpreters of speciWc phenomena. Through these
separate bodies the Senate managed a division of religious authority
and competence that prevented a dangerous monopoly or collocation of powers, just as the constitution of the Republic aimed to
prevent any individual from exercising political power outside the
limits set by the senatorial elite. Through the exercise of arcane
knowledge such as the augural law, which governed all legislative
and electoral gatherings, or the Etrusca disciplina, which dealt with
the natural phenomena that could strike terror into the people (such
as lightning or earthquakes), these priestly colleges were a powerful
means of control. But in taking such an approach, which undoubtedly embodies important truths, we are in danger of looking at
divination solely as a political phenomenon, and in eVect of taking
on the views of Cicero or elite cynics, or even covertly christianizing
assumptions about the nature of a highly complex polytheistic
system.10
Divination was a means of providing practical guidance for individuals and groups, and of assuring them in times of crisis or
decision by conWrming the existence, benevolence, and concern of
their gods for them. Wolf Liebeschuetz, for example, has demonstrated well the way in which public panic could be averted by
divinatory consultation by the state, thereby restoring conWdence in
the institutions and management of the state.11 Within the state
religion divination was concerned only with the well-being of the
community and not that of individuals; among the states priestly
colleges there was no equivalent of a Delphic oracle to which
individual citizens could go with their problems. The needs of
individuals were met outside the state system, for example by
9 See e.g. Szemler 1972.

10 Cf. S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor
(Cambridge, 1984), 1115, and I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion
(Oxford, 2002).
11 Liebeschuetz 1979: 717.
Introduction
dream-interpreters and astrologers.12 By following only Ciceros

sceptical attitude towards any divinatory element in Romes state
religion, by accepting his denigration of the divinatory activities that
took place outside the state religion as mere superstition, and by
looking only at the exempla he provides (both those provided in
defence of divination and those against) a limited and partial picture
emerges. Some evidence suggests that the views of the elite diVered
from those of the ordinary people, for example, the diVerent prominence Cicero gives to portents in speeches to the people as opposed
to the Senate.13 However, we know of members of the elite who were
avid devotees and practitioners of many forms of divination and we
cannot be sure that their characterization as ridiculous extremists is
wholly fair.14 It would be rash to assume that members of the elite did
not consult diviners, and indeed would ignore examples that
Cicero himself provides.15 As for the ordinary people, the plays of
Ennius and Plautus reveal the everyday presence of harioli, seers,
and a full range of divinatory practitioners.16 These unoYcial
practitioners would not have enjoyed the popularity they did, and
would not have continued to Wnd many customers long after
Christianity began to oVer a fundamentally diVerent system of divine
guidance, had they not met those customers needs.17 Divination
provided a way for people of making sense of their lives and of
receiving and understanding guidance from the gods who inhabited
their world.
12 The relegation of dreams from the Roman state religion, although they could be
regarded as the oldest oracle (Plut. Mor. 159a), is plausibly linked to issues of
control. Astrology posed diVerent problemsits late development as a divinatory
discipline in the Graeco-Roman world (as opposed to the very long history
of astronomical observations) and its inherent determinism Wtted badly with the
traditional Roman prejudice against novelty and the pointed absence of determinism
from Roman and Etruscan religious thought.
13 See 2 below.
14 For Appius Claudius Pulcher see commentary on 1. 29 and 105. For Nigidius
Figulus see Rawson 1985: esp. 30912. Harris (2003: 134) shows how complex the
situation was in relation to belief in the predictive value of dreamsthere was no
simple elitemasses divide, no simple progression from credulity to rational rejection, no simple distinction between belief and disbelief.
15 e.g. 1. 36.
16 See on 1. 4 and 132. See also A. Traill, CQ 54 (2004), 1247.
17 See Lane Fox 1986: passim, but see e.g. 21315.
Cicero On Divination
2 . C I C E RO O N D I V I NAT I O N O U T S I D E DE
DIVINATIONE
It is not just in Ciceros philosophical work that divination obtrudes.
Because of its centrality to public and private life, it appears in all of
the genres in which he wrote:18 and yet, because of the vast range of
contexts in which it appears, a simple uniformity of attitude and
presentation is not to be expected. Ciceros treatises on rhetorical
theory and the practical demonstration of that theory in the political
and forensic speeches he delivered form a group of texts in which the
same criteria of persuasion apply. In the one he was advising wouldbe orators on how to create arguments that would be persuasive to
jurors, senators, or the people gathered in an assembly; in the other
he was producing these arguments. In both Partitiones Oratoriae and
Topica Cicero rightly recognizes that a kind of evidence often
accepted was that which comes from divination,19 and he urges his
would-be orator to utilize them where they would be appropriate.
Concerning divinatory material, in three clear instances he tailors
his argument to suit senatorial and popular audiences. First, in his
popular oration on the discovery of the Catilinarian conspiracy, he
mentions a vast array of divine warnings that had no place in his
dealings with the Senate.20 Secondly, in the two speeches De Reditu,
delivered on 4 September 57, only the popular oration features
a prodigy;21 and thirdly in the Fourth Philippic, which develops for
a popular audience arguments presented to the Senate earlier
the same day, Cicero has the gods send signs.22 In another speech
before the Senate, De Haruspicum Responsis Cicero, in response to
the rhetorical situation, logically plays up the prestige and importance of the haruspices, because the Senate, following its traditional
practice, had delegated to them the responsibility of explaining
a prodigy that had occurred. Cicero rebuts Clodius interpretation
18 See Guillaumont 1984. See also Setaioli 2005: 2446.
19 Part. 6; Top. 77. In this he was preWgured by Aristotle (Rhet. 1376a) and followed
by Quintilian (Inst. 5. 7. 356). See Reinhardt 2003.
20 Cat. 3. 910, 1822.
21 Red. pop. 18; cf. Dom. 1415.
22 Phil. 4. 10.
Introduction
of the haruspical response and point-by-point demonstrates that

Clodius was responsible for the sacrileges to which the prodigy was
alerting the state. In the broader context of Ciceros speeches divine
testimonia play a very small role, and his deployment of them for
the popular audience is signiWcant, but by itself says nothing about
his own attitude: the good orator will deploy the best argument
available to convince his audience.23
In his philosophical works written in the 50s, De Republica and De
Legibus, Cicero not only accommodates the traditional divinatory
oYces of the Roman state, but also argues for their retention as
beneWcial features of a state with a good constitution and good
laws. In the former, when dealing with the regal creation of key
institutions of the Roman state, he writes at that time Romulus
obeyed very closely the auspices, which we retain today to the great
security of the state.24 In book 2 of De Legibus he provides a set of
laws to regulate the religious life of the state which prescribes their
traditional roles for pontiWces, quindecimviri sacris faciundis, and
augurs.25 Furthermore, in the extended commentary on these laws,
in response to questions from his interlocutor Atticus, Cicero both
reiterates the importance of the role played by the augurs in particular, and justiWes the existence of divination: I think that divination,
what the Greeks call mantike, does really exist.26 When pressed on
whether the future could be predicted through augury, Cicero aYrms
that, even among the Romans, augury had once involved predictions,
but that in his own day it merely sought permission for actions.27 If
(as I shall argue) in the literary setting of the De Legibus Cicero clearly
indicates that he is not arguing as a sceptical academic,28 then there is
no contradiction with his consistent philosophical position towards
divination, but when dealing with politics he emphasizes the great
utility of the auspices.
23 See e.g. Clu. 139.
24 Rep. 2. 16.
25 Leg. 2. 20. See Dyck 2004: 3023.
26 Leg. 2. 32. Cf. Guillaumont (1984: 548) for Ciceros arguments on the political
utility of augury. For the equivalence of the two terms see on 1. 1, but for crucial
diVerences see below p. 20.
27 Leg. 2. 33. Cf. Guillaumont 1984: 13540.
28 See below 3 (ii).
Cicero On Divination
In speeches from the early 50s, which impinge on the political

struggles of Julius Caesars consulship and its consequences, and in
his correspondence of the time, Cicero mentions the use of augural
law by Bibulus to block Caesars legislation, Clodius deWance of
augural law, the repeal of the leges Aelia et FuWa, but none of his
comments sheds light on his attitude to the truly divinatory aspects
of the debates rather than on his support for the optimate position.29
From his private correspondence, but also from Brutus, emerges
Ciceros great desire and delight at becoming a member of the college
of augurs, a public elevation which secured his place among the social
eliteit was highly prestigious to be elected by the comitia tributa on
the recommendation of members of the college.30 Certainly it
appears that Cicero took his duties seriously, as he became the author
of a De Auguriis which indicates some mastery of the technical details
and application of augural law.31 But in this it must be emphasized
that Cicero did not see the augural competence extending to
knowledge of the future, indeed his remarks in correspondence are
sceptical as to the possibility of any useful predictive science.32
Divination as practised by the oYcial colleges of the state religion
was traditional, guaranteed the cohesion of the state and assisted
the elite in maintaining control over the people, but did not reveal
the future.
Although in some of his speeches to the masses Cicero includes
material which suggests he believes in divination, when speaking to
the elite of the Senate and in his private correspondence he says
29 See Guillaumont 1984: 5977.
30 Att. 2. 9. 2; Fam. 15. 14. 13; Brut. 1; Phil. 2. 4.
31 The fragments of this are so exiguous (see C. F. W. Muller, M. Tulli Ciceronis
scripta quae manserunt omnia, 4/iii (Leipzig, 1890), 312) as to give no clues as to its
scope or purpose. Perhaps his researches for this, as much as his general knowledge of
the use of augury in Roman politics, informed his augural disputes with M. Antonius
in 44 (cf. Phil. 2. 801, 5. 8).
32 In a letter to A. Caecina, the great expert on the disciplina Etrusca, Cicero is
politely and wittily dismissive of divinatory techniques that rely on anything other
than political experience (Fam. 6. 6. 7; cf. 6. 1. 5; Att. 16. 8. 2). See Guillaumont 1984:
11416 and B. Cuny-Le Callet, La Lettre de Ciceron a` Cecina: Vers une divination
rationelle?, in Kany-Turpin 2005: 22339. Ciceros comments to Quintus on the
Xooding of the Tiber in 54, interpreted as divine punishment for the acquittal
of Gabinius (Q. Frat. 3. 5), if not ironical, certainly do not indicate his belief
(pace Guillaumont 1984: 128).
Introduction
nothing which is at odds with the views he expresses in propria

persona in De Divinatione:33 for the consumption of the ordinary
people he wishes the divinatory rituals of the state religion to
continue in the hands of their elite priests. None of these rituals,
however, can predict the future.
3. NATURE, FORM, AND PURPOSE OF THE WORK

A pair of articles appearing in 1986 marks a watershed in the interpretation of De Divinatione, and must form the starting point for any
discussion of these interrelated questions.34 Beard and SchoWeld both
argue that De Divinatione is no simple tract, rejecting the view that
Marcus demolition of the Stoic arguments advanced by Quintus
in book 1 can be taken as a straightforward expression of his
personal beliefs on the practice of divination, or as the triumph of
a rationalist approach to Roman divination.35 Their conclusions
are reached after consideration of the literary form of the dialogue:
the reader is presented with arguments both for and against
divination; the views expressed by Marcus do not thereby have
greater authority; and the conclusion, in the words of Marcus who
has put the sceptical case, explicitly leaves the issue open. While
it is often diYcult to disentangle the several questions raised here,
33 Privately (Fam. 1. 1. 3) Cicero denounces a Sibylline oracle which it was

essential for him not to expose publicly (cf. Pis. 48, 50).
34 SchoWeld 1986: esp. 4765, and Beard 1986: 3346. Despite the concerns of
Timpanaro (xcvi; developed a little further in Timpanaro 1994: 25964), Brunt
(1989: 194 n. 33), and Setaioli (2005: esp. 24951), the general acceptance of this
Cambridge approach is clear (e.g. Douglas 1995: 1978; Krostenko 2000: 354;
Morford 2002: 667) and above all by the most distinguished authority on Roman
religion, John Scheid (19879: 1278). The brief discussion of Leonhardt (1999:
6673) sets out clearly the alternative ways of approaching De Divinatione, but
comes down Wrmly on the side of Beard and SchoWeld, emphasizing the balance
between Quintus and Marcus speeches, the weight of the Academic conclusion, and
the consistency of Ciceros position between De Legibus and De Divinatione.
35 As held e.g. by Momigliano 1984: 209 and Linderski 1982: 1516 1995: 4612.
Cf. Pease (1213): against popular ignorance . . . and political and antiquarian
obscurantism . . . , the De Divinatione stands forth as a vigorous rationalistic protest.
it is necessary, for the sake of clarity, to attempt to do so in the

following discussion.
(i) The Place of De Divinatione in Ciceros Philosophical

Oeuvre
If Cicero was to fulWl his intention to complete an encyclopedic
treatment of Greek philosophy in Latin, which he conceived and
executed more or less in the order of logic, ethics, and physics,36
then that last category had to include a treatment of divination,
which naturally and logically followed from discussion of the nature
of the gods. SchoWeld suggests that De Natura Deorum fulWlled
Ciceros obligations to the category of physics and that the writing
of De Divinatione, that the enquiry might be fully and more than
fully completed, and of De Fato, in superabundant suYciency,
shows that he is going to town on theology, and he indicates that
he knows very well that De Natura Deorum on its own would have
suYced.37 However, any survey of Hellenistic philosophy would
show a fascination for works on divination and fate, seen notably
and at greatest length among the recent notables of Stoicism, Panaetius and Posidonius, subjects without which Cicero could not do
justice to physics.38 If his audience was more receptive to religious
issues at a time of civic turbulence and if he felt a competitive desire
to engage in debate with contemporary Latin writers on divination,
those will have been subsidiary factors at best in the decision to write
De Divinatione.39 If the philosophical encyclopedia was to be truly
36 So SchoWeld 1986: 48, in examining the catalogue raisonnee of works in
the prologue to De Divinatione 2. 13. Although there is reason in talking of an
encyclopedic treatment, it is clear that Cicero did not treat any part of physics other
than metaphysics, i.e. theology. Dyck (2004: 222) demonstrates that there was no one
traditional order (pace SchoWeld). If the Academici libri represent logic, then Cicero
has followed the order preferred by Chrysippus.
37 SchoWeld 1986: 48. SchoWelds translation of ut [quaestio] plene esse cumulateque
perfecta (2. 3), which incorporates the suggestion of R. G. M. Nisbet for the manuscripts plane (accepted by Schaublin). Cf. Shackleton Baileys to the very uttermost
(Fam. 10. 23. 6).
38 As SchoWeld admits (1986: 50), quoting Balbus remarks (ND 3. 19).
39 Cf. SchoWeld 1986: 49. Some at least of Ciceros literary competitors may have
included elements of philosophical justiWcation or attempts to reconcile philosophy
and their area of divination (Rawson 1985: 3025).
10
Introduction
encyclopedic, it had to cover divination; consequently, the link

between De Divinatione and De Natura Deorum is important.40
(ii) Cicero, Marcus, and Authorial Commentsthe Question

of Voices and Beliefs
Several questions can be posed concerning the signiWcance of
Ciceros appearance as the character Marcus and the sceptical attack
on divination put in his mouth: is this what Cicero himself believed
orgiven his adherence to the sceptical Academyfound more
plausible? Is the persona of Marcus consistent? Is it legitimate even
to search for Ciceros own voice? Beard argues strongly against the
attempt to determine Ciceros voice, because the author deliberately
conceals it, just as he elsewhere expressly criticizes those who seek to
learn his personal opinions of an unreasonable degree of curiosity.41
But, as SchoWeld notes, in De Divinatione Cicero goes out of his way
to focus attention on this very question of his own beliefs, in both
books, by Quintus use of Ciceros own writings and experiences in
one and by speciWc statements by Marcus in the other (1986: 56).
Against the notion of a clear authorial voice is raised the apparent
inconsistency of the views of Marcus between De Natura Deorum
and De Divinatione. In the conclusion to the former Marcus says,
in a form which Wts well with Academic caution, [the discourse]
of Balbus seemed to me a closer approximation to the truth,42
whereas in the latter Marcus argues polemically against traditional
40 See esp. 1. 9, where Quintus paraphrases Marcus words from ND 3. 95. Cf. the
explicit links drawn at 1. 117 and 2. 148. Indeed, De Divinatione can be seen as the
continuation of the argument which Balbus had desired, but which was artiWcially
terminated by sunset (ND 3. 94).
41 ND 1. 10. Beard 1986: 35; cf. 45: it is not justiWable to extract one part of one
work and to claim for that part the status of Ciceros real views .
42 ND 3. 95: mihi Balbi [disputatio] ad veritatis similitudinem videretur esse
propensior. This view is regarded as disingenuous by Momigliano (1984: 2089;
countered by SchoWeld 1986: 57 n. 20) and as a mere pedagogical device by Pease
(9). For the view that Ciceros conclusion, which creates an equal division of opinion
between Marcus and Balbus on the one hand and Cotta and Velleius on the other, is
fairer to his own position and to historical verisimilitude, see Taran 1987: 122
(followed by Leonhardt 1999: 616).
11
Stoic arguments in favour of divination.43 Certainly the Academic

philosopher was free to choose individual doctrines from any
philosophical school while rejecting others, so Cicero could accept
the general Stoic view on the nature of the gods, while rejecting their
views on divination.44 But crucial here is that there is no inconsistency between Marcus position in both dialogues, for, although the
doctrines on the nature of the gods and on divination were intricately
linked in early (and orthodox) Stoicism, they could be separated:
prominent Stoics, notably Panaetius, had themselves expressed
doubts on the existence of divination, while remaining orthodox
on the nature of the gods.45 Throughout De Divinatione, in fact, the
consistency of Marcus arguments with the conclusion to De Natura
Deorum is re-emphasizedBeards contrast is illusory.46
While Cicero as an Academic philosopher had a free hand to pick
and choose his doctrines, as an author he was free to choose his
characters for any dialogue and also the form of any work. Nothing
prescribed that it should be a dialogue rather than a sustained argument (as previous treatments of divination had been) or that the
speakers should be contemporary, as they are in De Divinatione. So,
for Cicero to include himself and to give himself the arguments he
has were deliberate choices; he could have used the same characters
as in De Natura Deorum. There is no evidence that he attributes to
the contemporary Roman characters of his dialogues views that
are opposed to their philosophical aYliations or views which are
inconsistent between dialogues.47 Where the possibility occurs of
43 For a discussion of the conclusion to book 2, which is important to evaluating
the work, see below 3 (iii).
44 See Long 1995: 412. For an extreme example of this within the speech of Cotta
in De Natura Deorum, see Dyck 2003: 10.
45 For traditional Stoic linking of the arguments as the Stoic citadel see 1. 10 (cf. 1.
812); for Panaetius views, see on 1. 6.
46 Div. 1. 10, 2. 41 and 148. Acknowledged by SchoWeld 1986: 58.
47 Cf. Beard 1986: 389, for the analogous concern for historical accuracy in the
setting of the dialogues. It seems that we may need to draw a distinction between
the contemporary and the Heraclidean dialogues. In the latter, notably De Re Publica,
the views attributed to Scipio Aemilianus and Laelius are not secure, despite their
deWnite association with Panaetius (e.g. Dyck 1998: 15163; pace R. E. Jones, AJP 60
(1939), 31316). Ciceros second thoughts on the libri academici further support this:
in the Wrst version he put in the mouths of Lucullus and Catulus epistemological
arguments that were inappropriate to them; in the revised version these were
attributed more plausibly to Cato, Brutus, and Varro (cf. Att. 2. 16. 1, 13. 12. 3).
12
Introduction
convicting him of inconsistency, for example between his arguments

in De Finibus 4 and Tusculanae Disputationes 5.33, Cicero expressly
confronts it as a right of the Academic: we live from day to day
whatever strikes our minds as deserving approval we maintain, and
so we alone are free. His use of the Peripatetically inclined Quintus as
a mouthpiece for what is basically a Stoic case in De Divinatione 1 is
the closest Cicero comes to non-verisimilitude, but again in this case
he is careful to show that Quintus was really a Peripatetic: Quintus
is made to aYrm that he prefers Peripatetic reasoning and their
aYrmation of natural divination and that he considers Stoic
arguments too superstitious.48
I suggest that the practice is no diVerent when Cicero chooses to
use Marcus as a participant in his dialogues. If Marcus does reXect
the philosophical position of Cicero in early 44, we have to face up to
a philosopher who appears to have changed his mind.49 Even if, for
the sake of argument, the many references to divination in Ciceros
public speeches are considered as conventional only, that is, for
public consumption, in De Legibus 2, written in the late 50s, Marcus
accords full recognition and their traditional divinatory functions
to augurs, haruspices, and quindecimviri sacris faciundis: I think
that divination, what the Greeks call mantike, really exists.50 The
apparent change of view has been explained both with and without
reference to philosophy: Wrst, as Cicero saw the sustained manipulation of the Roman religious system by Caesar for his personal
ends, he abandoned his earlier acceptance of divination (whether
that was motivated by belief in the validity of the phenomenon or
is to be explained only in terms of the genus civile of theology;51 or the
change was a result of his switch of philosophical allegiance
to the sceptical New Academy probably early in the 40s,52 and
perhaps owed something to a speciWc acquaintance with Carneades
48 For Quintus philosophical inclinations, see on 1. 8. His Peripatetic self is
revealed at 2. 100.
49 Denied by Beard (1986: 45) on the grounds that it is illegitimate to equate the
views of Marcus with those of Cicero.
50 Leg. 2. 323. See SchoWeld 1986: 63 n. 30. For example, the distinction between
public and private discussion is taken seriously by Pavis dEscurac (1981: 34).
51 Linderski 1982: 378 1995: 4834; cf. Krostenko 2000: 3845 n. 83.
52 J. Glucker, LCM 17 (1992), 1348; cf. Steinmetz 1989: 122.
13
arguments against divination.53 Although a change of view is neither

a priori impossible nor psychologically implausible, nonetheless
a careful reading of the key passage in De Legibus (1. 39) demonstrates that this is unnecessary.
Marcus: As for the Academy which throws all these things into confusion,
this New Academy of Arcesilas and Carneades, lets ask it to remain silent.
For if it intruded itself into these matters, which we think have been
constructed and composed nicely enough, it would create too much
destruction. But I am eager to win over this Academy and dont dare to
remove it . . . <Lacuna>
This last sentence in particular shows the reader that Marcus is still
an adherent of the New Academy, but that, as a statesman dealing
with the speciWc preserve of the statesman, and one putting forth
views which do not admit of strict proof, he is putting to one side the
destructive logic of the Academy.54 In the literary setting of the
dialogue, Cicero advertises that both Marcus and his interlocutor
Atticus are taking a break from their regular philosophical positions
in order to express dogmatic and non-Epicurean views respectively.55
If within De Divinatione Cicero does not indicate that something
similar is being done by Marcus, it is unproblematic to assume
that Marcus is representing Ciceros philosophical opinions in De
Divinatione. Indeed, as SchoWeld argues, there is a powerful case
that, in using Marcus as a spokesman for a sceptical attack on divination, Cicero wants his to be seen as his oYcial voice in the
dialogue.56 To get behind the voice, to know if Cicero did not believe
in divination or think that the sceptic arguments were stronger, is
53 SchoWeld 1986: 63 n. 30. At the beginning of the same article SchoWeld (1986:
478) suggests that Cicero did not have a purely philosophical conversion to a
sceptical position, but grew to appreciate the advantages of an Academic mode of
enquiry for the eVective presentation of conXicting views in a literary work. Cicero
had, however, expressed his allegiance to the Academy in his Academica (1. 13), which
were written in mid-45 and in the authorial prologue to De Natura Deorum
(1. 1112). SchoWeld is followed by Tarver 1997: 142.
54 In diVerent ways both Long (1995: 412) and Gorler (1995: 868, 957) argue
convincingly that this whole passage does not entail a rejection of Academic scepticism per se. See also N. Rudd, Hermathena, 170 (2001), 38.
55 See GriYn 1995: 335.
56 SchoWeld 1986: 5661. I reject SchoWelds argument from the alleged uniWcation
of the sceptic and the author in the conclusion to book 2 (see below).
14
Introduction
impossible,57 but, as there is no disclaimer to suggest his disengagement from the sceptical case, it is reasonable to conclude that he
inclines toward it (SchoWeld 1986: 61). The burden of proof that
Marcus alone, and then only in the theological dialogues, should not
be credited with holding the views he expresses lies with those who
suggest this.
(iii) Reading the Conclusion to Book 2

In the light of the above, and because the conclusion to the whole
dialogue also plays an important part in the arguments of Beard and
SchoWeld, it is important to discuss this in more detail. In those cases
where the conclusions to his philosophical works have survived,
Cicero regularly summarizes brieXy how the arguments have fared,
but avoids doing so in De Divinatione.58 Marcus concludes his
demolition of the validity of dreams (147), and emphasizes that his
arguments have served to undermine superstition and not true
religion (148),59 so that every waking and sleeping hour should be
free from worry (149), as Carneades had argued against the Stoics.
Then follow the Wnal sentences of the work:
57 Even the expression of an opinion in private correspondence, as to the great

expert on haruspicy Caecina (Fam. 6. 5 and 6), cannot prove what Cicero believed.
58 Leonhardt (1999: 389) usefully tabulates the material. Ciceros rejection of
Epicurean arguments is always expressed in the strongest terms. Cicero can say
explicitly that discussants remained unmoved by the arguments (e.g. Acad. 2. 148)
and that one remained more convinced than another (Fin. 4. 80). Leonhardt (1999:
38) considers the conclusion to De Divinatione diVerent and surprising after the
convinced rejection of divination in Marcus speech. R. Gorman, The Socratic Method
in the Dialogues of Cicero (Stuttgart, 2005), 1867, contends that Ciceronian dialogues are usually unresolved, a function of both literary verisimilitude and philosophical intention, as Cicero did not want to impose his own views; an open ending
prevents the sceptical voice having the Wnal word and preserves the intellectual
freedom central from Socrates onwards.
59 SchoWeld (1986: 59) alleges that in 2. 1489 we hear an Epicurean voice, which
should be treated as a rhetorical Xourish, and that he unites the voice of the
spokesman for scepticism with what appears to be his authorial voice, comparing
the object of Div. with things said in ND (1986: 57). However, this seems overelaborateMarcus alone speaks, in character, with a voice consistent between the
two works. If we infer authorial signiWcance, that comes solely from the plausible
equivalence between Marcus and Cicero that we have established above.
15
Since it is characteristic of the Academy to put forward no judgements of its

own, to approve those which seem most like the truth, to compare arguments, to draw out all that can be said against each argument, and, without
asserting its own authority, to leave the judgement of those listening free and
all their own, we shall hold to this method, inherited from Socrates, and if it
is agreeable to you, brother Quintus, we shall use it as often as possible in
our future discussions. Nothing could please me better, Quintus replied.
When this was said, we arose.60
Both Beard and SchoWeld emphasize that there is no guided conclusion here, in sharp contrast to the end of De Natura Deorum.61 Beard
lays particular stress on their being the Wnal words of the work and as
such particularly weighty in demonstrating that the discussion is
open,62 and SchoWeld emphasizes the two framing statements of
the argument in book 2: I must reply to what you say, but in such
a way that I aYrm nothing, but pose questions on all points, for the
most part with hesitation and no self-conWdence. For if I were to treat
as certain anything I said, I would myself be playing the diviner while
denying that there is such a thing as divination,63 and the passage
quoted above, as guiding the reader how to approach the work.
Quintus is certainly not made to confess that he has been
persuaded by Marcus arguments and what he gives his assent to is
the future testing of hypotheses by the Socratic method. However, to
conclude from this that the dialogue is truly evenhanded is to
60 2. 150: cum autem proprium sit Academiae iudicium suum nullum interponere, ea
probare quae simillima veri videantur, conferre causas et quid in quamque sententiam
dici posit expromere, nulla adhibita sua auctoritate iudicium audientium relinquere
integrum et liberum, tenebimus hanc consuetudinem a Socrate traditam eaque inter nos,
si tibi, Quinte frater, placebit, quam saepissime utemur. mihi vero, inquit ille, nihil
potest esse iucundius, quae cum essent dicta, surreximus; cf. Fat. 1, where Cicero
explains why the format of De Fato diVers from the Academic format of De Natura
Deorum and De Divinatione.
61 If the conclusion of the De Natura Deorum is to be read as suggesting that where
four learned speakers are unable to reach consensus about the nature of the divine in
the universe, assent should only be lent to propositions about the gods with great
caution (Dyck per litt.), then in fact the formal diVerence is small.
62 Beard 1986: 35 n. 13. SchoWeld (1986: 59) prefers to see the attack on superstition as a rhetorical Xourish.
63 2. 8: Dicendum est mihi igitur ad ea quae sunt a te dicta, sed ita nihil ut adWrmem,
quaeram omnia dubitans plerumque et mihi ipse diYdens. Si enim aliquid certi haberem
quod dicerem, ego ipse divinarem, qui esse divinationem nego.
16
Introduction
misunderstand what Marcus has achieved in his argument and what

he says in the words quoted above.64 Given that the Academy did not
state positively x is true, but demonstrated the weaknesses and
implausibilities of other dogmatists arguments, notably those of
the Stoics, the conclusion to book 2 should be read as Marcus saying
that he has demonstrated that Stoic (and Peripatetic) arguments
in favour of divination are incoherent and not worthy of the
philosophers assent. However, he will not himself say how divination
might work or state for certain that divination does not exist.65
In book 2, Marcus at the very least shows that the Stoic
and Peripatetic arguments raised by Quintus can be powerfully
countered and probably contradicts them successfully.66 If he has
demonstrated that his opposing arguments are closer to the truth,
less inadequate, and more acceptable, then he has fulWlled his duty as
an Academic sceptic; the search for greater verisimilitude excludes
absolute certainty, but the Stoic position has been shown to be the
weaker. If his arguments have indeed shown this, then De Divinatione
is not without a deWnite philosophical conclusion that could easily be
64 As SchoWeld shows (1986: 61 n. 27), Cicero carefully uses Academic terms in
Marcus summary: judgement (iudicium) is the strongest term for assent, one which
expresses belief, whereas approve (probare) indicates a form of assent falling short of
belief; (most) like the truth (veri similis) probably translates eikos, meaning something like plausible arguments, as in Carneades (Glucker 1995: 12037).
65 The assertion esse divinationem nego at 2. 8 should be understood as expressing
how the truth seemed to lie, not a settled belief of Marcus in a way which would
contradict the clear statement of 2. 150 (SchoWeld 1986: 59).
66 Repici 1995: 17592, esp. 18992. Repici argues that modern criticisms of the
Academic attack are not cogent (cf. N. Denyer, PCPS 31 (1985), 110; SchoWeld 1986:
62: on three crucial issues the criticisms of Book II leave divination and its defence in
Book I more or less unscathedor so at least it might reasonably appear, and
Hankinson 1988: 12360). Timpanaro (1994: 24164) attacks Denyers arguments.
Even if they are cogent, on which 20th-century philosophers disagree, can we assume
that Ciceros readers, however well-versed in Hellenistic philosophy, could spot the
weaknesses and resuscitate Quintus position? Krostenko (2000: 3746) advances the
view that Cicero has deliberately weakened the arguments of both Quintus and
Marcus in order to show that neither provides an adequate basis for understanding
Roman religion, for which a third way was necessarya divination that was purely
formal and symbolic, and thereby detached from questions of belief and immune to
the probes of skepticism. It is, however, not straightforward to extract from the
overall structure of the work, if the even-handed conclusion is only an expression of
politeness, that Marcus has not achieved his Academic ends, as is signalled at least
partially by Quintus capitulation (2. 100).
17
understood by the philosophically sophisticated audience for which

it was intended.67
It is also worth considering the conclusion to the dialogue in terms
of the courtesy Cicero extends particularly to the contemporary
characters in his philosophical works. The emphasis on the argumentative methods of the New Academy both explains why Marcus
attack has taken the form it has, and explicitly leaves Quintus free
to hold his own views.
(iv) Incongruity of Philosophical and Sceptical Priests?

In De Natura Deorum C. Aurelius Cotta, consul of 75 and member of
the pontiWcal college, presents the case of the sceptical Academy
against Stoic arguments, but also declares clearly his support for
traditional Roman worship of the gods (ND 3. 5). Likewise Marcus
in De Divinatione, a member of the augural college (as is mentioned
and alluded to repeatedly, 1. 25, 29, 30, 105, 2. 70 and 75), attacks
divination, but also upholds traditional religion which includes
divinatory practices.68 For Beard (1986: 45) the position of both
Cotta and Marcus is deliberately ambiguous in order to highlight,
through the conXicting role of priest and philosopher, the problems
faced in reconciling traditional Roman practice and Greek
philosophical theory. While there are indeed fundamental problems
67 Repici (1995: 192): the destined audience of this work would not seem to be
readers who were unprepared or incompetent; the presence in it of reasoning of a
philosophical character, rational arguments which are constructed and then demolished, seems to demand a conceptual equipping somewhat developed in a technical
sense, hard to reconcile with an intention purely informative or exclusively rhetorical.
Besides, how could the confrontation between (arguments of the) Stoics and (arguments of the) Academics be imagined in the terms of a simple rhetorical exercise?
Timpanaro (1994: 260): Cicero did not write Book I to defend divination, but to
demonstrate its lack of rational basis, to prepare the ground for its refutation.
Leonhardt (1999: 6673), however, maintains the position that all Marcus arguments have achieved is to cast doubt on the Stoic position.
68 See below. Marcus position is defensible from the position of the New Academy, cf. Long 1995: 412. For Scheid (19879: 128) Marcus is concerned only to
demonstrate that the gods play no role in divinatory rites, but not to argue that
divination does not exist. While the Wrst point is unobjectionable, the second seems
to me to understate what Marcus arguments have achieved.
18
Introduction
in reconciling Greek theories on divination and Roman practice,69

because Academic argument does not provide a dogmatic answer,
Marcus position as a Roman augur is not formally compromised:
what has been demonstrated is that Stoic arguments in favour of, and
explaining, divination are not plausible; alternatives have not been
ruled out. Throughout the speech he is careful to state that belief in
the gods is not prejudiced by any rejection of divination.70 Furthermore, the institutions of Roman state religion are explicitly
supported: haruspicy is to be continued for the sake of the state
and for the continuation of a state religion;71 the Sibylline books are
to have a role, albeit somewhat diVerent from their historic role, in
removing illegitimate cult practices (2. 112). The future role of
Marcus own augural college is slightly more problematic, in that,
while Marcus accepts that augural law and the inXuence of the
augural college are retained by the Roman state for the sake of
popular opinion and to the great beneWt of the state,72 he does not
expressly recommend a continuing role for them. However, such
a role is not diYcult to infer, given the treatment of the other two
colleges concerned with divination and given the fact that the
Romans did not employ augury as a method of prediction.
(v) Greek Theories and Roman Practice

At the very basic level, in undertaking his philosophical encyclopedia
Cicero was making available in Latin the kind of philosophical
debates already available for around four hundred years in Greek,
but particularly those of the Hellenistic schools.73 Had he been
69 See below 3 (v).
70 2. 41. Similarly the tirade against superstition is fully compatible with
traditional Roman attitudes; Marcus explicitly upholds religion and professes a
personal belief in the existence of the divine (2. 148).
71 2. 28: Haruspicy, which I hold should be cultivated for the sake of the state and
the state religion. But for Ciceros comparative disregard for haruspicy as opposed to
augury, see Haury 1966: 162333.
72 2. 70. Cf. Beards comment on this passage: an attempt to negotiate . . . incongruity (1986: 43).
73 By contrast, in the 50s he had emulated Plato in writing De Republica and De
Legibus.
19
content only to translate Greek works, as he did for Platos Timaeus

and Protagoras and Xenophons Oeconomicus, that would have been
a worthy and complicated enough task, as the process of translation
means confronting practical and theoretical issues.74 However,
Cicero states that his aim is to do more than this, for example,
I shall follow the Stoics above all, not as an expositor, but, as is my
custom, drawing from these fountains when and as seems best, using
my own judgement and discretion and what if I do not fulWl the role
of interpreter, but keep to what has been said by those whom
I approve and to them add my own judgement and sequence of
writing?75 One key element of this application of his own judgement
to the literary and argumentative structure of his works was the
choice of the dialogue format and the introduction of Roman characters and settings (Powell 1995: 9, 301).
However, how far did and could such Romanization go? For Beard,
Cicero Romanised Greek philosophy, tackling Roman problems, with
Roman exempla, in a Roman setting.76 The last two elements of this are
unproblematic in relation to De Divinatione, and the other dialogues,
but the Wrst requires some reWnement. Again, for Beard Ciceros
philosophy is distinctive for its integration of Greek philosophy
with Roman practice . . . with Roman divinatory practice in De
Divinatione.77 However, it is clear that there is no real engagement
between theory and practice in this workRoman exempla abound,
but they are discussed in a strictly Greek theoretical framework. There
are no signs within the dialogue of the complex process of
active reinterpretation of the Roman inheritance within an overall
Hellenising model [or] a rethinking of the theory itself in the light of
74 The topic of Cicero as translator has received much attention, e.g. A. E. Douglas,
G&R 9 (1962), 4151; Muller-Goldingen 1992: 17387; Powell 1995: 273300.
75 OV. 1. 6; Fin. 1. 6. For the suggestion that Ciceros statement on his philosophical judgement should be taken seriously, see J. Barnes, Ciceros De Fato and a Greek
Source, in J. Brunschwig et al. (eds.), Histoire et structure: A la memoire de Victor
Goldschmidt (Paris, 1995), 2302.
76 1986: 38. Cf. SchoWeld on the domestication of philosophy in the Roman
habitat of book 1 (1986: 55).
77 Beard 1986: 3940. Cf. SchoWeld 1986: 50: it treats a subject of general interest,
in ways palpably designed to appeal to the Roman reader and with comparatively
little exposition or criticism of Greek philosophical positions.
20
Introduction
Roman practice.78 Because Cicero was well aware of the fundamental

diVerences and incompatibility between Greek mantike, which he
deWnes as the foresight and foreknowledge of future events, and oYcial
Roman divination, in which there was no predictive element, he does
not integrate them, but rather clearly diVerentiates themforetelling
the future was not a Roman problem.79 This he says emphatically
through Marcus response to an imagined interjection by Quintus on
the incongruity of an augur arguing against auspices: Its a diYcult
position for an augur to be in, to argue against auspices. For a Marsian
augur perhaps, but very comfortable for a Roman augur. For we are
not the kind of augurs who tell the future from the observation of
birds and the other signs, and through the detailed description and
characterization of the Roman augurs activity which follows.80
(vi) Form and Structure of Dialogue

Among Ciceros extant philosophical works De Divinatione is unique
in being a clash of Stoic and Academic views expressed in a dialogue
through contemporary speakers without an explicit authorial conclusion. As I have suggested,81 Cicero had great freedom in choosing the
form and characters he wanted; no known precedent for a work on
divination took the form of a dialogue. SchoWeld sees De Divinatione as
experimental, an attempt to do philosophy in as Roman . . . a way as
78 Beard 1986: 43. SchoWeld (1986: 501), while noting the Roman exempla,
frequent use of Latin poets and Ciceros excellent grasp of both Roman history and
Greek theory, places no emphasis on tension and problems of integration; North
(1990: 57): what Cicero is doing in his dialogue is to give a version, carefully adapted
to a Roman audience, of a speciWcally Greek philosophical debate. Nowhere, in fact,
was Stoic theory applied to Roman divination (cf. Kany-Turpin 2003b: 71).
79 Even if by prediction Cicero means the kind of conditional predictions that are
typical of Roman divination, i.e. if you do x, y will happen (but you can avert y by not
doing x), that is still incompatible with the determinism of Stoic philosophy.
80 2. 705. Cicero explicitly marks Romulus belief in the predictive power of
augury as an error of antiquity. Krostenko (2000: 3615) discusses the polarity
between Roman and foreign as treated by Quintus and Marcus respectively, showing
that Quintus (using Stoic arguments based on consensus) is inclusive of foreign
practices, even stating that they are superior to Roman (1. 27), whereas Marcus ignores
and rejects the non-Roman. In De Legibus (2. 323) Marcus, while on holiday from
his usual Academic scepticism, accepts that augury was a form of predictive divination
used by the Romans in the past, but not in his own day (see Dyck 2004: 350).
81 Above 3 (ii).
21
possible.82 Certainly the basic structure of a two-sided disputation

comprising essentially continuous speeches goes back to Aristotle, was
carried on by both the Peripatos and the Academy,83 and would for
that reason alone have been attractive to Cicero as an adherent of the
New Academy, but also with his interest in and enormous aptitude for
rhetoric he clearly recognized the literary opportunity which the
format gave.84 Although there is some dispute whether the view of
the character speaking second or last in these philosophical contests
invariably indicates Ciceros preference, it is clear that the rhetorical
advantage lies in responding to arguments.85 Nonetheless, the variety
of ways in which Cicero constructs his debates suggests a need for
some subtlety. As he had used this basic format in Hortensius, Lucullus,
De Finibus and in De Natura Deorum, the experimentation in De
Divinatione does not lie in the choice of an Academic disputation,
but in the particular shape he gives to each of the speeches. A notable
feature of the dialogue is that the two speeches are of roughly equal
length, which may suggest an equality of treatment.86
It is instructive to set out a structure for both books before
discussing their respective characters.87
Book 1
17
811a
Introduction to the work as a whole

Narratio: setting of dialogue, link with On the Nature of
the Gods and introduction to Quintus argument
82 SchoWeld 1986: 50. Cf. Douglas (1995: 214) who shows that experimentation is
also present in Tusculanae Disputationes; but that the earlier confrontational form of
De Finibus and Lucullus was put aside.
83 Cic. Tusc. 2. 9. Revived by Arcesilaus within the Academy (Fin. 2. 2).
84 Cic. Tusc. 2. 9. SchoWeld 1986: 51; Powell 1995: 21.
85 See Leonhardt 1999: 2531. Cf. Harris 2003: 27.
86 Leonhardt (1999: 33) calculates on the basis of lines of Teubner text that
Marcus speech is 10% longer than Quintus, the smallest diVerential in the examples
that he treats; in all cases the counter speech is longer than that to which it responds;
cf. ibid. 34: wo die Widerlegung nicht durchschlagend sein soll, erhalt der Dogmatiker mehr Redezeit.
87 I draw on the tables in SchoWeld (1986: 645) and Nice (1999: 81) and on
Krostenkos analysis (2000: 3701). MacKendrick (1989: 18596) oVers a very
detailed summary and proposed analysis in terms of a speech, but the divisions he
proposes are often arbitrary.
22
11b12a
12b33
3484a
84b108
10931
132
Introduction
Partitio
locus de vetustate (argument from antiquity) A
locus de consensu omnium (argument from ubiquity) B
There are two kinds of divination: natural and artiWcial c
Observe eVects, not explain causes (locus de ignorantia) d
ConWrmatio
Discussion of d (12b25a)
A and B illustrated through augury (25b33)
Defence of natural and artiWcial divination
c, d, B, and A restated (347); illustrated for
Natural divination (3771)
oracles (378)
dreams (3965)
prophetic frenzy (659)
Cratippus theory of natural divination (701)
ArtiWcial divinationexamples of coniectura (729a)
Divination exists (79b83):
individual gods do not intervene; divination is
a natural power (7981)
existence of gods requires existence of divination
(8284a)
ConWrmatio
Restatement of A, B, c, and d (84b6); and illustration of
A E vetustate (879)
B E consensu omnium (90108)
Barbarian exempla (904)
Civilized exempla (95108)
Greek (956)
Roman (97108)
d revisited; possible approaches to be articulated by c
(109)
natural divination (11017)
artiWcial divination (11825a) [incl. Socratic digression]
Posidonius arguments (125b31)
from God (125b)
from Fate (125b8)
from Nature (12931)
Conclusion, rejection of quack divination
23
Book 2
17
8
825
25b6
267
2899
100
1019
11048
14950
New introduction to whole work

Setting of dialogue
Refutatio. General arguments against divination
The subject matter of divination is pure chance (914)
Chance events are unpredictable (1518)
Fate and predictability are incompatible ideas (1925)
Summary of Quintus argument
Partitio
artiWcial divination
natural divination
Attack on artiWcial divination
haruspicy (2869)
entrails (2841)
lightning (429)
portents (4969)
auspices (7083)
omens (834)
lots (847)
astrology (8799)
Introduction to the attack on natural divination
Digression: criticism of syllogisms of Chrysippus and
Cratippus
Attack on natural divination
prophetic frenzy (11018)
dreams (11948)
Conclusion
There can be little disagreement over the structure of book 2. That of

book 1 is far more complex, and perhaps unfairly criticized.88 The
great contrast between books 1 and 2 is characterized by SchoWeld as
88 Schaublin (1986: 166): eine bloe Materialsammlung; SchoWeld (1986: 52):
messy welter of allegedly divinatory experiences . . . chaotic disorder of Quintus
examples . . . any table of contents for Book I would be a fairly optimistic and arbitrary
construct . . . Quintus switching erratically both from one sort of divination to another,
and from anecdotes and arguments and theories back to anecdotes again; Timpanaro,
lxxxiv: Quinto procede senz ordine; Krostenko (2000: 370): Quintus argument is
highly disorganised.
24
Introduction
between rhetorics of anecdote and cross-examination, although

to call the former exemplum rather than anecdote would be less
prejudicial, better acknowledging the emphasis placed by both Stoics
and Romans on historical exempla.89
The most crucial advance in understanding the basic structure
has been made by Krostenko, who isolates the four points which
comprise the divisio that introduces the argumentative section.90
Perception of Quintus arguments as chaotic led SchoWeld to stress
the literary opportunity Cicero has seized to indulge his skills as
a story-teller (not to mention his ambitions as a poet) and to make
the impressionistic suggestion that the underlying philosophical
thought is presumably that it is precisely an authentically messy
welter of allegedly divinatory experiences which gives the best chance
of persuading someone of the case for divination and that he is
deliberately avoiding too close an adherence to the deWnitions and
divisions of philosophical traditions (SchoWeld 1986: 52). Rather, we
can see that Quintus is not the poor rider of a one-horse-deWnition,
but attempts to marshal four lines of Stoic argument which are
sometimes very closely interwoven. There is repetition, mostly of
the four points from the divisio, and, as it were, a major re-emphasis
of the loci de vetustate and de consensu omnium (1. 87108), but not
the chaotic grouping that has been alleged. For example, the
structuring of the Wnal battery of exempla (1. 90108), once it is
understood as occurring under the argument e consensu omnium, is
well done, as Quintus moves from Greek to Roman exempla to
a culmination in the foundation of Rome through divination, the
89 SchoWeld 1986: 515. Cf. Krostenkos proposed polarity between ratio and
exempla (2000: 370). Mainstream Stoic arguments seem to have relied on exempla
(dia tinas ekbaseis: Diog. Laert. 7. 149), as Marcus acknowledges in his introductory
compliment to Quintus (2. 8): you have defended the Stoic position with care and in
the Stoic fashion. Ciceros weakening of Quintus argument by the use of unhistorical
exempla (e.g. 1. 405) does make SchoWelds anecdotes more appropriate than it
should be.
90 These are A to D in the table. A necessary reWnement to Krostenkos argument is
that the four points must be distinguished from each other in relative importance, in
order to bring out what is crucial for the development of the argument rather than
for classiWcation within it. Quintus deploys two main arguments, from antiquity and
ubiquity, and two subsidiary categories of analysis. The various philosophical
explanations found in book 1, discussing the how of divination, are of secondary
importance compared to the establishing of the existence of divination.
25
weightiest example from the weightiest state. Within this argument

the use of Roman exempla is not just literary, but also probative
instances of divination from the contemporary period would be far
harder to deny.91 Quintus argument has, in Stoic terms, a perfectly
defensible structure, and is carefully constructed as such by Cicero.92
The cogency of the argument is another question. Quintus has to
establish that there is such a thing as divination, a challenge which
the Stoics met by relying on arguments from experience: (i)
innumerable instances of divination can be demonstrated; and
(ii) the reality of successful divination, that is, predictions which
cannot be the result of chance or human knowledge or the like. The
Wrst of these is easily established through historical exempla (from all
ages and peoples), the second is more diYcult. Opponents pointed to
the failures of diviners as suggesting the role of chance, and the Stoic
response was to compare divination with other arts, such as medicine,
whose reality was not doubted because their practitioners were not
perfect, and to rely on a form of probabilitythat all successful
instances of divination could not be explained away and, in an
extreme form, the existence of one such unassailed instance proved
the existence of divination. Quintus never really tackles (ii), which
is Marcus Wrst target in his rebuttal of Stoic arguments.
Krostenko accuses Quintus of petitio principii in stating repeatedly
that controversial descriptive categories, natural and artiWcial divination, exist because there are many examples of them; had Quintus
not assumed the validity of the categories, he could have organized
his examples as he does, so that the accumulation of exempla . . .
becomes a kind of symbol for the cognitive habits of those who claim
the existence of divination, revealing an imprecise, a priori enthralment with various sorts of paranormal phenomena, which can be
Wtted into analytical categories only a posteriori (2000: 372).
Book 2 has reasonably been compared with passages in which
Cicero destroys an opponent whom he imagines in the witness box,
by ruthless virtual cross-examination.93 The structure is simple:
91 For Roman exempla improving the case, cf. SchoWeld 1986: 53.
92 I dismiss the suggestions that Cicero has struggled to integrate material from
several sources, toyed with by Krostenko (2000: 3701), or that he aims to characterize Quintus as the disorganized individual he was in real life (Timpanaro, lxxxiv).
93 SchoWeld 1986: 54. Cf. Ciceros cross-examination of Vatinius (In Vatinium).
26
Introduction
after a fundamental assault on the weaknesses in the Stoic case

(925), he attacks the exempla by type of divinatory practice in
sequence. The categories of Quintus argument are irrelevantit
does not matter to the sceptic whether instances of divination can
be multiplied, if the phenomenon has no reality, as Marcus has
demonstrated. For the largest part of his speech Marcus can ridicule
the individual exempla, giving vent to the kind of rhetorical, sarcastic
attacks associated with Carneades, accusing Quintus of various kinds
of irrationality.94
(vii) Purpose of De Divinatione

If the arguments of the previous sections are valid, what can be said
about the purpose of the De Divinatione? SchoWeld (1986: 63)
denies that there could have been a single meaning (or purpose) to
the work and argues that it may have meant diVerent things to
diVerent readers, but the crucial aspect here is not the reception of
the work, but what Cicero intended, and whether or not he could
have had a simple purpose in mind. While we cannot know what
Cicero was thinking, and can only interpret what he wrote and what
has been handed down concerning his actions, the possibility of
a simple authorial purpose is not precluded. The determination of
the authors purpose, however, is not a simple matter.
Arising from her belief that the dialogue is balanced and that no
clear authorial standpoint can legitimately be isolated, Beard (1986:
46) suggests that Cicero was attempting to establish the discourse
within which . . . philosophical argument (in the area of religion)
might be possible. In this sense Ciceros handling of state religion
in his philosophical works does not constitute the argued presentation of an opinion or view; it constitutes rather the process of
formation of a discourse on theology. While it is perfectly reasonable
to see a discourse between Stoic and Academic views on divination,
that is, a philosophical debate, it is far harder to grasp what connection there might be between the philosophical debate and the Roman
state religion, which must be fundamental for any meaningful
94 See SchoWeld 1986: 55.
27
discourse within the Roman elite on theology or divination. Ciceros

contemporaries had widely diVerent views on the value of Roman
divinatory practice and addressed this directly: Appius Claudius held
that the signs seen by the augurs had a predictive function, whereas
C. Marcellus held that augural activity was maintained simply for
political purposes.95 As we have seen, Cicero makes it clear that there
is no similarity in the function of augury within the Roman state
and in the world of the philosophical debate between Stoic and
Academic.
For Krostenko, Cicero deliberately arranges the inconclusive structure (and the lack of integration between theory and practice) of De
Divinatione in order to highlight the insuYciency of both the Wdeistic and sceptical positions for Roman social practice in relation to
divination, and to point the reader towards the civic theology advocated by Q. Mucius Scaevola and Varro, a religion which cannot be
the object of belief or the subject of scepticism by the one who
understands its nature, a religion involving a limited, formal, and
symbolic divination.96 Guidance to this conclusion, it is argued, is to
be extracted straightforwardly from those passages where Marcus
departs from his sceptical assault to comment on the speciWc
practice of Roman religion.97 However, it must be emphasized that
these comments are asides only to Marcus argument and it is
questionable whether a major purpose of the work, on this view,
should be based on them alone and whether the reader, as he
progresses through the argument, attaches such importance to them.
In somewhat wider terms, is it appropriate to look in a work
like De Divinatione, which presents primarily a Greek philosophical debate, for advice on the practical conduct or theoretical
construction of Roman divination? I prefer to stress the Greek
philosophical context of the work, as part of a threefold philosophical treatment under the category of physics, rather than to isolate De
Divinatione and extract from select passages within it an unexpressed
95 For Appius Claudius, see on 1. 2930; for Marcellus, see 2. 75.
96 Krostenko 2000: 354: de Divinatione . . . is an indirect and dialectical attempt to
construct a normative deWnition for religious symbols in Roman culture; 374: the
arguments on both sides leave their proponents in peculiar, and ultimately undesirable positions; esp. 37780.
97 See above, p. 18.
28
Introduction
purpose.98 As he was writing the greater part of De Divinatione, but

not the last additions made after Caesars death, Cicero was not
actively engaged in Roman politics: the priority in his life was to
complete the philosophical encyclopedia. The Roman elite reader,
when confronted with the contrasting approaches to divination in
the work, may have been stimulated to ask how this relates to the
divinatory practice of the Roman state, but he receives no answer. By
demonstrating that Stoic arguments were not worthy of assent and in
particular in removing the notion of determinism, a subject which he
was to treat in greater detail in De Fato, Cicero enables the reader to
inhabit a universe which, from our knowledge of the practice of
Roman religion, is far more Roman, where the gods warn and
advise, and where the state (or individuals) by an appropriate
response can avoid any disaster portended. What Cicero does not
do is argue how this might be explained in philosophical terms; the
beauty of being an Academic philosopher was that his job was to
knock down others sandcastles, not to build any of his own.
4. THE SOURCES OF D E D I V I NATI O N E

For De Divinatione the Latin and Greek sources from which Cicero
drew his historical exempla and his philosophical arguments are
themselves lost, which poses problems for any source criticism. The
danger of circularity is high, as lost or highly fragmentary works are
reconstructed on the basis of a theory and the theory is then
bolstered by the reconstruction. Such danger proved no obstacle to
the assiduous exponents of source analysis of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, who outdid one another in intricate
hypotheses.99 Even if these can be largely disregarded, the issues
98 Cf. Beard 1986: 45 quoted above n. 41.
99 e.g. Schiche 1875; Heeringa 1906; Sander 1908. This bout of source analysis had
by and large exhausted itself by the appearance of Peases commentary; his introduction gives a sober assessment of the arguments. Later developments, primarily
concerned with the thesis of Karl Reinhardt on Ciceros use of Posidonius, are
summarized helpfully by PfeVer (1976: 4453). PfeVer, however, ignores an article
by Finger (1929: 37197) which attempts to illuminate the question of Ciceros
29
they raise are important for evaluating Ciceros role in the composition of De Divinatione. In De OYciis and De Finibus Cicero claims
explicitly that he is not merely translating, and in the former names
the sources he will use for books 1 and 2.100 While there is no
comparable statement in De Divinatione, a mere look at the structure
of book 1 with its intricate combination of exempla and argument
(see above 3(vi) ) shows that simple copying from one or more
sources is not in the least likely, even when he deals most closely with
philosophical argumentation.101 Ciceros notorious comments to
Atticus on his methods of composition, they are transcripts; they
take little work; I provide only the words, which I have in abundance,
contain a hint of irony and deliberate understatement; and may not
even refer to his philosophical works in general.102
I shall separate the treatment of Ciceros philosophical and
exemplary sources, since they are essentially diVerent. For the production of an argument in a Stoic fashion, Cicero had to employ
exempla, that is, examples from history, which could demonstrate the
existence of undeniable divinatory phenomena and thus the existence of divination.103 The Roman exempla that appear are not
taken from Greek philosophical sources, even though, for example,
philosophical sources by a rigorous treatment of his philosophical formulations and
creates for the most involved sections (10931) an intricate interweaving of sources.
While this removes Cicero far from the mechanistic copier he has sometimes been
suspected of being, it smacks rather of hypersubtlety and a way of handling his
material that should be rejected (cf. MacKendrick 1989: 197).
100 OV. 1. 6: I shall follow the Stoics above all, not as a translator, but, as is my
custom, drawing from their fountains when and as it seems best, using my own
judgement and discretion; cf. OV. 2. 60: in these books I have followed Panaetius,
but have not translated him; cf. Fin. 1. 6. Cicero distinguishes himself from interpretes, who produced close, literal translations (cf. Powell 1995: 278).
101 Cicero has often been regarded as no more than a transcriber or translator of
his Greek sources, but this view is unsustainable (cf. Powell 1995: 8 n. 20). For
detailed argument on De OYciis, see E. Lefe`vre, Panaitios und Ciceros PXichtenlehre:
Vom philosophischen Traktat zum politischen Lehrbuch (Stuttgart, 2001) and the
review by J. G. F. Powell, BMCR 2002.08.40.
102 Att. 12. 52. 3: I sunt; minore labore Wunt; verba tantum aVero, quibus
abundo. The textual corruption immediately preceding this quotation makes
Ciceros reference uncertain (cf. Shackleton Bailey 1966: 3412).
103 Cf. 2. 8: Quintus, you have defended Stoic doctrine with care and like a Stoic;
and what delights me most is that you have used a very large number of Roman
examples, indeed ones that are famous and distinguished.
30
Introduction
Posidonius historical researches and knowledge of Rome could have

made him familiar with some of them.104 In certain cases Cicero names
his sources as leading historians, notably Coelius Antipater and
Sisenna, or famous Roman Wgures;105 other sources include his own
works and experiences.106 Pease, and the majority of source-analysts
before him, considered it unlikely that Cicero consulted the works of
Roman historians individually, but rather that he preferred epitomes
where they were available and was content with secondhand
knowledge.107 It is even suggested that he took many exempla from
a Roman work on divination, the most likely candidate being Appius
Claudius Pulchers work De augurali disciplina which was dedicated to
Cicero and had been in his possession since 51.108 It is, however,
important to note that, while it is clear that Cicero used Appius on
the most diYcult of his augural exempla, the defeat of Crassus and the
punishment of Ateius, Appius could not have been the source for
examples relating to haruspicy, dreams, or other areas of divination.
The work of Ciceros friend A. Caecina on haruspicy, an important
source for Seneca, leaves no deWnite trace in De Divinatione 1 (Hine
1981: 62). Although Fleck may go too far in arguing that Cicero had
Wrsthand knowledge of, and used directly, a range of historical authors,
it is ridiculous to deny to someone with Ciceros education and
training in rhetoric a broad and deep knowledge of Roman exempla.109
When it comes to Greek exempla, the tendency to attribute
them to Ciceros philosophical sources, and particularly to Posidonius, is even more pronounced.110 As outcomes, ekbaseis, were
104 Panaetius doubts about divination (see on 1. 6) make him a very unlikely
source for historical exempla supporting divination.
105 e.g. 1. 489, 99. Other Roman writers named are Fabius Pictor (1. 43), Sulla
(1. 72), C. Gracchus (1. 56); and the generalizing plurals of Fabii and Gellii (1. 55), as
typical annalistic historians.
106 e.g. the quotations from his own poetry (1. 1722, 106), his experiences from
58 to the Civil War (1. 589, 689).
107 Pease, 278. In preparing for De Natura Deorum and De Divinatione Cicero
had requested from Atticus a copy of Brutus epitome of Coelius (Att. 13. 8). As we do
not know how closely Brutus stuck to Coelius and what information he preserved, it
is hypothetical whether we consider that Cicero went from the epitome back to the
original or not.
108 See on 1. 28.
109 Fleck 1993. Indeed, Cicero had an extensive library, see Putz 1925.
110 e.g. Pease, 22.
31
fundamental to the Stoic case, they certainly appeared in profusion in

their defences of divination: Cicero makes Quintus acknowledge
this, and the attribution of speciWc exempla to philosophers like
Posidonius is explicit.111 If, however, we credit Quintus claim that
he is going to produce a set of examples on dreams superior to those
of Chrysippus and Antipater (1. 39), and if that had not already been
done by Posidonius (for which there is no certain evidence), then it is
not impossible that Cicero has himself pulled together from Greek
historians some famous examples.112 Yet we cannot quantify what
he may have done.
Scholars reserve the most extreme complications of source
analysis for Ciceros philosophical sources for book 1, one extreme
being the view of Heeringa (favoured by Pease) that even quotations
of Cratippus come secondhand via Posidonius.113 The subject of
divination was treated by all branches of Classical and Hellenistic
philosophy, as the doxography in the introduction to book 1 makes
clear,114 so a very wide range of authorities was available to Cicero.
However, as far as we can gather from his citations and from general
considerations of the way in which he wrote, his main philosophical
authorities for book 1 were only Cratippus and Posidonius. The
former is only tentatively credited with having left any written
works, and that restricted to dreams, though he was well acquainted
with Cicero and his family;115 the latter produced a Wve-volume work
Peri Mantikes (On Divination), which is the most obvious of his
works for Cicero to have utilized.116
111 1. 39 for Chrysippus and Antipater on dreams; 1. 56 for two dreams ubiquitous
in Stoic collections; and 1. 64 for the prophecy of the dying Rhodian attributed to
Posidonius.
112 Galen (Plac. Hipp et. Plat 4. 399K) comments on Posidonius critique of Chrysippus on emotions,
a d H
x . Chrysippus use of quotations was notorious for the excess to which he
took them (cf. Diog. Laert. 7. 1801).
113 Pease, 22. This would seem chronologically dubious, as Posidonius was dead by
the mid-40s when Cratippus was still functioning in Athens.
114 1. 56; and in general, see PfeVer 1976.
115 See on 1. 5.
116 See on 1. 6. Pease (234) counters the suggestion of Heeringa that Posidonius
Peri Theon (On the Gods) is the source of Ciceros information on divination in both
De Divinatione and De Natura Deorum (see Pease, 1924; Schaublin 1985: 163).
32
Introduction
Ciceros debt to Posidonius and Cratippus remains the key

question in relation to his philosophical sources for De Divinatione
1. Although Cicero mentions Posidonius as a source of an exemplum
or argument only three times in book 1 and Cratippus only twice,117
their inXuence goes far wider than the immediate paragraphs in
which their names occur, the key battleground being the extended
argumentative section on the ratio of divination (1. 10931). As
no substantial fragments of Posidonius On Divination and no
indication at all of Cratippus views on divination exist outside
what can be gathered from Ciceros De Divinatione, to prove the
extent of Ciceros debt to either is impossible. There is even fundamental dispute as to the extent of the named fragments within
Ciceros work between Kidd, who takes a minimalist approach, and
Theiler, who is far more inclusive.118
To envisage Cicero producing an elaborate patchwork of diVerent
sources seems improbable, both on the evidence of his other
philosophical works, where the question of his sources is less fraught,
and because of the physical diYculties in using papyri rolls in a way
necessary for such a production. I start from the simple notion that,
in aiming to provide a defence of divination and an explanation of
how it works, Cicero would not Wnd an all-encompassing defence
and explanation in Cratippus, as the Peripatetic denied the validity of
artiWcial divination. Posidonius, however, accepted and defended
both types of divination, and would be the obvious and easiest source
for the overall argument. If we start from this presumption, the key
question to ask is whether anything in the chapters of philosophical
argument is incompatible with what we know of Posidonius
teachings elsewhere.
The most important and most problematic part of the book from
this point of view are the Wnal argumentative chapters (1. 10931).
Within these there is an indisputable break that separates sections
10916 from 11831; it is signalled by a paragraph in which Cicero
recapitulates the argument before reposing the main question how
117 Posidonius: 1. 64, 125, 130 (cf. 2. 35, 47); Cratippus: 1. 701, 113 (2. 1089).
118 Kidd restricts the fragments to the speciWc chapters listed in the previous note;
Theiler includes the following: 1. 6, 636, 87b96, 10921 (minus a few Ciceronian
additions) and 125b131.
33
does one tell the future? After this paragraph Quintus presents an
argument which is indisputably Posidonian in origin, even if there
are no express citations of him. In short, then, can sections 109 to 116
be Posidonian?
The only way to proceed is to analyse the argumentative framework
of the work and to attempt to isolate what is distinctively Posidonian
and what is unlikely to be his. From the following survey-discussion
of the diVering conclusions reached by philosophers it is clear that
this is no simple matter. I will omit the arguments of the earlier source
analysts and begin with Karl Reinhardt, whose works marked a new
epoch in Posidonian studies. Reinhardt argues that Posidonius and
Cratippus explanations of divination are fundamentally diVerent:
Cratippus advanced a Platonizing and dualist theory according to
which divination functions through the separation of the rational
part of the soul from its other parts and from the body and its union
with the divine from which it sprang.119 Posidonius, by contrast, held
that divination occurs through a characteristic ability of the soul,
which comes into direct contact with the divine Xuid which Wlls the
universe; the soul is not divided; any diVerentiation is between its
centre and periphery; the soulbody dichotomy is wholly absent.120
On this basis Reinhardt divided the argumentative sections of De
Divinatione between Posidonius and Cratippus.121
Reinhardts successors concentrated on showing that the
distinctions he drew were not as straightforward as he claimed, in
particular that not all Platonizing language could be automatically
119 Cratippus hardly appears to be an orthodox Peripatetic in relation to dream

divination: his argumentation is highly platonizing, based on his reading of Platos
Meno (see on 1. 701) and, in sharp distinction to orthodox Peripatetic doctrine on
the autonomous divinatory activity of the soul, he speaks explicitly about the divine
origin of the divinatory part of the soul.
120 Reinhardt 1921: 42364. See the handy summary in PfeVer 1976: 445.
121 He divides the major argumentative section simply: 1. 10916 to Cratippus,
11731 to Posidonius. Within the former, however, he discerns two trains of thought
that become confused, Cratippus explanation of natural divination and a polemic
against artiWcial divination that Cicero has attempted to reform into a reason for
artiWcial divination. In relation to the earlier philosophical section, he allocates the
bulk of 6071 to Cratippus, excluding the exemplum and theories that Cicero
speciWcally attributes to Posidonius (1. 634).
34
Introduction
denied to Posidonius.122 For example, Heinrich Dorrie isolated three

elements of Posidonius thought on divination: (i) that divination was
not conducted solely as an autonomous activity of the soul, but that
the soul had some contact with the divine; (ii) that sense perception
oVers no analogy to divinatory recognition (contra Cratippus); and
(iii) that the highest knowledge is that of causal connections, of
which there are three kinds: the knowledge mediated by natural
divination, the insight provided by artiWcial divination, and, thirdly,
non-divinatory prediction. His Posidonius, then, incorporates into
his theory elements of Peripatetic theory, namely the autonomous
activity of the soul, which he equates with the lowest form of
dream divination and which he uses to construe the division between
body and soul diVerently from Plato, although he uses Platonizing
language. Similarly, recent studies of Posidonius views on the human
soul emphasize the return to a Platonic psychology by Posidonius,
that is, in speaking of reason, emotion, and appetite within the soul:
the diVerences from Plato being of a kind that can easily be glided over
even by those with a good grasp of the arguments.123
The content of 1. 10916 concerns two separate areas, natural
divination and non-divinatory, rational prediction. The argumentation relating to the latter, as Cicero presents it, is not compatible with
Posidonius, for whom divine involvement in artiWcial divination was
central.124 The material on natural divination, is, however, compatible with the explanations attributed to Posidonius on dreams earlier
in the dialogue: the soul associates with the divine soul on the basis of
its relationship.125 These chapters show how essentially Platonic
122 DiVerent distributions of material were proposed by M. Pohlenz (NGG (1922),
18594), I. Heinemann, Poseidonios metaphysische Schriften, ii (Breslau, 1928),
32477, and H. Dorrie, Porphyrios Symmikta Zetemata: Ihre Stellung in System
und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus nebst einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten
(Munich, 1959), 21218. PfeVer (1976: 49) considers the arguments of Pohlenz and
Heinemann unconvincing, in that 1. 609 and 10916 contain nothing that is
speciWcally Posidonian. He also rejects the idea of W. Theiler, Die Vorbereitung
des Neuplatonismus (Berlin, 1930), 1359, that 1. 10916 in essence comes from
Posidonius, although reworked by Cicero.
123 See Reydams-Schils 1997: esp. 46871.
124 PfeVer 1976: 8892. Cf. 1. 120.
125 1. 110 (mens divina, cognatio) and 1. 111. In the paragraph explaining dream
divination (1. 115), the language echoes both the Plato translation of 1. 601 and
Posidonius explanation at 1. 64 (cf. also Glucker 1999: 39).
35
doctrines such as anamnesis have been adapted. Platonic dualism has

been transformed into a divine immanence in a way that could be
fully compatible with Posidonius beliefs; it would also be essential
for the functioning of cosmic sympatheia, itself necessary for the
accommodation of artiWcial divination. However, recent studies of
these chapters by Glucker and Tarrant have in diVerent ways sought
to deny Posidonian authorship to 1. 115 in particular, and thereby to
the whole of 1. 10916. Glucker argues that no Stoic could say that
any human soul, even its rational part, has lived from all eternity and
certainly not Posidonius, who probably reintroduced the doctrine of
ekpyrosis, the periodic conXagration of the universe, into Stoic
physics; this chapter must derive from an unknown proto-Platonicus.126 Tarrant (2000a: 6476) plausibly identiWes this source with
Cratippus on the grounds that Cicero is unlikely to have used
a unique source for only one small section of the argument, and to
have left him unnamed, and because the interpretation of the doctrine of anamnesis from Platos Meno, which lies behind 1. 115, is
wholly compatible with that attributed to Cratippus earlier in the
dialogue and Wts a pupil of the brother of Antiochus of Ascalon. Is
it certain, however, that there is no appropriate sense in which
Posidonius could have written of the soul as immortal? Hermeias
commentary on Platos Phaedrus singles out Posidonius as one of
those who interpreted Platos words psyche pasa athanatos as meaning that only the world soul, that is, Zeus, was immortal.127 From the
nature of the fragment it is not certain whether this is merely
Posidonius exegesis of the Platonic text rather than his own belief,
but it would in the latter case allow an accommodation between
Plato and Posidonius ekpyrosis.128 Nonetheless it is hard to interpret
the animus of 1. 115 in a general sense of soul as a whole, as would
seem to be required, even if in some way the memories of individual
souls were incorporated into the world soul before their destruction,
as some Stoic texts suggest,129 and were accessible to individual
human souls in the next conWguration of the universe. On balance,
126
127
128
129
1999: esp. 334. Cf. J. Bels, RHR 199 (1992), 16982.

Fr. 290 E-K, 393 Theiler.
Kidd 1988, ad loc. Cf. Tarrant 2000a: 70.
e.g. Arius Didymus 39, 471, 14; Olymp. in Plat. Phd. 124. 19.
36
Introduction
then, it seems that 1. 10916 must be denied to Posidonius and

should plausibly be assigned to Cratippus.
The other section of philosophical argumentation where the origin
of the arguments is important concerns the explanation of natural
divination, dreams (1. 605, 701), and inspired prophecy (1. 667).
This begins with a lengthy, translated quotation from Platos Republic
and ends with an argument that Cicero expressly derives from Cratippus. Within these chapters, as we have noted, Posidonius appears
twice, as the source for an example of a prophetic Rhodian and for
his division into three of the ways in which the human soul dreams.
As with the closing section of book 1, the argument centres around
the Platonic and the Platonizing material and whether it is compatible with Posidonius unitarian view: Reinhardt and the majority of
twentieth-century scholars, including Theiler, deny that anything
other than 1. 634 comes from Posidonius.130 PfeVer, however, in
eVect returns to the nineteenth-century view and argues that nothing
precludes 1. 603 being Posidonius. As Philos extended discussion
of diVerent kinds of dreams, which is greatly inXuenced by Posidonius, similarly makes much of the separation of the soul from the
body in sleep, it seems that we can envisage Posidonius incorporating
Platos famous description of the souls dreaming and the physical
preconditions for the reception of true dreams into his threefold
theory.131 Hence Posidonius inXuence in this section on natural
divination through dreaming may be wider than is generally held.
It is, however, not possible to state for certain the origin of the
Platonic material.
With an appropriate degree of caution, then, it seems that Cicero
supplied himself the exempla from Roman history which comprise
a large part of book 1 from his own reading, while his Greek exempla
plausibly owe more to his Greek philosophical sources. His philosophical sources are best restricted to Posidonius and Cratippus, the
former cited rarely, but probably supplying the justiWcation for all
examples of artiWcial divination and the argument of 1. 11831, the
latter largely responsible for 1. 10916 and the Platonizing arguments
on natural divination.
130 Reinhardt 1921: 439, 45760; Schiche 1875: 20.
131 1976: 76. Cf. Schiche and Corsson.
Dramatic Date, Composition, Publication
37
5. DRAMATIC DATE, DATE OF COMPOSITION,

AND PUBLICATION
The dates of composition and publication of De Divinatione and the
issue of the dramatic date of the dialogue have not attracted much
discussion since the 1920s, but are not unimportant.132
There is nothing in the dialogue itself that deWnitely clashes with
a dramatic date sometime after Caesars death, whereas the passages
referring to Caesars death should exclude the alternative. However, it
is not simple to determine a dramatic date for the days conversation
with Quintus held at Ciceros Tusculan villa: for, although we can pin
down Ciceros own movements with some accuracy from the evidence of his letters, the whereabouts of Quintus are revealed only
occasionally and incidentally (1. 8). A date between the end of
December 45 and early January 44 is possible, as a visit by Cicero
to Tusculum is certain, but nothing Wxes Quintus there.133 Moreover,
the clear references to Caesars death (1. 119, 2. 99, 110) would have
struck the reader as very odd anachronisms. A three-month gap in
Ciceros correspondence with Atticus from January 44 suggests that
they were both in Rome,134 but makes tracing his movements and
activities largely a matter of hypothesis. Nothing we know of Quintus movements in 44 precludes a visit to the Tusculan villa coinciding with Ciceros brief stay there in April 44, which can be Wxed from
132 The ground-breaking treatment of the question was by Durand (1903:
17383). Durands detailed arguments on the date of composition are criticized
powerfully by Falconer (1923: 31027); Pease (addenda, p. 588) notes with approval
Falconers demolition of Durands thesis that De Divinatione had been composed
before Caesars death but had been published after his death with several revisions,
complete et ca` et la` retouche (1903: 180). Giomini (1971: 1013) discusses some
aspects of the problem, but appears not to deal with all of the arguments raised by
Falconer. Neither Timpanaro nor Schaublin (399: verfate . . . vermutlich in den
ersten Monaten des Jahres 44 v.Chr.) devote space to these questions.
133 The visit began after 19 Dec. (Att. 13. 52) and ended shortly after Ciceros
birthday on 3 Jan. (Att. 13. 42).
134 Durand 1903: 182. Atticus presence in Rome has been inferred from Fam. 7.
30. 2: I couldnt bear all this if I had not taken myself to the port of philosophy and if
I didnt have our Atticus as colleague in my studies, although no more than Atticus
interest in his philosophical endeavours may be meant (cf. Falconer 1923: 3245).
Ciceros own presence in Rome is secure, as Shackleton Bailey dates Fam. 7. 31 to
Feb. 44.
38
Introduction
his letters to Atticus of 8 and 9 April.135 The dramatic date is perhaps

not in itself crucial, as we do not have to believe that any conversation
such as Cicero describes actually took place, nor that he devoted
a large part of a day to a discussion of divination. The main
consequence of putting the dramatic date in April rather than in
December or January and of holding that it should be intelligible as
such to the reader is that the publication of De Divinatione could not
have occurred before the middle of April, at the earliest.
Discussion of the time of composition of the dialogue must fall
into two parts, dealing with the prologue to book 2 and then the rest
of the work. This lengthy seven-paragraph prologue is clearly no part
of the original plan of De Divinatione: the dialogue picks up naturally
at 2. 8 from the end of book 1; it serves as a postlude to the whole
work, setting out Ciceros desire to continue with his philosophical
works, but also to be available for his country. Cicero provides
a retrospective of his earlier work and the most systematic presentation of his philosophical endeavours from the period of Caesars
dictatorship in the prologue to book 2 of De Divinatione. His three
books De Natura Deorum led on to the De Divinatione and
to complete the area of theological considerations a work on Fate
had yet to be written.136 When there seemed no prospect of an
end to Caesars domination Cicero envisaged an all-encompassing
treatment of philosophy,137 but the assassination of the dictator
and Ciceros return to public life left him less time to devote to
philosophy, although the warm reception of his philosophical
works heightened his enthusiasm to complete the project.138 In
paragraph seven the words now, since I have begun to be consulted
about political issues, my time must be devoted to the state . . . must
135 Att. 14. 2. 4, 14. 3. 1. The next visit to Tusculum was from 15 June (Att. 15. 18)
to 30 June (Att. 15. 25).
136 Div. 2. 17. Between De Finibus and De Natura Deorum Cicero produced a
paraphrase of Platos Timaeus, which he does not mention in the list of Div. 2. 8. This
work may have been intended as a preface to the three metaphysical dialogues
(MacKendrick 1989: 339).
137 ND 1. 9, written in 45. The common description of encyclopedia is endorsed
by Tarver (1997: 142), but within the area of physics Cicero dealt only with
metaphysics.
138 Falconer (1923: 326) rightly argues against Durand that this prologue does not
signal Ciceros abandonment of philosophy for politics.
39
be read as an allusion to the removal of Caesar and Ciceros renewed

political role from 17 March onwards.139
Giomini argues that the composition of the prologue to book 2
can be dated precisely: the plan for De Fato was conceived between 11
and 16 May 44, when Cicero met with Hirtius at his Puteoli villa
(Att. 14. 20, 21. 4) and that work was written between 28 May and 5
June at Tusculum (Att. 15. 10);140 the proem to book 2 indicates only
that De Fato has been planned, therefore it must fall between the two
sets of dates given above, that is, 1727 May.141 This is tightly argued,
but rests ultimately on accepting that the dramatic date for De Fato
can be taken as the terminus ante quem for the writing of the work
and may sit oddly with the references to the recent death of Caesar,
which are discussed below on the question of the publication of De
Divinatione.
When was the rest of De Divinatione written? As it survives, the
work presents an ostensibly confused picture. On the one hand, there
are passages that seem to suggest that Caesar is still alive: for example,
in the prologue to book 1 Ciceros words on the impossibility of
engaging in any other activity than philosophy with pleasure can be
read as a reference to Caesars dictatorship.142 On the other hand,
there are also indisputable references in both books to Caesars death,
(1. 119; 2. 23, 99, 110, 112) and passages where it is suggested that the
language used is too strong to have been used openly during Caesars
139 Cf. Cic. Att. 14. 10. 1; Dio 44. 22. 334. 1 for Ciceros speech to the Senate.
140 Falconer (1923: 314) argues that De Fato was composed in Mar.Apr. 44, in
order to make room in MayJune for the composition of De Gloria. Given Ciceros
speed of writing and the fact that material for De Fato had already been gathered in
the course of researching De Natura Deorum and De Divinatione, a work as short as
De Fato could have been polished oV quickly, and then ample time is left in June and
the Wrst half of July for the composition of De Gloria: although Cicero had promised
to send it on 3 July (Att. 15. 27. 2), and again on 11 July (Att. 16. 2. 6), it was not until
17 July that a revised text was dispatched (Att. 16. 3. 1).
141 Giomini (1971: 13). Falconer (1923: 312) argues plausibly that the discussion
Cicero had with Hirtius, which is the dramatic date of the De Fato, occurred on 16
May, not at their earlier meeting soon after 17 Apr. (Att. 14. 9. 2), around 21 Apr. (14.
11. 2), about which Cicero says nothing. The reference to the future De Fato at 1. 127
should not be ignored as a gloss (see commentary ad loc.).
142 1. 1011 and 2. 142. It is not clear to me that the third passage cited by Durand
(1903: 179) in this class (2. 523) is appropriate: nothing except the ipse gives it
particular force (pace Giomini 1971: 19 n. 20).
40
Introduction
life.143 If the inference about the Wrst group of passages is correct, it is

clear that Cicero added the last passages after 15 March 44 to a text
that was substantially complete. This would mean a procedure of
revision similar to that which he mentions for book 5 of De Finibus
(Att. 13. 21a. 1; 16. 3. 1). However, if the Wrst passages can be
plausibly shown to have been composed in the period after Caesars
assassination, there would be the possibility of a more consistent,
thorough revision of the whole work after the assassination (even if it
had been substantially completed before the assassination) than has
been believed up to this point. They read as follows:
If you permit, I shall set out what I think about these things, provided that
you have the time and that you have nothing you think should take
precedence over this discussion. For my part, Quintus, I said, I always
have time for philosophy; and at this time when there is nothing else that I
can gladly do, I am much more eager to hear what you think about
divination. (1. 1011)
Now indeed because of the interruption to forensic activity I have given up
working by night and have started taking siestas, which I didnt make use of
previously; and although sleeping so much I have not been advised by any
dream, especially about matters of such great importance; nor is there any
time at which I seem more to be dreaming than when I see the magistrates in
the forum or the senate in the senate house. (2. 142)
Certainly both passages could refer to Ciceros life in 45, especially

after his defence of Deiotarus, or in early 44 when, although remaining largely in Rome, he was not practising forensic oratory or playing
a political role.144 Indeed the description of the period as a time
143 Notably the description of Mithradates as some petty sycophant of his from
Pergamum (2. 79: adseculae suo Pergameno nescio cui), a passage Wrst adduced to this
end by R. Hirzel, Der Dialog, i (Leipzig, 1895), 536 n.; cf. 2. 11011, the description of
Caesar as king could not have been written in his lifetime (cf. Giomini 1971: 303).
The description of Deiotarus as deprived by Caesar of his tetrarchy, kingdom and
money (1. 27: a Caesare tetrarchia et regno pecuniaque multatus est) is not such that
Caesar would necessarily have been oVended (Falconer 1923: 321). Alternatively it
may be an addition after the assassination (cf. Giomini 1971: 35 n. 57).
144 Durand (1903: 179 n. 5) takes especially about matters of such great importance; nor is there any time at which I seem more to be dreaming than when I see the
magistrates in the forum or the senate in the senate house (tantis praesertim de rebus,
nec mihi magis umquam videor quam cum aut in foro magistratus aut in curia senatum
video somniare) (2. 142) as a general description of the political situation under
Caesars dictatorship, after Cicero had returned (cf. Brut. 6: the Roman forum . . .
41
when there is nothing else I can gladly do [than write philosophy]

does most naturally Wt Caesars dictatorship. But it is impossible to
rule out a context soon after Caesars death: the passage from the
prologue to book 1 could describe Ciceros life in the prolonged
period of absence from Rome (early April to 31 August), when he
was disillusioned with events in Rome.145 The second passage might
Wt between Caesars death and Ciceros departure from Rome in
early April, if we emphasize Ciceros seeing the magistrates
performance.146 Nonetheless, the most plausible reference of the
two passages is to Caesars dictatorship, even though that means
a certain inconsistency with the apparent dramatic date of the
dialogue and with the other passages which clearly postdate Caesars
death.
Is it possible to deWne the period during which the bulk of
the work was written? In June 45 Cicero asked Atticus for a copy of
Brutus epitome of Coelius Antipater and Panaetius On Providence,
works which were to be useful for both De Natura Deorum and
De Divinatione,147 and it seems clear that this marks a stage in
his planning of the two works (and probably of the necessary
corollary De Fato); in early August 45 he was working on the refutation of the Epicurean arguments in De Natura Deorum, which
suggests that the work was far from complete; then, if the order of
works in the prologue to De Divinatione 2 is to be believed, De
Senectute intervened148 before work on De Divinatione began in
despoiled and bereft, Fam. 6. 15. 3: robbed of both my domestic and my forensic
ornaments and consolations).
145 Stockton 1971: 2806. Letters such as Fam. 12. 1, Att. 14. 4, 14. 6: I Wnd no way
in which I can possibly take part in politics . . . you see the consuls; you see the other
magistrates, if they can be called magistrates.
146 Giomini 1971: 1920 for various interpretations of these words, in particular
excluding any reference to the period after 1 June 44. See Att. 14. 6 from 12 Apr.,
quoted in the previous footnote, for an almost identical sentiment.
147 e.g. 1. 77. By ignoring the relevance of the Coelius epitome for De Natura
Deorum 2. 8, Falconer (1923: 324) seeks to advance serious work on De Divinatione
before the end of 45.
148 Div. 2. 3. Ciceros order is followed by Philippson (RE 7A. 1156). Powell (1988:
2678), however, argues that De Senectute was written mostly between Jan. and 15
Mar. 44, otherwise one would have to explain the apparent slowing down of his
literary production in JanuaryMarch 44, when he was otherwise working only on
the De Divinatione. It is preferable to push the work on De Senectute back to late 45.
42
Introduction
earnest.149 This suggests that composition did not begin

before winter 45. Ciceros sojourn in Rome from early January and
his apparent lack of interest in politics during that period, to
judge from the paucity of letters Ad Familiares, would have
allowed him ample time to compose both books before Caesars
death.
While this conclusion150 has not been reached with arguments that
are certain, it Wts best into the most plausible overall schedule of
Ciceros philosophical works. If it is incorrect, then time has to be
found after the assassination for De Divinatione. Falconer believes,
somewhat mechanistically, that there is no passage before 1. 119 that
must have been written after the Ides and that the rest was written
after the Ides: we can understand how, in the ardour of
actual composition and with the ineVaceable picture of Caesars
assassination in his mind, Cicero could commit anachronisms and
other literary blunders, but it is inconceivable that he should write
them into a work already complete and in the course of a revision, the
purpose of which should have been to eliminate and not multiply
errors (Falconer 1923: 327). Falconer suggests that Cicero could have
written something in that period (ibid. 3201), rightly insisting on
the use of all of Ciceros extant correspondence from the period to
determine his state of mind and physical location. The correspondence with Atticus after 6 April reveals rapidly changing moods, not
a deepening depression which would have prevented Cicero from
writing. Also neither deep grief nor constant wandering hampered
Ciceros philosophical productivity after Tullias death or in July 44.
The point is also well made that none of Ciceros correspondence
from 7 April to 3 July mentions any literary activity, and then
suddenly what appears to be an advertisement for a well-advanced De
Gloria appears (Att. 15. 27. 2). Certainty is unobtainable, but nothing
149 Falconers misguided identiWcation of the syntagma of Att. 16. 3. 1 with De

Senectute (1923: 3234) leads him to argue that that work was not published before
17 July 44, and thus De Divinatione was published even later. Rather, the syntagma is
the De Gloria (Shackleton Bailey 1967, ad loc.).
150 Essentially that of Durand (1903: 1767). To compress the writing into the
period between the assassination and 7 Apr. seems very unlikely given Ciceros
involvement in the political turmoil (Durand 1903: 1789).
43
precludes the hypothesis that De Divinatione was essentially complete

before Caesars death and that minor alterations only, along with
the writing of the prologue to book 2, were made in the next
month or so.
Publication, that is, circulation of the work authorized by the
writer, which is conWrmed by the opening paragraph of De Fato,
undoubtedly postdates Caesars death.151 Durand posits an almost
immediate publication, before the beginning of April, on the basis of
two passages in book 2: how many prophecies I recall were made to
Caesar himself by the Chaldaeans and an interpreter [of the
Sibylline oracles], according to a recent rumour which proved false,
was thought to be about to declare in the Senate that the man whom
we had as king in fact, should also be called king.152 In the former
huic is reasonably translated as recently and in the latter nuper is
clear.153 Neither of these, however, can prove a period of less than
a month after Caesars death. Although the silence in Ciceros letters
between 7 April and 3 July 44 on any literary activity could be a fairly
powerful argument that De Divinatione was published before 7 April
(Dyck per litt.), as we have seen, he must have been working on De
Gloria and so some activity relating to De Divinatione cannot be
excluded. In fact, the question of the dramatic date is relevant: if I am
correct in identifying this as 8 or 9 April, then publication occurred
in April or May 44.
To summarize, it seems most likely that De Divinatione was written between late 45 and the death of Caesar; in the aftermath of that
crucial event Cicero revised the work, eliminating for the most part
any clear anachronisms and composing the prologue to book 2.
Publication followed shortly thereafter, between mid-April and
mid-May.
151 Fat. 1: in the other books . . . which I published on divination (in aliis libris . . .
quos de divinatione edidi). Durand 1903: 174.
152 Div. 2. 99: quam multa . . . huic ipsi Caesari a Chaldaeis dicta memini; 2. 110:
quorum interpres nuper falsa quadam hominum fama dicturus in senatu putabatur
eum, quem re vera regem habebamus, appellandum quoque esse regem . . . Durand
1903: 178.
153 Durand 1903: 178: mort hier; cf. Falconers translation: now lately deceased
and Schaublin: jungst.
44
Introduction
6 . T H E TEXT A ND TR ANSL ATION
The good working texts of the De Divinatione produced by

Timpanaro and Schaublin in their 1988 and 1991 editions form the
basis for the text I have translated. Brief explanatory notes in the
commentary indicate divergences only where the meaning of the text
as it aVects historical or philosophical issues is concerned. A new
Oxford Classical Text is in preparation by Dr H. Hine.
Translation
(1) There is an ancient belief, which goes right back to heroic times
and which is reinforced by the approbation both of the Roman
people and of all peoples, that there is practised among mortals a
kind of divination, which the Greeks call mantike, that is a presentiment and knowledge of future things. It is a noble and beneWcial
thing, if in fact it exists, and one by which human nature is able to
come closest to the power of the gods. So, just as we have done many
other things better than the Greeks, so here our ancestors derived the
term for this most excellent faculty from the gods (divi), but the
Greeks, as Plato explains, from madness. (2) I see that there is no
people so civilized and educated or so savage and so barbarous that it
does not hold that signs of the future can be given and can be
understood and announced in advance by certain individuals. In
the beginning the Assyrians, to seek authority from the most ancient,
because of the Xatness and size of the areas they inhabited, when they
looked at a sky unobscured and open on every side, observed the
courses and movements of the stars; and having noted them, they
handed down to posterity what they signiWed for each. Within this
people the Chaldaeans, who were so called not from the name of
their art but of their nation, are considered to have developed the
science by long observation of the stars, so that it could be predicted
what would happen to each person and with what destiny each had
been born. The Egyptians also are considered to have acquired the
same skill over a very long time through almost countless centuries.
The Cilicians and the Pisidians, and the latters neighbours, the
Pamphylians, peoples over whom I myself have been governor,
hold that the future is revealed by the Xight and singing of birds,
46
Translation
<as> very reliable signs. (3) What colony indeed did Greece send to
Aeolia, Ionia, Asia, Sicily, or Italy without an oracle from Delphi,
Dodona, or Ammon? Or what war has been undertaken by Greece
without the advice of the gods?
Nor is there only one form of divination practised by states and
individuals. For, to say nothing of every other nation, how many has
our own embraced? At the outset the father of our city, Romulus, is
held not only to have founded the city after taking the auspices but
also himself to have been a very good augur. Thereafter the rest of the
kings employed augurs and, after the kings had been driven out, no
public business, either at home or on military campaign, was undertaken without the auspices being taken. And, because there seemed to
be great eYcacy in the lore of the haruspices both for seeking and
consulting and in interpreting and averting portents, they took over
this whole discipline from the Etruscans, so that there should be no
kind of divination which might seem ignored by them. (4) And, as
there are two ways in which spirits are moved by their own force and
unfettered impulse and not by reason or knowledgeby raving and
by dreamingbelieving that divination from raving was best contained in the Sibylline verses, they decided that there should be ten
interpreters of them chosen from the citizen body. They have often
thought that an ear should be given to raving predictions of this kind
from soothsayers and seers, as for example to those of Cornelius
Culleolus in the Octavian War. Nor indeed have the more signiWcant
dreams, if they seemed to concern the state, been ignored by the
highest council. For even within my own memory, L. Iulius, who was
consul with P. Rutilius, restored the temple of Juno Sospita with
senatorial authorization, on the basis of a dream of Caecilia, the
daughter of Baliaricus.
(5) My own view is that the ancients approved of these things
more because they were inXuenced by outcomes than because they
were convinced by reason. Certain subtle arguments of philosophers
as to why divination is true have been collected. Of these, to mention
the most ancient, Xenophanes of Colophon, while he admitted the
existence of the gods, was the only one who fundamentally rejected
divination. All the rest, except Epicurus in his babbling on the nature
of the gods, believed in the reality of divination, but not in the same
way. For although Socrates and all the Socratics and Zeno and those
Translation
47
who followed him, along with the Old Academy and the Peripatetics,
abided by the view of the ancient philosophers and although Pythagoras (who himself even wanted to be an augur) had previously
conferred his considerable prestige on the practice; and although
that weighty authority Democritus in very many passages argued
for the presentiment of things to come, Dicaearchus the Peripatetic
denied all other forms of divination except dreams and raving, and
Cratippus, our friend whom I consider to be the equal of the Wnest
Peripatetics, gave credence to these same forms, but rejected the
other kinds of divination. (6) But, when the Stoics were defending
almost all its forms, in that Zeno had, as it were, scattered various
seeds in his commentaries and Cleanthes had developed them a little
more, then came Chrysippus, a man of very sharp intellect, who set
out the whole doctrine of divination in two volumes, as well as one
on oracles and one on dreams. His pupil Diogenes of Babylon
followed him and wrote one volume, Antipater two, and our friend
Posidonius Wve. But Panaetius, although the leader of their school,
the teacher of Posidonius and pupil of Antipater, deviated from the
Stoics. However, he did not dare to deny the existence of a divinatory
force, but said that he had his doubts. Will we not be permitted by
the Stoics to do on all other points what was permitted to him on one
point, although he was a Stoic and it was very much against the
wishes of the Stoics, especially since what was not clear to Panaetius
was clearer than the light of day to all the other members of that
school? (7) At any rate, this virtue of the Academy has been approved
by the judgement and witness of a most eminent philosopher.
So, as I myself am enquiring what verdict is to be reached in regard
to divination, because of the many points that have been made by
Carneades acutely and in great detail against the Stoics, and, as I am
afraid to give my assent rashly to something untrue or to something
insuYciently grounded, it seems that I should again and again make
a careful comparison of argument against argument, as I did in the
three books which I wrote On the Nature of the Gods. For haste in
giving ones assent and erring is shameful in all things, especially in
this topic where one must decide how much credence should be
given to auspices, to the divine, and to religious observance. For there
is a danger of rendering ourselves guilty of the crime of impiety if we
neglect them or of old womens superstition if we accept them.
48
Translation
(8) I have often discussed these questions on other occasions, and

recently in rather more detail when I was with my brother Quintus at
my Tusculan villa. When for the sake of a walk we had reached the
Lyceum (for that is what my upper gymnasium is called), he said, I have
just read through the third book of your On the Nature of the Gods in
which the argument of Cotta, although it has shaken my opinion, has
not utterly destroyed it. Splendid! I said, for Cotta argues in this way
to destroy the Stoics arguments rather than to destroy mens religion.
Then Quintus said, That is indeed said by Cotta and repeatedly so,
I think, in order that he may not appear to reject what is generally held
to be right. But in his eagerness to argue against the Stoics I think that
he utterly rejects the gods. (9) I am by no means at a loss how to reply to
his argument, since religion has received a satisfactory defence by
Lucilius in the second book and you yourself thought his argumentation was closer to the truth, as you write at the end of the third book.
But there was an omission in those books (I believe because you
considered it more appropriate to inquire into it and discuss it separately), namely divination, which is the prediction and presentiment of
those things which are thought to occur by chance. If you wish, let us
see what power it possesses and what its nature is. I hold that, if the
types of divination we accept and practise are true, there are gods;
conversely, if there are gods, there exist men who can divine.
(10) Quintus, I said, you are defending the Stoic citadel, if indeed
those points of yours stand in reciprocal relationship, that if there is
divination, there are gods and if there are gods, there is divination.
Neither of these is to be granted as easily as you think: for the future
can be announced naturally without the involvement of a god and it
may be that gods exist, but that no power of divination has been
conferred by them on men. He replied, As far as I am concerned, the
fact that I consider that there are clear and obvious kinds of divination is suYcient proof that there are gods and that they have
concern for human aVairs. If you permit, I shall set out what I
think about these things, provided that you have the time and that
you have nothing you think should take precedence over this discussion. (11) For my part, Quintus, I said, I always have time for
philosophy; and at this time when there is nothing else that I can do
with pleasure, I am much more eager to hear what you think about
divination.
Translation
49
I assure you, he said, that I myself have no new views, nothing

that everyone else has not said: for I follow the opinion that is
both very old and is corroborated by the unanimity of all peoples
and nations: that is, there are two kinds of divination, the one
involving a technique, the other involving nature. (12) What nation
or what state is there that is not inXuenced by the prediction of those
who examine entrails or interpret prodigies and lightning or of
augurs or astrologers or lots (these are the kind which as a rule
involve a technique) or by dreams or prophecies (these are the two
classed as natural)? I consider that the outcomes of these practices
should be investigated rather than their causes. For there is a kind
of natural force which both through signs observed over a long
time and through some impulse and divine inspiration announces
the future.
So let Carneades cease insisting as Panaetius used to do, asking
whether Jupiter had ordered the crow to croak on the left and the
raven on the right. These have been observed over an immense
period of time and have become recognized and recorded according
to the outcomes of their signs. There is nothing that length of time
cannot accomplish and achieve, as long as memory records the facts
and accounts are handed down. (13) One can be amazed at what
kinds of herbs have been recognized by doctors and what kinds of
roots are good for animal bites, for eye problems, and for wounds
and, although reason has never explained their force and nature, by
their usefulness both their application and their discoverer have won
approval. So, then, let us consider things which, although they are of
another type, are nonetheless similar to divination.
Moreover a swollen sea often gives warning of winds to come, when suddenly and from its depths it begins to swell, and rocks, white and foamy with
snowy brine, strive to reply to Neptune with gloom-inducing voices or when
a shrill whistle arising from a lofty mountain peak grows stronger, repulsed
by the barrier of crags.
Your Prognostica are crammed with these presentiments of things to

come. Who can uncover the causes of these presentiments? Yet I see
that Boethus the Stoic has tried, and has succeeded in so far as he has
explained marine and celestial phenomena. (14) But who can give a
plausible explanation of why the following things occur?
50
Translation
Similarly the white egret, Xeeing from the swirling of the sea, cries and
announces the approach of frightening storms, as it pours from its vibrating
throat no small noises. Often also does the acredula sing a very sad song
from her breast and attack with her dawn calls, attack with her calls and emit
from her throat continual complaints as soon as dawn releases the icy dews;
and sometimes the dark crow, racing along the shore, immerses its head and
takes the Xood on its neck.
(15) We see that these signs almost never deceive, but we do not
see why this is so.
You also see the signs, you daughters of fresh water, when you prepare to
utter your empty cries and with your ridiculous sound stir springs and
ponds.
Who is there who could imagine that mere frogs see that? But there is
within frogs a kind of natural force for giving signs, suYciently clear
in itself but too dark for human comprehension.
Soft-footed cattle, looking at the heavenly lights, with their noses draw from
the air moisture-bearing juice.
I do not ask why, since I know what happens.

Now indeed the ever-green and ever-burdened mastic, accustomed to swell
three times with a triple production and three times putting forth its fruit,
shows the three times for ploughing.
(16) Nor do I ask why this tree alone should Xower three times nor
why it makes the time for ploughing Wt with the sign of its Xowering.
I am content with this, that, even though I do not know why this
happens, I do know what happens. So for every kind of divination
I shall give the same answer as I did for the things I have cited.
I see the eYcacy of the scammony root for purging and birthwort
for countering snake bites (the latter takes its name from its discoverer and the discoverer learnt of it from a dream) and this is suYcient; I do not know why they work. In the same way I do not
understand adequately the explanation for the signs of wind and
rain which I have mentioned; I recognize, I know, and I vouch for the
force and the result of them. Likewise I accept what the Wssure in
entrails means or what a thread means; I do not know their cause.
Life is indeed full of these things [for almost everyone uses entrails].
Translation
51
Again, surely we can have no doubts about the force of lightning? Do

we not have many other instances, and this one among the Wrst?
When the statue of Summanus on top of the temple of Jupiter Best
and Greatest, which was at that time made of clay, had been struck
from heaven and the head of the statue could not be found, the
haruspices declared that it had been hurled into the Tiber; and it was
found in the spot which they had indicated.
(17) What better authority or witness could I use than you? I have
even learnt by heart, and indeed with pleasure, the verses which the
Muse Urania speaks in the second book of your Consulship:
First of all Jupiter, aXame with the Wre of the ether, turns and bathes the
whole world in his light; he searches the heaven and the earth with his divine
mind which probes to the bottom the thoughts and lives of men, conWned
and hemmed within the caverns of the eternal ether. And if you want to learn
the motions and wandering courses of the stars (which stray in the
terminology and false nomenclature of the Greeks, but really move in a set
course and track), in what part of the zodiac they are located, you will see
that they all bear the mark of the divine mind. (18) For, during your
consulship, you too Wrst observed the swift motions of the heavenly bodies
and the menacing conjunction of stars with glowing heat, when you performed purifying sacriWces on the snowy peaks of the Alban Mount and
celebrated the Latin Festival with abundant milk, and you also saw shimmering comets with their bright light. And you thought that there was much
confusion involving a nocturnal massacre, because the Latin Festival fell
around a time of foreboding, when the moon hid its clear shape with dulled
light and was suddenly removed from the starry sky. What means the torch
of Phoebus, the herald of bitter war, which was climbing towards its zenith
with blazing heat, while longing for the western parts of heaven and its
setting? Or when a citizen struck by an awesome thunderbolt from a clear
sky departs the light of life; or when the earth trembled with its pregnant
body? Then indeed during the night various terrible forms were seen and
warned of war and sedition; seers throughout the lands poured forth
prophecies from frenzied breast warning of tragic outcomes. (19) Those
things which after a long gap Wnally came to pass, the Father of the gods
himself frequently foretold by clear and continual signs on the earth and in
the heavens.
Now all those immutable prophecies which the Lydian haruspex of Etruscan descent had once uttered during the consulship of Torquatus and Cotta
your year of oYce piled up and brought to fulWlment. For the Father who
thunders on high, resting on starry Olympus, himself struck his own hills
52
Translation
and his own temples and hurled his Wres at his Capitoline seat. Then fell the
ancient and revered bronze image of Natta, and the laws long hallowed were
liqueWed and the heat of the lightning destroyed statues of gods. (20) Here
was Mars wood-haunting nurse of the Roman nation who suckled with lifegiving dew from her swollen breasts the young sons of the seed of Mars. At
the blow of the Xaming lightning bolt she fell with the boys and, once torn
from her position, left the marks of her feet.
Who, examining the writings and records of the art, did not utter foreboding words from the Etruscan pages? They all warned that a huge disaster
and evil, that would aVect the state and had begun from noble ancestry was
looming, or in unvarying terms they announced the overthrow of the laws
and ordered us to snatch the temples of the gods and the city from the
Xames and to fear a terrible slaughter and massacre? These things were Wxed
and determined by an unyielding fate, unless a holy and well-proportioned
statue of Jupiter were set up on a high column and looked to the bright east.
Then the people and holy Senate would be able to discern hidden plots, once
that statue, turned now to the sunrise, could see the seats of the Senators and
people. (21) This statue, long delayed and after many hold-ups, was Wnally
set up in its exalted position during your consulship and at the very moment
in time that had been Wxed and marked, when Jupiter made his sceptre shine
on the lofty column, the destruction of our country, prepared with torch and
sword, was revealed to Senators and people by the words of the Allobroges.
So rightly did the ancients, whose writings you know, who ruled peoples
and cities with moderation and virtue, rightly did your compatriots, whose
piety and faithfulness are outstanding and whose wisdom far surpasses all,
before all else worship the gods whose power is eYcacious. Those who
joyfully occupied their leisure with noble studies understood these duties
profoundly in their wise reXections, (22) and in shady Academe or dazzling
Lyceum poured out brilliant theories from their fertile genius. Your country
set you, who had been snatched from these things in the Wrst Xower of your
youth, in the midst of a burdensome place where manly virtues are exercised. Nevertheless, relieving your stressful worries in relaxation, the time
which is not taken up by your country you have devoted to these pursuits
and to us.
So will you be able to bring yourself to speak against my arguments

on divination, you who have done what you have done and have
written with the greatest care what I have quoted?
(23) How? You ask, Carneades, why these things happen in this
way and by what technique they can be understood? I admit that I do
not know, but I say that you yourself see them happen. By chance,
Translation
53
you say. Can that really be so? Can anything happen by chance which
bears upon itself all the marks of truth? Four dice cast produce by
chance a Venus throw; but surely you dont think it would be
chance if you threw 400 dice and got 100 Venus throws? Paint
sprayed at random on a canvas can form the outlines of a face, but
surely you dont think that the beauty of the Venus of Cos could be
produced by a random spraying? If a sow should form the letter A on
the ground with its snout, surely on that basis you couldnt think
that Ennius Andromache could be written by it? Carneades told the
story that when a stone was split open in the quarries of Chios the
head of a young Pan appeared. I accept that there was some such
resemblance, but certainly not such that you would say it had been
done by Scopas. For it is surely the case that chance never imitates
reality perfectly.
(24) But sometimes what has been predicted does not come to
pass. What art, I ask you, does not experience this? I am speaking of
those arts which are based on conjecture and involve opinion. Is
medicine not to be considered an art? Yet how many mistakes are
made! And pilots, do they not make mistakes? The army of the
Greeks and the pilots of so many ships, did they not set sail from
Troy in such a way that happy at leaving, they watched the play of
Wsh, as Pacuvius says, and could not get their Wll of gazing:
Meanwhile, as the sun was setting, the sea became rough, the gloom thickened and the blackness of night and storm blinded.
Surely the shipwreck of so many illlustrious leaders and kings does

not take away the art of steering? Is the science of generals nothing
because the Wnest of generals recently lost his army and Xed? Or is
there no method or wisdom for governing a state because Cn.
Pompey has made many errors, Cato a few, and even you yourself
one or two? The response of haruspices and every kind of divination
involving opinion is similar, for it depends on conjecture, beyond
which it cannot go. (25) It errs perhaps occasionally, but nonetheless
on most occasions directs us to the truth. For it stretches back over
the whole of time, during which, because identical signs have preceded identical outcomes in identical ways on a number of occasions
almost beyond counting, an art has been constituted through the
repeated observation and recording of the same signs.
54
Translation
Indeed how trustworthy are your auspices! At the present these are
neglected by Roman augurs (I say this with your permission) but are
preserved by the Cilicians, Pamphylians, Pisidians, and Lycians. (26)
Why should I remind you of our host, a most famous and excellent
man, king Deiotarus, who never undertook anything without Wrst
having taken the auspices. When, because he had been warned by the
Xight of an eagle, he had returned from a journey which he had planned
and decided on in advance, the room in which he would have stayed,
had he continued his journey, collapsed the next night. (27) In this way,
as I used to hear from him in person, he very often abandoned a
journey, even when he had travelled for many days. The following
saying of his is most remarkable: after Caesar had deprived him of
his tetrarchy, his kingdom, and money, he said that he did not regret the
auspices which were favourable as he set oV to join Pompey in that
the authority of the Senate, the liberty of the Roman people, and the
prestige of the empire had been defended by his forces and that those
birds on whose authority he had taken the course of duty and good
faith had given him good advice. For a good reputation was dearer to
him than his belongings. He seems to me to have employed real augury.
For our magistrates employ forced auspices; for it is necessary for
some of the dough that is oVered to fall from the beak of the chicken
when it is fed. (28) You have in your writings that a tripudium results
from <any> bird if anything falls from it to the ground, and what I said
is a forced tripudium you say is a tripudium solistimum. So by the
negligence of the college, as Cato the Wise complains, many auspices
and many auguries have been completely lost and abandoned.
In former times almost nothing of any importance was undertaken, even in private life, without Wrst taking the auspices. What
proves this even today are wedding auspices, the real practice of
which has been discontinued and only the name survives. For just as
today (albeit a little less frequently than formerly) on important
matters the will of the gods is customarily sought by means of
entrails, so in the past it was by means of birds. Because of this, as
we do not look for the propitious, we run into the dire and unfavourable. (29) For example, P. Claudius, the son of Appius Caecus,
and his colleague L. Junius lost very large Xeets because they went to
sea against the auspices. This befell Agamemnon in the same way,
who when the Greeks had begun
Translation
55
to murmur among themselves and to despise the art of those who scrutinized entrails, gave the order to set sail, to general approbation but against
the bird.
Why cite ancient examples? We see what happened to M. Crassus for

having neglected the announcement of dire auspices. In this regard
your colleague Appius, a good augur, or so I am accustomed to hear
from you, with insuYcient wisdom as censor stigmatized C. Ateius, a
good man and a distinguished citizen, becauseas Appius justiWed
his actionhe had falsiWed the auspices. Be that as it may, this may
have been appropriate for him as censor, if he considered that Ateius
had lied, but the following was by no means appropriate to him as
augur, that he wrote that it was for that reason that the Roman
people had suVered a very great disaster. For if the calamity occurred
for that reason, there is no blame attached to the one who announced
the adverse omens, but to the one who did not heed them. (For the
outcome proved that the announcement had been true, as the same
augur and censor says; if it had been false, it could not have been the
cause of the disaster.) For dire auspices, just like all other auspices,
omens, and signs, are not the cause of anything happening, but
announce what will happen unless measures are taken. (30) So the
announcement of Ateius did not produce the cause of the disaster,
but, by presenting Crassus with a sign, warned him what would
happen if he did not take heed. So, either that announcement had
no validity or, if it was valid, as Appius thinks, it was valid in that the
fault attached not to the one who gave the warning, but to the one
who did not heed it.
And that staV of yours, which is the most distinguished emblem of
the augurate, from where was it handed down to you? Indeed,
Romulus delimited the regions with it when he founded the city.
This staV of Romulus [it is a curved rod slightly bent in at the top
which takes its name from its resemblance to a staV on which music
is sounded], when it had been put in the hall of the Salii (which is
on the Palatine) and the hall burnt down, was found undamaged.
(31) Again, which of the ancient writers does not mention the
division of the regions made by Attus Navius with the staV many
years after Romulus, during the reign of Tarquinius Priscus. Because
of poverty Navius was a swineherd during his boyhood. When one of
his swine was lost he is said to have vowed that, if he recovered it, he
56
Translation
would give to the god the largest bunch of grapes in the vineyard. So,
having found the pig, he is said to have stood in the middle of the
vineyard facing south and when he had divided the vineyard into
four parts and the birds had rejected three parts (and when the
fourth part, which was left, had been divided into regions) he
found a bunch of amazing size, so we see it recorded. When this
had been made known and all his neighbours came to consult him on
their own aVairs, he won a great reputation and fame. (32) The result
of this was that King Priscus summoned him to his presence. As a test
of Navius skill as an augur, Priscus said that he was thinking of
something and asked whether it could be done. Navius took the
auspices and replied that it could. Tarquinius said that he had
thought that a whetstone could be cut by a razor. He ordered Attus
to make the attempt. So the whetstone was brought into the Comitium and was cut in two by a razor under the gaze of the king and
people. As a result of this Tarquin employed Attus Navius as augur
and the people consulted him about their own aVairs. (33) We
understand that the whetstone and razor were buried in the Comitium and that the puteal was placed above them.
Lets deny all this, lets burn the annals, and lets say these things are
false and lets admit anything rather than that the gods are concerned
with human aVairs. Now, what is written in your work about Tiberius
Gracchus, does that not conWrm the science of both augurs and
haruspices? After he had unwittingly taken possession of the tent
irregularly in that he had crossed the pomerium without Wrst taking
the auspices, he held the elections for the consuls. This is known to
you and you yourself have enshrined it in literature. Moreover
Tiberius Gracchus, himself an augur, conWrmed the authority of the
auspices by confessing his own error and great authority was added to
the discipline of the haruspices, who, when brought before the
Senate straight after the election, declared that the magistrate who
had presided over the elections had not followed the rules.
(34) So I agree with those who have said that there are two kinds of
divination, one in which technique has a part and the other which
involves no technique. For there is a technique for those who by
conjecture deduce new things and have learnt the ancient by having
observed them. On the other hand, they involve no technique who
foretell the future not by reason or conjecture (by having observed
Translation
57
and recorded signs), but by a certain stirring of the mind or some

free and unrestrained movement, as happens often to people who
dream and sometimes to those who prophesy in frenzy, like Bacis of
Boeotia, Epimenides of Crete, or the Sibyl of Erythrae. Oracles of this
kind should be considered, not those which are conducted by equalized lots, but those which are poured forth under a divine impulse
and inspiration. The lot itself is not to be despised, if it also has the
sanction of antiquity, as in the case of those lots which we are told
sprang from the earth. I believe, however, that under divine inXuence
it may happen that they can be drawn so as to fall appropriately.
Those who interpret all these things seem to approach very closely to
the divine intention of those they interpret, just as philologists do for
poets. (35) What is that cleverness which seeks to destroy by false
charges facts established by antiquity? I do not see their cause.
Perhaps it lies hidden, wrapped in the obscurity of nature; for god
has not willed me to know such things but only to use them. So, I will
use them and will not be led to hold that on the subject of entrails the
whole of Etruria is out of its mind or that the same people are in
error on lightning or that they interpret portents falsely, since often
have crashes, often have groanings, and often have earthquakes given
true predictions of many serious events to our commonwealth and
many to every other state. (36) Why? Should the recent parturition of
a mule (a creature which is naturally sterile), which was predicted by
haruspices as an incredible progeny of evils, be ridiculed? Well, did
not Tiberius Gracchus, the son of Publius, who was consul twice and
censor, moreover an excellent augur, wise man, and outstanding
citizen, summon haruspices when two snakes had been caught in
his house (as his son Gaius Gracchus informs us in the writings he
has left)? When they replied that, if he let the male go, his wife would
die shortly and, if he released the female, he would die, he considered
it more Wtting that he should meet his death at the right time rather
than the young daughter of Publius Africanus. He released the female
and a few days later he died.
Let us ridicule haruspices, call them foolish and useless, and let us
despise their science to which a very wise man, the outcome, and
events have given proof. <Let us condemn> Babylon and those who
from Mount Caucasus observe the celestial signs and by their calculations follow the courses of the stars. Let us condemn, I say, of folly
58
Translation
or stupidity or shamelessness those who cover 470,000 years in their

works, as they themselves assert, and let us judge them liars and
people who had no fear of what the judgement of future centuries on
them would be. (37) Alright, barbarians are foolish and deceivers.
But surely the history of the Greeks is not also falsiWed? To speak of
natural divination, who is unaware of the responses Pythian Apollo
gave to Croesus, the Athenians, Spartans, Tegeans, Argives, and
Corinthians? Chrysippus has collected innumerable oracles, none
without copious authority and evidence. I pass over these, as they
are well known to you. I will make this one point. The oracle of
Delphi would never have been so frequented, so famous, and so
crammed with such gifts from all kings and peoples, unless all ages
had not proved the truth of these oracles. For a long time now that
is not the case. (38) Although it now has a lesser reputation because
the truthfulness of its oracles is less striking, nonetheless it would not
have had so great a reputation in the past had its veracity not been of
the highest level. It may be that the terrestrial force which used to
rouse the mind of the Pythia with divine inspiration has vanished
over time, just as we see that certain rivers have disappeared and
dried up or have twisted and turned aside to another course. Explain
its occurrence as you wish, for it is a great question, provided that
what cannot be denied, unless we distort the whole of history,
abidesthat over many centuries the oracle was truthful.
(39) But lets leave oracles and lets come on to dreams. In his
discussion of these Chrysippus, by collecting many trivial dreams,
does what Antipater does, searching out those dreams which, when
explained according to the interpretation of Antiphon, demonstrate
the intelligence of the interpreter, but he ought to have used more
weighty examples. As it is written in Philistus, a learned and careful
man, a contemporary of the times, the mother of the Dionysius
who was the tyrant of Syracuse, when pregnant and carrying this
Dionysius in her womb, dreamt that she had given birth to a small
satyr. The interpreters of portents, who at that time in Sicily were
called Galeotae, replied to her, so Philistus says, that the son to
whom she gave birth would be the most famous in Greece enjoying
long-lasting good fortune.
(40) Shall I not remind you of legends related by our poets and
those of the Greeks? For example in Ennius the Vestal recounts:
Translation
59
when roused terriWed from sleep the old woman brought the lamp with
trembling limbs, and in tears she told this story. Daughter of Eurydice,
whom our father loved, the force of life is now leaving my whole body. For a
handsome man appeared to me and snatched me away amid pleasant
willows, river banks and places unknown. So alone thereafter, my sister,
I seemed to wander and slowly to track you and to search for you and to be
unable to grasp you in my heart; no path kept my feet steady. (41) Then my
father seemed to address me in these words: Daughter, you must Wrst
endure miseries, then your fortune will rise from the river. When father
had said this, my sister, he suddenly disappeared and did not oVer himself to
view, although I desired it in my heart, although I often stretched my hands
to the blue expanses of heaven, tearful, and with pleading voice called to
him. Then sleep left me sick at heart.
(42) Although these words are the creations of a poet, nonetheless

they are not alien to the regular experience of dreams. The following
too, I admit, is Wction, that by which Priam was troubled because:
The pregnant, mother Hecuba dreamt in her sleep that she gave birth to a
Xaming torch; after this the father, King Priam himself, stricken with fear in
his mind over the dream, consumed with sigh-full cares, kept sacriWcing
bleating victims. Then, seeking peace, he demanded an interpretation, begged
Apollo to explain the fate portended by such an extraordinary dream. Then
from his oracle, with divine voice, Apollo told Priam not to raise the son who
would be born next; he was the destruction of Troy, a plague to Pergamum.
(43) Although these are, as I have said, unhistorical dreams, to them

should be added the dream of Aeneas, which is related in the Greek
histories of Fabius Pictor, which is certainly of the same kind
everything that was done by Aeneas and occurred to him was that
which appeared to him as he slept.
Lets look at examples closer to our time. What kind of dream is
that of Tarquinius Superbus, of which he speaks in Accius Brutus?
(44) When with the onset of night I surrendered my body to rest, soothing
my tired limbs in sleep, I saw in a dream a shepherd driving towards me a
Xeecy herd of outstanding beauty. I chose from it two brother rams and
sacriWced the more magniWcent of the two; then its brother made for me
with its horns, rammed me and with its blow knocked me down. Then,
stretched on the ground, severely hurt, on my back, I beheld in the sky a
great and wonderful occurrence: the Xaming rayed orb of the sun melted
away on a new path to the right.
60
Translation
(45) So lets see what interpretation of that dream was given by the
diviners:
O King, it is by no means strange that the things which men do, see, think
and worry about in their lives, the things they do and do habitually when
awake, that those things appear to anyone in a dream; but the gods do not
present so important a matter unintentionally and unexpectedly. So, take
care that the one whom you consider as stupid as a sheep does not act, his
heart armed with wisdom, a man out of the ordinary, and expel you from
your kingdom. For that which was shown you with regard to the sun
portends an immediate change in their aVairs for the people. May this be
a good omen for the people! For the fact that the mighty star took its course
from left to right is the most favourable augury that the Roman commonwealth will be supreme.
(46) Now let us return to foreign examples. Heraclides Ponticus,

a learned man, a pupil and follower of Plato, writes that the mother
of Phalaris dreamt that she saw in her dreams the statues of the gods
which she herself had dedicated in the house; of these the Mercury
seemed to pour blood from the bowl which he held in his right hand;
when it touched the ground, it welled up so that the whole house was
awash with blood. The cruelty of her inhuman son conWrmed the
mothers dream. Why do I need to bring out from Dinons Persica the
interpretations which the Magi gave to Cyrus the First? For when, as
he was sleeping, the sun appeared at his feet, Dinon writes that he
grasped at it with his hands three times to no eVect as the sun in its
course slipped away from him and left; the Magi [considered among
the Persians a class of wise and learned men] told him that his triple
grasping of the sun portended that Cyrus would reign for thirty
years. And so it came to pass, for he reached his seventieth year,
having begun to reign when he was forty.
(47) Even among barbarian nations, there is deWnitely a power of
presentiment and divination, seeing that the Indian Callanus, setting
oV to his death, as he was ascending his blazing pyre, said, What a
splendid exit from life when, as happened to Hercules, the soul leaves
for the light once the mortal body has been burnt! When Alexander
asked him to say if he needed anything, he said, Thank you, I shall
see you soon. So it came to pass, for Alexander died a few days later
at Babylon. I am digressing a little from dreams, to which I shall
return soon. It is an accepted fact that on the night that the temple of
Translation
61
Ephesian Diana burnt down Alexander was given birth by Olympias,

and when the Wrst light of dawn appeared, Magi proclaimed that a
pest and plague to Asia had been born that night.
So much for Indians and Magi. (48) Lets get back to dreams.
Coelius writes that Hannibal, when he wanted to carry oV the gold
pillar which stood in the shrine of Juno Lacinia and was uncertain
whether it was solid or gilded on the outside, drilled through it; and
when he discovered it to be solid he decided to remove it, Juno
appeared to him as he dreamt, ordering him not to do it and warning
him that, if he did, she would see to it that he also lost the eye with
which he saw well. That was not ignored by the clever man. From the
gold which had been drilled out he had a small calf made and set on
top of the column. (49) Likewise this is in the Greek history of
Silenus (whom Coelius follows), who has reported the actions of
Hannibal with very great care: When he had captured Saguntum,
Hannibal dreamt that he was summoned into the council of the gods
by Jupiter; when he arrived, Jupiter ordered him to take the war into
Italy and a guide was given him from the council whom he employed
when he began to advance with his army. Then the guide ordered
him not to look back; he could not refrain from doing this any longer
and, carried away by desire, he looked back. He saw a vast horrendous beast wrapped around with snakes destroying all trees, bushes,
and buildings wherever it went; in amazement he asked the god what
on earth such a monster was, and the god replied that it was the
devastation of Italy and ordered him to press on and not to worry
about what was happening behind him and in his rear. (50) In the
history of Agathocles it is written that the Carthaginian Hamilcar,
when he was besieging Syracuse, believed that he heard a voice saying
that the following day he would dine in Syracuse. When that day
appeared, a great conXict sprang up between Carthaginian and
Sicilian soldiers; as soon as the Syracusans realized this, without
warning they broke into the camp and Hamilcar was carried oV
alive by them. So the outcome conWrmed the dream. History is full
of such examples and everyday life is crammed with them. (51) It is a
fact that the famous Publius Decius, the son of Quintus, who was the
Wrst of the Decii to become consul, when he was military tribune in
the consulship of M. Valerius and A. Cornelius and our army was
being hard pressed by the Samnites, when he was entering the
62
Translation
dangers of battle too rashly and was warned to be more careful, said,
as it appears in the annals, that in his dreams he had seen himself die
with very great glory when he was engaged in the midst of the enemy.
On that occasion he extricated the army from encirclement without
losing his life. But three years later, when he was consul, he devoted
himself and in his armour dashed himself against the battleline of the
Latins. By this action of his, the Latins were overcome and destroyed.
His death was so glorious that his son ardently desired to do the
same.
(52) So lets now come, if you wish, to the dreams of philosophers.
In Plato, Socrates, when in state custody, said to his friend Crito that
he was to die in three days; for in his dream he had seen a woman of
rare beauty who called him by name and quoted an Homeric line as
follows:
the third good day will set you in Phthia.
It is written that it happened just as it was said. That follower of

Socrates, Xenophon (what a man of quality, what a great man!),
records his own dreams during the campaign which he served with
Cyrus the Younger. Their remarkable outcomes are recorded. (53)
Shall we say that Xenophon is a liar or mad? Does Aristotle, a man of
unique and almost divine intellect, err or want others to err when
he writes that his friend Eudemus of Cyprus, while travelling to
Macedonia arrived at Pherae, which was at that time a renowned
city in Thessaly and was held in domination by the cruel tyrant
Alexander. In that town Eudemus was so severely ill that the doctors
despaired of him. In a dream there appeared to him a young man of
striking appearance saying that he would very soon recover, in a few
days the tyrant Alexander would die and Eudemus himself would
return home after Wve years. Aristotle writes that the Wrst came true
immediately, in that Eudemus recovered, and the tyrant was killed by
his wifes brothers. But at the end of Wve years, when he hoped because
of that dream to return to Cyprus from Sicily, he was killed in battle
before Syracuse. Consequently the dream was interpreted to mean
that, when the soul of Eudemus left his body, it had returned home.
(54) Lets add to the philosophers a most learned man, the divine
poet Sophocles. When a heavy gold bowl had been stolen from the
temple of Hercules, he saw in a dream the god himself saying who
Translation
63
had done it. He ignored it the Wrst and second time. When the same
dream came more frequently, he went up to the Areopagus and
revealed the matter. The Areopagites ordered the arrest of the man
who had been named by Sophocles. When the question was put to
him, he confessed and brought back the bowl. Because of this episode
that temple acquired the name of Hercules the Informer.
(55) Why am I speaking of Greek examples? Somehow our own
give me more pleasure. All historians, like the Fabii, the Gellii, but
with the greatest accuracy Coelius, record this. During the Latin War,
when the great votive games were being held for the Wrst time, the
state was suddenly roused to arms, the games were interrupted, and it
was decided that repeats should be held. Before these could happen
and when the people had already taken their seats, a slave wearing a
yoke was led through the circus and was beaten with rods. Afterwards
there appeared to a Roman peasant as he slept someone who said that
the opener of the games had not pleased him and that he had ordered
him to tell this to the Senate; he did not dare to do this. The same
order was given and a warning not to test his power. Not even then
did he dare. Then his son died and the same warning was given a
third time by a dream. Then he too became ill and told his friends, on
whose advice he was carried by litter to the Senate-house, and when
he had related the dream to the Senate he returned home on his own
feet, restored. It is handed down that the dream was accepted by the
Senate and the games were repeated a second time. (56) Gaius
Gracchus told many, as it is written in the same Coelius work, that
when he was a candidate for the quaestorship his brother Tiberius
had appeared to him in his dreams and said that, however much he
wished to delay it, nonetheless he must perish sharing the same fate
as he himself had. Coelius writes that this happened before Gracchus
was elected Tribune of the People and that <Gracchus> had told
many. What can be found better authenticated than this dream?
And who, I ask you, can despise those two dreams which are very
frequently recounted by the Stoics? The one concerns Simonides: he
saw a man he did not know dead and washed up and buried him.
When he was intending to board ship he appeared to be warned not
to do it by the very man whose burial he had undertaken; if he sailed,
he would perish in a shipwreck. So Simonides went back and all
the others who then sailed perished. (57) The second dream is very
64
Translation
well-known and is handed down as follows: when two friends from

Arcadia were travelling together and came to Megara, the one stayed
at an inn, the other with a friend. When they had eaten and had gone
to bed, in the Wrst part of the night the other appeared in the dreams
of the one who was with his friend, begging that he should come to
his aid as his death was being prepared by the innkeeper. TerriWed at
Wrst by the dream he got up; then when he had collected himself and
decided that what he had seen had no value, he went back to bed.
Then as he was sleeping the other appeared to ask him, since he had
not come to his aid while he was alive, not to let his death go
unavenged; he had been killed, thrown into a wagon by the innkeeper
and excrement had been thrown on top of him; he asked him to be at
the gate early, before the wagon could leave the city. Moved by this
dream he met the cart-driver early at the gate and asked him what
was in the wagon. In terror he Xed, the dead man was dug out, and
the innkeeper, his crime revealed, was punished. What can be said to
be more divinely inspired than this dream?
(58) Why search for more examples or those from antiquity?
I have often told you of a dream I had and I have often heard
yours. When I was proconsul of Asia, in a dream I saw you riding
on a horse towards the bank of a large river, suddenly lurch forward,
fall into the river, and not reappear anywhere. I trembled in fear,
terriWed, but then suddenly you reappeared joyful and climbed up
the opposite bank on the same horse, and we embraced each other.
The interpretation of this dream is straightforward and experts in
Asia predicted to me the events which came to pass. (59) I come now
to your dream. I have heard it, of course, from you yourself, but more
often our Sallustius has told it to me. During your Xight, which was
glorious for us but calamitous for the country, you were staying at a
certain villa in the plain of Atina and had spent most of the night
awake and around daybreak you Wnally began to sleep deeply and
heavily. So although your journey was urgent, he ordered silence
maintained and did not let you be disturbed. But when you woke
around the second hour you related your dream to him. As you were
wandering sadly in desolate places, there appeared to you C. Marius
with laurelled fasces asking you why you were sad, and when you said
that you had been driven out of your country by force, he took your
right hand, told you to be of good cheer, handed you over to his
Translation
65
senior lictor to take you to his monument, and said that in it you
would Wnd safety. Sallustius relates that at that moment he cried out
that a swift and glorious return was in store for you and you yourself
seemed delighted at the dream. At any rate I was told swiftly that,
when you heard that the magniWcent senatorial decree about your
return had been passed in that monument, on the motion of an
excellent and most illustrious consul, and that it had been greeted in
a packed theatre with incredible shouts and applause, you said that
nothing could be more divinely inspired than that dream at Atina.
(60) But many dreams are untrue! Rather, perhaps their meaning is obscure to us. But granted that some may be false, what do we
argue against those which are true? These would occur far more
frequently if we went to bed in a healthy condition. In fact, when
burdened with food and wine, we see dreams which are confused and
troubled. See what Socrates says in Platos Republic. He writes:
When men sleep, that part of the soul which shares in thinking and reasoning is languid and inert, but that part in which there is a certain savagery and
a brutish inhumanity when it is immoderately gorged with drink and food,
leaps in sleep and hurls itself about without restraint. So every vision which
presents itself to such a man is without thought and reasonfor example,
he dreams he is having physical intercourse with his mother, or with some
other human being or god, and often with a beast; or even that he is killing
someone and impiously staining himself with blood and doing many things
impurely and hideously in recklessness and shamelessness. (61) But the man
who has healthy and temperate habits and life surrenders himself to sleep,
with that part of his soul which involves thought and reason active, alert and
satisWed with a banquet of good thoughts and with that part of his soul
which is nourished on pleasure neither enfeebled by abstinence nor sated
with excess (both of these usually dull the sharp edge of thought, either if
nature is deprived of anything or there is abundance and excess) and with
that third part of the soul (in which is the Wre of anger) calmed and
quietened; when the two reckless parts of the soul have been subdued,
then the third, the thinking and reasoning part of his soul shines forth
and reveals itself to be alive and alert for dreaming and those things which
appear to him in his sleep will be peaceful and veridical.
I have reproduced Platos exact words.

(62) Shall we listen rather to Epicurus? For Carneades, in his
eagerness for polemic says now this and now that. But he says
66
Translation
what he thinks. But he thinks nothing that is ever elegant or Wtting.

Will you, then, prefer him to Plato and Socrates, who, although they
do not give an explanation, nonetheless surpass these minor philosophers in authority? Plato commands people to set oV to sleep with
their bodies so disposed that nothing can aVect their souls with error
or confusion. For this reason it is thought that the Pythagoreans were
forbidden to eat beans, because that food produces great Xatulence
which is prejudicial to the tranquillity of a soul in search of the truth.
(63) So when the soul is separated by sleep from union with the body
and the contagion it derives from there, then it remembers the past,
sees the present, and foresees the future; for the body of a sleeping
man lies like that of a dead man, but the soul is active and alive. And
it will be even more so after death, when it has completely left the
body. So, as death approaches, it has greater power to divine. For
those in the grip of a serious and fatal disease see this too, the
imminence of their death, and so visions of the dead often appear
to them and at that moment they have the greatest desire for praise.
Those who have not lived as they should have at that moment feel the
greatest repentance for their sins. (64) That men at the point of death
have the power to divine Posidonius conWrms also by that example
which he adduces: a certain Rhodian at the point of death named six
men of similar age and said who would be the Wrst to die, who
second, and then who last. He maintains that there are three ways
in which men dream under divine impulse. In the Wrst the soul
foresees all by itself because of the relationship with the gods it
possesses; in the second, the air is full of immortal souls on which
the marks of truth are clear, as though hallmarked; in the third, the
gods themselves speak with people as they sleep. And, as I just said,
it happens more easily that souls perceive the future as death
approaches. (65) Of this kind are the examples of Callanus, about
whom I spoke earlier, and Homers Hector, who, as he was dying,
prophesied the imminent death of Achilles.
Common usage would not have rashly hallowed the use of the
word praesagire, if it did not correspond to some reality:
As I was leaving home, my soul presaged that I was leaving in vain.
Sagire means to have a sharp perception, from which old women are
called sagae, because they want to know much, and dogs are called
Translation
67
sagaces. So the person who has knowledge (sagit) of something before

it happens is said to presage (praesagire), that is to perceive the
future in advance.
(66) There is, therefore, in the soul a power of presaging which is
imposed from outside and which is kept in by divine power. If it
manifests itself with some greater force it is called madness, since the
soul is drawn from the body and is stirred by divine impulse.
chorus
cassandra
But why does she seem suddenly to use her Xaming eyes to
grasp with?
Where is her young girls modesty, which just a little while
ago was sane?
Mother, you are by far the noblest of all noble women,
I have been overcome by inspired prophesies;
For Apollo, against my will, spurs me to frenzy to speak the
future.
I am ashamed in the company of girls my own age, my
father is ashamed of my actions,
the best of men. My mother, I have compassion for you
and loathing for myself,
For you have borne the Wnest of oVspring to Priam, me
excluded. This pains me
That I bring loss, they proWt, I oppose you and they obey.
What a sweet poem, expressive and suited to her character, but not
relevant to the matter in hand! (67) But what I want to say, that
frenzy frequently makes true predictions, has been expressed in the
following passage:
It comes, the torch comes enveloped in blood and Wre!
It has lain hidden for many years; citizens, bring assistance and quench it.
The god, enclosed within a human body, now speaks, not Cassandra:
Already on the great sea a swift Xeet
Has been constructed; it is hastening a swarm of destruction;
It will come, on ships with wings of sail,
A Werce army will throng our shores.
(68) I seem to be presenting tragedies and stage-plays. But from

you yourself I have heard an example of the same kind, not one made
up but one which happened. C. Coponius, a man of the highest
wisdom and learning, when he was in command of the Rhodian Xeet
68
Translation
with praetorian imperium, came to you at Dyrrhachium and said that

a rower from a Rhodian quinquereme had prophesied a Greece
bathed in blood in less than thirty days, the plundering of Dyrrhachium, and an embarkation onto ships in Xight, and for those
Xeeing the pathetic sight behind them of Wres; but the Rhodian
Xeet would receive a swift return and journey home. At the time
you yourself were not unworried and Marcus Varro and M. Cato,
who were with you then, both learned men, were greatly alarmed.
A few days later Labienus arrived in Xight from Pharsalus. After he
had reported the loss of the army, the rest of the prophecy was
soon fulWlled. (69) For the grain plundered from the granaries
was scattered through all the streets and alleys and in great terror
you embarked on the ships and by night you looked back at the town
and saw on Wre merchant ships, which soldiers had torched because
they did not want them to follow; lastly, after you had been deserted
by the Rhodian Xeet, you realized that the prophet had told the truth.
(70) As brieXy as I could, I have set out divination by dream and
frenzy, which, as I said, involve no technique. Both of these types
share one principle, which our friend Cratippus regularly uses: the
human soul is to some degree derived and drawn from something
outside itself (from this it is understood that there is a divine soul
outside, from which the human soul is drawn). That part of the
human soul which is endowed with sensation, motion, and appetite
is not separated from bodily inXuence. But that part of the soul
which participates in rationality and intelligence is at its most active
when it is furthest away from the body. (71) So, when he has set out
examples of true prophecies and dreams, Cratippus usually concludes his argument in this way: although without eyes the function
and role of eyes cannot exist and although eyes sometimes do not
perform their function, the person who has even once used his eyes
to see things as they really are possesses the sense of eyes which see
things as they really are. So in the same way, if without divination the
function and role of divination cannot exist, although someone who
possesses the power of divination can sometimes make mistakes and
not (fore)see the truth, it is suYcient to establish the existence of
divination if there is one instance of something being foretold in such
a way that it evidently could not have happened by chance. There are
Translation
69
innumerable examples of this kind and so the existence of divination

must be admitted.
(72) But those types of divination which are either interpreted by
conjecture or have been recognized and recorded by their outcome
are, as I have said above, called artiWcial, not natural. Among these
are included haruspices, augurs, and interpreters. These types are
considered invalid by the Peripatetics, but are defended by the Stoics.
Some of them depend on records and lore, as the books of the
Etruscans on haruspicy, lightning, and rituals show, and also your
books on augury. Others are explained by unprepared conjectures in
accordance with the situation. For example, in Homer Calchas predicts the number of years of the Trojan War from the number of
sparrows and in Sullas History we see an occurrence which you
witnessed: while he was sacriWcing in the territory of Nola in front
of his headquarters, a snake suddenly emerged from the bottom of
the altar and Gaius Postumius the haruspex begged him to lead out
the army onto the oVensive. When Sulla did this, he captured the
strongly fortiWed Samnite camp which lay in front of Nola. (73) A
conjecture was also made in the case of Dionysius shortly before he
began to reign. When he was travelling through the territory of
Leontini, and made his horse go down into a river, the horse was
swallowed up in whirlpools and disappeared. When he could not
extricate it despite his best eVorts, he left, so Philistus says, taking it
badly. But when he had gone on a little way, he suddenly heard a
whinny, looked back, and to his joy saw his horse alive and on its
mane a swarm of bees had settled. This portent had the following
eVect that in a few days Dionysius began his reign.
(74) Again, what a warning was given to the Spartans shortly
before the disaster at Leuctra, when in the shrine of Hercules his
weapons clanked and the statue of Hercules was covered with sweat!
At the same time in Thebes, as Callisthenes says, in the temple of
Hercules the doors, although they were barred shut, suddenly opened
of their own accord and the weapons that had been Wxed to the walls
were found on the ground. At the same time at Lebadaea, as a rite in
honour of Trophonius was in progress, the cocks in the neighbourhood began to crow so insistently that they would not stop. At this
the Boeotian augurs said that victory belonged to the Thebans
because it was the custom of that bird to be silent when defeated
70
Translation
and to crow when victorious. (75) At the same time the Spartans
were warned by many signs of disaster in the battle of Leuctra. For on
the head of the statue of Lysander, who was the most famous of the
Spartans, that stood at Delphi there appeared suddenly a crown of
wild, prickly grasses. Moreover there were the stars of gold, which
had been set up by the Spartans at Delphi after the famous naval
victory of Lysander in which the Athenians were defeated, because
during the battle Castor and Pollux were said to have appeared with
the Spartan Xeet. The insignia of those gods, the gold stars which I
mentioned had been set up at Delphi, fell just before the battle of
Leuctra and could not be found. (76) But the greatest portent that
was given to the Spartans was this: when they consulted the oracle of
Jupiter at Dodona on the question of victory and their ambassadors
had set up the <vessel> which contained the lots, a monkey, which
the king of the Molossians kept among his pets, upset the lots
themselves and everything else that had been prepared for the lottaking and scattered them in every direction. Then it is said that the
priestess who is in charge of the oracle said that the Spartans should
think not about victory, but about safety.
(77) Again, during the Second Punic War did not C. Flaminius,
consul for the second time, ignore the signs of things to come and
cause a great disaster to the state? When he had puriWed the army,
had moved camp toward Arretium, and was leading his legions
against Hannibal, both he and his horse suddenly fell for no reason
in front of the statue of Jupiter Stator. The experts opinion of this
sign which had been given, that he should not join battle, he considered as no obstruction. Again, when he was taking the auspices by
means of the tripudium, the hen-keeper said that this was not a day
for joining battle. Then Flaminius asked him what course of action he
would advise if the chickens would not eat even at a later stage. When
he replied that he should stay where he was, Flaminius said, Remarkable auspices indeed if action can be taken when the chickens are
hungry and no action can be taken when they are full! So he ordered
the standards to be uprooted and to follow him. At that moment,
when the standard-bearer of the Wrst maniple could not move his
standard from the ground and even when more came to his assistance nothing availed, Flaminius, on hearing of it, in his usual way
ignored it. As a result within three hours his army was destroyed and
Translation
71
he himself was killed. (78) Coelius has added this further notable
information that, at the very time that this disastrous battle was
taking place, earthquakes of such great force occurred among the
Ligurians, in Gaul, on several islands, and throughout the whole of
Italy, that many towns were destroyed, in many places landslides
occurred and whole lands sank, rivers Xowed in the opposite direction, and the sea Xowed into their channels.
Reliable conjectures in divination are made by experts. When
Midas the famous Phrygian was asleep during his childhood, ants
heaped up grains of wheat in his mouth. It was predicted that he
would be very rich. So it turned out. Again, while the tiny Plato was
asleep in his cradle, bees settled on his lips; the interpretation
was given that he would possess a unique sweetness of speech. So
his future eloquence was foreseen during his infancy. (79) Again, was
Roscius, whom you so love and admire, lying or was it the whole of
Lanuvium on his behalf? While he was in his cradle and being
raised at Solonium [a Xat area in the territory of Lanuvium] during
the night his nurse awoke, brought a light and observed him
asleep, wrapped in the coils of a snake. TerriWed at the sight she
raised a din. Roscius father referred it to the haruspices who replied
that the boy would achieve unequalled fame and glory. Pasiteles
has engraved this scene in silver and our friend Archias has described
it in verse.
What, then, are we waiting for? Till the immortal gods converse
with us when were in the Forum, in the street, or at home? Although
they do not present themselves to us directly, they spread their
inXuence far and wide, enclosing it in caverns in the earth or Wxing
it in human nature. For a power from the earth used to inspire the
Pythia at Delphi and a natural power the Sibyl. So what? Do we not
see how many diVerent types of earth there are? Of these one type is
deadly, like that at Ampsanctus among the Hirpini, or in Asia
Plutonia, which we have seen. And there are lands of which some
parts are harmful, others health-giving, some produce men of sharp
intellect, others fools. All this depends on the variety of climate and
on the diVerent exhalations of the soils.
(80) Also it often happens that by a certain image or depth of voice
or by singing the soul is violently moved; the same thing happens
often through worry or fear, just like her who:
72
Translation
with her mind changed as though mad or moved by the rites of Bacchus,
was calling for her Teucer among the hills.
This exaltation shows that a divine power exists in the soul. For
Democritus says that no poet can be great without frenzy, and
Plato says the same. Let him call it frenzy, if he wishes, provided
that the frenzy is praised as it was in Platos Phaedrus. Again, your
oratory in lawsuits, can the delivery itself be impassioned, weighty,
and eloquent unless the soul itself is somewhat stirred? Indeed, I have
often seen in you and, to turn to less weighty examples, in your friend
Aesop such great passion in expression and gesture that some force
seemed to have robbed him of his minds understanding.
(81) Often, too, apparitions present themselves which have no
reality but which have the appearance of reality. It is said that this
happened to Brennus and his Gallic forces when they had waged an
impious war against the shrine of Delphian Apollo. For they say that
at that time Pythia spoke from the oracle:
I shall see to the matter, I and the white virgins.
As a result it happened that the virgins were seen to bear arms against
them and the army of the Gauls was overwhelmed with snow.
Aristotle thought that those who rave because of illness and are
called melancholics have in their souls some divine, prescient
power. But I have my doubts whether this should be attributed to
those with disordered stomachs or minds, for divination is a quality
of a healthy soul, not of a sick body.
(82) That divination really exists is established by the following
Stoic reasoning:
If there are gods and they do not declare to men in advance what will
happen, either they do not love men or they themselves do not know what
will happen or they think that there is no advantage to men in knowing what
will happen or they do not consider it in accordance with their dignity to
forewarn men of what will happen or even the gods themselves are unable to
give signs of these things. But it is not true that they do not love us (for they
are friends and benefactors of the human race); nor are they ignorant of
what has been decided and predestined by themselves; nor is it of no
advantage to us to know what will come to pass (for we will be the more
careful if we know); nor do they consider it inappropriate to their majesty
(for nothing is more glorious than beneWcence); nor are they incapable of
Translation
73
foreknowing the future. (83) So it is not true that there are gods and that
they do not give signs of the future. But there are gods and therefore they
give signs; and if they give signs, it is not true that they give us no avenue by
which to understand the signs (for they would be giving signs to no
purpose); nor, if they give the means, is there no divination; therefore
there is divination.
(84) Chrysippus, Diogenes, and Antipater employ the same argumentation.

So why should one doubt that what I have argued is absolutely
true, if I have on my side reason, outcomes, peoples, nations, Greeks,
barbarians, our own ancestors as well, the fact that it has always been
believed to be so, the greatest philosophers, poets, the wisest of
menthose who have set up constitutions and those who have
founded cities? Do we wait until beasts speak? Are we not satisWed
with the shared belief of mankind? (85) In fact no other argument is
brought forward why the types of divination I have mentioned have
no value, except that it seems diYcult to say what is the rational
process and the cause of each type of divination. What explanation
does the haruspex give why a split lung, even though the other
entrails are Wne, stops an undertaking and postpones it to another
day? What explanation does the augur give why a raven on the
right and a crow on the left provide a good omen? What explanation
does the astrologer give why the conjunction of Jupiter or Venus with
the moon at the birth of a child is favourable, but the conjunction of
Mars and Saturn is unfavourable? Why does god warn us when we
are asleep and ignore us when we are awake? Finally, What is the
reason that Cassandra in her frenzy can foresee the future, but wise
Priam cannot do the same?
(86) Why does each of these things happen, you ask. The question
is wholly legitimate, but not what we are dealing with now. We are
asking whether it happens or not. It is as if I were to say that a magnet
is a stone which attracts and fastens iron to itself, but that I cannot
explain why it happens, and you were Xatly to deny that it does
happen. But that is what you do with divination, which we see for
ourselves and hear and read about and have inherited from our
fathers. Indeed before philosophy, a recent invention, emerged
there were no doubts about it in everyday life, and after philosophy
advanced, no philosopher of any authority thought otherwise.
74
Translation
(87) I have mentioned Pythagoras, Democritus, and Socrates and

have omitted none of the ancients except Xenophanes. I have added
the Old Academy, Peripatetics, and Stoics; only Epicurus disagrees.
What could be more shameful than this, that Epicurus believes that
no disinterested virtue exists?
Is there anyone whom antiquity, signed and sealed with evidence
of the highest quality, does not impress? Homer writes that Calchas
was by far the best of augurs and guided the Xeet to Troy by his
knowledge of auspices, I believe, not of geography. (88) Amphilochus
and Mopsus were Argive kings, but also augurs, and founded Greek
cities on the sea coasts of Cilicia. Even before them Amphiaraus and
Tiresias, not men of humble or obscure status, nor like those of
whom Ennius writes:
they invent false prophecies for the sake of personal proWt,
but noble, outstanding men who, advised by birds and signs, foretold
the future. Of the second of these, even in the Underworld, Homer
writes that he alone has knowledge, the rest wander around like
shadows. The reputation Amphiaraus has acquired in Greece
means that he is honoured as a god and that oracles are sought
from the place in which he was buried. (89) Furthermore, did not
Priam, the king of Asia, have a son Helenus and a daughter Cassandra who were diviners, the one by auguries and the other by mental
agitation and divine stimulation? We see it written that certain
brothers Marcii, born of a noble family, were prophets of this kind
in the time of our ancestors. And doesnt Homer record that Polyidus
of Corinth prophesied many things to others and death for his son as
the latter set oV for Troy. Certainly among the ancients, those who
held power were also masters of augury, for they considered wisdom
and divination to be equal marks of kingship. Witness to this is our
state, in which the kings were augurs and, later, private citizens who
had been granted that priesthood governed the state by the authority
of their religious beliefs.
(90) The same principle in regard to divinatory procedures is not
ignored even among barbarian nations, for in Gaul there are the
Druids, of whom I myself have known Divitiacus the Aeduan, your
guest and admirer. He claimed that the science of nature, what the
Greeks call physiologia, was known to him and he used to foretell
Translation
75
what would happen sometimes by augury and sometimes by interpretation. Among the Persians augury and divination are practised
by the Magi who gather in a sacred place for discussion to meet with
each other, as you were once accustomed to do on the Nones. (91)
No one could be king of the Persians who had not Wrst learnt the art
and lore of the Magi. It is possible to see families and peoples
dedicated to this science. In Caria there is Telmessus, in which city
the art of the haruspices is pre-eminent; similarly in the Peloponnese,
Elis has two separate families, the Iamidae and the Clutidae which are
famed for their excellence in haruspicy. In Syria the Chaldaeans excel
in their knowledge of the stars and the sharpness of their minds. (92)
Etruria has the greatest knowledge of things struck by lightning and
also interprets what is signiWed by each prodigy and portent. For this
reason, in the time of our forebears, the Senate, at a time when our
empire was thriving, decreed that of the sons of leading citizens
groups of ten should be handed over to the individual Etruscan
peoples to be instructed in the discipline so that an art of such
great importance should not, because of a lack of manpower, lose
its religious authority to become an object of commerce and proWt.
The Phrygians, Pisidians, Cilicians, and the Arab nation are guided
particularly by the signs given by birds, as we know was also regularly
done in Umbria.
(93) Indeed it seems to me that also the very places that are
inhabited by each people determine what kinds of divination are
appropriately practised. For the Egyptians and Babylonians, living in
the expanses of open plains, since nothing sticks up from the earth to
obstruct contemplation of the sky, have devoted all their eVort to
learning about the stars. Because the Etruscans sacriWce victims more
carefully and more frequently on account of their religious scruples,
they have dedicated themselves most of all to learning about entrails;
and because many lightning strikes occur among them due to the
thickness of the atmosphere and because, for the same reason, many
unusual things arise from the air and the earth and some from the
conception and generation of men and beasts, they have become the
most skilled interpreters of portents. Their eYcacy, as you yourself
are accustomed to say, is demonstrated in the terms wisely applied
to them by our ancestors. Because they demonstrate, portend,
show, and predict they are called miraculous apparitions, portents,
76
Translation
monstra, and prodigies. (94) The Arabs, Phrygians, and Cilicians,

because they are involved for the most part in the pasturing of
animals, as they cross the plains in winter and mountains in summer,
have noted more readily the songs and Xights of birds. The same
explanation goes for Pisidia and for our Umbria. The whole of Caria
and particularly the Telmessians, of whom I have spoken above, since
they inhabit very rich and highly fertile Welds, in which many things
are formed and created because of their fertility, they are sharp at
noticing portents.
(95) Indeed, who does not see that in all the best states auspices
and all the other kinds of divination have wielded the greatest
inXuence? Has there ever been a king or a people that has not
employed divine prophecy, not only in peace, but much more in
war, since the contest and risk to life are greater? I do not speak of us
Romans, who do nothing in war without examining entrails and
nothing in the civilian sphere without taking auspices. Lets look at
foreign examples. For the Athenians in all their public consultations
always employ certain divinatory priests whom they call manteis, and
the Spartans have given their kings an augur as assessor, and they
wanted an augur to be present with their elders (for that is what they
call their state council). On important matters too they used always
to consult the oracle at Delphi or Ammon or Dodona. (96) Lycurgus,
who regulated the Spartan state, conWrmed his own laws with the
authority of Apollo at Delphi. When Lysander wanted to change
these, he was prevented by the same authority. Those who governed
the Spartans were not content with the concerns they exercised while
awake, but performed incubation in the shrine of Pasiphae, which is
in the countryside near the city, in order to receive dreams, because
they considered oracles received in dreams to be truthful.
(97) I now return to Roman examples. How many times has the
Senate ordered the Board of Ten to consult the books! <In matters of
what importance and how often has it heeded the replies of the
haruspices!> For example, when two suns or three moons were seen,
or when torches or the sun was seen at night, when sounds were heard
in the sky, when the sky appeared to come apart and balls were noticed
in it. Again a landslide in the territory of Privernum was reported to
the Senate because the earth had disappeared to a great depth and
Apulia had been shaken by very violent earthquakes. By these
Translation
77
portents warnings of huge wars and most ruinous revolts were

delivered to the Roman people and in all these cases the responses of
the haruspices coincided with the Sibylline verses. (98) When Apollo
sweated at Cumae and Victory at Capua, when men-women were
born, was it not a portent of disaster? When the river Atratus ran with
blood, when it frequently rained stones, sometimes blood, now and
then earth, or once even milk; when on the Capitol the Centaur or on
the Aventine gates and men, at Tusculum the temple of Castor and
Pollux and at Rome the temple of Piety were struck by lightning, in
all these cases did not the haruspices reponses conform with what
happened and were not the same predictions found in the Sibylline
Books?
(99) Following a dream of Caecilia, daughter of Quintus, during
the recent Marsic War, the temple of Juno Sospita was restored by the
Senate. Although Sisenna has demonstrated that this dream corresponded miraculously to the letter with what came to pass, he
impertinently argues, under the inXuence of some Epicurean, I
believe, that no credence should be given to dreams. He does not,
however, argue against portents and writes that at the beginning of
the Marsic War statues of the gods sweated, blood Xowed, the sky
came apart, voices were heard from unseen sources announcing the
dangers of war, and at Lanuvium the shields were eaten through by
micewhich the haruspices interpreted as most depressing. (100)
Further, we Wnd in the annals that during the war with Veii, when the
Alban Lake rose beyond its usual level, a certain noble Veientine came
over to us and said that according to the decrees of fate which the
Veientines possessed in written form Veii could not be captured as
long as the lake was full and that, if the lake overXowed and in its own
course Xowed to the sea, it would be disastrous for the Roman
people; if, however, it was channelled so that it could not reach the
sea, then it would be beneWcial for us. As a consequence of this that
wonderful irrigation of the Alban Lake was made by our ancestors.
When the Veientines, tired by the war, sent ambassadors to the
Senate, it is said that one of them said that the deserter had not
dared to tell everything to the Senate: in the same books of fate
possessed by the Veientines it was written that Rome would shortly
be captured by the Gauls, as indeed we see happened in the sixth year
after Veii was captured.
78
Translation
(101) Fauns are said to have been heard often in battles, and in
times of trouble voices issuing from unseen sources which foretold
the truth. So, let me give two of the many examples of this kind, but
the most authoritative. For not long before the city was captured a
voice was heard from the grove of Vesta, which extends from the foot
of the Palatine along the New Road, saying that the walls and gates
should be repaired; unless this was seen to, Rome would be captured.
Because this was ignored when it was possible to take the necessary
steps, expiation was made after that dreadful disaster. Opposite that
place an altar (which we see fenced oV) was consecrated to Aius
Loquens. And it has been written by many that after an earthquake
occurred and procuration was made with a pregnant sow, a voice was
heard from the temple of Juno on the citadel, after which that Juno
was called Moneta. So do we despise these signs given by the gods
and sanctioned by our ancestors?
(102) Pythagoreans regularly observed what was said not only by
gods but also by human beings, what they call omens. Our ancestors,
because they considered these to be signiWcant, prefaced all undertakings with May this prove good, well-omened, successful, and
fortunate, and for all religious business which is conducted publicly
the command is given, Guard your tongues, and in the proclamation of festivals, Abstain from lawsuits and insults. Likewise in the
puriWcation of a colony by the man who was founding it, or when a
commander puriWes an army or a censor the people, men with names
of good omen are chosen to lead the victims. Consuls do the same in
the levy, so that the Wrst soldier has a name of good omen. (103) You
know that these practices were observed by you scrupulously as
consul and commander. Our ancestors claimed the prerogative century to be an omen of an election which conformed to the laws.
I shall now set out well-known examples of omens. L. Paullus
during his second consulship, when it had fallen to him by lot to
wage war against King Perses, as he returned home on the evening of
that very day, as he kissed his little daughter Tertia, who was quite
small at the time, he noticed that she was rather sad. Whats the
matter, Tertia?, he said, Why are you sad? Daddy, she said,
Persa has died. He embraced the girl more tightly and said, My
daughter, I accept the omen. A puppy of that name had died. (104) I
have heard L. Flaccus, the Flamen of Mars, say that Caecilia, the wife
Translation
79
of Metellus, when she wanted to marry oV the daughter of her sister

went into a certain shrine to receive an omen, as used to be the practice
of the ancients. As the young girl was standing and Caecilia was sitting
and for a long time no sound was heard, the girl in her tiredness asked
her aunt to let her sit in her place for a little while. She said, Yes, my
girl, I give you my place. The omen occurred in the fulWlmentfor
she died soon after and the young girl married the man to whom
Caecilia had been married. I understand full well that these things
can be despised or even ridiculed, but to deny the existence of gods
and to despise the signs given by them is the same thing.
(105) What shall I say about augurs? This is up to you, and you,
I say, must defend auspices. To you as consul the augur App.
Claudius reported that, as the augury of safety was doubtful, there
would be a civil war, tragic and troublesome. A few months later this
happened and in still fewer days was crushed by you. I give my strong
endorsement to this augur, since he alone, for many years, has not
restricted himself to the repetition of augural formulae but practises
the discipline of divination. Your colleagues used to ridicule him and
called him the Pisidian and Soranian augur. They believed that there
was no presentiment or knowledge of future reality in auguries; in
their wisdom they said that religious observances were made up to
suit the opinion of the ignorant. This is far from the case, for neither
the shepherds of whom Romulus was king nor Romulus himself were
so ingenious as to fake religious practices to deceive the masses. The
diYculty and hard work of learning the discipline has given their
neglect eloquence, for they prefer to say that there is nothing in
auspices rather than learn what there is.
(106) What could be more divine than the auspicial sign which is
in your Marius? To use you above all as an authority:
Suddenly the winged minister of Jupiter who thunders on high,
wounded by a snake bite, swoops down from a tree trunk
piercing the snake with its Werce talons
half-alive, its multi-coloured neck shining forebodingly.
Tearing it as it writhed and bloodying it with its beak
having satisWed its anger and avenged its bitter pains,
it tossed it away still breathing, Xung it torn into the water
and turned from the sunset to shining sunrise.
When Xying on its wings of good-omen and swooping,
80
Translation
augur of the divine will, Marius saw it
and recognised signs of good omen for his own glory and return,
the Father thundered on the left side of heaven.
Thus Jupiter himself conWrmed the clear omen of the eagle.
(107) The famous augurate of Romulus was that of a shepherd not of

a sophisticate, nor was it made up to satisfy the beliefs of the
ignorant, but was accepted by the trustworthy and passed down to
posterity. So the augur Romulus, as it appears in Ennius, along with
his brother Remus also an augur:
Taking care with great care and desiring to rule, devoted themselves to both
auspices and augury. On the Murcus, Remus took his seat for the auspication and watched alone for a bird of good omen. But fair Romulus sought
on the high Aventine and watched for the tribe of those who Xy on high.
They fought whether to call the city Rome or Remora. Everyone awaited
anxiously who of the two would be the ruler. They waited just as, when the
consul is ready to give the signal, all eagerly look to the starting-gates, (108)
from the painted mouths of which the chariots soon rush, in the same way
the people, their faces showing their apprehension for the future, were
expectantwhich would be given the victory and a great kingdom? Meanwhile the blazing sun retreated to the darkness of night. Then a bright light
revealed itself struck by rays and at that very moment, on high, Xew by far
the most beautiful bird, of good omen, on the left; at the very moment the
golden sun arose, thrice four sacred bodies of birds fell from heaven and
positioned themselves in fair stations of good omen. From this Romulus saw
that he had been given preference and that a royal throne and kingdom had
been secured for him by an auspice.
(109) But to return to the point from which my discourse broke

oV. If I cannot explain why anything happens and can only demonstrate that the examples I have mentioned did occur, would that be
a weak answer to Epicurus and Carneades? And so, what if the
explanation for artiWcial foreknowledge is straightforward, but that
of divine foreknowledge is somewhat more obscure? For what is
known in advance from entrails, lightning, portents, and the stars
is recorded as a result of observation over a long period. In all these
areas the great length of time produces an extraordinary science
through prolonged observation. This can exist even without
the intervention and inspiration of the gods, since through frequent
experience it is clearly known what is the result of each sign and what
Translation
81
precedes any given event. (110) As I have said before, the second type
of divination is natural and with the subtle reasoning applied to
physics should be ascribed to the nature of the gods, from which,
as the most learned philosophers agree, our own souls are drawn and
gathered. Since the universe is Wlled and packed with eternal intelligence and the divine mind, human souls are necessarily inXuenced
by their relationship with divine souls. But when they are awake our
souls are subject to the necessities of life and, hampered by the
restraints of the body, are hindered from association with the divine.
(111) (Rare is that class of men who call themselves away from the
body and are possessed by an all-consuming concern and enthusiasm
for the contemplation of things divine. The auguries of these do not
derive from divine inspiration but from human reason. On natural
evidence they predict the future, for example, Xoods and the conXagration of heaven and earth which is to come sometime. Some
practised in statesmanship, as we understand of the Athenian Solon,
foresaw the rise of tyranny far in advance. We can call these men
prudent, that is, they take forethought, but we can in no way call
them divine, no more than Thales of Miletus, who, to confound his
critics and to show that even a philosopher could make money, if it
were in his interest, is said to have bought up the whole olive crop in
the region of Miletus before it began to bloom. (112) Perhaps he had
noticed by virtue of some knowledge that there would be an abundant olive crop. Moreover, he is said to have been the Wrst to predict
the solar eclipse which took place in the reign of Astyages.
Doctors, pilots, and also farmers all sense many things in advance,
but I call none of them divination, not even that famous instance
when the Spartans were warned by the natural philosopher Anaximander to leave their cities and homes and to sleep in the Welds
under arms because an earthquake was imminent: that was the time
when the whole city collapsed and the extremities of Mount Taygetus
were torn away like a ships stern. Not even Pherecydes, the renowned
teacher of Pythagoras will be considered a prophet rather than a
natural philosopher because he said an earthquake was imminent
after he had seen water drawn from a never-failing well.
(113) In fact the human soul does not divine naturally, unless it is
so unrestrained and free that it has absolutely nothing to do with the
body, as happens only for prophets and dreamers. On this basis those
82
Translation
two kinds of divination are sanctioned by Dicaearchus and, as I said,

by our friend Cratippus. If for this reason, that they proceed from
nature, they are admittedly the most important, they are not the only
types. But if they believe that there is nothing in observation, they
remove many of the things with which the scheme of life is bound up.
But, seeing that they make a concession, and not a small one [prophecies with dreams], there are no grounds for us to contend forcefully
with them, especially since there are some who approve of no form of
divination whatsoever.)
(114) So, those whose souls, spurning their bodies, take wing and
rush away, inXamed and excited by some passion, without doubt do
see those things which they proclaim as they prophesy. Those souls
which do not cling to the body are inXamed by many things, just as
some are roused by a particular tone of voice or by Phrygian songs.
Groves and woods move many souls, rivers or seas move many,
whose raging minds see what will happen far in advance. To this
kind of divination belong the following:
Alas! See! Some man has decided a famous case among three
goddesses; as a result of that decision a Spartan woman will come,
one of the Furies.
For in the same way many prophecies have been made by seers not
only in words but also
in verse which Fauns and seers once used to sing.
(115) In the same way the seers Marcius and Publicius are said to
have prophesied in verse; and the riddles of Apollo were expressed in
the same way. I believe that there were certain exhalations from the
earth, Wlled with which minds poured forth oracles.
This is the way with seers and not dissimilar, in fact, to that of
dreams. For the same thing that happens to seers when they are
awake happens to us as we dream. For in sleep the soul is active,
free from the senses and every encumbrance of worry, while the body
lies almost dead. Because the soul has lived from all eternity and has
had relations with countless souls it sees everything that exists in
nature provided that it moderates its eating and restrains its drinking
so that the soul is in such a condition that it remains alert while the
body sleeps. This is divination for one who dreams.
Translation
83
(116) At this point we encounter the important interpretation of

dreams, which does not occur naturally but through art (likewise the
interpretation of both oracles and prophecies); <all of these> have
their interpreters as poets have commentators. For just as divine
Nature would have created gold, silver, bronze, and iron in vain, if
she had not also taught how to reach the veins of them; just as she
would not have given the fruits of the earth or produce of trees to
humankind usefully, if she had not handed down their cultivation
and preservation; just as building material would have been useless, if
we didnt possess the skill of construction, so with every beneWt
which the gods have given man some skill has been linked through
which its usefulness could be harnessed. So for dreams, prophecies,
and oracles, because many of them were obscure, many of them
ambiguous, explanations of interpreters have been used.
(117) How prophets and dreamers see those things which do not
exist anywhere at the time is a great problem. The questions we are
asking would be solved more easily if the questions which should be
asked Wrst had been investigated. For this whole question is a part of
the argument on the nature of the gods which you have set out clearly
in your second book. If we hold to this, the thesis (part of which is
the subject we are discussing) will stand Wrm: the gods exist, by their
foresight the world is governed, and they are concerned with human
aVairs, not only in general but also in particular. If we maintain this,
which to me seems unassailable, it surely follows that the gods give to
men signs of what is to come.
(118) But it seems that one must determine how this is done. For it
is not Stoic doctrine that the gods are concerned with every single
Wssure of livers, with every birdsong (for that is neither appropriate,
nor worthy, nor in any way possible), but that the world was created
from the beginning in such a way that predetermined signs would
precede predetermined events, some in entrails, others in birds,
others in lightning, others in portents, others in the stars, others in
the visions of dreamers, and others in the utterances of those
inspired. Those who understand these signs well are not often
deceived; bad conjectures and bad interpretations prove wrong not
because of the reality but because of the lack of skill of the interpreters.
Once this has been set down and agreed [that there is a certain
divine power which controls the lives of men], it is not hard to
84
Translation
imagine by what means those things happen which we clearly see do

happen. For a sentient force which pervades the whole world can
guide in the choice of a sacriWcial victim and at the very moment
when you intend to sacriWce, a change of entrails can take place so
that something is either added or taken away. For in a brief instant
Nature either adds or modiWes or removes many things. (119) To
prevent us doubting this there is a very important example which
occurred brieXy before the death of Caesar. When he was sacriWcing
on the day on which he sat for the Wrst time on a golden throne and
paraded in purple dress there was no heart in the vitals of the prime
bull. So do you believe that any animal which has blood can exist
without a heart? Caesar <was not> troubled by the strangeness of
this, although Spurinna said that he should beware lest he lose his
powers of thought and life, both of which proceed from the heart.
On the next day there was no head to the liver. These prodigies
were sent to him by the immortal gods with the result that he
foresaw his death, not so that he prevented it. So when those parts
without which that victim could not have lived are not found in the
entrails, one must understand that those parts which are not found
disappeared at the very moment of immolation.
(120) The divine spirit produces the same result with birds, so that
alites Xy at one moment here and at another there, disappear at one
moment in one area and at another moment in another area, and
oscines sing at one moment on the right and at another on the left.
For if every animal moves its body forwards, sideways, or backwards
as it wishes and bends, twists, stretches, or contracts its members in
whatever direction it wishes, and does all this almost before thinking,
how much easier is it for a god to whose power all things are subject!
(121) And it is the same god who sends signs to us of the kind that
history has handed down to us in very great number, such as we see
recorded here: if an eclipse of the moon occurred a little before
sunrise in the sign Leo, Darius and the Persians would be defeated
militarily by Alexander and the Macedonians [in battle] and Darius
would die; if a girl were born with two heads there would be popular
revolt and seduction and adultery in the home; and if a woman
dreamt that she gave birth to a lion, the country in which this had
happened would be overcome by foreign nations. Of the same kind is
the following example, which Herodotus has written: Croesus son
Translation
85
spoke although he was a mute; following this portent his fathers

kingdom and house were utterly wiped out. Which history does not
record that, while Servius Tullius was asleep, his head blazed? So just
as the man who goes to sleep peacefully with his mind prepared both
by Wne thoughts and conditions appropriate to secure him serenity
will have clear and reliable visions in his dreams, so the pure and
undeWled soul of one who is awake is better prepared to interpret the
truth of the stars, birds, all other signs and also of entrails.
(122) Surely this is what we have heard about Socrates and what is
often said by him in the works of his disciples: that there is a certain
kind of divinity which he calls his daimonion, which he always
obeyed, as it never forced him on but often held him back. The
same Socratesfor what better authority can we Wnd?when Xenophon was consulting him whether he should join Cyrus, after he had
set out what he thought best, said that is my advice, but it is that of a
man; on matters which are obscure and uncertain I advise that the
oracle of Apollo be consulted. The Athenians have always consulted
this oYcially on matters of great importance. (123) It is also written
that, when he saw his friend Critos eye bandaged, he asked what was
wrong; when he replied that, as he was walking in the country, a small
branch which had been tied back was released and struck him in the
eye, Socrates said That is because you didnt obey me when I called
you back, when I was using the divine foreknowledge which I usually
use. Again the same Socrates, after the unsuccessful battle at Delium
under the command of Laches, when he was running away with
Laches himself, came to a place where three roads meet and refused
to take the road which the rest had. When they asked him why he
wouldnt take the same road he said that he had been warned by
the god; whereas those who Xed by the other road encountered the
enemy cavalry. A large number of remarkable prophecies made by
Socrates have been collected by Antipater. I shall not mention them,
as they are known to you and do not need to be recalled by me. (124)
However, there is a glorious and almost divine saying of that philosopher which he uttered after he had been condemned by sacrilegious verdicts, that he was dying with complete serenity, for neither
as he left his house nor as he mounted the platform to plead his case
had he been given any sign by the god of any impending danger, as he
always had.
86
Translation
So I think that, although many things deceive those who evidently

divine the future by means of art or conjecture, nonetheless divination exists; but human beings can make mistakes in this art as in
every other. It may happen that some sign is given indeWnitely but it
is taken as certain, or some sign can remain unobserved, either the
relevant sign or another sign contrary to it. But for me it will be proof
enough for this proposition for which I am arguing to have found
not many but even a quite small number of instances of things
divinely sensed in advance or predicted. (125) Indeed I would not
hesitate to say that, if any single thing has been sensed in advance and
predicted in such a way that, when it came to pass, it occurred as it
was predicted and if evidently nothing in it occurred by chance or
fortuitously, divination exists for certain and that this should be
admitted by everyone.
For this reason it seems to me that, as Posidonius has done, the
whole force and rationale of divination should be traced Wrst from
god, about whom enough has been said, secondly from Fate and then
from Nature. For reason compels us to admit that everything happens according to Fate. I call Fate what the Greeks call heimarmene,
that is the order and series of causes, when cause linked to cause
produces of itself an eVect. That is an eternal truth which Xows from
all eternity. Because this is so, nothing has happened which was not
going to happen and for the same reason nothing will happen the
eYcient causes of which nature does not contain. (126) From this we
recognize that Fate is not what it is called superstitiously but what it
is called scientiWcally, the eternal cause of things, why things that are
passed have happened and why impending events occur and why
what follows will be. So it comes about that on the one hand it can be
known by observation what eVect generally follows each cause, even
if it doesnt always follow (for it is diYcult to aYrm that); on the
other hand, it is probable that these same causes of future eVects are
perceived by those who see them in frenzy or in sleep.
(127) Moreover, since all things come to pass according to Fate (as
will be demonstrated elsewhere), if a mortal could exist who could
discern with his soul the connection of every cause, surely nothing
would deceive him. For he who grasps the causes of future events
necessarily grasps every future event. But since no one can do this
other than god, what remains is for men to know what will happen in
Translation
87
advance by means of certain signs which will make clear what follows
them. For those things which are yet to be do not suddenly come into
being, but, like the uncoiling of a rope, the passing of time brings
about nothing new but unfolds each event in sequence. Both those
who have the gift of natural divination and those for whom the
course of events is marked by observation realize this. Although
the latter do not see the causes themselves, nonetheless they do see
the signs and marks of the causes. Through using in relation to these
marks memory, diligence, and the records of predecessors, that kind
of divination which is called artiWcial, which concerns entrails, lightnings, portents, and heavenly signs is carried out. (128) It is not
amazing that those things which exist nowhere are known in advance
by diviners; all things exist, but they are distant in time. As in
seeds there is present the vital force of those things which are
produced from the seeds, so in causes are stored the future events
which the soul perceives, either when in frenzy or set free in sleep, or
which reason or conjecture sense in advance. Just as those who are
acquainted with the rising, setting, and movements of the sun, moon,
and other celestial bodies can predict far in advance at what time
each of these will take place, so those who have studied in detail over
a long time and marked the course of things and the connection
between them and the outcomes, either always or, if that is diYcult,
generally, or, if even that is not granted, sometimes understand what
is to happen. For these and other arguments of the same kind for the
reality of divination are derived from Fate.
(129) From Nature comes another particular argument, which
teaches us how great the power of the soul is when it is separated
from the physical senses, which happens most of all either when
people are sleeping or mentally inspired. Because, as the minds of the
gods understand what each other is thinking without eyes, ears, and
tongues (on the basis of this men, when they make a silent wish or
vow, do not doubt that the gods hear them), so mens souls, which
when released by sleep are free of the body or stirred by inspiration
and roused move freely of their own accord, see those things which
they [souls] cannot see when they are mixed up with the body. (130)
And, although it is perhaps diYcult to transfer this natural
explanation to the kind of divination which we say derives from
a technique, nonetheless Posidonius has explored this question as
88
Translation
far as is possible. He holds that there are in Nature certain signs

of future events. For we understand that the people of Ceos are
accustomed each year to make a careful observation of the dog star
and, as Heraclides of Pontus writes, make a conjecture whether
the year will be healthy or pestilential. If the star rises dimmer
or, as it were, wrapped in mist, the air is thick and heavy so
that breathing it will be diYcult and unhealthy; but if the star appears
brilliant and very clear, this is a sign that the atmosphere is thin
and pure and consequently healthy. (131) Democritus holds that
the ancients were wise to establish the inspection of the entrails of
sacriWcial victims; that from their condition and colour are
perceived signs at one moment of sickness, at another of health and
sometimes even of the future fertility or sterility of the Welds.
If observation and custom have recognised that these techniques
proceed from Nature, the passage of time was able to bring many
things to be noted and recorded. So that natural philosopher introduced by Pacuvius in his Chryses seems to have understood very little
of Nature:
for those who understand the speech of birds
learn more from the livers of others than from their own;
I think that they should hear rather than be obeyed.
But why? I beg you, when a few verses later you say clearly enough:
Whatever it is, it animates, forms, increases, nourishes and creates
all things
It buries and receives within itself all things and is the father of all;
From it the same things are born afresh and to it also they return.
Why, then, since there is one abode for all things and it is common
to all, and since the souls of men have always been and will be, why
can they not understand what follows from each event and what
signiWes each event? This is what I have to say on divination,
said Quintus.
(132) At this point I will aYrm that I do not recognize the drawers
of lots, nor those who divine for the sake of money, nor the necromancers whom your friend Appius used to consult:
In short I do not give a Wg for Marsian augurs,
Village haruspices or astrologers from the Circus,
Nor Isiac prophets or interpreters of dreams.
Translation
89
They are not diviners either by science or technique. But

are superstitious seers and shameless prophets,
Either skill-less or mad or ruled by need;
They dont know the byway they themselves are on, but point out
the highway to others;
To the ones they promise riches, from them they ask a drachma;
From these riches let them deduct a drachma for themselves, but
hand over the rest.
This is the view of Ennius who, a few lines before, holds that gods
exist but that they do not care what the human race does. But
I, who think that they do care and that they give many warnings and
predictions, approve of divination without triviality, emptiness and
trickery.
When Quintus had Wnished speaking, I said, <You have come>
admirably prepared indeed . . .
Commentary
17 In the prologue to book 1 Cic. sets out the the subject under
discussion and the importance of reaching a correct assessment of
a topic which concerned both individuals and the community. This
falls into three parts: (i) divination is a phenomenon notable for its
antiquity and ubiquity, attested in every age of human life and in all
countries (12); (ii) in its various forms it inXuences every aspect of
life. In the Roman state, for example, various types of divinatory
procedure had recognized roles in the decision-making process: from
the foundation of the city by Romulus augury was the distinctive
Roman form of divination which preceded every civilian or military
activity; the expertise of the haruspices was deemed essential
for interpreting portents and averting evil; the prophecies of the
Sibylline books and of other prophets were listened to; and even
dreams could govern public policy (34). And (iii) divination was
the object of philosophical enquiry from the Presocratics onwards,
attracting a variety of views. Thus in Ciceros discussion there was to
be a careful evaluation of the arguments to avoid either impiety
through an oversceptical denial of divination or culpable credulity
by an overeager acceptance of it (57).
In distinction to his other dialogues there is no dedication or
addressee. This may be an indication that De Divinatione was not
given its Wnal polish before publication or of a change of plan.
M. Junius Brutus had been the dedicatee of De Natura Deorum and
of most of the works published during the dictatorship of Caesar
(Brut., Parad. Sto., Or., Fin., and Tusc.), but his role in the assassination of Caesar made him a dangerous dedicatee in the unsettled
Commentary
91
aftermath; in the works that were deWnitely published after Caesars

death inoVensive dedicatees such as Atticus and Marcus Junior
are chosen.
There is no indication in these chapters as to the form the discussion will take, either as to the format of the argument or whether it is
to be a dialogue. These are only revealed when Cic. sets the scene
(89), at which point it beomes clear that he is a participant.
Because Marcus is in fact a protagonist, rather than a minor
Wgure, as in De Natura Deorum, the status of the prologue in the
dialogue becomes an issue. It appears to be a neutral presentation,
but it has been suggested that Marcus undermines the case for
divination in various ways before it is presented. For example, Badal`
(1976: 32) understands the use of quidam (a certain) in the expression a kind of divination in the opening sentence of the work as
attentuating and undercutting the validity and existence of divination. However, a generic sense is preferable, in that divination in
which the future was foretold was not the universal manifestation of
the phenomenon. Indeed, in each instance that Badal` alleges
that Cic. uses ambiguous formulations or prejudicial terms, his
interpretation seems forced, and the neutrality of the introduction
should be maintained.
1. An ancient belief The antiquity of belief in divination and the
ubiquity of its practice were key arguments for those defending
divination (see below). Cic. uses this expression only of religious
questions (cf. Verr. 2. 4. 106; ND 2. 63). Opinio (belief) is the Latin
equivalent of doxa, which could be contrasted with aletheia (truth) or
episteme (knowledge) often in the sense of what was assented to
falsely (e.g. Acad. 1. 41; cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 7. 1512), and so
might indicate that, from the opening words, Cic. is loading his
argument against divination (so Badal` 1976: 312). However, opinio
represents what for a sceptic lacks proof, but can be accepted
provisionally, and thus would be consistent with the Academic
conclusion to book 2 (see introd., 3).
heroic times Pease sees a reference to acts of divination in
Homer and in tragedies based on the Trojan cycle, but Quintus
also cites examples from the Theban cycle (1. 88). Any narrow
92
Commentary
restriction should be rejected (Timpanaro). Cic. is showing that

divination goes back to times which some of his contemporaries
were uncertain should be considered as historical. Romulus should
not be included among the heroic examples (pace Timpanaro),
as Cic. appears to accept the historicity of Romulus auspication
(2. 70, 80).
reinforced by the approbation both of the Roman people and of all
peoples This important line of argument, the consensus omnium,
which goes back to the Presocratics, was pursued particularly by the
Stoics, whence it appears throughout Quintus case (1. 1112, 84,
904). Cic. himself uses it (Leg. 2. 33) to justify the inclusion of
augury in his ideal state, putting arguments for and against it in the
mouth of Velleius and Cotta (ND 1. 44, 62, 3. 8). It is used particularly to support beliefs not empirically veriWable (re religious belief
and practice, e.g. Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 1516; Plut. Mor. 574e; Sext.
Emp. Math. 9. 132), but is often confounded with argument from
common conceptions. See Schian 1973: esp. 15763, and Obbink
1992: esp. 1935, 21131.
The division of exemplary material into Roman and other (cf.
1. 46, 55, 97) came to be drawn more sharply and enunciated as an
organizational principle by Valerius Maximus (praef., see Skidmore
1996: 8991), but that it is also seen clearly in Cornelius Nepos
De Viris Illustribus is plausibly inferred for Varros Hebdomades
(Dyck 1996: 4001); the practice of either or both of these contemporaries may have inXuenced Cic.
a kind of See above 17. Here Cic. is alluding to the diVerence
between the traditional Roman use of divination in a non-prophetic
way and the predominant Greek use.
divination, which the Greeks call mantike Cicero glosses the
Roman term divinatio by the Greek mantike also at Leg. 2. 33 and
ND 1. 55. In formal Latin literature and notably Cic.s philosophical
works (e.g. Tusc. 1. 14, 22), only single words of Greek appear; for
longer passages Cic. supplies his own translation (see G. B. Townend,
Hermes, 88 (1960), 989). Cic.s works provide the earliest extant
appearance of the abstract noun divinatio (North 1990: 57; e.g.
Commentary
93
Clu. 97), marking an important stage in the Romans ability to

analyse the broader phenomenon, as opposed to speciWc forms of
divinatory activity.
a presentiment and knowledge of future things Cic. oVers an
initial deWnition of divination (cf. 1. 105) using key terms which
will feature in the argument. By presentiment (praesensio) he
presents the essence of divination, that it permits advance awareness
of what will happen; in the second term, scientia (knowledge), two
ideas are present: Wrst, that divination does not provide merely
intuition, but information about the future to the rational faculties
and secondly that this is not done arbitrarily, but by the employment
of techniques. Scientia, then, translates the Greek techne, in the Stoic
sense of a system of apprehensions uniWed by practice and directed
to an end useful in life (Sext. Emp. Math. 2. 10; attributed to Zeno,
Olymp. In Gorg. 534; translated by Cicero in a lost work, Diomed. GL
2. 421 K). This deWnition is the broadest advanced by Cic. in this
dialogue (cf. 1. 9, 2. 13): it plays no part in the philosophical argument.
Repici (1995: 182) argues that this cannot be a Stoic deWnition, which
would emphasize the observational and explanatory (cf. Sext. Emp.
Math. 9. 132: the science which observes and interprets (episteme
theoretike kai exegetike) ) or discerning (cf. Stob. 2. 114: diagnostike)
nature of divination, but in this introductory context it is not prejudicial to any Stoic case. It is not, however, strictly appropriate to the
divinatory practices of the Roman state religion, in which foreknowledge plays at best a minor role (cf. North 1990: 601).
a noble and beneWcial thing, if in fact it exists Cic.s laudatory
adjectives may reXect Platos language at Phaedr. 244c (the noblest
of arts, tei kallistei technei) and the protasis preserves the ostensible
neutrality of the work, neither presuming nor denying the existence
of divinatio. The usefulness of knowing the future is a key issue in
the dialogue (e.g. 2. 22).
by which human nature is able to come closest to the power of the
gods The gods see the future, and in natural divination the human
soul can approximate to the gods (see on 1. 129). Cf. Iambl.
Myst. 289: only divine divination, connecting us with the gods,
94
Commentary
communicates to us truly the divine life, as it shares in the foreknowledge and thoughts of the gods and makes us truly divine.
we have done many other things better than the Greeks While this
patriotic attitude may be one manifestation of his general
attitude (cf. Rep. 2. 30; Tusc. 1. 1; ND 1. 8; see too Pease), in this
instance it is well grounded, as the Latin etymology encompasses
all forms of the phenomenon of divination, whereas the Greek
deWnition strictly relates only to natural divination (Timpanaro).
However, Cic. does not spell out why the Latin etymology is superior
(cf. Tusc. 3. 7, 1011). Etymologizing was important in much early
Stoic argument (see on 1. 93), but Cic.s concern here is not primarily
philosophical.
our ancestors derived the term for this most excellent faculty from
the gods Cicero uses the archaic word for god, divus (D. Wardle, in
T. Rajak and G. Clark (eds.), Philosophy and Power (Oxford, 2002),
18191), rather than the contemporary deus, to demonstrate the
etymology. Cic.s attribution of the etymology to our ancestors
(nostri) rules out the abstract noun being his own coinage. As the
verb divino appears in Plautus (Mil. 1257) and Terence (Phorm. 492;
Hec. 696) with a divinatory meaning, an early creation of the noun is
plausible. However, no etymology of divinatio earlier than Cic.s
exists (cf. Maltby 1991: 1923).
the Greeks, as Plato explains, from madness Plato, Phdr.
244bc: the ancient inventors of names did not consider madness
to be a disgrace or dishonour. For they would not have used the same
word of the noblest of arts by which the future is discerned. The
connection of divination (mantike) or diviner (mantis) with madness
(mania) and Platos attribution of it to the ancients is not supported
by the evidence of Homer, in whose works the mantis interpreted
signs without manifestations of madness. Plato himself may have
created the etymology of mantis from mania in support of his
preference for the ecstatic mode of divination, the only form not
banned from his ideal state. In fact, a link with mainomai (madness)
rather than menuo (reveal) is plausible. See Roth 1988: 23745;
M. Casevitz, REG 105 (1992), 118.
Commentary
95
madness Cic. uses furor in the sense of the divinatory frenzy sent by
the gods in many passages in this dialogue (e.g. 1. 66, 70, 2. 110),
although it does not bear this exclusive meaning in his philosophical
works (cf. A. Taldone, BStudLat 23 (1993), 319).
2. no people so civilized and educated or so savage and so barbarous For a similar generalization on religious belief with the same
range of peoples, cf. Leg. 1. 24. Here the point is to highlight the
argument e consensu omnium (see on 1. 1). Barbarous (cf. 1. 37, 47)
means those who are neither Greek nor Roman; its linking with
savage demonstrates the pejorative aspect that usually attaches to
it (cf. Dauge 1981: 11931).
signs of the future can be given and can be understood and announced in advance by certain individuals The two main
elements of the Stoic view are enunciated: divinatory signs exist
and they can be interpreted so as to be useful (cf. 1. 823). Certain
individuals should not be taken negatively, as suggesting charlatans
(so Badal` 1976: 34), but as a reference to those who possessed either
the technical knowledge to interpret the signs or the gift of prophecy
or prophetic dreams.
In the beginning . . . from the most ancient Pease argues that ultimis (most ancient) should be understood spatially, that Cic. begins
his list with the people the furthest from Rome, but Timpanaro
rightly takes the expression temporally, as reinforcing in the Wrst
place (a principio).
Assyrians The priority of the Assyrians as human practitioners of
astrology (e.g. Jos. AJ 1. 168, Serv. Ecl. 6. 42) was disputed and given
by some to the Egyptians (e.g. Diod. 1. 81. 6). Even if Cic. is
inaccurate in writing Assyrians for Babylonians (Pease, Timpanaro,
Schaublin) because the Chaldaeans (see below) were not Assyrian, he
is right to assert the priority of Mesopotamia in astronomy.
The earliest text directly mentioning astronomical phenomena in
the context of divination comes from Mari c.1765 bc (Heimpel
2003: letter 26), but the report that Gudea the ruler of Lagash from
around 2122 to 2102 bc dreamt of the goddess Nisaba who was
96
Commentary
studying a tablet of the stars to build a temple in accordance with

them shows that the connection can be traced back much earlier
(cf. Barton 1994: 11).
sky unobscured and open on every side Cf. Ps.-Plato Epinomis
987a: good summers and skies unobscured by cloud were enjoyed
by both Syria and Egypt. This became a commonplace (cf. Theon
1778) and was used by Posidonius (cf. 1. 93).
observed the courses and movements of the stars Although evidence for actual divination from celestial phenomena in Mesopotamia, as opposed to the simple collection of signs and their
meanings, is scarce before the 7th cent. bc, the detailed compilation
of omens, planetary movements, and predictions written down in
Nineveh by the scribe of Enuma Anu Ellil shows that observations
were made from at least the 17th cent. (CAH2 3/2. 27980) and that
celestial diviners now enjoyed equal importance with haruspices
(Rochberg 2004: 6692). The earliest extant monthly summary of
observations of planetary phases and their movement past a Normal
Star dates from 652 (Barton 1994: 1214; cf. CAH2 3/2. 2823). See
also H. Hunger and D. Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia
(Leiden, 1999), 1226.
what they signiWed for each The MSS reading cuique (for each) is
defended by Timpanaro, although he recognizes that a compressed
argument is involved in moving from the astronomical data
accumulated to the astrological employment of it in individual
horoscopes. Schaublin, however, accepts Hottingers emendation to
quoque (also), to avoid imputing to the Assyrians the precision that
was the contribution of the Chaldaeans. Although extant Mesopotamian astrology is concerned with the country and the ruler rather
than with individuals, interest in the individual should not be ruled
out (Barton 1994: 13), and so cuique can stand. The earliest extant
examples of the extension of astrology to provide personal
horoscopes date from 410 bc in Babylonia, but genethlialogical
astrology, the predominant manifestation in the classical world,
and one presupposing an Aristotelian universe, is a creation of the
2nd or 1st cent. bc (Pingree 1997: 216; Rochberg 1998).
Commentary
97
Within this people the Chaldaeans, who were so called not from
the name of their art but of their nation The Chaldaeans were not
Assyrians in origin but an oVshoot of the Aramean peoples
who occupied territory in southern Babylonia, were leaders in the
Babylonian resistance to Assyrian rule in the 8th and 7th cents., and
sometimes imposed their own ruler on the Babylonian throne (CAH2
3/2. 916, 2638). If within this people can have a geographical sense,
i.e. that the Chaldaeans lived in the Assyrian Empire, it is not necessarily an error. From the mid-2nd cent. (e.g. Cato Agr. 5. 4) practitioners of astrology were called Chaldaeans irrespective of their
nationality. Cic. here is clarifying that he is speaking of a speciWc ethnic
group. For Badal` (1976: 35), the use of Chaldaeans is prejudicial, as
Cic. always employs it in a negative sense (cf. Tusc. 1. 95), but his
explanatory phrase who were so called . . . minimizes any prejudice.
Egyptians . . . acquired the same skill . . . through almost countless
centuries Aristotle is the earliest extant author to consider the
Egyptians prominent in astrology (Metaph. 981b). While the most
deWnite and uniquely Egyptian contribution to astrology, as known
from the Hellenistic era onwards, was their calendar and a system
of decans, it was only the arrival of the Persians that led to an
Egyptian practice of astrology (Barton 1994: 1921, 239). The
Greeks and Romans believed that Egyptian records went back
more than tens of thousands of years (Jul. Afric. Chronogr. fr. 1;
Cic. Rep. 3. 14; Diod. 1. 81. 6, with 2. 31. 9).
Cilicians . . . Pisidians . . . Pamphylians These peoples from the rugged east of Asia Minor are examples of the savage and barbarous
nations mentioned at the start of the chapter (cf. Cic. Har. Resp. 42).
peoples over whom I myself have been governor Cicero was governor of the Roman province of Cilicia, which incorporated Pisidia
and Pamphylia, from July 51 to July 50. On his activities, see e.g.
Stockton 1971: 22745; Muniz Coello 1998.
the future is revealed by the Xight and singing of birds Cic.
returns to their prominence in augury (1. 25, 92, 94, 105, 2. 80;
cf. Leg. 2. 33).
98
Commentary
3. What colony indeed did Greece send . . . An obvious

rhetorical exaggeration, but one which is understandable in view of
the many Greek colonies which claimed foundation as a result
of oracles. Herodotus (5. 42. 2) makes a similar generalization, but
it cannot be sustained (Londey 1990: 1212). Indeed, consultations
on colonies seem to have ceased in the early 4th cent.
As Pease notes, Cic.s list of colonial destinations is not exhaustive,
but representative of Greek colonization as a whole. It encompasses
the two main waves, that of the Dark Ages to the shores of Asia Minor
(see Thuc. 1. 12. 24; with S. Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides (Oxford, 1991), ad loc.) and the later expansion beginning in
the 8th cent. to the west. Although the extant collections of oracular
responses from Delphi and Dodona contain foundation oracles given
to colonies in the earlier movement, these are not historical, as the
archaeological evidence suggests that neither Delphi (Morgan 1990:
12634) nor Dodona (Parke 1967: 99100) was functioning as a panHellenic oracle before the 8th cent.; and those 8th cent. responses
which might be historical were sought by cities from central Greece.
The three oracles are listed together without any distinction, but
the pre-eminence of Apollo (and thus of Delphi) is clear from the
surviving testimonia (e.g. Callim. Hymn. 2. 556; Men. Rhet. 17). For
Pease the oracle of Ammon is added by Cic. to complete a rhetorical
group of three, but this ignores the recognition accorded Zeus
Ammon in 5th and 4th cent. sources (Plato, Leg. 738c; cf. Ar. Av.
716). Better, Apollos and Zeuss oracles were linked in some Stoic
writers on religion (Parke 1967: 129), perhaps inXuenced by Plato
(cf. Miller 1997: 889). The only instances of city-foundation connected with Dodona are legendaryAletes, the founder of Corinth,
visited the oracle (Parke 1967: 12931).
Aeolia In legend the sons and descendants of Orestes colonized
Lesbos after the Trojan War, and thereafter founded the twelve Aeolic
cities on the Asiatic mainland (Hdt. 1. 149) from the Troad as far
south as Smyrna. See CAH2 2/2. 77682. Consultation of Delphi by
Penthilus and Cometes is found in the 4th cent. Atthidographer
Demon (FGrH 327 F 17).
Ionia In legend the colonization was begun by Androclus, son of
the Athenian king Codrus, who founded Ephesus; the colonization
Commentary
99
was a coordinated action by Athens where refugees from the rest

of Greece had gathered (Hdt. 1. 1428; Strabo 6323; Paus. 7. 2.
14. 10). The colonizing movement had begun by the 10th cent., as
seen from the Wnds of Protogeometric pottery on sites such as
Miletus and probably extended wider than the later canonical twelve
cities of the Panionic league (CAH2 2/2. 78290). A tradition of
a consultation of Delphi on refugees from the Dorian invasion
survives in Vitruvius (4. 1. 4; cf. Schol. in Aristid. Or. 13. 112;
Himer. Or. 10. 5, 28).
Asia Timpanaro questioned whether this is an ancient editorial
interpolation to distinguish the colonies of the west from those in
the Aegean), but it can function as a reference to the colonization
further south on the Asiatic coast from Caria, including Iasus and
Ceramus, as far as Phaselis in Lycia (CAH2 2/2. 7906 and Hornblower 1982: 14). There is a legendary Delphic oracle to Neleus, son
of Codrus, on driving out wicked Carians in order to settle Hellenes
and Ionians (Schol. In Aristid. Or. 13. 110).
Sicily See the concise summary given by Thucydides (6. 25) of the
foundations beginning from the 730s bc.
Italy For the settlements beginning with Pithecusae around 760 bc,
see Ridgway 1992: 31103.
Delphi Cic. uses the adjective Pythian, an epithet of Apollo, but its
foremost association is with the priestess of Apollo at Delphi who
declared his prophecies. For a more positive assessment of Delphic
activity from the 8th cent. against those who emphasize retrospective
propaganda, see Malkin 1987: 1791.
Dodona The oracle of Zeus in Epirus appears in literature from
Homer onwards and became a major pan-Hellenic oracle. Despite its
prominence and the number of responses that have survived both on
lead tablets and in literature, only one response is relevant here:
the hereditary Sicilian diviners, the Galeotae (see on 1. 39), were
commanded to sail west until an eagle snatched away their sacriWce
(Steph. Byz. 197 [Mein]). See Parke 1967: 17880.
100
Commentary
Ammon The oracle of Zeus Ammon at the oasis of Siwa in the

Libyan desert was known in the Greek world from at least the 7th
cent. and it had an international reputation by the mid 6th cent.
(cf. Hdt. 1. 46. 3). No oracle connecting it with mainstream Greek
colonization has survived, and its consultation by any Greek states
other than Sparta and Cyrene is highly implausible. However, Zeus
Ammon had a role in the ideology of colonial foundation in North
Africa (Malkin 1994: 15867). Ps-Callisthenes (1. 30. 57) alleges
that Alexander consulted Ammon on the foundation of Alexandria
and received an oracle by incubation. See Parke 1967: 194241 and
K. P. Kuhlmann, Das Ammoneion (Mainz, 1988).
war Because of its unpredictability, warfare was a frequent topic for
divination (Xen. Eq. mag. 9. 89) and the gods will was tested at every
stage of a campaign. There are many examples of questions put by
states wishing to initiate hostilities, which is what Cic. particularly
envisages here (e.g. Thuc. 1. 118, 2. 54; see Parker 1985: 3079 and
Pritchett 1979: iii. 30518). Plutarch puts such questions at the
head of his list of common questions put to Delphi (Mor. 386c).
Dodona too was consulted (e.g. Paus. 8. 11. 12; Cic. Div. 1. 76). Such
consultative sacriWces on the battleWeld, however, disappeared in the
time of Alexander (Parker 2000: 299307).
one form of divination The multiplicity of practices is an
element of Quintus argument in favour of divination (see introd.,
3). This is not to be taken as suggesting the suVocating presence of
divination (so Badal` 1976: 37), but straightforwardly, as Cic. goes on
to explain.
how many has our own embraced? Cic. lists the four main kinds of
divination practised in Rome: augury, expiation (procuratio) by the
haruspices, prophecies such as those in the Sibylline books, and
dreams. The Wrst three were regulated by oYcial bodies, while in
general dreams played no signiWcant part in Roman religious life
(see below 1. 4).
Romulus, is held . . . to have founded the city after taking the
auspices Romulus is described as father from Ennius onwards
Commentary
101
(Ann. 108 Sk). Cic. does not wish to go back to the legendary past
and introduce Aeneas, although he may be aware of the story
(cf. Erskine 2001: 306). Is held (traditur) may suggest a mild
reserve by Cic. on the historicity of Romulus, which Quintus and
Marcus accept (cf. 1. 30, 107, 2. 70), but in the philosophical works
he is consistent in having Roman history begin with Romulus (cf. Leg.
2. 33; OV. 3. 41; Parad. 1. 11). By auspices Cic. means the formal
seeking of the gods approval before any undertaking, which was
performed by the magistrate, not by a religious oYcial. The word
auspex derives simply from the watching of birds (avis and specio), as
the ancient etymologies suggest (Maltby 1991: 69). For Romulus
auspication, see on 1. 1078.
a very good augur Here the emphasis changes to Romulus competence as an augur, which Marcus qualiWes (2. 70), in so far as
Romulus wrongly believed in the predictive power of augury. The
etymology of augur(ium) is not straightforward: Cic. elsewhere (Har.
Resp. 18; cf. Ov. Fast. 1. 60912) suggests a connection with increase
and success (augeo), but the grammarians (see Maltby 1991: 656)
with birds (avis). Au is from avis and -gur comes from an
Indo-European root *geus which corresponds with gustare in Latin
in the sense of test or evaluate (G. Neumann, WJA 2 (1976),
21229; accepted by Timpanaro, xxxviiviii, citing Soph. Ant.
1005). Romulus competence as an augur was to be seen in the
mysterious Roma quadrata (on which, see A. Grandazzi, MEFRA
105 (1993), 493545).
the rest of the kings employed augurs Cf. Cic. Phil. 3. 9. Individual
kings, e.g. Numa (Livy 1. 20. 7), Tarquinius Priscus (Div. 1. 32), and
Tarquinius Superbus (Livy 1. 55. 34).
no public business, either at home or on military campaign, was
undertaken without the auspices being taken The change from
monarchy to the Republic (traditionally 509) was a key moment in
Roman history for those of Cic.s period, heralding the beginning of
freedom and the future prosperity of the state (cf. 1. 45). The
restriction to public business (cf. Val. Max. 2. 1. 1) is crucial: Cic.
refers primarily to the impetrative auspices sought by the magistrate
102
Commentary
before electoral or deliberative assemblies (cf. 1. 33) or on entering

oYce or by the general before battle (cf. 1. 76) to determine whether
the gods consented to the business going ahead.
lore Cic. means the written body of information, the result of years
of empirical observation, which was at the disposal of those practitioners of haruspicy whose expertise was recognized by the Roman
state (cf. Linderski 1986a: 223740).
seeking and consulting . . . interpreting and averting portents
The Wrst term describes the impetrative (explicit in Cic.s inpetriendis) role of haruspicy, seen in the examination of the entrails of
sacriWcial victims to determine whether the gods consented
to a speciWc action or decision, frequently in a military context
(cf. 1. 72). Consulting (consulendis) concerns the sacriWcium consultatorium. A portent (monstrum; see on 1. 93) was a sign, usually
some disruption of the natural order, sent by the gods to show that
they were displeased. If the Senate deemed a portent to be signiWcant,
the haruspices were formally requested to determine what the sign
meant (interpreting) and what action should be taken to avert the
disaster threatened (procurandis).
they took over this whole discipline from the Etruscans Haruspicy
was a form of divination known to the Romans through the Etruscans, hence its frequent description as the Etruscan discipline.
Within the state religion haruspicy was not practised by Romans,
but by Etruscans (see on 1. 92). Cic. calls it a discipline (scientia)
because of the rational element in its proceduresconjectures were
made from the accumulated information contained in the haruspices
books (Linderski 1986a: 22389). The possibility exists that
the designation goes back to the Etruscans themselves (Capdeville
1997: 466 n. 32).
so that there should be no kind of divination which might seem
ignored by them The Romans believed themselves to be, and
represented themselves as, the most religious of peoples, as
a consequence of which the gods rewarded them with their empire
(see on 1. 21 before all else worship the gods). If the gods goodwill
Commentary
103
was to be maintained, the Romans could ignore no mechanism by

which their will was revealed or interpreted.
4. by raving and by dreaming After listing the Romans use of
artiWcial divination, Cic. moves on to the category of natural divination, which he will treat at length later (1. 3969). Badal` argues
(1976: 389) that Cic.s terminology here is prejudicial rather than
technical, but Cic. is concerned primarily to demonstrate the
comprehensiveness of Romes divinatory practices.
ten interpreters . . . chosen from the citizen body The Board of Ten
for Ritual Action (Decemviri sacris faciundis), originally two men,
after 367 ten, and after Sullas reform Wfteen. They were headed by
two masters, one patrician and one plebeian, and in some way
superintended those cults which were conducted under the Greek
rite. They were the oYcial guardians of the Sibylline books, which
contained prophecies (cf. 1. 98) and remedies, which could guide the
Roman response to religious and political crises. Traditionally they
had been brought to King Tarquin by the Sibyl of Cumae and were
kept in the temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest on the Capitol. At
times of crisis, political turmoil, pestilence, or following unusual
portents, the Board was consulted by the Senate and recommended
a course of action, usually either to send an embassy to Delphi or to
introduce a new cult or religious practice to Rome. As such they were
one of the main vehicles for innovation and change in the state
religion, legitimizing new importations, such as the lectisternium
ritual, by providing guarantees based on foreign experience and
authority and a link to antiquity. See Parke 1988: esp. 190215;
Orlin 1997: 6115; Scheid 1998: 1126; C. Fevrier, Latomus 61
(2002), 82141; Mazurek 2004: 15168.
often . . . an ear should be given to raving predictions of this
kind Often is probably not an exaggeration, for, although De
Divinatione oVers only one other deWnite example of such prophecies
entering the public sphere (see on 1. 89), in the 3rd cent. the Senate
had to deal with prophecy as a powerful religious force (North 2000:
92107). Prophecies were seized on throughout the 1st cent. and
constitute a vital part of Roman religious life (Wiseman 1994:
104
Commentary
esp. 5867; Mazurek 2004: 15863). Prophet (vates) need not have
a negative connotation (pace Badal` 1976: 39), but the term marks
out a kind of religious activity that was not regularly incorporated
into the public religious system in Ciceros day (cf. M. Hano,
Haruspex et vates chez Tite-Live, III, in Guittard 1986: 11114).
Soothsayers translates harioli, a term which usually has by the 1st
cent. a pejorative sense, but describes a phenomenon popular in the
3rd and 2nd cents., as seen from the extant comedies of Plautus and
Terence and from Naevius Hariolus (cf. Montero 1993: 11520).
Cornelius Culleolus in the Octavian War Culleolus (RE iv. 1295) is
otherwise unknown, but was probably a member of a senatorial
family (Wiseman 1994: 59). In 87 conXict arose between the consul
Cn. Octavius, from whom the expression Octavian War (cf. Cic. ND
2. 14; Phil. 14. 23) derives, and L. Cornelius Cinna. The former was
notoriously superstitious, but could not escape his fate (cf. Val. Max.
1. 6. 10).
Nor . . . have the more signiWcant dreams . . . been ignored by the
highest council Cic. can cite only two dreams of which the Senate
took note (1. 55, 99) and Valerius Maximus (1. 7. 3) only one. The
fragmentary Granius Licinianus (33. 12) appears to record a dream
among a list of portents from 105, but with insuYcient detail to
permit certainty of its oYcial recognition by the Senate. Even if there
were more examples, the minor role of dreams in the traditional
Roman system should not be exaggerated (cf. Harris 2003: 256).
even within my own memory, L. Iulius, who was consul with
P. Rutilius L. Julius Caesar and P. Rutilius Lupus were the consuls
of 90. Cic. served in the Marsic War (cf. 1. 99), which justiWes the
temporal expression. This incident probably belongs at the end of the
year, on Caesars return from the campaign in which his victory at
Acerrae had marked the turning point.
Juno Sospita After the defeat of the Latin league in 338 the rites of
Juno Sispes, the chief goddess of Lanuvium, were shared with Rome
(Livy 8. 14. 2), as the Lanuvians received Roman citizenship.
Her epithet Sispes became corrupted into Sospita because of
Commentary
105
a supposed connection with sozein and the idea of salvation (Festus

462 L), although it may have meant originally mistress of the place
(Pailler 1997: 524 n. 51), and thereby have had military connotations;
her iconography regularly involves shield and spear (cf. ND 1. 82;
Schultz 2006).
Within Rome she was worshipped in at least two locations, but
only one is called a temple. This was vowed in 197 by C. Cornelius
Cethegus and was dedicated in the Forum Holitorium in 194 (Orlin
1997: 63; LTUR iii. 1289). However, it is possible that Cic. refers to
the temple at Lanuvium (see Kragelund 2001: 648), which received
an annual visit from the consuls (Cic. Mur. 90) and provided the
greatest number of prodigies accepted as signiWcant by the Senate
from any location outside Rome (e.g. Livy 22. 1. 17, 40. 19. 2), and
most relevant a portent heralding the Social War (see on 1. 99).
Although Schultz and the majority of scholars prefer a Roman
location for the restoration, in the context of needing to secure the
loyalty of the Latins, a demonstration of Roman piety at Lanuvium
might well have spoken more powerfully.
Caecilia, the daughter of Baliaricus Caecilia (RE iii. 1235) was the
mother of the augur Ap. Claudius Pulcher (see 1. 29) as well as of
Cic.s great enemy Clodius. Q. Caecilius Metellus Baliaricus won
a triumph in 121 and the honoriWc cognomen for military success
in the Balearic islands (Livy Per. 60; Strabo 167). Caecilias membership of the Metelli, the most prominent plebeian family in the early
1st cent. (cf. Munzer 1999: 27981; Wiseman 1974: 17681), and
their fame as protectors of Roman religion (cf. Val. Max. 1. 4. 5), is
crucial to her dreams acceptance and the Senates action. Although
an earlier connection between the Caecilii Metelli and Juno Sospita
cannot be proved, the appearance of the distinctive Wgure-of-eight
shield on the tomb of another Caecilia Metella, the Wrst cousin
once removed of the dreamer, at least recalls the earlier service
(Schultz 2006). Details of Caecilias dream in which the goddess
was leaving her temple because of the squalor into which it had
fallen, having become ritually impure and a sleeping place for dogs,
appear in Obsequens (55), but he may have sensationalized the story
(Schultz 2006). The context of the Social War, in which Romes
old alliances with her Latin and Italian allies were under stress and
106
Commentary
when proposals for the extension of Roman citizenship to the Latins

were a key issue, renders a dream from the goddess whose worship by
the Romans at Lanuvium exempliWed the successful and beneWcial
extension of citizenship particularly signiWcant. Caecilias dream
provides a justiWcation for the policy enshrined in the lex Iulia
de civitate of 90 by which citizenship was extended to the Latins
(Kragelund 2001: 689).
5. My own view The emphatic expression of Cic.s own view is
taken by Badal` (1976: 40) to demonstrate clearly his belief in the
non-existence of divination, but strictly his point concerns why the
ancients believed. Moreover it is also what Quintus argues. As such it
is a plausible explanation, and does not prejudge the issue of the
existence of divination, unless Cic.s limitation to the ancients
suggests that the contemporary reader should diVer. While approved . . . of (probaverunt) may be taken in the Academic sense of give
assent to, in this general introductory context the usage of no
particular school is probably favoured. On outcomes see on 1. 11.
arguments . . . have been collected By this reference to a pre-existing collection Cic. makes it clear that he has not read all the authorities he lists Wrsthand, certainly not the Presocratics (cf. Timpanaro,
lxxviiviii). Because Zeno and the Stoics appear twice, Cic. may have
combined material from two sources, a doxographical list of philosophical views in general on divination and a speciWcally Stoic
compilation, probably that of Posidonius (cf. Schaublin 1985: 157
8, 163). Others emphasize the strongly pro-Academic conclusion of
the doxography to suggest an Academic source (e.g. Glucker 1999: 42
n. 26). Nothing, however, precludes that Cic. has taken a list, basically
Posidonius, and altered the conclusion to Wt his own Academic
preference. For Posidonius role in the creation of doxography, see
P. A. Van der Waerdt, GRBS 26 (1985), 3819.
the most ancient, Xenophanes of Colophon, while he admitted the
existence of the gods . . . fundamentally rejected divination Cf.
Aetius Plac. 5. 1. 2. Although the list has no simple chronological
order, Xenophanes is the most ancient. While certain knowledge
about the gods was impossible (fr. 34. 34 DK), Xenophanes did
Commentary
107
accept the existence of the divine, although he seems to have oVered

no proofs. He mentions a single greatest god (fr. 23 DK) and often
uses the singular theos, but cannot be considered a certain monotheist
(Lesher 1992: 37, 78119; Schafer 1996: 16474).
Even without the speciWc testimony of Cic. and Aetius,
Xenophanes rejection of divination can be deduced from his wider
comments on the divine. Because the divine could not move (fr. 26
DK) and thus be in diVerent places at diVerent times, natural
divination, by dreams or frenzy, is excluded; and as natural phenomena have natural explanations (fr. 32 DK), portents and prodigies
would seem to have no divine origin. The key text, however, is not
from the beginning did the gods reveal everything to mortals / but in
the course of time, by inquiring, they discover the better (fr. 18 DK),
which has been interpreted as a rejection of divine communication via
signals or cryptic signs (the force of hypedeixan) and a preference for
human enquiry, of which Xenophanes himself was a practitioner
(Lesher 1992: 14955). Even if we argue that the claim that the gods
did not reveal everything does not preclude that they revealed
something (cf. A. Tulin, Hermes, 121 (1993), esp. 1337) and relate
this to divination, it is diYcult to see in what type of divination
Xenophanes theos could have participated.
Epicurus in his babbling on the nature of the gods The overwhelming majority of philosophical schools and philosophers, as
Cicero goes on to show, could accommodate the phenomenon of
divination in some form. Epicurus rejection is explicit: since the
science of divination does not exist, even if it does, what happens
should not be considered in our power (fr. 15 A; cf. C. Diano, SIFC
12 (1935), 2379). His rejection was stated in the Small Epitome
(Diod. Laert 10. 135), and probably also in On the Gods, although
Cic. need not be referring speciWcally to that here or at ND 2. 162.
Epicurus was the only dogmatic philosopher to have produced
formal arguments against divination (Obbink 1992: 212 n. 65).
His rejection of divination depends on his conception of the gods
as beings who do not concern themselves with human aVairs, and
who thus have no interest in communicating their will to men
through signs (cf. Diogenes of Oenoanda frr. 234 and 524 Smith),
and fundamentally on the inreconcilability of the mechanistic
108
Commentary
explanation of causation provided in his atomic theory with the

notion that the gods intervene to create portents in nature.
Cic.s hostility to Epicurus doctrines is consistent throughout the
philosophical dialogues (cf. 1. 87). The particular note struck here of
babbling may be connected with Cottas description of Epicurean
theology as unintelligible (ND 1. 745). See DAnna 1965.
Socrates Socrates own beliefs come indirectly via Plato and Xenophon. It seems clear that he accepted natural divination (e.g. Plat.
Apol. 20e21a; Phaedr. 244ac; Leg. 738bd), but placed artiWcial
divination such as exstispicy (Tim. 72b) and augury (Phaedr. 244d)
on a much lower level. He did not, however, reject artiWcial divination utterly, if the placing of it Wfth in the hierarchy of useful lives
(Phaedr. 248de) and its coupling with other skills (e.g. Alc. 107ab;
Lach. 195ae; Chrm. 173bc) are signiWcant (Hankinson 1988:
1278). Quintus uses Socrates as an example of one who credited
prophetic dreams (1. 52), direct communication from the gods and
oracles (1. 1223).
all the Socratics While Xenophon accepted divination of all
kinds (e.g. An. 6. 4. 1224, 7. 8. 16), and Plato natural divination
(oraclesResp. 427b; Leg. 738bd; dreamssee 1. 601), some
Cynics rejected it (Diog. Laert. 6. 24; Euseb. Praep. Evang. 5. 21. 6),
and the Cyrenaics and Megarians were probably hostile (PfeVer 1976:
642). In Cic. the term Socratics is very broad (cf. Cic. Orat. 3. 612;
further testimonia collected in Giannantoni 1983: i. 314).
Zeno and those who followed him The Stoics. Zeno is reported as
upholding all forms of divination (Diog. Laert. 7. 149), but relevant
fragments of his own work have not survived. Cic.s generalization of
Stoic views on divination (see 1. 6) is fundamentally correct.
A central tenet of Stoicism was belief in gods who cared for the
world; as an element of their providence they sent signs which men
could interpret by divination (cf. 1. 812).
the Old Academy Plato and his followers who take their name from
Platos school. For example, Heraclides Ponticus (see on 1. 46) wrote
a work On Oracles and Eudoxus denied that horoscopes could be cast
Commentary
109
(Div. 2. 87), perpetuating their founders preference for natural

divination. Cic. speciWes the Old Academy to distinguish these
followers of Plato from the adherents of the sceptical New Academy
of Arcesilas and Carneades and the so-called Old Academy invented
by Antiochus of Ascalon in Cic.s own day.
the Peripatetics Cf. Ael. VH 3. 11. Aristotle and his followers, who
take their name from the walks (peripatoi) in the Lyceum. Aristotle
accepted natural divination (cf. 1. 72): he includes oracles without
hostile comment in his historical works (e.g. Ath. Pol. 19. 2), but did
not devote a speciWc discussion to them and observed a general
caution (e.g. Pol. 1335a18; Rh. 1398b32), as also on dreams (it is
not easy either to deny divination which takes place in sleep or to
believe in it (Div. somn. 462b12; cf. Aet. Plac. 416). Various
approaches were taken by his successors: Theophrastus seems to
have defended Pythias veracity in one instance at least in his On
Piety (W. W. Fortenbaugh, Theophrastus of Eresus (Leiden, 1992), ii,
fr. 584A Porph. Abst. 2. 15. 12); on the other hand, Origen
(C. Cels. 7. 3, 8. 45) believed that arguments of Aristotle and his
pupils could be used against oracles.
Pythagoras . . . conferred his considerable prestige on the practice
Pythagoras is credited with employing cledonism, augury (Diog.
Laert. 8. 20), and hydromancy (Varro, Ant. Div. 1 fr. 4 Cardauns).
Amongst other miracles, he is reputed to have foretold the strife
that was to aZict Metapontum (Apoll. Mir. 6), but nothing proves
this was done by divinatory technique, and a book of his alleged
prophecies called Tripod was compiled in the 4th cent. by Andron of
Ephesus (Euseb. Praep. evang. 10. 3. 4). The late biographies set
his miraculous handling of an eagle in the context of a conversation
on birds and divinatory signs (Porph. Pyth. 25; Iambl. VP 62).
For the problems of asserting anything about Pythagoras and of
untangling the traditions, see Philip 1966: esp. 323.
Democritus in very many passages argued for the presentiment of
things to come Democritus of Abdera, the atomist philosopher of
the 5th cent., is credited with 70 titles (Diog. Laert. 9. 469), which
oVers ample opportunity for the number of references to which
110
Commentary
Cic. alludes. Only in late tradition did he practise astrology (e.g. Ael.
VH 4. 20). He discussed dreams, explaining them as the result of
streams of particles impacting on the soul (Plut. Mor. 735); according
to Sextus Empiricus (Math. 9. 19), he held that eidola indicate to
men in advance what will happen, but this is most likely a very
limited sense of precognition (see P. J. Bicknell, REG 82 (1969),
31826). Cf. Arist. Div. somn. 464a56.
Although Democritus atomistic theory made him similar to Epicurus, he does not usually attract the sarcastic treatment that Cic.
deals out to Epicurus. Even Cottas criticism of his inconsistent
theology as notions more worthy of Democritus city than of
himself (ND 1. 121) is in eVect double-edged, suggesting that
these views are not of his usual standard; Cic. may have respected
the founder of atomism, despite disagreeing with him (cf. Silvestre
1990: 405).
Dicaearchus the Peripatetic denied all other forms of divination
except dreams and raving Cf. Aet. Plac. 5. 1. 4. Dicaearchus of
Messene, a pupil of Aristotle, wrote at the end of the 4th cent. on
a range of subjects from geography to philosophy. Which work Cic.
refers to here (cf. 2. 105, the big book of Dicaearchus) is unclear: the
only certain title with which Cic. was familiar (Att. 13. 31. 2, 32. 2,
33. 2; cf. W. Gorler, Cicero und die Schule des Aristoteles in
Fortenbaugh and Steinmetz 1989: 251) and which has surviving
fragments on divination is Descent into the Trophonian Cave (see
Wehrli 1967: 478). Scholars have posited Dicaearchan volumes On
the Soul and On Prophecy, but most speculation concerns a possible
work with the same or similar title as a lost treatise by Plutarch, If
Foreknowledge of What is to Happen is Useful, in which Plutarch took
issue with Dicaearchus. Although Dicaearchus held that the soul
could not be separated from the body (Cic. Tusc. 1. 21), this need
not be at odds with belief in some form of natural divination, if
nature itself were divinely planned (cf. Arist. Div. somn. 463b1120).
For Dicaearchus the soul had a divine element (Dox. Gr. p. 639 Diels;
Aetius, Plac. 5. 1. 4), but the emotional and irrational elements seem
to have possessed the mantic function, if the arguments attributed
to Aristotles school by Plutarch (Mor. 432c) are Dicaearchus
(cf. Del Corno 1969: 1613).
Commentary
111
and The MSS read Cratippusque and Cratippus, but Schaublin

(1985: 160) argues for heavy punctuation and the adoption of
Daviess emendation quoque (also). The preceding period is long
(and made far worse by Schaublins further alterations, see below),
but the conjunction of Dicaearchus and Cratippus by a simple -que
should not be rejected, because they are linked together again later
(1. 113, 2. 100).
Cratippus, our friend whom I consider to be the equal of the Wnest
Peripatetics Although a pupil of the Academy, Cratippus became
known as a Peripatetic (cf. in my judgement easily the best of all the
Peripatetics Ive heard (Tim. 2), leading philosopher of this age
(OV. 1. 2, 3. 5)). Probably not the scholarch of the Peripatos,
but master of a private school (H. B. Gottschalk, ANRW ii/36. 2
(Berlin, 1987), 10967), Cratippus of Pergamum was a contemporary
of Cic., whom he met in Ephesus in 51 (Tim. 2); Cratippus had
moved to Athens by the summer of 45 and taught Cic.s son Marcus
(Fam. 12. 16. 2). He received citizenship from Caesar at Ciceros
request (Plut. Cic. 24. 7) and took the name M. Tullius Cratippus.
The note of familiarity is maintained throughout Quintus speech
(1. 70, 113; cf. 2. 100) and is struck elsewhere by Cic. (e.g. OV. 3. 5;
Fam. 16. 21. 3). He probably did not appear in Cic.s Timaeus as
a discussant (Linderski 1989: 110 1995: 49). Cratippus revived
Platonic ideas and is a source of non-empirical tendencies in Platonic
interpretation (Tarrant 2000b: 6771).
gave credence to these same forms, but rejected the other kinds of
divination Cic. is our only source for his views of divination (see
on 1. 701).
6. But, when the Stoics were defending almost all its forms Schaublin
(1985: 159) argues for this clause and its continuation to . . . fecisset to
be attached to the previous period, and for but (sed) to be omitted
in order to have accessit (there followed Chrysippus) begin a new
sentence. However, Cic. is now passing on to discuss the Stoic school
by itself, in a form he may have taken from Posidonius (see above 1. 5
arguments . . . ). The section moves from a generalization to the views
of individual Stoics arranged chronologically and culminates in
112
Commentary
Posidonius. For an almost identical doxographic treatment of the

Stoics on divination, see Diog. Laert. 7. 149.
The note of caution introduced by almost all (cf. Aet. Plac. 5. 1. 1)
may reXect the Stoic recognition that individual instances of divination could go wrong (cf. 1. 245), but should strictly indicate that at
least one type of divination was rejected. Cic. lists elsewhere (Acad. 2.
107) the Stoic acceptance of extispicy, augury, oracles, dreams, and
frenzied prophecies; and astrology (Div. 2. 88; see Long 1982:
16678). Necromancy, which is hard to reconcile with Stoic doctrine
on the existence of the soul after death, may be a form of divination
they rejected. Alternatively, Cic.s formulation recognizes the constant tension within Stoicism in regard to divination, particularly
artiWcial divination (cf. C. Levy 1997: 328). See PfeVer 1976: 4395.
Zeno had, as it were, scattered various seeds in his commentaries
Although Zenos On Signs (Diog. Laert. 7. 4) may have been a treatise
on divination, the description of scattering seed and the plural
commentaries suggest strongly that there was no one treatment of
divination by Zeno (Timpanaro). Pease considers that seeds may be
an allusion to the Greek sperma, a concept important in Stoic
thought, but the metaphor, similarly qualiWed, appears elsewhere in
Cic. in non-Stoic contexts (Rep. 1. 41; Fin. 5. 18; Tusc. 5. 69). The
description of Zenos works as commentaries may suggest that they
were written with no particular concern for literary appeal,
a common feature of the genre.
Cleanthes Cleanthes of Assos followed Zeno as head of the Stoa
from 263 to 232. Nothing speciWc on divination appears in the list of
his works (Diog. Laert. 7. 174), but he used its existence to help
account for human conceptions of the gods (cf. ND 2. 13, 3. 16) and
he may have enlarged on Zenos ideas in his On the Gods.
then came Schaublin (1985: 159) punctuates before this (cf. Fin. 1.
59; Tusc. 3. 2) and translates accessit by hinzu kam dann. While his
translation is justiWable, there is no need for the punctuation.
Chrysippus Chrysippus of Soli followed Cleanthes as head of the
Stoa from 232 to 207. He was a proliWc writer, producing over 705
Commentary
113
works (Diog. Laert. 7. 180). Cic.s praise (cf. ND 2. 16, 3. 25) should
not be restricted narrowly to his work on logic (pace Timpanaro).
divination in two volumes, as well as one on oracles and one on
dreams The 2-vol. work On Divination is attested by Diog. Laert.
(7. 149) and Philodemus (On the Gods 7 SVF 1183); the work On
Oracles is attested by Photius (s.v. ), but that On Dreams not
by title outside Cic. (cf. Div. 2. 134, 144; see Del Corno 1969: 527,
1357). The individual volumes were full of illustrative examples, but
their relationship to the 2-vol. work is unclear. Chrysippus may be
the Wrst Stoic to have raised the discussion of divination to a more
abstract, theoretical level, viewing it as an empirical science
(Bobzien 1998: 88), but no fragment enables us to explain precisely
how he accounted for divinatory phenomena. Herophilus attempt
to classify dreams systematically by their origin may have inXuenced
Chrysippus, although we can prove his inXuence only in the case of
Posidonius (see von Staden 1989: 30610). Chrysippus concentration on the two types of natural divination suggests that he was
the Wrst Stoic to privilege them above artiWcial divination. See
C. Levy 1997: 3335.
Diogenes of Babylon followed him and wrote one volume Diogenes of Babylon came from Seleucia, but is called Babylonian from
the country (Strabo 743), a toponym which Cic. applies to him only
here, usually preferring the Stoic (Tusc. 4. 5; Acad. 2. 137; Sen. 23;
Div. 2. 90; but cf. ND 1. 41; OV. 3. 51). He was head of the Stoa from
around 200 to 152; his immediate predecessor, Zeno of Tarsus, does
not appear in this doxography because he wrote nothing on divination. Diogenes appears to have questioned the ability of astrologers
to predict the destinies of individuals (cf. 2. 90), but he cannot have
diverged far from Stoic orthodoxy.
Antipater two Antipater of Tarsus was head of the Stoa from 152 to
129. The title of his work(s) is not attested. If the singular liber . . .
plenus (Div. 2. 144) is given its due weight, a title of On Dreams can
be posited for one. The examples of Socrates prophecies via his
daimonion (see on 1. 123) Wt better with oracles and may suggest
that the title of Antipaters other volume was On Oracles. Perhaps the
114
Commentary
two volumes together were entitled On Divination (Del Corno 1969:

156). Antipater appears to have exhibited none of the reservations of
Diogenes. See Alesse 2000: 1659.
our friend Posidonius Wve Posidonius of Apamea was the most
inXuential Stoic of the 1st cent., lived on Rhodes where Cic. met him
in 78/7 (Plut. Cic. 4. 5); Cic. could later speak of him as teacher
(Fat. 5; ND 1. 6) and friend (cf. Fin. 1. 6; ND 1. 123, 2. 88; Tusc. 2. 61;
Div. 2. 47). See Kidd 1988: 245. The 5-vol. work On Divination and
perhaps Physical Arguments, which also discussed divination (Diog.
Laert. 7. 149), are among Cic.s main sources for De Divinatione
(see introd., 2). Posidonius oVered an unconditional defence of
divination (C. Levy 1997: 327). For the fragments on divination, see
Edelstein and Kidd 1972: 10612, with commentary in Kidd 1988:
42342 and Theiler 1982: 289307.
Panaetius, although the leader of their school Panaetius of Rhodes
was head of the Stoa from 129 to 109 (cf. 2. 97; Acad. 2. 107). He is
the probable source for 2. 8797, but not for anything in book 1. For
his life and work, see van Straaten 1946 and Alesse 1994; for his
fragments on divination, see M. van Straaten, Panaetii Rhodii fragmenta (Leiden, 1962), frr. 6878, and F. Alesse, Panezio di Rodi:
testimonianze (Naples, 1997), frr. 13640.
the teacher of Posidonius Cf. OV. 3. 8; Suda s.v.
(4. 179 Adler). On the standard chronology of Panaetius life, his
teaching of Posidonius predates 109. See Kidd 1988: 1213.
pupil of Antipater Only Cic. records this relationship, but a connection with Antipaters predecessor Diogenes (Suda s.v.
(4. 20 Adler) ) and thus his presence in Athens before 152 is plausible.
His main philosophical apprenticeship, however, fell under Antipater
before 129.
deviated from the Stoics Panaetius thought marks a divergence
from Stoic orthodoxy in many areas, as he took a line closer
to Aristotle and Plato (Philod. P. Herc. 1018 col. lxi). For
example, he rejected the doctrine of world conXagration. Although
Commentary
115
a non-pejorative sense for deviated has been suggested (Pease,

Timpanaro), one of the meanings identiWed in OLD lacks a negative
connotation. Blossius too seems to have been sceptical about some
manifestations of artiWcial divination (cf. Plut. TG 17. 6; C. Levy
1997: 3212).
he did not dare to deny . . . but said that he had his doubts The
obvious vehicle for these views was his On Providence, which Cic.
requested Atticus to send him in May 45 (Att. 13. 8). Here and at
Acad. 2. 107 ( van Straaten fr. 70: [Panaetius] had his doubts about
that which every Stoic except him thought was most certain, that the
responses of haruspices, auspices, oracles, dreams, prophecies were
true, and held himself back from assent) Cic. presents Panaetius as
a sceptic, practising the epoche of the Academy, in relation to most
forms of natural and artiWcial divination; elsewhere he appears as
completely hostile to divination (Diog. Laert. 7. 149 van Straaten
fr. 73; Epiphanius Fid. 9. 45 Holl van Straaten fr. 68). His rejection
of astrology is clear from Div. 2. 8797 ( van Straaten fr. 74). If the
testimony of Diog. Laert. and Epiphanius is minimized as generalizations (e.g. van Straaten 1946: 7981), the only problem relates to
artiWcial divination other than astrology: fr. 70 suggests only doubts
about augury, but Div. 1. 12 ( van Straaten fr. 72) would seem to
imply rejection. InXuenced by the attacks of Carneades on the Stoic
doctrines of fate and providence, Panaetius rejected any sense of
a powerful determinism operating from outside constraining man,
and attributed to man an ability to aVect external inXuences (cf. OV.
2. 117 van Straaten fr. 117). Hence artiWcial divination would be
impossible to defend, but Panaetius may not have wished to exclude
totally the possibility of natural divination. At the least Panaetius
accepted that earlier Stoic arguments were insuYcient to prove the
existence of divination, hence the cautious phrasing of Cic. here. See
van Straaten 1946: 817 and Alesse 1994: 2309.
Will we not be permitted . . . ? A rhetorical question by which Cic.
introduces the plan of the whole work, in which he presents his
inquiry as one to be conducted along the lines of the sceptical New
Academy of which he was an adherent, as becomes clear in 1. 7.
Although on one level this conveys the diVerence between Panaetius
116
Commentary
and Stoic orthodoxy, on another, especially when the context of Cic.s

rhetorical question and the extreme sarcasm of the following
sentence are taken into account, it serves to put the Stoics in a bad
light, as the opponents of free thought. As such it can serve as further
evidence of the fundamental bias of De Divinatione (see introd., 3).
7. this virtue of the Academy Under Arcesilas the Academy turned
away from doctrinal assertions to a rigorous scepticism which characterized its approach for two hundred years, perhaps in an attempt
to restore the spirit of Socratic enquiry (cf. 2. 150; Fin. 2. 2).
See Groarke 1990: 98123.
a most eminent philosopher Panaetius. Cic.s adjectives of praise
allocated throughout this section fall mainly on the opponents of
divination. Cic. highlights the division even in Stoic ranks and
thereby casts a shadow over their case.
So, as I myself am enquiring what verdict is to be reached in regard
to divination At this point the doxographic prologue leads in to the
setting of the dialogue proper. The ostensibly neutral Cic. gives way
to Marcus. As a follower of the sceptical New Academy, Marcus
presents himself as a latter-day Socrates pursuing an enquiry rather
than promoting a dogmatic position (cf. 2. 150).
Carneades Carneades of Cyrene was the head of the New Academy
till his death in 129; he left no books of his own, but his views were
represented accurately by the proliWc Clitomachus, whom Cic. read
(2. 87; cf. Acad. 2. 78; for testimonia and fragments, see Mette 1985:
53141). His views on divination (fr. 9 M) are reported only in De
Divinatione: he questioned the extent of divination and whether it
can be perceived by the senses (2. 9), wittily derided the oracle at
Praeneste (2. 87), rejected augury (1. 12, 109), astrology (2. 97), and
dreams (2. 150), and discussed the role of chance in divinatory
phenomena (1. 23). It has been suggested that Carneades did not
attack divination per se, but only Stoic arguments in its defence
(Opsomer 1996: 170), but no hint of this emerges from the ancient
testimonia. His particular targets were Chrysippus and Antipater
(cf. Diog. Laert. 4. 623; Numenius fr. 27 Des Places).
Commentary
117
I am afraid to give my assent rashly to something untrue or to

something insuYciently grounded Cf. Cic. Acad. 1. 45: a man
must always restrain his rashness and hold it back from every slip,
as it would be glaring rashness to give assent either to a falsehood or
to something not known for certain and 2. 138: I am afraid that I
may slip into forming opinions and adopt and approve something
that I do not know. In their polemic the Academics regularly accused
Stoics of rashness, e.g. Plut. Mor. 1056f.
Marcus refers to the sceptical practice of epoche, the suspension of
judgement (see P. Couissin, REG 42 (1929), 37397). His formulation of the Academic position lets it appear that he could assent if the
arguments presented were convincing, the position of the classical
rather than dogmatic sceptic. Whether assent (Cic.s translation of
synkatathesis; cf. Acad. 2. 37) here is meant in a strong sense of
belief in, or a weak sense of approval falling short of belief ,
is unimportant. On the problem and meaning of assent for the
sceptic, see Frede 1987: 20122.
a careful comparison of argument against argument Cf. Rep. 3. 8;
Acad. 2. 7; OV. 2. 8; Tusc. 1. 8. This principle of arguing in utramque
partem goes back to Aristotle (Fin. 5. 10) and was introduced into the
Academy by Arcesilas (Orat. 3. 67); it is an important element of
Cic.s philosophical dialogues, although none of his extant works
demonstrates the balance and scale of De Divinatione in this aspect.
See Glucker 1978: 335 and Leonhardt 1999: 1325.
the three books which I wrote On the Nature of the Gods In De
Natura Deorum, which was published in 45, Cic. presents Epicurean
and Stoic arguments, and subjects them to Academic criticism.
haste in giving ones assent and erring is shameful in all things
Marcus echoes his words from the proem of De Natura Deorum (1. 1),
but the idea appears also in other dialogues (OV. 1. 18; Acad. 1. 45, 2.
66, 114). The idea of the shamefulness of being wrong goes back to
Plato (Tht. 194c).
especially in this topic . . . there is a danger . . . of the crime of impiety
if we neglect them Cf. Plato, Minos 318e; Leg. 888b. Despite his
118
Commentary
personal Academic inclinations, Marcus is mindful of the wider

dimension of the state here (cf. introd., 3): the survival of Romes
prosperity and empire was believed to depend on her continued good
relations with the gods (see on 1. 3 so that . . . ignored by them). The
three terms, auspices, the divine, and religious observance, are
those most relevant to the state religion and the Senates role in its
preservation.
religious observance The Wrst appearance of the key term religio,
which was derived variously by the ancients from religere with the
sense of fear (e.g. Serv. Aen. 8. 349), from relegere in the sense of
repeat, referring to the scrupulousness characteristic of Roman
religious practice (Cic. ND 2. 71), and from religare with the
sense of binding (e.g. Serv. [Auct] Aen. 12. 181). From a primary
sense in which the notion of care or scruple was central, the term
became more general meaning pious worship of the gods, either
public or private, but particularly that connected with the ritual of
the oYcial state cults. See Sachot 1991: 36472; Ronca 1992: 468,
523.
old womens superstition Marcus returns to the attack on superstition at the end of De Divinatione (2. 1489). Superstition (superstitio) was the term applied to religious activities which lay outside
the oYcial state religion. Ancient etymologies derived it from fear of
what stands above (Serv. Aen. 12. 187) or from survival (Cic. ND
2. 72), but Ronca (1992: 535) has argued for an archaic meaning of
eyewitness connected with the Indo-European meaning of knowing
what is hidden from others (cf. epistenai). Superstitio, then, originally was the condition which resulted from possessing such divinatory power. During the 3rd cent. a pejorative sense came in, of
erroneous or extreme religious activity caused by ignorance of philosophical truths about nature.
Old womens (anilis) is linked with superstition frequently by
Cic. (Div. 2. 19, 36, 125, 141; ND 2. 70, 3. 92), drawing on the common
belief (cf. Plato Tht. 176b) that old women were unduly credulous,
with failing mental powers and garrulous. A popular etymology
connecting the Greek anous (mindless) with the Latin anus (old
woman) illustrates the idea (Festus 5 L).
Commentary
119
811a These chapters set the physical scene for the dialogue, establish
the question of divination in the context of physics and set forth the
basic tenor of Quintus case, which will occupy book 1. Cic often pays
careful attention to the physical setting of his dialogues, e.g. the scene
at Arpinum in De Legibus 1 (see Dyck 2004: 556.). Here Ciceros villa
at Tusculum provides the general setting: its Lyceum is an appropriate
location for Quintus with his Peripatetic inclinations to mount his
defence of divination, but also equally appropriate for a balanced,
Aristotelian treatment of both sides of the question (cf. Leonhardt
1999: 1325). Marcus words which close this introductory section
oVer the Wrst indication of the political setting of the dialogue.
The careful cross-reference to De Natura Deorum locates the
discussion clearly and appropriately in the area of physics and in
its place in Cic.s intended philosophical encyclopedia. For Quintus
essentially Stoic argument it is also necessary not to separate the
issues of the nature of the gods and divination. Whether we read
the wider conclusion of the De Natura Deorum as equally balanced
(see introd., 3 (ii) ) or emphasize the support given by Marcus to
the Stoic arguments of Lucilius Balbus, Cic.s use of the words means
that Quintus can legitimately present a traditional Stoic approach to
divination, which he advertises in his statement of the classic Stoic
reciprocity if there is divination, there are gods.
8. I have often discussed these questions on other occasions A
common literary gambit in the dialogues (cf. ND 1. 15; Acad. 2. 9;
Tusc. 4. 7, 5. 11) to introduce the historical setting.
recently In the so-called Aristotelian dialogues the participants are
contemporaries of the author, rather than men of antiquity. For the
dramatic date of De Divinatione, see introd., 5.
Quintus Q. Tullius Cicero was Cic.s younger brother who rose to
the urban praetorship of 62 and was governor of Asia for three years,
6159; with his military experience he assisted Cic. in Cilicia, took
Pompeys side in the Civil War and lived in Italy from 47 till his death
in the proscriptions of 43. Quintus wrote poetry. If Quintus had any
philosophical inclinations they were probably towards the Peripatetics (cf. Fin. 5. 96; Div. 2. 100), yet Cic. uses him to argue what is
120
Commentary
essentially a Stoic case in De Divinatione. The reason for Cic.s choice

of Quintus as his main interlocutor is unclear (see Pease, 1718;
SchoWeld 1986: 60: a tacit comment on the relative weakness of the
Stoic case). For his career see W. C. McDermott, Historia 20 (1971),
70217; Shackleton Bailey 1980: 36; A. H. Mamoojee, EMC 13
(1994), 2350.
my Tusculan villa Formerly the property of Sulla, it was bought by
Cic. in 68 and rebuilt by him after Clodius had destroyed it. Cic. lived
there continuously in 46 and for much of 45, while he wrote,
amongst other works, De Natura Deorum. Its location has not been
settled satisfactorily (e.g. M. Marchei, Arch. Class. 27 (1975), 1825).
we had reached the Lyceum (for that is what my upper gymnasium
is called) Only at 2. 8 do Marcus and Quintus sit down. As well as
setting the scene (cf. Orat. 1. 28), this permits Cic. a mild witticism.
In Athens the Lyceum was the base of Aristotle, where from their
habit of walking around (peripatein) his followers acquired the name
Peripatetics. Cic.s Lyceum, a gloriWed pavilion, probably featured
a peristyle courtyard with at least one room serving as a library (2. 8).
The lower gymnasium was called the Academy, so that Cic. could
have the best of Athenian philosophy. Cf. Linderski 1989: 1056
1995: 445, and for the cultural milieu, T. K. Dix, Athenaeum 88
(2000), 448.
I have just read through the third book of your On the Nature of the
Gods On one level this is self-advertisement (cf. Tusc. 5. 32; Fat. 4),
but these references to De Natura Deorum also underline the close
connection in the category of philosophy known as physics between
doctrine on the gods and divination (cf. introd., 3). Physics
(physika) dealt with the nature of things, including the metaphysical,
as opposed to ethics and logic.
although it has shaken my opinion, has not utterly destroyed it
Although these words Wt the character of Quintus as a polite gesture
to his Academic brother, they also serve to undercut the case Quintus
will present. He has acknowledged the power of the Academic
arguments on a subject integrally linked with divination.
Commentary
121
Cotta argues in this way to destroy the Stoics arguments rather

than to destroy mens religion A similar point is emphasized by
Marcus (2. 41). C. Aurelius Cotta, consul of 75, behaves as an
Academic philosopher in the tradition of Carneades, who repeatedly
savaged the Stoic arguments of Chrysippus and Antipater (see on
1. 7). Cotta directs his attack onto four topics: (i) the existence of the
gods, (ii) the divine nature, (iii) providential government (lost), and
(iv) the gods concern for men (cf. MacKendrick 1989: 17880).
That is indeed said by Cotta and repeatedly so See ND 3. 1, 46,
910, 15, and in his conclusion, this is more or less what I have to say
about the nature of the gods, not in order to disprove it, but so that
you may understand how obscure and diYcult to explain it is (3. 93).
Cf. ND 3. 44 for the same motive in Carneades.
in order that he may not appear to reject what is generally held to be
right i.e. the practices and tenets of the state religion, which Cotta
strongly defends and in which he aYrms his belief at the start of his
attack on Balbus (ND 3. 5; cf. ND 1. 61, 3. 14).
9. religion has received a satisfactory defence by Lucilius in the
second book Cic.s spokesmen for the Stoics was Q. Lucilius
Balbus, whose speech followed the four headings listed above (1. 8
Cotta argues . . . ).
you yourself thought his argumentation was closer to the truth, as
you write at the end of the third book ND 3. 95: so we parted with
Velleius thinking Cottas discourse to be closer to the truth, while it
seemed to me (Cicero) that that of Balbus approximated more to
a semblance of the truth. Although Cic. alters the expression, which
in De Natura Deorum was formulated in Academic terms, to suit
Quintus, it still amounts to assent by the sceptic. But, whether this
should be understood in the strong sense of belief or rather as
provisional assent (see 1. 7 I am afraid . . . ) is not clear. As Marcus/
Cic. can be shown to accept some key tenets of Stoicism, e.g. belief in
some kind of argument from consensus (cf. ND 1. 2; Tusc. 1. 30), in
argument from design (Div. 2. 148) and in a link between religion
and knowledge of nature (Div. 2. 149), although he did not share the
122
Commentary
Stoics epistemological base, there was much in Balbus speech to

which Cic. could assent (see Taran 1987: 122).
you considered it more appropriate to inquire into it and discuss it
separately Balbus holds that the questions of divination and fate
are distinct from that of the nature of the gods, albeit connected (ND
3. 19; cf. Div. 1. 127). Although Cic. intended to cover all three
subjects within his encyclopedic treatment of Greek philosophy, he
never intended to do so in one work. Indeed the general Stoic
practice was to separate books on divination, taken either as
a whole or individually on speciWc types of divination, from those
on the gods or on determinism (see on 1. 5 and introd., 3).
divination, which is the prediction and presentiment of those things
which are thought to occur by chance For the Stoics the key
deWnition of chance was a cause obscure to human understanding
(e.g. Aet. Plac. 1. 29. 7; Alex. Aphrod. Fat. 7), a deWnition that may
have gone back to Democritus (Arist. Ph. 196b5; Lact. Div. inst. 1. 2).
For his opening deWnition of divination, which is important for his
case, Quintus may use the reformulation by Posidonius of Antipaters deWnition the prediction and presentiment of things that
happen by chance (Timpanaro, lxv, xciii). This reformulation,
necessitated by the attacks of Carneades, permitted the Stoics a way
out of the ambiguity of their earlier position, while aYrming the
essential determinism of divinatory events in a provident cosmos.
At 2. 13 Marcus slyly attributes to Quintus Antipaters original
deWnition and at 2. 19 concludes that it is worthless. See Hankinson
1988: 1557; Repici 1995: 179; Timpanaro 1994: 247.
If you wish Such polite phrases are common around the beginning
of the Wrst speakers words (cf. Acad. 1. 14; ND 1. 17), here simply to
get the Stoic exposition under way after establishing the basic deWnition on which the arguments will be based.
power . . . nature Power preWgures the emphasis that Quintus will
place on convincing divinatory outcomes (see on 1. 12), while
nature (quale) points to the variety of divinatory practices he will
present.
Commentary
123
I hold that . . . Quintus oVers a preliminary, abbreviated formulation of the orthodox Stoic position, which he will set out more fully
later (1. 823). The existence of divinatory practices could not be
denied (as the prefatory chapters show), but whether they could give
knowledge of the future was at issue.
10. Quintus, I said, you are defending the Stoic citadel In book 1
Marcus addresses Quintus seven times by the simple vocative form of
his praenomen, but Quintus never uses Marcus name, a common
feature of Cic.s dialogues (Dickey 2002: 258). Because the line of
argument is so familiar, Marcus can use this Wgurative expression (cf.
Fam. 1. 9. 8). Citadel refers only to the argument presented in the
next lemma, although most of Quintus arguments do come from
a Stoic view.
if indeed those points of yours stand in reciprocal relationship,
that if there is divination, there are gods and if there are gods,
there is divination For the Stoic pedigree of this reciprocity cf.
Diogenianus (Euseb. Praep. evang. 4. 3): Chrysippus gives this
demonstration to us, proving each one via the other. For he wants
to show that everything comes to be according to fate from divination, while that divination exists he is able to show by no other
means than by assuming that everything comes about according to
Fate.
The earliest extant version of if there is divination, there are gods
used in connection with the truth of divinatory practices is found in
Aristotle (fr. 10 R; cf. Cic. ND 2. 12), but is repeated often (e.g. Diog.
Laert. 7. 149; Them. in Anal. Post. 2. 8). Marcus himself, when on
holiday from the Academy, says if there are gods there is divination
(Leg. 2. 32; cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 9. 132; Iambl. VP 138), but in De
Divinatione when wearing his sceptical hat (e.g. 2. 41) Marcus will
ridicule it.
We do not know how the Stoics argued in detail, but it would be
reasonable to presume that they did more than proceed from the fact
of common belief in divination to the truth of that belief. As Quintus
will make clear, the Stoic proofs depend on their notion of the gods
as caring for mankind and wanting to give them guidance and also
on the existence of fate. Neither of these can provide more than
124
Commentary
necessary causes for the eYcacy of divination (cf. Div. 2. 401). The
circularity involved need not be vicious if the argument went
divination works; its working is accounted for by the postulate of
determinism; and the postulate of determinism gains some empirical
support from its working (Hankinson 1988: 139). The argument
requires two things to work: (i) belief in a universe in which all events
have a cause and are interlocked and (ii) that the gods are concerned
for mankind. Both of these were key elements of the coherent Stoic
system and together entail at least the possibility (and perhaps the
necessity) of divination (Hankinson 1988: 1401).
Neither of these is to be granted as easily as you think Although
neither must include the propositions relating to the existence of
the gods, Marcus does not deny this, but indeed concludes his attack
on the reciprocity by saying that divination is clearly destroyed, but
the existence of the gods must be held on to (2. 41). Later (2. 106)
Marcus comments that even this is not conceded by all, but that
should not be read as indicating that he himself was one of the
dissenters. The existence of the gods was not denied by any of
the philosophical schools (cf. Cic. ND 3. 7). As Quintus reference
to De Natura Deorum in 1. 9 shows, Marcus himself accepts the
existence of the gods, even if the precise formulation of his view is
appropriately cautious for the sceptical Academic. Marcus will, however, deny that they confer divinatory competence on human beings.
the future can be announced naturally without the involvement of
a god The examples of everyday prognostication from nature
which Quintus adduces (1. 1315) are probably what Marcus has
in mind here, although he and others (e.g. Isid. Nat. Rer. 38) do not
accept the explanation favoured by Quintus and the Stoics.
it may be that gods exist, but that no power of divination has been
conferred by them on men In short this is the Epicurean position.
Quintus takes up this objection and the various ways it can be
expressed at 1. 823.
clear and obvious kinds of divination Quintus here restates the
Wrst of the Stoic arguments, that, if divination exists, then the gods
Commentary
125
exist, with crucial emphasis on the reality of divination as seen by

the variety of its forms and (by inference) by the fact that nothing
other than the existence of divination explains the successes of its
practices.
there are gods As argued by Lucilius (ND 2. 444).
they have concern for human aVairs As argued by Lucilius from
the Stoic point of view (ND 2. 15467). See on 1. 82.
provided that you have the time . . . Besides functioning as the
means to introduce Cic.s allusive comments on the political situation
at the dramatic date of the dialogue, these words look back to the
kind of scene-setting found in Plato, where the leisure of the characters to participate in the dialogue is often established (cf. Plat.
Theag. 121a; Grg. 458c).
11. at this time when there is nothing else that I can do with
pleasure Cf. Rep. 1. 14; ND 2. 3 for Cic.s availability for
philosophy. This is the most allusive of Cic.s references to his
almost total withdrawal from political life after his return to Italy
in Oct. 48 until the death of Caesar. Cf. Acad 1. 11: freed from
serving the state; Tusc. 1. 1: since from my work of defending and
from my senatorial functions I have been completely or largely
freed; and ND 1. 7: the condition of the state was such that it
needed the advice and attention of just one. Cic.s rare public
appearances, such as his Pro Marcello and Pro Ligario of 46, were
not occasions of joy. For relevance to the time of composition,
see introd., 5.
11b12a This section of the dialogue presents the fundamental
partitio (logical division) of Quintus argument. Four elements
emerge: he will employ two kinds of argument: that from the
antiquity (locus de vetustate), that from ubiquity (locus de consensu
omnium); he will employ one key distinction, that between artiWcial
and natural divination, and will investigate divinatory outcomes
rather than attempt to explain their causes (locus de ignorantia).
See introd., 3 (vi).
126
Commentary
I myself have no new views . . . On one level this is an aspect of

verisimilitude, in that Quintus was neither a renowned philosopher
nor a Stoic, so his presentation of their views would not be innovative.
On another level it is highly appropriate to the arguments that he will
present, based on consensus and antiquity (see on 1. 1 and 1. 24).
two kinds of divination, the one involving a technique, the other
involving nature This division into two classiWcations of the many
kinds of divination practised in the ancient world articulates the
discussion by Quintus (see introd., 3 (vi) ): broadly speaking
1. 3471 concern natural and 1. 729 artiWcial divination. The
Latin terms employed here, ars (technique) and natura (nature),
are equivalent to the Greek techne and physis; they do not mark
a distinction between natural and supernatural divination, but rather
the means by which the gods communicate their will to menin the
former indirectly by signs which require interpretation, in the latter
directly (cf. Timpanaro, xxixxxx). For modern glosses of technical
by inductive, rational, conjectural, exterior, and objective and of
natural by internal, subjective, and intuitive, see Bouche-Leclercq,
i. 109.
The terminology of technical (to technikon) and non-technical
(to atechnon) is certainly Stoic (cf. [Plut.] Vita Homeri 212), but
attempts to take it back to Homer (Od. 20. 1001), where Odysseus
asks Zeus for a conWrmation of a vision by an inspired saying and
a portent, are not convincing. Homers endothen and ektosthen need
not embody any distinction other than between oracles and portents,
although Plutarch does attribute such a distinction to him (Mor.
593c). Herodotus (9. 94. 3) could speak of an inborn divination
(emphytos mantike) and of Melampus as learning his divinatory
techniques from the Egyptians (2. 49. 2). Although the latter could
be described as a techne, it is not clear that Herodotus distinguished
the various types of divination in this way (cf. F. Heinimann, MH 18
(1961), 129). While Plato distinguished between divination by
divine inspiration and other means (cf. Phdr. 244d), his extant
dialogues reveal no trace of the technical/natural terminology
(pace Kany-Turpin 2003b: 612).
A very diVerent, contemporary classiWcation of divination by the
physical element to which it related was made by Varro (Serv. [Auct.]
Commentary
127
Aen. 3. 359). Cic. would have been familiar with it, but for
a discussion based on Greek philosophy, the classiWcation found in
that discipline was crucial. Cic. probably draws the terminology from
Posidonius Natural Philosophy (Kidd 1988: 1089, 150).
12. What nation or what state is there . . . Again the argument
from consensus, see on 1. 1. Cic. presents a deWnitive list of the types
of divination to be dealt with, divided into the two categories he has
mentioned.
examine entrails Quintus begins with the three separate elements of
haruspicy, which he discusses separately throughout the work. The
canonical order which probably derived from the books of the
discipline is entrails, lightning, and prodigies. The extis pecudum
(entrails of animals) of the MSS cannot stand. Mercers emendation
extispicum provides good sense and is supported by the similar
expression at 2. 26. Cic.s formulation is caused by the lack of
a noun speciWc to the interpretation of monstra (cf. fulgurator
at 2. 109).
For the science of extispicy, see Thulin 1906, and van der Meer
1987, with review by Linderski, CP 85 (1990), 6771 1995: 5959,
6778.
interpret Interpretation is essential to all the technical kinds of
divination, as the meaning of the signs sent by the gods has to be
uncovered and passed on. An active role in forming an hypothesis
and making a conjecture as to the signs meaning is involved
(cf. Linderski 1986a: 22278).
prodigies Abnormal phenomena in nature which, in Roman
thought, portended divine displeasure. For the variety of Latin
terms and the ancient etymologies, see on 1. 93. For modern literature, see most recently Rosenberger 1998.
lightning To cover both lightning Xashes and strikes, Cic. uses the
term fulgur, which is older than fulmen which he uses in augural
contexts (C. O. Thulin, ALL 14 (1906), 376). In general see Thulin
1905.
128
Commentary
augurs See on 1. 3.
astrologers See on 1. 2. Although the Latin term astrologus can be
used neutrally in catalogues of types of diviners (e.g. Cic. Fam. 6. 6. 7),
it regularly possesses a pejorative connotation (cf. Hubner 1987: 225).
lots Because of the harshness of a transition from three
nouns indicating practitioners of divination to one indicating
a kind of divination within the one clause dealing with types of
artiWcial divination, Timpanaro considers an emendation of sortium
to sort<es ducent>ium (or legent>ium), but the MSS reading is not
impossible. A wide range of quasi-oracular practices is covered by
lots (sortes; e.g. the itinerant quacks of 1. 132) but primarily the
many oracles within Italy which functioned by various kinds of lotdrawing or the use of dice (cf. 2. 857). See J. Champeaux, MEFRA 92
(1990), 281302, and for Etruscan oracles by lithobolia and sortilege,
A. Maggiani, RdA 18 (1994), 6875.
the kind which as a rule involve a technique Quintus fere (as
a rule) may qualify technique or more likely the verb (cf. Schaublin), but not so as to destroy the basic distinction.
dreams or prophecies (these are the two classed as natural).
Prophecies will include the Sibylline books and oracular prophecies
such as those from Delphi.
I consider that the outcomes of these practices should be investigated rather than their causes Outcomes (eventa) is equivalent to
the Greek ekbaseis, the use of which in this context goes back to Zeno
(Diog. Laert. 7. 149: [the Stoics] say that divination in all its
forms really exists; and they show it to be a techne on the basis of
certain results (ekbaseis), as Zeno says . . .), who was the Wrst Stoic
to present the empiricist arguments which reappear throughout
Quintus speech (cf. 1. 16, 72, 84, 128). Posidonius second book
on Natural Philosophy appears to have demonstrated that divination
was an art (techne) through its outcomes (Diog. Laert. 7. 149; Kidd
1988: 1089) and the same arguments are likely to have appeared in
his On Divination, a more likely source for Cic. for this work.
Commentary
129
a kind of natural force which . . . announces the future This is

Quintus deliberately vague explanation of the cause of the
phenomenon of divination. The combination of force (vis) and
nature (natura) suggests a connection with the explanation attempted
by Posidonius which covered both categories of divination (see on 1.
12930). Although the formulation may involve the combination of
contradictory views held by diVerent Stoics (cf. Schaublin), this is
unproblematic at this stage of the discussion. Here Quintus does
not want to become involved in a discussion of how the gods produce
signs or impacts directly on the human conscience, but simply
to aYrm that both natural and artiWcial divination work.
through signs observed over a long time See on 1. 2. Here the
reference is to artiWcial divination in which the meaning of speciWc
signs was established empirically by observation over a long period;
cf. 2. 146: observation over a long period . . . with the recording of
events created the science [of divination] (cf. 1. 25; ND 2. 166).
through some impulse and divine inspiration Cf. 1. 34, 38, 66.
Natural divination through the direct, even physical, impinging of
the gods on human beings, which Cic. describes by two nouns with
the root meanings of goading and breathing upon/into.
12b16 Quintus begins his argument proper with a lengthy and
poorly articulated application of the locus de ignorantia, i.e.
divination works, but we do not know how. Using the basic tool of
analogy he will compare artiWcial divination with other areas in
which a connection between sign and event was recognized even
if the nature and way in which the connection operated was not
known. For example, certain kinds of animal behaviour indicate
imminent bad weather; this is generally accepted, but such an application of meteorology is not a science or an art. In book 2 Marcus
does not refute the validity of weather-signs, because Quintus himself
does not present them as divination, but only as something similar
(2. 14). Marcus would doubtless have followed the approach of
Boethus and posited physical links between sign and event, as other
Stoics demonstrated for phenomena such as the ebb and Xow of
tides (2. 334). Posidonius in particular was able to incorporate
130
Commentary
meteorology within divination because of his belief that the world

was divine and that the universe obeyed laws Wxed since its beginning
(cf. 1. 118). See in general Taub 2003 and on the arguments in De
Divinatione, see Kany-Turpin 2003a.
So let Carneades cease insisting as Panaetius used to do Carneades
(fr. 9 M; see on 1. 7) and Panaetius (see on 1. 6) rejected artiWcial
divination. This passage, where Cic. draws either upon the reading
of Clitomachus he had done for De Natura Deorum (3. 1415)
or on Posidonius, reveals the argumentation deployed against
Chrysippus and Antipater, which Quintus will counter later
(1. 11819). Carneades ridicule has two dimensions: Wrst, that
concern with the activities of insigniWcant birds was unbeWtting of
the gods status, a charge taken up by other critics (cf. Sen. NQ 2. 32.
34; Apul. Soc. 7); and secondly, that it was incongruous that crows
and ravens should Xy in opposite directions to signify the same thing.
Cf. Quintus answer at 1. 120.
crow The hooded crow (Corvus corone sardonius), which nests
throughout Italy, rather than the black crow (Corvus corone) which
is found only in N. Italy (cf. Andre 1967: 61; Capponi 1979: 1906).
A crow croaking on the left was considered a sign of good fortune
(e.g. Plaut. Asin. 260; Virg. Ecl. 9. 15; Phaedr. 3. 18. 12), although
Pliny (HN 10. 30) calls it a bird of ill-omened garrulousness and
most omens associated with it are unfavourable.
raven Corvus corax (Andre 1967: 61; Capponi 1979: 196202). Its
importance in Roman divination is seen in the term cornicularius for
one who observed omens from ravens (Schol. Prud. Psychom. 636).
A raven croaking on the right was a sign of good fortune (Plaut. Asin.
260), on the left ill-omened (Plaut. Aul. 624). In general, the raven
was a bird of ill omen (e.g. Val. Max. 1. 4. 2, 6).
on the left . . . on the right Cic. here is not thinking of the impetrative auspices sought by Roman magistrates within an augural
templum, a situation where a complex matrix of human and divine
perspectives determines the signiWcance of signs to left and right (see
Linderski 1986a: 22806; for diagram R. Beck, Apeiron 27 (1994), 101),
Commentary
131
and where it was requested that the gods send speciWc bird(s) from
a speciWed direction. Rather, the issue is oblative auspices, where no
sign has been requested, e.g. the raven that appeared on the left to
Tiberius Gracchus before his death (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 17. 3). In this
context the favourable signiWcance of right owes most to common
superstition and is similar to Greek attitudes, although it is probably
not inXuenced by them (Gornatowski 1936: 567). The uniqueness
of the favourable signiWcance of crow and woodpecker appearing on
the left has no rational explanation, although Valeton (1891: 321 n.
1) tries to connect it with the augural matrix. See also Guillaumont
1985: 15977.
according to the outcomes of their signs Cf. 1. 25, 72, 131. Schaublin (followed by Freyburger and Scheid) adopts the emendation of
Koch, signiWcationum eventis for the MSS reading in signiWcatione
eventus; Timpanaro resorts to the obelus, after canvassing e signiWcationis eventu. The basic meaning, however, is clearthat there
were records of signs and their outcomes which could be consulted.
as long as memory records the facts and accounts are handed
down Quintus words are hyperbolic, but understandable in that
the practice of artiWcial divination depended on repositories of
information, such as the libri fulgurales of the haruspices or the
astrological records of the Babylonians. This is the Wrst moment at
which Cic. confronts the question of historicity which is crucial to
the empiricist argument of Quintus; in book 1 many kinds of
accounts will be presented, with varying degrees of conWdence, and
in book 2 Marcus will question them all.
13. One can be amazed . . . The general analogy between
divination and medicine, which was generally recognized as an art,
is important to Stoic argument (Hankinson 1988: 1412). Not until
the analyses of modern science isolated the active ingredients of
herbal drugs could there be what Quintus would call an explanation
of their eYcacy. Like such drugs, divination produces results, and so
it should be used.
132
Commentary
herbs . . . and . . . roots The same distinction between what grows

above and below ground is drawn at ND 2. 161. The examples
Quintus will use (1. 16) are of roots, but the works of Nicander,
Dioscurides, and Pliny the Elder reveal that medicinal uses of leaves
and Xowers were just as common.
things . . . similar to divination Quintus signals another stage in his
argument from analogy, the use of examples from meteorology. As
the argument will reveal, the Stoics in particular had studied weather-signs, because in their view they were part of the workings of an
ordered world, so that if one learnt to read the signs in nature, one
could predict the weather.
The Stoic-inXuenced Aratus of Soli wrote a Phaenomena,
a versiWcation in hexameters of a treatise by the Alexandrian
astronomer Eudoxus. The third part of this (7331154) deals with
weather-signs, and may derive ultimately from Theophrastus. The
three poetic extracts quoted here by Quintus, which come from Cic.s
earlier translation (see below, your Prognostica), present signs given
by (i) inanimate objects (1. 13) and (ii) animate, but non-human
creatures (1. 1415).
De Divinatione 1 is full of poetic quotations to support Quintus
argument. Where the original was Greek a Latin translation is
provided (1. 14, 52, 65, 81). The use of poetry in philosophical
argumentation was criticized severely by Carneades (Cic. Tusc.
3. 59) and aspects of Stoic practice were questioned by Cic. himself
(Tusc. 2. 267). But the Stoics indulged greatly in it (cf. Diog. Laert.
7. 180). Although they did not consider that the pre-philosophical
traditions of the Greeks, especially Homer, contained much truth, the
myths related in poetry were essential materials for understanding
the origin of many beliefs (see Long 1992: 4166). The distribution of
quotations and the diVerent uses made of them in De Divinatione
reXects the attitudes of the respective philosophical schools (Jocelyn
1973: 6671). Marcus quotes mainly to support points already
established, whereas Quintus uses it as important evidence for his
case (cf. Krostenko 2000: 3667). For verisimilitude Cic. has Quintus
refer only to those of his own poems which were in the public
domain or to well-known works of earlier poets (Jocelyn 1973:
812). In addition to the philosophical precedents for using poetry,
Commentary
133
Cic.s characterization of Quintus has some verisimilitude in that

Quintus wrote an Erigone (Cic. Q Fr. 3. 1. 3) and verses on an
astronomical subject (Courtney 1993: 17981) which reXect the
inXuence of his brothers Phaenomena. For a discussion of some
of the philosophical ramiWcations of the use of poetry, see
H.-G. Schmitz, PHJ 100 (1993), 1825.
a swollen sea . . . The basic idea goes back at least to Theophrastus
(Sign. 29, 31; cf. Geopon. 1. 11. 7). Cf. Aratus 90912: Let a sign
of wind be also a swelling sea and beaches roaring a long way oV,
sea-coasts reverberating in fair weather, and a mountains summitpeak sounding (tr. Kidd). Cic. takes six lines to render Aratus four,
a far greater expansion than normal (cf. Pease). Some of the
expansion, e.g. reply to Neptune, is Cic.s own invention, but other
elements, e.g. suddenly, reveal his knowledge of the scholia (Atzert,
1908: 6). It is improbable that any of the adaptations are motivated
by an attempt to make the verses more appropriate to Quintus
needs, e.g. the introduction of often or gloom-inducing (tristiWcas), because they were composed long before De Divinatione.
The diVerence between Aristotelian and Stoic explanations is stark:
for the former the impending storm would be the cause of the
swelling sea, but for the latter, the sign is not the cause, hence
the sea is only the physical matter on which the phenomena that
cause the storm operate (Kany-Turpin 2003a: 368).
your Prognostica Cic. gave the title Prognostica to his translation of
the third section of Aratus Phaenomena, which had acquired the title
Diosemeiai (signs). Although Aratus poem was a unity, Cic. followed
the commentators on Aratus (cf. J. Martin, Histoire du texte d Aratos
(Paris, 1956), 910) in creating separate works; four times he quotes
the speciWc title Prognostica (Att. 2. 1. 11, 15. 16b; Div. 1. 13, 2. 47).
Balbus describes Cic.s Aratean poems as written when Cic. was still
a very young man (the diminutive adulescentulusND 2. 104),
i.e. before 85. From a letter of June 60 (Att. 2. 1. 11) in which Cic.
tells Atticus to await his Prognostica and from a line which Isidore
quotes in a diVerent form (see on 1. 14), Pease argues for a 2nd edn.
(CP 12 (1917), 3024). Stylistic criteria have also been adduced to
conWrm a diVerence between Cic.s Prognostica and Phaenomena,
134
Commentary
but these are subjective and hard to assess (cf. Soubiran 1972:
1415). If the diVerent readings of the indirect MS tradition
(seen in Hyginus, Priscian, etc.) are signiWcant, it may be that
throughout his life Cic. tinkered with his poems and never produced
a deWnitive 2nd edn. (Soubiran 1972: 14; B. Luiselli, RCCM 6 (1964),
15663); the new copies of his Prognostica in 60 may simply reXect
a renewed interest in his earlier poetry (cf. RE 7A. 1237). Again, with
his new philosophical interests in the 40s, his early Stoic-inXuenced
poem could be put to new uses (cf. ND 2. 10415; see E. Gee, CQ 51
(2001), 52736).
Who can uncover the causes of these presentiments? A rhetorical
question, as the continuation shows. Apart from Aratus, none of the
Greek scholars listed by Vitruvius for their knowledge of weather
prediction (9. 6. 3) has a proven connection with weather prediction.
The extant De Signis attributed to Theophrastus lists signs, but
attempts no explanation. In what follows I have cited it as a source
of material for Aratus, recognizing that its authorship and date are
uncertain, but considering it a guide to what was available to Aratus
(cf. Kidd 1997: 213).
Boethus the Stoic Boethus of Sidon, a pupil of Diogenes of Babylon,
wrote a commentary on Aratus in at least 4 vols. Cf. Geminus of
Rhodes (p. 61a): Boethus . . . set out natural (physikas) explanations
for both winds and storms coming after the aforementioned signs.
14. But who can give a plausible explanation of why the following
things occur? Even Epicurus accepted that animal behaviour could
indicate future bad weather, but denied any causal connection between
their activity and the weather and any divine agency in the creatures
movements (Diog. Laert. 10. 115). The scholiasts to Aratus (913, cf.
946, 953, 954) provided natural explanations for the range of phenomena adduced by Quintus, attributing the signs to the animals
swiftness of perceptionman by being clothed cannot perceive the
onset of colder air and his nasal senses are dull by comparison.
Similarly . . . no small noises Cf. Aratus 91315: Also when
a heron in irregular Xight comes in from the sea to dry land uttering
Commentary
135
many a scream, it will be moving before a wind that is stirring over

the sea (tr. Kidd).
white egret Cic.s fulix (cf. Avienus 1676) has been identiWed
amongst others with the red-breasted merganser, which has a white
underneath and Wts Avienus small (Andre 1967: 77), the black coot
(W. M. Lindsay, CP 13 (1918), 18), or the little egret, Egretta garzetta
garzetta (Capponi 1979: 2403). Certainty is impossible, as the
Romans vocabulary for sea-birds was very limited and ill-deWned
and matches with Aratus species were made ad libitum (cf. Mynors
1990: 79). Although the adjective white (cana) can describe grey
(Andre 1949: 656: blanchatre), it would be too light to describe
a coot.
also In Cic. the quotation from Aratus continues without a break,
but his next six lines translate Aratus 94850. This should not be put
down to a failure of memory (pace Traglia 1966: 31 n. 1) but to
a deliberate quotation of what will be most relevant for the argument
here.
acredula . . . icy dews Cic. expands into four lines Aratus 948:
a solitary ololygon croaks its morning call. The identity of Aratus
creature was uncertain, as the various suggestions of the scholiasts
show: Turtle-Dove (trygon), water-bird (orneon zoon enhydron),
or marsh-dwelling, longish, unarticulated creature (zoon limnaion
hypomekes adiarthroton)! They also quote Aristotle (Hist. an. 536a11),
who uses ololygona of the noise made by male frogs in summoning
their females for intercourse. Aratus source (cf. Theophr. Sign. 42)
places the ololygon in a list of storm signs from domestic life, and
earlier (15) has the green frog singing in a tree as a sign of rain. As the
creature appears between frogs and the crow in a series of parallel
clauses introduced identically by or, it is impossible to be certain
with which Aratus more closely identiWes it, although, with
the testimony of Pliny (HN 11. 172), the tree-frog is preferable
(cf. Kidd 1997: 5012).
Although scholars have argued with ingenuity for identiWcations
of Cic.s acredula with some kind of insect cognate with akris or
cicada (Thoresen, Pease), I take it to be a bird. This notion Cic. may
136
Commentary
have got from Aratus scholiasts, and he may underline it by his

separation of the acredula from the lines deWnitely on frogs
(S. Gamberale, SIFC 43 (1971), 247). Various identiWcations of the
bird have been suggested, e.g. the great reed warbler, Acrocephalus
arundinaceus arundinaceus (Capponi 1979: 313), the lark (Traglia
1966: 128), or the siskin, Carduelis spinus (E. Calderon, QUCC
67 (2001), 1339). The latter is, however, improbable because the
siskins song does not have the repetitive aspect required by vocibus
instat (Dunbar per litt.).
the dark crow . . . takes the Xood on its neck These two lines translate Aratus 94950: or perhaps a chattering crow along a projecting
shoreline dips his head into an oncoming wave on the shore (tr.
Kidd). Aratus korone is translated as cornix by Cic. and Avienus
(1704), a choice which inXuenced Virgils adaptation (Georg. 1.
388). Although cornix is generally to be taken a member of the
crow family (see on 1. 12), Andre (1967: 612) argues that the korone
thalassia, which Aratus seems to describe, should on the basis of
Arrian (Perip. M. Eux. 32) be identiWed with the Manx Shearwater in
its Mediterranean subspecies (PuYnus puYnus yelkouan), but as
these are essentially aquatic birds, they are unlikely to be seen racing
along a beach (Dunbar per litt.). Capponi (1979: 191) prefers the
hooded crow (Corvus cornix cornix) which, although a land-based
bird, is seen at sea and eats shellWsh.
The distinctive behaviour of immersing the head does not appear in
Theophrastus description of the korones warning of storms (Sign. 16),
but is frequent after Aratus (e.g. Geopon. 1. 3. 7; Avienus 17046; Plin.
HN 18. 363; Lucan 5. 5556). Crows frequently appear as weather
forecasters (e.g. Nic. Ther. 406 and Euphorion in the scholium ad loc.;
Lucr. 5. 10836; Hor. Carm. 3. 17. 1113; Quint. Inst. 5. 9. 15).
15. We see that these signs almost never deceive, but we do not see
why this is so Quintus admission that weather signs are not
infallible, necessary in order to forestall an obvious criticism by
Marcus, is taken up at 2. 14 in a weaker form for the most part,
not always. For Quintus and the Stoics, however, only a pattern of
success similar to that acceptable in medicine or another stochastic
art is necessary to justify the existence of such signs.
Commentary
137
You also see . . . springs and ponds Cic.s three lines translate Aratus
9467: or these very pitiful generations, a boon to water-snakes, the
fathers of tadpoles croak from the water itself (tr. Kidd). In order to
break the monotonous series of alternatives in Aratus, Cic. introduces an apostrophe of the creatures (the identiWcation of which as
frogs is only clariWed by Quintus words after the quotation); he
ignores Aratus parenthetic boon to water-snakes and completely
recasts fathers of tadpoles as daughters of fresh water. The croaking
of frogs as a sign of rain is found Wrst in Theophrastus (Sign. 15), and
thereafter is commonplace (e.g. Cic. Att. 15. 16A; Plin. HN 18. 361;
Plut. Mor. 912c, 982e).
utter your empty cries Empty is Cic.s addition, and is
inappropriate to Quintus case, if the meaning is that the cries achieved
nothing, i.e. that the storm could not be averted (Timpanaro), or
were without signiWcatory content. Rather, the nuance, if the
philosophical subtlety can be attributed to the young poet, may be
revealed by the question with which Quintus continuesfrogs do not
prophesy rationally or have any consciousness of reacting to divinely
sent signs, but they can still be part of a divinatory system.
who could imagine that mere frogs see that? The diminutive
ranunculi (mere frogs) is dismissive, rather than indicative of the
frogs size (pace OLD). Quintus follows the Stoic line (cf. ND 2. 163)
that divination proper is the preserve of man; the perception of
weather-signs within the animal and natural world is only similar
to divination (1. 13).
a kind of natural force . . . too dark for human comprehension I
have translated the text as emended by Vahlen, which restores sense,
picks up the hendiadys natural force (vis et natura) already used
at 1. 12, and continues Quintus argument. Schaublin obelizes
but . . . force and suspects for giving signs, but this leaves two
short clauses with neither verb nor subject. Quintus faces up to the
question of the relationship between the sign and the signiWer in such
animals with the kind of argument put forward by Posidonius that
there is some sentient force which pervades the whole world and
which produces signs in the signiWers (see on 1. 118) and that the
138
Commentary
physical nature of some animals was so ordered by god that they could
perceive atmospheric changes (cf. Iambl. Myst. 3. 26). In this light
the reference to nature is not at all ambiguous and does not import
any notion of natural divination (pace Kany-Turpin 2003a: 370).
The antithesis with which Quintus concludes embodies the argument
he has made repeatedly: the results of this quasi-divination are clear,
but how it functions is obscure. The scholiast of Aratus provides
the natural explanation of the frogs perceiving the water becoming
colder and sweeter.
soft-footed cattle . . . draw from the air moisture-bearing juice
Aratus 9545: now also before the rain from heaven cattle, gazing
up at the sky, sniV the air (tr. Kidd). Cf. schol. ad loc.: all
quadrupeds have sharper senses than man, and especially bovines
because of the raising of the nostrils. So whenever it perceives some
exhalations from the unwholesomeness of the air, it looks up as to the
heavens and smells the thickness of the air before the storm comes,
and shows from its smelling that there will be rain. This natural
explanation oVered by the scholiast is in eVect incorporated into
Cic.s translation by moisture-bearing, but Quintus chooses to
ignore it, because he does not want a physical explanation to weaken
the analogy with divination. It was considered unusual for anything
other than man to look up at the sky (cf. Plat. Cra. 399c, and many
parallels collected by Pease at ND 2. 140), hence the behaviour of the
cattle was to be noted. First in Theophrastus (Sign. 15), thereafter
e.g. Ael. NA 7. 8; CCAG 8. 1. 137; Geopon. 1. 3. 10.
Now indeed . . . Cf. Aratus 10513: The mastic buds three times,
its growths of fruit are three in number, and each growth brings signs
in succession for ploughing (tr. Kidd). The mastic tree (Pistacia
lentiscus) is an evergreen found throughout the Mediterranean
which produces a gum and oil. Its triple Xowering appears Wrst in
Theophrastus (Sign. 55; cf. Plin. HN 18. 244). The Geoponica (11. 12.
2) exhibit some caution as to the phenomenon, for which there is no
botanical foundation (cf. Kidd 1997: 544).
the three times for ploughing A practice alluded to from Homer
(Il. 18. 542; Od. 5. 127) and Hesiod (Op. 462) onwards. See refs.
Commentary
139
collected at West 1978: 274. In the fallow year farmers were recommended to plough in spring, midsummer, and autumn before sowing the following years crop (Walcot 1970: 389).
16. Nor do I ask why . . . its Xowering Cic. is correct to restrict this
phenomenon to one tree. The similar behaviour of squill, a member
of the lily family (Aratus 10603; Plin. HN 18. 133) is more easily
explained, as there are spring and autumn Xowering varieties. Pease
highlights a possible inconsistency between the fruit of Cic.s translation and the Xowering of Quintus comment, but it is insigniWcant.
I am content with this . . . I have cited The most emphatic
statement by Quintus of his empirical argument, which gains
added plausibility as he moves on to examples from ancient
medicine, the legitimacy of which as an art was clear (1. 24,
cf. 2. 13). For the centrality of this principle as set out in the divisio
of 1. 12, see introd., 3.
the eYcacy of the scammony root for purging The Convolvulus
scammonia L. (Levant scammony), which grows throughout the
eastern Mediterranean, is described as having three-cornered leaves
and a large root with many branches (Plin. HN 26. 59; Dioscur.
4. 70). A resin is extracted from its roots, the glycosidal elements of
which act as a powerful, even dangerous, purgative. It appears in
medical writings from the 5th cent. onwards (e.g. Hippocr. AVect.
2. 505; Arist. Probl. 864a4; Plut. Mor. 134d; Dioscur. 4. 170; Galen
4. 760 K) and was discussed by Avicenna, see J. McGinnis, JHP 41
(2003), 31720.
birthwort for countering snake bites The genus aristolochia has at
least ten species, of which the ancients distinguished three (Theophr.
Hist. pl. 9. 20. 4; Dioscur. 3. 4. 14; Galen 14. 82 K) or four (Plin. HN
25. 956). The name comes from its primary usage as a mild analgesic useful in childbirth (W. C. Evans, Trease and Evans Pharmacognosy14 (London, 1996), 374). Of the species distinguished by the
ancients the one called long (makra) is expressly recommended for
snake bites in the Greek sources (Dioscur. 3. 4. 4; Eup. 1223; cf. Pliny
140
Commentary
HN 25. 97) and the round (rotunda) by Aemilius Macer (14023);

general eYcacy against snake bites, cf. Apul. Virt. Herb. 19. The most
likely identiWcation is aristolochia longa. Several modern ethnopharmacological studies attest a belief across continents in the eYcacy of
plants from the genus aristolochia against snake bites and evaluate the
action of aristolochic acid in minimizing the eVect of such bites,
either by the stimulation of the immune system (P. J. Houghton and
I. M. Osibogun, Journal of Ethnopharmacology 39 (1993), 21), or by
decreasing the oedema (J. J. Moreno, Immunopharmacology 26
(1993), 19) and haemorrhagic eVects (W. Martz, Toxicon 30
(1992), 11356) induced by snake venom.
takes its name from its discoverer . . . from a dream Cic. goes
against the etymology from best for women on the birthing-bed
(Dioscur. 3. 4. 14; Plin. HN 25. 95; Isid. Etym. 17. 9. 52). He follows
a tradition attributed to Aristotle that, while her temple at Ephesus
was being constructed, Artemis revealed to a woman named Aristolochia the means of curing many people who had been bitten
(Schol. Nicand. Ther. 509, cf. 937), but changes the gender of the
discoverer to a man. This is a reasonable deduction from Cic.s
use of inventor (cf. ND 3. 59; Orat. 1. 13 for inventrix). The
revelation of cures by dreams during incubation at healing shrines
was common (e.g. Iambl. Myst. 3. 3; Plin. HN 29. 3); curative
herbs were revealed through dreams (e.g. Diod. 17. 103. 7; Plin.
HN 25. 17).
I see . . . I do not know why they work Editors from Marsus (including Pease and Schaublin) delete posse before video (I see), which
would create an anacoluthon. Posse is retained by Timpanaro as
a common usage in Cic.s colloquial style and as providing an introduction for the second possit (it is eYcacious), but the sentence runs
more smoothly without it.
I do not understand adequately the explanation for the signs of
wind and rain Cf. 1. 1315. Quintus adequately probably concedes something to the kind of natural arguments found in the
scholia to Aratus or in Boethus, but he maintains his basic position,
as not everything had been explained away.
Commentary
141
I recognize, I know, and I vouch for the force and the result of
them Three verbs in asyndeton provide a climactic conclusion to
Quintus argument, which again stresses the indisputable outcome
(eventus) which follows the signs.
the Wssure in entrails The deWnition of entrails (exta) from the
verb to cut out (Festus 69 L) is probably false, but they are the organs
taken out of the sacriWcial animal for examination by an haruspex.
For the Romans they were most frequently the liver, gall-bladder and
heart.
What is meant by the technical haruspicial terms Cic. uses here?
Fissure (Wssum) appears only in Cic. in connection with the liver
(ND 3. 14; Div. 1. 118, 2. 28, 32, 34; cf. Fronto (p. 112 vdH2): just as in
entrails generally the smallest and thinnest diWs<s>a portend the
greatest successes). In Mesopotamian haruspicy there was great
complexity of division and terminology, some of which resembles
Etruscan, e.g. hostile v. mine, cf. U. Jeyes, Jaarbericht: Ex Oriente
Lux 32 (1991/2), esp. 3541. Although J. Nougayrol (CRAI 1955:
51112) writes of a remarkable correspondence between the
Babylonian terminology and that found in Hesychius, it is not
straightforward to relate minutely the very detailed terminology of
Babylonian haruspicy with the little we know secondhand of Etruscan terminology from Latin and Greek texts (cf. Starr 1983: 2).
Blecher (1905: 197) suggested that the Wssum divided the liver into
the friendly and hostile parts, but that is diYcult to square with
Marcus information that haruspices had to distinguish whether
a Wssum portended good or bad (Div. 2. 28). Indeed Van der Meers
study of the Piacenza liver indicates that the friendly and hostile
regions correspond with the east and west of the liver and therefore
that the distinction bisects the natural division of the two lobes made
by the ligamentum coronarium and the teres (1987: 14752). A Wssum
is not a regular feature of the liver, but an abnormality which the
haruspex should spot easily, something like an incision (cf. Guittard
1986: 56). For Thulin (1906: 41) Wssa are the stripes on the surface of
the liver which can appear in numbers. However, does Wssum, a noun
connected with Wndo, naturally mean stripe or describe the action
of a stripe? The root meaning is split or division, and Frontos
intensiWed form diWssa should mean split apart, something more
142
Commentary
noticeable. In Babylonian haruspicy there are frequent references to

a phenomenon called pitru, which is translated as Wssure or split or
indentation, which can appear in numbers, on both left and
right sides of the liver (the Babylonian equivalents of pars hostilis
and familiaris) and which had to be at least half a Wnger length
to be signiWcant; mostly though it had negative signiWcance
(Koch-Westenholz 2000: 42, 61). These would seem to give a better
indication of the meaning of Wssum than Thulins stripes. For
good colour photographs of sheep livers identifying the areas of
signiWcance, see Leiderer 1990: 15788.
thread The natural meaning of Wbra is thread or Wlament. In
Babylonian extispicy the term qu (Wlament) denotes a phenomenon
which can assume various colours and occur in all parts of the liver
and whose signiWcance is negative (Koch-Westenholz 2000: 63); one
explanation may be inXammation caused by the parasite Fasciola
giganticus (cf. Leiderer 1990: 50). In the context of extispicy the
Romans gave two distinct meanings to Wbra when it was used as
a technical term rather than as a general designation for entrails: (i)
the extremities and (ii) veins and muscles (e.g. Serv. Georg. 1. 120).
Thulin (1906: 424) preferred the Wrst of these, using Celsus (4. 1),
who speaks of the liver being divided into four Wbrae, which Thulin
equates with the Greek lobos, but Celsus testimony regarding the
human liver should not be transferred to those of sheep (Guittard
1986: 556). If the Babylonian parallels and the natural meaning of
Wbra are relevant, the phenomenon is far more speciWc than one of the
major divisions of the liver, a localized abnormality which could be
of several colours.
Life is indeed full of these things Quintus standard answer
receives further empirical reinforcement from the experience of
everyday life. This reads better as a general statement than as
a remark restricted to the use of haruspicy, i.e. that in every area of
life there are things we do not understand, but we accept that they
happen.
[for almost everyone uses entrails] These words were deleted by
Hottinger as a gloss, but were retained by Pease to avoid a very abrupt
Commentary
143
transition to what follows. However, if the previous sentence refers to

life in general, the transition to the second major area of haruspicial
activity, where the activity of the gods and the signiWcance of
lightning strikes was less arcane to a general audience, is not diYcult.
Do we not have many other instances, and this one among the
Wrst? The interpretation and procuration of lightning portents
was the second major area of haruspicial activity in Rome. The
Roman annals were full of instances of lightning strikes, the historicity
of which (as opposed to their signiWcance) was not in doubt. Quintus,
then, can use a more open, positive form of question which
should not be criticized as Pease does, Cic. colloquially but somewhat
awkwardly changes his question to a declarative sentence. Although
in primis can be translated as especially or among the foremost
(cf. Schaublin and Timpanaro), the incident Cic. presents, probably
from 278, was the Wrst occasion on which the Senate formally called in
haruspices, an innovation made possible by the conclusion of the
Wnal political settlement of Etruria (MacBain 1982: 47), and so
a translation embodying this temporal aspect seems preferable.
Summanus The god, whose cult was reputedly introduced to Rome
by Titus Tatius (Varr. LL 5. 74), was held to send lightning at night
(Festus 66, 254 L; Plin. HN 2. 138; August. De civ. D 4. 23) or more
precisely just before dawn (CGL 2. 348). The original meaning of his
name and thus his function are disputed: one etymology derives his
name from sub and mane, i.e. just before dawn, which links well with
his identiWcation as the morning star; another prefers summum solis
the suns highest point in the sky which Wts well with the date of his
festival, 20 June (Prosdocimi 1978: 199207). From the combination
of summer solstice, the particular form of the oVering made to
Summanus, and lightning it is clear that he was a cosmic deity,
perhaps essentially separate from Jupiter, a version of the IndoEuropean god of the dark sky (cf. Champeaux 1988: 83100), or
even the Moon, Soma in Sanskrit (Magini 2001: 6971). See also
B. Garca Hernandez, Emerita 60 (1992), 5769.
Jupiter Best and Greatest The principal god of Rome, worshipped
with Juno and Minerva on the Capitol, is here given his main cult
144
Commentary
epithet Optimus Maximus (Best and Greatest) which proclaims his

supremacy (see Radke 1987: 23353). In the nexus of myth, cult
practice, and magisterial ceremonies Jupiter Best and Greatests worship was inseparable from the growth and continuity of Roman
imperialism (e.g. P. Borgeaud, MH 44 (1987), 86100) and so any
portent relating to it was signiWcant. His temple was the largest in
Republican Rome (LTUR ii. 1448).
at that time made of clay This descriptive clause is attached by
Timpanaro and Schaublin to Summanus, probably correctly,
indicating the archaic nature of the statue and the remarkable nature
of the event. A metal Summanus was in place in Cic.s day, probably
occupying the NW apex, while the bronze quadriga dedicated by the
brothers Ogulnii (Livy 10. 23. 12) occupied the SE apex.
struck from heaven . . . it was found in the spot which they had
indicated Cf. Livy Per. 14. In 278 the gods were warning Rome
against the threat of Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus, who was to provide
the Wrst threat to Romes hegemony of the Italian peninsula: he came
from the east, as did the lightning bolt. By their expertise in determining the direction of the lightning bolt the haruspices were able to
discover the head of the statue, which had been blasted over 300 m
into the Tiber. MacBain (1982: 47) rightly calls this incident a coup de
theatre, a conspicuous demonstration of the gods support for the
formal introduction of the haruspices to Rome and the greater
integration of Etruria into the Roman state to strengthen Romes
position against the invader.
1722 Although the quotation of Cic.s poem forms part of the
locus de ignorantia, as it continues directly from the rhetorical questions of 16, it also delays the development of the argument that
occurs in 2325a. It is clearly a Ciceronian insertion into a Greek
philosophical argument, but while it adds nothing to the philosophical argument, it is a wholly appropriate element of a Stoic argument
(see next note).
17. What better authority or witness could I use than you?
Quintus argument is at one level an excellent blow ad hominem, in
Commentary
145
that he can show Marcus in his own words describing a series of

phenomena which he treats as divinely sent prodigies and which
occurred only twenty years before the dramatic date of De Divinatione. While Marcus could be expected to attack the historicity of any
other exempla Quintus would present, in the face of his own words
Marcus would be forced to concede the Wrst part of Quintus
argument, that prodigies and other divinatory phenomena do
happen. In fact, when Marcus comes to deal with the quotation of
his own words (2. 458), he does not deny the historicity of the
incidents, only the interpretation given to them by Quintus and
altogether fails to respond to Quintus argument.
Even though Cic. could have preserved the ad hominem argument
by presenting in some form the prose version of these prodigies (Cat.
3. 18), the use of the more dramatic and comprehensive poetic
version Wts well with traditional Stoic arguments. Chrysippus quoted
so much from Euripides Medea that a reader of Euripides work
quipped that he was reading Chrysippus Medea (Diog. Laert.
7. 180). We may like to think that Quintus praise (cf. Leg. 1. 1) is
ironical, but the fact that the longest quotation of poetry in extant
Latin (Courtney 1993: 162) is Cic.s own suggests that the authors
pride in his work, despite the poor reception it was given (e.g. Cic.
Pis. 72), is not irrelevant to its appearance. For Krostenko (2000:
3805), however, the matter is more substantial: in the context of the
whole work the insertion of the poem into Quintus case serves to
distance Cic. from it and its claim of a relationship between the gods
and an individual, which the example of the tyrannical Caesar had
rendered unpalatable. This element of an untraditional, un-Roman,
personal relationship is not, however, prominent in the sections of
Consulatus suus quoted hereany communication from the gods
comes to Cic. as the states senior magistrate in the pursuit of his
regular duties; the portents fulWl their traditional admonitory role,
not the hellenizing role associated with Caesar.
I have even learnt by heart . . . the verses which the Muse Urania
speaks Cf. the claim attributed to Balbus (Cic. ND 2. 104). The
consensus of scholars places Uranias speech in the context of Dec. 63
after the Allobroges had broken the news of Catilines conspiracy and
has Cic. transported to Helicon in a dream where Urania advises him
146
Commentary
to deal harshly with the conspirators, but this violates the epic
convention in which the Muses speak only to the poet and not to
heroes or politicians. Rather some later occasion during the poems
composition in 60 is preferable, when Cic. needed to know the
signiWcance of what had happened and whether the gods really did
reveal the future through signs. See Jocelyn 1984: 446.
in the second book of your Consulship Cic. produced various
literary records of his consulship and on 15 Mar. 60 advises Atticus
to expect a poem (Att. 1. 19. 10). In Dec. 60 he quotes from the
conclusion to book 3 by Calliope (Att. 2. 3. 4). The poem was
published soon after. Its title was Consulatus suus (His Consulship)
rather than De Consulatu Suo (cf. Non. 298, 300 L; Lact. Inst. 3. 17.
14), which supports the emendation of the MSS here from consulatu
to consulatu<s> (Jocelyn 1984: 40), although Timpanaro argues for
<De> Consulatu on the analogy of the reference to Catulus work at
Brut. 132. For a disentangling of Consulatus suus from the later De
temporibus suis, see S. J. Harrison, Hermes 118 (1990), 45563.
First of all Jupiter. . . eternal ether A description of Jupiter as conceived of in Stoic thought, not the god of mythology. The Stoics greatest
god was the ether, a subtle Wery substance, which pervaded the whole
created order (e.g. Cic. Acad. 2. 126; ND 1. 37, 2. 28, 578, 3. 35; Diog.
Laert. 7. 138). First (principio) is probably an element of didactic style,
rather than any chronological indication. Rather than an overelaborate
incorporation of philosophical ideas into epic, Cic.s verses recall the
themes of Aratus proem where the muses are invoked to explain the
heavens, as Urania does here (Kubiak 1994: 589). Moreover, for Quintus defence of divination this presentation of god pervading and
governing the universe is wholly appropriate, a necessary condition
for the production and interpretation of signs in divination.
stray in the terminology and false nomenclature of the
Greeks Cic. (cf. Tusc. 1. 62; ND 2. 51, 119; Rep. 1. 22) attacks the
Greek designation given to the planets. Planetes means wanderer, but
the planets follow regular predictable courses. The error had been
commented on since Plato (Leg. 821b) and was a commonplace
(e.g. Plin. HN 2. 12).
Commentary
147
they all bear the mark of the divine mind i.e. their behaviour is not
random, but ordered by the divine mind which controls the universe.
Mark (notata), a poetic rendering of the Stoic notion of hallmark
(see on 1. 64). Quintus may omit a passage after this line in which the
link was made between the divine mind and phenomena considered
signiWcant in divination (Jocelyn 1984: 512).
18. during your consulship In contemporary and later accounts
63 was rich in meteorological phenomena and portents; in his 3rd In
Catilinam (1821), delivered before the people on 3 Dec. 63, Cic. in
eVect gives a prose version of what he will describe here. The two
phenomena which begin the poetic version, however, do not appear in
any other version, suggesting that Cic. had a wide supply of material
from which to choose appropriate material for the oratorical and
poetic contexts (Koves-Zulauf 1997: 2223). Jocelyn conjectures
(1984: 49) that the original description also listed the planets in
conjunction and perhaps gave the zodiacal sign in the ascendant.
you too As Jocelyn argues (1984: 52), this wording suggests that
some other individuals sighting had been reported, although too
(quoque) may equally emphasize Cic.s personal role. This is one
indication, among several, that the quotation here is not straightforward, unless Cic.s syntax is extremely looseCic. may be omitting
passages and creating syntactical problems in his abbreviated version.
However, the suggestion of stronger dislocation by the importation
of lines from other contexts (see on torch of Phoebus) is too extreme;
by heavy punctuation some of the diYculties can be alleviated.
swift motions of the heavenly bodies These are probably shootingstars or meteors (Courtney 1993: 164).
the menacing conjunction of stars with glowing heat If this refers
to the conjunction of Mars and Jupiter in the vicinity of Aldebran
which occurred around 11 May 64 (Haury 1984: 1012), around (see
below) has to be taken very loosely.
sacriWces on the snowy peaks of the Alban Mount Each year
soon after assuming oYce the consuls performed a sacriWce at the
148
Commentary
sanctuary of the Latin League dedicated to Jupiter Latiaris on the

Alban Mount (Monte Cavo, 950 m), some 21 km SE of Rome (see
Alfoldi 1964: 2934). The date varied, being set each year by consular
edict. Cic.s mention of snow is not incompatible with a date in early
May (see below Latin Festival). For purifying sacriWces (lustrasti), see
on 1. 105. OVerings of milk at the Feriae Latinae (Dion. Hal. 4. 49. 3;
Festus 212 L) were typically archaic (Plin. HN 14. 88).
shimmering comets with their bright light Pease identiWes the
phenomenon with the aurora polaris because of the plural, the appropriateness of shimmering to its eVects and its appearance in winter.
The predominant associations of comets were negative (cf. John Lyd.
Ost. e.g. 1011, 2931) in the eyes of both ordinary and educated
(cf. Manil. 1. 8923) people; in particular they were considered
harbingers of political upheavals (e.g. Cic. ND 2. 14; Sen. NQ 7. 17. 3;
Tac. Ann. 15. 47. 1). Positive associations were occasionally generated
for political reasons (see E. FlintoV, ACUSD 28 (1992), 678).
much confusion involving a nocturnal massacre The description
Wts better with the shifting lights and colours of the aurora than with
a dream (Soubiran 1972) or a prodigy of noise in sky like that of
warfare (cf. Obseq. 14, 41, 43; Jocelyn 1984: 50). A post eventum link
with the Catilinarian conspiracy is not unlikely.
the Latin Festival fell around a time of foreboding . . . starry sky
Any identiWcation of the eclipse depends on the degree of dislocation
in the Roman calendar. It has been argued that, because of failure to
intercalate regularly, the civil year was as much as 105 days ahead of
the solar year and thus that the lunar eclipse of the astronomical date
7 Nov. 64 occurred on the night 23/4 February 63 in the pre-Julian
civil calendar (Radke 1990: 867). Although this would place the
celebration of the Latin Festival closer to its regular position
early in the year, a dislocation of around Wve days is more likely
(BrindAmour 1983: 59). Hence the better candidate for Cic.s eclipse
is the lunar eclipse of 3 May 63, which was twice the magnitude of the
Nov. eclipse and was particularly spectacular when viewed from the
environs of Rome because of the lowness of the moon in the sky.
Commentary
149
torch of Phoebus . . . The three most common explanations of this

phenomenon are (i) a partial eclipse of the sun, (ii) a comet, or (iii)
a meteor (see Montanari Caldini 1988), although a detailed case has
been made for zodiacal light, an elongated ellipse of light which
extends along the zodiac on each side of the sun and is visible chieXy
after sunset in late winter and early spring (Haury 1984: 97103; cf.
idem, Ciceroniana 5 (1984), 199200). However, Haurys identiWcation of the torch of Phoebus with the torches of Cat. 3. 18 is
impossible, as they move in the diametrically opposite direction
(cf. Timpanaro). A comet can probably be ruled out, as the closest
examples occurred in July and Aug. 61. Against an identiWcation with
meteors is the association of Phoebus, i.e. this was a diurnal phenomenon (Jocelyn 1984: 40). Key to the identiWcation is the meaning
of magnum ad columen: this can be rendered as a great column
(Soubiran) or as towards its zenith (Courtney 1993: 165). The latter
is preferable, as although there was a meteorological phenomenon
known as a pillar (kionHeracl. Pont. fr. 116 Wehrli; columnaSen.
NQ 7. 20. 2; trabisObseq. 61), Cic.s use of columen (cf. 1. 20)
suggests a meaning of elevation. If we accept that torch of Phoebus
is a poetic description of the sun and columen means elevation, then
Cic. describes the partial eclipse of the sun which occurred on the
astronomical date 18 May 63 (Koves-Zulauf 1997: 21922). This
identiWcation with a memorable celestial phenomenon only
a fortnight after the lunar eclipse would make unlikely the suggestion
of Jocelyn (1984: 54) that these three lines are an insertion from
somewhere else in the poem or from another of Cic.s works.
For eclipses and superstition, cf. Tac. Ann. 1. 28. 1; Val. Max. 8. 11.
1, ext. 1.
a citizen struck by an awesome thunderbolt Dio has more than
one such strike (37. 25. 2; cf. Plut. Cic. 14); Pliny (HN 2. 137) names
the victim as M. Herennius from Pompeii (cf. Obseq. 61: Vargunteius), a member of a prominent local family. Lightning and thunder
from a clear sky were considered ominous from Homer onwards
(Od. 20. 11314), but attracted very little scientiWc discussion
(see Hine 1981: 2723). They appear among portents recognized
by the Romans (Obseq. 1, 24, 28, 47). The striking of a man
150
Commentary
by lightning was regarded as an indication of further disasters

(e.g. Livy 10. 31. 8, 22. 36. 8).
when the earth trembled with its pregnant body Earthquakes, cf.
Dio 37. 25. 2; Cic. Cat. 3. 18; Plut. Cic. 14; Spoletum and some other
places were levelled (Obseq. 61). Pregnant, either with conspiracy or
with the subterranean winds which in the ancient view caused earthquakes (cf. Courtney 1993: 165). Earthquakes were generally considered ominous in antiquity (e.g. Plin. HN 2. 191206; John Lyd. Ost.
10710 W) and appear frequently among the prodigies formally
expiated in the Roman state religion (Obseq. 7, 29, 35, 45, 46, 54,
59, 68, 71). See W. Capelle, NJ 21 (1908), 60333; G. Traina, ASNP 15
(1985), 86787.
during the night various terrible forms were seen and warned of war
and sedition Cf. Dio 37. 25. 2: eidola; Plut. Cic. 14: phasmata.
Although this appears to refer to ghosts rather than visions in dreams
(Pease), the two phenomena should not be sharply separated
ghosts could be experienced through sleep, as well as cause dreams
(Ogden 2001: 7580, 21930).
seers For the activity of inspired prophets in Rome see on 1. 4.
None of these prophecies has survived, unless we are to link the
Sibylline prophecies adduced by the conspirator Lentulus to
demonstrate that he would be the third Cornelius to rule Rome
and that prophecy which declared that 63 would mark the end of
the city and the empire (Cic. Cat. 3. 9). These prophecies, however,
may better relate to the next lemma.
19. Those things which after a long gap Wnally came to pass
Courtney (1993: 166) translates the things that had been slipping for
a long time and Wnally fell in reference to Roman morality. This
completely obscures the connection Cic. is making with earlier
historical events and prophecies, either the struggle between the
supporters of Marius and Sulla in 87 which had been marked by
similar prodigies, comets, and a man struck by lightning (Pease, CP
14 (1919), 1757) or, better, the prophecies given after the Capitol
Commentary
151
burnt down in 83, that in twenty years there would be a bloody civil
war (Sall. Cat. 47. 2; cf. Cic. Cat. 3. 8).
the Father of the gods himself Jupiter is mentioned not because of
the Stoic doctrines seen at the start of the extract, but because the
phenomena described belonged to the sky. This was his special
domain, as is shown by the etymology of his name in its original
form Di pater.
Now . . . Cic. signals a change to the portents which appeared in 65
when L. Manlius Torquatus and L. Aurelius Cotta were consuls
(cf. Obseq. 61). This unchronological arrangement is taken from
Cic. Cat. 3. 19, although the order of portents is modiWed.
the Lydian haruspex of Etruscan descent There was a persistent
belief that the Etruscans came from Lydia (e.g. Herod. 1. 94). See
Briquel 1991: esp. 484; for summary of the archaeological evidence
on indigenous development of Etruscan sites from late Bronze Age,
see Moser 1996: 2943, which linguistic considerations make probable (L. B. van der Meer, BABesch 79 (2004), 517). After the
lightning strikes of 65 the Senate formally consulted the haruspices
(Cic. Cat. 3. 19), who interpreted them as portending destruction,
Wre, the overthrow of law, civil war, and the end of Rome and her
empire, and recommended speciWc actions in procuratio (see below).
The term haruspex is compared by Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(2. 22. 3) with the Greek hieroskopos, an etymology defended by
E. Peruzzi (PP 24 (1969), 533) and O. Szemerenyi (Hermes 103
(1975), 310). Dion. Hal., though, confuses haruspices with augurs
in the precise context, which points not to a simple error, but to
a desire to see all Roman institutions with Greek links or origins
(cf. Vaahtera 2001: 757). The most plausible ancient etymology
(Velius Longus, GL 7 p. 73; cf. Festus 89 L) is with an archaic
term for sacriWcial victim, aruiga (Ernout/Meillet 1959: 28990;
Walde-Hofmann 1938: 6356).
your year of oYce piled up and brought to fulWlment Cic. may be
a little disingenuous in appropriating the referents of these
prodigies for his own year of oYce because he had alleged (e.g. Cat.
152
Commentary
1. 15; Mur. 81) a plot by Catiline in 65 against Cotta and Torquatus.

However, it glamorizes and gloriWes Cic.s consulship, the real purpose of the poem.
struck his own hills and his own temples and hurled his Wres at his
Capitoline seat Cf. Cic. Cat. 3. 19: several objects on the Capitol
were struck from heaven. The Capitol was most closely associated
with Jupiter. The plurals hills and temples are poetic, not
a reference to the Capitol and the arx or some other hill or temple.
Lightning strikes on temples were not infrequent (29 instances in
Livy), due often to their elevated position and always to the metallic
features such as statues on roofs. Cf. John Lyd. Ost. 102 W: if
lightning strikes a temple, danger will fall upon the leading men of
the state and on those in the royal court, a speciWc reference to the
Catilinarian conspiracy by Nigidius Figulus in his collection
of portents and manipulation of Etruscan lightning lore (Weinstock
1951: 1401).
Then fell the ancient and revered bronze image of Natta Cf. Cic.
Cat. 3. 19: statues of men of old were cast down, a generalizing
plural. The location of this statue, its age, and the precise identity of
the honorand, beyond his membership of the gens Pinaria (Div. 2.
47) are all obscure (Sehlmeyer 1999: 12931). Cf. John Lyd. Ost. 102
W: if lightning is directed against statues, it threatens various and
continuous disasters for public business, again from Nigidius.
laws long hallowed were liqueWed Cf. Cic. Cat. 3. 19: bronze
[tablets] of laws were liqueWed, Dio 37. 9. 2: the letters on
the columns on which the laws were inscribed became blurred and
indistinct, Obseq. 61: bronze tables of laws with their letters liqueWed.
Something more dramatic would be expected if these were the famous
Twelve Tables; rather these are one or more of the many bronze
tablets set up on the Capitol from the 5th cent. onwards which
constituted a powerful symbolic display of the permanence of the
laws and of their sacredness (C. A. Williamson, CA 6 (1987), 16083).
statues of gods The plural appears also in Cic. Cat. 3. 19, but Cic.
goes on here to speak only of the statue of Jupiter (see on 1. 20).
Commentary
153
20. Mars wood-haunting nurse of the Roman nation . . . Cf. Cic.

Cat. 3. 19; Dio 37. 9. 1; Obseq. 61. According to Livy (10. 23. 12), in
296 the Ogulnii brothers set up at the Wcus Ruminalis a bronze statue
of the wolf with Romulus and Remus at her teats, or rather added the
twins beneath the pre-existing statue of a wolf. The Wcus Ruminalis
(LTUR ii. 249) was in the Lupercal beneath the SW slope of the
Palatine. An ancient statue group stood there (Dion. Hal. 1. 79. 8)
which is best identiWed with the Ogulnian group (cf. Wiseman 1995:
756). If, however, the location of the statue group struck in 65 was,
as Cic. suggests (here) the Capitol, it cannot be identiWed with the
Ogulnian group and its history becomes obscure. Cf. John Lyd. Ost.
102 W: since in as much as the statues were regarded by the ancients
as representations of some realities and as adornments to cities,
damage to them involved a curse on [the citys] aVairs.
The wolf preserved in the Capitoline Museum is Etruscan from the
late 6th or early 5th cent. Her distended teats and posture indicate
that originally she was not represented as suckling cubs or Romulus
and Remus; the twins were added at a later stage, perhaps during the
Renaissance. Damage on the back legs of the statue has been thought
consistent with the eVects of lightning, but recent chemical analysis
has revealed no trace of gilding; hence, unless Dios attribution of this
is incorrect, the Capitoline wolf was not struck by lightning. See
Dulie`re 1979: esp. 2864; Parisi Presicce 2000: 5391; L. Rebaudo,
PP 58 (2003), esp. 31925.
foreboding words from the Etruscan pages After these lightning
strikes had been reported and the Senate had judged them to be
portents that pertained to the state, the haruspices were asked to
interpret their meaning and to recommend propitiatory actions
(procuratio) to restore the gods goodwill (see Thulin 1905: 11517;
1909: 7981). In this case they will have consulted the libri fulgurales
(lightning books), a repository of lore compiled over many centuries,
but by 65 modiWed under the inXuence of both Greek philosophy
and astrology (Weinstock 1951: 12253).
a huge disaster and evil . . . begun from noble ancestry was
looming The conspiracy of L. Sergius Catilina, a dissatisWed member of a patrician gens (cf. Sall. Cat. 5. 1). Although some have
154
Commentary
preferred a wider reference to the whole patriciate (see Pease), Cic.

would not have sought to alienate this inXuential section of the
Roman elite; an emphasis on some of the conspirators nobility is,
however, evident in the popularis Sallust (e.g. Cat. 52. 24). Cf. John
Lyd. Ost. 105 W: if lightning strikes a public spot, a shameless young
man will lay hands on the kingdom, with the accompaniment of
desperate and corrupt men, which appears to be a speciWc reference
to Catiline by Nigidius.
All editors accept that the MSS have inverted two lines. With
Courtney (1993: 168; cf. Timpanaro), I follow the emendation of
Baehrens (volvier) for the varied oVerings of the MSS (vir AV2 ; viri H;
vire B1; vitare B2). For the necessary present inWnitive, instare, the
suggestion of Giomini (1979: 32932) has been accepted by
Schaublin. With Soubiran, however, I retain the ingentem of the
MSS, rather than the emendation in gentem (Ed. Rom. 1471; cf.
O. Plasberg, RhM 53 (1898), 957), which is an improbable description for the Roman people, and take the adjective apo koinou.
in unvarying terms they announced the overthrow of the laws A
simple interpretation of the melting of the bronze tables recording
laws (1. 19). Cf. John Lyd. Ost. 101 W: if it is directed against
a political or public spot, it shows civil wars, insurrections and the
overthrow of the constitution.
Xames . . . a terrible slaughter and massacre Cic. alleged that the
conspirators planned to set Wre to Rome on the night of 16 Dec. and
then to murder the magistrates and senators (Cat. 3. 21, 4. 2; cf. Sall.
Cat. 32. 2, 43). Jupiters sending of Wre and the aurora (see 1. 18
shimmering comets) was to portend Catilines arson and massacre
respectively.
determined by an unyielding fate unless Cf. Cic. Cat. 3. 19: unless
the immortal gods were placated by every means and by their own
power virtually altered destiny itself . These words illustrate
a combination of Roman belief, in which prodigies simply
announced that the gods were angry and that evil would follow
unless propitiatory action were taken, with the Stoic concept of
determinism.
Commentary
155
a holy and well-proportioned statue of Jupiter . . . set up on a high

column and looked to the bright east Cic. Cat. 3. 20: [the haruspices] ordered a larger statue of Jupiter to be made, set up in a more
elevated position and to be turned towards the east, the opposite
direction to that of its predecessor (cf. Dio 37. 9. 2). The statue was
not relocated to the forum (Div. 2. 47; Dio 37. 34. 3; contra Obseq.
61). If elevation (columen) refers to a column (explicitly so Obseq.),
this is the only deWnite literary or epigraphic reference to a statue of
a god on a column in Rome from the Republic or Early Empire
(Welin 1953: 1556). Resiting to a higher position was also
prescribed for the statue of Horatius which stood in the Comitium
(Aul. Gell. 4. 5. 14), probably at some stage early in the 3rd cent.
(MacBain 1982: 545; cf. Frier 1979: 5664, for a date 475450). The
orientation has been interpreted as a reference to Pompeys eastern
activities (G. Ammon, BBG 53 (1917), 295301; idem, PhW 38
(1918), 565) or symbolically of facing the city and institutions
which the god was to defend (Soubiran) or the direction from
which the enemy was expected (cf. Zon. 8. 1). However, the Etruscan
conception of the east as propitious probably oVers a better
explanation, and requires no manipulation by Cic. (pace Guillaumont 1984: 27 n. 30).
the people and holy Senate . . . Cf. Cic. Cat. 3. 20: they said they
hoped that, if that statue you now see could look upon the sunrise
and the forum and Senate-house, the plans which had been hatched
against the safety of the city and empire would be brought to the
light, so that they could be seen by the Senate and people, and
3. 21; Dio 37. 34. 34. This is an accurate representation of the
haruspices explanation, rather than an ex tempore creation by Cic.
as he addressed the people on 3 Dec. Formal responses from the
haruspices provided a detailed exegesis of the prodigies on which they
were reporting (see Cic. Har. Resp. 201, 40; Bloch 1963: 4955).
Holy Senate became a frequent expression under the Principate
(D. Kienast, Chiron 15 (1985), 25382).
21. This statue . . . was Wnally set up in its exalted position . . . the
Allobroges In response to the haruspices prescription, the consuls
of 65 let the contract for the relocation of the statue, but only on
156
Commentary
3 Dec. 63 was it raised into place. Cic. Cat. 3. 21: Is it not, then, clear
that it was brought about by the will of Jupiter Best and Greatest that,
when early this morning on my order the conspirators and those who
informed on them were led through the forum into the temple of
Concord, at that very moment the statue was being set up? When it
had been relocated and turned towards you and the Senate, both you
and the Senate saw everything that had been devised against the
safety of everyone revealed and illuminated, cf. Dio 37. 34. 34.
A group of ambassadors from the Allobroges, a tribe of southern
Gaul, in Rome to petition the Senate for redress against the depredations of tax-collectors, were recruited for the conspiracy, but
turned informer, enabling incriminating material to be captured on
the evening of 2 Dec. at the Milvian Bridge (Sall. BC 401). On the
next day the Allobroges and the written evidence were brought by
Cic. before the Senate and then he addressed the people (the Third
Catilinarian), relating the whole tale and playing up the religious
aspects, particularly the role of Jupiter, the coincidence of the
statues erection, and the conclusive revelation of the conspiracy.
For his command of theatre and possible involvement in the timing
of the statues re-erection, see Vasaly 1993: 817.
21. So . . . The Wnal section of the quotation falls into two parts:
Wrst a carefully balanced (rightly . . . rightly) celebration of the
devotion to religion of Greek and Roman precursors of Cic., in
both political and philosophical manifestations; secondly speciWc
praise of Cic., who had exerted himself in 63 and whose relative
relaxation in the context of 60 permitted him to give more attention
to the Muses, i.e. to writing this poem (cf. Cic. Att. 1. 19. 10, 2. 3. 4).
the ancients, whose writings you know The contrast with your (see
below) suggests that Greeks are meant, in particular great legislators
such as Lycurgus, Solon, and Zaleucus (cf. Soubiran 1972; Courtney
1993: 169). The speciWc qualities of moderation and virtue would
seem to exclude the Etruscans (pace Timpanaro), who, though religious, have no particular reputation for them, and Homer (pace
Thoresen), because he did not rule a city. The expression quorum
monumenta tenetis is capable of a range of meanings (cf. whose
precepts you uphold, Timpanaro; of whom you preserve tangible
Commentary
157
reminders, Soubiran 1972). But if the ancients means early Greek

legislators, the primary meaning of monumenta should be the written
records they left behind or the historical traditions about them; only
in a secondary sense, if at all, should it mean the notion of preserving
their example.
your compatriots
Romans.
Vestri (literally your people) means the
piety and faithfulness Two of the main virtues on which the

Romans prided themselves. They were considered responsible for
their unique relationship with the gods on which depended the
existence of their empire. The idea is seen most clearly in words
attributed to Q. Marcius Philippus: for the gods support piety and
good faith, qualities through which the Roman people has reached so
great an eminence (Livy 44. 1. 11). Piety (pietas), was primarily ones
duty owed to the gods, seen in the maintenance and defence of
traditional worship, although it was often extended to include duty
to family and the state (see Wagenvoort 1980: 715; Weinstock
1971: 24859). Although good faith (Wdes) applied primarily to
relationships on the human level, the keeping of ones word was
guaranteed by the gods and was inseparably linked to respect for
the gods (Freyburger 1986): esp. 2225).
whose wisdom far surpasses all Cf. Cic. Har. Resp. 19: in piety and
religion and in this particular wisdom, that we see that all things are
governed and controlled by divine power, we have surpassed all
peoples and nations. Roman wisdom was not philosophy, but
a practical virtue displayed in politics and government (Cic. Rep.
1. 3). The Wrst known celebration of the quality is in the funeral
speech for L. Caecilius Metellus delivered in 221 bc (Plin. HN 7. 139)
and the verse elogium of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus calls him
sapiens (CIL i2. 7). See Klima 1971.
before all else worship the gods The earliest extant expression of
the Romans belief in their superior devotion to the gods appears in
M. Valerius Messalas letter to Teos, in 193 (IGRRP 4. 1557), and in
extant literature Wrst in Polybius discussion (6. 56. 6) of Romes
158
Commentary
distinctiveness. Cic. is familiar with the idea (e.g. Har. Resp. 19; ND
2. 8) and it is commonplace thereafter (e.g. Val. Max. 1. 1. 8; see
R. Much, ANRW ii/16/1. 2918).
whose power is eYcacious In attributing to the gods eVective
power (numen), Cic. underlines their powerful inXuence on human
life, in line with conventional piety and in contrast to the gods in
Epicurean thought.
Those who joyfully occupied their leisure Cic. deliberately contrasts the philosophers life of contemplation and study with that of
the politician. The former enjoys and uses his otium constructively
(see Andre 1966: esp. 2812). Cic. singles out Plato and Aristotle by
reference to the name of their respective schools (see on 1. 8).
22. shady Academe Platos Academy, situated in a grove sacred to
Academus, was famous for its trees (Ar. Nub. 1005; Diog. Laert. 3. 7),
but many had been cut down shortly before Cic.s visit to Athens in
the early 70s by Sulla (Plut. Sull. 12. 3).
dazzling Lyceum Originally a gymnasium founded by Pericles.
Dazzling refers both to the oil which covered the gymnasts, and to
the splendour of the physical building, in contrast with the Academy.
poured out brilliant theories from their fertile genius Rather than
any speciWc works, e.g. of Platos (Leg. 884a V.) and Aristotle (Pol.
1331b4), where worship of the gods was particularly upheld, this
praise is general. For Pease, the verbal similarities with 1. 18 suggest
that Cic. contrasts the clarity of philosophy with the arcane warnings
of the seers, but such a note is inappropriate when he has just
recorded the clear warnings and interpretations of the haruspices.
Your country set you . . . In 79, at the age of 27, Cic. undertook
a trip to Athens, where he spent six months studying at the Old
Academy under Antiochus (Cic. Brut. 315) and Philo (Cic. Tusc. 2. 9)
and also listened to the Epicurean philosophers Phaedrus and Zeno
(Cic. Fin. 1. 16); then he spent time on Rhodes studying rhetoric
under Molo, but also heard Posidonius lecture (Plut. Cic. 4. 4). In 77
Commentary
159
he returned to Rome in order to stand for the quaestorship of 76.

This description of the sudden abandonment of philosophy is not
historical, as the elections of 77 were the Wrst for which Cic. was
eligible to stand and his philosophical studies and travel had been
planned as a mere interlude. For the elite Roman a political career,
which gave access to military power and glory, was paramount.
Cic. highlights a typical Roman contrast between a life of leisure,
even one devoted to intellectual pursuits, and the hurly-burly
of politics. I have tried to bring this out by representing the
etymology behind the Latin virtus, the quality of a man. See in
general W. Eisenhut, Virtus Romana: ihre Stellung im romischen
Wertsystem (Munich, 1973).
the time which is not taken up by your country you have devoted to
these pursuits The MSS reading patriae vocatis has to be emended,
but what we understand Cic. to be saying will determine the solution.
Two meanings are possible: (i) the view he expresses elsewhere (OV.
2. 4; cf. Div. 2. 7; De or. 1. 3), that, as he is engaged in politics, he can
devote only his leisure time to philosophy; or (ii) that during an
enforced period of relaxation he gives to philosophy what is, or
which would be, available for politics (but his country doesnt
want). The second is less likely, because in 60 Cic. was still active in
Roman politics, as his letters to Atticus show (e.g. Att. 1. 17. 89),
although it could be argued that his having the time to write
Consulatus Suus was possible only through the failure of his political
ambitions and his exclusion from real inXuence. In De Legibus (1. 9),
Cic. clearly shows how politics takes priority, but that he busily
devotes his spare time to writing.
Vacat his is the best correction of vocatis (cf. Ax, Giomini, Timpanaro, Courtney 1993: 170), although Madvigs vacat id is possible
(cf. Pease, Soubiran 1972, Schaublin). If we read quod patriae vacat
(what is available for the country), this cannot be translated as
what the country leaves available (pace Soubiran 1972, Timpanaro,
Schaublin), but gives the very opposite sense. On the other hand,
reading with Courtney (1993: 170) quod patria vocat (what calls you
from the fatherland) presents philosophy and art in a way unparalleled in Cic. Best is to follow Davies, reading quod patria vacat what
is not taken up by the country.
160
Commentary
and to us Urania speaks of herself and the other Muses.

So, will you be able to . . . speak against my arguments on divination Quintus ad hominem argument against Marcus is restated,
looking back to 1. 17. Quintus will return to the question of the
apparent contradiction between Marcus Academic attitude towards
divination and the views he expresses elsewhere (cf. 1. 33, 72).
Marcus quotes Quintus words here (2. 46) in his unsatisfactory
response to the ad hominem argument.
you who have done . . . and have written Quintus words are
carefully formulated, in that he brings into play not just Cic.s literary
production, but also his actions, in eVect what he said to the people in
the Third Catilinarian and any possible manipulation of the timing of
the statues relocation. Secondly he treats Cic.s poem very seriously,
saying it was written with the greatest of care. While this can be
a comment on purely poetic considerations such as vocabulary, style,
and metre, it emphasizes that Cic.s presentation of the portents
was signiWcant, and, within a Stoicizing philosophical framework,
was not unintentional or careless. It requires, then, a considered
response from Marcus (but does not get one at 2. 467).
23. You ask, Carneades . . . I say that you yourself see them
happen For Carneades, see on 1. 7. This apostrophe of Carneades
serves to refocus the argument on the last point made in the divisio
(1. 12) after the lengthy distraction of the poetic quotation.
Carneades countered the arguments of Chrysippus and Antipater,
dismissing what they called divination as chance (cf. 2. 478),
and denying that divination was an art (techne), as it had no area
in which it could rightfully operate (cf. 2. 9, 14). Quintuss
answer is directed towards the Wrst of Carneades points only and
reiterates his basic argument that he cannot explain how (cf. 1.
12, 15, 16), but that empirically divination works, the locus de
ignorantia.
By chance, you say The Wrst appearance of chance in the dialogue, employed repeatedly by Marcus in book 2 (27, 39, 47, 48, 52,
62, 66, 67, 75, 83, 121, 141).
Commentary
161
Can anything happen by chance which bears upon itself all the
marks of truth? Quintus introduces four examples involving questions of probability in various forms: (i) dice throws, (ii) paint
spatterings, (iii) an animal writing, and (iv) a naturally occurring
sculpture of artistic quality. It is not clear how scientiWcally Cic.
(or his source) distinguished the kinds of probability involved, as
the mathematical techniques of informal probability theory were not
devised until the mid-17th cent. ad (O. Ore, American Mathematical
Monthly 47 (1960), 40919). Among Cic.s examples (i) and (iii)
need to be distinguished from (ii) and (iv) in two aspects: Wrst,
(ii) and (iv) are concerned with the probability of explanations
for phenomena which have occurred, and in which subjective
criteria are essential for assessing them; (i) and (iii) concern the
theoretical probability of events which have not occurred. In (i)
the theoretical probability is straightforwardly calculable, i.e. reducible to a mathematical equation, with one answer; for (iii) a deWnite
answer would be possible if the number of words in the total Latin
vocabulary, that is all sequences of characters with meaning, were
knowable at any moment. Quintus must argue that chance is not
responsible for the appearance of (ii) and (iv) and that (i) and (iii)
could not happen by chance. But (ii) and (iv) are weak examples, as
the conclusion to the chapter admits, for it is surely the case that
chance never imitates reality perfectly; and for (iv), in addition to
the incalculability of how a rock might split or be formed, artistic
aspects predominate which are not reducible to numbers.
Although Carneades name is attached explicitly only to the last
argument, it is probable that he used all of them. The third needs
only a minor alteration to create a Latin example (cf. Pease on Cic.
ND 2. 93).
Mark (numerus), literally number, is Cic.s equivalent of arithmos,
a commonplace among the Stoics in the sense of a perfect Wt (Stob. 2.
93 W; cf. Cic. Fin. 3. 24). It may derive ultimately from Pythagorean
number theory (cf. Dyck 1996: 514).
Four dice cast produce by chance a Venus throw The word Cic.
uses for dice (talus) indicates that this was the astragal (or knucklebone), a four-sided, rectangular block-shaped die with rounded ends
162
Commentary
(see F. Graf, Rolling the Dice for an Answer, in Johnstone and Struck
2005: 60). Suetonius (d H, p. 67 Taillardat) reveals that
the two pairs of opposite sides bore the numbers 1 and 6, 3 and 4
respectively. The luckiest throw, in which each die fell with a diVerent
face upmost (Mart. 14. 14; Lucian, Amor. 16), was called Venus. The
mathematical probability of such a throw is not easily calculable
because astragals were asymmetrical, the broader sides being given
the values 1 and 6, but empirical studies suggest an actual probability
of about 1/26 (Sambursky 1956: 45).
surely you dont think it would be chance, if you threw 400 dice and
got 100 Venus throws? This kind of argument goes back at least as
far as Aristotle (Cael. 292a29). The odds of this are something around
1 10100. Despite the theoretical foundations in Stoic thought and
the great opportunity for repeated observations of dice throwing
which could have produced quantitative results, neither the Greeks
nor Romans discovered a mathematical concept of probability
(Sambursky 1956: 468). Although it has been suggested that there
was some instinctive feeling about probability (David 1962: 24),
Cic. may here envisage one unique event rather than a class of
similar events (J. van Brakel, Archive for History of Exact Sciences
16 (1976), 126).
Paint sprayed at random on a canvas can form the outlines of
a face Quintus argument is to some degree countered by examples
known to the ancients in which a sponge thrown in frustration
produced the eVect of foaming sweat which the painter had been
unable to produce by his art, and where they attribute it to chance:
Nealces horse (Plin. HN 35. 104; Plut. Mor. 99b), Protogenes dog
(Plin. HN 35. 103), and Apelles horse (Dio Chrys. 63. 45;
Sext. Emp. Pyrr. 1. 28). However, none of these parallels involves
human representation, which may be considered of a diVerent order
to sweat.
the beauty of the Venus of Cos The 4th cent. painter Apelles began
a painting of Aphrodite hoping to surpass his famous Aphrodite
Anadyomene, but died before it could be completed. In Cic.s
writings this picture is a standard example of an artistic masterpiece
Commentary
163
(Orat. 5; ND 1. 75; OV. 3. 10; Fam. 1. 9. 15), its choice perhaps

inXuenced by Ciceronian autopsy on his return from Cilicia in 50
(suggested by Pease on ND 1. 75). Cic. is not thinking of the
Aphrodite Anadyomene (see J.-M. Croisille, Pline lAncien: Histoire
Naturelle livre XXXV (Paris, 1985), 203).
If a sow should form the letter A on the ground with its
snout . . . The idea of the impossibility of random letters coming
together to create literary works was a commonplace (cf. Cic. ND 2.
93; Plut. Mor. 399e). Pease wrongly lays the stress on the sow, as
a proverbially stupid animal, rather than on the type of probability
involved in the creation of a speciWc sequence of letters in a system
where, unlike the throwing of dice, not all combinations are possible.
By comparison with the 100 Venus throws, the degree of probability
involved is inWnitely small.
Ennius Andromache Ennius tragedy survives only in fragmentary
quotations, mostly in Cic. (cf. Jocelyn 1967: 8193). Repeated quotations and the exclamation o outstanding poet (Tusc. 3. 445) demonstrate Cic.s admiration for the work.
when a stone was split open in the quarries of Chios the head of
a young Pan appeared Chios was famous for its marble (e.g.
Theophr. Lap. 7), a variegated form (Plin. HN 36. 46). A similar story
of a Silenus Wgure in the quarries of Paros (Plin. HN 36. 14), a work
which may be identiWable with a relief group found at the entrance
to a Parian quarry, has suggested an emendation of Chiorum to
Pariorum (F. Osann, RhM 1 (1832), 41722), but this is not necessary.
I accept that there was some such resemblance In this example
there is no question of calculable probability, and the large element of
artistic subjectivity necessary for the assessment of the occurrence
renders it the weakest for the cases of both Carneades and Quintus.
But each addressed it in a diVerent way: for Carneades what matters
is that by chance something can be produced which approximates to
the truth, i.e. in this instance that some people could see a likeness of
Pan, whereas the Stoics emphasized the diVerence between what was
produced by chance and by art.
164
Commentary
Scopas Scopas is an appropriate example of excellence in

sculpture (cf. Mart. 4. 39. 3) for, although no deWnite Pan or Silenus
can be attributed to him, his speciality seems to have been younger
divinities. For the ancient testimonia, see A. F. Stewart 1977: 12735.
chance never imitates reality perfectly Quintus argument is speciously attractive, because in the two examples from art chance could
not produce a representation of the quality expected from human
art. When applied to divination the analogy must be that there are
examples of divination in which the correlation between prediction
and outcome is so close that chance is excluded. Perhaps examples
from art are appropriate in another way, in that both the artist and
god have intention.
24. But sometimes what has been predicted does not come to
pass The objection to which Quintus devotes more attention
begins here and forces him in eVect to qualify the presentation of
divination resulting from Cic.s poem: there he demonstrated
a perfect correspondence between prediction and outcome, but the
wider reality of divinatory practice suggests that there are predictions
which do not come true. Quintus concedes this again twice during
his argument (1. 124, 128). For Carneades such failures demonstrate
that divination is not an art or technique.
What art, I ask you, does not experience this? Quintus argument
is to proceed by analogy with other arts/techniques, which, in their
ancient manifestations at least, were stochastic, notably medicine.
Stoic deWnitions of an art (techne) go back to Zeno: a system of
apprehensions uniWed by practice towards an end useful in life (e.g.
Lucian, Par. 4; cf. Sext. Emp. Math. 2. 10, quoted at 1. 1 presentiment); and for the Stoics the interpretation of divinatory signs was
such a techne. Although it can be argued that a 100 per cent success rate
would, in fact, constitute prima facie grounds for doubting whether
[such an art] has any real content to it (Hankinson 1988: 146), the
parallel with medicine is not unproblematical: no ancient philosopher questioned that medicine was a techne because it did not always
yield the correct results, but objections to divination were more
fundamental (C. Levy 1997: 3412). On a minimalist deWnition of
Commentary
165
a techne, however, such as that in Platos Politicus (284e) the practice

of Roman augury, for example, could be considered a techne and
there were appealing parallels between the practice of medicine and
that of some types of artiWcial divinationa reliance on signs or
symptoms and an understanding that neither of these was the cause
(Kany-Turpin 2003b: 645).
those arts which are based on conjecture and involve opinion The
Wrst two elements of Cic.s term conjecture (coniectura) calque the
Greek symbolon, but the Latin suYx -ura adds a highly appropriate
notion of process (see E. Zellmer, Die lateinischen Worter auf -ura
(Frankfurt, 1976) ). The Greek verb symballo is used in the sense of
conjecture or interpret as applied to divination from the 5th cent.
(e.g. Eur. IT 55; Plato Cra. 384a; Arist. fr. 532 R). A root sense has been
sought in the notion of physically casting lots (G. P. Shipp, CR 51
(1937), 11; e.g. Plaut. Cas. 342). In the more technical sense relevant
here, it equates with the Greek term stochasmos. Conjecture is the
process within artiWcial divination (cf. 1. 34, 2. 26) whereby the
diviner deals with a divinatory phenomenon for which there are no
exact parallels recorded in the lore of his art (see Linderski 1986a:
22312; Allen 2001: 1667). In such cases the diviner has to extrapolate from the closest parallels he has. Conjecture in this sense, then, is
not an uninformed guess, but the application of rationality to a body
of data. As such it cannot guarantee the result; a stochastic techne is
one whose theorems admit of exceptions or imperfections (Hankinson 1988: 146 n. 92) and does not produce a distinct physical
product, but instead aims at a goal clearly distinguishable from the
practice of the art itself (Sellars 2003: 70); it should, though, be
successful for the most part to qualify as a techne (cf. Alex. Aphrod.
in An. Pr. 165). Opinion (opinabilis) translates the Greek doxastos
(cf. Cic. Tim. 3) or oiesis (cf. Plat. Phdr. 244c). Opinion should not in
this context be distinguished from conjecture as something inferior.
Rather, Cic. duplicates the terms here and at the end of 1. 24 to
underline that artiWcial divination is empirical and relies on a large,
human element of interpretation.
Is medicine not to be considered an art? The context in which this
same argument is also made (ND 2. 12, 3. 15) suggests that the
166
Commentary
argument was made also by Posidonius. Although Hippocrates

acknowledged that medicine and divination were closely related
([Ep]. 15), he warned that the art of medicine was denied by the
foolish because the opinions of its practitioners seemed to be as
obscure and contradictory as those of diviners (Acut. 8). Galen
clearly distanced medicine from divination (e.g. 8. 362, 18b. 246,
300 K) and held conjecture to be a vital technique of the doctor (e.g.
6. 3601, 9. 2778, 10. 206, 6645, 8067, 17b. 382 K), but denied
that medicine was a stochastic art.
the pilots of so many ships, did they not set sail from Troy. Quintus
Wrst example comes from the heroic age and as such is unhistorical,
but that is not crucial to the argument, as Quintus could have
presented any number of examples of storm and shipwreck. Rather
Cic. puts literary considerations to the fore, presenting a renowned
passage. Apart from speeches between 56 and 54, Cic.s forensic
oratory reveals little quotation of older Latin poets; however his
philosophical and rhetorical works of those same years, beginning
with De Oratore, are replete with quotations. See D. R. Shackleton
Bailey, ICS 8 (1983), 23949.
happy at leaving . . . The attribution of these verses to Pacuvius
Teucer is generally accepted (see D Anna 1967: 155). Cic. quotes
the Wrst two lines indirectly, but their poetic form as trochaic
septenarii can be restored simply. The next two lines, quoted directly,
come from a famous passage which he employed previously (De or.
3. 157).
Pacuvius M. Pacuvius of Brundisium, nephew of Ennius, born
c.220, wrote at least thirteen tragedies, eight of which have titles
connected with the Trojan War. Cic. considered him the Wnest of
Romes tragedians (Opt. Gen. 24), perhaps because his works best
fulWlled Aristotles criteria for tragedy (A. Traglia, Ciceroniana 5
(1984), 5567). See Manuwald 2003.
the shipwreck of so many illustrious leaders and kings The storm,
described by Homer (Od. 3. 17685), Virgil (Aen. 1. 3945), and in
goriest detail by Quintus of Smyrna (14. 422628), occurred oV
Commentary
167
Euboea. Although many lost their lives, the only major casualty was
Ajax, son of Oileus.
the Wnest of generals recently lost his army and Xed Science
(scientia) is a simple variation for art (ars) rather than implying
something more sophisticated (Timpanaro). This seems to be
a reference to Pompeys defeat at Pharsalus in 48, for which recently
is appropriate in the context of 45 or 44. Although Pompey appears
by name in the next sentence in another category, he is the best
candidate for the description the Wnest of generals (summus imperator) here. Cic. accords him the accolade in Pro Fonteio (exc.
Cusana 8), but also distributes it widely (e.g. Verr. 2. 4. 75; Mur. 20).
is there no method or wisdom for governing a state Quintus
culminating example of an empirical science, that of government,
is the least common in professional lists, although it has a good
philosophical pedigree going back to Plato.
Cn. Pompey has made many errors Cn. Pompeius Magnus (Pompey), the great general and leader of the Optimate cause against
Caesar. Cic.s correspondence is full of criticism of Pompeys political
acumen (e.g. Att. 1. 13. 4, 2. 16. 2). Quintus may have in mind the
abandonment of Italy to Caesar in 49 (cf. Att. 9. 10. 2; Fam. 7. 3. 2); if
the notion of an intertextual reference to a Ciceronian work that was
not published is plausible, then Quintus criticism of Pompeys
restoration of tribunician powers in 70 may be in view (Leg. 3. 22;
see Dyck 2004: 503).
Cato a few M. Porcius Cato, the Stoic-inXuenced politician whose
moral authority Cic. admired, but whose intransigence on points of
principle Cic. criticized both publicly (e.g. Mur. 60) and privately
(e.g. Att. 1. 17. 9, 2. 1. 8). After his heroic death for the Republic
following his defeat at Thapsus in 46, Cic.s references to him are
marked by general admiration (e.g. OV. 1. 112; Fin. 3. 6), although
his Xaws are not totally concealed (OV. 3. 88). Cic.s own Cato was
crucial in the development of the legend of Cato, establishing him as
the Roman model of the Stoic sage (Div. 2. 3; cf. Goar 1987: 1315; in
general, Fehrle 1983).
168
Commentary
even you yourself one or two? For Pease the climax contributes to
the eVect of an indirect boast hardly again equalled until Plin. Ep. 9.
23. 6, but this misses the irony of the progression from many
through a few to one or two. Through the character of Quintus
Cic. can look back at his own career and oVer in eVect a more critical
view than he could directly. Perhaps Cic. alludes to his frequent
over-estimation of his own inXuence and of the power of words
against the sword, to humiliations such as the palinode he was
forced to sing, retracting his criticisms of Caesar (Att. 4. 5. 1). In
the context of a retirement from politics caused in some degree by
Cic.s own political errors, a brothers gentle irony gains extra point.
The response of haruspices and every kind of divination involving
opinion is similar i.e. all kinds of artiWcial divination. The prominence given to haruspicy here reXects the role it played in the events
of 63 and its growing relative popularity in the 1st cent. (cf. 1. 28).
it depends on conjecture, beyond which it cannot go Quintus sets
out clearly the limits of artiWcial divination: certainty is impossible
because there is no simple connection between the sign and the
signiWed, and the diviner can only extrapolate from similar examples.
25. on most occasions directs us to the truth Cf. Quintilians deWnition of coniectura (Inst. 3. 6. 30): conjecture is so called from
throwing together, that is from some directing of the rational faculties to the truth. Quintus formulation is cautious, but requires that
divination usually provides the correct answer (cf. 1. 118 not often).
it stretches back over the whole of time This anticipates Quintus
description of the immortality of the soul (1. 115). Despite periodic
destructions of matter, including human soul matter (see on 1. 111),
the same divine mind controls the universe and operates in the same
rational way in each dispensation. Despite this consistent rational
principle, portents and auspices with no exact precedent could occur,
and a role for conjecture exists.
an art has been constituted through the repeated observation and
recording of the same signs Cf. Cic. Div. 1. 2, 2. 146; ND 2. 166;
Commentary
169
Manil. 1. 612. These observations formed the basis of the books of

the augurs and haruspices (and astrologers) to which they referred in
order to interpret a speciWc sign.
25b33 Now that Quintus has demonstrated to his own
satisfaction that the second objection of Carneades has been disposed
of and that divination is a genuine art, he proceeds to illustrate the
eYcacy of augury through a series of prominent examples. This is in
eVect a continuation of the locus de ignorantia with an emphasis on
the outcomes of the various divinatory events. Quintus concludes
this part of the argument with the form of divination that was most
highly esteemed by the Romans and that played a prominent role in
all their public decision-making processes; his examples are relevant
to both the military and civilian spheres of Roman public life.
Quintus examples implicitly support his arguments from
ubiquity (e consensu omnium) and antiquity (e vetustate), as they
encompass the non-Romans Deiotarus and Agamemnon and the full
sweep of Roman history from Romulus to Crassus. It has been
suggested, however, that they do not provide the strongest case
(cf. Pease: due to the failure to distinguish between their moral
and ideal worth (largely independent of their historicity) and their
value as evidence for facts which is what is here demanded). This
criticism is overly harsh for the most part: the purpose of the
very brief reference to Agamemnon (29) is primarily to permit
Quintus a literary quotation, but the example itself is swamped
by the contemporary examples of Deiotarus and Crassus which
occupy the greatest space in the argument. For Quintus and the
Roman reader, the examples of Claudius and Junius are guaranteed
by their place in the annalistic tradition. Moreover, Quintus two
examples from the regal period lay a particular emphasis on material
evidence: the survival of Romulus lituus down to the historical
period and the indisputable existence of the puteal in the Forum
marking Attus Navius feat. Quintus case pays particular attention to
the question of historicity, but his criteria for credibility are not those
of the 21st century.
There is, however, a tension between the examples Quintus
amasses and the historical reality of Roman augury in the 1st
cent., which is deliberately foregrounded in the argument: in
170
Commentary
contemporary Roman augury the traditional augural techniques

employed by various eastern peoples and the early Romans had
been abandoned. For Cic.s contemporaries the augural art was the
means of receiving from the gods a simple yes or no answer to the
question whether it was right to proceed with an action; the answer
received was not an infallible guide to whether the action would have
a positive outcome. This communication took place via a highly
formalized dialogue between the auspicant and his assistant, which
used only set phrases and was designed to assure a favourable
answer from the gods; the auspicant alone determined the sign and
the signiWcance to be attached to it. It was in this respect not
a conversation between a priest and the gods, but a dramatization
of the relationship between the state and the gods as the Romans
conceived it (Scheid 19879: 12735). The founding myth of this
view, according to which the gods were conceived as citizens,
celestial colleagues of the terrestrial magistrates, to whom they
usually subordinated themselves, may be seen in the the story of
Numas discussion with Jupiter on the Aventine (J. Scheid, Archives
de Sciences Sociales des Religions 59 (1985), 4153).
how trustworthy are your auspices! Again there is a deliberate
element of ad hominem argument because Marcus was a member
of the college of augurs. Cic. had aspired to membership from 59
(Att. 2. 5. 2) and took up the place of Crassus son on the nomination
of Pompey and Hortensius (Cic. Phil. 2. 4) in either 53 or 52
(cf. J. Linderski, HSCP 76 (1972), 190200 1995: 24050). Cic.s
enthusiasm for his new role may explain Appius Claudius dedication of his work on augury to Cic. (cf. Guillaumont 1984: 845).
At the present these are neglected by Roman augurs (I say this with
your permission) Quintus parenthesis is a literary device, encouraging the reader to connect other pessimistic statements in Cic.s
philosophical works about the practice of augury in his own day
(1. 28, cf. Leg. 2. 33; ND 2. 9: because of negligence by the nobility
augural lore is not kept up, the truth of auspices is despised, only the
outward show is retained). The practice of convening the comitia
curiata in the persons of representative lictors auspiciorum causa
caused similar comment a generation later (Dion. Hal. 2. 6. 2; cf.
Commentary
171
Cic. Leg. Agr. 2. 31; Vaahtera 2001: 1202). Quintus main point is
that the ancestral practice of augury through observing the sky had
been largely abandoned (cf. 1. 27, 28).
Cic.s words should not be taken to indicate the bankruptcy of the
state religion by the mid-1st cent. These and other comments, e.g.
Varro on the loss of several divinities (Ant. Div. fr. 2a, 12 C), are
overstated for literary eVect, an element of the pervasive belief in
moral decline from the 2nd cent. onwards. The 1st cent. produces
ample evidence of interest in religion by the Roman elite (cf. Momigliano 1984: 199211) and the notion of decline is very diYcult to
sustain for many aspects of Roman religious life in the Late Republic
(cf. BNP i. 11726). Membership of the augurate continued to be
a much desired honour in the 1st cent. and augural symbolism was
the most common of all priestly iconography on Roman coinage of
the period (cf. H. Lowalski, ACUSD 31 (1995), 1301). As Bendlin
argues (2000: esp. 1335), the disappearance of some religious
practices and their substitution by others is an indication of
a vibrant market in Roman religion, not evidence of decline.
preserved by the Cilicians, Pamphylians, Pisidians, and Lycians
To the three peoples associated with augury earlier (1. 2) is added
the Lycians, for whom there is no other ancient testimony of their
links with augury. For a survey of the divinatory practices of these
regions, revealing few speciWc references to augury, see R. Lebrun,
Kernos 3 (1990), 17595. For Quintus assertions that foreign
practice often surpassed Roman, see Krostenko 2000: 3614.
26. Deiotarus . . . never undertook anything without Wrst having
taken the auspices Deiotarus assistance to Cic. during his governorship of Cilicia (Cic. Deiot. 39) and his protection of Cic.s son and
nephew (Att. 5. 17. 3, 18. 4, 20. 9) explain the generous description.
Originally a tetrarch of the Tolistobogii, he was recognized as king of
Galatia by the Senate in 59; he supported Pompey in the Civil War
(see 1. 27) and was defended in a trial before Caesar by Cic. All of
Cic.s descriptions of Deiotarus present him as highly Romanized and
a good friend of Rome and Cicero (Saddington 1993: 8797). In his
extreme devotion to augury, however, he goes far beyond the Roman
norm. See Sullivan 1990: 51, 1649.
172
Commentary
warned by the Xight of an eagle, he had returned from a journey

Deiotarus will have taken the auspices before beginning his journey,
and have proceeded with the gods consent. Only while on the journey
does he receive the warning which saved his life, a class of omens
called enhodia. The eagle was the bird particularly associated with
Jupiter and was thought to be especially ominous for rulers (RE i.
3745), hence Deiotarus may have attached great signiWcance to it.
the room . . . collapsed the next night Melampus is alleged to
have escaped a similar fate (Schol. Hom. Od. 11. 287), but his
divinatory talents enabled him to interpret the conversation of
worms, something very diVerent from the augural techniques
employed by Deiotarus. A divine warning enabled Simonides to
escape a similar fate (e.g. Cic. De or. 2. 353).
27. as I used to hear from him in person Cf. Div. 2. 76. Probably
when Quintus accompanied Cic. to Cilicia in 5150. The Wrsthand
nature of this information is important in Quintus establishment of
the existence of divination.
The following saying of his is most remarkable Quintus presents
an example which is not apparently conducive to his case, in that
Deiotarus followed auspices which appeared favourable and yet
incurred severe personal losses, and which Marcus will deride
as ridiculous (Div. 2. 78). In Roman terms, however, Deiotarus
auspices need not be problematic in that they constitute only the
gods indication whether an action can be undertaken on a particular
day, not an opinion about the merits or demerits of the undertaking
itself (Linderski 1986b: 338 1995: 493).
after Caesar had deprived him of his tetrarchy, his kingdom, and
money Despite Deiotarus aid at the battle of Zela in 47, the tetrarchy of the Trocmi was given to Mithradates of Pergamum, and the
kingdom of Armenia Minor went to Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia
Div. (2. 79; Dio 41. 63. 3; Magie 1950: 41314). An indemnity was
also levied (cf. Cic. Deiot. 35; Phil. 2. 94), probably separate from
the general contributions required by Caesar (Dio 42. 6. 3). For
the relevance of this passage in dating De Divinatione, see introd., 6.
Commentary
173
he did not regret the auspices which were favourable as he set oV to

join Pompey These auspices were, in Roman terms, impetrative.
Deiotarus led a contingent of 600 cavalry to join Pompeys forces in
Greece in 48, commanding them in the defeat at Pharsalus
(Cic. Deiot. 13), after which he Xed with Pompey.
the authority of the Senate, the liberty of the Roman people, and the
prestige of the empire Deiotarus defence of the auspices and of his
own conduct invokes three of the shibboleths of Roman politics, each
of which was dear to Cic. himself. Although authority of the Senate
could be understood in a technical sense of a senatorial decree that
had been vetoed, it is better taken as a general reference to the
primacy of the Senate in the Roman political system and to its
prestige built up over 450 years of Republican government
(cf. Hellegouarch 1963: 31112). Liberty of the Roman people is
equivalent to the continuation of the Republic, i.e. the rejection of
domination by one man (cf. Wirszubski 1950: esp. 5). Prestige of the
empire is the least frequent of the three expressions to judge by
Cic.s speeches (e.g. Leg. Man. 11, 14; Leg. agr. 2. 65; Sest. 1). The
combination of all three expressions presents Deiotarus as a perfect
Roman nobleman, with views that Cic. himself shared.
on whose authority he had taken the course of duty and good
faith Cf. 2. 78: taking the course of good faith and friendship to
the Roman people, he performed his duty. As this gloss indicates,
Deiotarus presents himself as the dutiful client king of the Roman
people, rather than as loyal to the man who had extended his
territories and secured him the title of king (cf. Magie 1950:
3734). As such, he was fulWlling his legal obligations to the Senate
which had conWrmed his position in 59, giving him the title friend
and ally of the Roman people. Duty (oYcium) was the concrete
expression of friendship (Hellegouarch 1963: 1525). For good faith,
see on 1. 21.
a good reputation was dearer to him than his belongings Good
reputation (gloria), the reward for virtue, was another key concept
for the Roman politician, and the subject of a philosophical work by
Cic. written in mid-44. See Hellegouarch 1963: 36983.
174
Commentary
real augury . . . forced auspices Quintus applauds Deiotarus for

his refusal to resort to the methods adopted by Roman magistrates, which (he will show) were in violation of ancestral augural
practice. Forced (coactis) is a negative description (cf. 2. 714) of
one development relating to Roman impetrative auspices, which the
magistrate had to seek before any popular assembly (excluding the
concilium plebis), electoral or legislative, and the general (one endued
with imperium) was entitled to seek before any military engagement.
A description of the procedure in the military context exists from
Sabidius: before the battleline is drawn up he in whom resided
imperium and the right of auspices used to take the auspices seated
in his magisterial chair in a tent; in the presence of the army, when
the chickens had been freed from the cages and had been put in
position around his chair, he would say whoever of you sees tripudia
piled up, let him announce a good augury, a sinisterum solistimum.
Then when silence has been secured he sits down and says . . . (Schol.
Veron. Aen. 10. 241). For Quintus, the Romans perverted a legitimate
form of oblative auspices into impetrative auspices (cf. Valeton 1890:
21314), in which the gods could express their will only by causing
starved chickens to lose their appetite. The greater simplicity of the
procedure, however, in which no aerial templum needed to be
demarcated and the interpretation was given to only one action of
the chickens, made it more convenient to use, especially in the
military context. Although Scheid has suggested (orally) that
the practice of taking auspices in the traditional way had ceased by
the 1st cent., and that the auguracula constructed in Roman colonies
from this period (e.g. at Bantia) were used for chickens to run around
on and give signs by their movements, it is plausible to suggest that
for such rites as the augurium salutis (see on 1. 105), inaugurations,
and the major elections in Rome the traditional customs survived
(Regell 1893: 78).
it is necessary for some of the dough . . . to fall from the beak of the
chicken The augurs had originally considered it propitious when
something fell to the ground of its own will, an oblative auspice. In
relation to birds, this would occur when one ate enthusiastically
and pieces of its food fell to the ground, and perhaps it also made
a noise. To ascertain the divine will quickly, especially in the military
Commentary
175
context, and to produce this kind of behaviour the Romans kept in

cages hens which they deliberately deprived of food, thus forcing the
auspice (Linderski 1985: 2267 1995: 51516). To further expedite
this, the hens were fed lumps of dough (oVa) which they could
not eat without dropping pieces (Festus 285 L). See Valeton 1890:
21115.
28. You have in your writings The second person plurals here,
meaning you augurs suggest that the writings referred to must be
the augurs books. If, however, Quintus is not presumed to have
privileged knowledge, the augural decree had to be in the public
domain. From the appearance of similar augural doctrine on tripudia
in Festus (386 L) that is taken from App. Claudius Wrst book De
Augurali Disciplina, which Cic. possessed since 51 (Cic. Fam. 3. 4. 2,
3. 11. 4), it is probable that Claudius quoted the decree of the augural
college that lies beneath the contents of the next lemma. See Linderski 1985: 227 1995: 516.
a tripudium results from <any> bird if anything falls from it to the
ground The MSS read aut tripudium Weri which cannot stand.
The emendation of aut (or) which is palaeographically easiest,
avi (bird), and has also to be made in the Festus passage on the
tripudium sollistimum (386 L), is secure, but does not complete
the sense here satisfactorily. I add omni (any) and reject Giominis
pulte (porridge), although that derives some support from another
passage of Festus (284 L): Porridge is given to hens in auspices
because from it it is necessary that something fall, to make the
tripudium. It seems clear that there is a very close parallel between
Quintus words here and Marcus response at 2. 73, where an old
decree of the augural college is quoted, any bird can make
a tripudium, and that the omnem avem there picks up omni avi
here. A parallel passage, which derives from Claudius (Serv. [Auct.]
Aen. 1. 398), conWrms the sense with qualibet avi (any bird at all).
At 2. 72 Cic. oVers a derivation of tripudium from terripudium or
in its earlier form terripavium, i.e. a striking of the ground (cf. Festus
498 L). See G. B. Pighi, Rend. Accad. Bologn. 3 (1949/50), 14559.
Timpanaro questions whether the whole phrase is not an
interpolation, on the grounds that it repeats the substance of the
176
Commentary
previous sentence, albeit with extra details, and suggests omitting in,
to produce if any whole lump falls. While solidum may mean the
ground, its extant uses in this sense start with Ovid (Fast. 4. 821; cf.
Livy 44. 5. 6) and the root meaning is whole or complete (Festus
385 L). Indeed, in the continuation of the Festus passage from
Claudius a tripudium is also constituted by the fall of a complete
rock (saxum solidum).
what I said is a forced tripudium you say is a tripudium
solistimum Quintus contrasts the traditional, technical terminology of the augural college. Solistimum is the technical term for the
tripudium in which anything falls from what a bird is carrying (Festus
386 L) and as a superlative form connected with sollus means the most
complete, i.e. the best kind of tripudium (cf. Cic. Fam. 6. 6. 7).
by the negligence of the college Cf. 1. 25. Here the blame is
speciWcally attached to the college of augurs, the state body with
the responsibility for maintaining the augural lore and formulating
decrees on the application of augural law to public life (see Linderski
1986a: 215190). Individual augurs had ignored areas of augural
practice, e.g. C. Marcellus rejected auspices from bees nests (Div.
2. 77), but the inappropriate acceptance of this development is
attributed to the college as a whole.
Cato the Wise M. Porcius Cato, consul 195. Cic. frequently
attaches the tag the wise to Cato (cf. Div. Caec. 66; Leg. 2. 5; OV. 3.
16; Amic. 9; Sen. 5), but there is little indication that it should be
taken as a title or formal cognomen. Rather some play with the
popular etymology of the cognomen Cato as clever may be suspected
(Powell 1988: 1078; cf. Badian 1988: 612). Fragments of Catos
speeches De Auguribus (Festus 277 L) and De aedilibus vitio creatis
(Aul. Gell. 13. 18. 1) indicate a keen interest in augural matters, but
he was not a member of the college. The context of this criticism
by Cato is unknown, but its tone is consistent with his general
conservatism.
many auguries and many auspices have been completely lost and
abandoned Cic. juxtaposes the two technical terms auguria and
Commentary
177
auspicia. Often they can be used indiscriminately or non-technically,

but here we should expect something more precise. If so, auguries
should refer to the rites conducted solely by augurs through
which places, people and ceremonies were transferred to a special
permanently inaugurated state (Linderski 1986b : 338 1995: 493;
cf. 1986a: esp. 22946); and auspices to the procedure of seeking the
gods will in relation to the timing of an action, an indication valid
only for one day.
In former times . . . even in private life A vague phrase (cf. 1. 95,
122), and one from which even the minor qualiWcation was removed
by Valerius Maximus (2. 2. 1). Quintus need to justify the eYcacy of
augury and the auspices requires him to dismiss much contemporary
practice and to concentrate on the exemplary practices of earlier
generations. Here he underlines the declension which he illustrated
in the previous chapter and highlighted by the contrast with
Deiotarus: as well as reducing their reliance on the augurs in the
public sphere the Romans also excluded them from private life.
Although Nigidius Figulus lost work on private auguries (Aul.
Gell. 7. 6. 10) demonstrates a contemporary interest, Quintus
picture of the encroachment of haruspicy is true.
wedding auspices, the real practice of which has been discontinued The practice of employing diviners (auspices) to perform
impetrative auspices on the morning of a marriage was succeeded
by the use of friends of the family, to whom the same designation
auspex was applied. These were not experts; either they were not
required to observe the skies or they announced willy-nilly that they
had observed signs giving approval to the marriage that day. Their
use continued even into the Early Empire (cf. Val. Max. 2. 1. 1; Plin.
HN 10. 21). See Treggiari 1991: 164.
just as today . . . by means of entrails, so in the past it was by means of
birds Quintus cannot refer here to the proceedings of the Senate or
the popular assemblies, where impetrative auspices were sought by
the magistrates after the ancient fashion, but rather to the kind
of extispicia which were performed before military engagements (see
1. 27 and 72) or by haruspices who attached themselves to prominent
178
Commentary
individuals (e.g. 1. 119). The growth in haruspicy may be due to

its greater apparent sophistication, which permitted more than
a simple yes or no answer (cf. Valeton 1889: 447).
Because of this, as we do not look for the propitious, we run into the
dire and hindering The causal link (itaque) is important. In
the three examples with which Quintus illustrates this point, if the
magistrates had employed the ancient method of examining the sky,
Jupiter would have given a simple negative answer relevant for the
day, but, because forced auspices were used, the warning given was
starker and most probably . . . pertained not only to the day, but also
to the very substance of the action with which they were thought to
be connected (Linderski 1986a: 2203). The generals concerned thus
threw away any chance of success in their engagements.
Dire signs are the most negative of the Wve categories the augurs
recognized (Festus 317 L). In popular etymology at least, the term was
connected with the anger of the gods (dirae dei irae ; Serv. [Auct.]
Aen. 4. 453; Festus 69 L; see Regell 1893: 1920). Hindering (vitiosus)
is a wider category encompassing all negative signs. The basic meaning of the root vitium seems to be hindrance, although it came to be
interpreted as error or defect; as a religious term it is found only in
an augural context and is applied to mistakes in procedure or
ritual (e.g. 1. 33) and disregard of the auspices (as in the following
three examples). See D. Paschall, TAPA 67 (1938), 21931.
29. P. Claudius P. Claudius Pulcher (RE iii. 28578), consul in 249.
The brevity of the reference is explained by its almost canonical status
and by the more detailed account in De Natura Deorum (2. 7).
Although the story has been considered a creation of the antiClaudian historical tradition replete with suspicious details such as
the cognomen Pullius of the tribune who put Claudius on trial (Wiseman 1979: 901), it should be accepted as the best explanation for the
trial which Claudius deWnitely underwent on his return (Linderski
1986a: 21767; cf. Holkeskamp 1990: 43748).
son of Appius Caecus Appius Claudius Caecus, censor in 312 (see
Wiseman 1979: 859; Develin 1985: 21524; L. Loreto, A&R 36
(1991), 181203; CAH2 vii/2. 3958). The Wliation is irrelevant for
Commentary
179
the story, unless the use of the cognomen is to remind the reader of his
familys impietyhis blindness was reputedly divine punishment for
his interference with the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima (see
e.g. Val. Max. 1. 1. 17).
his colleague L. Junius L. Junius Pullus (RE x. 10801), consul in
249. Cf. Cic. ND 2. 7. Linderski (1986a: 2176 n. 107) considers that
Junius disregard of the auspices is an unhistorical creation from his
cognomen, which means chicken, but the cognomen may have been
given after the defeat (cf. Pease).
lost very large Xeets Claudius, surprised by the Carthaginians
readiness to join battle, was caught in a space too restricted for
manoeuvring oV Drepana in Sicily and was defeated, losing 93
ships and many men (Polyb. 1. 49. 451. 12). Junius Xeet was
destroyed by a storm as he avoided an engagement with Carthalo:
103 warships and all the supply-ships were lost according to Diodorus (24. 1. 9; cf. Polyb. 1. 52. 67, most of 120 warships sailed with
Junius, and were lost). See Lazenby 1996: 13241.
they went to sea against the auspices Literally: sailed with
a hindrance, cf. 1. 33, 2. 74; for vitium, see on 1. 28. Cic. ND 2. 7:
when the chickens were freed from the cage but did not eat, [Claudius] ordered them to be thrown into the water, saying that, as they
were unwilling to eat, they should drink. The refusal of the starved
chickens to leave the cage and eat the corn provides an indisputable
sign, which Claudius rejects. In Florus (1. 18. 29) this rejection of the
auspices occurs on campaign just before the battle, and this is the
apparent basis for most versions, although Servius (Aen. 6. 198)
places the rejection in Rome. The use of chickens best suits the
military context. ConWrmation of the use of chickens in augury
leading to naval victory is suggested by the aes signatum minted
during the First Punic War (cf. RRC 133).
This befell Agamemnon in the same way This reference to
a mythical example (see on 1. 24 for the general context) is strictly
unnecesssary for the argument, but it enables Cic. to introduce
another quotation from an archaic Latin tragedian.
180
Commentary
gave the order to set sail, to general approbation but against the
bird If the fragment comes from Pacuvius Teucer (but see DAnna
1967: 152), the unfavourable sacriWces and auspices relate to the
return of the Greeks from Troy. If from some other context, even
the Greeks departure from Aulis could be relevant (cf. Aesch. Ag.
11120).
Why cite ancient examples? Quintus case intermixes ancient (cf.
1. 58) and recent examples (cf. 1. 17, 68) and the explicitly mythological (1. 40, 43, 63). Cic. is well aware of the question of historicity
and his choice of examples is to some degree guided by a desire to
present a typically Stoic argument bolstered with examples from
literature from Homer onwards (cf. on 1. 13).
2930 The following example relating to the auspices forged by
Ateius and the arguments made by Appius Claudius on the connection between the auspices and the disaster which befell Crassus
involves questions of great subtlety and complexity. The Wrst detailed
discussion of the augural aspects was by Valeton (1890: 4326, 4403,
4468); Linderskis magisterial treatment of augural law (1986a: esp.
22003), Schaublins analysis of the arguments proposed by Quintus
and Claudius (1986: esp. 17781) and Konrads discussion (2004b:
1815) have advanced our understanding of the augural issues.
Kany-Turpin has contributed speciWcally to the discussion of
signiWcation inherent in the episode (1999: 25566; 2003: 723).
Three issues in particular are highlighted by this episode: Wrst, the
apparently strange position that, even when an auspice was recognized as having been made up, if that auspice was announced to be
unfavourable and the action in respect of which it was announced
was proceeded with, any unfavourable outcome of the action was
considered to have a valid connection with the auspice and thus to be
respected by both men and the gods (Linderski 1986a: 2214). For
example Cic. himself, setting out the view of the augurs, could say of
M. Antonius that you have falsiWed the auspices and have thereby
involved the Roman people in a ritual pollution (religio) (Phil. 2. 83);
the gods too were bound by Ateius report of unpropitious signs. The
logic of this view, that an implication is valid even in the instance
where it begins with what is false and ends with what is true, was
Commentary
181
indeed accepted by Philo of Megara (Sext. Emp. Math. 8. 11314)

and certain Stoics and can be considered as coherent (Kany-Turpin
1999: 260). In one sense the reality of an auspicial sign was never
problematic for the Romans, as in the regular impetrative auspices
what the auspicant saw was what he had stipulated that he would
see, irrespective of whether he did or not.
The second issue is whether a sign, even a falsiWed sign, is the cause
of what it signiWes. On a straightforward reading of the passage
Quintus follows the standard augural position that the sign is not
the cause, whereas Claudius holds the opposite view (see below
dire auspices). Although Schaublin argues (1986: 17781) that Cic.
misrepresents Claudius view, in eVect extrapolating it from the
censorial nota that Claudius wrote against Ateius, the presentation
of Claudius throughout De Divinatione and in other authors is of one
who held extreme, un-Roman views on divination, i.e. that its
various techniques could indeed foretell the future (cf. 1. 105, 132;
Val. Max. 1. 8. 10).
The third issue is that of responsibility for the disaster that befell
the Romans. Quintus, following the logic of the Roman augurs,
argues that Crassus was responsible by failing to take account of
the dire auspices (see below M. Crassus . . . for his probable error),
while Claudius, apparently emphasizing a moral argument, claims
that Ateius was responsible through his invention and reporting of
a dire auspice (Kany-Turpin 1999: 2625).
M. Crassus . . . neglected the announcement of dire auspices By the
Lex Trebonia M. Licinius Crassus secured Syria as his consular province and left Rome in mid-Nov. 55 to campaign against the Parthians. In 53 he was ensnared by the Parthians near Carrhae, losing
more than 30,000 troops and his own life; his corpse suVered outrage
at the Parthian court. See Ward 1977; Sherwin-White 1984: 27990.
With the beneWt of hindsight, Crassus whole expedition, from
outset to tragic denouement, was presented as conducted against
divine will: prodigies and omens dogged Crassus at every turn. Of
this Cic. is concerned here with only one element, the attempted
obstruction by the tribune C. Ateius Capito. Before leaving for his
province, Crassus observed the traditional ceremonies of a profectio:
he took the auspices at dawn and sacriWced, and made his vows on the
182
Commentary
Capitol; and at no stage during these was any adverse indication

received by himself or his augural assistant. The tribunes, who had
unsuccessfully opposed the levies held by Crassus and had tried in
vain to rescind the votes for the campaign (Dio 39. 39. 3), resorted to
religious obstruction. According to Dio (39. 39. 6), their chosen
manoeuvre was to announce directly to Crassus (so as to block the
loophole exploited by Caesar in 59) that the most unpropitious signs,
dirae, had been observed while Crassus was making his sacriWces on
the Capitol (Valeton 1890: 447). It was impossible to follow the
tactics of Bibulus in 59 and announce in advance that they were to
watch the heavens, as lightning in a non-comitial context was
a propitious sign; hence another form of obnuntiatio (announcement
of an opposing sign) was required, in which the announcer was
competent both to announce and interpret the sign. So Ateius
reported that he had seen dirae.
Dirae are oblative signs which had a particularly disastrous
signiWcance. Although dirae can mean curses, in this context the
word must refer to augural signs (cf. Hubner 1970: 910). From
Servius speciWcation of the heavens as the realm of the dirae (Aen.
4. 609) we can suspect that they took the form of either unpropitious
birds, thunder, or lightning. In fact, the general silence of the sources
indicates that the speciWc identity of what was observed was not
crucial in these cases (cf. Valeton 1890: 4323).
As Dio makes clear with a present participle poioumenou (39. 39. 6:
as he was making the traditional vows for his campaign on Capitol),
Ateius claimed that he had seen the sign while Crassus was performing the customary prayers on the Capitol. Thus the obnuntiatio met
the condition for an oblative sign to be valid, namely that it was
observed and reported while the action to which it was considered
related was being performed (the so-called vinculum temporis). The
sign then functioned not only as an unpropitious auspice (auspicium
infaustum), but also as a premonition and may have been considered
to put a permanent interdict against an undertaking (see Linderski
1986a: 2203). Such an oblative sign, if accepted when it was reported,
would have taken precedence over the impetrative auspices secured
through sacriWce or auspication (Valeton 1890: 4302); if rejected by
the magistrate, it was not binding on him. It was necessary, however,
Commentary
183
for the magistrate to make a formal pronouncement of acceptance or

rejection (cf. Plin. HN 28. 17; Serv. Aen. 12. 260).
From Plutarchs expression paragenesthai kai sumpropempsai
(Crass. 16. 3) it has been suggested that Pompey, who in 52 certainly
used an augural prerogative for his own political purposes (Plut. Cat.
Min. 42), was present as augur at Crassus auspication (Valeton 1890:
442) and that he disregarded or ruled invalid the announcement of
dirae by Ateius (Linderski 1986a: 2213). In the former case he would
have accepted that they were dirae, but ruled that they did not pertain
to Crassus expedition (Valeton 1890: 446), in the latter he will have
denied that Ateius possessed the right to take the auspices (Valeton
1890: 434). For only the obnuntiatio of a colleague in the same
magistracy could legally prevail against Crassus auspices (and his
consular colleague Pompey had given his support to Crassus in this
key aspect); as tribune of the plebs Ateius had no ius auspicandi in
relation to the actions of the consul and therefore his obnuntiatio was
not legally binding (Valeton 1890: 4234; Linderski 1986a: 2202 n.
199). However, such technicalities may be irrelevant given the power
of the auspicant to accept or reject an oblative sign. If Pompey did
not advise Crassus formally to reject the sign, or Crassus rejected
such advice, then he left Rome with auspices that were at least
dubious and possibly indicating an ineluctable disaster.
Thwarted in his obnuntiatio, Ateius called down curses upon
Crassus as he left Rome (Plut. Crass. 16. 56; Dio 39. 9. 56).
Cic. fails to mention the curses, not because he does not wish to
slight someone who was supporting the Optimate line (pace Pease),
nor because they are unhistorical (pace A. D. Simpson, TAPA 69
(1938), 53241), but because they are irrelevant to the discussion of
auspices (cf. J. Bayet, Les Maledictions du tribun C. Ateius Capito, in
Hommages a` G. Dumezil (Brussels, 1960), 3145 1971: 35365).
your colleague Appius, a good augur Appius Claudius Pulcher (RE
iii. 284953), consul of 54, had been Cic.s predecessor in Cilicia and
the cause of much irritation (Fam. 3. 610). Earlier he had supported
his brother Clodius against Cicero and had been the only member of
the Senate to vote against Cic.s return from exile. He had been
a member of the augural college from at least 63 (see on 1. 105)
and was thus Cic.s colleague from 53/2 until his death in 48.
184
Commentary
He wins Cic.s praise as an expert in augural law (Brut. 267). See

Schuricht 1994.
as censor stigmatized Claudius was elected censor of 50 and acted
with old-fashioned severity against personal luxury (cf. Cic. Fam. 8.
12. 2, 14. 4). Several of Caesars partisans were expelled from the
Senate, as well as Ateius from the other end of the political spectrum.
The censors revised the citizenship rolls, and the membership of the
equestrian order and Senate, taking into consideration both Wnancial
and moral criteria. If an individual deserved more than an oral
reprimand, the criticism (nota; stigmatized) was entered on to the
citizenship roll with an explanation. See Suolahti 1963: esp. 3256,
4839.
C. Ateius, a good man and a distinguished citizen C. Ateius Capito
(RE ii. 19034) appears in Cic.s correspondence as a trusted friend,
despite his devotion to Caesar from 46 (Fam. 13. 29. 2; Att. 13. 33. 4,
16. 16 C and F). He was tribune of the plebs in 55, and thereafter held
no public oYce.
becauseas Appius justiWed his action he had falsiWed the
auspices The expression falsify the auspices (auspicia ementiri)
appears once in Livy (21. 63. 5) of Flaminius and three times in Cic.
(Phil. 2. 83, 88, 3. 9) of M. Antonius and probably comes from the
nota of Claudius. Cic.s use of the subjunctive subscriberet (justiWed
his action) indicates primarily that this is the view of Claudius.
Given the conditions of the vinculum temporis (see above
M. Crassus . . . ), it is highly probable that there were witnesses on
the Capitol who could refute Ateius claim to have seen any negative
sign (Konrad 2004b: 182). Cic. himself appears to harbour no doubts
that the auspices were falsiWed.
this may have been appropriate for him as censor Quintus concedes that lying by Ateius fell legitimately within the competence of
the censor to punish, presumably as immoral behaviour.
the following was by no means appropriate to him as augur, that he
wrote that it was for that reason that the Roman people had
Commentary
185
suVered a very great disaster Again, it was . . . disaster is

probably taken from the nota against Ateius (Schaublin 1986: 174).
Quintus argues that Claudius grasp of augural theory is incorrect,
that he was wrong to identify Ateius false auspices as the cause of
Crassus defeat.
For if the calamity occurred for that reason, there is no blame
attached to the one who announced it . . . False auspices did not
ipso facto bring divine punishment on the Roman people (contra
Schaublin 1986: 1778), but, in the aftermath of a disaster, the
assigning of responsibility was natural. Following the usual
Roman interpretation, the one who reported an inauspicious oblative sign was not responsible if a misfortune came to pass, but
rather the one whose duty it was to heed the sign, usually
a magistrate or general. One who falsiWed the auspices, however,
was in a diYcult position because his obnuntiatio brought ritual
pollution (religio) on the Roman people, and, as appears from the
case of L. Papirius Cursor, he might expect punishment (cf. Livy
10. 40. 11). Claudius position may have been that those who were
not colleagues of the magistrate about to undertake an action were
not permitted to announce a negative sign unless it had truly
occurred and had been seen by them by chance, i.e. unless it was
a bona Wde oblative sign, whereas Ateius had deliberately looked
for and invented a negative sign (Valeton 1889: 419 V.; 1890: 429,
4423). Within a few months of writing these words, Cic. himself
wishes evil on M. Antonius for having falsiWed the auspices (Phil.
2. 83).
( . . . the outcome proved that the announcement had been
true . . . ) These words are most likely Quintus explanation of
Claudius argument (Valeton 1890: 441 n. 2), rather than an
interpolation (cf. Schaublin 1986: 17881). Pease argues that they
cannot be from book 1 of Claudius De Augurali Disciplina which he
had sent to Cic. before his censorship. However, nothing precludes
that Claudius had reached his verdict on Ateius from his augural
perspective before 50 and that the explanatory phrase, in which his
augural status precedes his censorial, simply indicates that the censor
is saying what the augur had already concluded.
186
Commentary
For dire auspices . . . are not the cause of anything happening, but
announce what will happen unless measures are taken This is
a crucial statement of the traditional Roman position in the face of
all divine communication; there is no inevitability about negative
signs, so long as the warning given by the gods is heeded and
appropriate action taken. The distinction between cause and sign is
crucial to much of Quintus argument and reappears frequently (34,
109, 127, 131). Valeton suggests (1890: 4412) that Cic. misrepresents Claudius argument, which may have run as follows: Ateius had
in eVect arrogated to himself the role of a magistrate and the gods
had therefore granted his Wctitious sign the eVect of a real sign; but,
because Ateius did not have the ius auspicandi in respect of Crassus
actions, he had deceived Crassus, who could not know that the dirae
which had been announced related particularly to his action,
since the augur in attendance, Pompey, did not dismiss or conWrm
the report; so the cause of the calamity lay not in the auspices, but
in the mistake into which Crassus had fallen unknowingly and
innocently, and into which Ateius had led him, with the result that
he started a war against the auspices. Claudius thus holds the traditional view that the negative sign warned the magistrate not to
proceed, and functioned as a qualiWed prediction of what would
happen if the warning were ignored. The negative sign could be
taken to function as a simple prohibition without any divinatory
ingredient . . . The augural sign was not a disclosure of an inXexible
verdict of fate, nor was its announcement by the augur a prediction
of the future. It was only a warning. However, it is possible to argue
that the warning given by the auspicium infaustum or malum was also
a premonition, disregard of which would result in calamity. Thus the
negative sign could be held to oVer a glimpse of the future, to
function as a qualiWed prediction, which was fulWlled only in case
the warning was disregarded (Linderski 1982: 301 1995: 4767).
30. So the announcement of Ateius . . . warned him what would
happen if he did not take heed Cic. spells out the speciWc application of the principle just enunciated.
either . . . or The Wrst alternative relates to the leges Aelia et FuWa
(the provisions of which were restated in the lex Clodia of 58), under
Commentary
187
which it seems that tribunician (ab)use of obnuntiatio was limited

(cf. Cic. Pis. 10; Vat. 18, 23)Ateius obnuntiatio was not legally
binding. The second alternative is just a restatement of Quintus
(mis)understanding of Claudius argument.
that staV of yours The staV (lituus) was curved at one end. The
Romans took it over from the Etruscans, among whom it was
a symbol of authority, principally in the secular sphere (Thuillier
1980: 38992), as it also became among the Romans in the 1st cent.
(Alfoldi 1997: 12930). Its special connection with the augurate is
attested in literature (e.g. Aul. Gell. 5. 8. 2; Serv. Aen. 7. 187) and
Roman coinage (RRC, nos. 242, 243, 264, etc.).
Romulus delimited the regions with it when he founded the city
Quintus is alluding to Romulus division of Rome after his successful
auspication over the site of the city (A. Szabo, RhM 87 (1938), 161;
Jocelyn 1971: 50). The basic action of delimitation is drawing
a boundary line. From a Wxed sitting position the augur marked
out the signiWcant area in front of him, delimiting his vision; he
then divided this area with a horizontal line and a second line
perpendicular to this. See Valeton 1890: 25663; Linderski 1986a:
2279, 22869.
[it is a curved rod . . . ] This description of the lituus is unnecessary
and should be deleted as a gloss. Examples of the lituus trumpet have
been uncovered in Etruscan tombs (see Blanck and Proietti 1986: 25).
The glossator is probably incorrect in that the musical instrument
took its name from the augurs staV (Timpanaro).
the hall of the Salii (which is on the Palatine) The shrine has been
located on the SW Palatine close to Augustus palace, see
A. Grandazzi, REL 70 (1993), 312. The Salii were two companies
of twelve priests, whose origins predated the uniWcation of Rome and
who performed a dance in armour in Mar. and Oct. at the festivals
which marked the opening and closure of the campaigning season.
They were dedicated to Mars Gradivus, and in historic times their
rites commemorated the passage of Romans from war to peace and
vice versa.
188
Commentary
burnt down, was found undamaged During the Gallic destruction

of Rome in 390 (cf. Dion. Hal. 14. 2 2; Plut. Rom. 22. 12; Cam. 32.
45). The tradition goes back at least to the late 2nd cent. and is
found is Lutatius history of Praeneste (II 13. 2, 123, 429); Livy
pointedly ignores its rediscovery, and Marcus calls it a Wction (2. 80).
31. Ancient writers . . . division of the regions The extant references to Attus Navius concentrate on two episodes, his contest with
Tarquinius and the physical commemoration of his triumph by
statue and puteal. Of the extant annalistic histories only Dionysius
of Halicarnassus relates the incident from the vineyard (3. 70), but
this demonstrates that the story was found in the historians of
the generation before Livy. Cic. himself has the story in bare outline
(ND 2. 9).
Attus Navius with the staV As the IE root *atta is connected with
fatherhood, it has been suggested that Attus is a title, meaning
father (G. Mancuso, ASGP 33 (1972), 165335), perhaps even
here pater gentis, but it is also intelligible as an ordinary praenomen,
probably Sabine, from the same lexical base as Appius. Navius is
generally interpreted as an Etruscan nomen (Schulze 1933: 197).
If a link of the nomen could be made with the Greek word for temple
naos or nawos (cf. A. Marinetti, RPL 5 (1982), 177), Attus Navius
would become a perfect aetiological creation as a key Wgure in the
history of Roman augury. However, the survival of an historical
name cannot be excluded. On the augur, see Piccaluga 1969:
151208; Beard 1989: 503; Bremmer 1993: 1703.
during the reign of Tarquinius Priscus Although Attus activity is
sometimes placed in the reigns of Ancus Marcius (Liv. Per. 1) or
Tullus Hostilius (Cic. ND 2. 9), the dominant chronological context
in the annalistic tradition is the reign of Tarquinius Priscus (cf. Livy
1. 36; Dion. Hal. 3. 71); there is no need to have him Xoating through
early Roman history (pace Piccaluga 1969: 1614). The reign of
Tarquinius Priscus, by tradition the Wfth of Romes kings
(616578), was one of transition, in which new constitutional and
military reforms were necessary as the state grew (cf. Ogilvie 1965:
1402, 1458; Cornell 1995: 12030).
Commentary
189
he is said to have vowed that . . . he would give to the god The

distancing implied by he is said seems to apply only to the story of
the augurium stativum, a procedure by which the selection of a place
or thing was made (Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 3. 84, 10. 423; see Catalano
1960: 30817), but is an indication of awareness by Cic. of diVerent
levels of historicity in his material. The god may be the Lar familiaris (Piccaluga 1969: 157; cf. Dion. Hal. 3. 70. 2: heroes).
stood . . . facing south and . . . divided the vineyard into four parts
Attus did not perform a regular auspication, in which the augur faced
east, but an augurium stativum. This initial division may have
involved no divine inspiration (cf. by the favour of a god: Dion.
Hal. 3. 70. 3), but rather have employed the normal arrangement of
a vineyard around two avenues aligned north/south and east/west
(cf. Mynors 1990: 135).
the birds had rejected three parts Pease appears to see a
contradiction between the versions in Cic. and Dion. Hal., but this
is unnecessary: the rejection of regions in Cic. was achieved by the
birds appearing in the area they favoured, as Dionysius records.
Valeton envisages a series of simple choices between left and right,
with Attus turning towards the west for the second consultation, thus
isolating one quarter (1889: 450). But if the birds had to settle over
the object of the augurium (cf. Linderski 1986a: 2281 n. 536), there
was no need for the augur to alter his orientation.
when the fourth part, which was left, had been divided into
regions Attus seems to have repeated the procedure, thus creating
an area one 1/16th of the original vineyard. The signiWcance of 16 in
Etruscan belief (e.g. Div. 2. 42; Plin. HN 2. 143) suggests Etruscan
inXuence (cf. Catalano 1960: 310 n. 262). The story is not an aetiological explanation of the annual auspication of a vineyard performed
by the Xamen Dialis (Catalano 1960: 3579).
so we see it recorded Quintus seeks to stress the record, Wxing the
responsibility for its reliability on his sources.
When this had been made known . . . he won a great reputation and
fame Attus functions Wrst as a private augur. Cic.s version omits
190
Commentary
Attus education by Etruscan augurs (cf. Dion. Hal. 3. 70. 45) and
his subsequent invitation by Romes augurs to participate in their
public consultations (episkepseis), although he was not a member of
their college (Dion. Hal. 3. 70. 5). As it is clear that Attus was not
a member of the Roman elite and yet became in many ways an
archetypal Roman augur, the stories have to explain his rise to
prominence and translation to Rome. Despite his Etruscan
education, Attus functions afterwards as a Roman augur, not availing
himself of any direct inspiration by the gods, but employing the
traditional techniques in response to traditional questions. Dionysius comment that Attus commemorative statue was smaller than an
average man (3. 71. 5) does not mean that Attus was still a juvenile
at the time of his contest with Tarquinius. Archaic statues were
regularly smaller than lifesize (Plin. HN 34. 24) and the imperfect
tense referrent can easily cover a period of several years (Sehlmeyer
1999: 836; Piccaluga 1969: 15961).
32. King Priscus summoned him to his presence The other versions apparently diverge at this point. Because of danger from the
Sabines Tarquinius was proposing to double the three centuries of
a hundred equites established by Romulus with the names Ramnenses,
Titienses, and Luceres. Romulus had instituted his three units after
taking the auspices, but Tarquinius had not. Cf. Cic. Rep. 2. 36; Livy
1. 36. 35; Dion. Hal. 3. 71. 1; Florus 1. 1. 5. 24; Festus 16870 L;
[Aur. Vict.] DVI 6. 7; Jordanes, Rom. 1. 99; Zon. 7. 8. Attus speciWc
objection is to Tarquinius intention either to give his own name and
that of his friends to his three new centuries and thus to change
a Romulan institution (Livy 1. 36. 3), or to change the names which
had been given by Romulus to the existing centuries (Festus 168 L)
inaugurato (cf. Livy 1. 43. 9). No change was possible to what Romulus had inaugurated without an exauguration. Attus consulted the
gods and declared to Hostilius that they did not give the go-ahead to
his proposed legislation. Livys terminology is crucial, as inaugurato
points to the overriding power of the augur in the area of
legislation: the magistrate auspicated to determine whether the gods
permitted action on the speciWc day, but the augur inquired about
the legislation itself, whether it was good or bad, and his prohibition
was permanent (Valeton 1891: 412; cf. Linderski 1986a: 22956).
Commentary
191
Perhaps the early 3rd cent., when Rome had incorporated Etruria
and began to consult her haruspices publicly, saw particular modiWcations to the Attus legend. In this episode several strands come together
to explain the development if not the genesis of the story. While on
one level we can stress the aetiological aspectthe story explains the
monuments around the Comitium and the name of the centuriae
posterioresthere are more thematic strands: Attus strange name,
both Sabine and Etruscan, embodies the amalgamation of indigenous
and foreign elements which constituted Roman society and informed
divinatory practices in general. While Attus could represent Roman
opposition to an Etruscan king with particular links to haruspicy, and
his story conWrm the Romanness of the augural art (cf. Briquel
1986: 82), his education was Etruscan, which suggests at least
one version in which simple anti-Etruscanism is excluded. In his
confrontation with Tarquinius he defended the traditional role of
Roman augurs as interpreters of the divine will and represents
the ethos of the elite in rejecting the domination of powerful individuals (Linderski 1982: 334 1995: 47980). That the miraculous
aspects of his augural activity have no parallel in the role of historical
augurs is a point well made by Beard (1989: 52), but her formulation
of two contrasting ways in which insiders and outsiders to the Roman
religious elite could read the myth is implausible.
As a test of Navius skill as an augur Pease suggests that the test was
preliminary to enrolling Attus in the augural college, but if so,
Quintus has a version of the story which lacks the usual context
(cf. Briquel 1986: 97 n. 73, who argues rightly that Piccaluga and
Pease make an unsupportable clash between Cic. and Dionysius of
HalicarnassusAttus was clearly a conWrmed, recognized augur by
this stage).
Priscus This may well be a gloss. If Priscus were omitted here, Cic.
gives the kings full nomenclature on his Wrst appearance and thereafter refers to him as Tarquinius.
Navius took the auspices and replied that it could Perhaps Attus
withdrew to the auguraculum on the arx (cf. Dion. Hal. 3. 71. 3). The
technical expression performed an augury (augurium agere; e.g.
192
Commentary
Serv. Aen. 2. 703, 3. 89) indicates that Attus acted as an individual

augur, seeking a yes or no answer from the gods which would be
revealed by speciWed birds (Serv. Aen. 1. 398). Attus is ignorant of
Tarquinius intended action, but that is irrelevant to the success of
the augury. Attus does not have to read Tarquinius mind or to
experience any direct inspiration from the gods because the normal
exercise of his art provides the answer whether it is right to proceed.
He ordered Attus to make the attempt The feat was chosen by
Tarquinius to be impossible, the reversal of normalitythe stone
which sharpened the razor was to be cut by it. Cic.s use of indirect
speech here obscures whether Attus or Tarquinius issues the order.
The latter goes better with the next sentence where the kings
appearance in the ablative absolute (rege . . . inspectante) should
exclude him from the action of cutting the stone (Timpanaro).
the Comitium The area in front of the Senate-house (LTUR i.
30914 and Wgs. 1812), where the Roman people had gathered for
public assemblies. The site of a group of monuments associated with
Attus: a statue (e.g. Livy 1. 36. 5), Wg tree (Pliny HN 15. 77; Festus 168
L) and the puteal (see below). See now Carafa 1998: esp. 1215.
was cut in two by a razor Cic.s wording leaves it open as to who cut
the stonethe passive formulation (cotem . . . allatam) suggests
a third party while in other accounts it is Tarquinius (Dion. Hal.
3. 71. 4; August. De civ. D. 10. 16).
Tarquin employed Attus Navius as augur This does not prove that
Attus was admitted into the augural college, which seems to be the
belief of Livy (1. 36. 3; cf. Val. Max. 1. 4. 1), but rather that he was to
hand as a learned adviser whenever Tarquinius took the auspices, and
the people consulted him privately (Catalano 1960: 309 n. 255).
Livys account (1. 36. 6) marks this as the beginning of augural
supremacy in Rome.
33. We understand Cf. 1. 34, 92, 111, 122, 130, 2. 80, 98.
A reference to the historical tradition to bolster the credibility of an
example involving the miraculous.
Commentary
193
the puteal From the ancient topographic references the puteal was
in front of the rostra, where the praetors tribunal was (Pseudacron
ad Hor. Sat. 2. 6. 35), where the column of Maenius was, where
debtors were pursued by their creditors (Schol. Bob. ad Cic. Sest. 18),
[in front of] the Senate-house (Conon Narr. 48), to its left (Livy 1.
36. 5), NW of the Comitium proper (Coarelli 1985: 2834, and Wg.
21). Puteals, i.e. circular curbed enclosures, are usually associated
with the burial of lightning bolts by haruspices (e.g. Schol. Juv. 6.
587). The splitting of the stone was treated as if it had been done by
a lightning bolt, i.e. by Jupiter (cf. Thulin 19059: 103). Therefore the
stone was buried as sacer, and also the razor because it was in eVect
the lightning bolt itself.
Lets deny all this, lets burn the annals Quintus Wrst line of defence is
the plausibility of Romes historical record. By annals Quintus means
in general the accounts of Roman history produced in literary form
from the early 2nd cent., not just works with the title annales, but
those which constituted the public history of Rome, to which Cic.
made appeal in his public speeches (cf. Frier 1979: 2212). Implicit
also may be a reference to the annales of the Chief PontiV (cf. Cic. De or.
2. 52), which contained notices of religious phenomena, e.g. when
lightning struck individuals and public consultations of the haruspices.
lets admit anything rather than that the gods are concerned with
human aVairs Quintus second line of defence is the Stoic argument outlined in the preface (1. 10), to which he will return later
(1. 82), which connects the existence of the gods and divination with
their concern for man. He in eVect dismisses the views of Epicurus
(cf. 1. 62, 109) and, as Timpanaro suggests, chides Marcus for
slipping from New Academic scepticism into Epicureanism.
written in your work Quintus reminds Marcus of an incident used
by his Stoic mouthpiece Lucilius Balbus in the work of which De
Divinatione was a logical extension (ND 2. 1011). Only if the
episode were vouched for by Marcus himself in the previous work
would Quintus use of this be particularly eVective ad hominem,
although Marcus endorsement of the Stoic case at the close of that
work may give some grounds for Quintus point.
194
Commentary
Tiberius Gracchus Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 2A. 14039),

consul 177 and 163, had been an augur since 204 (Livy 29. 38. 7)
and by 163 was probably the senior member of the college.
does that not conWrm the science of both augurs and haruspices?
Although this section of the argument concerns augury, haruspices
are mentioned because of their role in the events of 163 (see below).
taken possession of the tent irregularly Irregularly (vitio; see
on 1. 28) indicates a contravention of augural practice. As consul,
Gracchus held the consular elections for 162 in Rome. Before the
elections, which were held in the Campus Martius (Cic. Q Fr. 2. 2.
1), Gracchus had to take the auspices. For this an open enclosure,
called a tent (tabernaculum), made of skins (Festus 11 L) was
erected in the gardens of Scipio. The technical expression tabernaculum capere refers to the whole ceremony of auspication, not
just to the taking over or pitching of the enclosure. See Valeton
1890: 2403.
he had crossed the pomerium without Wrst taking the auspices
The pomerium (LTUR iv. 96105) was the boundary of Rome,
drawn by Romulus and Wrst extended by Servius Tullius (Livy 1.
44. 35), which demarcated the augurally constituted city. The night
before the elections Gracchus duly took the auspices, but before
holding the elections he returned to the Senate-house to conduct
some business. In making this journey he crossed the pomerium and
thus cancelled the auspices he had taken. Because he took no new
auspices after recrossing the pomerium to return to the Campus
Martius, the elections were technically inauspicatoi.e. the gods
will had not been ascertained whether they could be held
that day. Plutarch (Marc. 5. 2; cf. Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 2. 178) understands the augural error to have been Gracchus use of the
same tabernaculum when he returned to preside over the assembly,
i.e. he did not forget to retake his auspices. Both versions involve
valid augural problems, but it is not clear which of these Gracchus
identiWed as his error.
Consular elections of the centuriate assembly had to be held
outside the pomerium, usually in the Campus Martius, and required
Commentary
195
their presiding oYcer (rogator) to be in possession of military

auspices. Crossing the pomerium involved a change from urban to
military auspices, which required a new auspication. It is not clear if
the amnis Petronia, at which magistrates had to take auspices before
holding popular elections or assemblies (Festus 296 L), is relevant
here. See Valeton 1890: 2445; Rupke 1990: 323; B. Liou-Gille, MH
50 (1993), esp. 1036.
Gracchus . . . conWrmed the authority of the auspices by confessing
his own error He wrote from his province of Sardinia to the college
of augurs that from his reading of augural books he realized that he
had erred (cf. Val. Max. 1. 1. 3; Gran. Licin. 28. 25). The college of
augurs easily concluded that the electoral procedure had been administered incorrectly and conveyed their formal conclusion to the
Senate, which passed a decree that the consuls should abdicate (Cic.
ND 2. 11; Linderski 1986a: 215961).
great authority was added to the discipline of the haruspices
After the elections had begun, the returning oYcer of the prerogative
century died suddenly, but Gracchus continued with the elections.
Then, considering the death ominous (cf. 1. 103), he consulted the
Senate, which treated it as a prodigy. They called in the haruspices
who interpreted the prodigy as a divine warning about the validity of
the consular elections. In anger at this criticism of himself, Gracchus
ridiculed the haruspices as foreigners and no experts in the rules of
Roman auspices and had them dismissed.
348 The organizational structure of these chapters before the
extended discussion of dreams is not easy to determine. Their
purpose should be to prepare the transition from examples from
artiWcial divination to natural divination, but that is not achieved
straightforwardly. The section begins (34a) by re-emphasizing the
distinction between the two types of divination made in the divisio of
1. 1112, and giving examples of the latter. A short digression on
oracles and lot oracles (34b) seems misplaced, as Quintus has to
return to oracles (378) before the discussion on dreams (39 V.). In
between is a passage in which Quintus approximates to the rhetorical
style of Marcus in book 2, taking up potential objections by his
196
Commentary
opponent and defending artiWcial divination, primarily haruspicy

but also astrology. These are divinatory practices that have not so
far been prominent in his argument (but cf. 1. 2) and so compound
the impression of disorder. Included in this section are allusions to
the arguments e vetustate, e consensu omnium, and de ignorantia,
which reinforces the notion that the section is a restatement of the
divisio, but these arguments do not articulate the material.
34. one in which technique has a part The minor change
of formulation to in which technique has a part (particeps artis)
from involving a technique (artis est : 1. 11, 12) is probably not
signiWcant, although it has been suggested that it is Posidonius
formulation (Finger 1929: 3801). Cf. 1. 245 for conjecture and
1. 12 for observation.
they involve no technique who foretell the future not by reason or
conjecture The heavy repetition of the formal language used in
1. 1112 continues. Reason relates to instances where a previously
observed sign is reproduced exactly, conjecture to instances where
extrapolation was required (cf. Linderski 1986a: 2233).
by a certain stirring of the mind or some free and unrestrained
movement Cf. the brief description in the preface, 1. 4. The
behaviour of the soul in dreaming and in frenzied prophesying will
be described in detail later (1. 63). In these types of divination there
is direct impact on the human mind by the gods so that no
interpretation or application of rational faculties is required to
understand the message.
like Bacis of Boeotia The name may be a generic descriptive title
derived from bazo (to speak), but the plurals found in Aristotle
(Probl. 954a36) and Plutarch (Mor. 399a), where Bacides are linked
with Sibyls as a paradigm of ecstatic prophecy (cf. Aristid. Or. 45. 12),
can plausibly be interpreted as people like Bacis (Dodds 1951: 88
n. 45). Bacis claimed to be possessed by nymphs (Paus. 4. 27. 4, 10.
12. 11). Prophecies are attributed to Bacis by e.g. Herodotus (8. 20. 1,
8. 77, 8. 96. 2, 9. 43) and Aristophanes (e.g. Pax 1070; Av.
9623). Their prominence in the latter owes something to their
Commentary
197
collection in book form from which he could quote them (cf. N. D.

Smith, CA 8 (1989), 1501). The Hellenistic scholar Philetas of
Ephesus alleged that there were three prophets of this name, from
Boeotia, Attica, and Messene (Schol. Ar. Pax 1071). See Parke 1988:
1807; L. Prandi, CISA 19 (1993), 5162; Dillery 2005: 17981.
Epimenides of Crete A deWnite historical Wgure, best dated as
a contemporary of Solon in the late 7th and early 6th cents.
(cf. Rhodes 1981: 813), but one to whom many legendary details
were attached. Although Aristotle (Rhet. 1418a22) denied his prophetic powers, he appears as a prophet (Apul. Flor. 15) and is alleged to
have predicted the defeat of the Spartans at Orchomenus and the
griefs the Athenians would suVer from possessing Munichia
(Diog. Laert. 1. 114). See Svenbro 1993: 13544.
the Sibyl of Erythrae First attested in Callisthenes (FGrH 124 F 14a)
and Heraclides Ponticus (fr. 130 Wehrli) with the name Herophile,
which appears in one of her oracles (Paus. 10. 12. 3) that featured in
the 5th cent. debate between Marpessus in the Troad and Erythrae in
Ionia over her. Her prophetic activity was thought to predate the
Trojan War (Apollodorus of Erythrae, FGrH 422 F 1), although
Eusebius puts her Xoruit in 804 (Chron. 1. 201) and Solinus (2. 18)
has her prophesy to the Lesbians the loss of their thalassocracy. See
Parke 1988: 2360.
equalized lots It seems probable that these lots oVered simple yes
or no answers with equal probability. A similar expression is used
of the process of ensuring that the lots used for the selection of a jury
were identical (above all in weight) and bore the right names (Asc. 71 C;
cf. 39 C); and for assemblies (Tabula Hebana). For lots from the
oracles of Italy, see J. Champeaux, MEFRA 102 (1990), 271302.
those which are poured forth under a divine impulse and inspiration Cf. 1. 12. Quintus is thinking of the kinds of oracles which
produced verse, and could not be the product of mathematical chance.
those lots which we are told sprang from the earth We are told
refers probably to the monumenta Praenestinorum (2. 85), the local
198
Commentary
history written by Q. Lutatius Catulus. This is a speciWc allusion to

the famous oracle of Fortune at Praeneste, where Numerius SuVustius broke open a Xint on divine instruction and the lots sprang
forth carved in oak in ancient characters (2. 856). However, given
the very strong chthonic association of oracles in general (see Champeaux 1982: 1067), wider reference is possible.
Those who interpret all these things seem to approach very closely to
the divine intention of those they interpret, just as philologists do
for poets The reading of the MSS divinationem was emended by
Hottinger to divinitatem, but I have adopted the suggestion of Schaublin (1989: 425), divinam rationem (divine intention). It is clear that
Cic. is drawing a comparison: diviners stand in the same relation to
the gods as commentators do to poets. This emendation avoids the
diYculty of having Cic. credit commentators with the same inspiration as the poets they aim to elucidate and recalls Cic.s description
of divination as that by which human nature is able to come very
close to the power of the gods (1. 1). As the comparison logically
requires, the interpretation of the diviner is not passive, but
employs his rational faculties, especially in the realm of conjecture
(cf. Linderski 1986a: 22269). Perhaps Cic. takes this comparison
from Panaetius who is recorded as calling the Alexandrian commentator Aristarchus a seer (mantis) for his skill at divining the meaning
of his poet (Ath. 634cd; cf. Timpanaro 1994: 249).
35. What is that cleverness which seeks to destroy by false charges
facts established by antiquity? Again a basically empirical point by
Quintusif it has worked for many years, accept the reality of the
phenomenon.
I do not see their cause That these words belong to Quintus
opponent was recognized in Falconers translation (cf. Wagenvoort
1952: 148). They should be treated as the objection of an imagined
interlocutor rather than as an interjection by Marcus (cf. 1. 24, 38,
60, etc.).
Perhaps it lies hidden, wrapped in the obscurity of nature Cf. the
frequent Sceptic phrase physei adelon (Philippson 1922: 101; e.g.
Commentary
199
Sext. Emp. Math. 8. 145, 150). This idea, often with the added notion
that nature herself has done the concealing, is often placed in
the mouths of his characters by Cic. (cf. Acad. 1. 15; Tim. 1; Fin.
5. 51, 58).
the whole of Etruria . . . every other state Quintus lists the three
elements of the haruspicial discipline in no particular order and with
no special signiWcance in the language of disparagement. The highly
rhetorical construction continues, with the three areas of haruspicial
activity followed by three physical portents each linked with
often (saepe) and with Rome and other states contrasted, both
introduced by many (multa). Crashes (fremitus) appear frequently
in descriptions of earth movements (e.g. 1. 18, 2. 60; Har. Resp. 20)
and among portents oYcially recognized by the Senate (Obseq. 46,
48). Groanings (mugitus) were considered a regular warning of
earthquakes (Sen. NQ 6. 13. 4), as a portent (Obseq. 35). One
category of earthquake took its name from groaning (Arist. Mund.
396a11: muketiai seismoi; Amm. Marc. 17. 7. 14: mycematiae, cf.
Apul. Mund. 18). For a list of earthquakes, see A. Palumbo et al.,
Catalogo, in E. Guidoboni (ed.), I terremoti prima del Mille in Italia
e nellarea mediterranea: Storia, archeologia, sismologia (Bologna,
1989), 580621.
36. Should the recent parturition of a mule . . . predicted by haruspices as an incredible progeny of evils, be ridiculed? According to
Pliny (HN 8. 173) the annals were full of mules giving birth, but they
were nonetheless treated as prodigies. Quintus refers speciWcally to
a birth in 50 (Obseq. 65) or 49 (App. BCiv. 2. 144) which was
interpreted as portending civil discord, the death of the nobility,
overthrow of the laws and shameful human births (cf. Col. 6. 27), i.e.
the evils of the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar.
a creature which is naturally sterile The sterility of mules was
discussed from Empedocles onwards (e.g. Arist. Gen. An. 747a34;
Varr. RR 2. 8. 2). Although there were areas renowned for mules
which did produce oVspring (e.g. Varr. RR 2. 1. 27), such births were
suYciently rare in general to give rise to proverbial sayings (Hdt. 3.
151. 2; Suet. Galb. 4. 2).
200
Commentary
Tiberius Gracchus, the son of Publius Publius is probably the

tribune of 189 (RE 2A. 1400). Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (see on
1. 33) was censor in 169. His excellence as an augur was demonstrated by his actions in 163. In Cic.s other philosophical works he is
lauded for wisdom (Fin. 4. 65) and sense (De or. 1. 38).
summon haruspices when two snakes had been caught in his
house Cf. Val. Max. 4. 6. 1; Pliny HN 7. 122; [Aur. Vict] DVI
57. 4; Plut. Ti. Gracch. 1. 23. Gracchus private consultation here
contrasts with his public dismissal of the haruspices in 163. The logic
of the story for Quintus is that Gracchus accepted the usefulness of
haruspices after their vindication in 163. The two snakes are usually
taken (e.g. Bayet 1971: esp. 3747) to represent the Genius and the
Iuno, the guardian spirits of Gracchus and Cornelia, but can also be
identiWed with the genius loci (Serv. Aen. 5. 85; cf. G. K. Boyce, AJA 46
(1942), 1322). Snakes in domestic art are common (e.g. LIMC iv.
426, no. 157, viii. 604, no. 39), and are portrayed most vividly in
various lararia from Pompeii (cf. Kunckel 1974: pls. 2931, 335),
clearly as chthonic creatures operating below the human level (301,
335). In seeking to rationalize the story, Pease considers that these
snakes were family pets (cf. Pliny HN 29. 72), but in that case their
appearance in the house would hardly seem ominous, even if they
were on the marriage bed. Rather, the portent lay in the appearance
in the house of animals which did not belong here, portending death
(cf. Obseq. 58). In dreams, however, the meaning was very diVerent
(cf. Niceph. Onirocr. 16: a snake seen on the bedsuccess).
Gaius Gracchus informs us in the writings he has left Marcus
(2. 62) appears to describe a letter, C. Gracchus wrote to M. Pomponius, while Plutarch (Ti. Gracch. 8. 7) has in a book, but the two
need not be identical (cf. Fleck 1993: 227). The work may have been
an early Roman example of a biography (Santangelo 2005: 200), but
Cic.s purpose in specifying the source is to locate the story within the
strong family tradition of the Gracchi by which they attempted to
demonstrate their piety (Santangelo 2005: 21113).
the young daughter of Publius Africanus Gracchus had married
Cornelia (S. Barnard, Latomus 49 (1990), 38492) after Scipios death
Commentary
201
in early 183; whether Scipio had consented even to the betrothal,

which Plutarch dates after his death, is unclear (Ti. Gracch. 4. 3).
Using the information of Pliny (HN 7. 57) on the fertile union of
Gracchus and Cornelia which produced six girls and then six boys,
and our knowledge of Gracchus public career, the marriage is best
dated in 181/180. Cornelia, then, could not have been born much after
195 and was in her forties when Gracchus died, which is not inconsistent with her description as adulescens (K. M. Moir, CQ 33 (1983),
13645). He was born c.220, as Livy describes him as admodum
adulescens in 204 (29. 38. 7). The purpose of the story is to present
Gracchus as a pious statesman, who does not fear death and succeeds
in being at the same time a devoted husband and a wise citizen
(Santangelo 2005: 210).
a few days later he died Gaius Gracchus was born in 154 or early
153. The elder Gracchus, then, cannot have died before 155/154. On
the grounds that Tiberius Gracchus, born in 163, was considered old
enough to take over his fathers augurate upon the latters death,
a plausible date c.147 has also been suggested (Bernstein 1978: 57
n. 15).
Let us ridicule haruspices . . . Cf. 1. 33 Let us deny . . .
<Let us condemn> Rightly added in light of the recapitulation by
Quintus below let us condemn, I say (J. Vahlen, RhM 27 (1872),
186). On the grounds that the clausula produced is not metrical,
L. Delaruelle (RPh 35 (1911), 2401) argues that no condemnemus be
added and that contemnamus should be attached to what follows.
However, the emphasis given by I say strongly suggests that Cic. is
repeating a word he has used earlier.
Babylon For Babylonians. In the introduction Cic. spoke of Assyrians and Chaldaeans (see on 1. 2), but no real contradiction exists.
Mount Caucasus Quintus probably means the Paropamisus range
in modern Afghanistan (Thoresen), a location which better Wts the
origins of Callanus (Cic. Tusc. 2. 52; see on 1. 47).
202
Commentary
those who cover 470,000 years in their works, as they themselves

assert The tradition in Latin and Greek authors on the enormous
antiquity of Babylonian astrological records goes back to Berosus,
a Babylonian who wrote a Babyloniaca in Greek, which was mined
for information on astrology from the Hellenistic period onwards.
Most of the huge timespan concerned the antediluvian period.
From the existing fragments a span of almost 468,000 years can be
demonstrated. Berosus is credited with 490,000 by Pliny (HN 7. 193);
the Wgures which appear in classical authors without attribution to
Berosus vary greatly: e.g. 473,000, Diod. 2. 31. 9; 480,000, Jul. Afric.
Chron. fr. 1; 432,000, Syncellus 30; 720,000, Epigenes, Plin. HN 7.
193; and 1,440,000, Simplicius, Arist. Cael. 475b. See S. M. Burstein,
The Babylonica of Berossus (Malibu, 1978), 13.
378 Quintus treatment of oracles is brief, and as such diVers
considerably from the treatment of the subject in his Greek philosophical sources: e.g. Chrysippus appears to have given equal weight
to oracles and dreams (see on 1. 6). The reason for this is twofold:
Wrst, although there were many oracles in the Italian peninsula, some
very close to Rome, the Roman state did not consult them, but even
forbade its magistrates to employ them (cf. Val. Max. 1. 3. 3). The
only oracle to receive oYcial embassies from Rome was Delphi, and
then generally as a course of action recommended by the Board of
Ten for Ritual Action and approved by the Senate. Secondly, and
more importantly, these oracles did not produce inspired prophecy
in the 1st cent. In defending the existence of natural divination
Quintus needs to use examples of oracular prophecy produced by
indisputable direct action of the god upon his mouthpiece, rather
than yes or no answers produced by lot or other such types of less
striking oracle (for dice oracles, see F. Graf, Rolling the Dice for an
Answer, in Johnston and Struck 2001: 5197), the kind of material
he will return to later (1. 659).
37. Alright, barbarians are foolish and deceivers . . . To speak of
natural divination This is regarded by Pease as a transitional
passage by Quintus in order to get his argument back on track after
a digression from the discussion of natural divination advertised in
1. 34. However, if we see these chapters as restating and exemplifying
Commentary
203
all four principles from the divisio, Quintus approach is less chaotic
the arguments e consensu omnium and e vetustate are reinforced in
these sections by his posing of rhetorical questions or, in eVect,
by setting up a claim by an imaginary opponent and refuting it,
techniques for which Carneades was noted and which Cic. demonstrates eloquently in his speeches.
who is unaware of the responses Pythian Apollo gave The rhetorical formulation again suits the argument e consensu omnium.
Pease suggests that Cic.s source had excerpted his material from
Herodotus, but this is overly restrictive. If the original collection
goes back to Chrysippus (see below), 4th-cent. authors like Ephorus
would also fall within his ambit (cf. the range of authors citing
oracles, Fontenrose 1978: 240416). Quintus point is also better
served by a reference to a wider period of Greek history. Quintus
limits his case to the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, the most famous and
prestigious pan-Hellenic oracle.
Croesus The last king of Lydia, ousted by the Persians in 547/546,
famously consulted Delphi and other Greek oracles. Herodotus records the famous sequence by which Delphi established its reliability
with Croesus and foretold his downfall (1. 47. 3, 53. 3, 55. 2, 85. 2, 91.
13). Xenophon has two further oracles (Cyr. 7. 2. 1720), but these
are more obscure. Cic.s quotation of an oracle (Div. 2. 115) in
a diVerent form from Herodotus may well suggest no speciWc use
of Herodotus (cf. Fleck 1993: 467).
Athenians Many consultations are recorded in both literary and
epigraphic sources, (e.g. Hdt. 5. 89. 2, 7. 140. 23, 141. 34; Paus. 1.
32. 5; Polyaen. 6. 53; IG 3 78 and 137), but probably Cic. has in mind
those given during the Persian Wars. See e.g. Giuliani 2001; Bowden
2005.
Spartans See on 1. 95. Herodotus examples include that given to
Lycurgus (1. 65. 3), another on the intended conquest of Arcadia (1.
66. 2), the location of the bones of Orestes (1. 67. 4), the legitimacy of
Ariston (6. 66. 3; cf. 5. 63. 1, 7. 220. 4, 8. 114. 1). Further, cf. Paus. 7.
1. 8; Theopompus FGrH 115 F 193.
204
Commentary
Tegeans Quintus may refer to the oracles given the Spartans which
mention Apollos gift of victory over the Tegeans (Hdt. 1. 66. 2, 67. 4),
but consultations by the Tegeans are attested (Ps.-Alcid. Od. 4;
Paus. 8. 53. 3).
Argives Herodotus (6. 19. 12, 77. 2, 7. 148. 3) records consultations during the Ionian revolt and the Persian Wars. Others are
attested (Conon FGrH 26 F 1 xix; Plut. Mor. 340c, 396c; Hesychius
FGrH 390 F 1 iii).
Corinthians The most famous series of Corinthian consultations
concerns the tyranny of Cypselus (Hdt. 5. 92. 23, 92. 2), but
others are also attested (e.g. Paus. 2. 2. 7, 2. 3. 7; Plut. Mor. 773b).
Chrysippus has collected innumerable oracles
his book On Oracles, see on 1. 6.
For Chrysippus and
I pass over these, as they are well known to you This summary
probably comes secondhand via Posidonius (cf. Jaeger 1910: 34 n. 4).
Even though the low proWle of oracles in Quintus case is understandable, the exclusion of examples which had passed Chrysippus
test is not helpful to it.
Delphi would never have been so frequented Delphi was the most
honoured of Greek oracles, as was seen in its treasuries and votive
oVerings (cf. Strabo 419; Just. Epit. 24. 6. 10). The most detailed
ancient description is given by Pausanias (10. 8. 110), while the
epigraphic record demonstrates the general truth of the description.
38. For a long time now that is not the case To be attributed to
Quintus imaginary objector (Wagenvoort 1952: 148). A general
decline in oracles is remarked upon by Strabo (327, 813) and Marcus
comments that Delphi had ceased to issue classic verse prophecies
long before his own time (2. 117). Livy may have made similar
comments (cf. Oros. 6. 15. 1112) and, despite a revival in Delphis
prestige under Trajan and Hadrian, so did Plutarch in his treatise De
Defectu Oraculorum (Mor. 411df). A gradual and uneven decline in
Commentary
205
all oracular activity set in with the emergence of the Hellenistic

kingships (Parker 1985: 3204).
a lesser reputation because the truthfulness of its oracles is less
striking Consultation of Delphi continued, but on a much reduced
scale, so that one Pythia suYced (Plut. Mor. 414b). What Quintus
stresses, however, is that the clearly divine, remarkable instances
of prophecy seem to have disappeared. He ignores the notorious
consultation by Appius Claudius in 48 and the prophecy of his death
(e.g. Val. Max. 1. 8. 10), which would have strengthened his case, but
that was exceptional.
It has been suggested that Cic.s attitude towards Delphi was
moulded by the response he himself received in the early 70s, when
his eagerness to pursue a political career was not encouraged (Plut. Cic.
5. 12), but (i) the story of the consultation is suspect, (ii) the advice
was not such as to deter Cic. (R. Flacelie`re, in Etudes Delphiques
(Athens, 1977), 15960), and (iii) Cic.s description of a diminished
Delphi is one admitted by believers and supporters of Delphi, such as
Plutarch. For Quintus argument, however, which relies in essence on
the consensus omnium, all he requires is that Delphi was at one time
generally believed to be exceptionally accurate in its predictions.
It may be that the terrestrial force . . . has vanished over time It is
odd, and a probable indication of Cic.s overall bias, that Quintus,
who does not attempt to explain successful divination, is here
represented as presenting a possible explanation for the disappearance of divination. His explanation is one which combines the
popular understanding of the Pythias prophecies as induced by
vapours rising into the subterranean chamber in which she was
believed to give her prophecies (e.g. Arist. Mund. 395b269; Diod.
16. 26. 24; Strabo 419; Pliny, HN 2. 208) with Stoic notions of
terrestrial exhalations imperceptible to the senses (cf. 2. 44; Plut. Mor.
432d). The same explanation appears in Plutarch (Mor. 402b,
cf. 437c), alongside others: e.g. (i) because of human wickedness
the gods have withdrawn oracles (Mor. 413a, cf. Schol. Luc. 5. 133),
(ii) a decline in population around oracular sites leading to the gods
withholding their favours (Mor. 414bc), (iii) later Pythias went to
the wrong location to receive inspiration (Mor. 402b), and (iv) the
206
Commentary
cavern was not used after 278 (Schol. Luc. 5. 133). With regard to the
last explanation, Pythias consultations took place in the adyton at the
west end of the temple. Emphasis has been placed on the absence of
evidence for the kind of physical explanation preferred by the Stoics,
e.g. no Wrsthand source describes gases or visible vapours, and the
chasm appears Wrst in Diodorus and the geological realities of limestone and schist were considered inconsistent with the producton of
vapours (see Parke and Wormell 1956: 920; Fontenrose 1978: 197
203). However, samples of water from the nearby Kerna spring and of
the travertine reveal traces of methane, ethane, and ethylene (J. J. de
Boer, J. R. Hale, and J. Chanton, Geology 29 (2001), 70710; J. J. de
Boer and J. R. Hale, The Geological Origins of the Oracle at Delphi,
Greece, in B. McGuire et al., The Archaeology of Geological Catastrophes (London, 2000), 399412). In low quantities these gases
excite the central nervous system and can produce the euphoria,
thrashing of limbs and behaviour consistent with some ancient
descriptions of Pythia. Iamblichus (Myst. 4. 1) argued that vapours
caused only the physical eVects, while Pythias inspiration came from
her possession by Apollo. Even in the 6th and 5th cents., if Herodotus descriptions of the mantic sessions at Delphi are credible, there
were no raving Pythias (cf. T. Compton, RhM 137 (1994), 21723).
certain rivers have disappeared . . . or have . . . turned aside to another
course These phenomena are well attested (e.g. in general Arist.
Meteor. 351b2; Maeander, Strabo 580; Scamander, Plin. HN 5. 124)
and were described from the Archaic period. The appearance of the
comparison in Plutarch (Mor. 433f434a) suggests an origin in
a Greek philosophical source.
Explain its occurrence as you wish . . . over many centuries the
oracle was truthful This conclusion brings together two of the
four principles from the divisio explicitly, i.e. causes are unimportant
and the argument e vetustate, and implicitly that e consensu omnium.
The case here further relies on the accuracy of Greek historiography,
which Quintus is prepared to defend (cf. 1. 37).
3965 Quintus discussion of dreams is the most detailed of
all the arguments in book 1 because dreams oVered both the
Commentary
207
strongest (or easiest) case for divination and that most appropriate to
Quintus known philosophical allegiances (cf. introd., 3), as it was
taken from natural divination. While the general perception of
Quintus argument is that it is disorganized (see introd., 3), his
treatment of dreams is least aVected: it is not fragmented in the way
that the discussion and exempla relating to artiWcial divination are; in
chapters 39 to 59 he develops a largely coherent approach through
a chosen corpus of dream exempla before dealing in chapters 604
with a traditional and major objection that many dreams are false.
Quintus emphasis on natural divination may, on the other hand,
make the case for Marcus easier, as the two forms of natural divination played the smallest role in the state religion and enjoyed less
recognition than augury and the threefold competence of the Etrusca
disciplina. This choice, however, does permit the presentation of
a selection of Roman poetry, which is in line with Stoic approaches
and improves the pleasurable aspect (delectatio) of the work.
Quintus will argue that the existence of divination is proved
empirically, by countless examples which can be located in precise
contexts and which demonstrate that the future can be foretold
with such a close correlation between prediction and outcome that
excludes chance. His defence of dreams, then, is to be inescapably
historical. Indeed, from the outset Quintus emphasizes that the
exempla by which he will demonstrate the validity of divination by
dreams must satisfy strict historical criteria (1. 39) and his comments
on the provenance of his exempla are designed to underline their
credibility. After a Wtting introduction to his argument (1. 39),
Quintus case takes at best a detour and at worst suVers some
Ciceronian sabotage, as the next three exempla are taken not from
historians, but from drama and relate to what we might call the
prehistorical past (1. 403a); and even the dream of Tarquin
(1. 445), which for the Romans had an indisputable historic context, is presented in the words of a dramatist rather than a historian.
A further detour, signalled as such, is the brief discussion of the
human ability to prophesy when close to death (1. 47) before the
argument returns to historical examples and then the dreams of
philosophers (1. 523), who as men dedicated to the pursuit
of truth should be reliable witnesses. Quintus concludes this part of
his defence (1. 589) with a climactic category of prophetic dreams,
208
Commentary
ones which should be open to no objections by Marcus as to their

authenticity, since Quintus and Marcus were themselves the recipients of these dreamsa pleasant and mildly titillating ad hominem
tactic (SchoWeld 1986: 58), but actually of far greater signiWcance
given the criteria for credibility that Marcus will employ.
However, the eVect of the empirical argument is somewhat undercut by the continuation (1. 605), which begins with the objection
of an anonymous, imaginary interlocutor, but many dreams are
false. Quintus response seems to place some stress on the interpretation of the dreams, and to lay blame on the human reception of
dreams. As Stoic belief in divine providence cannot accept the possibility of the gods sending false dreams, false dreams have to be the
fault of human beings. His second point is essentially that enunciated
throughout the dialogue, that outcomes rather than explanations are
crucial. Therefore, if some dreams can only, or even most plausibly,
be regarded as veridical, the phenomenon of the divinatory dream
exists. This, however, is overshadowed by the lengthy explanation,
based on Plato, that many dreams are not veridical because
the dreamers soul is not in a state where it can dream purely. The
empirical argument slips away into a theoretical discussion of
the nature of the soul and how it dreams, presenting three explanations formulated by Posidonius (1. 634). Quintus advertised
a reWned, empirical argument along traditional Stoic lines, one
that would demonstrate an unparalleled concern for the historicity
of the exempla. However, its basic empirical thrust is weakened by
needless detours, by poor organization of exempla, and by the overshadowing of its climactic point by a progression to a theoretical
discussion that is unnecessary for the empirical argument (as even
Cratippus suggests in the conclusion to the discussion on natural
divination).
39. Lets leave oracles and lets come on to dreams A simple transition between the two kinds of natural divination to be discussed.
Chrysippus . . . Antipater See on 1. 6.
searching out those dreams which . . . demonstrate the intelligence
of the interpreter No direct quotation from Antiphons work
Commentary
209
survives and Cic.s comments (cf. 1. 116, 2. 144) provide the only
information on its content and argument. Antiphon introduced into
oneirocrisis a more sophisticated form of rationalistic analysis of the
comparison between sign and signiWer and relativistic criteria for
examination of the dream images and the dreamer. Quintus clearly
distinguishes the dreams Antiphon collected from examples of true
natural divination, which require no interpretation, and rightly sees
them as a form of artiWcial divination or even as a sophistic technique,
cf. the view attributed to Antiphon the tragedian, that divination is
guesswork by a thoughtful man (anthropou phronimou eikasmos,
Gnom. Vindob. 50. p. 14 W). See Del Corno 1969: 12931.
Antiphon From the confusing testimonia, and diVerences in
language and style, it is debatable whether Antiphon the sophist
and writer on dreams should be identiWed with the logographer
(Antiphon of Rhamnus), see Pendrick 2002: 126 (but for the
counter-case, see M. Gagarin, GRBS 31 (1990), 2744, and
J. Wiesner, WS 107/8 (1994/5), 22543). The Suda (s.v. `H
`
E O
(1. 245 Adler) ) gives the title as On the
Interpretation of Dreams (Peri kriseos oneiron). It is referred to by
Artemidorus (1. 14) and Seneca (Contr. 2. 1. 33).
he ought to have used more weighty examples Antiphon must
have collected ordinary dreams rather than famous examples from
history or literature, not relating them to individuals or historical
events, perhaps anticipating the kind of material found in Artemidorus. Marcus criticizes Chrysippus also for this (cf. 2. 144), which
suggests a diVerent treatment from that which he gave oracles, for
which he sets out the source and evidence (2. 56). However, when
Quintus refers to Stoics in connection with the famous dreams of
Simonides and the two Arcadians (1. 56), he means Chrysippus
and Antipater and shows that some context was given. Weightier
suggests primarily credible sources, and in what follows Quintus
speciWes his sources clearly and sometimes explicitly comments on
their reliability (e.g. 1. 46, 48, 49).
Philistus, a learned and careful man, a contemporary of the times
Philistus assisted Dionysius in his rise to power (Diod. 13. 91. 4),
210
Commentary
served as garrison-commander in the northern expeditions (Plut.

Dion 11. 4) and was clearly a friend of the tyrant (Cic. Q Fr. 2. 12, De
or. 2. 57). However, in 386 he was exiled and returned to Syracuse
only after Dionysius death (Plut. Dion 11. 4; Paus. 1. 13. 9) to
preserve the tyranny and then served Dionysius II until his death in
356. Philistus wrote a history of Sicily in six books and then four
books on Dionysius (Diod. 13. 103. 3), concentrating on his rise to
power and anti-Carthaginian activities down to 396. See L. J. Sanders,
Kokalos 32 (1986), 517. Given the vicissitudes of his life under
Dionysius, his attitude towards the tyrant is complex (cf. Sanders
1987: 4371; M. Sordi in H. Verdin (ed.), Purposes of History: Studies
in Greek Historiography from the 4th to the 2nd Centuries B.C. (Louvain, 1990), 15971; eadem, La dynasteia in occidente (Padua, 1992),
and G. Vanotti, Hesper`a, 4 (1994), 7582).
Quintus signals that he is taking his own medicine and begins the
defence of dreams by using a historian who met the contemporary
criteria for reliability (cf. Cic. Brut. 414) and with whose work Cic. had
been familiar since the mid-50s. By using Philistus Quintus in eVect
echoes Cic.s praise of his On Dionysius from a decade earlier (Q Fr. 2.
12. 4). Moreover, Philistus testimony is not rejected by Marcus in book
2, which tends to conWrm the positive verdict (cf. Fleck 1993: 656).
However, others were less sanguine, cf. the character that he displays is
that of a fawning tyrant-lover, mean and petty (Dion Hal. Pomp. 5),
a judgement softened by the acknowledgement that he displays some
intelligence and according to Pausanias (1. 13. 9; cf. Plut. Mor. 855c)
concealed the worst of Dionysius crimes in order to win a recall from
exile; perhaps he deliberately modelled his Dionysius on the perfect
prince in Xenophons Hiero (M. Sordi, Athenaeum 58 (1980), 1213).
Dionysius who was the tyrant of Syracuse Dionysius, son of Hermocritus, was tyrant of Syracuse from 405 to his death in 367. He
seems to have been of good birth, but not part of the old aristocracy
(Cic. Tusc. 5. 58; cf. Isoc. Phil. 65). The name of Dionysius mother is
unknown, but the date of this example must be c.430. On Dionysius,
see K. F. Stroheker, Dionysius (Wiesbaden, 1958), and Caven 1990.
dreamt that she had given birth to a small satyr The dreams of
mothers pregnant with future memorable individuals abound in
Commentary
211
classical and Christian literature (see F. Lanzoni, Analecta Bollandiana 45 (1927), esp. 243 V.). The nature of the dream preWgures the
character of the child.
Galeotae The Galeotae were an hereditary clan of seers, in legend
from Telmessus, but associated with Hybla Geleatis (Steph. Byz. s.v.
; Paus. 5. 23. 67), a town near Catania on the slopes of Etna in
an area under indigenous Sicilian control. They remained loyal to
Syracuse during the Athenian invasion and to Dionysius during the
rebellion of 404/403. Dionysius thereafter used them to provide
a divine sanction for his exercise of power, especially over the indigenous Sicilians. His political manipulation can be seen in this
example and in the legend that their eponymous founder Galeotes,
son of Apollo, king of the Hyperboreans, was sent to Sicily by Zeus
after consulting his oracle at Dodona. This story was concocted c.388
to 385 to justify Dionysius invasion of Epirus in order to restore
Alcetes to the Molossian throne, and his alliance with the Gauls in
Italy who were known by 4th-cent. Greeks as Hyperboreans (Heracl.
Pont. fr. 102 Wehrli). See P. Catturini, RIL 121 (1987), 1523.
The name Galeotae has suggested divination by the observation of
gecko-lizards or by understanding their language, but the earliest
reference to them in Archippus Fishes is a joking allusion to them as
dogWsh (galeoi), a form seen also in Phanodemus (FGrH 325 F 20)
and Rhinthon (fr. 17 K). See Parke 1967: 1789.
most famous in Greece enjoying long-lasting good fortune As
satyrs were pre-eminently liminal Wgures (e.g. F. Lissarrague, On
the Wildness of Satyrs, in T. H. Carpenter and C. A. Faraone (eds.),
Masks of Dionysus (Ithaca, NY, 1993), 20720) associated with the
god whose nature was the most Xuid of all Greek divinities (e.g.
A. Henrichs, Changing Dionysiac Identities, in B. F. Meyer and
E. P. Sanders (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-DeWnition, iii (Philadelphia, 1982), 13760), the interpretation of the little satyr is not
straightforward. Satyrs in art are frequently represented as creatures
of sexual excess (see F. Lissarrague, The Sexual Life of Satyrs, in
D. M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler, and F. I. Zeitlin (eds.), Before Sexuality:
The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Greek World (Princeton,
1990), 5381), so in Timaeus hostile version it probably preWgured
212
Commentary
a tyrannical libido, as was the case in Hermippus characterization of

Pericles (cf. R. Vattuone, Ricerche su Timeo: La pueritia di Agatocle
(Florence, 1983), 326). In Artemidorus (2. 37), the satyr portends
disturbance, danger, and scandal. However, as Dionysius was a ruler
who consciously demonstrated his devotion to Dionysus, we can
expect that there was a positive interpretation of the dream of the
Wgure of the gods most famous companion. In Philistus, the dream
may have featured prominently at the beginning of the Wrst book,
portending Dionysius great reign (Sanders 1987: 478), contributing
a psychological explanation of Dionysius character, ambitions, and
name with its link to the god Dionysus, and demonstrating divine
support for Dionysius reign (cf. S. Lewis, The Tyrants Myth, in
C. Smith and J. Serrati (eds.), Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus (Edinburgh, 2000), 1013).
Fortune seems to have featured prominently in Philistus version
of Dionysius career (L. J. Sanders, Kokalos 367 (19901), 129),
although not necessarily to decry the tyrants own talents. While
long-lasting good fortune may refer primarily to Dionysius long
reign and natural death, the notion of military success, the foundation of Dionysius position, is also relevant.
40. legends related by our poets and those of the Greeks? From
a modern point of view Quintus move to ancient drama as a source
of credible examples is surprising, but for Cic. Ennius Annales, in
particular, are a source of great authority (cf. W. J. ONeal, CB 64
(1988), 359). In Quintus presentation, legends (fabulae) form
a speciWc category of material, taken from dramatic or epic poetry
concerning episodes from the prehistoric period (see on 1. 43).
Nonetheless, the story of the impregnation of a mortal woman by
a god was of the kind that many found improbable, hence the generation of versions in which mortal men were responsible (e.g. Dion.
Hal. 1. 77. 1; [Aur. Vict.] Orig. gent. Rom. 19. 5), or viewed with
outright scepticism, as by Varro (August. De civ. D. 3. 4 Ant. Div.
fr. 20 C) and Cic. himself (Rep. 2. 4; cf. ND 2. 70) or veiled disbelief
(Liv. 1. 4. 12). It is not a good example for Quintus to employ.
in Ennius the Vestal recounts This constitutes the Wrst extended
fragment of the Annales extant (1. 3450 Sk). To serve Quintus
Commentary
213
purpose the dream must foretell what will happen to Ilia, i.e. her rape
by Mars and her subsequent suVerings, but because of the lack of
context it is not clear how Ennius handles the story. Skutsch (1985:
194) rightly dismisses the possibility that Ennius told the story after
the dream as anticlimactic (cf. Jocelyn 198990: 423) or explained
the facts that lay behind the dream, and Goldbergs suggestion (1995:
101) that Ilia recounts what has happened to her as if it were a dream
is unconvincing. It seems probable that Ilia was raped while she slept
and that she is pregnant as she reports her dream to her sister,
a reconstruction which is supported by Cic.s inclusion of this as the
second of three examples of veridical dreams of pregnant women (cf.
Krevans 1993: 2656). Ennius achieves a Hellenistic remodelling of
the Homeric tale of Tyros rape by Poseidon (Od. 11. 23559), transforming a concealing sleep into a revelatory dream and narrating the
episode from the womans perspective (C. Connors, MD 32 (1994),
1028). Her dream, although not suppressing the sexual aspect, does
not elaborate on it; in Artemidorus terminology it was an oneiros
theorematikos (a dream which is to be interpreted as seen), a type that
Wgures rarely in epic and drama because of limited dramatic potential
compared with symbolic dreams (Jocelyn 198990: 415).
the old woman She is probably Ilias nurse and servant, although
she is described as a Vestal by Quintus, and is to be distinguished from the character addressed as daughter of Eurydice (Skutsch
1985: 196).
Daughter of Eurydice, whom our father loved Eurydice was
Aeneas Wrst wife (Paus. 10. 26. 1). The use of germana soror and
soror of the sister, whose name is usually given as Creusa (e.g. Dion.
Hal. 3. 31. 4), suggests that Ilia was also Eurydices daughter (Jocelyn
198990: 22), although Timpanaro prefers that she is the oVspring
from another marriage (Serv. Aen. 6. 777), possibly to a daughter of
the king of Alba Longa. For the motif of conversation with
a conWdante after a terrifying dream, see W.-H. Friedrich, Philologus
97 (1948), 28891.
a handsome man appeared to me and snatched me away Ilias
abduction by Mars, whose beauty (cf. Dion. Hal. 1. 77. 2) is
214
Commentary
a typical divine attribute seen in many accounts of dreams and

visions (e.g. Hdt. 7. 12. 1; Plut. Sull. 17. 2; Plin. Ep. 2. 27. 2; Tac.
Hist. 4. 83; see Oakley 1998: 4323), but may also carry a nuance of
sexual attraction (Krevans 1993: 261). Snatched away (raptare) may
describe a violent rape, but the following lines recreate the nightmare
aspect of dreams common in tragedy and through the depiction of
Ilias distress may allude to her rape (Krevans 1993: 265). Ennius
mention of river banks and willows sets the rape outside the house
and is not incompatible with the traditional setting of the grove of
Mars (e.g. Orig. gent. Rom. 20. 1; Dion. Hal. 1. 77. 1).
41. my father seemed to address me Ilia now hears the voice of the
dead Aeneas. Jocelyn argues (198990: 456) that the scene envisages
Aeneas as a Faunus or Aius Locutius, i.e. a voice with no attending
visual manifestation, but disappeared (recessit) suggests otherwise.
you must Wrst endure miseries, then your fortune will rise from the
river The fate of Ilia is reported variously (Dion. Hal. 1. 79. 12):
death, imprisonment (cf. Plut. Rom. 3. 4) or, as Ennius goes on to
describe, drowning in the Tiber or Anio at Antemnae (Porph. ad Hor.
Odes 1. 2. 18; cf. Serv. Aen. 1. 273). The natural referent of fortune
(cf. Enn. Ann. 1. 56 Sk) is the survival of Romulus and Remus who
were cast adrift on the Tiber.
the blue expanses of heaven The original augural signiWcance of
templum has yielded to the notion of vault (cf. S. Timpanaro, SCO
46 (1996), esp. 319).
42. Although these words are the creations of a poet, nonetheless
they are not alien to the regular experience of dreams Although
Jocelyn (198990: 39) takes Quintus words to suggest that Ennius
version of the dream had no literary predecessor, the comment is
addressed rather to the question of historicity and genre and
is essentially defensive: the example derives from a poet, by nature
less reliable than a historian (cf. Leg. 1. 5).
Nonetheless, it has been presented plausibly, in that the type of
experiences narrated by Ilia in her dream are commonplace (lost and
alone: Hippocr. Reg. 4. 93; Cic. Div. 1. 59; Apul. Met. 4. 27; hearing
Commentary
215
the voice of a parent: Artem. 2. 69), and so may draw implicit

support from the argument e consensu omnium. The subtlety
of Ennius creation and his success in evoking the confused experience of the dreamer are clear (cf. Skutsch 1985: 194; Goldberg
1995: 96101).
The following too, I admit, is Wction Fiction (commenticius) is
used often by Cic. of things his speakers consider fanciful or imaginary (e.g. ND 1. 18, 28, 2. 70; OV. 3. 39). This admission of the nonhistorical status of material from tragedy and drama is made more
clearly by Quintus at 1. 68: from you yourself I have heard an
example . . . not one made up but one which happened. Despite
Quintus open admission, Marcus will still Wx on it as a weakness
of his argument (2. 27, 113).
Hecuba dreamt . . . that she gave birth to a Xaming torch A
quotation from the prologue to Ennius tragedy Alexander which
was based loosely on that of Euripides (see Jocelyn 1967: 204).
The speaker is more likely to be Venus than Cassandra or
Hecuba (Timpanaro 1996: 910). Hecubas dream appears in
many authors from the 5th cent. onwards (Pind. Paean. 8. 2833;
Eur. Tro. 9202; Schol. Eur. Andr. 293; Schol. A Hom. Il. 3. 325;
Hygin. Fab. 91; Apoll. Bibl. 3. 12. 5. 2; Dict. Cret. 3. 26). Ennius
appears to translate verbatim Euripides version of the dream (cf.
Tro. 922), in which the torch is a symbol of the ultimate burning
of Troy.
King Priam himself . . . demanded an interpretation The religious
role of sacriWcing, which some of the Greek versions attribute to
Hecuba (e.g. Schol. Eur. Andr. 293), Ennius gives to Priam, perhaps
to suit the Roman context. Priam treats the dream as a portent
which requires expiation (procuratio), responding as a Roman
would and using Roman religious terms: peace, which may reXect
the Roman notion of pax deorum as well as Priams subjective
feelings (for Roman prayers with the formula grant peace, cf.
Plaut. Merc. 67880; Cic. Rab. Perd. 5; Livy 39. 10. 5, 42. 2. 3),
interpretation, and conjecture (see on 1. 24). See Jocelyn 1967:
2212.
216
Commentary
begged Apollo to explain to him the fate portended by such an

extraordinary dream Priam appears to consult Apollo directly,
rather than through an intermediary, probably from the temple in
Troy rather than from an oracle in Asia Minor (Timpanaro 1996:
1516). InsuYcient context survives to conWrm the suggestion that
the term sortes (here translated as fate) may be a poetic description of
consulting an oracle by the casting of lots (Jocelyn 1967: 2223, 225).
not to raise the son Ennius tollere, which has frequently been
interpreted as deriving from a Roman ritual in which the father
picked up from the hearth the child he had decided to raise (e.g.
Jocelyn 1967: 2267), means no more than bring up (B. D. Shaw,
Mnem. 54 (2001), esp. 389).
43. unhistorical dreams Unhistorical (fabularum) has a double
meaning, Wrst, as found in drama or epic and secondly imaginary,
purely invented. The former is probably the more important here, as
Quintus points to a generic contrast, between fabulae and annales,
i.e. between the kinds of dream regularly found in epic or drama and
historical works. Cf. Leg. 1. 5: there is one set of rules to be obeyed in
history, another in poetry.
the dream of Aeneas After Aeneas landing in Italy, the escape of
his intended sacriWcial victim and its dropping of a litter of thirty
piglets led him to believe that the oracle he had received on the site of
his future city had been fulWlled, but Fabius records that as he slept
he saw a vision which strictly forbade him to do so and advised him to
found the city after thirty years, corresponding to the number of the
piglets which had been born, and so he gave up his plan (Diod. 7. 5.
45 Fabius Pictor fr. 5 Ch; cf. Dion. Hal. 1. 56. 5: a great
and wonderful vision in a dream in the likeness of one of his
countrys gods).
the Greek histories of Fabius Pictor Q. Fabius Pictor, son of Gaius
(SEG xxvi. 1123). His traditional identiWcation with the senator who
had fought against the Gauls and Ligustini in the 230s and 220s
(Polyb. 3. 9. 4; cf. Cic. Tusc. 1. 4) and was sent as ambassador to
Delphi in 216 after the defeat at Cannae (Livy 22. 57. 5) can be
Commentary
217
maintained. He was the Wrst Roman writer of literary history (Dion.

Hal. 7. 71. 1; Livy 2. 40. 1), but wrote in Greek at the end of the 3rd
cent. or beginning of the 2nd cent., because the Roman historical
tradition was unsatisfactory by comparison with what Greeks such as
Timaeus were producing and perhaps also in order to present the
Roman side of events to the Greeks against pro-Carthaginian authors
like Philinus and Silenus. See Badian 1966: 26; Momigliano 1990:
8892, 97108; Dillery 2002: 123.
Histories (annales) is the general term for a work of literary
history relating to Rome rather than a translation of the title of his
Greek work. Here Cic. speciWes Greek histories to distinguish them
from the Latin tr. of Quintus work by one Numerius Fabius Pictor
(Cic. Brut. 81; see E. Badian, LCM 1 (1976), 978). It is not clear that
Fabius himself went on to produce a Latin version of his Greek annals
(cf. F. Branchini, Athenaeum 39 (1961), 35861). For the MSS
reading in numerum the best correction is nimirum in (Dederich),
as genre rather than chauvinism (implied by nostri) is central to
Quintus argument here.
which is certainly of the same kind Cf. Diodorus use of muthos
(7. 5. 4): tells a story (memuthologeke). Cic. attributes no great
weight to Fabius as a source for Roman history, never citing him as
the father of Roman history. His appearance here, the explicit
connection with the tendencies of poets and the pointed exclusion
of the dream of Aeneas from the dreams you took from histories
(Div. 2. 136), underlines this negative verdict (see Fleck 1993:
98102). That Fabius has to be cited as source for this story
suggests that it was not well known to Cic.s readers before the
inXuence of the Iulii remoulded the traditions of Romes legendary
past (Erskine 2001: 31), although Aeneas did feature even in Catos
Origines (Serv. Aen. 1. 6).
Lets look at examples closer to our time . . . dream . . . of Tarquinius
Superbus Quintus draws a secondary distinction between the
mythical and historical periods and the inherent credibility of their
traditions, but leaves it open, by his question, what status he accords
to events from the regal period. Quintus presents an episode with an
indisputable and important historical context in Roman eyes, the
218
Commentary
moment of transfer from regal to Republican government, although

the version he gives is that of another poet. Marcuss failure to
respond to this or to any of the poetic examples reveals his implicit
view that they are unhistorical.
Accius Brutus L. Accius was one of the most pre-eminent Roman
dramatists, highly praised by Cic. (e.g. Planc. 59; Sest. 120), but
rated below Pacuvius (see on 1. 24). His Brutus was a fabula
praetexta, a serious play on a subject from Roman history (see
H. I. Flower, CQ 45 (1995), 17090), probably written and Wrst
produced for his patron D. Junius Brutus Callaecus, to celebrate
either his triumph or the dedication of the temple of Mars built
from his war booty (cf. Manuwald 2001: 2224). M. Junius Brutus,
the conspirator against Caesar, was urban praetor of 44 and sponsored a new production of an Accius play during the Ludi Apollinares in July 44. It seems that he expected to stage Brutus (Cic. Att.
16. 5. 1), but in fact only Tereus was presented (Cic. Att. 16. 2. 3),
presumably because Brutus was considered too provocative in the
aftermath of Caesars assassination. These events postdate the writing, revision, and publication of De Divinatione (see introd., 6),
even if Cic. knew of the intention to stage Brutus in early June (cf.
J. Boes, REL 59 (1981), 16476) or, less likely, even before the
assassination (cf. Guittard 1985: 47). It is highly unlikely, therefore,
that this dream was deliberately inserted by Cic. to blacken Caesar
as a tyrant. Nonetheless, Tarquins dream sits oddly in the middle
of a series of pregnancy dreams, but, even if it is considered a later
insertion, the example of Phalaris in 1. 46 could not follow directly
after 1. 43. The juxtaposition of two dreams dealing with evil
tyrants in its way also has a point.
44. I saw in a dream . . . Accius combines Greek, Etruscan, and
Roman elements, some possibly derived from near-eastern ruler
symbolism of the sun and the ram (Fauth 1976: esp. 478503).
Dreams are a frequent feature in Greek literature from Homer
onwards, but Accius owes speciWc debts to Euripides in the development of the two main themes of the dream, the death of the victim
and the reversal of the suns course, which are taken from the Atreus
legend. The celestial portent probably appeared Wrst in Accius
Commentary
219
Atreus, but in his Brutus the poet employed the familiar incident with
its associations of tyranny and an end to usurped rule, transferring
the motifs to a dream. We probably have a poetic appropriation of
these motifs for the Tarquin legend from tragedy, rather than a poetic
working of historical elements of Roman history, but one which
does employ the myth and symbolism of Etruscan-Roman kingship.
Accius play inXuenced the contemporary writers of Roman history,
notably L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, rather than vice versa (cf. Forsythe
1994: 2512). See Guittard 1985: 4767 and Manuwald 2001: 22632.
a Xeecy herd of outstanding beauty . . . sacriWced the more magniWcent of the two This ram signiWes the elder brother of L. Junius
Brutus, whom Tarquin killed as a potential threat to his power (Dion.
Hal. 4. 68. 2; cf. Livy 1. 56. 7; Val. Max. 7. 2. 1). The symbolism of the
sheep for Tarquin emerges from the separate traditions of oneirocrisis and Etruscan religion. In the former the symbolism is positive (cf.
Artemidorus 2. 12: I have observed that sheep, whether they are
white or black, are auspicious . . . sheep resemble men in that they
follow a shepherd and live together in Xocks and, because of their
name, they are analogous to advancement and progress for the better.
Therefore it is most auspicious, especially for men who wish to stand
at the head of a crowd . . . to possess many sheep of their own and also
to see and shepherd the Xocks of others. Furthermore, a ram represents the master of the house, a magistrate or king); in the latter, the
sheep as a domestic animal was a source of favourable omens.
Guittard (1985: 525) attempts to develop the Etruscan aspect by
reference to a passage of Macrobius (Sat. 3. 7. 2: it is handed down in
a book of the Etruscans that, if this animal [ram] is of an unusual
colour, good fortune in all things is portended for the ruler. Moreover, there is the book of Tarquitius, translated from the Ostentarium
Tuscum. There we Wnd: if a sheep or ram is sprinkled with purple or
golden colour, it increases the greatness of the rulers family and line
with the utmost good fortune, produces for him a family and
oVspring and makes it of greater good fortune), but nothing in
Accius language indicates that the Xeece was golden or purple.
Tarquin merely sacriWces the best. Greater point is given to the
appearance of a ram by the etymology of the Etruscan root *tar as
ruler or prince (Fauth 1976: 4879).
220
Commentary
its brother made for me with its horns . . . severely hurt, on my

back The second ram signiWes L. Junius Brutus, the overthrower
of Tarquin and Wrst consul of the Roman Republic (see e.g. Cornell
1995: 21516; Mastrocinque 1988). Accius does not rely on dream
lore here, but the simple parallel between the mishap to Tarquin in
the dream and his historical fate of exile; he will not be killed, but will
live to see the new political order (cf. Diod. 22. 7. 1: Phintias the
tyrant of Acragas saw a dream which revealed to him the end of his
life: as he was hunting a wild boar, the boar rushed at him, struck his
side with its tusks, ran him through and killed him).
the Xaming rayed orb of the sun melted away on a new path to the
right Parallels from the Atreus myth (see Schmitz 1993: 2018)
suggest that there was some change in the suns direction (Eur. Or.
10016; El. 72631, 73942; IT 1925, 816; cf. Mastrocinque 1983:
4601). Whether Euripides describes, in the highly Wgured language of
choral odes, a 1808 change in the suns directionpreviously it set in
the east and culminated in the north (cf. West 1987: 54)or
a displacement of the celestial pole which resulted in the stars (the
zodiac) moving in the opposite direction to the sun (Willink 1986:
2536), is unclear. However, neither of these may be necessary for an
interpretation of Accius dream, in which greater signiWcance attaches
to Etruscan or Roman ideas. The kings orientation, like that of the
gods in Etruscan augury, was southwards: i.e. the sun rises on his left
and sets on his right. There is no need to hold that Accius is importing
Greek orientation and that the portent involves the sun setting in the
east. If so, the absence of reversal of the suns course as a portent
recorded in Roman annals becomes irrelevant. Its signiWcance in
dreams, that every endeavour and hope will meet with opposition
and everything on which they have set their hearts will go unWnished
(Artem. 2. 36), while appropriate to Tarquin, is incidental to Accius.
Cf. Hippocrates (Reg. 4. 89): whenever a heavenly body appears to fall
away from its orbit, if it is pure and bright and moves towards the east,
it indicates health . . . but whenever a heavenly body seems to be dark
and dull and to move towards the west . . . this indicates disease.
45. what interpretation of that dream was given by the diviners For Guittard (1985: 56) the diviners are Roman not Etruscan
Commentary
221
(cf. Dion. Hal. 4. 59. 3), but nothing in the passage suggests this.
While it is possible that Accius highlights a conXict between Roman
diviners and an Etruscan ruler, it is no less eVective if Tarquin has
his future revealed by Etruscan haruspices, whom his audience
would expect to be the interpreters of prodigies. Accius carefully
constructs the response so as to pick up the three elements of
Lucius Junius Brutus name, in reverse order, identifying him
beyond doubt, but involving an element of suspense (Guittard
1985: 58).
the things which men do . . . so important a matter The diviner
begins by carefully distinguishing Tarquins dream from what Marcus
calls natural dreams (Div. 2. 128, 139), the obvious reXection of the
dreamers daily concerns. Although this is a commonplace found in
literature and medical texts from Herodotus onwards (e.g. Hdt. 7. 16.
2; Ps.-Hippocr. Insomn. 88; Arist. Insomn. 3; Menand. 780 K; Ter.
Andr. 9712; Cic. Rep. 6. 10) and in Aristotles rejection of divinatory
dreams (Insomn. 461a1823; Div. somn. 463a2130; Probl. 957a215),
it is crucial for the diviner to set aside the psychological or medical
approaches and establish that this dream was sent by the gods.
the one whom you consider as stupid as a sheep Stupid recalls the
meaning of the cognomen Brutus, which Brutus acquired for his
feigned stupidity (cf. Post. Alb. fr. 4 Ch; Cic. Brut. 53; Livy 1. 56. 78;
Val. Max. 7. 2. 1).
a man out of the ordinary Accius indulges in typical word play
here, as a man out of the ordinary (egregium) is very appropriate for
an animal from a Xock (e grege). The key idea underlying these
words is that of Brutus as a man of action: his nomen Junius is
clearly connected with the root *iun, with its sense of power (Schulze
1933: 470).
that which was shown you with regard to the sun portends an
immediate change in their aVairs for the people The praenomen
Lucius is connected with lux (light), speciWcally with the rising sun
(Festus 106 L)hence the last element of Brutus identity is revealed.
In for the people (populo) and aVairs (rerum) Accius introduces an
222
Commentary
immediate allusion to the res publica, the name of the new political
order (as also three lines later).
a good omen for the people . . . the most favourable augury that the
Roman commonwealth will be supreme Accius uses archaic and
precise religious language: verrunco (cf. Acc. 688 D; Livy 29. 27. 2)
and augury (augurium) of the status of the new order: it will enjoy
the permanent support of the gods (cf. Linderski 1986: 338 1995:
493). For the king facing south his left (the east) was the favourable
direction for bird and lightning signs; here, by extension, the sun is
assimilated to these. Res publica (commonwealth) is used emphatically
as a description of the new order.
46. Now let us return to foreign examples Quintus signals the end
of his digression and returns to his plan of citing powerful examples
(1. 39) and to the same material, i.e. pregnancy dreams.
Heraclides Ponticus . . . a pupil and follower of Plato Heraclides,
from Heraclea Pontica, joined Platos Academy in the 360s and
narrowly failed to secure its headship in 339. In Cic. he is always
cited as an adherent of Plato (cf. Leg. 3. 14; ND 1. 34; Tusc. 5. 8).
Quintus emphasizes that Heraclides is a learned man (doctus vir)
in order to meet the criteria he has set for his examples (1. 39).
As a follower of Plato, Heraclides accepted the reality of prophetic
dreams as an example of natural divination (cf. Tert. An. 46. 6, 57. 10).
Wehrli allocates this dream to On Oracles (fr. 132), O. Voss
(De Heraclidis Pontici vita et scriptis (Diss. Rostock, 1896), 87)
suggests his Foreseeing (Prooptikon; Diog. Laert. 5. 88), while
Gottschalk tentatively considers On the Soul. See H. B. Gottschalk,
Heraclides of Pontus (Oxford, 1980).
the mother of Phalaris Phalaris birthplace, and thus the probable
location for the dream may have been Astypalaea on Crete, although
the sources for this are both late and dubious (Ps.-Phal. Ep. 4, p. 408
Hercher; Tzetz. Chil. 1. 643). If Phalaris held a magistracy before his
tyranny (Arist. Pol. 1310b28) the chronological context of the dream
is c.600. Philistus was tyrant of Acragas from c.570 to 554. See
O. Murray, Falaride tra mito e storia, in L. Braccesi and E. de Miro
Commentary
223
(eds.), Agrigento e la Sicilia greca (Rome, 1992), 4760, and V. Hinz,

Nunc Phalaris doctum protulit ecce caput: Antike Phalaris Legende und
Nachleben der Phalarisbriefe (Munich, 2001), esp. 19126.
she saw in her dreams the statues of the gods which she herself had
dedicated in the house The full signiWcance of the dream is diYcult
to uncover as we lack a detailed account of Phalaris reign and
downfall. Clearly the dream portends evil and disaster, and in its
context the interpretation will have been striking. The emphasis on
the mothers own responsibility and the location within the house
may point to a catastrophe aVecting the house and herself. For there
is a story that Phalaris mother and his friends were roasted in the
infamous bull by the Agrigentans (Heracl. Lem. 69 Dilts). Alternatively the house may represent Acragas and Phalaris reign of terror.
Mercury seemed to pour blood from the bowl The archetypal god
of craftiness symbolizes Phalaris, whose deviousness was renowned
(Polyaen. 5. 1. 14). Might the dream allude to the means by which
Phalaris seized powermisusing his oYce as tax-collector, turning
state servants against the male citizens at the Thesmophoria and
ruling over the survivors (Polyaen. 5. 1. 1)? Per se the presence of
a patera in the gods hand (see LIMC s.v. Hermes nos. 8018) is
banal, merely indicating divinity (P. Veyne, Metis 5 (1990), 19,
278), but the Xow of blood from an implement which normally
received milk or wine portends death (cf. 1. 98).
The cruelty of her inhuman son Cruelty was the distinguishing
characteristic of this tyrant from the early 5th cent. (Pind. Pyth. 1.
956, 1856) and also in Cic. (cf. Verr. 2. 4. 73, 2. 5. 145; Pis. 42; Tusc.
2. 7, 5. 26, 31; Fin. 5. 24, 28) who specially coins the term Falarismos
(Att. 7. 12. 2). Criticism centres on the infamous hollow bronze bull
in which his victims were roasted alive, the Wrst allegedly its sculptor
Perilaus (Timaeus FGrH 566 F 28c; Callimachus fr. 46 Pf.); his
killings were indiscriminate (Polyaen. 5. 1. 2). Inhuman may apply
particularly to charges of cannibalism, which were levelled from
Clearchus (fr. 61 Wehrli) onwards, although a more general meaning
relating to the monstrosity of his conduct towards his own citizens is
preferable. See G. Schepens, Anc. Soc. 9 (19789), 13941.
224
Commentary
Dinons Persica Dinon of Colophon followed Ctesias in producing an account of Persian history and customs probably in the
340s. The extant fragments (FGrH 690) demonstrate that Dinons
work is full of Wctions and romance for dramatic eVect (cf.
R. Drews, The Greek Accounts of Eastern History (Washington,
DC, 1973), 11618; R. B. Stevenson, Lies and Invention in Deinons
Persica, in H. Sancisi-Weerdenberg and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Achaemenid History II (Leiden, 1987), 2735; R. B. Stevenson, Persica
(Edinburgh, 1997)).
Although Dinon would not seem the sort of source to strengthen
Quintus argument, his reputation in Rome in the 1st cent. was
probably respectable: Nepos (Con. 5. 4) describes him as the historian in whom we have the greatest trust on Persian matters.
the interpretations which the Magi gave The etymology of magus
has been connected with power (J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Worterbuch (Bern, 1959), 695) or membership of the
priestly tribe (cf. M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism (Leiden,
197582), i. 1011, ii. 1920), and became the old Persian term for
a priest (magu). It is used of one of the six tribes of the Medes (Hdt.
1. 101), but principally of the priestly caste within the Zoroastrian
religion. In Greek and Latin authors their religious function is
central, e.g. as interpreters of dreams (Hdt. 1. 107, 108, 120).
Although dreams were important in Zoroastrianism, it is not certain
how accurately traditions in classical sources reXect the magis activity in this area. See de Jong 1997: 387403.
Cyrus the First Cyrus the founder of the Achaemenid dynasty,
not the Cyrus whom Xenophon accompanied (1. 52). Born c.600,
he was son of Cambyses the ruler of Persis under the Medes; by 558
he had succeeded his father. Whether the name Cyrus is Iranian,
Elamite, or even Indian, it was explained to Greek sources, Ctesias
and then Dinon, that Cyrus was connected with the sun (Plut.
Artax. 1. 2; cf. Hesych. s.v. F ). This dream connects the
important Persian religious symbol of the sun with the founder
of their great imperialist dynasty. See CHI ii. 40418; M. A.
Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (Leiden,
1989), 1013.
Commentary
225
he grasped at it with his hands three times to no eVect Cf. Achmet

Oneir. 166: if someone approaches the disc of the sun or grabs hold
of it, he will receive favour from the king, in proportion to the
proximity . . . if the king [has this dream], he will make
subordinate another king. This favourable interpretation is to be
contrasted with the generally negative associations of the sun
in Artemidorus (2. 36) and may suggest that Dinon and Achmet
were reXecting eastern and not Graeco-Roman views (cf. de
Jong 1997: 301).
Although the sun (hvar) may represent the Persian concept of
khvarenah, good fortune, a vaguer connection of the sun-god as the
guarantor of Cyrus kingship in the role of Ahuramazda is preferable
(B. Jacobs, MDOG 19 (1987), esp. 227). The Achaemenids made use
of a god-Wgure within a radiate sun, which is identiWable either
with the chief god in their pantheon or with the khvarenah
(de Jong 1997: 300).
[considered among the Persians a class of wise and learned
men] Rightly excluded as a gloss by Hottinger and Baiter.
his triple grasping of the sun portended that Cyrus would reign for
thirty years Probably no rational principle led to the interpretation
of each grasping as a decade, rather the seers gave the safest answer to
the new kingif they interpreted it as three years, they might soon be
disproved whereas after 30 years the interpretation might be forgotten. The reign is given as 30 years by Justin (1. 8. 14) and
Photius (Bibl. 72), as 29 years by Herodotus (1. 214), and as 31 by
Sulpicius Severus (2. 9. 5). Cyrus death is securely Wxed to 530, so his
accession to the throne of Persis occurred between 560 and 558.
47. Even among barbarian nations For Cic.s use of barbarian, see
on 1. 2 no people. Quintus in one respect goes oV on another redherring with this example of the soul able to prophesy when close to
death (a topic he will return to at 1. 63), but the consensus omnium is
a key part of his overall argument. The previous example of the Persian
Cyrus has led him to this further barbarian example. It featured
widely in the Alexander historians and lovers of the exotic (e.g.
226
Commentary
Diod. 17. 107; Strabo 71518; Ath. 437a; Lucian De mort. Peregr. 25;
Arr. Anab. 7. 2. 43. 6, 7. 18. 6; Ael. VH 2. 41; Plut. Alex. 65. 3, 69. 34).
Callanus . . . as he was ascending his blazing pyre According to
Plut. (Alex. 65. 3) his real name was Sphines, Callanus being
a rendering of the Indian form of greeting (Kalyana), but some
moderns consider it the Greek version of a real Indian name (e.g.
H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage
(Munich, 1926), ii, no. 396). He was a Brahman who met Alexander
in spring 326 and then accompanied him on his campaigns. He was
a controversial companion and adviser on Indian aVairs, who was
characterized with varying degrees of hostility. The manner of his
death, by immolation, which was believed to be a special custom of
the Brahmans (cf. Curt. Ruf. 8. 9. 32; Cic. Tusc. 5. 77; see R. Stoneman, CQ 44 (1994), 5056), attracts great attention. The Greek
sources diVer: the eyewitness Chares (Athen. 437a) and Megasthenes
have Callanus throw himself onto the burning pyre, while Arrian
(Anab. 7. 3. 5) and Onesicrates (Luc. De mort. Peregr. 25) have him
mount the pyre and lie (or stand) motionless while the pyre is lit
until his death. It is not clear which of these versions Cic. follows. See
Bosworth 1998: 180203.
I shall see you soon Various versions of this scene survive. Strabo
(717) says that all accounts concur on Alexanders presence, but only
Cic. (cf. Val. Max. 1. 8 ext. 10) oVers a face-to-face dialogue. In Arrian
(7. 18. 6) Callanus refused to approach and greet Alexander, saying
that he would meet him in Babylon and greet him there, cf. Plutarch
Alex. 69. 3: he greeted the Macedonians who were present and
encouraged them to spend the day on pleasure and drinking with
the king, whom, he said, he would see shortly in Babylon. Alexander,
who even dressed like Hercules (e.g. Athen. 537f), was in his penetration of India emulating Hercules. That and the stories of his desire
for consecration as a god, which were widespread, make Callanus
comparison appropriate (see Bosworth 1996: 98119). Cic. takes this
ultimately from some Alexander-historian, perhaps via Posidonius.
Cic.s references to Alexander after Caesars dictatorship are either
neutral, such as this, or negative (so J. R. Fears, Philologus 98 (1974),
121).
Commentary
227
Alexander died a few days later at Babylon Callanus death near

the border of Persia and Pasargadae (Diod. 17. 107. 1; Arr. Anab. 7. 3.
1; Strabo 717) predated festivities at Susa in April 324 (see Hamilton
1969: 194). Alexander died in Babylon 10 June 323. Callanus soon
acquired signiWcance only after Alexanders death (cf. Arr. Anab. 7.
18. 6) and a few days later must cover at least fourteen months.
I am digressing a little from dreams, to which I shall return
soon Quintus words look back to the Callanus example as well
as covering what follows (Timpanaro). The mention of Alexanders
death suggests another barbarian prophecy connected with his
birth, while the appearance of magi provides a thematic link back
to the Cyrus dream. Cic. reuses material from De Natura Deorum
(2. 69), with the addition of the prophecy by the magi. For Schaublin this material belongs properly at 1. 746, but the conscious
acknowledgement of digression shows that Cic. has deliberately
included it here.
It is an accepted fact . . . the temple of Ephesian Diana burnt
down Cf. Plut. Alex. 3. 3: Alexander was born early in the month
Hecatombaeon, which the Macedonians call Loos, on the sixth day of
the month, on the day that the temple of Ephesian Artemis was burnt.
This equates to 20 or 21 July 356. Plutarch further connects the birth
with the capture of Potidaea, Parmenions victory over the Illyrians,
and the victory of his horses at Olympia (Alex. 3. 45) for a most
remarkable, multiple synchronicity. In reality this could only
have been approximate, as the capture of Potidaea occurred in the
spring, the Olympic Games and the Illyrian victory in the summer
(cf. Hamilton 1969: 89). Aristobulus view (Arr. Anab. 7. 28. 1)
that Alexander was born in Oct. 356 is based on his acceptance of
Alexanders oYcial accession date in Oct. 336 instead of the real date
in June does not aVect this synchronicity, but Pseudo-Callisthenes,
Historia Alexandri Magni, ed. W. Kroll (Berlin, 1958), 4, dates
the conception of Alexander after Philips return from Potidaea
and the detailed astrological information attributed to Nectanebo
appears to Wx the birth in early Jan. 355, when there was an extraordinary conjunction of planets which Wts Nectanebos horoscope.
While it may be possible to privilege the later date (cf. S. Ferrando,
228
Commentary
RIL 50 (1998), 25766), we know that the basic synchronism found

in Plutarch was accepted by the mid-3rd cent. (Hegesias of Magnesia,
FGrH 142 F 3) and appeared in Timaeus (Cic. ND 2. 69). Despite
the latters penchant for creating synchronicities his version may on
this occasion be more plausible. See D. Asheri, SCI 11 (1991/2), esp.
825.
The arson of the temple of Artemis by one Herostratus in search of
notoriety was ominous, even though its predecessor had also burnt
down forty years earlier (cf. Arist. Meteor. 371a301; Strabo 641; Jos.
Ap. 2. 131; Lucian, De mort. Peregr. 22; Macrob. Sat. 6. 7. 16).
Magi proclaimed that a pest and plague to Asia had been
born Plutarchs location of the Magi in Ephesus (Alex. 3. 3) is
dubious (Hamilton 1969: 8). Pease suggests that the Magi based
their prediction on astrological observation, but if we accept that
the prophecy is post eventum and from a Greek source, this is
unnecessary (Timpanaro).
48. Lets get back to dreams Quintus signals the end of his
digression.
Coelius L. Coelius Antipater, a contemporary of the Gracchi, was
learned in literature, law, and rhetoric, the author of a 7-book
monograph on the Second Punic War (Badian 1966: 1517 and
Herrmann 1979). His History was serious and well-researched,
although he displayed a fondness for portents, the supernatural,
and overdramatization. In June 45 Cic. asked Atticus to send the
abridgement of his work by Brutus (Att. 13. 8), but, as Cic. was
already suYciently familiar with Coelius to comment on his style (De
or. 2. 54; Leg. 1. 6) before he possessed the epitome, it suggests that he
had read Coelius full work and used the abridgement only as a sort
of index (cf. Fleck 1993: 142). Here Cic. adapts a passage of Coelius,
preserving examples of his archaic vocabulary (cf. La Penna
1975: 4953).
the gold pillar . . . in the shrine of Juno Lacinia Junos temple
was built by the people of Croton 10 km SE of their city on
the Lacinian promontory and functioned as the federal sanctuary
Commentary
229
of the Italiot league. The gold pillar, attested also by Livy (24. 3. 6),
was one of the many famous, rich oVerings accumulated in the
sanctuary (e.g. Strabo 261; Livy 24. 4. 3; App. B Civ. 5. 133). Because
of its isolated position, which made it a tempting target for raiders
(e.g. Plut. Pomp. 24. 3), the temple was vulnerable to theft. See
G. Maddoli, Crotone, Atti del XXIII Convegno di Studi sulla Magna
Grecia (Taranto, 1984), 31243, and R. Spadea, Il tesoro di Hera
(Milan, 1996), 3379.
Hannibals dream is recorded nowhere else, but his connection
with the shrine is secure and intelligible: the deliberately close
association of Hannibal with Hercules (see on 1. 49), who was in
one version of the legend at least founder of the temple (Serv. Aen. 3.
552), and accomplished the same journey from Spain to the foot of
Italy, made it an appropriate setting for an interaction between him
and the goddess. Hannibal left a bilingual inscription there in 205
setting out his achievements (Polyb. 3. 56. 4; Livy 28. 46. 12) before
his departure from the Italian mainland. Although a dramatic date
for Hannibals dream of 216 after Cannae, when Croton came into
Carthaginian hands, is possible, 2053 is better (cf. Timpanaro),
a time when Hannibal was in the area of Croton (e.g. Livy 28. 46.
16, 29. 36. 4, 9) and when it was no longer necessary for him to
preserve the goodwill of the local communities. In political terms
Hannibal may have wanted revenge on the members of the Italiot
league and who were now deserting his side (cf. App. Hann. 2412).
If so, in its original setting this dream will have balanced the dream
which authorized Hannibals invasion of Italy (see on 1. 49) and may
have exhibited a positive slant towards Hannibali.e. Juno,
the protecting deity of Carthage, kept her general from an act of
sacrilege. Coelius, however, probably played up the notion of
a sacrilegious Hannibal (cf. Herrmann 1979: 178). See A. Campus,
PP 58 (2003), 292308.
Juno . . . would see to it that he also lost the eye with which he saw
well Juno appears as the goddess whose shrine was to be violated,
and perhaps as the protectress of Carthage, but certainly not as the
enemy of Hannibal. Her warning and Hannibals heeding of it
(cf. MithradatesApp. Mith. 27) stand in contrast to the kind of
story in which the deity avenged itself on the sacrilegious pillager
230
Commentary
(Val. Max. 1. 1. 1820). The idea of seeing, which features in both

dreams, is centralin the one Hannibal looks back, disobeys the
instruction of his divine guide (1. 49), and is punished by losing
one eye; here he obeys the dream and retains his sight (Maass 1907:
258). Hannibal had lost the sight of his right eye in 217 in Etruria
(Nepos Hann. 4. 3; cf. Polyb. 3. 79. 12; Livy 22. 2. 1011).
he had a small calf made and set on top of the column Bulls and
cows are connected with Juno (Hera) in myth and ritual (e.g. RE viii.
3834), and speciWcally at Croton (F. Graf, Megale Hellas: Nome
e immagine, Atti del XXI Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia
(Taranto, 1982), 16670).
49. Likewise this is in the Greek history of Silenus . . . who has
reported the actions of Hannibal with very great care This
(hoc) looks forward, and when combined with likewise (item)
shows that both of the dreams appeared in Silenus and were transmitted to Cic. via Coelius. Silenus of Caleacte accompanied Hannibal
on his expedition (Nepos, Hann. 13. 3). Silenus had a positive
attitude towards Hannibal, but how he presented the dream, in
what context he set it, and what interpretation he supplied is diYcult
to establish. Silenus reveals several characteristics of tragic history
(K. Meister, Maia 23 (1971), 19) and a pervasive theme of his
existing fragments is the linking of Hannibal with Hercules (cf.
D. Briquel, in Actas del IV Congresso Internacional de estudios fenicos
y Punicos (Cadiz, 2000), i. 1239). For modern comprehensive
discussions of this dream, see Cipriano 1984: 10328 and Seibert
1993: 18491.
whom Coelius follows Quintus parenthesis validates his use of
Coelius as a source: the dream derives ultimately from a contemporary source close to Hannibal and is thus credible. This statement on
Coelius sources does not entail that Coelius did not adapt and reform
Silenus version comprehensively.
Saguntum In 219 Hannibal besieged this Spanish town, with which
Rome claimed alliance and which should have been immune under
the terms of a treaty between Rome and Carthage. Even if this attack
Commentary
231
did not entail war with Rome, it came to have great signiWcance as an
example of Punic treachery. Livy (21. 22. 6) puts the dream in the
context of Hannibals crossing of the Ebro, the border between
Carthaginian and Roman spheres of inXuence in Spain: Hannibal
took the dream as conWrmation of divine approval of his decision to
invade Italy. The lack of geographical precision in Cic. has suggested
use of the epitome of Coelius only, but Cic.s knowledge of the
original cannot be excluded. Although Polybius reference to the
dream connects it with the crossing of the Alps, its context in Silenus
is not necessarily restricted to that moment, even if Hannibal used it
to embolden his troops for the apparently diYcult crossing. Cf.
DArco 2002: 14855.
Jupiter ordered him to take the war into Italy If we accept that the
dream was publicized by Hannibal and is not a literary creation of the
later historiographical tradition, in its original form the dream could
have played a role in Hannibals propaganda. Against a background
of widespread, even general, belief in divinely given dreams, it could
have provided a useful counter to Roman arguments based on
international law and also have reassured Hannibals troops before
a lengthy march and indisputably diYcult campaign (cf. Seibert 1993:
1867). As with Alexanders dream at Tyre (Arr. Anab. 2. 18. 1),
a divinely sent dream conWrmed the commanders plans.
None of Coelius Latin predecessors is known to have described
this divine council; three lines of Ennius Annales have been invoked
(E. Norden, Ennius und Vergilius (Leipzig, 1915), 4952, 11617),
but their context is insecure and Hannibal is the probable speaker
(Skutsch 1985: 41213, 42930).
a guide was given him . . . with his army Silius Italicus (3. 1689)
identiWes the guide as Mercury, perhaps Mercury Aletes, a protecting
deity of Carthage (cf. E. Foulon, RHR 217 (2000), 66988, and idem,
Mercure Ale`te`s apparent en songe a` Hannibal, in P. de Fosse (ed.),
Hommages a` C. Deroux, iv (Brussels, 2003), 36677), but the most
likely indentiWcation is with Hercules (Seibert 1993: 187): Hannibal
presented himself as emulating Hercules (Livy 21. 41. 7), who drove
the cattle of Geryon from the western edge of the world, through
Spain and Gaul, over the Alps into Italy (cf. R. C. Knapp, Emerita 54
232
Commentary
(1986), esp. 11819). If, however, the indeterminate language of

Polybius (3. 47. 9: a god or some hero; 3. 48. 7: they say that
some hero appeared), is signiWcant in his criticism of those authors
who believed that Hannibal could not cross the Alps without divine
guidance, Silenus dream did not name the divinity. But Polybius
deliberate vagueness is probably sarcastic.
the guide ordered him not to look back . . . carried away by desire, he
looked back Seibert (1993: 1878) argues that this prohibition and
the continuation of the dream cannot derive either from Hannibal or
Silenus, as it presents Hannibal negatively. However, it is not inconceivable that the guides Do not look back functioned simply as
a reinforcement of the command to advance, an element of the dream
speciWcally tailored for Hannibals troops who were apprehensive. If
the dream stopped at that point, it simply embodied a moral familiar
from Greek literature and life (cf. Plato Leg. 854c). E. Meyer (Kleine
Schriften, ii. (Berlin, 1924), 369), by contrast, argues that the original
conclusion of the dream, which would have pointed up the disobedience of Hannibal and his punishment in failure, has been removed.
Perhaps to speak of punishment, even in the most pro-Roman
version that we Wnd in Livy, is too strong. Rather Hannibals
disobedience introduces a note that all will not be well (C. B. R.
Pelling, G&R 44 (1997), 203). Many examples of such prohibitions
from myth (e.g. Virg. Georg. 4. 48891) and ritual (e.g. Virg. Ecl. 8.
1023) are set out by Pease, who Wnds an explanation ultimately in
fear of confronting evil or chthonic spirits. Desire (cupiditas) may
represent something like the typical Greek characteristic of curiosity
or something more harsh, akin to pleonexia. This latter vice Wts well
with the excessarrogancedisaster sequence prominent in tragedy
and tragic history. If the dream mirrors Coelius wider presentation
of Hannibal, he is Livys probable source for what has been called
the motif (G. Mader, Anc. Soc. 24 (1993), 223).
Another inXuence on Coelius, and perhaps on his predecessors,
comes from the common interpretation of dreams: if a man dreams
that his head is turned round so that he can see the things behind
him . . . it indicates impediments to any undertaking at all . . . To those
abroad it foretells a late and unexpected return to their homeland
(Artem. 1. 36; cf. Cipriano 1984: 123).
Commentary
233
a vast horrendous beast wrapped around with snakes . . . the devastation of Italy Coelius monster seems very diVerent from Livys
huge serpent (21. 22. 8), and what he is describing is unclear, but its
association with death is clear (cf. Artem. 2. 64). DArco (2002:
1601) conjectures that Coelius omission of the storm, which features in Livy and Cassius Dio (Zon. 8. 22), and his relocation of the
dream remove the signiWcance of both in the original versionthe
inclement weather of the Alps and the desolation of the passand
require a reidentiWcation of vastitas (devastation) with Hannibals
destruction of Italy. The Hannibalic War had real consequences for
areas of the Italian peninsula, particularly aVecting agriculture
(see Cornell 1996: 97117), but the symbolic shock of a powerful
invader was even more important in determining the tradition.
not to worry about what was happening behind him and in his
rear Peases rationalizing explanation of the gods words, that Hannibals course should be determined without any attempt to keep
open a long and vulnerable line of communication, ignores the fact
that in this context behind means the future (Bettini 1991: 1523),
and that this symbolic meaning is far more to the point in the context
of 219.
50. In the history of Agathocles Perhaps Agathocles of Cyzicus,
a grammarian and historian of the late 3rd to early 2nd cent. who
worked in Alexandria and was a pupil of the Stoic Zenodotus (see
F. Montanari, I frammenti dei grammatici Agathokles, Hellanikos,
Ptolemaios Epithetes (Berlin, 1988), 1520). For an earlier date,
making Agathocles a contemporary of Timaeus with an interest in
events in the west, see G. Brizzi, RSA 16 (1986), 1327. Jacoby (FGrH
472 F 7) considers this a fragment of this Agathocles although neither
of his known works, On Cyzicus (Peri Kyzikou) and Commentaries
(Hypomnemata) is a likely source (cf. Montanari, 33). An homonymous historian of Sicily has been conjectured (RE i. 759; cf. Pease), but
remains only a name. The suggestion of Heeringa (1906: 16), that
Cic. has misunderstood a phrase in his Greek source and created
a history by Agathocles the tyrant of Syracuse is highly attractive.
Cic. does not take this example directly from so obscure a source as
Agathocles, but from Posidonius or some other Stoic source.
234
Commentary
Hamilcar Hamilcar son of Gisgo was the Carthaginian commander

in Sicily from 311 (RE vii. 23012). Diodorus (20. 29. 3, 30. 12)
dates his capture to 309. From its context here and from Marcus own
corroboration (2. 136) a dream is meant, although in Diodorus an
haruspex prophesies after examining the sacriWcial entrails.
When that day appeared . . . Hamilcar was carried oV alive by
them Diodorus (20. 29. 411) describes the confusing military
manoeuvres in some detail, but records no clash between the
Carthaginian and their allies from the indigenous, non-Greek cities
of Sicily, rather chaos caused by the camp-followers; then in nocturnal confusion through ignorance of the topography there was
Wghting among the Carthaginians.
History is full of such examples and everyday life is crammed with
them The Wrst half of this is unproblematic, as Quintus has presented and will continue to present famous examples of dreams from
history. Schaublin suggests tentatively that the second half of the
remark refers to 1. 569, but that material equally concerns major
historical and literary Wgures, C. Gracchus and Cic. himself. Quintus
expression everyday life (vita communis) is common in the
philosophical dialogues (e.g. Ac. 1. 15; OV. 1. 7, 58, 2. 13; Am. 18,
21, 38) and means life as experienced by all people, both philosophers
and ordinary folk. Unless we imagine some other meaning, such as
the common experience of Quintus and Cicero, i.e. the examples of
1. 58 and 59, or consider the remark misplaced by Quintus, we must
hold that the words reinforce, somewhat indirectly, the idea that
prophetic dreams are not Wctional or literary, or the preserve of
the famous, but are a common, universally attested, and credible
phenomenon.
51. It is a fact that An emphatic translation of at vero is justiWed by
Quintus stress on historicity and perhaps also by the contrast with
everyday dreams.
the famous Publius Decius . . . who was the Wrst of the Decii
to become consul P. Decius Mus was consul in 340 (RE iv.
227986), the father of the homonymous consul of 295 and
Commentary
235
probable ancestor of the consul of 279 (but see A. Cavallaro, ASAA

38 (1976), 2718). By the Wliation and speciWcation of Wrst
Quintus makes the identiWcation secure and by the famous (ille)
suggests that the individual is well-known from annalistic history
(see below). Indeed Decius devotio appears as an example of Roman
piety and courage from Ennius onwards (see H. W. LitchWeld,
HSCP 25 (1914), 468). In Cic. the Decii illustrate courage, magnanimity, and the power of religion (e.g. Sen. 75; Tusc. 1. 89, 2. 59; ND
2. 10).
military tribune in the consulship of M. Valerius and
A. Cornelius M. Valerius Corvus (RE 7A. 241318) and A. Cornelius
Cossus Arvina (RE iv. 12945) were consuls in 343. The military
tribunes were at this period six elected magistrates with functions
restricted to the military sphere, who exercised a key command role in
the legions (see Suolahti 1955: 3557).
as it appears in the annals . . . in his dreams he had seen himself
die Decius boldness and initiative at Saticula in Samnium in
saving the consul Cossus and enabling him to win a great victory is
described by Livy (7. 34. 136. 7). Cossus had led his forces into
a valley where they were surrounded by the Samnites and retreat was
impossible. Decius led an assault on high ground, participated in
nocturnal reconnaissance missions, and extricated his commander.
Livy does not criticize Decius rashness or mention the dream.
Although the historicity of the First Samnite War has been
questioned, it is not an invention of later annalists (Oakley 1998:
30911). Similarly, although the Livian (and earlier) narratives of
Decius actions may have been inXuenced by the comparable exploit
of the tribune A. Atilius Caiatinus in 258, this episode is probably not
a literary invention (Oakley 1998: 3323). For Quintus the dream
demonstrates that prophecy of an event that would take place three
years later is possible; his reference to annals serves to suggest
that the date and the historicity of the dream is secured by
reliable evidence.
three years later, when he was consul, he devoted himself In
341 Romes Latin allies revolted, aggrieved at being treated as
236
Commentary
subjects. In the campaigns of 340, when Decius was consul, he and

his colleague Manlius faced the Latin forces at Veseris near Mount
Vesuvius. In the Livian version Decius and Manlius both dreamt that
in the next battle one side would lose a commander, the other their
whole force; the general who sacriWced himself on behalf of his army
would be on the winning side (Livy 8. 6. 810). In that battle, as the
Roman left wing succumbed, Decius recited the formula of devotio,
by which he besought various Olympian and chthonic deities to
strike fear into the enemy and to take his and their lives, and rode
into the enemy ranks. In fulWlling his devotio he was killed,
but inspired his troops to victory (Livy 8. 9. 110. 8). Devotio, as
practised by the Decii, has elements of an expiatory ritual (Livy 8. 9.
13, 10. 28. 13), of primitive magic (L. Deubner, ARW 8 (1905),
7880), and of substitutionary sacriWce. See H. S. Versnel, Mnem.
29 (1976), 365410; Guittard 1986: 4955; Rupke 1990: 15661;
Oakley 1998: 4826.
his son ardently desired to do the same Cf. Sen. Ep. 67. 9. P. Decius
Mus, consul 295, devoted himself at Sentinum in the Third Samnite
War against a powerful enemy force of Samnites and Gauls (Livy 10.
24). This devotio is a historical fact and may have been recorded on
the Capitoline Fasti, whereas that of 340 is almost universally considered a Wction, although Oakley argues cogently for the possibility
that it is historical (Oakley 1998: 47780). See also C. Guittard, CRAI
1984, 581; idem, Naissance et developpement dune legende: Les
Decii, in Res sacrae: Hommages a` H. Le Bonniec (Brussels, 1988),
25666.
52. So lets now come, if you wish, to the dreams of philosophers
Quintus moves on to another category of reliable material, tales of
philosophers told by philosophers. All three dreams centre around
the idea of a return home, for Socrates and Eudemus in the sense of
death, for Xenophon in his historical return to Greece. Quintus
presentation does not bring this to the fore, but it may well reveal
an organizational motif in his source.
Plato Cf. Crito 43d44b: I am to die the day after the ship
arrives . . . I think it will arrive tomorrow, not today. I make this
Commentary
237
conjecture on the basis of a dream . . . a woman appeared to approach

me, beautiful and fair, wearing a white garment, and to call me and say
Socrates, on the third day you will arrive in fertile Phthia. . . the
meaning seems clear, to me at least. Quintus begins with a weighty ad
hominem example in that Cic. considers Plato the Wnest of all philosophers (e.g. Fin. 5. 7; Leg. 1. 15; Tusc. 1. 22, 79), authoritative and
persuasive (Tusc. 1. 79; Acad. 1. 17), and an excellent stylist (De or. 1.
479, 3. 15; Orat. 62). Cic. does not comment on Platos historical
reliability as a reporter of Socrates thought and life, but in its author
and subject matter this example matches the criteria set by Quintus at
1. 39 for weightier examples. For Plato and Cic. see T. B. DeGraV, CP
35 (1940), 14353; Long 1995: 4352; Sedley 1997: 11821.
Socrates . . . said . . . that he was to die in three days Socrates
appears in Cic.s dialogues as the founder (princeps) and father of
philosophy (ND 1. 93, 2. 167; Tusc. 3. 8, 5. 10, 47; De or. 3. 60; Fin.
2. 1). His Wnal days feature prominently (e.g. Tusc. 1. 713; De or.
1. 232) and are plausibly an episode utilized by the Stoics for various
purposes (cf. Sedley 1993: 31618). In 399 Socrates was awaiting
execution after his conviction for corrupting the young and impiety.
His sentence could not be carried out until the sacred ship carrying
the state embassy returned from Delos (cf. Plat. Phd. 58ac). Given
these circumstances, it is only the speciWc prophecy of three days
which diVerentiates this example from a non-prophetic dream
caused by the days concerns.
a woman of rare beauty The inXuence of Accius has been suggested
(R. Degl Innocenti Pierini, Studi su Accio (Florence, 1980), 15), but
this is rather another example of divinities appearing extraordinary
either in size or beauty (cf. 1. 40).
quoted an Homeric line as follows: the third good day will set you
in Phthia Quintus represents the line as an extempore translation (Jocelyn 1973: 80) of Homer, Il. 9. 3623, where Achilles says
if the great shaker of the earth grants me a good voyage, on the
third day I shall reach fertile Phthia. As Phthia was Achilles home,
Socrates interprets the dream as meaning that his soul will go home,
i.e. return to the heavens, on its separation from the body in death.
238
Commentary
Subordinate to this is a pun between Phthien (Phthia in

the accusative) and phthinein (to die). Cic.s translation reveals his
knowledge of the wider context of the quotation in Plato (cf.
A. Traina, Vortit barbare (Rome, 1974), 919).
It is written that it happened just as it was said Neither Plato nor
Xenophon explicitly conWrms this, but the appearance of the story in
Plato of his hero guarantees what Quintus states here. The dream
functions on several levels, Wrst in telling Socrates exactly when he
will die and what destiny awaits him, it conWrms his decision not to
resist death and encourages his belief in an afterlife, combining the
psychology of the individual with metaphysical truths (Vegleris 1982:
601).
Xenophon (what a man of quality, what a great man!) Cf. the
description at Tusc. 2. 62. Quintus admiration for Xenophon as
a philosopher is consistent with Cic.s own attitudehe had read
avidly the Cyropaedia (Q Fr. 1. 1. 23; Fam. 9. 25. 1) and in his youth
had translated Oeconomicus (OV. 2. 87). His Wrsthand knowledge of
Xenophons historical works is less certain, so this section may derive
from a Stoic collection of dreams (K. Munscher, Philologus, suppl. 13
(1940), 7582; but cf. Fleck 1993: 5960). In general Xenophons
reputation and popularity sprang from his philosophical rather than
his historical works.
records his own dreams Xenophon received two dreams at times of
crisis: Wrst, when the armys leadership had been assassinated and
there was great uncertainty whether the Greeks would survive, Xenophon barely slept, but saw a thunder clap and then a bolt of lightning
fall on his fathers house, setting the whole thing ablaze (Anab. 3. 1.
11); secondly, when his force was trapped between the seemingly
uncrossable river Centrites and encircling Carduchians, he dreamt
that he was bound in fetters, but that the fetters fell away of their
own accord so that he was released and could move as freely as he
pleased (Anab. 4. 3. 8).
during the campaign . . . Cyrus the Younger During the
campaign (in ea militia) is taken as an awkward condensation
Commentary
239
(Timpanaro) or paraphrase (Pease) of the probable title of the

Anabasis in Latin, as The Expedition of Cyrus. This Cyrus was
the younger son of Darius II of Persia, who led a revolt against his
brother Artaxerxes in 401, in which Xenophon served as one of many
Greek mercenaries. Cic. carefully distinguishes him (cf. Sen. 59) from
Cyrus the Great (see 1. 46)
Their remarkable outcomes are recorded The Wrst dream seemed
to portend either escape from the midst of dangers or encirclement
by the Persian king, but events proved that it was the former, as
Xenophon initiated the choosing of new commanders and advocated
the march which saved the Greeks from capture or defeat (Anab. 3. 1.
132. 39). In the second, some scouts discovered a safe crossing place
and with minimal losses the Greeks crossed and escaped from the
Carduchians (Anab. 4. 3. 1112). Neither of these dreams or their
outcomes seems as remarkable as Quintus suggestsneither oVers
a clear, unmistakably divine, prophecy or seems to belong securely in
the category of divine dreams, but rather to reveal the waking
concerns of Xenophon. See R. C. T. Parker, One Mans Piety: The
Religious Dimension of the Anabasis, in R. Lane Fox (ed.), The Long
March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (New Haven, 2004), esp.
1489 and H. Bowden, Xenophon and the ScientiWc Study of Religion, in C. Tuplin (ed.), Xenophon and his World (Stuttgart, 2004),
esp. 2356.
53. Shall we say that Xenophon is a liar or mad? Marcus ignores
Xenophons dreams (and all those from this section of Quintus
argument) in his reply. Quintus question does not, of course,
cover all sceptical responses to these dreams, only the two most
damning.
Does Aristotle, a man of unique and almost divine intellect,
err For Cic. Aristotle is second only to Plato (Tusc. 1. 22, cf. 1. 7).
Cic. describes the intellectual excellence of several Greek philosophers and literary Wgures as divine (see Leschhorn 1985: 3878);
Plato and Aristotle are praised most frequently, the former without
qualiWcation (De or. 2. 152). Err is less damning than the lying or
madness of Quintus last question. Quintus underlying asumption is
240
Commentary
that Aristotle has carefully recorded what his friend and contemporary Eudemus said about his dream, and that he believed it was a real
historical dream rather than a literary Wction after the fashion of
Plato (cf. P. M. Huby, Apeiron 13 (1979), 534).
The following example comes from Aristotles Eudemus (fr. 1 R),
otherwise known as Peri Psyches (On the Soul). Although Cic.s
ostensible knowledge of Aristotles exoteric works is wide, it is
diYcult to be certain in speciWc cases that he has read them (see
Barnes 1997: 4650); in this case the role of a Stoic intermediary
cannot be excluded.
If this is taken to show that Aristotle accepts the prediction of
Eudemus dream as divinely given (by contrast with the sceptical De
divinatione per somnia), it is probably the belief of an immature
Aristotle under the inXuence of Platonism who later abandoned
metaphysical speculation for an empirical approach to dreams (Gallop 1996: 14). If, however, the dream is part of an introduction to his
dialogue in which he sets out various opinions about dreams, the
question of his belief is irrelevant. A passage in Aristotles Ethica
Eudemia (1248a30b2) which has also been used to suggest that he
did accept that some people enjoyed divine assistance in prediction
may in fact properly concern success in deliberation or the ability to
make fortunate choices (M. J. Woods, Apeiron 25 (1992), 184; see
also on 1. 81). For Quintus argument it is not so much the attitudes
of Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle to the dreams recorded in their
works which is crucial, as the historical reality of the dreams and
their nature as divine dreams. It may well be that two Aristotles
could be claimed, one by the Stoics in support of divination by
dreams, and another whose arguments Marcus uses (e.g. Repici
1991: 16971). See Kany-Turpin and Pellegrin 1989: 220; van der
Eijk 1993: 225 n. 9.
Eudemus of Cyprus . . . at Pherae, which was at that time a renowned
city in Thessaly Of Cyprus distinguishes this Eudemus from the
more prominent Eudemus of Rhodes, an astronomer and pupil of
Aristotle. In Cic.s day Pherae was an insigniWcant town in Thessaly,
but in the Wrst half of the 4th cent., under a series of powerful tyrants,
Pherae was the leading city of Thessaly (RE Suppl. vii. 9841025).
Commentary
241
held in domination by the cruel tyrant Alexander Alexander

reigned for eleven years from c.369 to 358 (Diod. 15. 61. 2).
He secured power by murdering his uncle Polyphron; his notorious
atrocities included violation of his oath to Theban ambassadors and
massacring the inhabitants of Scotussa and Meliboea (e.g. Diod. 15.
75. 1). He is described as cruel (Ael. VH 14. 40; Plut. Pelop. 28. 5) and
unjust (Xen. Hell. 6. 4. 35). See H. D. Westlake, Thessaly in the Fourth
Century (London, 1935), 12659.
there appeared to him a young man of striking appearance . . . after
Wve years For the beauty of divine apparitions, see on 1. 40
a handsome man. Quintus cites this example because it appears to
be a clear divine dreamthere were three elements of prophecy each
of which came true, the last being the most dramatic, involving
foreknowledge which stretched over Wve years. The combination of
prophecies compounds the miraculous nature of the dream.
the Wrst came true immediately, in that Eudemus recovered On its
own not remarkable, and the kind of result which requires no
prescience.
the tyrant was killed by his wifes brothers Cf. Cic. OV. 2. 25. The
tale of revenge by Thebe on her husband and the assassination in
their bed-chamber was elaborated from the mid-4th cent. onwards
(Xen. Hell. 6. 4. 347; Diod. 16. 14. 1; Plut. Pelop. 35. 37). Three
brothers were involved, Lycophron, Tisiphonus, and Peitholaus.
Alexanders death is best Wxed between late autumn 358 and early
357 (M. Sordi, La lega tessala Wno ad Alessandro Magno (Rome,
1958), 2304).
at the end of Wve years . . . he was killed in battle before Syracuse In
354 Eudemus was killed in the conXict between Dion, whom he
supported, and Dionysius II of Syracuse (Plut. Dion 22. 3) during
the battle for control of Syracuse. The temporal clause underlines
that Eudemus knowledge of the dream did not inXuence his
behaviour so as to bring it abouthe expected to go to Cyprus. It
is not clear whether the chronology works well: the prophecy was
given in 358, shortly before Alexanders assassination, but Eudemus
242
Commentary
death occurs at most four and a bit years later, as Dions death
belongs to the summer of 354. Either Cic.s quinquennium has to be
understood inclusively of a period of four years, or Eudemus death
has to be separated from that of Dion and placed in the later
campaign of Hipparinus against Syracuse in the second half of 353
(W. Spoerri, MH 23 (1966), 4457).
when the soul of Eudemus left his body, it had returned home The
idea of the souls existence in the human body as an exile, or absence
from its true home is implicit in Platos Phaedo, but is found explicitly Wrst in [Plato] Ax. 365b (cf. M. Aur. Med. 2. 17). This post
eventum interpretation owes nothing to any technique of oneirocrisis
(cf. Artem. 2. 49), but to the common philosophical idea prominent
in Plato.
54. a most learned man, the divine poet Sophocles For Cic.
Sophocles was the Wnest exponent of tragedy (Orat. 4), and the
only Greek poet to be praised as divine (see on 1. 53 does Aristotle).
Again the example fulWls Quintus criteria (1. 39), as it concerns an
important Wgure. The story cannot be linked plausibly with Sophocles oYce as Hellenotamias in 443/442, even if that Sophocles is the
tragedian (cf. H. C. Avery, Historia 22 (1973), 512 n. 11). It may be
an aetiological explanation of the unique cult-title of Hercules the
Informer (C. Watzinger, AM 29 (1904), 241, 243) and in its basic
outline be plausible enough, but like so many stories from the lives
of Greek poets and philosophers it may have been created to explain
the existence of a particular poem (cf. Lefkowitz 1981: 834).
a heavy gold bowl had been stolen from the temple of Hercules The
earliest extant version of this story comes in the Peripatetic philosopher
Hieronymus of Rhodes (fr. 31 Wehrli): when this crown was stolen
from the Acropolis, Hercules came to Sophocles in a dream and told
him to go into the house on the right and search, and it was hidden
there. Sophocles brought this information to the people and received
a reward of a talent, as had been announced in advance. He used the
talent to establish a shrine of Hercules Informer. Where the details
diVer (e.g. bowl or crown; cf. also Tert. An. 46), it is more likely
that Cic. has adapted the story inaccurately from a Greek source
Commentary
243
(cf. H. Dettmer, De Hercule Attico (Diss. Bonn, 1869), 14) than that
Hieronymus is wrong (contra L. Radermacher, Sophokles (Berlin,
1913), 3).
He ignored the Wrst and second time. When the same dream came
more frequently The dream was repeated at least three times
(cf. 1. 55; Hdt. 7. 1217; Aesch. PV 655). Recurrent dreams, if they
appear at small intervals and continually, should be considered as
always having the same meaning. And because they are seen frequently, we should be more attentive to them and place greater faith
in them (Artem. 4. 27).
he went up to the Areopagus and revealed the matter Hieronymus
has a popular body, but there may be no contradiction. If the
Areopagus exercised an oversight of religious law and dealt with
this case of sacrilege (pace Wallace 1985: 10612), the people could
give Sophocles his reward. Alternatively Cic. has embroidered the
story and introduced the Areopagus with a role familiar from his
own day, treating it as the equivalent of the Roman Senate (cf. E. D.
Rawson, Athenaeum 63 (1985), 646).
that temple acquired the name of Hercules the Informer Cf. the
more restricted conclusion of Hieronymus, that Sophocles dedicated
an altar or shrine to Hercules the Informer. Evidence of Hercules
worship from the south slope of the Acropolis has been linked with
this, but certainty is not possible (cf. Woodford 1971: 21920).
Perhaps Sophocles reinstituted an old cult, rather than established
a new one.
55. Why am I speaking of Greek examples? Somehow our own give
me more pleasure The next two Roman examples interrupt the
Xow of Greek examples, which continues in 1. 56. The immediate
connection of the example of Sophocles with the following is the
repetition of the dream until its recipient responded. The notion that
Roman examples give greater pleasure (delectatio) than Greek can be
contrasted with Valerius Maximus (1. 6 ext. 1): so I will touch on
foreign examples which, inserted in a Latin work, although they have
less moral weight, nonetheless can bring some pleasing variety;
244
Commentary
foreign examples served primarily a literary purpose in the provision

of less familiar and thus more interesting material, variety and pleasure (2. 10 ext. 1), sweeter to discover (5. 7 ext. 1); they obviated
boredom (3. 8 ext. 1, 9. 5 ext. 1). Marcus echoes Quintus preference
(2. 8). While this may be a stance Cic. felt necessary to use before
a Roman popular audience, to counter criticism for philhellenism, it
also appears in his philosophical works (cf. 1. 1; Tusc. 1. 1).
All historians, like the Fabii, the Gellii These plurals are generalizing, rather than references to other Fabii (e.g. Numenius Fabius
Pictor). The version of Q. Fabius Pictor (see on 1. 43) is transmitted
via Dionysius of Halicarnassus (7. 71. 1). Cn. Gellius was a writer of
annales in the late 2nd cent., although his publication date need not
be raised to make him precede Coelius on the basis of Cic.s text here
(see below). Gellius wrote a lengthy work covering Roman history to
146 at least (see Badian 1966: 1112; E. D. Rawson, Latomus 35
(1976), 71017).
but with the greatest accuracy Coelius For L. Coelius Antipater, see
on 1. 48. The MSS (except V2) preserve proxume, which is defended
with some hesitation by Timpanaro as the diYcilior lectio against an
emendation of T. P. Wiseman (CQ 29 (1979), 1434), maxume
(above all), which is accepted by Schaublin. The respective chronology of Coelius 7-book monograph and Gellius multi-volume
annales is not certainGellius may have begun before and Wnished
after Coelius. As Coelius was not the most recent historian who will
have recorded this episode, proxume, if it is to be understood in
a chronological sense, would have to mean the most recent of those
historians I use (cf. Fleck 1993: 1456). However, if proxume means
with greatest accuracy (cf. Liv. 25. 23. 12), sed (but) can retain its
natural adversative sense (E. Peruzzi, PP 57 (2002), 2267). Wiseman
holds that Cic. read Valerius Antias, who wrote at least a generation
after Coelius, but he is never cited by Cic. as a source and Cic.s
attitude towards him may be dismissive (cf. Fleck 1993: 20924).
Although the basic story remains constant, some details and,
most importantly, the chronological setting of the incident vary
(cf. Livy 2. 36. 137. 1; Dion. Hal. 7. 68. 369. 2; Plut. Cor. 24.
125. 1; Macrob. Sat. 1. 11. 35; Min. Fel. Oct. 7. 3, 27. 4; Arnob.
Commentary
245
Nat. 7. 39; Lact. Inst. 2. 7. 20; Augustine, De civ. D 4. 26, 8. 13).

Coelius, Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch place the incident in the early
5th cent. (see below), Macrobius in 280/279. This latter version
(followed also by Lactantius and Augustine) is probably that of
Varro (T. Mommsen, Romische Forschungen, ii. (Berlin, 1879), 124;
cf. Div. Ant. fr. 81 C), who is mentioned in connection with the
etymology of instauratio. Macrobius may preserve the original version, which was transferred back to earlier history by Fabius Pictor
and over time acquired many circumstantial details, a pattern which
can be shown for many other stories (cf. Ogilvie 1965: 327; Bernstein
1998: 8496, esp. 936). However, Coelius is the simplest version
and it cannot be proved that the Varronian alternative goes back
earlier. A probable context for the story in Coelius, whose monograph on the Second Punic War is not an obvious home for an
incident from early Roman history, is the instauratio of the ludi
plebeii in 216 after Cannae (cf. Herrmann 1979: 197), or that of the
ludi Apollinares in 211 (see below), or an excursus motivated by
rejection of Polybian scepticism (La Penna 1975: 556). In 216
Juno had been oVended by improprieties in the procession, and the
consuls failure to placate her led to Romes defeat (see Val. Max. 1. 1.
16); these oVer clear parallels.
when the great votive games were being held for the Wrst time Cf.
Augustines Roman and Valerius Maximus plebeian games. Coelius description best Wts the conXict of the Latin War which ended in
493 with the signing of the foedus Cassianum. The most detailed
extant accounts in Dionysius and Livy, which derive from Fabius
Pictor, date this episode to 491 (Livy) or 490 (Dionysius). The
games in question had been vowed by Aulus Postumius before his
victory at Lake Regillus in 496 (Dion. Hal. 6. 10. 1, 7. 71. 2).
the games were interrupted This interruption was caused by
the Volscians, although probably not the visitation described by
Livy (2. 37. 2), as the dream episode Wts oddly into his narrative.
For the suggestion that Coelius version is modelled on the events of
211 when a report of Hannibals arrival interrupted the votive Ludi
Apollinares (Festus 4368 L; Serv. Aen. 8. 110), see Bernstein 1998: 89,
184.
246
Commentary
repeats should be held Cf. Livy 2. 36. 1: A repeat of votive games

was being prepared. The double instauratio appears only in Cic.,
from Coelius, and is probably an error (cf. Timpanaro). Although the
repetition of a ceremony (instauratio) is best understood as a religious
rather than political phenomenon (P. Cohee, Hermes 122 (1994),
45168), to exclude all political motivation from individual instaurationes is implausible (cf. Bernstein 1998: 282). Varros rejection of
the etymology apo tou staurou (Macrob. Sat. 3. 11. 5) shows that this
goes back to Fabius and the beginning of the Roman historiographical tradition; his wider rejection of the Fabian account indicates his
belief that Fabius has retrojected developments of the 3rd cent. to the
early 5th (cf. Bernstein 1998: 916).
a slave wearing a yoke . . . was beaten with rods Cf. Dion. Hal. 7. 69.
2: having stretched out both his arms and Wxed them to a piece of
wood which reached across his chest and shoulders as far as his
wrists, they followed him, tearing his naked body with whips. The
victim . . . not only uttered cries of ill-omen, but also made unseemly
movements under the blows. At the date of this incident the designation circus is at best anachronistic (see T. P. Wiseman, PBSR
42 (1974), 226). Valerius Maximus (1. 7. 4) speciWes the Circus
Flaminius, but Varros testimony that chariot races and ludic
processions were never staged there (LL 5. 154) should be preferred
(T. P. Wiseman, PBSR 44 (1976), 445). The probable venue becomes
the Circus Maximus (cf. Bernstein 1998: 159).
there appeared . . . the opener of the games had not pleased him
Livy, Dionysius, Valerius, and Macrobius identify Coelius divinity as
Jupiter, while Cic.s vague expression may result from abbreviation by
Cic. Coelius opener of the games (praesul; cf. Livys praesultator) is
a technical term to describe the dancers who performed in the
regular circus procession (see J.-R. Jannot, REL 70 (1992), 5668).
Jupiter objected to the parody of dancing movements by the slave
under the whip (see Dion. Hal. quoted above) and the deWling of
a joyous occasion by these suVerings.
a Roman peasant Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Valerius
Maximus name him as T. Latinius (Lactantius Ti. Atinius is
Commentary
247
a probable corruption of this); Macrobius a certain Autronius

Maximus probably derives from a separate tradition followed by
Varro. Ogilvie (1965: 327) considers T. Annius the more likely name
for a prominent plebeian. However, the emphasis lies on his being at
best a farmer uninvolved in political life. His anonymity in Coelius
may be the result of abbreviation by Cic.
. . . the dream was accepted by the Senate Again Coelius version is
the barest, excluding the speciWc prescription of Jupiter. Livy and
Dionysius specify a gap of a few days before the sons death, Valerius
has an immediate decease. While the pagan sources show Jupiters
concern for the state in his giving of repeated warnings, the Christian
sources emphasize the unfair display of power (e.g. Arnob. Nat. 7. 38;
August. De civ. D 8. 13). Coelius framing of the story reXects the preeminent role of the Senate within Roman state religion, although
their cognizance of dreams is a rare phenomenon (cf. 1. 99). This
form of divination was beyond eVective control by the elite, and by
such stories as this the average Roman might be dissuaded from
claiming that a dream had a public signiWcance.
the games were repeated a second time Cf. Livy 2. 37. 1: the Senate
decreed that the games should be made as lavish as possible; Dion.
Hal. 7. 73. 5: [the Senate] decreed that another procession be
performed in honour of the god and other games to be exhibited at
twice the cost of the former. Only Coelius version has a double
instauratio, which Timpanaro suggests may be carelessness by Cic. or
an erroneous duplication he found in one or more of his sources.
Rather it is an authentic part of Coelius account, but nonetheless
unhistorical: although repeated, and even multiple, instaurationes
are attested for the historical period, Coelius dating of the games
to the 5th cent. predates the introduction of instauratio (cf. Bernstein
1998: 923).
56. Gaius Gracchus told many . . . when he was a candidate for the
quaestorship C. Sempronius Gracchus was the younger of the two
radical tribunes whose conXict with the Senate led to their deaths
(Stockton 1979). He held his quaestorship in 126, so the dramatic
date for the dream is 127, before the elections for the quaestorship
248
Commentary
(cf. Plut. C. Gracch. 1. 6). Gaius was setting out on the Wrst step of the
cursus honorum, although he had served as a land-commissioner
distributing land in accordance with his brothers legislation. The
MSS reading petenti should not be emended to petere dubitanti
(Halm) in order to explain Tiberius reference to delay (Pease) and
to Wt the interpretation of Gaius behaviour attributed to Cic. by
Plutarch, that he declined all oYces and had chosen to live a quiet
life. Gaius use of his brother and of the notion of fraternal pietas in
his popular oratory is highly plausible and would have been rhetorically eVective (cf. Bannon 1997: 12731). Even if told many is not
a reference to a speech by Gaius in a contio, something more than
a private conversation is required; indeed for Quintus argument the
widespread contemporary knowledge of the dream serves to conWrm
its historicity. In historical context the dream may represent
a reprimand by Tiberius for Gaius not standing for the tribunate
(F. Zochbauer, Zu Ciceros Buchern De Divinatione (Helm, 1877), 17),
in order to pursue his radical policies, and would provide a context
for Gaius relating of the dream in 124, when he stood for election as
tribune, now resolved on direct conXict with the Senate. However, it
is equally possible that Gaius publicized the dream in 127 to justify
and win support for his candidature for the quaestorship. Thus the
delay Tiberius criticizes is in Gaius beginning his public career,
because Gaius did not stand for oYce at the earliest opportunity.
He was nine years younger than Tiberius who was born in 163
(or early 162) (Plut. C. Gracch. 1. 2), and so became 28 during his
quaestorship, while Tiberius had been quaestor at 25 or 26, close to
the probable minimum age for the quaestorship (cf. A. E. Astin, The
Lex Annalis before Sulla (Brussels, 1958), esp. 425).
as it is written in the same Coelius work As with the previous
example, it is not clear where Coelius narrated this in his account of
the Second Punic War. One possibility is an excursus on the reliability of dreams, in the context of Hannibals Wrst dream (cf. Herrmann
1979: 197).
he must perish sharing the same fate as he himself had Tib.
Sempronius Gracchus, Gaius elder brother had perished in 133.
On delay, see above. Sharing the same fate would in general
Commentary
249
terms refer to the violent end suVered by the two tribunes as

a consequence of their radical opposition to the Senate; it could,
however, apply speciWcally to the throwing of their corpses into the
Tiber, a commonality that was noted (Vell. Pat. 2. 6. 7; cf. Plut. Ti.
Gracch. 20. 2; C. Gracch. 17. 5). In the method and scene of their
respective deaths there are no close similarities: Tiberius was coshed
with the leg of a bench on the Capitol (Plut. Ti. Gracch. 19. 6), while
Gaius was probably assisted in suicide by his slave in the grove of the
Furies (Plut. C. Gracch. 17. 2).
Coelius writes . . . <Gracchus> had told many. What can be found
better authenticated than this dream? This example is weighty in
Quintus eyes, because Coelius is a credible authority, he was
a Wrsthand witness of Gaius tale, and it could be corroborated by
many others, a point he makes twice in this exemplum by the
repetition of many (multis); moreover, the chronological setting is
secured as 124 at the latest, as Gaius was tribune in 123 and 122. The
pronoun eum (literally him, here rendered by Gracchus) has to be
supplied, as it makes no sense for Cic. to relate that Coelius told the
dream to many (Pease, Schaublin; contra Philippson 1922: 1012).
those two dreams which are very frequently recounted by the
Stoics After this Roman interlude Quintus returns to famous
Greek dreams accepted by his Stoic philosophical sources. These go
back to Chrysippus for one (see on 1. 57), but through Posidonius
(cf. Schaublin).
Simonides Simonides of Ceos, probably born in the mid-6th cent.,
see Molyneux 1992. The biographical details elaborated in later poets
are highly dubious (cf. Lefkowitz 1981: 4956) and this story may be
no more than a creation to explain an epigram attributed to Simonides (Anth. Pal. 7. 77): this man is the saviour of Simonides of Ceos,
who though dead repaid a gift to the living. Although its authenticity
is doubted by modern scholars (D. L. Page, Further Greek Epigrams
(Cambridge, 1981), 299301), for the Stoics and Quintus the epigram oVers Wrsthand evidence.
The story appears in its fullest form in Libanius (Narrat. 13; cf.
Schol. ad Aelium Aristiden, iii. 533), whose geographical details
250
Commentary
suggest a date for the episode in the 480s when Simonides visited
Sicily. The tale is a common folk-motif across many cultures, the
grateful dead (see literature collected by E. Schurer, F. G. B. Millar,
et al., A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, iii
(Edinburgh, 1986), 226), yet without a classical parallel.
57. The second dream is very well-known and is handed down as
follows The Suda (s.v. F (4. 559 Adler) ) shows that
Chrysippus related this dream in an undramatic fashion. Cic., or
an intermediate, has added details and created a more striking story;
a process which Valerius Maximus was to take further (1. 7 ext. 10;
see C. J. Carter, Valerius Maximus, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Empire and
Aftermath: Silver Latin II (London, 1975), 415).
wagon For the possibility that corpses and excrement were regularly removed in the same vehicles, see J. Bodel, Graveyards and
Groves: A Study of the Lex Lucerina (Cambridge, Mass., 1994),
108 n. 161.
What can be said to be more divinely inspired than this
dream? Divinely inspired (divinus) introduces the role of the
gods in divinatory dreams which Quintus will discuss later (1. 64)
the dreams are not caused by physiological or psychological disturbances (see 1. 603). Although the Wrst dream might be explicable
in terms of the general insecurity of hired accommodation and
a concern for the friend, and could be disregarded because of the
meal recently consumed, the second dream oVered such information
as could only come from the gods, and was proved to be correct. For
speculation as to the paranormal transmission of information, see
Dodds 1971: 2034.
58. Why search for more examples or those from antiquity?
Quintus introduces his climactic category of prophetic dream, ones
where Quintus and Marcus were themselves the recipients and so the
authority of the source could not be questioned! The Wrst of
these dreams, however, need not strike us as remarkable, given the
nature of the symbolism, the relationship between Quintus and Cic.
and the formers knowledge of the political situation in Rome during
Commentary
251
his governorship. Dodds (1971: 214) sees it as a standard modern

type of crisis dream .
I have often told you of a dream I had and I have often heard
yours Quintus argument has a powerful ad hominem element, in
that if Marcus did speak often about a dream which the outcome
suggested strongly was divinely inspired and if he himself called it
divinely inspired (1. 60), then, he appears to be hypocritical if
he argues against the reality of prophetic dreams. In fact Marcus
response (2. 1367, 140) is far from cogent.
When I was proconsul of Asia Quintus was allocated Asia in Mar.
61 (Cic. Att. 1. 15. 1), took up his post in the middle of that year, had
his tenure prorogued for two further years, and was relieved only in
58 (Cic. Att. 2. 6. 2, 3. 9. 1). Quintus description of his command as
proconsular has been criticized and deleted by some editors as
inaccurate. Quintus had not held the consulship, his highest oYce
being the praetorship of 62, but he was governing a province which
was usually the prerogative of an ex-consul. Procos. may be taken in
its basic sense as in place of a consul, rather than in any technical
sense relating to the imperium he exercised, although it may have
been a prescription of the lex Cornelia of 81, that all provincial
governors exercising their function ex praetura received the title
proconsul (cf. A. J. Marshall, ANRW i/1. 903).
in a dream Quintus does not give a precise date for his dream, but
it must precede the vote on Clodius bill which guaranteed Cic.s
exile; on the day it was passed Cic. left Rome (Sest. 53), probably the
third week of Mar. 58.
I saw you riding on a horse towards the bank of a large river . . . and
not reappear anywhere Ancient dream theory deals adequately
with various aspects of this dream, the interpretation of which, as
Quintus says, is straightforward, and as such suggests that the dream
is not prophetic, as Quintus requires it to be. First, that familiar
friends have prevision especially about each other is due to their
being specially concerned on each others behalf (Arist. Div. somn.
464a 279; tr. Gallop). In a Babylonian dream book sinking into
252
Commentary
a river and emerging from it indicates wealth and worries (Holowchak 2002: 90 n. 27), whereas no extant Greek or Roman texts
provide a close parallel to the historical situation (cf. Artem. 2. 27:
It is bad luck to stand in a river, to be washed on all sides by waves,
and to be unable to get out. For a man could not endure the
misfortunes that would follow such a dream, even if he were very
courageous; Hippocr. Insomn. 93: crossing rivers indicate(s) . . .
disease or raving). The horse also appears to have no relevant
symbolism here (cf. Artem. 1. 56).
I trembled in fear . . . and we embraced each other Pease points to
the similarity with the portent Philistus records of Dionysius I of
Syracuse (1. 73), but there is no reason to believe that Quintus
dream owes anything to the former. Artem. 2. 2: greeting, embracing, and kissing ones friends is good (cf. Astrampsych. Onir. p. 4);
Artem. 4. 6: every man or woman, dead or alive, that one meets or
sees in a dream, every friend, benefactor, and generally every person
who does not cause or has not caused any injuries to the dreamer is
auspicious.
experts in Asia predicted to me the events which came to pass
Ciceros exile and return to his former status. Even before Quintus
left Rome in 61, Cic.s inXuence was much diminished and he had
incurred Clodius enmity by destroying his alibi in the Bona Dea
scandal; by the beginning of 60 Cic. was concerned about his future
and the threat from a Clodian tribunate (Att. 1. 8. 4, 2. 1. 45). The
identity of Quintus experts, the nature of their prediction, and
when during Quintus command they gave their interpretation is
vaguedid they specify exile or a merely a downturn of fortunes?
59. I come now to your dream The more powerful of the
examples, both from its content and the fact that it is Marcus own
dream, makes a Wtting climax to Quintus parade of examples.
our Sallustius Sallustius (RE 1A. 191213) was a long-term friend
of Cic. (e.g. Att. 1. 11. 1; Q Fr. 3. 4. 24), rather than some freedman
(Shackleton Bailey 1965: 286). He accompanied Cic. into exile at
least as far as Brundisium (Cic. Fam. 14. 4. 6) and was the Wrst person
Commentary
253
to hear Cic. relate his dream (see below). The mutual corroboration
of Cic. and Sallustius give Quintus a secure example.
During your Xight, which was glorious for us but calamitous for
the country An antithesis which ostensibly owes more to rhetoric
than to sense. It is not clear how Cic.s Xight itself, as opposed to
his return (cf. Cic. Parad. 29), was glorious, but this is probably just
an extreme exaggeration by Quintus, like Cic.s frequent attempts to
portray his Xight as magnanimous self-sacriWce (see Robinson 1994:
479). His choice of Xight (fuga) is not to achieve greater pathos
(pace Timpanaro), although Cic.s letters during the Xight reveal him
wallowing in misery and self-pity (e.g. Att. 3. 35, 3. 7. 2; Fam. 14. 4.
3). Rather, Cic. never uses the technical term exilium even in private
correspondence and rebuts others who brand him as an exile (cf.
Dom. 72), although it is not possible here to see any of the philosophical arguments he employs elsewhere to justify this (cf.
E. Narducci, AJP 118 (1997), esp. 6672; J.-M. Claassen, Displaced
Persons: The Literature of Exile from Cicero to Boethius (London,
1999), 160, 2612).
a certain villa in the plain of Atina An area in Lucania on the via
Popilia. It may be possible to date Cic.s stay here precisely. He had left
Rome around 20 Mar. 58, wrote from Nares Lucanae (Att. 3. 2) on 27
Mar., if we accept Shackleton Baileys emendation of the MSS Id. to
K(al.), and travelled that day to the plain of Atina, where he spent the
night before going on to Siccas farm at Vibo.
spent most of the night awake and around daybreak you Wnally
began to sleep deeply On one level this is detail to create pathos,
more importantly it provides key information for establishing
whether the dream was prophetic. It was important to establish
when a dream occurred, as those occurring around dawn or in the
morning were considered most likely to be true (Philostr. VA 2. 37;
Tert. An. 48. 1; and from the 1st cent.: Hor. Sat. 1. 10. 33; Ov. Her.
19. 1956).
although your journey was urgent . . . wandering sadly in desolate
places Cic. was racing to get to Brundisium and sail for Greece, as
254
Commentary
penalties had been set for anyone who harboured him. To dream of
such wanderings portended hard times (cf. Hippocr. Insomn. 16),
here reXecting Ciceros fears for his future.
C. Marius with laurelled fasces Marius, the great Roman general,
seven times consul and winner of triumphs over Jugurtha and the
Cimbri and Teutones was from Arpinum, Cic.s home town, and
was somehow related to Cic. (cf. Brut. 168; Sest. 50; Att. 12. 49. 2;
Stockton 1971: 5). Marius is referred to with exceptional frequency
by Cic. across his range of works, but the greatest fellow-feeling for
Marius came in the years after his consulship, through the exile to 55,
where the parallels with Marius own eclipse and exile were closest
(T. F. Carney, WS 73 (1960), 856). Despite Cic.s readiness to use
Marius, especially in popular orations, his personal attachment to
and knowledge of Marius should not be exaggerated, nor his alienation from his political methods be minimized (cf. E. D. Rawson,
PCPS 17 (1971), 769). Here laurelled fasces combine the emblem
of magisterial power in Rome and the symbol of victory; they point
above all to Marius triumphs and may hint at the prospect of future
oYce for Cic., just as Marius celebrated his seventh consulship after
exile. Cf. 2. 140: at that time Marius was much on my mind, as
I remembered how magnanimously, how bravely he had borne his
own grave misfortune.
you had been driven out of your country by force Cic. frequently
represented his exile in these terms to play up the illegality of
Clodius actions (Robinson 1994: 4789).
he took your right hand . . . handed you over to his senior lictor In
the terms of Greek oneirocrisis, because it is not certain that Marius
could be called Cic.s intimate friend, the symbolism of greeting (cf.
1. 58) was not unambiguously favourable: it is less auspicious to
greet a person who is not ones intimate friend, but is known in some
other capacity (Artem. 2. 2). Here, however, in a speciWcally Roman
context, the symbolism is unambiguously positive: Marius invites
Cicero into the space and contact usually denied any citizen with the
consul in public when attended by his 24 lictors (see Val. Max. 2. 2.
4). Lictors were the oYcials who bore the fasces in front of the
Commentary
255
magistrate, the senior lictor (lictor proximus) had particular responsibility for preserving the sacral distance (cf. Mommsen 1887: 3756;
B. Gladigow, ANRW i/2. 2978).
his monument The temple to Honour and Courage built from the
spoils of the Cimbri and Teutones near Marius house, probably
around or beyond the area now occupied by the Arch of Titus
(LTUR iii. 335; cf. v. 274). The deities are particularly appropriate
for the triumph of the novus homo Marius by his own virtues, and
thus by extension to his most famous successor Cic. The reference to
the temple by the name of the dedicator rather than the deity (cf.
Cic. Sest. 116; Planc. 78; Vitr. 3. 2. 5; Val. Max. 2. 5. 6, 4. 4. 8) is typical
of the Late Republic (Orlin 1997: 1934).
a swift and glorious return was in store for you Nothing in the
dream suggests the rapidity of Cic.s restoration. This is probably
Sallustius own encouraging interpretation or the interpretation
preferred by Cic. with the beneWt of hindsightin Oct. 46 the
same combination of adjectives is employed by Cic. (Fam. 6. 6. 2),
although it is not certain whether they represent the words of Cic. or
Aulus Caecina. Important too are Cic.s acceptance of the dream and
his immediate recognition of its divine nature, although they are less
critical to any objective assessment of the dream as prophetic than
the topographical detail relating to the Marian monument.
I was told swiftly . . . the magniWcent senatorial decree about your
return had been passed in that monument Quintus words seem to
mock Sallustiushe picks up his swift (celer), but applies it only to
the rapidity with which news was passed to himself. A formal call was
issued to all citizens who wished for the safety of the state to assemble
in order to support the restoration of Cic. (e.g. Pis. 34; Red. Sen. 24
5) and the same edict commended him to foreign nations and
Romes provincial governors (Sest. 128). This was timed to coincide
with popular games, most likely the Floralia rather than special
celebrations organized to commemorate Marius victory over the
Cimbri (Schol. Bobb. 136 St. is in error; cf. Wissowa 1912: 150 n. 2),
and the senatorial decree was passed in the temple of Courage and
Honour (Sest. 116; Planc. 78), probably in May 57. Nothing in the
256
Commentary
primary evidence speciWes 1 May, but that is probable, the earliest

moment during a month in which Lentulus, as senior consul, had
the fasces. This is the only attested meeting of the Senate in this
location and as such a remarkable coincidence with the dream.
Although possible reasons for the choice of venue can be suggested,
e.g. deliberately to point up the parallel between Marius and Cicero
as novi homines or to allude to their kinship to boost support for
Cic., we do not know why Lentulus chose the venue. In mid-July,
at a further meeting in the temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest, the
Senate formally voted for his return; popular ratiWcation followed. See
Bonnefond-Coudry 1989: 12530.
on the motion of an excellent and most illustrious consul
P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (RE iv. 13928), consul of 57 who
had worked from the outset of his oYce for Cic.s return. Posthumously Cic. celebrated him as author of my recall from banishment
(auctor salutis, Brut. 268; cf. Pis. 80). For contemporary and later
praise, see e.g. Pis. 34: excellent consul; Red. Sen. 5: unique and
outstanding virtue; Sest. 144: the god and father of my fortune and
of my name (cf. Red. Sen. 8). Cic. gives a full account of the theatre
scene in Pro Sestio, delivered in 56 (11723).
you said that nothing could be more divinely inspired than that
dream at Atina For Quintus this is a powerful climax to his argumentCic. himself admitted the prophetic, divinatory nature of his
dream, conWrmed by the passing of the senatorial decree in a venue
that appears to have been used on this occasion only. At the time of
the dream Cic. could not have known that Lentulus would be consul
or would manipulate the proceedings so as to have the vote in
a temple with particular asociations with Cic. as a novus homo and
fellow-townsman of Marius.
60. But many dreams are untrue! This riposte of Quintus
imaginary interlocutor does not refer to the idea familiar from
Homer onwards (e.g. Il. 2. 534) that the gods send deliberately
misleading dreams, but rather to an empirical fact that not all dreams
predict what will happen. This was recognized generally and even by
dream interpreters (e.g. Pind. Pyth. 8. 956; Artem. 5 prf.). Further
Commentary
257
objections, which lie behind this, are raised generally against divination by Marcus (2. 1278).
perhaps their meaning is obscure to us. But . . . what do we argue
against those which are true? Quintus Wrst response seems to place
some stress on the interpretation of the dreams, and to lay blame on
the human reception of dreams (cf. Plat. Rep. 617e). As Stoic
thought, as opposed to poetic imagination, cannot accept the possibility of the gods sending false dreams (cf. Plat. Rep. 382e), false
dreams have to be generated by human beings. His Wnal argument is
essentially that enunciated in 1. 24, but relying on the oft-repeated
point that outcomes rather than reasons are crucial. If some dreams
can only, or even best, be regarded as prophetic, the phenomenon of
the prophetic dream exists.
These would occur far more frequently . . . An acknowledgement
that the majority of dreams are not prophetic. Perhaps we are to infer
from Platos wider views on the paucity of those who have real
concern for the soul, that the capacity to receive clear prophetic
dreams is enjoyed by few (cf. 1. 111); for Quintus, however, the
more important idea is the potential of all to receive.
when burdened with food and wine, we see dreams which are
confused and troubled Via his quotation from Plato, Quintus
will give examples of these unclear dreams, but his language may
owe something to Aristotle: at other times the vision appears disturbed (tetaragmenai) and grotesque . . . as with those who are . . . intoxicated (oinomenois) (Insomn. 461a 213; tr. Gallop), a passage he
seems also to echo at 1. 81 (cf. A. Escobar, CFC 2 (1992), 244).
The eVect on dreams of over-indulgence, explained in physiological terms, is discussed by Aristotle (Insomn. 461a1330) and
other writers later (e.g. Persius 2. 57; Max. Tyr. 16. 1). It could render
dreams unreliable even as late as dawn (Artem. 1. 7), when the system
was usually free of disturbance from the digestive system.
See what Socrates says in Platos Republic Cic. oVers here an
extended translation of a passage from Republic 9 (571c572a):
whenever that part of the soul sleeps which is rational and gentle
258
Commentary
and dominant, the beastly and wild part, full of food or drink,
becomes rampant, forces sleep away and seeks to go and satisfy its
pleasures. You know that there is nothing it will dare to do at such
moments, since it has been freed and released from all shame and
prudence. For example, as it supposes, it attempts to engage in
intercourse with its mother and it does not shrink from intercourse
with anyone at all, either man, god or beast, or from any act of
murder; nor does it restrain itself from any food. In a word, it omits
no act of madness or shamelessness. On the other hand, I suppose,
when someone who is healthy and moderate goes to sleep having
roused the logical element, having feasted on Wne arguments and
speculations, having spent time in communion with himself, while
having given the emotional part neither excess nor short rations, so
that it will sleep and create no disturbance for the best part, in its
pleasure or pain, he leaves it alone, by itself and uncontaminated, to
look and reach out for something and to perceive what it does not
know, either of the past, present, or future. If likewise he has soothed
the passionate part so as to sleep and has not raised his anger against
anyone, but having quietened the two elements and roused the third
in which thought is engendered, he takes his rest, you know that in
such a condition he is most likely to apprehend the truth and that the
visions of his dreams are least likely to appear unnatural. In context
Socrates is describing the man of despotic character, which he prefaces by these remarks on unlawful appetites and desires, which
though innate in all are controlled by reason. According to Plato,
then, for most people their dreams mirror the desire of their souls and
are a tool for psychological evaluation (Vegleris 1982: 5660); only for
the philosophical few do dreams oVer the possibility of approaching
the truth. This would not seem an obvious context from which to
draw a key passage on divination, although Plato himself (Rep. 572b)
gives a wider relevance to his discussion than to tyrants alone. But
Cic. (or his source) has seen that this passage oVers a useful summary
of the roles and nature of the three parts of the soul in Platonic
thought in relation to dreams. Other Platonic dialogues involving
dreams, e.g. Phaedo, suggest that metaphysical realities cannot be
perceived rationally, that dreams can be used by the gods, to reveal
and not deceive (cf. Rep. 382e) about such things. See S. Rotondaro,
Il sogno in Platone: Fisiologia di una metafora (Naples, 1998).
Commentary
259
Much has been written on Cic. as a translator of Greek philosophical works, and especially of his relation to Plato, e.g. Poncelet 1957;
T. Villapadierna, Helmantica 9 (1958), 42553; A. Traglia, Note
su Cicerone traduttore di Platone e di Epicuro, in G. Cavallo and
P. Fedeli (eds.), Studi Wlologici e storici in onore di Vittorio de Falco
(Naples, 1971), 30540; Muller-Goldingen 1992: 17387; Powell
1995: 273300. In relation to this passage it is clear that, while
oVering elegant Latin, Cic. has altered the emphasis of Platos
Greek. Poncelet (1957: esp. 2537) puts much of this down to the
deWciencies of Latin, particularly the absence of an active past participle. In this chapter Cic. does not emphasize as much as Plato does
the responsibility of the human being for the inability of his soul to
receive prophetic dreams, by describing its state rather than how it
came about. However, rather than holding Cic. a deWcient translator,
it is probable that Cic. considers the attribution of responsibility
adequately discharged by his introductory words; his version of
Plato can, then, concentrate on the activity of the soul itself.
that part of the soul which shares in thinking and reasoning
Plato divided the soul into two parts, the rational (to logistikon)
and the non-rational (to alogon), the second of which has two
elements, the appetitive (to epithumetikon) and the emotive (to
thumikon). See Plato Tim. 70ae.
So every vision which presents itself to such a man is without
thought and reason . . . intercourse with his mother These dreams
are the product of the appetitive part of the soul. According to the
interpretations recorded by Artemidorus and Achmet, dreams of
actions which break social norms or laws do not necessarily portend
evil and indeed constitute a notable section of oneirocritic material.
The sheer length and complexity of Artemidorus treatment of
dreams involving mother-intercourse (1. 79) suggest that such
dreams were common (cf. Soph. OT 9812; Hdt. 6. 107. 1; Paus.
4. 26. 3; Suet. Iul. 7).
some other human being or god . . . beast Dreams of sexual intercourse occupy three chapters of Artemidorus (1. 7880): there
are many varying signiWcances for intercourse with human beings
260
Commentary
depending on the age, status, and relationship to the dreamer of the

subject (1. 789); intercourse with gods usually portends the death of
the dreamer, although if the dreamer is healthy and in the dream
derives pleasure from the intercourse, that signiWes the receipt of help
from ones superiors (1. 80); intercourse with beasts is straightforward: if a man dreams that he is having sexual intercourse with
any animal whatsoever and that he himself is doing the mounting, he
will derive beneWts from a person or thing that corresponds to
the animal . . . but if a man dreams that he has been mounted by
the animal, he will suVer terrible acts of violence. Many men have
died after this dream. Achmet (1334) oVers a range of eastern
interpretations both positive and negative for sexual relations with
wild or other animals. Plato, however, is not discussing dreams with
respect to their possible signiWcance as Artemidorus does. See
C. Grottanelli, On the Mantic Meaning of Incestuous Dreams, in
D. Shulman and G. G. Stromsa (eds.), Dream Cultures: Explorations
in the Comparative History of Dreaming (New York, 1999), 14368.
killing someone and impiously staining himself with blood
Artemidorus has a lengthy discussion of dreams of dying or being
killed (2. 4955), but says nothing on committing murder. The
second part of this refers probably to dreams of cannibalism. Again
Artemidorus has several varieties of this dream (1. 70).
61. healthy and temperate habits and life The general idea that
diet and exercise could aVect dreams and be employed medically is
exploited by Hippocrates (Reg. 4). Cf. Philostr. VA 3. 42; Synes.
Insomn. 19.
with that part of his soul which involves thought and reason
active Although Cic.s period has a clear and elegant structure
with three ablative absolutes developed by three relative clauses,
leading to a conclusion, this symmetry comes at the cost of the
logical connections in the original. The ablative absolutes translate
aorist active participles, and individually oVer good translations, but
the identity of the subject in the Greek is lost and with that the key
idea that the will of the individual is responsible for discipline and
the quality of dreams; Plato makes it clear that the dreamer must
Commentary
261
stimulate this part of the soul (kinesas). This is compounded by the

omission of Platos having spent time in communion with himself .
See Poncelet 1957: 2545.
alert and satisWed with a banquet of good thoughts . . . neither enfeebled by abstinence nor sated with excess Cic. retains Platos
dining metaphor, but thoughts (cogitationum) minimizes the
philosophical nature of arguments . . . speculations (logon . . . kai
skepseon). The need for balance is also seen in Ps.-Hippocrates
(Insomn. 3): overcome neither by satiety or emptiness.
both of these usually dull the sharp edge of thought, either if nature
is deprived of anything or there is abundance and excess Cic.
recasts the original with more freedom here, rendering Platos purpose clause, so that it will sleep and create no disturbance for the
best part, in its pleasure or pain by this generalized parenthesis. Then
there is a signiWcant omission of [the person who has eaten moderately and stimulated his soul] allows it by itself and uncontaminated
to look and reach out for something and to perceive what it does not
know, either of the past, present or future (cf. Poncelet 1957: 255),
words which would permit a good link with divination.
calmed and quietened The passives here, by contrast with the aorist
active participles of the original, de-emphasize the responsibility of
the individual to produce in himself the state necessary for truthful
dreaming.
when the two reckless parts of the soul . . . alive and alert for
dreaming Cic. here moves away from translation and in eVect
summarizes what Platos argument requires. In his expansion of
in such a condition (en toi toioutoi), the addition of reckless
(temerarius) introduces an idea which is important to Cic. from
his Academic perspective, i.e. that the good philosopher avoids
hasty commitment (cf. Levy 1992: 630 n. 6). Cic. has Varro say
(Acad. 1. 42) that Zeno also opposed recklessness. This broader
philosophical relevance militates against these words being a gloss,
even though the end of the period runs more smoothly without
them.
262
Commentary
peaceful and veridical This is not a simple rendering of tes

aletheias . . . malista haptetai kai hekista paranomoi and loses
the deliberate lack of absoluteness in Platos formulation (cf. Poncelet
1957: 257).
I have reproduced Platos exact words Poncelet treats these words
rigorously, and then criticizes Cic. for deliberate inaccuracies (1957:
253). To describe the translation as extremely free, being indeed
hardly more than a paraphrase (Pease), is in many respects unfair,
as in substance it does represent Plato well (cf. Timpanaro).
62. Shall we listen rather to Epicurus? For Cic. Epicurus and
Carneades are the chief opponents of divination (see on 1. 5, 7).
In general Cic. distances himself from Epicurean doctrine, although
he shares Epicurus hostility to divination. Quintus employs this
question to embarrass Marcus, by highlighting his apparent siding
with philosophical approaches that he rejects. For Epicurus, dreams
are purely a physical phenomenon, caused by the stream of images
(eidola) emanating from bodies, which could not be perceived by
the senses, but by the mind. Dreams do not have a divine nature
or divinatory power, but occur as the result of the impact of
images (Epic. Sent. Vat. 24; cf. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 9, VI.
68 Smith: the true nat[ure of dre]ams i[s by no means] that they
are sent [by the gods] or are mon[itory]). Although a materialist
view of dreams is not inconsistent with belief in a divinatory
function, in Epicurean thought the gods are unconcerned with
human aVairs and so play no role. See D. Clay, AJP 101 (1980),
34265, and M. F. Smith, Diogenes of Oenoanda: The Epicurean
Inscription (Naples, 1993), 4501. Dreams were also seen as
wish-fulWlments by Epicureans (cf. Quint. Decl. Maj. 10. 200;
P. Kragelund, CQ 39 (1989), 4403).
Carneades . . . says now this and now that Pease relates this to
Carneades sophistic delight in arguing both sides of a case (cf.
Lact. Inst. 5. 14. 34). Although Carneades himself held no positive
doctrine, but argued logically from the premisses of other schools, he
could appear inconsistent. Quintus uses this to cast doubt on his
argument.
Commentary
263
he thinks nothing that is ever elegant or Wtting The contrast

with Carneades is very sharp, as Epicurus formulated his key beliefs
in easily memorable and transmittable form for his followers. In
general Cic. is as dismissive of Epicurus literary talents (e.g. ND
1. 85, 123; Fin. 1. 6; Brut. 131; but cf. Tusc. 5. 26) as of his philosophical
views.
Will you, then, prefer him to Plato and Socrates . . . minor philosophers For Cic.s ranking of Plato, see on 1. 52. Cic. deliberately applies
the pejorative adjective minor (minutus) to philosophers with
whom he disagrees (cf. Sen. 85; Fin. 1. 61). Prof. Dyck has suggested that minutus means something like oversubtle or logic-chopping
(cf. Leg. 1. 36).
Plato commands Cic. takes a description in which Plato
employs the singular and turns it into a general prescription. Only
at this stage, rather than in his translation, and by introducing the
notion of command, does Cic. eVectively reproduce the idea in Plato
that such preparation is essential for the soul to perceive prophetic
dreams.
Pythagoreans were forbidden to eat beans The instruction to
abstain from the broad bean (vicia faba) is included in the sayings
of Pythagoras (e.g. Iambl. VP 109) and is a commonplace of the
tradition on Pythagoras. It is in some cases ambiguous whether the
prohibition extended even to touching the bean (Aul. Gell. 4. 2. 9;
cf. Tert. An. 31), but the regular context for discussion is that of food
(e.g. Aul. Gell. 4. 2. 2). A deWnitive explanation for the prohibition is
impossible, but various approaches are possible: to understand
a commonsense injunction in the face of what is now recognized as
an hereditary enzyme deWciency that results in a severe reaction to
broad beans, and is marked in southern Italy and Sicily, the cradle of
early Pythagoreanism (e.g. R. S. Brumbaugh and J. Schwartz, CW 73
(197980), 4212). Again, Pythagoreans may have believed that
beans contained the souls of the dead (Plin. HN 18. 118; cf. Plut.
Mor. 635e) and their prohibition can be seen in totemic terms
(e.g. M. Detienne, Dionysos Slain (Baltimore, 1979), 601). Latterly,
emphasizing a Pythagorean rejection of anti-oligarchic use of the lot,
264
Commentary
see A. Herrmann, To Think Like God (Las Vegas, 2004), 5960. In

favour of an explanation combining medical, dietetic, epidemiological, magico-religious, and historico-contextual evidence, see
J. Scarborough, CW 75 (19812), 3558, and M. D. Grmek, Diseases
in the Ancient Greek World (Baltimore, 1989), 21044.
Quintus explanation (cf. Plin. HN 18. 118; Diog. Laert. 8. 23;
Dioscor. 2. 105; Geopon. 2. 35. 34) is one of a variety of rationalizing
explanations (cf. Plut. Mor. 12f; Aul. Gell. 4. 2. 45, 10; Clem. Strom.
3. 3). In addition to the unquestioned Xatulence which broad beans
produce, their high content of levadopa aVects the nervous system
and may produce insomnia and nightmares, conditions unconducive
to psychic activity.
63. When the soul is separated by sleep from union with the
body . . . , then it remembers the past, sees the present, and foresees
the future Quintus draws together strands which are moulded by
Platonic thought, but have a wider reference too in that the essential elements (except the notion that the soul leaves the body during
dreaming) were taken over by Aristotle and the Peripatetics. (i) A
human being is a combination of body and soul; (ii) in sleep the
soul is freed to some extent from its slavery to the body (e.g.
Ps.-Hippocr. Insomn. 1; Iambl. Myst. 3. 3); (iii) in death the soul is
separated completely from the body (e.g. Plat. Phd. 64c; Nemesius
1312: the soul is in some way separated from the body in
sleep . . . and it carries on activity by itself in dreams divining the
future and consorting with intelligibles). When the body is asleep,
the soul is free to perceive prophetic dreamse.g. Aristotle (Sext.
Emp. Math. 9. 21 Arist. fr. 12a W): when the soul is isolated in
sleep, it assumes its true nature and foresees and foretells the
future, and Ael. VH 3. 11: the Peripatetics say that during the
day the soul is wrapped up in the body and is a slave to it, and is
unable to see the truth clearly; but at night it is freed from its
obligation to the body and it becomes more prophetic, taking the
form of a sphere in the area around the chest. From this come
dreams, and Anon. Vit. Pyth. in Photius cod. 249: if the soul is
separated from the body during life it becomes better than itself
and in sleep in relation to dreams . . . it betters itself by far when
separated from the body.
Commentary
265
The notion that the seer ranges over past, present, and future is
a commonplace going back to Homer (Il. 1. 70), but may come to
Cic. in this context ultimately from Peripatetic sources (cf. Theiler
1982: 294) since at 1. 65 Cic. uses the example of Hectors dying
prophecy which was used by Aristotle in this context. Cic. may also
have in mind the passage from Platos Republic which he has just
translated, in particular a phrase he omitted from his version, perceive what it does not know, either of the past, present or future.
the body of a sleeping man lies like that of a dead man Sleep is
compared to death from Homer onwards (e.g. Od. 13. 7980; Plat.
Apol. 40c41b; Cic. Tusc. 1. 92), but the connection with psychic activity
was exploited most by those with Platonic sympathies (cf. Xen. Cyr. 8. 7.
21; Nemes. 131: [the soul] leaves the body lying just like a corpse).
even more so after death, when it has completely left the body For
death as the mutual separation of soul and the body see e.g. Plat. Phd.
64c. Because Plato does not speak of the detachment (Losung) of the
soul from the body, Schaublin suspects the particular inXuence of
Aristotle (cf. Sex. Emp. Math. 9. 21), but because the body usually
remains after death Platos mutual separation (apallage) must be
conceived of as the soul leaving the body.
So, as death approaches, it has greater power to divine Plato, Apol.
39c: I am already in the state in which men are most likely to
prophesy, that is when they are about to die (cf. Epin. 985c). This
phenomenon is commented on by Xenophon (Apol. 30) and Aristotle
(Sext. Emp. Math. 9. 22), who trace it back to Homer, where the dying
Patroclus and Hector prophesy about the deaths of their killers.
Around death, when the body becomes cleansed of all impurities or
obtains a temperament suitable for this, through which the rational
and thinking part is relaxed and freed from the present and roams
among the irrational and imaginative realm of the future (Plut. Mor.
432c). It became a commonplace, e.g. Xen. Cyr. 8. 7. 21; Diod. 18. 1. 1;
Photius (Suda, s.v. (1. 226 Adler) ); Serv. Aen. 2. 775.
For those in the grip of a serious and fatal disease . . . visions of the dead
often appear to them For inspired prophecy (mania) associated with
266
Commentary
illness, cf. Plat. Tim. 71e; Phaedr. 244d; Aret. SA 24 H: they prognosticate to themselves, in the Wrst place, their own departure from life; then
they foretell what will afterwards take place to those present, who
sometimes imagine that they are delirious; but these people wonder at
the outcomes of what has been said. Others also talk to the dead,
perhaps they are alone in perceiving them to be present, perhaps from
their soul seeing beforehand, and announcing those with whom they are
about to associate . . . when the disease has drained oV and taken away
the mist from their eyes, they perceive the things which are in the air, and
with the naked soul become prophets. Visions (imagines) translates
the Greek term phantasmata (cf. Diog. Laert. 7. 50, 10. 32), which
Chrysippus uses speciWcally for dream visions. For the Epicureans
there is the physical explanation for this phenomenon, that the dead
leave behind atomic simulacra which impact upon the mind, without
any divine involvement (cf. Lucr. 1. 1325). The Stoics seem to have
distinguished between images which are the product of the mind itself
(phantasia), and thus of no prophetic signiWcance, and those with a real
existence demonstrating the true cognitive function of the soul
(cf. Repici 1991: 175). The notion that imagines suggests a source other
than Posidonius, one which denies the reality of dream manifestations
(Finger 1929: 3923), is unnecessary.
Those who have not lived as they should have at that moment
feel the greatest repentance for their sins Cf. Stob. 4. 125
W: repentance aVects all who are about to die, as they remember
what they have done wrong. Plato famously dilates on this subject
(Rep. 330de), and may be Cic.s direct source here. However, the
synthesis of ideas in this chapter can with some plausibility
be attributed to Posidonius (Theiler, Schaublin), although others
restrict his inXuence to chapter 64 only (Kidd 1988: 429) on the
grounds that the explanations of dreaming are inappropriate in
the context and are, in fact, a crude insertion.
64. Posidonius conWrms also by that example which he adduces
As Schaublin suggests, also is a clear indication that the previous
material derives from Posidonius.
a certain Rhodian . . . The mention of a Rhodian may simply reveal
the nationality of the man, but, as Posidonius lived and worked on
Commentary
267
Rhodes, it may also operate as some guarantee of the reliability of

the story.
there are three ways in which men dream under divine
impulse Posidonius argument plausibly draws on Herophilus
classiWcation of the origin of dreams (cf. [Ps.]-Plut. Mor. 904f:
some dreams are inspired by a god and arise by necessity, but others
are natural and arise when the soul forms for itself an image of what
is to its own advantage and what will happen subsequently; still
others are mixed and arise without stimulus according to the impact
of images whenever we see what we wish, as happens in the case
of those who in their sleep make love to the women they love; see on
1. 6 Chrysippus). It reappears in Philo, with slight changes to
accommodate his monotheistic perspective (Somn. 2. 1: the third
kind of dream occurs whenever the soul in sleep, setting itself in
motion and agitating itself, becomes frenzied and inspired with the
power of prognostication and foretells the future. The Wrst kind is
where god initiates the movement and, unseen, suggests things
obscure to us but known to him, and the second kind is where the
understanding moves in concert with the soul of the universe and is
Wlled with divinely induced madness, which is permitted to foretell
many things that will come to pass). Posidonius no doubt accepted
psychological explanations for ordinary or diagnostic dreams
(cf. Kessels 1969: 400), but the most natural interpretation of
under divine impulse restricts the context here to divine, prophetic
dreams (cf. PfeVer 1976: 7888; pace von Staden 1989: 3089).
Impulse (adpulsu) illustrates the basic materialist conception of
the Stoics, that there has to be external agency to explain such dreams
(cf. Repici 1991: 176). Posidonius presents the three diVerent divine
impulses, in ascending order of importance of their mediator. Behind
his classiWcation lies the question, How do men acquire a certain
knowledge of the future through dreams? It seems that these
are complementary explanations of diVerent degrees of clarity and
quality of prophecy, as is made explicit by Iamblichus, who is
plausibly developing Posidonius formulation (Myst. 3. 3: when at
any rate the soul is united with the gods in such a detached activity,
then it receives the truest Wllings of its thoughts, from which it
produces true divination). Quintus failure to refer again to this
268
Commentary
classiWcation explicitly and its isolation in the middle of exempla

of prophecy by the dying has suggested that its inclusion is an
afterthought (Holowchak 2002: 75), but in fact the ideas do recur
in the later argumentative section (e.g. 1. 10910).
the soul foresees all by itself because of the relationship with the
gods it possesses The kinship (cognatio, sungeneia) of man and
gods is a widespread philosophical and religious idea for the Greeks
and Romans going back at least to Diogenes of Apollonia (e.g. Cic.
Leg. 1. 245), but its centrality to Stoic thought, seen most clearly in
Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (4), for we are your oVspring, is most
relevant for Posidonius use of it. Galen (Plac. p. 449 M) attributes to
Posidonius the belief that the intellectual function of the soul, the
daimon within oneself has a similar nature (sungenei) to the one
which governs the whole universe, the providential world spirit,
i.e. that it is essentially rational. Itself by itself appear to be very
similar to Aristotles words (Sex. Emp. Math. 9. 21; quoted above),
which is plausible given the wider context (Kidd 1988: 430), although
there remain fundamental diVerences between Posidonius and
Aristotle. There is no early Stoic text which states that the soul by
itself can tell the future, hence this is probably an idea introduced by
Posidonius to Stoicism (C. Levy 1997: 3356) and it is in contrast to
the two following explanations.
the air is full of immortal souls on which the marks of truth are
clear, as though hallmarked This is not a reference to Wxed stars in
the heavens, but to daimones, go-betweens between man and gods
(e.g. Plat. Symp. 202e203a; Epin. 984e), and heroes, surviving souls
of the dead which inhabit the air (e.g. Philo, Somn. 1. 135, Gig. 89).
They were a common element of Stoic belief (Diog. Laert. 7. 151),
sometimes linked with divination (Stob. 2. 114 W; Chalc. in Plat.
Tim. 2601 W). Posidonius wrote a book on these (Macrob. Sat.
1. 23. 7). As though (tamquam) shows that this is metaphorical
imagery (cf. Plut. Mor. 564de), but the term marks (notae), which
is used in the sense of semeia, is appropriate for the idea that dreams
can convey the truth in what the Stoics called a cataleptic presentation (kataleptike phantasia; cf. Sex. Emp. Math. 7. 246; see M. Frede,
Essays in Ancient Philosophy (Minneapolis, 1987), 15176). It would
Commentary
269
seem that Posidonius conceives of the immortal souls indicating the

future because the future has already impacted on them in the form
of kataleptic impressions. Hallmarked (insignitae) is probably to be
linked to marks as a translation of enapesphragismenos (cf. Sext.
Emp. Math. 7. 248; see Philippson 1922: 102). Philo accommodates
this to monotheism by eliminating the intermediaries: our own
mind moving out of itself together with the mind of the universe
(Somn. 1. 2).
the gods themselves speak with people as they sleep Cf. Iambl.
Myst. 3. 2. Clearly the highest, and rarest form of communication.
Kidd (1988: 432) suggests that dreams received through dream
oracles and incubation may be meant. However, a wider sense is
likely to cover examples such as Sophocles dream (1. 54). This is
a view held by Chrysippus (2. 130), not a Posidonian innovation.
as I just said . . . Cic. signals the end of this short digression and
return to the subject of 1. 63.
65. Callanus, about whom I spoke earlier
See on 1. 47.
Homers Hector . . . prophesied the imminent death of Achilles Cf.

Homer, Il. 22. 35560. This example, cited in this context, is
attributed Wrst to Aristotle in his On Philosophy (Sex. Emp. Math.
1. 21 Arist. fr. 12 W), but probably comes to Cic. via Posidonius
(cf. Theiler 1982: 293). Homeric examples appealed to Stoics for
their authority (see on 1. 13 things which).
Common usage would not have rashly hallowed the use of the word
praesagire, if it did not correspond to some reality Arguments from
common usage (consuetudo), particularly for etymologies, were common in ancient philosophy and particularly for Stoics (cf. Cic. OV. 1.
23) who believed that the linguistic form of a word indicated its true
meaning (cf. Origen Cels. 1. 24). Schaublin rightly argues that this
particular example is not a translation by Cic. of a Greek original,
although the possibility of some similar etymology in Greek with
diVerent examples cannot be excluded.
270
Commentary
As I was leaving home, my soul presaged that I was leaving in

vain Quintus quotes a line from Plautus (Aul. 178), although he
substitutes a subjunctive (exirem) for the indicative of the original
(exibat). This is probably a loose quotation from memory, involving
an adaptation to the syntax of Cic.s day (Timpanaro). Presaged
(praesagibat) is the word in question.
old women are called sagae, because they want to know much
Festus 303 L: old women are called sagae because they know
much; 426 L: a woman skilled in sacred things is also called saga;
Porph. Hor. Epist. 2. 2. 2089: he uses sagas . . . as though it were
satisagas and those who do much; Schol. Hor. Carm. 1. 27. 21:
saga . . . from do enough satis agat; cf. Non. 23 L. Although the
simple verb sagire is not attested, its existence is not to be doubted.
dogs are called sagaces Hunting dogs who sniV out the lairs of their
prey by their sharp senses (Festus 303, 427 L; cf. Non. 23 L).
So the person who has knowledge (sagit) . . . Cf. Festus 250 L:
praesagire is to divine in advance (praedivinare), to be wise in
advance (praesipere).
669 The section of Quintus case concerned with the second
branch of natural divination, inspired prophecy, which he will present very brieXy (1. 669). This comparative brevity is explained to
some degree by the relative absence of such prophets from Roman
religious life (but see on 1. 4). Quintus has to present an essentially
Greek phenomenon via the prophecies of Cassandra and the
Rhodian oarsman, as the most famous Roman examples were easily
refutable (see 2. 113), but the Wnal example does have the merits of
being contemporary and vouchsafed by credible witnesses, and as
such Wts with Quintus empirical case.
66. therefore If we give therefore its logical value, Quintus appears to force his case, as there is no clear connection between the
kind of presaging involved either in the Plautus quotation or the
popular use of his chosen term and the mantic frenzy in his Wrst
example.
Commentary
271
a power of presaging Cic. uses the abstract noun derived

from praesagire. The MSS read praesagatio, which is defended by
Timpanaro as the lectio diYcilior against the frequent correction to
praesagitio, which is the form known to Festus (303 L). However, the
Wrst conjugation verb from which praesagatio would come is not
attested before the 2nd cent. ad, whereafter it is the predominant
form and would have been most familiar to scribes, leading to its
appearance here in place of the earlier form.
which is imposed from outside and is kept in by divine power
Quintus stresses that prophecy is not a natural function of the soul,
unlike dreaming, but requires the external inXuence of the gods.
Iniecta (imposed), which Falconer and Timpanaro render by
infused (cf. Schaublin beigelegt), requires, or at least suggests,
something more forceful and in keeping with the description of
Cassandras behaviour. Kept in (inclusa) again suggests that the
prophet would naturally reject the divine manifestation and that it
requires divine power to maintain it. Cassandra experiences an
extreme manifestation, with some greater force (acrius).
the soul is drawn from the body and is stirred by divine impulse
Again the language is powerfully metaphorical: the soul is envisaged
as an animal dragged (abstractus), goaded (instinctu), and spurred
(concitatur) into action. This description should be compared with
that of the soul dreaming, where the root metaphor for separation
from the body is non-violent (sevocatus). For a modern parallel of
oracular possession see W. G. Arnott, G&R 36 (1989), 1527.
Even if the interpretation of the Linear B syllables ke-sa-da-ra as
meaning prophetess (J. L. Garca Ramon, BCH suppl. 25 (1992),
23955) is problematic (cf. E. Suarez de la Torre, Kernos 7 (1994),
190 n. 40), in classical literature Cassandra is the example par
excellence of the inspired prophet. Ennius description of Cassandra
shows that there are two distinct stages, psychological states, in her
transmission of the prophecies: at Wrst she is self-possessed and
conveys her message rationally and then she is possessed by the god
and sees visions. In the Wrst extract that Cic. quotes here, although
Cassandra indicates that divine possession is coming upon her, she is
still in command of her language (Timpanaro 1996: 289); in the
272
Commentary
second she is seeing a vision and in the third she becomes the direct
mouthpiece for Apollo. Ennius signals the changes by metre from
trochaic septenarii to iambic octonarii to dactylic quaternarii. Cf.
A. Mazzoldi, Cassandra la vergine e lindovina: Identita` di un personaggio da Omero all Ellenismo (Pisa, 2001), 179283.
But why . . . Quintus presents three quotations from Ennius
Alexander (cf. 1. 42). Their respective contexts in the play are
uncertain, but in the most likely reconstruction, which is based on
the hypothesis of Euripides Alexander, all three come from the
recognition scene (Scodel 1980: 36).
does she seem suddenly to use her Xaming eyes to grasp with?
These words are usually attributed to Hecuba, on the grounds of
Cassandras opening vocative, but the third person form (visa est)
and illa do not Wt easily with this, so Jocelyn (1967: 207) gives them
to the coryphaeus. Most modern editions follow Lambinus simple
emendation to the second person visa es (Pease, Timpanaro 1996:
1920, Schaublin), which permits Hecuba to speak them directly to
Cassandra.
I retain the rapere of the MSS and take it with oculis (Jocelyn 1967:
210) rather than Lambinus rabere (to be mad). Timpanaros
paul<ul>o is a simple and attractive solution to the metrical diYculty provided by the hiatus required in the paulo / ante in the MSS.
Virginali of the MSS is understood as virginalis by all modern editors,
with the Wnal s failing to make position, as often in archaic poetry.
Mother . . . I have been overcome by inspired prophesies; For Apollo,
against my will, spurs me to frenzy Cassandra addresses Hecuba,
with heavy alliteration of m unreproducible in the translation. Jocelyn (1967: 212) suggests tentatively that Ennius thought of his
Cassandra as a horse ridden by the power of clairvoyance, imagery
which ties up splendidly with the introduction to the example,
and with the frequent presentation of Cassandra (cf. S. Timpanaro,
SIFC 21 (1946), 589). Inspired renders superstitiosus, an adjective
without negative connotations at this period and used by Ennius
in its root sense of possessing divinatory powers (cf. Ronca 1992:
489).
Commentary
273
I am ashamed . . . my father is ashamed of my actions The Wrst

acknowledgement of shame may be an enigmatic way of Cassandra
suggesting that her possession by Apollo has robbed her of her
virginity and her right to associate with the other young girls who
constitute the chorus. In legend Cassandras prophetic talents were
the gift of Apollo in return for promised sexual favours, but she
cheated him and was punished by never being believed (Tzetzes ad
Lycoph. Alex. 4). Priam is probably ashamed of Cassandras raving
that must have made her a doubtful prospect for marriage, but the
immediate tension between them concerns her prophecies of doom.
a sweet poem, expressive and suited to her character, but not
relevant to the matter in hand Cic.s use of poem instead of
drama has suggested that he is quoting from a text rather than
remembering a stage performance (S. Goldberg, Cicero and the
Work of Tragedy, in Manuwald 2000: 512). Quintus criticism of
his quotation as irrelevant seems rather harsh, as the core of it at least
illustrates the notion of external inXuence well and (as above) the
imagery Wts well with Quintus introduction. The adjectives sweet
(tener) and expressive (mollis), contemporary terms of the neoteric
aesthetic, are not relevant to the archaic verse of Ennius but to the
vividness of the description of psychological disturbance. This, however, does not undermine Quintus understanding of poetry, but
simply shows him appreciating it in the contemporary language of
literary criticism (pace Krostenko 2000: 369). Moreover, the psychological aspect is precisely to the point, as the introduction to these
quotations shows.
67. the torch comes This passage also comes from the recognition
scene of the plays by Euripides and Ennius (Scodel 1980: 356) at the
point where Cassandra catches sight of Paris and points at him,
describing him in language which deliberately recalls the dream of
Hecuba (see on 1. 42).
The god, enclosed within a human body, now speaks, not Cassandra Enclosed recalls the opening of 1. 66. This interpretation is
required by Quintus belief that prophecy is a result of external
agency. It is not clear whether Cic. has omitted several verses
274
Commentary
between his second quotation and this (Timpanaro 1996: 51). Cf.
Plat. Ion 534d: god takes away the mind of these people . . . just like
with divine seers, so that we who hear them may know that it is
not they who utter these words of great value, when they are out of
their wits, but that it is god himself who speaks and addresses us
through them.
Already on the great sea Cassandras prophecy of the Greek Xeet
sailing to Troy to avenge the seizure of Helen must precede the
prophecy by some time and thus justify Quintus classiWcation of it
as a true prophecy.
68. I seem to be presenting tragedies and stage-plays For Quintus
consciousness of the questionable historical value of drama and
myth, see on 1. 42.
from you yourself I have heard an example of the same kind . . .
which happened As with the climax to the examples of dreams,
Quintus employs an ostensibly powerful ad hominem argument, but
one which also satisWes historical criteria for reliabilitythe incident
was contemporary and was related to Marcus by one who heard the
prophecy Wrsthand. Quintus can also establish that the prophecy was
delivered before the defeat of the Republican forces and was not a post
eventum creation (cf. Latte 1959: 140).
C. Coponius . . . in command of the Rhodian Xeet with praetorian
imperium Cf. Cic. Cael. 24: most civilized and learned, possessed
of the most sober enthusiasms and the Wnest of skills (with reference
to this man and his brother Titus). Coponius had been one of the
associates of Caelius Rufus. His praetorship of 49 is attested in
literary (Cic. Att. 8. 12A. 4) and numismatic sources (RCC i. 462,
no. 444); his command, with C. Marcellus, of the Rhodian section of
Pompeys forces is mentioned by Caesar (BC 3. 5. 3, 26.2). Quintus
accurately describes Coponius position in 48 as pro-praetor.
came to you at Dyrrhachium After Caesar invaded Italy in
January 49, Pompey ordered an evacuation to Dyrrhachium on the
west coast of Greece. Cic. left on 7 June (Fam. 14. 7. 2). In June 48,
Commentary
275
because of illness, Cic. remained in Dyrrhachium (e.g. Plut. Cic. 39. 1)

while Pompey pursued Caesar to Thessaly after thwarting his
attempts to encircle Dyrrhachium. By the end of July Pompey was
approaching Thessaly and on 5 Aug. reached Pharsalus (see J. H. C.
Leach, Pompey the Great (London, 1978), 192200). The chronological indications in Quintus story, a few days later and in less
than thirty days, help us Wx the prophecy to a date after 9 July and
probably closer to 9 Aug., if few is to be taken at face value. Marcus
use of the imperfect tense at 2. 114: we were hearing that camps had
been set up next to each other in Thessaly reinforces this impression.
In the immediate aftermath of Pompeys success at Dyrrhachium
Republican morale was high and letters were sent to the provinces
proclaiming Caesars defeat (Caes. B Civ. 3. 79. 4). If the prophecy
was delivered at that time, it is more remarkable than if at a later
stage, when Pompeys absence, a shortage of news, and the imminence of a decisive battle might have fuelled fear in Dyrrhachium.
Marcus minimizes the prophecy by playing up such factors (2. 114).
a rower from a Rhodian quinquereme had prophesied a Greece
bathed in blood in less than thirty days Cf. Aul. Gell. 15. 18. The
prophecy is attributed to a Greek of humble rank, far from home.
Pompeys forces were defeated at Pharsalus on 9 Aug. 48 (e.g. Fasti
Ant. Min.).
the plundering of Dyrrhachium, and an embarkation onto ships in
Xight After Pharsalus those who had not Xed with Pompey
returned to Dyrrhachium, but, as he considered it an indefensible
position, M. Porcius Cato, the commander, evacuated his forces by
sea to Corcyra some time in Sept. 48.
the Rhodian Xeet would receive a swift return and journey
home After the Republican navy had been split, the Rhodians
may have headed east under the command of Cassius and surrendered to Caesar (App. B Civ. 2. 87, 137; Dio 42. 6. 2). For Latte
(1959: 140), this is the heart of the so-called prophecythe
Rhodian rower wanted to return home and projected his wishes
into a prophecy.
276
Commentary
At the time you yourself were not unworried In the only extant
letter from the period Cic. shares the general optimism after some
success at Dyrrhachium: it looks as if what remains wont be too
diYcult (Att. 11. 4A). In later letters, with the beneWt of hindsight,
he is pessimistic about the Republican cause, but not about its
military success (Fam. 7. 3. 2). Cf. Fam. 6. 6. 6: in that war no
disaster occurred that I did not predict.
Marcus Varro and M. Cato . . . both learned men, were greatly
alarmed The former was alive to corroborate the story, and as
a leading intellectual, was a good source for Quintus; M. Porcius
Cato (Uticensis) had died in 46 (see on 1. 24). Both Cato and Varro
easily earn their description as learned (see Rawson 1985: passim),
the latter was exceptional (cf. Brut. 205: [Varro] a man outstanding
in intellect and every kind of learning). It is appealing to think that
Cic. is being humorous in his description of these reactions to the
prophecy: as a Stoic Cato should have accepted the general phenomenon of prophecy and remained calm in the face of his destiny. Varro
had been a pupil of Antiochus of Ascalon (e.g. Cic. Att. 13. 12. 3) and
became a dogmatic Academic (Tarver 1997: 13841). Despite Cic.s
dedication of his Academica to Varro and Varros reciprocation with
his De Lingua Latina, relations between them were not excellent
during the period of Caesars domination (cf. C. Kumaniecki,
Athenaeum 40 (1962), 22143). For a characterization of the trio
as the Three Wise Men, see E. Fantham, PLLS 11 (2003), 96117.
A few days later Labienus arrived in Xight from Pharsalus
T. Labienus (see R. Syme, JRS 28 (1938), 11325 Roman Papers, i.
(Oxford, 1979), 6275) commanded the cavalry on Pompeys left
wing, the rout of which and the consequent encirclement of his wing
were fatal to Pompeys strategy. A date around the middle of Aug. is
likely, if Labienus did not travel light.
the rest of the prophecy was soon fulWlled According to Caesar (B Civ.
3. 99. 3), 15,000 Republicans were slain and more than 24,000 captured;
Asinius Pollio (App. B Civ. 2. 82) recorded 6,000 dead. Soon means
within a month of the decision to concentrate resistance in Africa
because the Xeet was oV Africa by the beginning of Nov.
Commentary
277
69. The grain plundered . . . told the truth Quintus describes

a hasty, panic-ridden abandonment, rather than a strategic
withdrawal, with looting by the Republican troops. Deserted by
the Rhodian Xeet probably refers to the encounter between the
squadron under Cassius command and Caesar in the Aegean
(see above the Rhodian Xeet . . . ).
70. I have set out divination by dream and frenzy, which, as
I said, involve no technique Quintus signals the end of this section
of his argument and reminds the reader again of the basic division of
divination, recalling the formula with which he began the section,
involves no technique (arte careret: 1. 34).
our friend Cratippus See on 1. 5.
the human soul is to some degree derived and drawn from something outside itself This belief is attributed by Cic. to the Pythagoreans (Sen. 78: Pythagoreans never doubted that we have souls
drawn from the divine, universal mind, cf. Tusc. 5. 38: the human
soul is taken from the divine mind. Sext. Emp. Math. 9. 127:
Pythagoras and Empedocles . . . declare . . . there is one spirit which
pervades, like a soul, the whole universe and which makes us one
with them), but the later development of the idea by Theophrastus
(Simpl. In Phys. 965: the mind is something better and more divine
since it enters from outside and is completely perfect) is crucial here
for its presentation by the Peripatetic Cratippus. Aristotle himself
(e.g. Gen. an. 736b27) may have thought that the rational element of
the human soul (nous) was the same as the divine nous, but the
notion of being drawn from it seems too physical. Cratippus,
however, will have drawn on the more developed arguments and
material universe of the Stoics, for whom the notion of a divine soul
pervading all things was central. Chrysippus and Posidonius are
attested with the very combination of ideas Quintus presents here
(Diog. Laert. 7. 1423: that the universe is a living thing, rational,
animate, ensouled and intelligent is said by Chrysippus in his On
Providence Book I . . . and by Posidonius . . . it is ensouled (empsychon), as is clear from our soul being a fragment from that source).
278
Commentary
Cic. will echo this in drawn and poured oV (1. 110), in a passage
which also comes from Cratippus.
part of the human soul which is endowed with sensation, motion,
and appetite This description of the soul, which seems more
Platonic than Aristotelian, illustrates the tendency of Cratippus to
emphasize the Platonic residue in Aristotles thought. The division of
the soul into two parts is that between the rational and the irrational
(cf. OV. 1. 101; Tusc. 2. 47), characterized by Plato as the noble and
ignoble parts of the soul (e.g. Rep. 438d V.; Phdr. 246a V.). Cic.
himself credits Plato with the bipartite division (Tusc. 4. 10), but he
is well aware, not just from translating Rep. 571c572b (1. 601), that
Plato subdivided the irrational part into two (cf. Rep. 435b436a).
Cic. renders to epithumetikon by adpetitus (appetite), and to thumikon less succinctly by sensus and motus (sensation and motion).
separated Separated (seiugatam) has the powerful image of unyoked.
that part of the soul . . . is at its most active when it is furthest away
from the body Glucker (1999: 412) creates a clash between this
and the similar phrasing at 1. 115 the soul . . . remains alert while the
body sleeps by insisting that the separation of the soul here is
physical. However, only a non-literal reading of this passage,
referring to a souls degree of immunity from the body, makes
sense. Aristotles talk about parts of the soul is much less committal
than Platos (cf. An. 433b13) and furthest from the body is too
spatial an expression for Aristotle, whose notion of the separation
of the nous from the body is one of deWnition rather than
physical distinction. Cratippus may envisage a scale on which ecstatic
prophecy demonstrates the ultimate degree of immunity (Tarrant
2000a: 756).
71. So . . . Cratippus usually concludes his argument in this way
Quintus formulation of this has been taken to show that he is not
quoting from a written work, but recalling the line of argument
used by Cratippus in lectures or discussion (cf. Pease, 22 n. 100).
Commentary
279
Either this would have been mediated by Quintus nephew Marcus,

who had been studying under Cratippus since mid-45, or more likely
comes from personal contact with Cratippus during Cic.s visit to
Mytilene in 51 (Tim. 2). However, Cic. can use the same formulation
where we know there were written works (Fin. 5. 81) and it means no
more than this is the regular line of argument. As Tertullian (An. 46.
10) includes Cratippus in a list of authors on dreams, there was
a written work for Cic. to use (cf. P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei
den Griechen, i. (Berlin, 1973), 2478). The following presentation of
Cratippus views is reproduced with only small variations at 2. 107
and is then refuted by Marcus at 2. 108.
although without eyes . . . possesses the sense of eyes which see
things as they really are While the argument depends on Cratippus reading of Platos Meno, which can be summarized as once
a person is conscious of having recollected something, he is empowered with the faculty of recollection and can use it repeatedly (cf.
Tarrant 2000a: 701), the detail is more Aristotelian. This suggests
that Cratippus applied to divination arguments in Aristotles De
Anima: (i) as the function of seeing presupposes the existence of
eyes as physical organs of sight and of objects speciWcally appropriate
to perception by that sense, so the function of divination presupposes either the existence of an organ which can interpret instances
of divination or the existence of speciWc divinatory objects; (ii) just as
we accept that through the sense of sight that which is true can be
seen, even if sometimes we are deceived, so through divination,
even if sometimes it errs, it is possible to perceive the truth; (iii)
there are many examples of divination which it appears could not
have occurred by chance; (iv) therefore the existence of divination
should be admitted (Repici 1995: 1845).
At Wrst sight, the parallel is appealing, in that the proposition
that we do not deny the existence of sight because sometimes
our eyes mislead us is undeniable; the extension of this, however,
to something like divination is problematic, in that, while divinatory practices do exist, it is not possible to prove that anything lies
behind them in the same way as it is possible for sight, without
begging the existence of the phenomenon (cf. Repici 1995: 1856).
280
Commentary
someone who possesses the power of divination can sometimes

make mistakes This very cautious and modest position is no
diVerent from Posidonius and that of the Stoics in general (cf. 1. 24).
if there is one instance of something being foretold in a way that it
evidently could not have happened by chance This conclusion of
the Cratippan argument will appear later in Quintus defence
(1. 125). Although the formulation could appear very weak, if videatur is translated as seems (cf. 1. 125: appareat), here a stronger
translation is required: evidently (cf. the Greek phainetai on). For
Stoics from Chrysippus onwards, the obviousness (enargeia) that
divinatory predictions came true featured in their formal arguments
(cf. Bobzien 1998: 923), but Cratippus argument is not formulated
in a way that could satisfy the concerns of the sceptical academy. For
the notion of exceptionless contingent generalizations and their
application to this argument, see Burnyeat 1982: 2356.
There are innumerable examples of this kind and so the existence of
divination must be admitted Again the argument goes too faras
the Stoics had done, Quintus will show many examples which can be
considered evidence of divination, but acceptance of them does not
prove the reality of divination, only its plausibility. Moreover, the
question of the frequency of successful predictions and whether they
are statistically signiWcant among the total number of divinatory
predictions made is crucial (cf. 2. 121), but is ignored by Quintus
(cf. Hankinson 1988: 1467).
729a The Cratippan excursus has provided a powerful summation to natural divination, concluding with a ringing reaYrmation of the Stoic valuation of outcomes, indeed setting out more
starkly that even one outcome would suYce to prove the existence
and validity of divination. Now Quintus will demonstrate for
artiWcial divination outcomes which meet the criteria for credence.
His exempla are not organized in any discernible way, either by genre,
chronology, or nationality, but they cover the whole period from
Homer (1. 72) to the mid-1st cent. and thus serve the argument
e vetustate and are taken from Greek, Roman, and Phrygian history
and thus support the argument e consensu omnium. In most cases the
Commentary
281
source of the exemplum is speciWed and they meet 1st-cent. criteria

for contemporary or reliable sources. The Wrst Roman exemplum has
Marcus as a witness and the culminating exemplum concerning his
friend Roscius also comes Wrsthand, and is corroborated by its
commemoration in art and poetry.
72. types of divination In a passage that Linderski (1986a:
2237) rightly calls magisterial, Quintus separates with precision
the two techniques employed within the various genres of artiWcial
divination. Conjecture (see on 1. 24) may in practice have been
required infrequently if the records of the divinatory discipline were
very full.
recognized and recorded See on 1. 12.
interpreters This must cover astrologers and interpreters of lotoracles, both of which Quintus (1. 12) and Marcus (2. 109) include
in their lists of types of artiWcial divination.
These types are considered invalid by the Peripatetics, but are
defended by the Stoics Cf. the doxography of 1. 56.
books of the Etruscans on haruspicy, lightning, and rituals
show Quintus observes the canonical order of the threefold
division of the disciplina Etrusca (Guillaumont 1986: 125). If show
is taken at face value, these works were readily accessible and not
secret compilations. In what form the Etruscan haruspices kept the
records of their discipline in their own language is unclear, although
the mummy of Zagreb now proves the existence of linen books in
Etruscan on their rituals (see F. Rocalli, Scrivere Etrusco (Milan,
1985), 1764) and tomb reliefs show rolled scrolls (Capdeville
1997: 45864). By the Late Republic, however, some material was
available in Latin. Lucretius protest against Etruscan poems (6. 381)
suggests a strong interest in things Etruscan by his contemporaries.
Indeed Tarquitius Priscus is credited with an Ostentarium (Macrob.
Sat. 3. 7. 2); A. Caecina (see P. Hohti, Aulus Caecina: The Volaterran.
Romanization of an Etruscan, in P. Bruun (ed.), Studies in the
Romanization of Etruria (Rome, 1975), 40933; Capdeville 1993:
282
Commentary
1325) and a Grapus (Granius?) wrote on lightning (cf. Rawson

1985: 3036). There was no shortage of abstruse material on all
aspects of Roman religion available for scholars and others, even
if the oYcial colleges did retain secret archives (cf. Linderski 1985:
20734 1995: 496523). Cic.s own knowledge of the disciplina
Etrusca, however, was superWcial (e.g. D. Briquel, ACUSD 31
(1995), 28).
The third element rituals is glossed by Festus (358 L): Ritual is
the name given to the Etruscan books in which is written by what
rites cities are founded, altars and temples hallowed, walls dedicated
etc. Rituales should not be emended to tonitruales (thunder) (pace
C. Fries, RhM 55 (1900), 312): although there were probably libri
tonitruales in the Etruscan world, if the title of Nigidius Figulus
Tonitruale is the translation it claims to be, thunder plays very little
role in De Divinatione, and when it does it is in an augural context
(cf. 2. 82). Nigidius book was available for Quintus to allude to, as
seen by Cic.s clear paralleling of it in Consulatus Suus (Weinstock
1951: 140). The libri rituales here should relate to the interpretation
of prodigies and their expiation, libri ostentaria (cf. Cens. DN 11. 6,
14. 6, 17. 56; see Capdeville 1997: 48795).
your books on augury These are the resources available to Cic.
as a member of the college of augurs, rather than any reference to
Cic.s own book on augury, De Auguriis. Probably augural decrees
and the commentaries dealing with the ius publicum were available at
least to the magistrates (Linderski 1986a: 2245 n. 387). If the augural
books and commentaries were organized like the Acta Fratrum
Arvalium, each year recorded the names of the augurs, their activities,
decisions, the text of prayers used, and description of rituals; if they
were stored in the temple of Juno Moneta, they were eVectively
secret for practical reasons of value and fragility (Giovannini 1998:
11017).
unprepared conjectures in accordance with the situation Quintus
stresses the circumstances which diVerentiate a conjecture
from regular augural interpretation. As Pease notes, subito must be
understood as unprepared: the auspice or portent was without
parallel and so has to be interpreted by analogy with known signs
Commentary
283
thus taking account of the circumstances and necessitating the

employment of rationality (cf. Linderski 1986a: 2239).
in Homer Calchas predicts the number of years of the Trojan War
from the number of sparrows Cf. Hom. Il. 2. 30132. As the Greeks
were sacriWcing at Aulis a snake emerged from the bottom of one of the
altars and climbed into a tree where it ate eight sparrow chicks and their
mother before being turned into stone. Calchas was immediately called
on to explain this portent; the nine consumed birds each represented
a year that would be spent at war before Troy would be captured in
the tenth year. This portent received ample discussion in ancient
works on divination: concerning these lines Aristotle was at a loss.
Why did Calchas, if what occurred was no portent, interpret it
as a portent? Either because it was unusual for sparrows to be eaten
by a snake or because there were eight. Concerning the turning into
stone, which was great, he says nothing except that it points to
the voyage home (Schol. B Hom. Il. 2. 305 fr. 145 R). This example
probably comes to Cic. via Posidonius (cf. 1. 878).
Sullas History During his brief retirement Sulla wrote a 22-vol.
work of self-justiWcation, a rapidly gathered selection of disparate
material without a Wnishing, literary polish. Plutarch makes great use
of them, citing them as hypomnemata (e.g. Sull. 37. 1), which is the
usual term for commentaries. Only Cic. calls them History, either
ironically or because there was no current term for autobiography or
memoirs (R. G. Lewis, Athenaeum 79 (1991), 511 n. 11). See H. Behr,
Die Selbstdarstellung Sullas (Frankfurt, 1993), 921.
an occurrence which you witnessed Cic. began his military service
in 89, Wrst under Sulla (Plut. Cic. 3. 1) until the latter went to stand
for the consulship of 88 and then under Pompeius Strabo (Mitchell
1979: 89). Quintus returns to his technique in the dreams section of
using ad hominem examples. If we exclude the legendary example of
Calchas, Quintus begins and ends his exempla of artiWcial divinatory
outcomes with contemporary cases.
sacriWcing in the territory of Nola in front of his headquarters
Sulla was performing the regular sacriWce before action to ascertain
284
Commentary
the gods will (cf. Rupke 1990: 148). In 90 Nola in Campania had
fallen to the Samnite rebels and become a stronghold. Appians date
of 89 for Sullas victory (B Civ. 1. 221; cf. Livy Per. 75) is preferable to
the 88 of Plutarch (Sull. 9; cf. Val. Max. 1. 6. 4). See Salmon 1967:
3647.
a snake suddenly emerged from the bottom of the altar Cf.
Homer, Il. 2. 310; Obseq. 47; Val. Max. 1. 6. 8. The portent may be
preWgurative, i.e. the snake symbolizes the sally Sulla was to make
(Pease).
Gaius Postumius the haruspex Although the presence of haruspices
with armies of the early Republic and during the Second Punic War is
suggested by Livy (e.g. 8. 6. 12, 23. 36. 10, 25. 16. 3), and thus their
presence was not remarkable, the relationship between Sulla and
Postumius reXects the generals personal belief in divine
guidance (cf. A. Keaveney, Sulla and the Gods, SLLRH 3 (1983),
51). Postumius, who appears in Sullas retinue in 88 and 83, was from
his name probably of Etruscan origin (cf. Schulze 1904: 215),
a salaried oYcial serving as Sullas private haruspex rather than
a prominent individual and member of the Ordo LX haruspicum
(Rawson 1978: 141). Portents and their interpretation by Postumius
featured large in Sullas commentarii (cf. Plut. Sull. 6. 12, 9. 6; August.
De civ. D 2. 24; Obseq. 56b).
he captured the strongly fortiWed Samnite camp Cf. Val. Max. 1. 6.
4; Livy (Per. 75) has two camps. Sulla claimed Samnite and rebel
losses of 23,000 (App. B Civ. 1. 50), but Nola did not fall; he renewed
the attack in 88 (Vell. Pat. 2. 18. 4).
73. A conjecture . . . in the case of Dionysius Cf. Plin. HN 8.
158: Philistus records that Dionysius left his horse stuck in mud,
and, when it had dragged itself out, it followed its masters tracks
with a swarm of bees clinging to its mane; and that because of that
portent Dionysius seized the tyranny; Ael. VH 12. 46: they say that
Dionysius son of Hermocrates was crossing a river. A horse was
carrying him. The horse slipped in the mud, but he jumped oV,
took hold of the bank and went away, leaving the horse as if it were
Commentary
285
dead. But it followed him, neighed, and called him back. He grabbed
its mane and was about to mount when a swarm of bees covered his
hand. When Dionysius asked the Galeotae about this they told him
that it was a sign of sole-rule. Without warning Quintus begins
a series of Greek exempla, this Wrst taken from Philistus (FGrH 556
F 58) and therefore on the basis of the criteria spelt out earlier
credible to Quintus; the conjecture was made, as Aelian shows, by
the Galeotae (see on 1. 39).
shortly before he began to reign Dionysius was elected plenipotentiary general (strategos autokrator) in 405, but his reign might be
held to have begun only in 403 after the revolt against him within
Syracuse when he surrendered all claim to magisterial oYce and
ruled as Leader (hegemon; cf. Caven 1990: 823). In Diodorus (13.
96. 2) he openly proclaimed himself tyrant after his return from
Leontini in 405, but, while in terms of Realpolitik Diodorus is correct,
it is not certain that Dionysius apologist Philistus would have
described his position as such.
travelling through the territory of Leontini In 405, as plenipotentiary general Dionysius travelled to Leontini, where he had ordered
all Syracusans of military age to muster, ostensibly for action against
the Carthaginians but in reality to secure his own position away
from the opposition of the upper-class citizens. The river is probably
either the Terias or the Lissus.
the horse was swallowed up in whirlpools and disappeared . . .
The prodigy, as Philistus is likely to have presented it, related the
vicissitudes of Dionysius early career and foretold his rise to power:
after participating in the attempted conspiracy of Hermocrates in
408 Dionysius had himself reported as one of the dead to escape
punishment (Diod. 13. 75. 9), although he soon rose to become
secretary (grammateus) to the generals (Caven 1990: 44). His supposed death is perhaps symbolized by the horses disappearance, and
the trip to Leontini as plenipotentiary general by its re-emergence.
In a less likely interpretation based on the lower chronology, the
vicissitudes of Dionysius horse would relate to his tenure of the
generalship from 405 to 403, the powerful revolt against him in 403,
286
Commentary
and then his subsequent glorious emergence as tyrant and most

powerful commander in Sicily.
Although, in the famous example of Cyrus, the Persians used
a horses whinny to identify their next king (e.g. Hdt. 3. 84. 3; Just.
Epit. 1. 10. 45), here the horses noise conveys no meaning other
than that it is alive.
a swarm of bees had settled A swarm portent was interpreted as
a large number of obedient subjects (cf. Cic. Har. Resp. 25), but
normally in the Roman context bee swarms are negative
(D. MacInnes, Dirum ostentum: Bee Swarm Prodigies at Roman
Military Camps, SLLRH 10 (2000), 5669). Bees seen in dreams,
however, were favourable for a commander (Artem. 2. 22). Achmet
(282) has many diVerent meanings for bees seen in dreams, but no
example close to this. Here the swarm probably foreshadows the
grant to Dionysius of a bodyguard of at least 600 by the army at
Leontini and his employment of Dexippus mercenaries (Diod. 13.
95. 5, 96. 1). After returning to Syracuse, he set up headquarters in
the strategically crucial naval arsenal and controlled Syracuse by his
mercenary forces (Diod. 13. 96. 2).
74. warning was given to the Spartans shortly before the disaster at
Leuctra The Spartans demanded that the Thebans dissolve the
Boeotian League and abide by their oaths, and sent an invasion
force under King Cleombrotus. In Aug. 371 on the plain of Leuctra
in south Boeotia the Spartan force was defeated, with the loss of some
400 Spartiates. See J. Buckler, The Theban Hegemony (Cambridge,
Mass., 1980), 4666; idem, SO 55 (1980), 7593.
in the shrine of Hercules his weapons clanked Pausanias (3. 15. 3)
describes a hieron with an armed statue of Heracles, which Wts the
shrine (fanum) of Cic., near the walls. Such prodigies appear in the
Roman lists from the Late Republic (Aul. Gell. 4. 6. 2; Obseq. 44; Dio
44. 17. 2). Pease rationalizes the portents as the result of an earthquake producing simultaneous disturbances in Thebes and Sparta.
the statue of Hercules was covered with sweat The unusual appearance of some form of condensation was a frequent portent (cf. 1.
97 for parallels from Roman history).
Commentary
287
At the same time . . . as Callisthenes says The miraculous

synchronicity of events in cult sites of the same god far apart
indicates divine responsibility. Although Cic. calls Callisthenes
learned (Rab. Post. 23), he regards his style as overly rhetorical
(De or. 2. 58). Quintus himself enjoyed reading Callisthenes (Cic. Q
Fr. 2. 12. 4). Closely connected with Aristotle and a contemporary
observer, Callisthenes will have seemed a reliable authority for these
events, which he narrated in his 10-vol. Hellenika (FGrH 124 F
22a). Cic. may take this example from Posidonius (pace Timpanaro), although he is familiar with Callisthenes and his appearance
Wts well with Quintus tastes.
the temple of Hercules In myth Hercules lived in Thebes before his
labours; he freed the city from the king of Orchomenus and was
worshipped as a hero in a sanctuary outside the main gates of the city
south of the Cadmea. Although only a hero, he was worshipped in
a temple, with pediments and relief sculptures (and doors). His
worship was especially connected with Thebes (e.g. Isoc. Phil. 32).
See Schachter 1986: 1430.
the doors . . . suddenly opened of their own accord and
the weapons that had been Wxed to the walls were found on the
ground Cf. Xen. Hell. 6. 4. 7: it was reported to them from the city
that all the temple doors were opening of their own accord and the
priestesses were saying that the gods were revealing victory . . . and
from the Heracleum they said that his weapons had disappeared, as if
Heracles had set oV for battle. From Ephorus onwards these miracles
were attributed to Epaminondas as devices to boost his soldiers
conWdence before the battle (Diod. 15. 53. 4; Polyaen. 2. 3. 8);
Xenophon and Callisthenes, however, were more credulous, and
even Marcus (2. 67) goes no further than blaming chance.
Although the miraculous opening of temple doors has a rich history
in literary works, its acceptance as a prodigy in Roman historical
accounts (e.g. Obseq. 13, 42, 52) may make it particularly attractive
for Quintus. See O. Weinreich, Gebet und Wunder, in Genethliakon:
Wilhelm Schmidt zum 70 Geburtstag (Tubingen, 1929), 169464, esp.
25962 Religionsgeschichtliche Studien (Darmstadt, 1968), 9298,
esp. 969. For the Romans the fall of items in a temple assumed
288
Commentary
religious signiWcance as falling auspices (auspicia caduca: Festus 56

L): the fall of the statue of Minerva that Cic. had dedicated presaged
his death in 43 (Dio 45. 17. 3).
At the same time at Lebadaea, as a rite in honour of Trophonius
Again the synchronicity is important to establish that the
phenomena are divinely caused. In myth Trophonius was a master
builder who, when pursued by his enemies, was swallowed up by the
earth. He delivered oracles at night in an underground shrine (cf.
Paus. 9. 39) to consultants who may have been fed hallucinatory
drugs (R. J. Clark, TAPA 99 (1968), 6375). His cult was popular in
the 4th cent. (cf. Heraclides Ponticus fr. 155 Wehrli), as can be seen
from the four diVerent Trophonius prodigies recorded in connection
with Leuctra (Tuplin 1987: 99103). Remains of the oracle in the
form of a subterranean chamber have been found on Mt. Prophitis
Ilias, west of the temple of Zeus Basileus, but this was not the original
location before the Theban League enhanced the site and moved the
oracle closer to the temple of Zeus at the beginning of the 3rd cent.
See Schachter 1994: 6689; Bonneche`re 2003.
cocks in the neighbourhood began to crow Although the birds
may have been for sacriWce (cf. Bonneche`re 2003: 589), cocks were
considered birds with special divinatory roles, perhaps because their
unique behaviour in looking up at the sky (Plin. HN 10. 47) was
interpreted as looking to Jupiter. See Amiotti 1998: 11932.
Boeotian augurs said that victory belonged to the Thebans . . . Cf.
Plin. HN 10. 49: by crowing all night long they presaged to the
Boeotians their famous victory against the Spartans, as the conjectural interpretation was made on the grounds that this bird when
conquered does not crow. For the belief that cocks crowed in connection with victory, cf. Plin. HN 10. 47, 11. 268; Ael. NA 4. 29.
75. At the same time Cic.s diVerent expression (eadem tempestate)
is a solemn, archaic formula to emphasize the simultaneity and ubiquity of the divine warnings connected to Leuctra, which marked
a crucial moment in the changes of power in 4th-cent. Greece. It is
natural that many prodigies were associated with it (cf. Plut. Ages. 28. 4;
Commentary
289
Mor. 397e-f). Quintus now reverts to Spartan prodigies that foretold

the end of their hegemony.
on the head of the statue . . . at Delphi there appeared suddenly
a crown of wild, prickly grasses Plut. Mor. 397f: the stone statue
of Lysander himself sprouted a growth of wild shrub and grasses in
such quantity that it concealed his face. This marble statue, set up in
the treasury of the Acanthians, featured Lysander with long hair and
beard (Plut. Lys. 1. 12). See Bommelaer 1991: 1601. The Lysander
prodigies signify the end of Spartan hegemony by mishaps to the one
who had done most to secure Spartan hegemony (cf. L. Prandi,
Callistene: Uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedonici (Milan, 1985),
esp. 457).
As Pease notes, such growths were obviously due to the sprouting
of seeds carried by the winds or birds . . . in the dust on the neglected
tops of statues. Plants growing in such unexpected places were
treated as prodigies by the Romans (Plin. HN 17. 244; Suet. Aug. 92)
and GreeksAristomenes was driven to suicide by the sight of grass,
which normally grows only in deserted places, sprouting around his
ancestral hearth (Plut. Mor. 168f).
Lysander . . . the most famous of the Spartans For Cic. a man of
the utmost courage (Sen. 59), the most clever and patient of the
Spartans (OV. 1. 109). Lysander was the Spartan commander whose
strategy and diplomacy brought the Spartans victory in the Peloponnesian War. See Bommelaer 1981.
stars of gold, which had been set up by the Spartans at Delphi
Plut. Lys. 18. 1: Out of the spoils, Lysander set up at Delphi bronze
statues of himself and each of his admirals, as well as golden stars of
the Dioscuri, cf. Plut. Mor. 397f: the stars which Lysander had
dedicated from the spoils of his naval victory at Aegospotami.
Bommelaer argues that Plutarch refers to two separate monuments
(1981: 1011). The monument of the naval commanders is immediately on the left inside the SE entrance to the sanctuary; remains
survive of the marble base of this major monument (c.18 4.5 m),
which featured the crowning by Neptune of the Dioscuri and
Lysander (Paus. 10. 9. 79; cf. Bommelaer 1981: 1416). Although
290
Commentary
this was a state monument, the prominence given to Lysander is

remarkable (Jacquemin 1999: 1912). The location and form of the
stars monument, a private dedication by Lysander, are unknown,
but perhaps that of the sanctuary of the Dioscuri can be surmised
(see below). To commemorate a similar epiphany at Salamis the
Aeginetans had dedicated a bronze mast with golden stars (Hdt. 8.
122), but Lysanders dedication may have been more grandiose and
devoted to his own gloriWcation.
after the famous naval victory of Lysander Cf. Xen. Hell. 2. 1.
2132; Diod. 13. 1056; Plut. Lys. 9. 513. 4. At Aegospotami in
405, while serving as vice-admiral (epistoleus), Lysander tricked the
Athenians into complacency and captured most of their Xeet. See
Bommelaer 1981: 10313 and P. Krentz, Xenophon: Hellenika III. 3.
10 (Warminster, 1989), 1758.
Castor and Pollux were said to have appeared with the Spartan
Xeet Cf. Plut. Lys. 12. 1: there were some who declared that the
Dioscuri appeared as stars on each side of Lysanders ship when he
was sailing out of the harbour against the enemy, and shone out over
the rudders. Pease rationalizes this as a manifestation of St. Elmos
Fire. BattleWeld epiphanies are a common feature of ancient historiography (see Pritchett 1979: iii. 1146, and H. S. Versnel, in D. van
der Plas (ed.), EYgies Dei (Leiden, 1987), 4255), and the Dioscuri
feature prominently (Plut. Mor. 944d; Sagra, Diod. 8. 32; Messenia,
Paus. 4. 16. 5; Regillus, Dion. Hal. 6. 13; see Lorenz 1992: 11422),
particularly in naval contexts (cf. N. F. Xypetnos, Platon 345
(19823), 2348). They are associated above all with Sparta and
received particular worship there (e.g. Wide 1903: 30425; Parker
1989: 145). They were believed to accompany the Spartan kings on
campaign, perhaps in the form of statues. Here the annexation of
these gods by the non-royal Lysander may be an aspect of his struggle
for power within a Spartan system which restrained him (cf. 1. 96).
The insignia of those gods, the gold stars . . . fell just before the
battle of Leuctra and could not be found Stars are Wrst associated
with the Dioscuri from their role as Argonauts and are seen in the
metopes of the Sicyonian monopteros at Delphi c.570 (H. A. Shapiro,
Commentary
291
Cult Warfare: the Dioskouroi between Sparta and Athens, in R. Hagg

(ed.), Ancient Greek Hero Cult (Stockholm, 1999), 106 n. 36) and as
early as 480 stars alone could symbolize the Dioscuri; the pair appear
with stars on Attic vases from the last quarter of the 5th cent. (LIMC
iii/1, s.v. Dioscuri, nos. 2327). Despite the doubts of Lorenz (1992:
117) that the stars in Lysanders dedication referred to the Dioscuri,
on the grounds that stars are not an element of their iconography in
Laconia, the Dioscuri and stars do appear in the Spartan colony of
Tarentum in the mid-4th cent.
The sanctuary of the Dioscuri at Delphi may have been located
between the treasuries of Potidaea and Spina/Agila (P. Faure, AC 54
(1985), 5665; cf. the caution of Jacquemin 1999: 172). The stars
were probably placed on the heads of the statues, as in the Hellenistic
period (H. Pomtow, AM 31 (1906), 563). If the stars did disappear,
perhaps later authors and even contemporaries such as Callisthenes
did not know where the stars had been attached or what form the
monument took. The symbolism is clear: the gods protection of
Sparta had been withdrawn, they would provide no epiphany to
combat the omens provided by Trophonius and Hercules.
76. Spartans Spartiates (cf. Tusc. 1. 102, 5. 77) designates strictly
the ruling caste of the Spartans, as beWts Spartan ambassadors to
Dodona.
consulted the oracle of Jupiter at Dodona on the question of
victory . . . This, the Wrst known oYcial enquiry by the Spartan
state of Dodona (see on 1. 3), was perhaps necessitated by the
non-operation of Delphi after a powerful earthquake in 373 had
destroyed the shrine. But the Spartans were also keen to win the
support of the Molossians who had recently come to prominence in
NW Greece, a confederation of ten tribal groups under Alcetas (N. G.
L. Hammond, Epirus (Oxford, 1967), 52333) centred on Dodona
and Eurymenae. Although Spartan intervention had saved the
Molossians from occupation by the Illyrians in 385, they had joined
the Second Athenian Alliance in 375. In 371, with a powerful Spartan
army in Phocis, King Alcetas had to decide which side he would take
in the forthcoming clash and might have been interested in the gods
response to the Spartans. See Parke 1967: 1378.
292
Commentary
In the literary accounts there were Wve ways by which the oracle
was held to give responses, but historical consultations and contemporary references concern the use of the lot. Questions to Jupiter
were inscribed on lead tablets and placed in an urn to be presented
to the god, who would give a response also on a token (Parke
1967: 836).
a monkey . . . upset the lots themselves . . . in every direction For
apes as pets in ancient Greece, see W. C. McDermott, The Ape in
Antiquity (Baltimore, 1938), esp. 13140, 149; for the term deliciae as
pet, see Bradley 1998: 5367. If Alcetas was present at the consultation, with his pet, there is no need for the suggestion that the
monkey leapt from the trees of the sacred grove (H. Pomtow, NJ
127 (1883), 349). The monkeys behaviour (cf. Dio 50. 8. 1) prevented any message from Zeus being delivered, a convenient occurrence for Alcetas, as it absolved him of the need to choose sides.
it is said that the priestess . . . said that the Spartans should think not
about victory, but about safety Although it is said (dicitur) indicates some caution, the source for this is again the contemporary
Callisthenes and the account is credible (Parke 1967: 83). The priestess interpreted the incident as an indication of great disaster, rather
than a simple negative response (cf. Parker 1985: 308).
77. Again . . . Quintus moves to a Roman example of the same
kind where prodigies announced a defeat. This example is taken
from Coelius, although his name does not appear till 1. 78 (cf. Cic.
ND 2. 8: Coelius writes that C. Flaminius paid no heed to religious
obstacles and fell at Trasimene, inXicting a great disaster on the
state). Many elements of Coelius account appear in Livy (22. 3.
1113, cf. Plut. Fab. 3) and featured prominently in most annalistic
accounts of Trasimene.
C. Flaminius, consul for the second time C. Flaminius, consul of
223 and 217, was a popular favourite, enemy of the nobility, but
perhaps not the purveyor of a consistent, coherent anti-senatorial
policy (R. Develin, RhM 122 (1979), 2737). Because the senatorial
class moulded the historical tradition on Flaminius, he appears
Commentary
293
as a controversial Wgure and in an extremely negative light. See

Amat-Seguin 1986: 79109; M. Caltabiano, Gaio Flaminio, in
A. Caldi and G. Susini (eds.), Pro poplo Ariminese (Faenza, 1995),
11128, and F. Cenerini, Gaio Flaminio, ibid., 12943.
ignore the signs of things to come and cause a great disaster to the
state? In original Roman thought prodigies did not foretell the
future, but announced that Romes relationship with the gods was
broken; as such they functioned as a warning of divine anger. Only
growing Hellenization and the crisis of the Second Punic War led to
ideas that prodigies foretold or preWgured what would happen. By
sending a prodigy the gods interrupted the normal laws of nature to
create an unforeseen phenomenon which required a formal response
from man. According to Coelius, Flaminius ignored a wide range of
divine warnings, a version which both vindicates the gods concern
for Rome and underlines Flaminius guilt and responsibility. Such
a presentation (cf. Livy 22. 9. 7) obviated the problem of condemning
Flaminius politics in a partisan way and strengthened acceptance of
the religious system.
When he had puriWed the army On this ceremony of puriWcation
(lustratio) see on 1. 102. Flaminius was prepared to observe religious
rites, here the sacriWce of a suovetaurilia, to preserve the pax deorum,
but not the kind that could be used against him by the elite (cf.
Rosenstein 1990: 83). In manoeuvres which made strategic sense he
left his base of Ariminum to counter Hannibals imminent arrival in
Etruria and to prevent his ravaging unrestrained (Amat-Seguin 1986:
949).
he and his horse suddenly fell for no reason in front of a statue of
Jupiter Stator This occurs at Arretium a day before the battle at
Trasimene (Konrad 2004b: 17980). Falling was ominous (cf. 1. 58),
especially for a commander, but the most striking aspect of this is the
location, which only Coelius speciWes. Jupiter Stator was the god who
brings the rout to a halt (Livy 1. 12. 5) and his most famous temple
stood in the Forum Romanum. The gods were warning Flaminius to
halt (stare). Coelius account has none of the humour of Livys
version (cf. L. G. H. Hall, LCM 15 (1990), 346), eliminates natural
294
Commentary
causes (cf. Herrmann 1979: 115), and through the topographical

detail highlights the disregard of Jupiter by Flaminius which is seen
throughout his career.
The experts opinion of this sign . . . he considered as no
obstruction These unspeciWed experts are probably haruspices
(Linderski 1986a: 2191 n. 167). Flaminius action at this stage
was not necessarily reckless, as such omens could be turned (cf.
Suet. Iul. 59) or considered as insigniWcant. In Roman thought
a very large role was played by human free will, Wrst in deciding
whether to accept an omen as signiWcant and secondly in averting
it by rapid action (see Bloch 1964: 89100). No problem need
have arisen for Flaminius with any aspect of determinism, as that
is a late introduction to Roman thought under the inXuence of
Hellenistic philosophy. However, Cic. felt obliged to deal with the
problem in De Fato.
the hen-keeper said that this was not a day for joining battle This
second instance occurs on the morning of the battle of Trasimene.
On tripudium and battleWeld auspices, see on 1. 278. Coelius represents the augural aspects well: the hen-keeper reported to the
auspicant the birds behaviour, answering the simple question
whether Flaminius should join battle on that speciWc day. Konrad
speculates (2004b: 178) whether the hen-keeper was conscious
that Flaminius possessed no valid auspices and was attempting to
dissuade him from battle.
Remarkable auspices indeed . . . Flaminius is presented as
a rationalist, sceptical of the hallowed practices of Roman religion.
It is not clear from Flaminius question to the attendant, what course
of action he would advise if the chickens would not eat even at a later
stage, whether he was contemplating a second auspication later the
same day, which violated religious practice. Rather he ridicules the
whole procedure. To ignore this form of forced impetrative auspice,
which was almost guaranteed to produce a favourable response, was
particularly dangerous (see 1. 289). Had Flaminius gone on to win,
his behaviour would have been ignored, but in the narrative this is his
second warning.
Commentary
295
the standard-bearer of the Wrst maniple could not move his

standard from the ground Cf. Livy 22. 3. 1213; Florus 1. 22. 14.
As this maniple (hastati) formed the front line of heavily armed
troops in battle formation (L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman
Army (London, 1984), 389), a sign indicating that the senior maniple of the hastati should not move into battle formation was powerful and should have been heeded. Even after digging, the standards
were removed only with diYculty (Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 11. 19: this
happened to Flaminius as well, who when he had ordered the standards to be raised and they could not be moved, and the ground in
which they had been Wxed was dug up, instructed them to be
extracted by force). The great Roman disasters of Trasimene, Arausio (Schol. Bern. Georg. 4. 108), and Carrhae (cf. Val. Max. 1. 6. 11;
Dio 40. 18. 2) in particular and the revolt of Scribonianus in ad 42
(Suet. Cl. 13. 2) are linked by this oblative sign (cf. Oros. 7. 6. 7),
through which Jupiter demonstrates that the commanders auspices
are invalid. See Konrad 2004b: 169203.
Flaminius . . . in his usual way ignored it Coelius account of
Flaminius presented his other Xoutings of religious practice. For
example, to avoid his political enemies preventing his exercise of
the consulship by manipulation of the religious machinery, Flaminius entered his consulship on 15 Mar. 217 outside Rome. A consequence was that he did not take the traditional auspices or sacriWce to
Jupiter on the Capitol or celebrate the Latin Festival on the Alban
Mount; he had also set a date for his army to assemble without
auspication and had omitted the usual sacriWces and vows on leaving
Rome for his province (cf. Livy 21. 63. 9; see Rosenstein 1990: 5960,
778; Konrad 2004b: 1723).
Coelius account makes clear that the correct augural procedures
were followed: the oblative sign was reported to the magistrate or
general, who then had the duty to accept or reject it by a formal
pronouncement. Flaminius, however, simply ignored the sign, the
meaning of which was clear because of the intimate connection
between the reception of the negative response to his impetrative
auspices and the command to uproot the standards, and thus behaved
with extreme rashness. Jupiter was signalling as clearly as possible that
Flaminius auspices were invalid (Konrad 2004b: 1801).
296
Commentary
As a result within three hours his army was destroyed and he

himself was killed On the battle of Trasimene, see G. Susini,
Ricerche sulla battaglia del Trasimeno (Cortona, 1960). Livy (22. 6. 1)
also records that the Wghting took around three hours. Roman losses
were severe: 15,000 slain, 10,000 put to Xight (Livy 22. 7. 2; Polyb. 3. 84.
7, 1115), and 6,000 captured (cf. App. Hann. 41: 20,000 slain, 10,000
Xed). In Livy (22. 6. 4) an Insubrian named Ducarius transWxes
Flaminius with a lance, while Polybius credits several Celts (3. 84. 6).
There are conXicting traditions on the fate of Flaminius corpse: either
it was found and handed over to the Romans for honourable burial
(Polyaen. 6. 38. 1) or Hannibal could not Wnd it (Livy 22. 7. 5; Plut.
Fab. 3. 3).
78. Coelius has added . . . at the very time that this disastrous
battle was taking place . . . Cf. Livy 22. 5. 8: their minds were so
engrossed in the battle that none of those Wghting felt the earthquake
which laid low large parts of many cities in Italy. Pliny HN 2. 200:
the most numerous series of shocks was during the Punic War, when
reports reached Rome of Wfty-seven in a single year; it was the year
when during an action at Lake Trasimene neither the Carthaginians
nor the Romans noticed a violent earthquake (cf. Plut. Fab. 3. 2;
Zon. 8. 25). All the prodigies and auspices concerning Flaminius
come from Coelius (Herrmann 1979: 116). The stress on synchronicity may owe something to the inXuence of Timaeus (cf. Cic. ND 2.
69). Although earthquakes could be interpreted as portents of divine
displeasure, they cannot have fulWlled the same function as the
warnings ignored by Flaminius, hence Quintus merely tacks this
section onto his main account. At most the quakes demonstrated
to the Romans that the pax deorum had been ruptured.
among the Ligurians . . . The geographical detail, unique to Coelius version, indicates a major earthquake across northern Italy;
Zonaras has the quake extend to Etruria (8. 25).
in many places landslides occurred Cf. Livy 22. 5. 8: caused great
landslides to mountains; Plut. Fab. 3. 2: parts of crags were broken
oV; Zon. 8. 25: many of the mountains . . . collapsed.
Commentary
297
rivers Xowed in the opposite direction, and the sea Xowed into their
channels Cf. Livy 22. 5. 8: turned fast-Xowing rivers from their
course, brought the sea into rivers; Zon. 8. 25: rivers cut oV from
their ancient outXows, turned to new. This clear reversal of the
normal order was a particular indication of divine anger.
Midas the famous Phrygian . . . would be very rich Cf. Aelian
VH 12. 45 and Val. Max. 1. 6 ext. 2. Midas was once divided between
a mythical character and the 8th-cent. ruler of Phrygia, traditional
dates 738696, but now the legendary aspects are increasingly interpreted in terms of Phrygian religious and cultural customs (see L. E.
Roller, CA 2 (1983), 299312; eadem, CA 3 (1984), 25671; A. Thiel,
Midas (Heidelberg, 2000) ). Wealth is a key element in the Midas
tradition from the earliest Greek reference (Tyrt. fr. 12), so that
his name became synonymous with wealth (e.g. Ar. Plut. 2867)
and he was credited with a golden touch (e.g. Ov. Met. 11. 85
145). For animal-nursed infants in Greek and Roman legend, see
E. S. McCartney, Papers of the Michigan Academy 4 (1925), 1542.
Again, while the tiny Plato was asleep in his cradle, bees settled on
his lips This is the earliest testimony to this story which appears in
greatest detail in Neoplatonist biographies (e.g. Olympiodorus In
Alc. 2. 249: his parents took the infant Plato and set him down on
Mt. Hymettus, as they wanted to sacriWce there on his behalf to Pan,
the nymphs and Apollo Nomios; while he was there, bees approached
and Wlled his mouth with honey, in order that it might become true
of him, that words sweeter than honey Xowed from his mouth; cf.
Anon. Proleg. 2. 1622 and Ael. VH 10. 21, 12. 45). The key variant is
whether the bees merely settle on Platos lips (e.g. Cic., Plin. HN 11.
55) or make honey there (e.g. Val. Max. 1. 6 ext. 3; Ael. VH 12. 45).
Again (at) is ostensibly adversative, pointing to the contrast between
the diVerent gifts predicted for Midas and Plato (cf. Timpanaro).
Although Cic. may have encountered the anecdote during his studies
at the Academy, the most plausible source of this story is a biography
of Plato, mediated to Cic. via Posidonius. See Riginos 1976: 1721.
the interpretation was given that he would possess a unique
sweetness of speech Val. Max. 1. 6 ext. 3: hearing of this, the
298
Commentary
interpreters of prodigies said that a singularly persuasive eloquence

would Xow from his mouth (cf. Plin. HN 11. 55). As bees were
considered to be the souls of the dead and as a symbol of the Muses
(e.g. Varr. RR 3. 16. 7; Procl. In R 2) and were connected with the
inspiration of poets from Homer onwards (e.g. Paus. 9. 23. 2), the
interpretation given here is not remarkable, but Plato is the only
philosopher in the many parallels cited by Pease. For the link between
honey and eloquence, an idea which goes back at least as far as
Homer (Il. 1. 249), see W. Robert-Tornow, De apium mellisque
apud veteres signiWcatione (Berlin, 1893), esp. 10514. In Aelian and
the Neoplatonist versions the story is slanted so as to give Plato an
Apollonian nature, a notable feature of many of the stories about
Plato which reXects Platos own reverence for Apollo (cf. Phd. 60e)
and explains the transference of poetic symbols to Plato (Riginos
1976: esp. 312).
79. was Roscius . . . lying or was it the whole of Lanuvium on his
behalf? Q. Roscius Gallus, the tragic and comic actor, for whom
Cic. spoke in a property suit of uncertain date. For his provenance
from Lanuvium, cf. ND 1. 79. Despite the ambiguous social position
occupied by actors in Roman society, Roscius sems to have enjoyed
great popularity (Jones 2001: 12945). See C. Garton, Personal
Aspects of Roman Theatre (New York, 1972), 20913.
Solonium [a Xat area in the territory of Lanuvium] Festus (296 L)
places the ager Solonius 12 miles from Rome on the via Ostia, which
is impossible to reconcile with any location near Lanuvium (cf. C.
Pisani Sartorio and S. Quilici Gigli, BCAR 89 (1984), 1013). Given
that Cic. had a Lanuvian villa (Att. 2. 3. 3), possibly inherited from
Roscius, he would not have erred on its location. Unless there was
another ager Solonius, otherwise unknown, or a slip for
Lavinium (Gordon 1938: 23 n. 15), it is best to jettison these words
as a gloss.
his nurse . . . observed him asleep, wrapped in the coils of a
snake This is familiar from mythology, e.g. Erichthonius (Eurip.
Ion 216), Helenus and Cassandra (Schol. A Hom. Il. 7. 44),
and Roman history, e.g. Scipio Africanus ([Sext. Aur.] DVI 49. 1),
Commentary
299
Nero (Dio 61. 2. 4). The portent was one of future greatness. The
lexicographers Hesychius and Pollux (s.v. Z) show that bracelets
with snake emblems were commonplace, which may reXect either
some belief in the protection of snakes or have been aimed to ward
them oV. As snakes played an important role in the worship of
Juno Sospita at Lanuvium (see Gordon 1938: 3741; Pailler 1997:
5212), conWrmed by the contemporary coins of L. Roscius Fabatus
(RCC, no. 412), there may be speciWc local symbolism relating to
the goddess protection or blessing on Roscius.
Roscius father referred it to the haruspices who replied that the boy
would achieve unequalled fame and glory A private consultation,
cf. 1. 36. The prophecy came true in that Roscius was considered the
best of his profession and his name was used to denote excellence in
all kinds of art (Cic. De or. 1. 130); Roscius is on stage was used
proverbially of the best orator (Cic. Brut. 290).
Pasiteles has engraved this scene in silver The MSS read
Praxiteles, but Winckelmanns correction to Pasiteles must be
accepted. Praxiteles, the 4th-cent. bc sculptor is the more famous,
but his appearance here is a chronological absurdity. Pasiteles was
a Greek from South Italy, who received Roman citizenship in 89,
a scholar-artist, praised by Varro (Plin. HN 35. 156). See Stewart
1990: 230, 3067.
our friend Archias has described it in verse A. Licinius Archias
was a native of Syrian Antioch, born c.120, who achieved fame as
a writer of epigrams and had a special talent for ex tempore
composition (Cic. Arch. 18). He Wrst came to Rome in 102 and Cic.
defended him in 62 when his Roman citizenship was impugned.
Quintus, it seems (Schol. Bob.), was president of the court which
heard the case.
79b84 On my interpretation of the structure of book 1 (see
introd., 3 (vi) ), these chapters form the beginning of a key
section of Quintus argument in which two ideas are brought
together: (i) the gods do not normally communicate through direct
300
Commentary
epiphanies, but through divination (either natural or artiWcial); and

(ii) the existence of the gods and of divination are mutually
dependent. The latter argument (824) is clearly climactic, bringing
to the fore the typically Stoic formulation advertised at the start of
the argument (1. 910). More problematic, however, is the earlier
material (1. 79b81) which appears to concern types of natural
divination through prophecy and frenzy and so may Wt oddly with
the previous section on artiWcial divination. Schaublin e.g. suggests
that the section here is an alien element (Fremdkorper), probably
misplaced by Cic. (a sign of a work lacking Wnal polish?). However,
Quintus dismissal of epiphanies as a primary means of the gods
communicating with men and his emphasizing of the reality of the
divine power which pervades the whole world and can aVect
directly the human soul are useful preliminaries to the logical
argument.
Till the immortal gods converse with us when were in the Forum, in
the street, or at home? While Roman and Greek historiography is
full of divine epiphanies and the appearance of the Dioscuri in the
Forum in 168 (ND 2. 6; see Wardle 1998: 2458) would seem to be
a good response to the rhetorical question, the argument here has
moved into a philosophical debate on the possibility of divine epiphanies (cf. Finger 1929: 38894). Plato (Leg. 909e910) dismissed
epiphanies as a particular delusion of women, whereas Neoplatonist
authors argued for the reality of divine epiphanies (e.g. Iambl. Myst.
2. 10, 3. 2; Proclus, In R 1. 3940). Among the Stoics there appears to
have been some ambiguity, in so far as Balbus argues (ND 2. 166) that
direct appearances of the gods belonged to the distant past, but
Posidonius held that the gods themselves do speak with dreamers
(see on 1. 64). Cic. himself publicly denied epiphanies (Har. Resp.
62), a view which Quintus is made to follow here. In the lives of
individual Greeks and Romans as much as in their history, divine
epiphanies were claimed as an enduring reality: e.g. the claim of an
anonymous author (P. Ox. 1381), the inscriptional evidence from
3rd-cent. ad Didyma that divine epiphanies were common for
a time (IDid. 496), and from Rome the report that Pan appeared
to Hyginus in broad daylight (IGUR, no. 184). See Lane Fox 1986:
10250.
Commentary
301
they spread their inXuence far and wide, enclosing it in caverns in

the earth or Wxing it in human nature This appears to have some
connection with Stoic notions of pneuma, the active divine principle
which pervades the whole world (e.g. Alex. Aphr. Mixt. 216. 1417;
Sen. NQ 6. 24).
a power from the earth used to inspire the Pythia at Delphi The
imperfect tense reXects the earlier acknowledgement that Delphi was
not currently a notable prophetic centre (1. 38).
a natural power the Sibyl Quintus clearly gives no role to vapours
in Sibylline inspiration, although oracular consultations in Italy took
place in subterranean chambers (e.g. at Cumae).
one type is deadly, like that at Ampsanctus among the Hirpini
Pliny HN 2. 208: similarly among the Hirpini, at Ampsanctus at the
temple of Mephitis, those who enter the place die; Vib. Seq. 153:
Ampsanctus in Lucania, the exhalation of which kills birds. This
remains the most powerful gas-spring in Italy; its gases, carbon
dioxide with sulphuric acid, are poisonous at close range.
For detailed bibliography, see BTCGI 3 (1984), 2429.
Quintus attempts to counter an objection from his imaginary
interlocutor that he is linking very diVerent phenomena without
justiWcation, but the variety of eVects experienced from terrestrial
vapours had already been set out by Aristotle (Mund. 395b2630):
many vent-holes for wind open in many parts of the world; some of
them cause those who approach to become frenzied, others cause
them to waste away, others inspire them to utter oracles as at Delphi
and Lebadea, others utterly destroy them, as the one in Phrygia.
Plutonia, which we have seen Plutonium was a generic term for
Mephitic sanctuaries. These were common in the Maeander valley
(cf. Ogden 2001: 234), but Cic. has in mind a striking example near
Hierapolis (cf. Strabo 62930: Hierapolis, where are the hot-springs
and the Plutonium . . . below a small brow of the mountainous country lying above it, is an opening big enough to admit a man, but of
considerable depth. It is surrounded by a four-sided rail, c.30 metres
in circumference; it is full of a vapour so thick and misty that the
302
Commentary
ground can scarcely be seen. To those who approach the rail the air is
harmless, since the outside is not contaminated by that vapour
in windless conditions, as it remains within the enclosure. Death
immediately aZicts any living thing which goes inside . . .
The castrated priests of Cybele were, however, immune (cf. Dio 68.
27. 3; Amm. Marc. 23. 6. 18). Cic. travelled up the Maeander valley
past Hierapolis on his journey to Cilicia in 51 (cf. Att. 5. 20. 1;
Fam. 3. 5. 1) and could have detoured to visit the site. Even though
Quintus did not accompany him on this part of the journey, in
his three years as governor of Asia (see on 1. 58) he had the
opportunity to visit.
some parts are harmful, others health-giving, some produce men of
sharp intellect, others fools Such ideas of geographical or environmental determinism, which are echoed elsewhere in Cic. (ND 2. 17,
42; Fat. 7), probably go back to the Presocratic philosophers, as they
are well developed in the Hippocratic treatise De aera, aquis, locis
(e.g. 24). Herodotus in reaction demonstrates the limitations of
arbitrary distinctions upon which the theory rests (see R. Thomas,
Herodotus in Context: Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion
(Cambridge, 2000), 86114). Plato (Leg. 747de) and Aristotle (Pol.
1327b23) also present this idea, but the Stoics Panaetius (Procl. In
Ti. 50b) and Posidonius are the immediate links for Cic. Strabo
(1023) has an extended criticism of Posidonius attribution of
national or continental characteristics to providence, which Galen
corroborates (Hippoc. Plac. 5. 22, pp. 3201 De Lacy): Posidonius
plausibly attaches to this discussion the observations of the physiognomist: in diVerent localities mens characters exhibit no small
diVerences in cowardice and daring, in love of pleasure and of toil,
the supposition being that the aVective movements of the soul in
every case follow the physical state, which is altered in no small
degree by the mixture (of elements) in the environment.
80. a certain image or depth of voice or by singing Quintus will
give an example of the Wrst in the next chapter (1. 81) and juxtaposes
the second and third in his description of souls freed from the body
(1. 114). Iamblichus (Myst. 3. 9) describes a similar trance state
brought about by cymbals and tambourines, but distinguishes it
Commentary
303
from true divination; his explanation rests on the souls ability to

respond to the divine harmony which pervades the universe.
the same thing happens often through worry or fear
also accepts (2. 114).
As Marcus
just like her who: with her mind changed as though mad or moved
by the rites of Bacchus, was calling for her Teucer among the
hills Quintus introduces a quotation probably from Pacuvius
Teucer (Varro, LL 7. 87; Pacuvius Teucer fr. 20 DAnna.), in which
Hesione, Teucers mother, is in great distress at her husbands exiling
of her son for not returning from Troy with his brother Ajax. Festus
(107 L) connects mad (lymphata) with the form of possession
which the Greeks call nympholepsy (see W. R. Connor, CA 7
(1988), 15589). The eVects of Bacchic inspiration and prophecy
have clear visual similarities (cf. Eur. Bacch. 298301: this god is
a seer, for Bacchic ecstasy and frenzy contain a large element of
divination. For when the god enters a human body in power, he
enables the possessed person to foretell the future), but there is
a need to distinguish true inspiration in possession from that
where the soul takes the initiative (Iambl. Myst. 3. 7). Following
Schaublin, I punctuate after commota moved, to create a balanced
pair of alternatives. Hills brings to the fore the common link
of Dionysiac orgies with mountainous regions (e.g. Hdt. 7. 111. 2).
This exaltation shows that a divine power exists in the soul
118, 2. 29, 35, 117, 124.
Cf. 1.
Democritus says that no poet can be great without frenzy This

view is attributed to Democritus (and Plato) by several authorities,
e.g. Dio Chrysostom 53. 1: Democritus speaks about Homer as
follows: Homer, having been allocated a divine nature, built
a beautiful arrangement of lines of all kinds suggesting that without
a divine and superhuman nature it is impossible to produce lines of
such beauty and expertise and Clement Strom. 6. 168: Democritus
[speaks] in a similar way [to Plato]: whatever a poet writes
with enthusiasm and holy spirit is very beautiful (cf. Hor. Ep. 2. 3.
2957). Cic.s other reference (De or. 2. 194) in the persona of the
304
Commentary
anti-intellectual Antonius cannot be pressed to suggest that Cic. has

no Wrsthand knowledge of the saying. It is likely that Democritus
was Platonized by the Stoics (see J. Mansfeld, Mnem. 57 (2004),
288). See also I. Dellis, Democritus Views about Poetical Inspiration,
in L. G. Benakis (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Congress on
Democritus (Xanthi, 1984), 46983.
Plato says the same e.g. Ion 534b: the poet is not able to
produce poetry until he becomes inspired and out of his mind
(cf. Apol. 22bc; Phdr. 245a; Leg. 682a, 719c), a famous phrase quoted
often (Procl. in R 1. 184; Stob. 2. 36 W). In Cic. too there is a wider
formulation: no one has ever been a great man without some divine
inspiration (ND 2. 167); for poetry (Cic. Arch. 18), for poetry and
eloquence (Cic. Tusc. 1. 64). Similar language is used to describe the
inspiration of diviners and poets from the Greek archaic period
(Guillaumont 1984: 14).
let him call it frenzy . . . in Platos Phaedrus Quintus refers back
to the passage with which Cic. began the dialogue (Phdr. 245a).
Holding that him refers to Plato, Timpanaro excludes Platos as
a gloss.
your oratory in lawsuits Quintus makes the distinction between
the style of speaking (oratio) and delivery (actio), which includes
gestures, bodily movement, facial expression, and modulation of the
voice, found elsewhere in Cic. (Orat. 54; Brut. 239). See A. T.
Corbeill, Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome (Princeton,
2004), esp. 11416.
to turn to less weighty examples To be a theatrical performer
meant the loss of civic status (infamia) for a Roman citizen in the
Late Republic (e.g. Leppin 1992: 714), hence Cic.s use of less
weighty (levis) to describe the art and its practitioners (cf. De or.
1. 18, 129) and his other apologies (cf. Sest. 119).
your friend Aesop . . . some force seemed to have robbed him of
his minds understanding Clodius Aesopus (see Leppin 1992:
1956) was a famous tragic actor. Only in private correspondence
Commentary
305
(Q Fr. 1. 2. 14) does Cic. refer to him elsewhere as friend (familiaris),

despite his support for Cic.s return from exile (Sest. 1203). Aesop
was renowned for the emotional nature of his performances
(Cic. Tusc. 4. 55; Plut. Cic. 5. 5). Expression suggests that sometimes
Aesop acted without a mask, although this was not the norm
(D. Wiles, The Masks of Menander: Sign and Meaning in Greek and
Roman Performance (Cambridge, 1991), 12949).
81. apparitions present themselves which have no reality In denying reality to these apparitions (formae), for which the Greek is
phasmata (Paus. 10. 23. 2), Cic. appears to be drawing again on
a Stoic source other than Posidonius (cf. Finger 1929: 371). The
caution is seen further in the distancing formulae it is said and
they say which articulate the next example.
Brennus and his Gallic forces In 279 over 40,000 Gauls marched
into Greece; after the Greeks abandoned a defensive position at
Thermopylae Brennus marched straight against Delphi which had
c.4,000 defenders, who were encouraged by the epiphany of
a handsome young man and two armed virgins. The Gauls did
minor physical damage to the temple complex (if any), but during
the following night Wrst huge rocks fell on them and then they were
frozen and blinded by the snow; next day they resisted an Aetolian
attack but in the night Pan created terror, the Phocians attacked, and
the Gauls retreated (Nachtergael 1975; Rankin 1987: 8798). Brennus
was a titular name, meaning king (A. Holder, Alt-celtischer
Sprachschatz (Leipzig, 1896), i. 5204; Rankin 1987: 1015).
they say that at that time Pythia spoke from the oracle: I shall see
to the matter, I and the white virgins Of the extant versions only
Quintus they say exhibits caution, cf. Diod. 22. 9. 5: Pythia gave
a response to the Delphians that the god commanded them to leave
in their place in the sanctuary the oVerings and everything which
pertained to adoration of the gods because the god and with him the
white maidens would protect everything; Just. Epit. 24. 7. 6: the
oracle forbade the country people to take away from their farms
the wine and corn; Paus. 10. 22. 12: the god did not wish them to
be afraid, but announced that he himself would defend his own
306
Commentary
belongings; Suda s.v. K d (Adler 2. 264). The use of iambics

(Tzetzes, Hist. 11. 3867; Ael. Aristid. 26. 75) is reserved by Delphi
for hostile and contemptuous responses (Schol. Ar. Nub. 144; cf.
H. W. Parke, Hermathena 65 (1945), 5866). The same response
was given by Apollo in 371/370 against Jason of Pherae (Xen. Hell. 6.
4. 30; cf. Aelian fr. 55 b D-F). The virgins are identiWed as Minerva
and Diana by the ancients (Diod. 22. 9. 5; Just. Epit. 24. 8. 5); their
epithet white (leukai) has its regular application in connection with
deities which come to the aid of mortals (G. Radke, Philologus 92
(1937), 387402), and korai has its sense of virgin.
the army of the Gauls was overwhelmed with snow A contemporary decree from Cos, Apr.July 278 (SIG 398, ll. 114), illustrates the
oYcial Delphic version: the barbarians mounted a campaign against
the Greeks and the shrine at Delphi; it is reported that after they had
attacked the shrine they met with punishment at the hands of the god
and those who had come to the assistance of the shrine in the
barbarian attack, and that the temple has been saved and decorated
with the arms of those who had marched against it, and the majority
of the rest of the attackers perished in conXicts with the Greeks . . . and
the people [of Cos] give thanks to the god for his appearance
(epiphaneias) in the midst of the danger to his temple and for the
salvation of the Greeks; cf. a fragmentary hymn to Apollo from the
sanctuary of the Athenians dated c.150: the foreign Ares, when he
did not revere your oracle and ravaged your wealthy (?) seat, perished
in a soaking snow-storm (Fouilles de Delphes, iii/2, no. 138, ll. 46).
Justin (Epit. 24. 8. 68) oVers a rationalizing explanation of a rockfall
and snow storm.
Aristotle thought that those who rave because of illness and are
called melancholics have in their souls some divine, prescient
power The condition of melancholia which etymologically at least
relates to black bile (e.g. Cael. Aurel. Mal. Chron. 1. 6. 180) and
in ancient medical deWnitions involved the patient in emotional
instability, fear, and sadness (e.g. Hippocr. Aph. 6. 27; Galen 19.
416 K). It was considered the beginning of madness by Aretaeus
and thereafter in the medical tradition was linked with mania,
although it was also distinguished carefully from it. In Tusculanae
Commentary
307
Disputationes (3. 11) Cic. equates melancholia with the Latin term
furor and illustrates it by the profound emotion felt by tragic heroes
like Ajax, which seems more like severe anger rather than divine
possession (cf. Cael. Aurel. 1. 6. 180). There are three Aristotelian
passages upon which Cic. may have drawn in De Divinatione:
while Problemata 954a34 V. mentions melancholics and their susceptibility to frenzy and enthusiasm, there is no mention of any divine
power at work in them; Ethica Eudemia 1248a3940 stresses that god
is the starting point of the souls movement within melancholics, and
De divinatione per somnia 463b1221: Nature is daemonic, but not
divine. Here is proof: quite ordinary people have powers of prevision
and direct dream-vision, as if it were not god who sends dreams, but
as if those whose nature is garrulous, as it were, or atrabilious see
visions of all kinds. For it is because they experience many movements of every kind that they just happen to encounter sights
resembling real events, being fortunate in those, like certain people
who play at odds and evens (tr. Gallop). Aristotles terminology
daemonic nature (physis daimonia) excludes divine intervention
and relegates such dreams to the fortuitous (Gallop 1996: 446).
For melancholics who dream with particular frequency and clarity,
their dreams are not god-sent but are an interaction between a divine
movement and a particular human state of receptivity: melancholic
people use (chresthai) a general and universal divine movement to
which they are more susceptible than other people because of their
physiological constitution (van der Eijk 1993: 226). Aristotles views
on divination through dreams probably do not change between
Ethica Eudemia and De divinatione per somnia: in no work does he
argue for divine inspiration, but rather for psycho-physiological
explanations of some peoples greater facility to foresee through
dreams (cf. M. A. Holowchak, Ancient Philosophy 16 (1996),
4202). Although Aristotle does not say explicitly that there is something divine in the souls of melancholics, Quintus vague formulation divine prescient power is a reasonable paraphrase of Aristotles
view in De divinatione per somnia, which suggests that this is his
primary source (cf. Repici 1991: 184 n. 23), although he had a good
knowledge of Problemata. See Pigeaud 1981: 12233, 25963; P. J. van
der Eijk, Mnem. 43 (1990), esp. 3646; Repici 1991: 18990.
308
Commentary
I have my doubts whether this should be attributed to those

suVering from disordered stomachs or delirium This is not
a contradiction or a modiWcation of Aristotles view, but rather
a restatement of the earlier denial of prophetic signiWcance to dreams
brought about by overindulgence in food and wine (1. 60); melancholia is something diVerent from indigestion or delirium, both of
which had physical causes. Cic. employs two medical terms taken
from Greek which indicate a sound knowledge of the medical terminology. The cardiaca passio is deWned by Celsus (3. 19) as
a stomach disorder and is contrasted with phrenitis, although the
key question in treating the disease was to discover whether the heart
or the mouth of the stomach was at issue (Galen 5. 2745 K).
Whereas melancholia could lead to delirium without fever, phrenitis
means delirium with fever (Galen 16. 491 K), and was understood as
a disease primarily of the body (Anon. Lond. 1. 15). See Pigeaud 1981:
7182, 2634.
82. That divination really exists is established by the following
Stoic reasoning This chapter sets out an excellent example of the
form of Stoic argumentation employing the hypothetical syllogism,
of which Chrysippus recognized Wve varieties. Sandbach (1975: 978;
cf. Repici 1995: 187) sets out the logical structure of the argument: if
(a) gods exist and (b) they do not foretell the future, either (c) they
do not love us, or (d) they do not know what will happen, or (e) they
do not think that it would proWt us to know or (f ) they do not think
that it would accord with their dignity to tell us, or (g) they are
unable to tell us. But it is not true that they do not love us. Therefore
it is not true that the gods exist and do not foretell the future. [This]
can be set out schematically as follows:
If a b, either c or d or e or f or g. But not c or d or e or f or g. ;
Not both a and b. But a. ; Not b.
However, this is a very bad example of useless argumentation, in that
the premisses of the argument cannot be demonstrated and cannot
be accepted by an opponent (cf. 2. 1036; Repici 1995: 1879).
The form of argument was refuted by Carneades, and Stoics after
Antipater abandoned it. Although the argument is old, and Cicero
Commentary
309
attributes it to Chrysippus, Diogenes, and Antipater (1. 84), he

probably draws on Posidonius presentation of it, even though later
Stoics and Posidonius pursued a very diVerent line of argument (see
on 1. 125 V.). Marcus (2. 1016) quotes this passage almost verbatim
before proceeding to an ironical demolition of the argument.
If there are gods Cf. Div. 2. 41; Leg. 2. 32. The existence of the gods
was central to all Stoic doctrine; in fragmentary form we have the
arguments of Zeno (Sext. Emp. Math. 9. 133), Cleanthes (Sext. Emp.
Math. 9. 8891), and Chrysippus (Cic. ND 2. 16, 3. 25; Sext.
Emp. Math. 9. 78). See M. Dragona Monarchou, The Stoic Arguments
for the Existence and Providence of the Gods (Athens, 1976).
and they do not declare to men in advance what will happen A
proposition rejected by the Stoics, who held the reality of divination
(see on 1. 6).
they do not love men . . . unable to give signs of these things These
Wve alternatives (c to g above) will be dealt with below under the
objections that the Stoics themselves made.
they are friends and benefactors of the human race Cf. Cic. Leg. 2.
32: they look to the advantage of the human race; ND 2. 162: by the
prudence of the gods human interests are looked to. In what is at best
a paraphrase of Chrysippus, Clement (Strom. 1. 17) speaks of beneWcence (to agathopoiein) in connection with the divine power.
BeneWcence was seen widely as a characteristic of the gods, e.g.
Aristotle said in what man can be equal to god . . . in benefaction
(Gnom. Vat., no. 53), a saying which was widely imitated and adapted
(see L. Sternbach, Gnomologium Vaticanum (Berlin, 1963), 256).
Epicurus, however, denied beneWcence (Diog. Laert. 10. 139;
cf. Philod. Piet. 114755).
nor are they ignorant of what has been decided and predestined by
themselves In traditional Greek religion the gods were thought to
know more than mortals, but not to be omniscient (Burkert 1985:
183) and even Chrysippus argued that god cannot know everything
because he cannot make the (logically) impossible possible (Philod.
310
Commentary
Dis. 3 col. 7 p. 25 SVF ii. 1183). On the other hand, as early as

Homer (Od. 4. 379) there was a parallel belief in the omniscience of
gods which Wnds a particular home in philosophy from Socrates
onwards (e.g. Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 19: many people think that the
gods know some things and not others . . . Socrates considered that
the gods know everything; Alex. Aphrod. Fat. 30: it is outrageous to
say that they are ignorant of anything that will come to pass; see
Pease on ND 3. 90). On the Stoic conception of fate, see below 1. 125.
nor is it of no advantage to us to know what will come to pass Cf.
Balbus defence of divination: many dangers are averted (Cic. ND 2.
163). On the notion of precaution, cf. 1. 30. For Stoics, knowledge of
the future enabled man to participate in his fate, but not to change it
(cf. Epict. 2. 10. 5 and 1. 17. 20; see C. Levy 1997: 3389), to settle his
soul and await in peace and steadfast tranquillity what was to come
(cf. Ptol. Tetr. 1. 3. 5; Heliod. Aeth. 2. 67; see M. Vegetti, Elenchos 15
(1994), 21928).
nor do they consider it inappropriate to their majesty Implied
here is a contrast with the Epicurean belief in gods who were unconcerned with humanity and lived in their own state of ataraxia. Jupiter
was called Best that is the most beneWcent (Cic. ND 2. 64). For the
idea of the gods concern for small things, see on 1. 118 for it is.
nor are they incapable of foreknowing the future The issue here
should be foretelling, but this is no MS corruption; as at 2. 102 (and
2. 105), where Marcus repeats the Stoic argument in his refutation,
the same praenoscere appears. As it stands, the argument merely
repeats d.
83. So it is not true that there are gods and that they do not give
signs of the future The penultimate part of the syllogism. The
proposition denied here is pre-eminently that of Epicurus.
there are gods and therefore they give signs For Epicurus the Wrst
part of this was a given, as can be seen in his writings (Men. 123)
and those of his followers (cf. Philod. Piet. 6278, 6503, 18902).
Marcus is concerned to stress that the rejection of divination does
Commentary
311
not mean a denial of the gods existence (2. 41), a point established in
De Natura Deorum.
if they give signs . . . therefore there is divination Subsidiary to
the logical framework of the main argument, here Quintus presents
very succinctly the absurdity of presenting signs without a way to
interpret them, i.e. divination. For the link between divination and
the existence of the gods as the Stoic citadel and Marcus ridicule,
see on 1. 10.
84. Chrysippus, Diogenes, and Antipater employ the same
argumentation Cic. may take this directly from Posidonius,
whose Wve books on divination will have reviewed the arguments
of his predecessors before setting out his own. Kidd, in his conservative identiWcation of Posidonian fragments, does not attribute
these chapters to Posidonius, but it is highly probable that much of
the material from here to 1. 96 comes from Posidonius (cf. Theiler
F 374; Schaublin).
84108 After the section presenting the formal Stoic argument on
the interrelation of divination and the gods, Quintus with a highly
rhetorical accumulation of elements in 1. 84 essentially restates both
what Cic. had outlined at the start of the dialogue (1. 2) and more
importantly the points of the divisio (1. 12) in his own argument.
Schaublin makes much of Quintus description at 1. 109 of the
preceding chapters as a digression (But to return to the point from
which my discourse broke oV ), thus relegating 1. 84108 to the
status of an excursus. However, within the rhetorical structure of
book 1 these chapters articulate (and represent) very clearly the two
arguments e vetustate (1. 879) and e consensus omnium (1. 90108).
This section of the argument is clearly structured: the exempla to
demonstrate the argument e consensu omnium proceed climactically
from barbarian (904) through Greek (956) to Roman examples,
which themselves culminate in the augural act by which Rome
herself was founded. See introd., 3 (vi).
reason, outcomes, peoples, nations . . . our own ancestors as well
In turn these refer to (i) the syllogistic argument of chapters 813;
312
Commentary
(ii) the outcomes (eventa) of divinatory practice in the examples

Quintus has used and will employ; (iii) developed cultures, even
down to the city level (e.g. Verr. 2. 2. 77; Balb. 42); (iv) ethnic entities
not necessarily smaller than the previous category (e.g. Cilicians,
Pisidians, and Pamphylians; cf. 1. 2), but less civilized; and (v) the
Roman examples (cf. H. RoloV, Maiores bei Cicero (Gottingen, 1938),
124).
it has always been believed to be so The argument e vetustate.
Although Hottinger (followed by Schaublin) transposes this phrase
to the end of the period to avoid the syntactical diYculty it introduces and because one expects denique (Wnally) to be in the Wnal
member, Giomini and Timpanaro rightly retain it at this point.
the greatest philosophers, poets, the wisest of menthose who
have set up constitutions and those who have founded cities
Although examples of the Wrst two categories have been quoted in the
earlier exemplary sections (Socrates, 52, Plato and Aristotle, 53,
Homer, 72, Ennius, 667, Pacuvius, 80, Accius, 445; and even
Marcus himself, 1722), this list looks forward to the contents of
the next section: philosophers (867), poets (Homer, 87), statesmen
(Mopsus, Amphilochus, 88, Lycurgus, 96, and especially Romulus,
1078).
Do we wait until beasts speak For a similar expression of impatience introducing the argumentative section, cf. 1. 79. Speaking
beasts were a familiar kind of prodigy in Roman annals (Plin. HN
8. 183; e.g. Livy 3. 10. 6, 24. 10. 10), and in literature from Homer
onwards (Il. 19. 40417), but rather than such a prodigy Quintus
means are we to wait until beasts also express the same opinion? Cf.
Cic. Fin. 2. 18.
Are we not satisWed with the shared belief of mankind? Explicitly
the appeal to the argument e consensu omnium, an argument
favoured by the Stoics (see on 1. 1).
85. no other argument . . . the cause of each type of divination
It will be almost a refrain in Quintus argument that he cannot say
Commentary
313
how any example of divination occurred, merely that it did (1. 86,
109; cf. 1. 12). Marcus will ridicule this (e.g. 2. 27: this is not the way
of a philosopher . . . he must demonstrate by proof and arguments
why and how it is so, not by outcomes; cf. 2. 46, 80). Quintus
diYcult clearly does not rule out the possibility of explanation,
but not until 1. 109 does he attempt to oVer an explanation.
what explanation Quintus provides examples from three types of
artiWcial divination, where the sign is given externally and requires
interpretation according to the rules of the speciWc discipline. The
sequence of rhetorical questions is a foretaste of the approach
adopted by Marcus in book 2, following the example of Carneades
(SchoWeld 1986: 534).
why a split lung . . . stops an undertaking and postpones it to
another day The haruspex was concerned principally with the liver.
The only evidence from classical sources that the lungs played a
secondary role is this passage, Lucan (1. 622; see Thulin 1906: 23, 45),
Sen. Oed. 3678, and a late patristic poem (PL 5. 262b). Two technical
phrases attested for augury seem here to have been applied to haruspicy: stop (dirimere; cf. Amm. Marc. 14. 10. 9, 21. 13. 8; Serv. Ecl. 8.
29); postpone to another day (proferre diem), although well attested in
legal contexts of postponements (see TLL x. 1687. 30 V.), may allude
here to the augural formula alio die (e.g. Cic. Leg. 2. 31; Timpanaro). In
the detailed rites of Babylonian extispicy, much attention was paid to
the lungs (cf. Starr 1983: 3841).
a raven on the right and a crow on the left provide a good
omen See on 1. 12. Good omen (ratum) is another technical
term from the legal and religious sphere (cf. 2. 80).
the conjunction of Jupiter or Venus with the moon at the birth of
a child Astrological commonplaces included the attribution of
benign characters to Venus and Jupiter, as can be seen from
references in Latin poets (Lucan 1. 6602 and schol. ad loc). More
arcane, though, will have been the detailed lore of prognostication. In
particular, the moon is related to the essence of the human body
(Firm. Math. 4. 1. 1) and the ruler of the chart and the giver of life
314
Commentary
are found from the position of the moon (Firm. Math. 4. 1. 8).
Although the detailed prognostications of Firmicus Maternus (e.g.
Math. 4. 3) show that a variety of fortunes await those born with the
moon in conjunction with either Jupiter or Venus, the basic characteristic of these planets as beneWcs is in accordance with ancient
belief (Barton 1994: 96; cf. the simpliWed prognostications versiWed
by Manetho, Apotelesm. 2. 44658). In detail, see A. Bouche-Leclercq,
LAstrologie grecque (Paris, 1896), 40457.
the conjunction of Mars or Saturn See Firm. Math. 4. 2 and 4. 4
for the generally negative prognostication from these conjunctions.
Why does god warn us when we are asleep and ignore us when we
are awake? An objection formulated as early as the 4th cent. (Arist.
Div. somn. 464a202; cf. Marcus complaint, I ask why, if god gives us
those visions in order to take precautions, he does not give them
when we are awake rather than when we are asleep?, 2. 126). A Stoic
could argue that the divine epiphanies and the signs given through
artiWcial divination are waking communications, but the objection
relates to the most common form of natural divination.
Cassandra in her frenzy can foresee the future, but wise Priam
cannot do the same? The same contrast between madness (furor)
and wisdom (sapientia) was made in Hecubas words to Cassandra
(1. 66), who prophesied the arrival of the Greek Xeet. Marcus makes
the same objection (2. 110). The objection has some force, in that
such natural divination takes place precisely when human reason is
most subdued or overcome by powerful emotional experiences.
86. Why does each of these things happen, you ask? Cf. 1. 109 and
2. 46: when I asked you the reasons for each example of divination,
you said at great length that, since you were looking at facts, you were
not examining the reason and the cause.
the question is wholly legitimate, but not what we are dealing with
now Quintus concedes that causation is a proper concern
for a philosopher (cf. Marcus criticism, 2. 46) and somewhat disingenuously suggests that he will at some stage discuss it. When he
Commentary
315
introduces Posidonius arguments, he presents fate as the cause

(1. 126), but not in any detailed response to Marcus.
We are asking whether it happens or not This is the heart of
Quintus argumentative strategy, to establish the fact of divination
by presenting irrefutable examples of it (cf. 1. 125).
magnet The word magnet derives from Magnesia (Plin. HN 36.
1278). The phenomenon of attraction was discussed from Thales
(Arist. An. 405a19) onwards; Cic. would at least have been familiar
with Lucretius discussion (6. 9861089). On ancient references to
magnets and a discussion of the various theories adumbrated, see
A. Radl, Der Magnetstein in der Antike: Quellen und Zusammenhange
(Wiesbaden, 1988).
divination, which we see for ourselves and hear and read about and
have inherited from our fathers Marcus does not mention the
magnet argument in book 2, as it is diYcult for him to refute.
Quintus point is persuasive on a popular and empirical level, and
relies again on the argument e consensu omnium. Cic. elsewhere
speaks highly of preserving what has been handed down from earlier
generations (e.g. Div. 2. 148; Har. Resp. 1819).
before philosophy a recent invention emerged Quintus is well
aware that philosophy has a history of over 500 years, but he can
describe it as recent by contrast with the older science of divination
and the far greater period of human existence (cf. Jos. Ap. 1. 7; Justin
Mart. Cohort. Gr. 12; Cic. also notes that medicine is a recent invention, ND 2. 126).
after philosophy advanced, no philosopher of any authority
thought otherwise Cf. the summary at 1. 56 where Cic. singles
out Xenophanes and Epicurus as the exceptions. The former, who
was outside of the schools that dominated philosophical discourse
in Cic.s day, Cic. regards as peripheral, discussing his philosophical
views rarely (ND 1. 28; Ac. 2. 118; De or. 3. 20) and here, by
including him among the ancients he in eVect relegates him to
the unsophisticated stage of philosophy. Cic. belittles Epicurus
316
Commentary
(cf. 1. 5, 62), denying him the auctoritas he accords Plato

(Tusc. 1. 49).
87. I have mentioned Pythagoras, Democritus, and Socrates . . . In
making Quintus refer to the earlier survey of philosophical views as
his own, Cic. clearly slips up, as it was not part of Quintus argument,
but of the introduction (1. 5). The mistake is usually attributed to
haste in composition and lack of Wnal revision, and is one of several in
the philosophical works (cf. Acad. 1. 46; Fin. 5. 21, 49; for De OYciis,
see Dyck 1996: 10, and De Legibus, see Dyck 2004: 11).
What could be more shameful than this, that Epicurus believes that
no disinterested virtue exists? Describing the intellectual sins of
their opponents as shameful is part of the rhetoric of the sceptical
Academy (Dyck 2003: 58) inherited from Plato (cf. Tht. 194c; Minos
318e), and is used by Cic. against Epicurus at ND 1. 70 and Fin. 1. 19.
No fragment of Epicurus own work with this view has survived, but
the view is frequently attributed to him (e.g. Diog. Laert. 10. 138; Alex.
Aphrod. in Top. 12; Sen. Beat. Vit. 6. 3). Epicurus held that virtue was
the means to the end of a happy life not the goal (Diog. Oen. 26. 3.
38). What this gratuitous attack on Epicurus adds to Quintus argument is far from clear, other than putting Epicurus beyond the pale.
Is there anyone whom antiquity . . . does not impress? With this
rhetorical question Quintus introduces a section (1. 879) which
presents examples of divination from antiquity (going back to
Homer), the argument e vetustate. His second concern is that the
evidence should be trustworthy, taken from authors of the highest
repute. Quintus here in eVect reproduces the distinction underlying
the proem in which earlier views of divination are distinguished from
the later scientiWc approach of the philosophers; and he builds on
and expands the points made in the proem (Schaublin 1985: 162).
Most of the examples (except Amphilochus and Tiresias) appear also
at Leg. 2. 33, where a simpler form of the argument e consensu
omnium was attempted (cf. Dyck 2004: 3489).
Homer writes that Calchas was by far the best of augurs An
abbreviated paraphrase of Il. 1. 6872: Calchas the son of Thestor,
Commentary
317
by far the best of seers, who knew the present, future and past and
guided the Achaean Xeet to Ilium through divination, which
Phoebus Apollo had bestowed on him. Quintus, ironically and
polemically, follows Homer in locating Calchas excellence in divination, not human knowledge of geography. In later sources his skills
extended to haruspicy and astrology (Quint. Smyrn. 9. 3302,
12. 46). In post-Homeric legend he dies in despair at being beaten
by the divinatory skills of Mopsus (e.g. Strabo 642). See di Sacco
Franco 2000: 368.
88. Amphilochus and Mopsus were Argive kings, but also
augurs, and founded Greek cities on the sea coasts of Cilicia
Amphilochus, a descendant of Melampus (Hom. Od. 15. 248),
accompanied Calchas in his wanderings after the fall of Troy (e.g.
Quint. Smyrn. 14. 3669); Mopsus appears Wrst (Hes. Melamp. fr.
278 MW) as the one who defeated Calchas in a mantic contest,
which, in most versions, took place at Colophon and led to the
founding of the oracle of Apollo at Claros, 12 km distant, by Mopsus.
According to Callinus (Strabo 668), he and Amphilochus led peoples
who settled in Cilicia, Syria, and as far as Phoenicia (cf. Hdt. 3. 91. 1).
Communities in Pamphylia (e.g. Perge) and in Cilicia claimed to be
founded by him and some, such as Mopsuestia and Mopsucrene,
bore his name, but he is associated primarily with Mallus (Strabo
675), where he and Amphilochus were killed in a duel. A Hittite
inscription discovered at Karatepe in NE Cilicia dated c.700, in which
the local king refers to himself as a descendant of the house of
Mopsus, may suggest a Cilician tradition independent of mainstream
Greek mythology, but not necessarily that Mopsus was a historical
person (pace R. D. Barnett, JHS 73 (1953), 142). When the Greeks
enjoyed greater contacts with Cilicia, they may have used the local
traditions to ease their acceptance by the natives or themselves have
been inXuenced strongly by Cilician traditions (W. Burkert, Oriental
Myth and Literature in the Iliad, in R. Hagg (ed.), The Greek
Renaissance of the Eighth Century BC (Stockholm, 1983), 117).
Bremmer (OCD 3 995) suggests that Mopsus may be a family name
for seers. See Parke 1985: 11224; T. S. Scheer, Mythische Vorvater zur
Bedeutung griechischer Heroenmythen im Selbstverstandnis kleinasiatischer Stadte (Munich, 1993), 153271. For Timpanaro, Argive
318
Commentary
means Greek, but cities in Cilicia and Pamphylia in the Hellenistic

period were forging links with Argos on the basis of such mythology
(see Scheer, 2202), so the more speciWc meaning is defensible.
Amphiaraus and Tiresias, not men of humble or obscure status
Both played prominent roles in the myths of the Theban cycle,
which justiWes Quintus comment on their status: Amphiaraus was
an Argonaut and participated in the hunt for the Calydonian boar
and in the campaign of the Seven against Thebes (e.g. Pind. Nem. 9.
1325); Tiresias was seer to both Oedipus and Creon. In the Homeric
genealogy Amphiaraus was the father of Amphilochus (Od. 15. 248),
was himself descended from Melampus, and thus was part of a family
with close mythical links to Apollo. Tiresias of Thebes, grandfather
of Mopsus, was blinded either by Hera (Hes. Melamp. fr. 275 MW)
or Athena (Pherecydes FGrH 3 F 92) and was given the gifts of
prophecy and long life in recompense by Zeus. Quintus celebrates
him primarily as an augur (cf. Aesch. Sept. 246; Soph. Ant.
9981004; Eur. Phoen. 83440), but his expertise was believed to
extend to astrology (Ps.-Luc. Astrol. 11), extispicy (Stat. Theb. 10.
667), and the interpretation of portents (Eur. Bacch. 2489). See
L. Brisson, Le Mythe de Tiresias: Essai danalyse structurale (Leiden,
1976) and G. Ugolini, Untersuchungen zur Figur des Sehers Teiresias
(Tubingen, 1995).
nor like those of whom Ennius writes they invent false prophecies
for the sake of personal proWt Quintus will conclude his argument with an attack on low-class, money-driven diviners, whose
actions brought divination into disrepute, by quoting a passage of
Ennius which expresses very similar thoughts to these (1. 132). On
that basis it has often been allocated to Ennius Telamon (cf. Jocelyn
1967: 346). Here Amphiaraus and Tiresias are distanced from these
humble practitioners, to support the validity of their well-known
divinatory feats.
Homer writes that he alone has knowledge, the rest wander around
like shadows Quintus renders Homers [Persephone granted] him
alone to be conscious. The others Xit like shadows (Od. 10. 495) into
indirect speech.
Commentary
319
Amphiaraus . . . is honoured as a god and . . . oracles are sought from

the place in which he was buried His oracle, which was probably
situated at Cnopia (Strabo 404) south of the citadel near St. Nicholas,
on the site where Amphiaraus was swallowed up by the ground
through Zeus thunderbolt, was prominent in the 6th cent. (Hdt. 1.
46. 2) and was open only to non-Thebans (Hdt. 8. 134. 2). However,
after the Persian Wars, as a result of rival claims to be the site of
Amphiaraus death (e.g. Paus. 9. 19. 4; Schol. Pind. Ol. 6. 18c), the
main centre of his cult became a site 6 km from Oropus, on
the border between Boeotia and Attica, where healing through
incubation rather than oracular prophecies became the most prominent feature (but cf. Val. Max. 8. 15 ext. 3; Philostr. VA 2. 37).
See Schachter 1981: 1926 and T. K. Hubbard, HSCP 94 (1992),
1017. For a description of the sanctuary, see P. W. Wallace, Strabos
Description of Boiotia (Heidelberg, 1979), 435, and P. Roesch,
LAmphiaraion dOropos, in G. Roux (ed.), Temples et sanctuaires
(Paris, 1984), 17484.
Given his human birth, Amphiaraus should be a hero, but the
myth of his anhodos indicates that his status was problematic (cf.
E. Kearns, Between God and Man: Status and Function of the Heroes
and their Sanctuaries, in Bingen and Schachter 1992: 71). Cic.
himself had been a member of the advisory board of the Senate
which in 73 ruled in a dispute between the Oropians and Roman
tax-collectors in favour of the Oropians and granted tax-exemption
for the cult of Amphiaraus (cf. Cic. ND 3. 49). In the senatorial
decree (see Sherk, RGEDA, no. 70) Amphiaraus is described as god
(theos).
89. Priam, the king of Asia This grandiloquent description of
Priams kingdom appears elsewhere only in poetry (e.g. Virg. Aen.
2. 557; Sen. Agam. 203), but Cic. sometimes creates titles to lend
a person greater weight in the eyes of Roman readers (e.g. OV. 2. 60).
For Quintus the mention of another continent is foremost.
Helenus and . . . Cassandra who were diviners, the one by auguries
and the other by mental agitation and divine stimulation These
twins were identiWed, probably by the Stoics, as typical examples of
artiWcial and natural divination respectively. Helenus is described by
320
Commentary
Homer as far the best of augurs (Il. 6. 76; see Di Sacco Franco 2000:
434) and enjoyed various adventures in the post-Homeric epics,
e.g. advising Neoptolemus (Paus. 1. 11. 1); by Virgil his expertise
expanded to astrology and inspired prophecy (Aen. 3. 360).
Cassandras prophetic role is post-Homeric. Both received their
mantic gifts from Apollo by incubation in his temple (Tzetzes
ad Lycophr. Arg. 5).
certain brothers Marcii, born of a noble family, were prophets of this
kind in the time of our ancestors Cf. Livy 25. 12. 2: a new obstacle
arose from the Marcian verses. This Marcius had been a famous
prophet, and when in the previous year by senatorial decree there had
been an investigation into such books, they had come into the hands of
M. Aemilius the urban praetor who was dealing with the matter. He
had immediately handed them over to the new praetor Sulla. There
were two of these prophecies by Marcius, the Wrst of which had gained
authority because the events predicted had already come to pass, which
brought credence to the second one, whose time of fulWlment had not
yet arrived . . . Cic. probably read the version in Coelius Antipater, a
favourite source for the Second Punic War (see on 1. 48). Cic. is inconsistent in referring to two Marcii (also 2. 113; cf. Serv. Aen. 6. 70, 72;
Symm. Ep. 4. 34. 3) and one (1. 115); most authorities have one
(e.g. Plin. HN 7. 119; Macrob. Sat. 1. 17. 25; Festus 162 L). The Marcii
belonged to the plebeian family and merit the description noble from
their consular ancestry. Wiseman has conjectured (1994: 59, 623) that
one of the prophetic brothers was the Marcius admitted to the college of
augurs in 300, at a period when prophecy was not uncommon in Rome.
Although the family claimed Marsyas, who introduced augury to Italy,
as an ancestor (RRC no. 363), to jump from a plausible link with augury
to conjure up an inspired prophet is perhaps too fanciful. Sceptics
consider the verses as contemporary forgeries, perhaps even by
the praetor Sulla, who was one of the Board of Ten (e.g. Bernstein
1998: 1789), but the existence of such prophetic texts in the 3rd cent.
is not to be doubted (cf. North 2000: 92107).
Polyidus of Corinth prophesied many things to others and death for
his son Polyidus, literally one who sees/knows many things, has
links with Corinth (Homer Il. 13. 663) and Megara (Paus. 1. 43. 5).
Commentary
321
He prophesied the death of his son Euchenor (Homer Il. 13. 66372),
aided Bellerophon (Pind. Ol. 13. 7982) and restored to life Glaucus,
son of Minos (Apollod. 3. 3. 12); he performed augury through
owls (Ael. Hist. an. 5. 2).
they considered wisdom and divination to be equal marks of
kingship Quintus generalization should extend to kingship in
both early Greece and Rome, in which the prerogatives of the monarch extended across political, judicial, and religious spheres.
our state, in which the kings were augurs Romulus was preeminently the Roman king who practised augury (see 1. 30), and
although augural activity is not emphasized for the other kings (cf.
Valeton 1891: 410 n. 5: Ciceros statement is not to be pressed), they
were part of the augural college and the inauguration of temples gave
opportunities for the regal exercise of the augural function (e.g. Numa,
Livy 1. 20. 7). See P. M. Martin, LIdee de royaute a` Rome: De la Rome
royale au consensus republicain (Clermont Ferrand, 1982), 8596.
later, private citizens . . . governed the state by the authority of their
religious beliefs Later indicates after the expulsion of the kings.
Public priests, the members of the priestly colleges were considered as
private citizens, even though their acts were public (Linderski
1986a: 2195 n. 176). Cf. Leg. 2. 31: the highest and most important
authority in the state is that of the augurs. Quintus justiWable
exaggeration Xatters Marcus pride in the oYce.
90. The same principle . . . is not ignored even among barbarian
nations Cic. refers to the powerful inXuence of augurs on decision-making rather than the combination of regal and augural
powers. The particular inXuence of Posidonius, who wrote a detailed
ethnographic account of the Celts in book 23 of his History (see Kidd
1988, frr. 679, with commentary), has been suspected for this whole
section of Quintus argument and speciWcally here (cf. J. J. Tierney,
PRIA 60 (1960), 224).
the Druids If Druid is comprised of an intensitive preWx and
a root wid (know), then the meaning is wise man, which would Wt
322
Commentary
well with the equation with philosopher made in Greek authors (e.g.
Strabo 197). For the many classical references to Druids, see N. K.
Chadwick, The Druids (CardiV, 1966) and Rankin 1987: 25994: they
were a learned group among the Celts, aristocratic in composition,
and functioned as intermediaries between gods and men.
I myself have known Diviciacus, the Aeduan, your guest and
admirer Quintus served with Julius Caesar in Gaul between 54
and 51, but his acquaintance with Diviciacus probably dates from
the winter of 6261 when the latter visited Rome to seek aid against
the Sequani (Caes. BG 6. 12. 5; see M. Rambaud, Diviciacos chez
N: Le Temps chez les Romains
Ciceron, in R. Chevallier (ed.), AIO
(Paris, 1976), 8792). Brother of Dumnorix, chief of the Aedui,
Diviciacus is prominent in Caesar as very pro-Roman (e.g. BG
1. 19. 2). See B. Kremer, Das Bild der Kelten bis in augusteische Zeit
(Stuttgart, 1994), 22634.
He claimed that the science of nature, what the Greeks call
physiologia, was known to him Quintus does not vouch for Diviciacus claims, as he had not seen Diviciacus perform as an augur.
Normally Cic.s glosses are to explain a Greek term in Latin (cf. ND
1. 20), here the reverse. Physiologia meant primarily natural philosophy, but also included theology and divination. Posidonius and his
successors attributed to the Druids a wide range of philosophical and
intellectual interests (e.g. Caesar B Gall. 6. 14. 6; Strabo 197; Pomp.
Mela Chor. 3. 2).
he used to foretell . . . sometimes by augury and sometimes by
interpretation In the main Greek descriptions of Celtic religion,
Druids and seers are diVerent categories, but the evidence is insuYcient for us to distinguish the relationship clearly (RE v. 1730). In
Caesar and Cic. there are only Druids. Classical sources attest the
Celtic use of augury (Just. Epit. 24. 4. 3; Arist. Misc. Ausc. 86; Diod. 5.
31. 3; Ps-Plut. Fluv. 6. 4) which has a similar prominence in Celtic
sources (F. Le Roux and C.-J. Guyonarch, Les Druides (Rennes,
1986), 12832). The distinction between augury and interpretation (coniectura) is the same as in the Roman practice (Linderski
1986a: 2237 n. 355).
Commentary
323
augury and divination are practised by the Magi The Magi

(see on 1. 46) are associated primarily with the interpretation of
dreams and astrology, but divination by Wre (Agathias Hist. 2. 25) or
rod and stick (Dinon apud Schol. Nicand. Ther. 613) is also attested.
Although a general excellence in divination is atttributed to them
(e.g. Diog. Laert. 1. 7), no source mentions speciWc knowledge of
augury (de Jong 1997: esp. 3979). On divination in Zoroastriansim
see J. Duchesne-Guillemin, La Divination dans lIran ancien, in
A. Caquot and M. Leibovici (eds.), Rites et pratiques religieuses: La
Divination, i (Paris, 1968), 14155.
gather in a sacred place for discussion . . . as you were once accustomed to do on the Nones Sacred place (fanum) is appropriate to
the Magi, who had no roofed temples; in the Roman context
a consecrated piece of ground suYced for the augurs, even the garden
of a member of the augural college (Cic. Am. 7). These are not
oYcial meetings convened to pass a decree or give a responsum to
a magistrate but rather informal seminars and colloquia,
discussions concerning theoretical tenets of the disciplina auguralis
(Linderski 1985: 21213 1995: 5012). During these discussions
the dynamic process of explanation and interpretation created that
which became binding lore in the augurs commentarii (Linderski
1975: 2868 1995: 5868). Although the past tense and the use of
quondam (once) probably indicate that by Ciceros time this custom
had fallen into oblivion (ibid.), it need mean no more than, for
instance, that since the disruptions of the Civil War such regular
monthly meetings had ceased. In De Amicitia (78), with its dramatic
date in the 2nd cent. bc, Cic. presents the same custom, and augural
banqueting was still a live custom in 465 (Fam 7. 26. 2), seemingly
unaVected by Caesars dictatorship (cf. J. Rupke, Collegia
sacerdotum, in U. Egelhaaf-Gauser and A. Schafer, Religiose Vereine
in der romischen Antike (Tubingen, 2002), 48).
91. No one could be king of the Persians who had not Wrst learnt
the art and lore of the Magi The Greeks were fascinated by the
education of Persian monarchs and frequently included in it religious
instruction in Zoroastrianism (Ps.-Plato Alc. 121e; Nic. Damasc.
FGrH 90 F 67; Philo Spec. Leg. 3. 100). This Greek tradition may
324
Commentary
reXect the custom of the herbedestan, the Zoroastrian priestly school

(de Jong 1997: 44851). As the priesthood in Zoroastrianism was
hereditary, the Magi provide a good introduction for the following
examples from Greece and Babylonia of hereditary divination.
Telmessus, in which city the art of the haruspices is preeminent Quintus adds in Caria to specify the Telmessus which is
9 km west of Halicarnassus, modern Gurice (G. E. Bean and J. M
Cook, ABSA 50 (1955), 1535); the location Wts Quintus description
of rich Welds (1. 94; see D. Harvey, Kernos 4 (1991), 24558). For
Pease, the use of city (urbs), shows that Cic. had never visited the
small community during his governorship. Quintus haruspices are
Herodotus exegetai, interpreters/expounders (1. 78. 2), the most
famous of whom was Aristander, who interpreted portents for
Alexander the Great (e.g. Arr. Anab. 1. 11. 2; see W. S. Greenwalt,
Anc.W 5 (1982), 1725; F. L. Gattinoni, CISA 19 (1993), 12338
A. Nice, A Class. 48 (2005), 87102). Two comments by Arrian
(Anab. 2. 3. 34) suggest that the mantic talent extended to all
Telmessians who were believed to be descended from the eponymous
seer Telmessus (cf. E. L. Hicks, JHS 14 (1894), 377). Telmessian
expertise in augury can be inferred from an allusion in a fragment
of an Aristophanic comedy (Athen. 308f) and from Posidippus (34. 2
AB); Christian writers add oneiromancy to the Telemessians expertise (e.g. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 74. 3; Tert. An. 46. 3).
the Iamidae and the Clutidae . . . famed for their excellence in
haruspicy The oracle of Zeus at Olympia is poorly attested (e.g.
Pindar Ol. 6. 5; Strabo 353), because it became overshadowed by the
games. Although hereditary priesthoods were common in Greece,
even in connection with oracles (e.g. Tac. Ann. 2. 54. 3; Hist. 2. 3. 1),
the situation at Olympia was unique. It may reXect the uniWcation at
one site of two geographical groups, the Iamidae from Triphylia and
the Clutidae from Arcadia, as is suggested by the diVerent tribal
aYliations of the two families. See Parke 1967: 1738.
Famous Iamidae, the descendants of Iamus, include Tisamenus,
who performed extispicy before the battle of Plataea (Hdt. 9. 33.
13), Eumantis, Theocles, and Manticles (Paus. 4. 16. 1, 21. 2).
Pindars ode celebrating Hagesias, winner of the mule race between
Commentary
325
476 and 468, as guardian of the prophetic altar of Zeus at Pisa and
co-founder of famous Syracuse (Ol. 6. 6) was interpreted by the
ancient scholiasts as implying that one or more of the Iamidae
participated in the founding of Syracuse in 733, although modern
views prefer some role by Hagesias in the refounding of Syracuse by
Gelon or even just a celebration of his link with the seers (Malkin
1987: 937; N. Luraghi, Klio 79 (1997), 6986). Epigraphic records
of the seers from 30 bc to ad 265 (with gaps) demonstrate the
continuing prestige attached to these families of seers. In addition
to haruspicy, skill is alleged in empyromancy (Philostr. VA 5. 25;
Schol. Pind Ol. 6. 7) and cledonism.
In Syria the Chaldaeans excel in their knowledge of the stars Cic.
uses Syria loosely for the area comprising Syria and Babylonia (cf.
Cic. Tusc. 1. 101; Fin. 2. 106); for Herodotus (7. 63) Assyria is the
barbarian term for Syria. Chaldaean divination (see 1. 2) was held to
be hereditary (Diod. 2. 29. 4).
92. Etruria has the greatest knowledge of things struck by lightning Cf. 1. 35; Sen. NQ 2. 32: the Etruscans possess the greatest
knowledge in dealing with lightning; Diod. 5. 40. 2: they have
worked out divination by lightning in more detail than any other
people; Dion. Hal. 9. 6. 4: [the Etruscans] seers . . . are reputed to
have studied with greater accuracy than anywhere else signs which
appear in the sky.
in the time of our forebears . . . at a time when our empire was
thriving This vague formulation has suggested various dates:
between 396 and 310 (Luterbacher 1904: 10 n. 7); the 2nd cent.
(Thulin, RE vii. 2437; Capdeville 1993: 3); between the Second
Punic War and 133 (Timpanaro); and possibly c.139 (M. Dickie,
Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London, 2001),
1556). Best, however, is a context shortly after the initial reception
of the haruspices in Rome, which plausibly belongs in 278 (MacBain 1982: 43 V.). At a time when our empire was thriving is not
an implied criticism of Caesar (cf. Giomini 1971: 21 n. 22) but
highlights the Senates concern for Romes religion in good as well
as bad times.
326
Commentary
decreed that of the sons of the leading citizens groups of ten should
be handed over to the individual Etruscan peoples to be instructed
in the discipline Cf. Val. Max. 1. 1. 1: the sons of ten leading
citizens were entrusted to the individual peoples of Etruria in order
to learn the lore of the sacred rites. With Ax and Giomini I accept
Daviess emendation of the MSSs sex (six) to X (ten) (cf. W. Thormayer, De Valerio Maximo et Cicerone quaestiones criticae (Gottingen,
1902), 80), although Pease and Timpanaro prefer Christs X ex which
would require a translation: decreed that ten sons of the leading
citizens of each of the Etruscan peoples should be handed over.
Schaublin accepts Madvigs deni principum Wlii ex singulis . . . ten
sons of the leading citizens from the individual Etruscan peoples,
which is certainly very convincing on palaeographical grounds. The
numeral in Val. Max.s manuscripts is not disputed and we should
certainly eliminate the MSSs six. Neither number Wts well into an
oYcial order of sixty haruspices (Rawson 1978: 148 n. 150), but, as
Pease suggests, if the Senates main concern was to provide a pool of
candidates, having 120 or 150 boys in training would have ensured
a supply for any order of haruspices. The confederation of Etruscan
cities originally had twelve members (cf. Dion. Hal. 6. 75; Livy 4. 23.
5, 5. 33. 9) and later Wfteen or more.
The key question, however, is the nationality of the leading citizens (principes). A straightforward reading of Valerius Maximus, his
epitomators, and of the MS text of Cic. suggests that Roman sons
were sent to Etruria (so Costanzi 1924: 3419, and W. V. Harris,
Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford, 1971), 9 n. 7). But with the
emendations of Davies and Madvig (see above) the sons become
Etruscan (as held by Thulin, RE vii. 2441 and Pease). Given the
closeness with which Valerius follows Cic. here, should he be taken
as an accurate guide to Cic.s text in relation to the numeral ten,
which is a minor detail, but be convicted of misunderstanding on
the larger matter? It is more likely that the misunderstanding as to
the nationality of the trainees is by the interpreters of Val.
Max., beginning with Nepotianus.
Although Roman augurs may have practised haruspicy in the
earliest times (cf. Valeton 1889: 447), for the historical period, from
which most of our evidence comes, haruspices were Etruscan (e.g.
Cic. Fam. 6. 6. 3), and Cic. himself in his conservative prescription on
Commentary
327
Roman religion (Leg. 2. 21) writes: prodigies and portents should be

delegated to Etruscan haruspices, and leading citizens from Etruria
should learn the discipline. The role of these principes, from the
mythical Tages, founder of the discipline, is attested in a variety of
sources (Tac. Ann. 11. 15. 1; Cens. DN 4. 13; Comm. Bern. Luc. 1.
636) and is to be deduced from the upper class views found in the
Etruscan libri (e.g. Cic. Har. Resp. 53; see Rawson 1978: 13940). It
has been suggested that Etruria could not supply the number of
haruspices needed for all the colonies and municipalities of the
Roman empire (Costanzi 1924: 345), but this is not relevant for
the 3rd cent., and the later municipal haruspices were arguably
diVerent from the elite practitioners called upon by the Senate
(cf. Haack 2002: 1303). If we accept that elite haruspices were
Etruscans, for the period for which we have good literary and
epigraphical information the only way to salvage the view that
Roman youths were sent to Etruria in the 3rd cent. is to posit that
the senatorial decree was later rescinded (so Costanzi 1924: 347).
an art of such great importance should not . . . become an object of
commerce Although the Senate had not historically made great use
of haruspices, it was important to Xatter the newly conquered Etruscan elite who exercised a strict control over religious knowledge
within their system (Briquel 1997: 4469) and ease their acceptance
of Roman rule; on a mid-2nd-cent. dating, the haruspices had a track
record and the Senate considered it crucial, in a period of growing
religious conservatism, to ensure that haruspices retained their aristocratic bias. The turmoil of the Etruscan wars and the uncertainty of
any future role for haruspices under Roman domination may explain
a shortage of candidates in the mid-3rd cent. It was important for the
Senate to exercise some control over this form of religion, as over all
others. If Romans were not to be practitioners, the best solution
was for the Etruscan elite to manage the system and ensure that
haruspices did not become agents of radical politicians. For Quintus
opposition to low-class, mercenary haruspices, cf. 1. 132.
Phrygians, Pisidians, Cilicians Apart from this passage and Juv.
6. 585, only Christian writers emphasize the priority and prominence
of the Phrygians in auspicy (e.g. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 74; Isid. Etym.
328
Commentary
8. 9. 32). Of the Pisidians and Cilicians Quintus repeats what Cic. has
stated at 1. 2. Cilician respect for auspicy may go back to the
foundations of Mopsus and Amphilochus (1. 88).
the Arab nation Cf. Philostr. VA 1. 20 and among Christian writers
e.g. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 74. A fragment of book 24 of Appians
histories (fr. 19 V-R) describes the Arabs as a divinatory nation
(ethnos mantikon) and relates his personal experience of an Arab
interpreting the call of a crow (cf. Porph. Abst. 3. 4). Appian locates
his experience in Arabia Petraea, but Quintus expression covers all
the nomadic peoples south of Judaea.
as we know was also regularly done in Umbria Literary texts do
not conWrm this, but the Iguvine Tablets refer frequently to augury:
table 6 has detailed instructions for auspication (see J. W. Poultney,
The Bronze Tables of Iguvium (Baltimore, 1959), esp. 228 V.).
93. it seems to me . . . practised Although the large overlap
between Quintus argument in these sections and the overview given
by Cic. in the introduction (as well as needless repetition between 92
and 94) may suggest a failure to undertake a thoroughgoing revision
of the dialogue, Quintus does introduce a new element here, the link
between diVerent environments and forms of divination, which probably reveals use of Posidonius.
Egyptians and Babylonians See on 1. 2. Cic. substitutes Babylonians for Assyrians, but no greater precision is intended.
Etruscans sacriWce victims more carefully and more frequently
. . . entrails Cf. Livy 5. 1. 6: a nation devoted beyond all others to
religious rites because it excelled in the observation of them. The
connection between the Etruscans and sacriWce is seen in various
ancient etymologies linking Tusci with the Greek verb for sacriWce
thuo (e.g. Serv. Aen. 2. 781; Isid. Etym. 14. 4. 22), or with the examination
of sacriWces thuoskopia (John Lyd. Mens. 1. 37; cf. Dion. Hal. 1. 30. 3).
many lightning strikes occur among them due to the thickness of
the atmosphere Physical explanations for lightning go back to
Commentary
329
Presocratic thought and are applied to Italy in various ways.

Seneca (NQ 2. 30. 34) is closest to Cic.s explanation, while Pliny
(HN 2. 136; John Lyd. Ost. 96 W) attributes lightning to the greater
variability of the atmosphere in Italy.
many unusual things arise from the air In addition to those things
described in 1. 97, e.g. rain of iron (Plin. HN 2. 147), chalk (Obseq.
48), blood (Livy 39. 46. 5), and milk (Obseq. 39).
earth In addition to earthquakes and peculiar sounds (1. 35,
97), rivers Xowing with blood (1. 98), unusual patterns of plant
growth (cf. 1. 75) are attested, e.g. SHA Alex. Sev. 13. 7; Plin. HN
17. 244.
the conception and generation of men and beasts In addition to
fertile hybrids (1. 36), hermaphrodites (1. 98), two-headed babies (1.
121), all kinds of unusual births could be considered portentous:
multiple births (e.g. Obseq. 14; Livy 35. 21. 3; Plin. HN 7. 33; SHA
Ant. Pius 9. 3); Siamese twins (Obseq. 12, 14, 25, 51); women with
children of diVerent species (Obseq. 57; Plin HN 7. 34; App. B Civ. 1.
83); animals born with limb deformities (Livy 30. 2. 11, 31. 12. 7, 32.
1. 11, 9. 3, 29. 2, 40. 2. 4, 45. 4, 42. 20. 5); animals born of a diVerent
species from the mother (Livy 23. 31. 15; Ael. VH 1. 29; Jos. BJ 6. 5. 3);
humananimal mixtures (Livy 27. 11. 5, 31. 12. 7, 32. 9. 3).
Their eYcacy, as you yourself are accustomed to say, is demonstrated by the terms wisely applied to them by our ancestors
Quintus refers back speciWcally to Lucilius words at ND 2. 7: what
else do predictions and presentiments of things to come make clear
other than that they are shown, demonstrated, portended, and
predicted to man? As a consequence they are called ostenta, monstra,
portents, and prodigies. He considers the etymology of the various
terms for the phenomena handled by haruspices as signiWcant of their
function, which reXects the principle of Stoic etymologizing that the
connection between a thing and the name assigned to it was natural,
dependable, and explicable (cf. J. J. O Hara, True Names: Vergil and
the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor,
1996), 1921, and C. Fresina, La Langue de letre (Munster, 1991),
330
Commentary
11136). Our suggests an element of suppressed patriotism in that,

whereas all the key Latin terms for portents were etymologically
signiWcant, this was not the case for Greek (e.g. teras).
Because they demonstrate, portend, show, and predict . . . The
deWnitions-cum-etymologies of Varro are preserved most securely
by Serv. [Auct.] (Aen. 3. 366): ostentum because it shows (ostendit)
something to man; portentum because it portends (portendit) something that is going to happen; prodigium because it directs forward
(porro dirigit); miraculum because it is something remarkable
(mirum); monstrum because it warns (monet). Other such collections
of explanation for this group of terms appear in Festus (122 L),
Nonius Marcellus (7012 L), Fronto (GL 7. 250), and Augustine
(De civ. D 21. 8). Most speciWc are deWnitions attributed to Suetonius
(ReiVerscheid p. 284): an ostentum shows itself to us without possessing a solid body and aVects both our eyes and ears, like darkness
or a light at night; a prodigium is seen and possesses a solid body, like
comets, a star or torch in the sky; a monstrum is contrary to nature
<or exceeds the nature> we are familiar with, like a snake with feet
or a bird with four wings. Although Bouche-Leclercq (1882: 778)
has argued that portenta and ostenta are used of inanimate objects,
monstra of biological, and prodigia of human acts or movements, in
practice they are virtually synonymous, see C. Thulin, Synonyma
quaedam latina, in Commentationes in honorem Iohannis Paulson
(Gothenburg, 1905), 197213.
(i) ostendo (demonstrate) and ostentum (miraculous apparition)
are clearly connected and have an indisputable literal meaning of hold/set before (the eyes), i.e that which shows or
demonstrates.
(ii) portendo (portend)/portentum (portent) have the same tend
root as the above. Por- is explained as a contraction of porro
(Serv. Auct. Aen. 7. 256) or for prae- (August. De civ. D 21. 8),
hence a literal meaning of reach forward, i.e. that which
demonstrates in advance.
(iii) monstro (show)/monstrum. Most ancient etymologies concur
with Cic. in linking with monstro (to show), but Varro linked
with moneo (to warn). See C. Moussy, REL 55 (1977), 34562.
Commentary
331
(iv) praedico (predict)/prodigium (prodigy). Here and at ND 2. 7

Cic. understands the root verb as dicere (to speak). He is
followed by Festus (254 L), against Varros porro dirigere.
Modern scholars connect with agere (Ernout-Meillet 1959;
cf. Non. Marc. 694 L) or aiere (Walde-Hofmann 1938: 368).
94. Arabs, Phrygians, and Cilicians . . . as they cross the plains in
winter and mountains in summer See on 1. 92. Transhumance is
a feature of the herdsmans life. For Quintus argument, it is the
unobstructed views that plains (cf. 1. 93) and mountains aVord that
are important.
The same explanation goes for Pisidia and for our Umbria See
on 1. 92. Pisidia has both high mountains and extensive plains and
the central Anatolian plateau is an area where transhumance
occurred (S. Mitchell, Anatolia (Oxford, 1993), i. 71, 145). Umbria
was a major sheep-rearing area in Italy where the low quality of
much of the vegetation required changes in pasture (J. M. Frayn,
Sheep-Rearing and the Wool Trade in Italy during the Roman Period
(Liverpool, 1984), 1820).
Caria and particularly the Telmessians, of whom I have spoken
above See on 1. 91. Cf. Nep. Ages. 3. 1: during those times
[Caria] was considered to be by far the richest.
95. in all the best states auspices and all the other kinds of
divination have wielded the greatest inXuence Quintus develops
the argument e consensu omnium in a form designed to avoid the
criticism that divination convinces only the simple-minded: among
the best, i.e. the civilized and successful, states he concentrates on
Sparta, whose constitution alongside that of Rome attracted the
greatest praise for stability, and on Rome and within them on
the individuals (e.g. Lycurgus) and bodies which controlled the
state (e.g. the Roman Senate). See Rawson 1969: 99 V.
a king or a people that has not employed divine prophecy For
examples of regal use of divination, cf. 1. 3, 267, 32, 37, 889, 91. Of
those peoples already mentioned in Quintus argument (excluding
332
Commentary
individual city-states in Greece and the peoples of Italy): Assyrians,

Babylonians, Egyptians, Cilicians, Pisidians, Pamphylians (1. 23),
Persians (1. 46), Carthaginians (1. 49), Celts (1. 90), Carians (1. 91),
Arabs and Phrygians (1. 92).
Romans, who do nothing in war without examining entrails and
nothing in the civilian sphere without taking auspices Cf. 1. 3: no
public business, civilian or military, was undertaken without the
auspices being taken. Quintus introduction of haruspicy in the
military context reXects the practice of his day (cf. Wissowa 1912:
548). The main MSS read dum habent auspicia externa and pose two
questions: how to punctuate and whether to emend. Most editors
have sought a contrast between war and peace, and between haruspicy and augury, which is not provided by the MSS text, as nothing
contrasts with war. This lack is solved by reading domi (B) (in civilian
matters) for dum (as at 1. 3), but then habent auspicia becomes
problematic: Giomini excises auspicia and retains habent, which has
to be understood in the sense of suscipiunt (undertake), but there are
no convincing parallels (Timpanaro). Preferable is either to excise
habent auspicia (Timpanaro), as a marginal comment created to
Wll out the meaning of neque solum . . . magis, or to accept Peases
suggestion <domi>, dum habent auspicia (cf. 2. 76). Schaublin
excises dum habent auspicia, which leaves auspicy unchallenged in
its traditional supremacy in all aspects of Roman life (cf. 1. 3), but
does not reXect the reality of Roman practice. Heavy punctuation
before externa is essential.
the Athenians . . . employ certain divinatory priests whom they call
manteis Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 54. 6) conWrms the existence of seers
(manteis) with a public role: who are to make sacriWce ordered by
the seers and if good omens are required they see to it with the seers.
A role at the deme level is plausible (cf. Philochorus FGrH 328 F 75).
Manteis had a role in Athenss imperial colonizing ventures in the 5th
cent., but the kind of references to Hierocles and Lampon make it
diYcult to determine whether they were independent diviners or
fulWlled an oYcial role (cf. Dillery 2005: 1937). A seer Telenicus,
listed among the Erechtheid dead of 460/459 (IG i3. 1147), presumably served with other manteis in the Athenian forces (cf. Dillery
Commentary
333
2005: 2004), but whether Cic. is referring to such a common

military function rather than seers inXuencing the assembly is
unclear.
the Spartans have given their kings an augur as assessor These
assessors were called Pythians and were fed at public expense (Hdt.
6. 57. 2; Xen. Resp. Lac. 15. 5). Two were attached to each king and
their attendance on the king was so close that they were described as
tent-comrades (suskenoi). They served as envoys to Delphi, but,
although they were appointed by the kings, oracular consultations
were not taken unilaterally (see Parker 1989: 1545).
they wanted an augur to be present with their elders An ordinary
seer (mantis; cf. Xen. Resp. Lac. 13. 7) rather than an ephor is meant
(Richer 1998: 139 n. 30). No other source attests this for the Spartan
gerousia, but nothing precludes it. On the importance of the gerousia,
see G. E. M. De Ste Croix, The Origins of the Peloponnesian War
(London, 1972), 1378.
On important matters too they used always to consult the oracle at
Delphi Cf. Nep. Lys. 3. 1: the Spartans were accustomed to refer
everything to oracles; Paus. 3. 4. 4: the Spartans referred to the
oracle at Delphi, as they were accustomed to on everything else.
Spartans loved oracles, more perhaps than did the citizens of any
other Greek state, and granted them an unusual importance in
political debate (Parker 1989: 154). Of the 342 oracular responses
which Fontenrose classes as historical or quasi-historical, 42 are to or
for Spartans (1978: 244354).
Ammon Cf. 1. 3. Paus. 3. 18. 3: from the beginning the Spartans
are known to have used the oracle in Libya more than any other
Greeks. Although there is excellent evidence to suggest a strong link
between Sparta, the Dorian colonies of North Africa, and the oracle
of Ammon at Siwa in both myth and history (Malkin 1994: esp.
15868), instances of consultation or oracular response are few. In
a Pseudo-Platonic dialogue, Socrates relates an undated clash between
Athens and Sparta, to resolve which the Athenians sent to Ammon
and received the response: I would rather have the reverent reserve of
334
Commentary
the Spartans than all the sacriWces of the Greeks (Alc. 149b).
Although not about a response to the Spartans, the story presumes
excellent relations between them and Ammon. In 403/402 Lysander
visited Siwa to bribe the oracle to support his constitutional reforms
(see below), but was rebuVed (Diod. 14. 13. 4; see I. Malkin, CQ 40
(1990), 5415). From this same episode, as recorded by Ephorus
(FGrH 70 F 206 Plut. Lys. 25. 3) the priests of Ammon knew of
an earlier oracle that the Spartans would settle in Libya. This may be
an oracle given to, or used by, Dorieus in the late 6th cent., but its
source is unclear. The vague chresmou tinos . . . palaiou (some ancient
oracle) when used by Ephorus does not suggest Delphi and may seem
to rule out Ammon, in that the priests were not appropriating it for
Ammon (so Malkin 1994: 1947), but, since in the late 5th cent.
Siwa would have had nothing to gain from greater Spartan interference in Libya, perhaps the later failure to appropriate the oracle is
intelligiblewhat had been desirable 100 years previously was not
in 403/402.
Dodona Literary accounts of Spartans consulting Dodona begin
with Lysander, who is alleged to have attempted bribery (Ephorus
FGrH 70 F 206 Plut. Lys. 20; Diod. 14. 3. 4; Nep. Lys. 3. 1). Spartan
expeditions to Acarnania in 389 may have led to increased oYcial
contacts with the oracle, seen in the story of an abortive consultation
in 371 (Plut. Mor. 191b); c.367 the oracle prophesied a tearless war
for the Spartans (Diod. 15. 72. 3)the last surviving account of an
oYcial Spartan enquiry. None of the published lead strips on which
enquiries were addressed to the oracle can be attributed to the
Spartans.
96. Lycurgus . . . conWrmed his own laws with the authority of
Apollo at Delphi Quintus formulation here is less sceptical than
Cottas (ND 3. 91): although it allows a rationalist interpretation, Cic.
probably accepts the genuine involvement of Delphi. There is a strong
tradition of Delphis involvement in the creation of the mixed
constitution which was attributed generally to Lycurgus (e.g. Xen.
Lac. 8. 5; Polyb. 6. 48. 2, 10. 2. 11; Val. Max. 1. 2 ext. 3); the ephorate,
though, Cic. attributes to King Theompompus (Rep. 2. 58; see Dyck
2004: 487). In the most extreme version Lycurgus received laws from
Commentary
335
Apollo as Minos had from Zeus (Ephorus, FGrH 70 F 149 Strabo

366). This association with Delphi may have been played upon by
Spartan conservatives opposed to the reforms proposed by Lysander
(see below) in order to make the existing constitution inviolable, but
Herodotus records it as a view held by non-Spartans much earlier in
the 5th cent. (1. 65. 5). Again, the great rhetra, an archaic document
central to any constitutional discussion, was considered to be
an oracle or at least to be dressed in the guise of an oracle. See
D. Ogden, JHS 114 (1994), 85102.
When Lysander wanted to change these, he was prevented by the
same authority Lycurgus allegedly made the Spartans swear an
oath that they would not tamper with his laws (Plut. Lyc. 29. 13).
Aristotle (Pol. 1301b1921) notes an alleged attempt of Lysander to
abolish the kingship, but this goes beyond the usual story of his
wanting a kingship open to his own candidature, of the liberal use
of bribery and the oracles rejection of him (e.g. Diod. 14. 13. 24;
Plut. Lys. 24. 226. 4). In 403/402 the architect of Spartas victory in
the Peloponnesian War, in search of a secure, prestigious position for
himself in Spartan life, and at a moment when neither Spartan king
had a legitimate son of an age to succeed, began to promote the idea
that the kingship should be open to all descendants of Hercules (Plut.
Lys. 24. 4). If the role given to the boy Silenus is historical, then a plan
of some years gestation is to be suspected. See P. Cartledge, Agesilaos
(London, 1987), 946; C. D. Hamilton, Spartas Bitter Victories
(Ithaca, NY, 1979), 926; U. Bernini, SIFC 3 (1985), 21136.
Those who governed the Spartans . . . performed incubation in the
shrine of Pasiphae Although the etymology of Pasiphae from pasi
phainein (to appear to all) quoted by Plutarch (Agis 9. 2) and the
vague they consult the oracle of Pausanias (manteuontai: 3. 26. 1)
suggest that all could consult the oracle, the literary (Plut. Cleom. 7. 3)
and epigraphic evidence (IG v/1. 1317) mentions only ephors. The
kings use of Delphi and the ephors of Pasiphae reXects the need for
independent and potentially competing divine supports, but it is not
impossible that the kings could also receive dreams pertaining to the
state (Richer 1998: 20812). Excubare (incubation) strictly means
sleeping outside (the city), but the widespread practice of receiving
336
Commentary
divine guidance through a dream while sleeping on the ground in

a sacred complex after performing various rites is usually called
incubation. The usual purpose of incubation was to seek healing,
not political guidance. On incubation see L. Deubner, De Incubatione
(Leipzig, 1900) and Graf 1992: 18693.
Cic. locates this shrine close to Sparta, but Pausanias (3. 26. 1) and
Plutarch (Agis 9. 2) locate it on the road from Oetylus to Thalamae
and at Thalamae respectively, far from Sparta. Either Cic. is mistaken
(Richer 1998: 206) or, less plausibly, there was a daughter shrine close
to Sparta to which he refers (Wide 1893: 247).
oracles received in dreams Quintus oracles transmits a technical
term from ancient dream analysis for a speciWc kind of dream usually
received via incubation: it is an oracle when in dreams a parent or
some other venerable and inXuential individual or a priest or a god
openly announces what will or will not happen, what is to be done or
avoided (Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1. 3. 8; cf. Niceph. Greg. 608b; Artem.
1. 2: chrematismos). See Kessels 1969: 3946.
97. I now return to Roman examples Cf. 1. 55. Roman
translates nostra (cf. ND 2. 8; Tusc. 5. 105; OV. 3. 99). Quintus
will present a list of twenty examples of portents from Roman
history in 97 and 98, which have been traced back to a haruspicial
apology found in Sisennas history (MacBain 1982: 213). From
parallels in Obsequens, half of the prodigies can plausibly be dated
to 117 and 91, but the principle of organization behind the material
is unclear.
the Senate ordered the Board of Ten to consult the books The
Senate had ultimate reponsibility for all matters pertaining to the
state religion (Beard 1990: esp. 314). Quintus uses the anachronistic
term Board of Ten (by his day Fifteen) primarily because the
majority of known consultations occurred between 367 and the late
80s (53 consultations between 509 and 87 are known from literary
sources, 48 of which date from the period of the Board of Ten (Orlin
1997: 2037)), but also because since Sullas reforms the Board had
been manipulated for political purposesto thwart Pompeys ambitions in Egypt in 56 (Dio 39. 15. 116. 2) and to justify Caesars
Commentary
337
kingship in 44 (e.g. Div. 2. 112)and therefore such controversial

consultations would not have helped his case.
how often has it heeded the replies of the haruspices The literary
references to all public consultation of haruspices are tabulated by
MacBain (1982: 82106). For the Republican period it is clear that in
the 1st cent. bc there was a very large increase in haruspicial activity
compared with that of the Board of Ten/Fifteen.
For example, when two suns . . . are seen Pease argues that these
celestial signs were taken over from Cleanthes via Posidonius in whose
work they functioned as proofs of the gods existence (cf. ND 2. 14), but
far more plausible is a Roman historiographical source because the
examples are located in Italy or the West. The phenomenon of parhelion was discussed from Presocratic philosophers onwards: Empedocles
(Stob. 1. 25. 12 W); Anaxagoras (Plut. Mor. 894f); Aristotle (Met.
372a1018). In Roman historiographical sources for the Republic
double suns are recorded in 206 at Alba (Livy 28. 11. 3), 204 at
Rome (Livy 29. 14. 3), 163 at Formiae (Obseq. 14), and 129 in Rome
(Cic. ND 2. 14; Rep. 1. 31); triple suns in Rome in 174 (Livy 41. 21. 2),
Gaul in 122 (Obseq. 32), Picenum in 104 (Obseq. 43), in 44 (Obseq.
68), and 42 (Obseq. 70). Cf. Seneca NQ 1. 11. 2: historians call them
suns and record that they have appeared in twos and threes.
three moons The comparable phenomenon known as
paraselene. In 223 at Ariminum (Plut. Marc. 4. 1), in Gaul in 122
(Obseq. 32; Plin. HN 2. 99), and in 39 (John Lyd. Ost. 4 W).
torches Again Cic. uses a Latin rendering of a Greek technical term
(cf. Arist. Met. 341b15 daloi; Mund. 395b1012 lampades). Pliny
(HN 2. 96) says that torches (faces) produce long tails, and thus
probably describe meteorites. Recorded examples in 44 (Obseq. 68),
17 (Obseq. 71).
sun . . . at night 166 at Casinum (Obseq. 12), 163 at Capua and
Pisaurum (Obseq. 14), 134 at Amiternum (Obseq. 27), 113, and
many other occasions (Plin. HN 2. 100). Probably some form of
aurora polaris (Pease).
338
Commentary
sounds . . . in the sky E.g. in 163 on Cephallenia a trumpet

(Obseq. 14), during the Cimbric invasions (Plin. HN 2. 148; John
Lyd. Ost. 13 W), in 91 (Orosius 5. 18. 3: with a very loud noise in the
sky), in 88 (Plut. Sull. 7. 3), in 83 between Capua and Vulturnus
the sound of standards (Obseq. 57), in the Latin territory in 56 (Cic.
Har. Resp. 20), at Antioch in Syria and Ptolemais in 48 (Caes. B Civ.
3. 105. 3; Obseq. 65a; cf. Dio 41. 61. 3).
the sky appeared to come apart Pease explained the phenomenon by the sun shining through clouds, or lightning against a dark
cloudy background, but something more striking, and thus terrifyingly signiWcant seems appropriatean auroral phenomenon:
homogeneous or rayed auroral arcs located not too far from the
horizon may be seen arched across the sky. The lower border is sharp
but the upper portion less deWned. Because of the brilliance of the
lower border the sky between it and the horizon appears very dark,
like the mouth of a chasm or trench from which Wre Xames forth
(P. J. Bicknell, Latomus 31 (1972), 525). The phenomenon was called
chasm by the Greeks (Arist. Met. 342a34 V.; John Lyd. Ost. 34
W), terminology also found in Latin authors (Sen. NQ 1. 14. 1;
Plin. HN 2. 97).
Examples from 217, 93, and 91 were recorded by Livy (22. 1. 11;
Obseq. 52, 54). Although Servius, in the text as it stands, alleges that
this was a signiWcant sign in the augural books (Aen. 9. 20), auguralibus should be emended to fulguralibus (P. Regell, Auguralia,
in Commentationes Philologae in Honorem Augusti ReiVerscheidii
(Vratislava, 1866), 646).
balls Cf. 91: around sunrise a ball of Wre shone from the north with
a huge sound in the sky (Obseq. 54; Oros. 5. 18. 3). Fiery spheres are
a rare auroral phenomenon linked with the above (as seen in the
connective atque). See P. Bicknell, Globus ignis, in J. Bingen et al.
(eds.), Le Monde grec: Hommages a` Claire Preaux (Brussels, 1975),
2867.
a landslide . . . violent earthquakes The syntax indicates that the
two phenomena in distinct locations are linked by Cic. and
the introductory again (etiam) suggests that a diVerent historical
Commentary
339
context is envisaged from the previous examples: the subsidence was

caused by the earthquake, the epicentre of which was further south.
The traditional context has been found in 113 (Obseq. 38: the earth
gaped wide among the Lucanians and at Privernum), although that
requires a confusion by Obsequens of Apulia and Lucania and there
was no imminent war or civil strife to be warned against in that year.
Latterly the insurrections and civil war of 87, and the consultation of
the Sibylline books recorded by Granius Licinianus (35. 12), have
been suggested as a more appropriate context (F. Santangelo, Anc.
Soc. 35 (2005), 16773). This would Wt well with the hypothesis that
Sisennas history is the source of Cic.s examples here, as the work
culminated in the struggles of the 80s.
huge wars and most ruinous revolts were announced to the Roman
people If MacBain (1982: 22) is correct in tying Quintus examples
to 117 and 91, the rhetorical plurals wars and revolts will refer to
the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutones, and the Social War respectively.
in all these cases the responses of the haruspices coincided with the
Sibylline verses This is the only evidence for a double consultation
of haruspices and the Board of Ten for these prodigies in 117 and 91,
but it is plausible. A consequence of the apparent failure of responses
recommended by the Board of Ten in the early years of the Second
Punic War was the greater prominence of the haruspices (cf. Mazurek
2004: 14954), but the eclipse of the Board was only temporary and
partial in that a careful interweaving of decemviral and haruspicial
expertises can be traced from 207 (MacBain 1982: 5871). For
example, the birth of hermaphrodites was certainly dealt with by
both. Although the haruspices were not subordinated to the Board of
Ten, prophetic material produced by haruspices appears to have been
added to the collections supervised by the Board (North 2000: 958),
which would improve the likelihood of agreements.
98. Apollo sweated at Cumae In 91 on the citadel at Cumae the
statue of Apollo sweated (Obseq. 54). This statue of Apollo was
a regular source of portents of Roman victories in the East, usually
through weeping (169, Livy 43. 13. 4; in 146 or 130?, August. De civ.
340
Commentary
D 3. 11). Sweating is a diVerent phenomenon from weeping, and had

a more sombre signiWcance (cf. Posidippus 30. 12 AB: if a statue
sweats, what great trouble it means for a man and what a great
blizzard of spears it brings; John Lyd. Ost. 16 W: whenever statues
appear to sweat or cry . . . it threatens civil disturbances; AP 9. 534,
14. 92; Plut. Alex. 14. 5). Here the Social War, which was strictly
a revolt rather than an external war, was portended. For belief in the
magic properties of statues, see Faraone 1992.
The physical explanation for the phenomenon was known to be
condensation from the 4th cent. (Arist. Plant. 822a31; Theophr. Hist.
Plant. 5. 9. 8), but religious signiWcance was attached to it, e.g. in 216
(Livy 22. 36. 7), 206 (Livy 28. 11. 4), 54 (Dio 40. 17. 1), and 49
(App. B Civ. 2. 36).
Victory at Capua Capua may be signiWcant for its prominence as
a centre of the Samnites who were Romes most stubborn foes in the
Social War. Victory, if not taken over from the Samnites, was Wrst
worshipped publicly by the Romans during the Samnite Wars
(cf. Salmon 1967: 1523). Even if this speciWc link is denied, unusual
manifestations connected with Victory were particularly signiWcant
in war-conscious Rome, e.g. in 295 (Zon. 8. 1), in 88 (Plut. Sull.
11. 1), and in 42 (App. B Civ. 2. 135).
when men-women were born, was it not a portent of disaster?
Quintus uses the earlier term androgynus (man-woman), which by
the late 1st cent. ad had changed to hermaphroditus (Plin. HN 7. 34;
cf. 7. 15). Livy, Obsequens, and Phlegon of Tralles record sixteen
instances of the birth of hermaphrodites being treated as a portent
between 209 and 92. In eleven cases the haruspices committed such
children to water in an open trunk or box, to bring about their
drowning, and the Board of Ten led various puriWcatory rites in
Rome. Not all sixteen instances can be connected with a following
disaster, but that is not a problem in that a duly performed procuratio
would avert or delay disaster. Several do, however, tie in with disasters: that of 207 with Hasdrubals invasion, 133 with the revolt of
Aristonicus, 125 with the Latin revolt, 104 with Cimbric invasions,
and that of 92/91 with the Social War (Obseq. 53; Diod. 32. 12. 2,
around the beginning of the Marsic war). Such portents and their
Commentary
341
expiation served to articulate public anxiety at such times of stress

through memorable rites of exclusion and elimination. See MacBain
1982: 12735; R. Garland, The Eye of the Beholder (London, 1995),
6772; L. Brisson, Sexual Ambivalence: Androgyny and Hermaphroditism in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Berkeley, Calif., 2002), 2532.
the river Atratus ran with blood The location of this river, mentioned only by Cic. (cf. 2. 58), is unknown. Atratus, clearly to be
linked with the adjective black (ater ; see Andre 1949: 579), is
probably a proper noun. Physical explanations for this phenomenon
were provided from the 4th cent. (Arist. Met. 356a1314; cf. Cic. Div.
2. 58), but it appeared frequently as a portent in Republican annals,
e.g. in 167 at Calatia (Obseq. 11), 166 on the Quirinal (Obseq. 12),
147 at Caere (Obseq. 20), 137 in the forum (Obseq. 24), 136 at
Puteoli (Obseq. 25), 96 at Faesuli (Obseq. 49), 94 (Obseq. 51), 93
at Carseoli (Obseq. 52), and 92 at Volaterrae (Obseq. 53)
it frequently rained stones The many examples in Livy justify
frequently (1. 31. 2, 7. 28. 7, 21. 62. 56, 22. 36. 7, 23. 31. 15, 25.
7. 7, 26. 23. 5, 27. 37. 5, 28. 27. 16, 30. 38. 89, 34. 45. 8, 35. 9. 4, 36.
37. 3, 38. 36. 4, 39. 22. 3, 42. 20. 6). In 152 at Aricia (Obseq. 18), in
102 in Etruria (Obseq. 44), in 94 among the Vestini (Obseq. 51), in
91 among the Vestini (Obseq. 54). Orosius (5. 18. 5) speciWes seven
consecutive days of stone-rain over a very wide area in 91. Physical
explanation for this phenomenon included wind (Plin. HN 2. 104)
and meteorite showers (e.g. John Lyd. Ost. 14 W). The temporal
expressions in this sentence are carefully arranged in descending
order of frequency for rhetorical eVect (I. Haug, WJA 2 (1947),
112 n. 3).
sometimes blood Livy 39. 56. 6, 40. 19. 2, 43. 13. 6. In 183
(Obseq. 4), 181 (Obseq. 6), 104 at Luna (Obseq. 43), and in 102
around the Anio (Obseq. 44). Alexandrian scholars discussed
whether the blood of those killed in wars was drawn to the
clouds by convection to fall as rain (Schol. Hom. Il. 11. 534),
but more prosaic explanations include desert or volcanic dust (e.g.
Pease).
342
Commentary
now and then earth Cf. Livy 10. 31. 8, 34. 45. 7, 35. 21. 4, 45. 16. 5;
e.g. in 167 at Anagnia (Obseq. 11), 166 in Campania (Obseq. 12), 163
(Obseq. 14), and in 133 at Ardea (Obseq. 27a).
once even milk Livy 27. 11. 5. At Gabii in 163 (Obseq. 14), at Rome
in 130 (Obseq. 28), at Veii in 125 (Obseq. 30), at Rome in 124
(Obseq. 31) and 118 (Obseq. 35), at Praeneste in 117 (Obseq. 36), in
111 for three days (Obseq. 39), in 108 (Obseq. 40), in 106 near Perugia
and at Rome (Obseq. 41), in 104 in Lucania and in the Forum (Obseq.
43), in 95 at Caere (Obseq. 50), in 92 at Rome (Obseq. 53). Quintus
description of this as rare is hard to explain given its frequency in the
annalistic records. Physical explanation has been sought in the ash of
forest Wres (Pease).
on the Capitol the Centaur was struck by lightning No other
reference to this statue exists. The mythic signiWcance and the artistic
representation of centaurs is so varied that any attempt to connect
this statue with a Roman politician or speciWc building is impossible.
Centaurs appear on Republican coinage only twice: anonymous
coins of 217215 on which Hercules Wghts a centaur and on a coin
of M. Aurelius Cotta of 139 where Hercules chariot is drawn by
centaurs (RRC, nos. 39, 229). No religious site connected with
Hercules on the Capitoline is known.
on the Aventine gates and men The Aventine features in portents
(e.g. Livy 35. 9. 4), but no date can be given this incident. Individuals
struck by lightning were considered as portents (e.g. Obseq. 1, 28, 37,
41, 56a, 56b, 61); the striking of the citys gates or walls was more
signiWcant, as they were considered sacred (sanctus: e.g. Gaius Inst. 2.
8; Just. Inst. 2. 1. 10) and the security of the city was symbolically
threatened (cf. John Lyd. Ost. 47 W). If the context for this is 91, we
should look for some connection with the Social War. The Aventine
was something of a liminal space with special associations with
Romes allies, the site of the federal sanctuary with the Latins.
Perhaps the lightning strikes symbolized the breaking of the treaty
between Rome and her allies.
Commentary
343
at Tusculum the temple of Castor and Pollux Tusculum, the Wrst

Latin city to receive Roman citizenship, was an infrequent location for
portents (Obseq. 1), but when the cult of the Dioscuri was concerned
it was signiWcant. The Dioscuri were the protecting deities of
Tusculum (cf. Festus 410 L) and their cult was long celebrated by
families such as the Fonteii who came from Tusculum (cf. Cic. Font.
41; see J. Valimaa, in E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lacus Iuturnae (Rome, 1990),
11619). The Dioscuri were introduced to Rome from there by a quasievocatio before the battle of Lake Regillus in 496 (F. Castagnoli,
Studi Romani 31 (1983), 312). Perhaps the portent was interpreted
as an end of Latin loyalty or of the Dioscuris protection.
at Rome the temple of Piety Cf. Obseq. 54: the temple of Piety in
the Circus Flaminius was struck by lightning and closed, in 91. This
temple was vowed by M. Acilius Glabrio in 191 (Orlin 1997: 1467)
and was built at the extreme east of the Circus Flaminius (LTUR iv.
86). Its destruction by Caesar in 44 may give added point to its
appearance in Quintus list, but the primary reference is to the allies
breaking of their duty to Rome in starting the Social War.
in all these cases . . . In repeating the point made at the end of 1. 97,
Quintus in eVect counters a common objection by critics of divination,
that its various techniques and expertises were all separate.
99. Following a dream of Caecilia . . . during the recent Marsic
War See on 1. 4. Cic. uses the contemporary name for the Social
War, between 91 and 89. Recent is used loosely of something within
the lifetime and memory of Quintus, cf. 1. 4: even within my own
memory.
Sisenna . . . impertinently argues . . . that no credence should be
given to dreams Fr. 10 B. Before his death in 67 L. Cornelius
Sisenna, probably of Etruscan descent, wrote a history of the Allied
and Social Wars (see Rawson 1979: 32746). Cic. praises it as the best
available, even though it had shortcomings, notably its imitation of
the Greek tragic-historian Clitarchus (Brut. 228; Leg. 1. 7; cf. Fleck
1993: 15461). It is impossible to reconstruct Sisennas attitude to
the supernatural from Cic.s selective account here. Sisenna has no
344
Commentary
miraculous disappearance for Aeneas (fr. 3 B), and a character in an

uncertain context raises the question whether the gods are interested
in mankind (fr. 126 B). Against this apparent scepticism must be set
the inclusion and acceptance (if Cic. is correct) of portents. Sisennas
rejection of dreams is explained best as polemic against Coelius
Antipaters credulous acceptance of them (La Penna 1975: 49), rather
than against Sulla (pace G. Calboli, Studi Urbinati 49 (1975), 1579).
The persuasive Epicurean has been identiWed with C. Velleius (Rawson 1979: 341), although there seems no reason to suppose that
Quintus has a speciWc individual in mind (Dyck, per Litt.).
He does not, however, argue against portents Fr. 6 B. In this
respect the Epicurean inXuence seems to have failed, but we do not
know whether Sisenna included portents in his narrative of 91 out of
a senatorial traditionalism (Barabino 1967: 85), or real belief in the
Etruscan lore of his forebears, or simply as a historiographical topos
(Rawson 1979: 341). Fr. 12 B appears to refer to the portentous rain
of stones and pottery fragments recorded in Orosius (5. 18. 5; cf.
Obseq. 54), but it is diYcult to use this to argue that portents
occurred throughout Sisennas work.
at the beginning of the Marsic War statues of the gods sweated
The clash with 2. 54, 59: before the Marsic War is not signiWcant; with Obsequens, it is enough to date the prodigies to 91
(cf. P. Frassinetti, Athenaeum 50 (1972), 86). Cic. abbreviates Sisennas account of the portents from Cumae and Capua (see on 1. 98).
blood Xowed This probably refers to a portent at Arretium, as
bread was being broken during banquets, blood Xowed from the
middle of the loaves as if from bodily wounds (Orosius 5. 18. 4;
Obseq. 55) rather than to the river Atratus running red (1. 98).
the sky came apart
See on 1. 97.
voices were heard from unseen sources Cf. 1. 101.

at Lanuvium the shields were eaten through by mice Pliny HN 8.
221: the eating of the silver shields at Lanuvium portended the
Commentary
345
Marsic War. These were probably the shields in the temple of Juno
Sospita where the cult-statue featured a small shield (scutulum, Cic.
ND 1. 82; CIL 14. 100*). This portent suggested that the protective
power of Juno over the Latin League was threatened or warned
against the weakening of the relationship between Rome and the
Latins which Romes worship at Lanuvium celebrated (see on 1. 4).
The activity of mice in sacred areas was regarded as signiWcant by
haruspices (cf. Ael. VH 1. 11; Auson. 25. 13. 2 Green) and their eating
of sacred items appears in the annalistic record (Livy 27. 23. 2; Plut.
Sull. 7. 3; Obseq. 20). Such rodent activity was reputed to have
destroyed Cretan (Schol. Clem. Protr. 30) and Assyrian forces
(Hdt. 2. 141. 5).
100. we Wnd in the annals From a Roman annalistic historian
rather than the pontiWcal annals (Frier 1979: 3005).
the war with Veii The war with Veii occupied much space in early
Roman history, as can be seen from the accounts in Livy (5. 1. 123.
12), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (12. 1015), and Plutarch (Cam. 2.
36. 4; see T. Hantos, ACUSD 33 (1997), 12748). The Wnal phase of
the conXict, from which this episode comes, lasted ten years, 406396
on Livys dates (see Ogilvie 1965: 629). Livy places these events in 398
(5. 14. 5). Cic.s is the earliest extant version of this episode in the war,
but which of the earlier annalists he draws on here is impossible to
determine. The most striking aspect of Cic.s version is its narrow
concentration on the haruspicial aspects of the story, and omission of
the Roman embassy to Delphi, the role of the Board of Ten, and the
Senates initial rejection of the haruspexs interpretation. This need
not imply a unique, pro-haruspicial source, nor that the Delphic
consultation is a late accretion to the story, given the material
evidence at Delphi for a consultation in connection with Veii (see
Parke and Wormell 1956: 273). Nonetheless, the story involves many
problems and has attracted much attention, e.g. J. Hubaux, Rome et
Veies: Recherches sur la chronologie legendaire du moyen age romain
(Paris, 1958), 12153; DArco 1997: 93148.
when the Alban Lake rose beyond its usual level Dion. Hal. 12.
10. 1: about the time of the rising dogstar, the season when lakes
346
Commentary
mostly fail . . . a certain lake no less than 120 stades from Rome in the
so-called Alban mountains . . . at a time when neither rain nor snowstorms had occurred nor any other cause perceptible to man received
such an increase to its waters that it inundated a large part of the
region around the mountain, destroyed many farmhouses and Wnally
carved out the gap between the mountains and poured a mighty river
down over the plains lying below; cf. Plut. Cam. 3. 13; Livy 5. 15. 2;
Zonaras 7. 20. The Alban Lake, 24 km SE of Rome, exists in a volcanic
crater fed by no springs or rivers. The description by Dionysius
and Plutarch seems incredible, requiring a rise of c.100 m to reach
the brim of the crater. The only other prodigious rising of the Alban
Lake submerged the palace of the legendary Amulius/Allodius (Diod.
7. 5. 11; Dion. Hal. 1. 71; Zon. 7. 1). From the coincidence of
Dionysius dating of the prodigy to the dog days, the regular necessity
of irrigation tasks enjoined on farmers for this period (e.g. Pall.
9. 812) and the Wrst appearance of Neptune in Roman state cults
in 399, G. Dumezil (Fetes romaines dete et dautomne (Paris, 1975),
2531) conjectured that this is the myth of the Neptunalia, a festival
celebrated on 23 July. However, almost nothing is known of
the festivals celebration and no link survives in any source for its
connection with the Alban Lake.
a certain noble Veientine came over to us In the other versions he
was captured (cf. Livy 5. 15. 412; Val. Max. 1. 6. 3; Dion. Hal. 12. 11.
14; Plut. Cam. 4. 13). The historicity of the haruspex has been
questioned on the grounds that his role is a literary creation modelled
on that of Proteus in Odyssey 4 or Helenus (cf. Apollod. Epit. 5. 9),
in order to link together the historical but otherwise unconnected
events of the fall of Veii and the building of the emissarium (e.g. DArco
1997: 13941). Nothing in the existing form of the story supports the
suggestion of M. Ruch (REL 44 (1966), 33150) that the Veientine
haruspex is a manifestation of the god Neptune, ancestor of the
Veientines (Serv. Aen. 8. 285) and that he was able to produce the
miraculous behaviour of the element under his control.
the decrees of fate which the Veientines possessed in written form
Dionysius and Plutarch make no mention of written Etruscan lore
and Livys haruspex unusually prophesies by direct divine inspiration
Commentary
347
(5. 15. 10), which may be an isolated survival of the broader powers
such Wgures once claimed. Decrees of fate (libri fatales; also called
rituales, Cens. DN 11. 6, 14. 6) contained not just ritual regulations,
but also prophecies on individuals and communities. See Thulin
1905: 810.
Veii could not be captured . . . it would be disastrous for the Roman
people Cf. Dion. Hal. 12. 11. 2: it is fated for this city to be
captured only when the lake beside the Alban Mount, lacking its
natural springs, shall no longer mingle its waters with the sea. Livy 5.
15. 1112: when the Alban water overXows, then if Rome duly leads
it oV, victory will be given over the Veientines; before that happens
the gods will not desert the walls of the Veientines. Livy omits
this negative aspect of the prophecy (cf. Ogilvie 1965: 6612), but
his whole version is heavily contaminated by Roman thought and his
version of the prophecy is modelled on a Delphic response (Guittard
1989: 12434).
The fundamental problem is to explain how the Alban Lake could
be connected with events in Veii, when geographically they are many
kilometres apart. If read with fundamentalist literalness, in terms of
geography and hydrology, the story is nonsensical; its appearance,
however, in all the sources who discuss the episode (whatever diVerences in emphasis they have) guarantees that to its original audience
it was not laughable. One approach, complex in its ramiWcations, is
based on linguistics: the Veientine seer used an Etruscan word
alpanu, an equivalent of the Greek deity Nemesis, in a formula
such as alpanum solvendum (Retribution must be satisWed); either
there was some cross-cultural misunderstanding or even more
devious linguistic manipulation involving the Greek lachos (fate)
and the Latin lacus (lake) to create a connection between the Alban
Lake and Veii (J. Gage, MEFRA 66 (1954), 4754). If, however, the
real meaning of alpanu is gift or willing and the Wgure identiWed on
Etruscan mirrors by Gage corresponds to Concordia (e.g. A. dAversa,
Dizionario della lingua etrusca (Brescia, 1994), 2), this approach
oVers nothing. Another, more promising approach is to posit
a diVerent kind of connection between Veii and the Alban Lake. On
the basis of a fragment of Naevius, in which a king of Veii thanks
Amulius of Alba Longa (Festus 334 L), it has been suggested that
348
Commentary
there was a link in cult between the sanctuary of the Alban Mount
and Veii (A. Pasqualini, Alba Longa: Mito, storia, archeologia (Rome,
1996), 247). However, it is possible to draw from Livys narrative
a plausible, political interpretation of the story with an internal and
an external dimension: the portent was closely linked with patrician
plebeian struggles within Rome (cf. Livy 5. 17. 5) and in particular
with an alliance between the leaders of the plebeians and the Latins
against the patricians, who were advancing their own hegemony of
the state by the war against Veii; the cult-site of the lucus Ferentinae,
which was the seat of the Latin League, was threatened by the rise in
water level, which was naturally interpreted as a divine sign relating
to the Latin League. Thus the portent and the oracle relate to
a reaYrmation of the Treaty of Spurius Cassius in which the partnership of Rome and the Latins was reinstated. The restoration of the
emissarium thus parallels the reaYrmation of the treaty (Coarelli
1991: 378).
that wonderful irrigation of the Alban Lake was made by our
ancestors Quintus irrigation (deductio) is another technical
term, literally a leading oV (cf. Serv. Georg. 1. 270; Varro RR 1. 36. 1;
Pliny HN 3. 119) and refers to the whole construction of tunnel,
ditches, and channels by which the water was used to irrigate the
area beneath the Alban Mount. The most remarkable element, and
most visible today, is the tunnel over 1400 m long dug from the surface of the lake through the volcanic rock to empty into a tributary
of the Tiber (see Castellani and Dragoni 1991: 4552). Although an
early 4th-cent. date for this, synchronous with the Veientine War, has
been suggested (e.g. G. BaVoni, SE 27 (1959), 30310) the tunnel was
constructed in the late 6th cent. to protect the site of the Latin League.
It had fallen into disrepair by the 4th cent., causing the rise in level
of the lake (Coarelli 1991: 367). For the general canalization in the
area of the Alban Mount, see S. Judson and A. Kahane, PBSR 31 (1963),
7499.
when the Veientines . . . had not dared to tell everything to the
Senate Only Dion. Hal. has a parallel version of this (12. 13. 13):
the most prominent of their number and the one among them who
enjoyed the greatest reputation for skill in divination . . . said . . . after
Commentary
349
robbing the Veientines of their country you shall before long lose your
own. Perhaps we can deduce from this that in the version on which Cic.
depends the original haruspex was not fully honest, a frequent feature of
the presentation of Etruscan seers (cf. the attempted treachery of
Olenus: Plin. HN 28. 15). This version has a more precise prophecy
which accurately predicts the fall of Rome in 390.
101. Fauns are said to have been heard often in battles Cf. Cic.
ND 2. 6: the voices of Fauns have often been heard. The plural and
frequent confusion of genders suggest that the nature of the oracular
Fauns was not strictly determined (cf. Cic. ND 3. 15: Ive no idea
what a Faunus is). Ancient etymologies derive Faunus from fari (to
speak; e.g. Varro LL 7. 36; Serv. Aen. 8. 314) or apo tes phones (from
the voice; Serv. Aen. 7. 81) or from favere (to favour; Serv. Georg.
1. 10). Faunus is linked with woods (Varro LL 7. 36; Serv. Aen. 10. 551)
and has attributes of the Greek Pan. His divinatory exploits, although
frequently alluded to (Enn. Ann. 207 Sk.; Plutarch Mor. 268; Nemes.
2. 73), are attested in historical times only in connection with the
battle of the Arsian Wood in 509 (Livy 2. 7. 2; Dion. Hal. 5. 16. 2). See
P. F. Dorcey, The Cult of Silvanus (Leiden, 1992), 3342.
Although Finger (1929: 391) sees in the distancing formula are
said a trace of a dualist source, for his Roman exempla Cic. is
probably not using a Greek philosophical source. Rather, the distancing formula reXects the caution of historians (cf. Livy 2. 7. 2:
adiciunt; Plut. Publ. 9. 4: legousi).
voices issuing from unseen sources which foretold the truth Annalistic sources record examples in 377 (Livy 6. 33. 5), 168 (Plut. Aem.
245), 137 (Obseq. 24; Val. Max. 1. 6. 7), and in 43 (Obseq. 69). These
voices regularly come from woods or groves (cf. Virg. Georg. 1. 476;
Dion. Hal. 1. 56. 3; Livy 1. 31. 3) which for the Romans were places
of powerful divine presence. Such oracular communications were,
however, hard for the Romans to Wt into the pattern of divine
communication within the state religion, where in general the gods
do not speak, and are consequently rare. See Briquel 1993: 7890.
not long before the city was captured a voice was heard In 391.
Livy 5. 32. 6: M. Caedicius, a plebeian, reported to the tribunes that
350
Commentary
he had heard in the silence of night . . . a voice louder than that of

a human being which ordered the magistrates to be told that the
Gauls were coming; cf. Plut. Cam. 14. 5: Come on, Marcus Caedicius, tell the magistrates at dawn to await the Gauls shortly.
the grove of Vesta, which extends from the foot of the Palatine
along the New Road Cf. Livy 5. 32. 6: on the New Road where
the shrine is now above the temple of Vesta; Aul. Gell. 16. 17.
2 Varro Ant. fr. 103* C: an altar is set up for him on the Lower
New Road. This grove was separate from the temple of Vesta,
on the opposite side of the via nova (New Road) to the right of
the steps from the Porta Romanula (LTUR v. 12930). The location
of his altar just outside the ancient gate of the Palatine citadel
accords well with his role in protecting walls and gates which
is alluded to in Cic.s version. For groves as places created by
and dwelt in by a divinity amid fully inhabited areas, see Scheid
1993: 1320.
expiation was made after that dreadful disaster After the retreat of
the Gauls in 390, amongst other restorations, the Senate formally
expiated its earlier error (Livy 5. 50. 5; Plut. Cam. 30. 3).
Opposite that place an altar (which we see fenced oV) was
consecrated to Aius Loquens By Cic.s day the grove had been
encroached upon (LTUR i. 140) and only the altar remained. Livys
templum (5. 50. 5) means a consecrated area, and is misunderstood
by Plutarch, who creates a temple (Plut. Cam. 30. 3). The more
common form of the deitys name is Aius Locutius (cf. Livy 5. 150. 5;
Arn. Inst. 1. 28; Varro Ant. fr. 108 C). Both parts of the name are
linked by Marcus (2. 69) with verbs of speaking, while Aius indicates speech with particular authority (cf. E. Benveniste, Le Vocabulaire des institutions indo-europeenne, ii. (Paris, 1969), 2623).
Although the deity who usually spoke from woods was Faunus or
Silvanus, the location of this grove within the pomerium Wts ill with
a wild god, hence a unique identity was created for this deity
(Briquel 1993: 89). Giving a Wxed identity to an unpredictable
form of divination resulted in the deitys future silence (Briquel
1993: 82).
Commentary
351
it has been written by many . . . the temple of Juno on the citadel The earthquake was treated as a portent and was expiated by
a typical sacriWce to Tellus (Earth; cf. Ov. Fast. 1. 6712; CIL 6. 32323;
Arnob. Nat. 7. 22; Festus 274 L). Although this expiation probably
came by a prescription of the haruspices, the same is also found in the
Sibylline books (cf. Zos. 2. 6). The temple which Cic. knew was
dedicated in 344 (see LTUR iii. 1235), but Livys notice of this
(7. 28. 4) does not suggest that the cult-title is new and thus that
this is the historical context of the incident. A pre-existing cult
of Juno on the arx (citadel) has been deduced from the legend of
M. Manlius Capitolinus (Plut. Cam. 27. 2); archaic remains of
cappellacio and terracotta anteWxes dated to the 6th cent. have been
identiWed as the earlier temple of Juno, and Servius [Auctus] (Aen. 4.
45: in the books of the augurs Juno is said to preside over the
auspices) has been used to make the auguraculum an extension of
her temple. However, the context of Servius comment is marriage
auspices, and the remains may equally be those of a palace (cf.
Solinus 1. 21; Plut. Rom. 20. 5). See Ziolkowski 1992: 725; idem,
CP 88 (1993), 20719.
after which that Juno was called Moneta The epithet is linked by
Cic. with monere in the sense of warn (cf. 2. 69: we were warned;
Isid. Etym. 16. 18. 8), but the original sense was probably that of
Remembrancer or Recorder (Liv. Andron. apud Prisc. Inst. 6. 198 K;
see Radke 1965: 2213; H. Zehnacker, REL 81 (2003), 1215), in that
Juno was custodian of the libri lintei (the linen books). A derivation
from mons (mountain), in reference to the high places where Juno
was worshipped, is less likely (pace J. Haudry, Juno Moneta: Aux
sources de la monnaie (Milan, 2002), 1112).
So do we despise these signs given by the gods and sanctioned by
our ancestors? For Quintus argument the historicity of these
examples, as conWrmed by their unanimous acceptance in the historical tradition, is crucial.
102. Pythagoreans regularly observed what was said not only by
gods but also by human beings Cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 20: [Pythagoras] employed divination both through cledonism and through
352
Commentary
birds; Iambl. VP 149: he paid attention to voices, divination, and

oracles, all spontaneous occurrences. This brief sentence, looking
back to Greek practice amid what is purely Roman material, serves
to make the transition from divine voices to the broader category of
omens. Although these are two unrelated forms of cledonism
(Pease), the connection Quintus makes is not forced. In general the
Romans appear to have attributed greater signiWcance to accidental
utterances than the Greeks, although examples of this branch
of divination appear in both cultures (cf. Bouche-Leclercq 1879:
15560 and 1882: 13544). Although the Romans seem to have
considered it as a branch of augury Quintus here links it more with
natural divination.
what they call omens They is probably indeterminate, i.e.
people. The etymology of omen is uncertain: Varro (LL 6. 76, 7.
97; cf. Festus 195 L and Donat. in Ter. An. 200) connected it with
speaking, with os (mouth). Modern philologists have preferred
increase (augsmen; cf. Ernout-Meillet 1959), thought (ovismen; cf.
Walde-Hofmann 1938), the Hittite hathe expression of truth
(E. Benveniste, Hittite et indo-europeen (Paris, 1962), 1011), and
even the membranes that contain the intestines (omentum; Bettini
1991: 273 n. 57). For *hgs-men see M. Meir-Brugger, Glotta 70
(1992), 2489.
Our ancestors . . . prefaced all undertakings with May this prove
good, well-omened, successful, and fortunate A shorter version,
quod bonum, faustum felix, was such a common formula that it is
abbreviated to QBFF (CIL 3. 7437, 8. 9796), but Cic. gives the longer
formula, including fortunatum. This appears to have been the
weightiest form of words, as is seen from its use in the ceremonies
of the Arval Brethren (CIL 6. 32367, 32379). In general use the
elements of the formula were interchanged Xexibly: in personal
prayers (e.g. Plaut. Trin. 41; Cas. 381), at a public assembly for
appointing a king (Livy 1. 17. 10), by a magistrate presiding over
an assembly (Livy 39. 15. 1), in consular motions (Suet. Cal. 15. 3),
and in the imperial period in the Arvals proclamation of
a sacriWce (CIL 6. 2065, 2068, 2074) and the prayer of cooptation
(CIL 6. 32388).
Commentary
353
for all religious business which is conducted publicly the command

is given Guard your tongues Favete linguis: Serv. Aen. 5. 71:
during sacriWces silence is necessary, in that the herald says as the
magistrate sacriWces, favete linguis, favete vocibus, that is, receive
good omens or be silent (cf. Non. Marc. 693 L); Festus 78 L:
faventia signiWes good omen. For heralds cried and ordered the
people at sacriWces, favere. For favere is to speak what is good;
poets of old used favere instead of silere (to be silent); Sen. Vit. Beat.
26. 7: favere linguis: this word does not, as most people think, derive
from favour, but it commands silence so that a sacriWce can be duly
performed with no ill-omened voice interfering. The instruction was
to avoid the utterance of ill-omened sounds that might be heard by
the presiding magistrate or priest and cause the abandonment or
repetition of a religious act.
in the proclamation of festivals Imperative festivals are those
which a consul or praetor declares by virtue of the exercise of his
magisterial power (Macrob. Sat. 1. 6. 16), irregular festivals in an
emergency or to celebrate a victory. Pease suggests that the proclamation of any festival is meant here, but, if Quintus is thinking in
particular of the festivals ordered as the expiation of a prodigy
(e.g. Livy 35. 40. 7), special proclamation (imperandis) may be the
appropriate technical term.
abstain from lawsuits and insults Mirrored in the archaizing
rules for Cic.s state (Leg. 2. 19) and in his commentary (Leg. 2. 29),
cf. Livy 5. 13. 7, 38. 51. 8. On days marked as feriae (festival) in the
Roman calendar, legal business was suspended (except under the
provision of certain laws), as the legis actio required the physical
laying on of handsacts of violence required expiation. See A. K.
Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic (Princeton, 1967),
6973.
in the puriWcation of a colony Quintus rightly brings together,
presented in ascending order of importance, three diVerent types of
lustratio (ritual cleansing) involving three of the most important
constitutive rites in Roman society where a group was gathered
together as an army. The heart of the ceremony of puriWcation
354
Commentary
(lustratio) was a procession led by priest or magistrate with one or

more sacriWcial animals around what was to be puriWed; the animals
were sacriWced to Mars and the meat burnt or buried. The ceremony
drew a line between the inside and the chaotic dangerous world
outside, creating as it were a magic circle and deWning the area and
peoples to be protected. See Versnel 1975: 1013.
Although the ritual of drawing a furrow around the settlement was
important in the foundation of a colony (cf. Varro, LL 5. 143), and was
probably recognized as the foundation ceremony once the new colonists had arrived at the site, the actual lustratio must be distinguished
from this. According to Mommsen, the lustratio concluded the Wrst
lustrum which itself followed the physical settlement of the colonists
on the land, but it may be preferable to conceive of the ritual constitution of the colonists taking place where they were gathered before
going oV to found the settlement sub vexillo. See Eckstein 1981: 8597.
by the man who was founding it This phrase is rejected by Pease and
Schaublin as an inaccurate gloss, in that when a colony was founded
(deduco) more than one oYcial was responsible, but is rightly retained
by Timpanaro who emphasizes the use of the lot or prior agreement
before one representative performed the rite (cf. Mommsen 1887: 36).
On the understanding of lustratio given above, Cic. uses deduco in its
technical sense of leading the colonists out to found the colony in the
ceremonial march sub vexillo (Eckstein 1981: 97 n. 30).
when a commander puriWes an army Cf. 1. 77. Usually before
a battle or when a new force was assembled or a new commander
arrived; in addition to the cathartic and apotropaic aspects mentioned above, this ceremony had a linking, constituting function
(Versnel 1975: 1012; Rupke 1990: 1446) and one which bound
the troops to their commander (Baudy 1998: 21921). Lustratio
originally meant illuminate but in the ritual context came to mean
purify, and was linked by antiquarians with going or carrying
around Wre (Non. Marc. 399, 528 L; Serv. Aen. 4. 5; cf.
H. Petersmann, WJA 9 (1983), 20930).
a censor Under the Republic every four or five years the censors
reviewed the citizen list and concluded the process with a ceremony
Commentary
355
of lustratio. What moment in the process, which could take the whole
year, is meant here is unclear, although the closing ceremony, when
the censor walked around the assembled people with the sacriWcial
victims, is usually assumed (Suolahti 1963: 31; R. M. Ogilvie, JRS 51
(1961), 3140). See Baudy 1998: 22361.
men with names of good omen are chosen to lead the victims
Cf. Plin. HN 28. 22: why at public puriWcations do we choose
names of good omen for those who lead the victims? An epigraphically attested example (CIL 5. 808) features Exuperatus and Valerius
Valens. In dreams too names of good omen generally had a positive
signiWcance (Artem. 3. 38).
Consuls do the same in the levy, so that the Wrst soldier has a name
of good omen Cf. Fest. 108 L: in the levy or census the Wrst names
called are Valerius, Salvius, Statorius. Under the Empire, Augustus
became appropriate (cf. Amm. Marc. 21. 10. 1).
103. these practices were observed by you scrupulously as consul
and commander In 63 as consul Cic. may have had to perform
a lustration of the city after the many portents relating to Catiline,
although Obsequens does not record any. Certainly as governor of
Cilicia, where he was engaged in military action, he puriWed his army
as soon as he arrived in camp in Dec. 51 (Cic. Att. 5. 20. 2).
Our ancestors claimed the prerogative century to be an omen of an
election which conformed to the laws After the reform of the
Centuriate Assembly between 241 and 219 (L. J. Grieve, Historia
34 (1985), 309), one century was chosen by lot from the Wrst class
representing the iuniores of one tribe to announce its vote Wrst.
Sometimes magistrates acted as if there was nothing sacrosanct
about the vote of the prerogative century (cf. N. Rosenstein,
AJP 116 (1995), 5862), but Cic. himself in his public speeches
consistently represents the vote of this century as an important sign
of how the election would proceed (cf. Mur. 38: there is so much
religio in these elections, that to this day the prerogative omen has
always been fulWlled; Planc. 49), presumably implying that the gods
would bring from the lot the century which would vote as they
356
Commentary
wished. In the private context of a philosophical dialogue Marcus

holds that this belief was no more than a superstition, rather than
some sign belonging to the state religion (Div. 2. 83). However, the
choice of voting unit itself could be taken as an omen, as in 310 (Livy
9. 38. 15). If the gods did not choose a century or curia with an
ill-omened name, it was a sign of the auspicial propriety of the
election. See Stewart 1998: 416.
I shall now set out well-known examples of omens This story
appears Wrst here (cf. Plut. Aem. 10. 3; Mor. 197f198a; Val. Max. 1.
5. 3), but probably goes back to an earlier annalist. The death of the
puppy is an oblative sign which takes its reference from the context,
the immediate aftermath of the allotment to Paullus of the command
against Perses. By formally accepting the omen Paullus makes it
a speciWc indication of divine approval (Stewart 1998: 468; Lateiner
2005: 459).
L. Paullus . . . when it had fallen to him by lot to wage war against
King Perses L. Aemilius Paullus (RE i. 57680), cos II in 168.
Plutarch (Aem. 10. 3; cf. Just. Epit. 33. 1. 6) records that no lots
were cast because Paullus had been elected consul speciWcally to Wght
Perseus, whereas Livy (44. 17. 7) explicitly records use of the lot in
a detailed passage on the arrangements for the war. Although the
Augustan elogium (CIL 12. 194) appears to support Plutarch,
gloriWcation of Paullus is probable and Livys version should stand
(W. Bingham, SLLRH 4 (1986), 184209). There is no need to
surmise manipulated sortition (pace S. C. R. Swain, Historia 38
(1989), 319 n. 21).
Perseus (RE xix. 9961021) had been king of Macedonia from 181.
Rome declared war on him in 171, but there were no results until two
experienced military commanders were elected for 168 to conclude
the war. See E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of
Rome (Berkeley, Calif., 1984), 40819.
he kissed his little daughter Tertia, who was quite small at the
time Tertia was Paullus third daughter and may have married the
son of Cato the Censor sometime between 168 and 161 (cf. Plut. Cat.
Maj. 20. 12; RE i. 5923). Cic.s use of two diminutives
Commentary
357
(Wliola, tristicula) suggests that Tertia was below marriageable age in

168, but their main purpose is to highlight that Tertia was a child
and, as such, was uninXuenced and an honest mediator of the gods
message (e.g. S. I. Johnston, Arethusa 34 (2001), 1068, on children
as mediums). There is no human manipulation here to create an
oblative sign (see Stewart 1998: 47).
Whats the matter, Tertia? In the private context of the family the
father addresses the daughter by her feminine nickname rather than
the gentilician, which would be the normal form of address (Dickey
2002: 75). The use of the vocative mi here is similarly a mark of
intimacy, particularly prominent in Cic.s works of addresses between
parents and children (Dickey 2002: 221).
My daughter, I accept the omen Paullus was an augur (CIL 11.
1829) and will have been particularly alert for the opportune
turning of a chance utterance, which was the predominant sense
of omen for the Romans (see the examples collected by Val. Max. 1.
5). A very large role was played by human free will, Wrst in deciding
whether to accept an omen as signiWcant and secondly in averting it
by rapid action (see Bloch 1964: 89100). Here the formal acceptance of the omen gave it an almost irrevocable force (Lateiner
2005: 47)
A puppy of that name had died Greek names were frequently given
to pet dogs, e.g. Muia and Lydia (J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in
Roman Life and Art (London, 1973), 10822). Here Persa is an
archaic or popular assimilation of Perseus or Perses to a Wrst declension form, found often for slaves and others of humble status, and so
here for a pet, albeit Perses/Persa could also be the name of a breed of
dog (OLD, s.v. Perses1 2). For pet-owning as typical of the children of
the Roman elite, see Bradley 1998: 52538.
104. I have heard L. Flaccus, the Flamen of Mars The personal
testimony here is important to Quintus argument, as the secondhand account from a reliable source has weight in establishing that
the events happened. Flaccus is probably to be identiWed with
L. Valerius Flaccus, consul in 100 and whom Cic. mentions held
358
Commentary
a priesthood (Rab. Perd. 27); he was Master of the Horse between 82

and 79, and died before 63. See Szemler 1972: 170.
The Xaminate of Mars was second in the hierarchy of Xamines, the
priests assigned to the worship of a speciWc deity (Vanggaard 1988)
and was held by those of high social standing.
Caecilia, the wife of Metellus . . . daughter of her sister Cic.s genitive Metelli (of Metellus) permits Caecilia to be his wife or daughter;
Valerius Maximus (1. 5. 4) interprets Cic. as meaning wife (followed
by Timpanaro and Schaublin). If Caecilia was his daughter, Caecilias sister had a diVerent fatherthus Metellus would not be marrying his own granddaughter. If Caecilia was Metellus wife, the girl was
his niece, and an endogamic marriage within the Caecilii emerges
(see the putative stemma of Bettini 1991: 90), which is plausible
given the marriage strategies of these elite families (cf. Y. Thomas,
RHDFE 58 (1980), 354). Metellus and Caecilia may have been children of Calvus and Macedonius respectively, or vice versa (cf. Munzer 1999: 27981).
a certain shrine A shrine (sacellum) was a small open area, usually
in front of a public temple (see Fridh 1990: esp. 1857). Cic.s vague a
certain (quodam) is unlikely to refer to the cubiculum Fortunae (pace
Gage 1963: 227). Silence was observed in order to hear any signiWcant
sound (Valeton 1889: 444), even in domestic auspication (cf. Festus
464 L). Timpanaro rightly asks whether a temporal expression such
as concubia nocte has fallen out of Cic.s text, as Valerius Maximus
includes the detail.
as used to be the practice of the ancients Although watching for
birds was in general superseded by sacriWce (cf. Val. Max. 2. 2. 1) and
friends took on the role of professional augurs (Treggiari 1991: 164),
copious literary evidence for wedding auspices survives, even from
the Early Empire (e.g. Tac. Ann. 11. 27. 1) when the same term
(auspex) continued to be used. Here, though, an earlier stage may
well be meant, the taking of omens for the opportunity or prospect
of marriage, rather than for a wedding that is about to occur (Bettini
1991: 88). Whether from this one passage it can be argued that it was
the special prerogative of the maternal aunt to take these omens and
Commentary
359
that the conservative Caecilii Metelli preserved the ancient custom

(Gage 1963: 22530) is less certain.
Yes, my girl, I give you my place Caecilia was sitting as an augur
did when taking auspices. With hindsight her words were seen to
have a meaning other than she intended. The omen consists in the
double sense of place (sedes): on the one level Caecilias seat, on
another her position as Metellus wife.
The omen occurred in the fulWlmentfor she died soon after
Giving up a seat was a bad omen (cf. Front. Strat. 1. 12. 7). Someone
other than the ruler sitting on the throne could portend the rulers
imminent death (Arr. Anab. 7. 24. 23; Diod. 17. 116. 24), or more
positively function as an omen of that persons unexpected rise to
power (e.g. Dio 74. 3. 3; SHA Max. 30. 67; Aurel. 5. 4; Amm. Marc.
25. 10. 11). In all cases the signiWcance of the action becomes
apparent only later.
I understand full well . . . Quintus conclusion to this section on
omens is no more than another variation of the Stoic argument that,
if there are gods, there is divination (see on 1. 10). Marcus wastes no
eVort on responding to these omens, dismissing them in a few lines
(2. 83).
105. you, I say, must defend auspices Cf. on 1. 25 your auspices.
Quintus returns to an ad hominem argument based Wrst (1. 105) on
Marcus membership of the augural college and secondly (1. 106) on
his belief in augury as demonstrated in his poetry. Cic. nowhere else
mentions this notable incident from his consulship, presumably
because the failure of the augurium might reXect poorly on him
(cf. Vaahtera 2001: 135).
To you as consul the augur Appius Claudius reported . . . augury
of safety was doubtful The oYcial communication via Appius
Claudius (see on 1. 29) probably came from the whole college of
augurs to Cic. as senior magistrate of the state, who, under the
archaic designation of praetor maximus, would have read the precatio
maxima (the greatest prayer; Linderski 1986a: 2180 n. 117)
360
Commentary
enquiring if the gods consented to the celebration of the augurium

salutis, otherwise known as the greatest augury by which the safety of
the Roman people is sought (CIL 6. 36841: augurium maximum quo
salus p. R. petitur). The clearest explanation of this custom appears in
Dio (37. 24. 12): a kind of augury which involves an inquiry
whether the god entrusts them with asking for prosperity for the
people, as if it were not holy even to ask for it before agreement had
been given. It was performed each year on a day when no army was
going out to war or was preparing itself against anyone or was
Wghting. If the extant attestations reXect the pattern, this was a very
irregular ceremony: before 63 the only deWnite celebration occurred
in 160, although one in 235 can be assumed (see J. Liegle, Hermes 77
(1942), esp. 26197). After the death of Mithradates and the capture
of Jerusalem in 63 it could be claimed that Rome was at peace and
therefore the basic qualiWcation for the augurium salutis had been
met: it was in some way possible for the divination to be performed,
but it was not clear (ou . . . katharon egeneto) since some birds Xew up
from an unlucky quarter (exhedroi) and therefore the divination was
repeated (Dio 37. 25. 1). Dios immediate continuation, and other
unlucky signs happened to them, may suggest that the gods refusal
of permission to celebrate the augurium constituted a prodigy or that
apparent permission secured during the repetition was negated by
the appearance of unmistakable prodigies (cf. Catalano 1960: 3424).
Doubtful is probably a technical term for a category of augural signs
(Valeton 1891: 418; Catalano 1960: 33546).
there would be a civil war, tragic and troublesome In normal
augural procedure the second successful performance of the
ceremony (litatio) would have meant an aYrmative answer from
the gods, but Appius fundamentalist interpretation insisted on
taking seriously the unpropitious birds and adding a prophetic
aspect alien to Roman practice, treating the negative sign as
a portent (cf. Valeton 1891: 418: tamquam prodigium Ciceroni
esse nuntiatum ab augure).
A few months later . . . crushed by you The Catilinarian conspiracy,
although brewing for some time, became known only in late Oct. 63;
the passing of the senatus consultum ultimum recognized a state of
Commentary
361
crisis on 21 Oct. and swift action followed to crush potential

rebellion in Italy. The augurium salutis seems to have been celebrated
in autumn (Rupke 1990: 143), which is hard to square with a few
months later. Perhaps Cic. requested an early celebration on hearing
of the end of Pompeys campaigns, or this temporal expression is to
be understood loosely or as emphasizing the degree of the gods
foreknowledge. Still fewer days is a palpable exaggeration, if
Quintus refers primarily to the ambushing of the conspirators on
the night of 23 Dec.
I give my strong endorsement to this augur . . . Quintus, as
a Stoic rather than as an augural practitioner in the traditional
Roman way, defends a prophetic rather than declarative function
for augury.
Your colleagues used to ridicule him This does not refer to the
augurs of 63, but what Cic. heard said against Appius between 53/52
and 48 when he was a member of the augural college. In De Legibus
(2. 32) Cic. names one of Appius antagonists: in your college there is
a huge disagreement between Marcellus and Appius, both Wne
augurs, as the former holds that those auspices of yours were created
for the beneWt of the state, the latter thinks that your discipline can,
as it were, tell the future.
Pisidian See on 1. 2, 92 for the link between Pisidia and augury.
Soranian The adjective refers to Sora, a Volscian town 96 km ESE
of Rome near the territory of the Marsi, who were famous for their
excellence in augury (cf. 1. 131).
in their wisdom they said that the religious observances were
made up to suit the opinion of the ignorant Cf. ND 1. 117:
those who said that the whole notion of immortal gods was made
up by wise men for the sake of the state so that religion might bring
to obedience those whom reason could not. In our passage there is
a question of punctuation: should they said (aiebant) be marked oV
by commas and in their wisdom (sapienter) modify made up
(Wctas) to become the augurs comment on the wisdom of religious
362
Commentary
Wctions, as in the passage from ND (Pease, Schaublin)? Without this

punctuation sapienter can have the heavily ironic sense I have given it
(cf. Timpanaro n. 251) and contribute to the strong form of the
argument which Quintus makesnot only was the creation of
religious Wction unwise, but for Rome there was no such Wction.
The opponents of Appius stood in the tradition going back at least to
the 5th cent. which held that wise rulers could deceive the people in
order to make the people amenable to education (e.g. Plat. Rep.
414b) or to discourage wrong-doing (Critias, e.g. Sext. Emp. Phys.
1. 54). Numa was seen as the Roman prototype (cf. Val. Max. 1. 2. 1;
Serv. Aen. 7. 763) who inspired several imitators (see Wardle
1998: 1378).
neither the shepherds of whom Romulus was king nor Romulus
himself were so ingenious as to fake religious practices to deceive
the masses Cf. 1. 107. Timpanaro suspects that this line of attack
may derive from Posidonius, but nothing proves that Posidonius
used Roman exempla in his works on divination. Chrysippus seems
to have opposed the doctrine of pious fraud (Plut. Mor. 1040ab),
but even if some Stoics did hold to it Posidonius may have limited
the wise mens innovation to the invention of anthropomorphic gods
(Dyck 2003: 157). Quintus point has some force, as Marcus himself
refers (Rep. 2. 12) to the primitive Senate of Romulus, and the
annalists portray Romulus and his people as shepherds (Livy 1. 6. 3;
Dion. Hal. 1. 79. 11).
neglect eloquence . . . Cf. a similar criticism of Dicaearchus and
Aristoxenus (Cic. Tusc. 1. 51).
106. What could be more divine than the auspical sign which is
in your Marius? To use you above all as an authority As at 1.
1722 and 59, Quintus formulates an ad hominem argument which is
built explicitly on Marcus own words, but perhaps has a speciWc
intertextual reference to De Legibus (1. 4): atticus: In Marius many
things are questioned, whether they are made up or true; and by
some people truth is required from you, because you are dealing with
recent memory and a man from Arpinum. marcus: By heaven, I
have no desire to be thought a liar, but some of those people you
Commentary
363
mention, my dear Titus, act foolishly in demanding the truth in such

a predicament as from a witness and not as from a poet. quintus:
I understand, brother, that you think that one set of laws should be
observed in history and another in poetry. At one level Quintus ad
hominem argument is powerfulCic. cannot deny the authorship of
his poembut Cic. knowingly undercuts it for his reader because of
the widely suspect reliability of his Marius as a historically accurate
account. Although De Legibus was not in the public domain in 44 and
Cic.s plans for it were uncertain, and there could be no speciWc
intertextual reference for his readers to spot, the passage quoted
above suggests that Marius was viewed with some suspicion. Dyck
emphasizes (per litt.) that the dialogue is Wctional, that there are no
other contemporary references to criticism of the poem and that
Atticus remarks are phrased by Cic. in such a way as to direct Cic.s
riposte away from Atticus himself (cf. Dyck 2004: 65). Krostenko
(2000: 338) argues that Cic.s use of Marius in De Divinatione is a
negative exemplum of how to construct a religious Wction, put in
Quintus mouth as a way of dissociating Cic. himself from the kind of
special relationship between the gods and an individual which the
experience of Caesars dictatorship had done much to sour for
Cic. However, this misses the point, as the undercutting of
Quintus argument is more fundamental.
When Cic. composed Marius is uncertain (cf. Dyck 2004: 578).
The most likely date is the last months of 57, immediately after
Ciceros return from exile, during which he admits he thought
often of Marius (Div. 2. 140); his public speeches of these months
are full of references to Marius (e.g. Red. pop. 20; Sest. 50). See
Courtney 1993: 178.
The auspical sign is divine in that it was clearly sent by Jupiter
(as the Wrst lines of the quotation and the thunder underline);
Marius return to Rome, which it presaged, proved its validity.
Suddenly . . . Cic.s description is based on Homer Il. 12. 2007: a
bird came upon them as they were ready to cross, a high-Xying eagle,
skirting the people to the left and carrying in its talons a bloody,
monstrous snake which was still alive and struggling; nor had it yet
given up the Wght: for it bent backwards and struck the one who held
it on the breast beside the neck. Hurt by the pain the eagle hurled it
364
Commentary
away to the ground, cast it down in the midst of them and Xew oV
with a cry on the wind. Within Marius, this extract concerns a sign
received by Marius while in exile in 88 in North Africa or while
Xeeing Sullas forces earlier in the same year. Because the sign does
not appear in Plutarchs Marius it has been considered an imaginary
episode (RE Suppl. 6. 1364; Soubiran 1972: 261).
the winged minister of Jupiter who thunders on high Cf. 2. 73;
Tusc. 2. 24. Cic. stresses the augural validity of the sign: Jupiter
controlled Roman auspices, and birds were his chosen messengers.
Many details in the passage can be interpreted allegorically: the eagle
is Marius; the snake bite is the non-fatal blow of exile at the hands of
the Sullans (Courtney 1993: 175); the snake may be Sulla, with multicoloured neck referring cruelly to his prominent red facial disWgurement (Plut. Sull. 2. 1). But some aspects are ambiguous: does the
escape of the snake into the ocean symbolize Sulla, who sailed oV to
the east to confront Mithradates, or Sullans who suVered death
notoriously during Marius seventh consulship (Courtney 1993:
176)? In fact, an allegorical interpretation is not necessary for the
strictly augural element of this episode.
swoops down from a tree trunk Not the oak tree at Arpinum under
which the dialogue of De Legibus was set (1. 12), where Marius had
received an omen in his infancy (Plut. Mar. 36. 56), and which he
did not visit in 88/87 (Soubiran 1972: 261).
turned from the sunset to shining sunrise . . . wings of good-omen
The eagle Xew from west to east, which from the perspective of
Jupiter in the north was from right to left, a propitious sign. Rather
than a symbolic image of Marius being promised new glory like the
rising sun (Soubiran 1972), or a symbolism of a change of luck
(Timpanaro), Cic. presents accurately the augural matrix. His augural knowledge is underlined by the use of praepes (of good omen),
a term of impeccable augural ancestry, although its precise meaning
in its technical sense was disputed (Aul. Gell. 7. 6. 3; Serv. [Auct].
Aen. 3. 246, 361, 6. 15; Festus 224 L). Praepetes Xew in the higher
part of the augurs Weld of vision and were prominent (Valeton 1890:
2468).
Commentary
365
augur of the divine will, Marius saw it Marius was a member of the
augural college from 97 (cf. II 13. 3, no. 17, 83). Although a bare
statement by Valerius Maximus (1. 5. 5: generally very skilful at
interpreting religious occurrences) may refer to Marius skill at
manipulating popular religious sentiment rather than to particular
augural expertise (cf. Plut. Mar. 36. 45, 40. 6), Cic. here provides
a speciWc augural example (if it is historical), which he underlines by
more augural language: notavit (recognized) is the technical term for
noting a signiWcant sign; and fausta (of good omen); cf. Arnob. Nat.
1. 65.
Thus Jupiter himself conWrmed the clear omen of the eagle
Thunder on the left was auspicious (cf. Ov. Fast. 4. 833; Plin. HN
2. 142; Serv. Aen. 2. 54; Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 2. 693). The conWrmation
of an auspical sign by a clap of thunder underlines for Marius the
certainty of his return. According to Servius (Aen 2. 691) it was
a Roman custom to seek conWrmation by a second sign, but unless
we conWrm this from the parallel use of haruspices and the Board of
Ten (e.g. 1. 97) and a line of Ennius (Ann. 146 Sk), for which the
context and interpretation is not secure, historical instances do not
exist. Contra Pease this is not a fulgur attestatum (Sen. NQ 2. 49. 2)
in that it does not conWrm another lightning portent (cf. Thulin
1905: 79). The combination of eagle and lightning was an omen of
victory in war for the Argead kings (Posidippus 31. 12 AB).
107. The famous augurate of Romulus . . . accepted by the
trustworthy and passed down to posterity Auguratus is augurate
(cf. TLL i. 13689) rather than augury and implies nothing about
the subsequent college of augurs which some accounts attribute to
Romulus after the foundation of Rome (e.g. Cic. Rep. 2. 16). According to Jocelyn (1971: 45) the contrast between pastoralis and urbanus
is pointed because the Aventine lay outside the pomerium, and thus
beyond the limit where the magistrates could rightly take auspices,
but this is forced in that (i) the pomerium has not yet been deWned
and (ii) Quintus is restating the points made in 1. 105, where such an
anachronistic piece of augural nicety is irrelevant. Quintus addition
to his earlier point is solely to use the general acceptance of this
auspication by Roman posterity to guarantee its historicity. As such,
366
Commentary
it functions as the climactic example of divination in this section of

his argumentthe most exalted statesman of the most powerful
civilized nation used augury.
the augur Romulus, as it appears in Ennius The quotation comes
from book 1 of Ennius Annales (7291 Sk). Vahlen (1894: 1144)
argues that Romulus augur is part of the quotation, although it is
awkwardly separated from it by the parenthetical ut apud Ennium est
and cum fratre item augure. I distinguish these words from the poetic
quotation.
Taking care with great care . . . devoted themselves to both auspices
and augury The repetition and duplication is in imitation of solemn legal or ritual language (e.g. HaVter 1934: 33 n. 7), but the
terminology is chosen with care for its appropriateness to the augural
context. Operam dare auspicio is a set phrase (cf. Festus 276 L;
Cic. Leg. 2. 20; Livy 34. 14. 1). Ennius coupling of auspicium and
augurium creates a solemn eVect (cf. Livy 5. 52. 2: we have a city
founded by auspication and inauguration), but we should also
expect some augural precision in the terms despite the poetic context. Wissowa (RE ii. 25801) sought the distinction in the twins
exercise of both a magisterial and an augural function, to which
respectively the two augural terms were most appropriate. This
Wnds favour with Timpanaro (xxxviii n. 27), but is rejected as
artiWcial by Skutsch (1985: 224 n. 40). Perhaps the key here is the
diVerent results of auspicium and augurium: by the former the gods
gave their consent to proceed with the object of the consultation on
that day, by the latter a permanent approval of the project itself was
secured. Both results were essential and appropriate for the city
which was to rule the world.
On the Murcus Remus took his seat for the auspication and
watched alone for a bird of good omen The MSS read in monte
auspicio se devovet atque secundam (on the hill Remus by his auspicy
vowed himself to the gods below and of good omen). This is problematic in two respects: Wrst there is no speciWc location given for
Remus auspication and secondly the line is unmetrical. Skutsch
remedies the Wrst problem by emending to in Murco. The Murcus
Commentary
367
(LTUR iii. 26970) was the older name for the Aventine according
to Festus (135 L); the cult of Murcia at the SE end of the spina in
the Circus Maximus and references to the rock above the temple
and grove of the Bona Dea locate Remus station with far greater
precision (Wiseman 1995: 113, 137). As for the metrical problems,
two main solutions have been suggested: (i) to excise secundam
(of good omen) as redundant for metre (H. Jordan, Quaestiones
Ennianae (Konigsberg, 1885), 8) or for meaning since ex hypothesi
both twins were looking for favourable birds (Wiseman 1995: 171);
or (ii) to emend se devovet (devoted his attention to or vowed
himself to the gods below) to sedet (took his seat) on the grounds
that the former meaning of se devovere is unparalleled, whereas
sedet produces recognizable augural terminology (e.g. Serv. Aen. 9.
4, 6. 197; Festus 4702, 474 L; so Skutsch 1985: 2245). While the
second interpretation of se devovit has been defended (Jocelyn 1971:
603; Wiseman 1995: 171), a line of Terence (Eunuch. 780: solus
Sannio servat domi [Sannio keeps watch at home alone]) which is
close to the Ennian line and a scholium on it (SERVAT pro sedet
et servat . . . nam non servat nisi qui prius in eodem loco sederit,
he cannot watch unless he has Wrst sat in the same place) which
displays Donatus knowledge of augural terminology and procedure,
supports Skutschs emendation (J. Linderski, Mnem. 42 (1989),
903 1995: 52730). Watched for (servat) is again augural terminology (Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 6. 198: servare . . . is used in the
terminology of augurs both of the heaven and of the sky).
fair Romulus sought on the high Aventine The adjective fair
(pulcer ; cf. 38 Sk), so often used of gods (cf. 1. 40), suggests the
favoured status of Romulus. Apart from a passage in Servius (Aen. 3.
46: Romulus, having received the augury, threw a spear from the
Aventine to the Palatine . . .), which may reXect the view of Varro (cf.
Arnob. Nat. 4. 3), the later tradition is that Romulus observed from
the Palatine (e.g. Livy 1. 6. 4; Dion. Hal. 1. 86. 2; Ov. Fast. 4. 81518;
Aul. Gell. 13. 14. 5). This relocation of Romulus is a result of the
Murcian having lost its separate identity during the 2nd cent.
watched for the tribe of those who Xy on high Watched (servat)
repeats the augural terminology from the lines on Remus. Although
368
Commentary
Skutsch (1985: 226) is right to argue that the tribe of those who Xy
on high (genus altivolantium) is a poetical rather than augural
expression, a calque on hypsipetes, given the wider use of augural
language of this passage, this may be a poetic equivalent of an
augural term specifying those birds seen by the augur in the celestial
templum (cf. 106 wings of good omen and 108).
They fought whether to call the city Rome or Remora The city
would be named after its founder. Cf. Festus 327 L: Romulus called
Rome after his own name, and Rome not Romula so that by the
richer signiWcance of the word there would be an omen of greater
prosperity for his country; 345 L: the place on the top of the
Aventine, where Remus had taken the auspices for the foundation
of the city, is called Remoria. The names of the brothers embody
a basic polarity: Romulus is connected with vigour, strength, and
speed (e.g. Plut. Rom. 1. 1; cf. Erskine 1995: 36883), while Remus
connotes slowness and delay (OGR 21. 45; cf. Festus 345 L: in
augury birds are called remores which compel someone who is
about to do something to delay).
108. They waited just as . . . from the painted mouths of which the
chariots soon rush An image taken from chariot-racing, where the
presiding magistrate gave the starting signal by dropping a white
cloth from his balcony (J. H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses: Arenas for
Chariot Racing (London, 1986), 1534). The starting gates (carceres)
of the Circus Maximus were built in 329, remained wooden till
the Early Empire (ibid., 133), and could easily have been painted
(cf. L. Valmaggi, RF 22 (1898), 116).
the people, their faces showing their apprehension for the
future . . . The people belong in the background story. Gratwick
(CR 37 (1987), 164) prefers the Renaissance conjecture ora tenebat
(kept silent) on the grounds that fear is an inappropriate emotion.
However, the supporters of one of the protagonists had their homes
at stake.
Meanwhile the blazing sun retreated to the darkness of night
Jocelyn (1971: 702) suggests that sol albus is the morning star
Commentary
369
(cf. Enn. Ann. 5712), Skutsch (1985: 231) sunset of the day before
the contest, as the twins took their augural positions in the early
hours of the morning (Festus 470 L, 474 L, after the middle of the
night; Aul. Gell. 3. 2. 10), and now Albis (2001: 2532) returns to
the idea of Merula that the moon is meant.
Then a bright light revealed itself struck by rays Light (lux) here
is something other than the sun itself (see below), in fact the light
seen before the sun appears above the horizon. This is the earliest
moment for signiWcant auspices (cf. Vahlen 1894: 1154 n. 2).
on high, Xew by far the most beautiful bird, of good omen, on the
left Three augural terms are juxtaposed: (i) of good omen
(praepes), see on 1. 106, (ii) on the left (laeva), see on 1. 12, and
(iii) most beautiful (pulcherrima). Longe (by far) modiWes pulcherrima (pace M. Haupt, Opuscula, ii. (Leipzig, 1875), 455) and thus
underlines the excellence of this auspice. For Skutsch (1985: 234),
Ennius describes the sign given to Romulus, with bird (avis) as
a collective singular which is common in augural formulae (e.g.
Varro LL 6. 82), but from the structure of the passage Remus has
a better claim (cf. Timpanaro; Wiseman 1995: 172 n. 40). In
most versions Remus saw six birds (e.g. Dion. Hal. 1. 86. 3; Livy 1.
7. 1; Ov. Fast. 4. 817).
at the very moment the golden sun arose, thrice four sacred bodies
of birds fell from heaven Ennius demonstrates that this occurs
after Remus has seen his bird. Cf. Wiseman 1995: 7: the careful
precision with which he identiWed the exact moments when the
one bird and the twelve birds appeared. Romulus claimed to have
seen twelve vultures (e.g. Dion. Hal. 1. 86. 4), a bird connected with
Vel, the Etruscan god of Wre (J. Heurgon, REL 14 (1936), 10918).
Although, according to Plutarch (Rom. 9. 67; Mor. 286a) and Festus
(214 L) it had an augural signiWcance, their reports are probably
inXuenced by Augustus reporting of the same augury in 43
(Suet. Aug. 95).
positioned themselves in fair stations of good omen Two of the
augural terms are repeated from above, fair (pulcer) and of good
370
Commentary
omen (praepes). For Skutsch this means that the birds settled in
auspicious places (cf. Aul. Gell. 7. 6. 3, 8; Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 6. 15),
foreshadowing the settlement of Romulus and his followers, but
nothing more than direction is necessary.
From this Romulus saw that he had been given preference Understood (conspicit) in the augural sense of bringing together and
interpreting what he had seen. Ennius text is corrupt: the majority
of MSS (AVHB) read propriam, others prioram (B2) or priora (F ;
followed by Giomini; Jocelyn 1971: 73; Wiseman 1995: 172 n. 41)
and Muller has conjectured propritim (as his own; followed by
Skutsch, Schaublin). I tentatively read priora, understanding this of
priority in rank (cf. Val. Max. 1. 4. prf.: potiora) and possibly as
a Graecism (ta prota). Developed augural theory dealt with the
situation where a second sign opposed a Wrst (see on 1. 124), but
the number of birds is not crucial. Although Servius appears to
support Romulus belief (Aen. 12. 183: in auguries the Wrst yields
to the later), his comment is probably incomplete (cf. Regell 1893:
21 n. 54): a second sign only overrides the Wrst when it is more
powerful, as appears to be the teaching with respect to peremptalia
fulgura (cf. Festus 284 L).
10931 In this Wnal major section of the dialogue the main problem facing Quintus is whether a rational explanation (or
explanations) can be oVered for all types of divination, both natural
and artiWcial. The abruptness of the transition to these arguments,
which begin with natural divination, is exacerbated by the concentration of the intervening chapters on artiWcial divination. The
remaining discussion falls into two parts (11017, 11824) dealing
respectively with natural and artiWcial divination, which evince substantial diVerences of approach (cf. Schaublin). The second section is
heavily inXuenced by Posidonius, who is its likely source, but the
source for the Wrst section is less certain. I follow the view of Tarrant
(2000a: 6374) that Cratippus lies behind it (see introd., 4), but
Cic. has greatly abbreviated the argumentation, it would appear, and
has produced transitions within the argument which are far
from smooth. On this view, the two sources oVer incompatible
explanations of the respective forms of divination, which Cic. could
Commentary
371
hardly succeed in marrying harmoniously and which, given his own

position, he had no interest in attempting to do. What appears as
inconsistency within Quintus argument, particularly in relation to
the status of artiWcial divination, may be due less to excessive haste in
composition by Cic. than to a deliberate intention to represent the
diYculties of Quintus in Peripatetic mode in reconciling his support
of Cratippus (or someone with similar views) with the traditional
Stoic doctrine upholding both artiWcial and natural divination
(cf. Timpanaro).
109. But to return to the point from which my discourse broke
oV Probably Quintus means back to 1. 85 . . . each type of divination (Timpanaro), the last point at which Greek philosophical
input was important. Schaublin demonstrates (1985: 164 n. 32a)
how well Quintus argument develops from the earlier section, in
which he argued for the fact of divination, to this where he oVers the
how (ratio) (cf. the emphasis at 1. 118).
If I cannot explain why anything happens . . . would that be a weak
answer to Epicurus and Carneades? Cf. 1. 12, 35, 84 for Quintus
empirical argument. In the previous section on natural divination
Quintus again paired Epicurus and Carneades (1. 62), the chief
opponents of all forms of divination.
if the explanation for artiWcial foreknowledge is straightforward,
but that of divine foreknowledge is somewhat more obscure
While the argument at this introductory part of the section must,
notionally at least, encompass both types of divination, the contrast
between artiWcial and divine (again at 1. 111; cf. Iambl. Myst.
28990), rather than artiWcial and natural, suggests the superiority
of the latter, which would be the Platonic and Peripatetic position
(and may strengthen the case for Cratippan inXuence on the
argument). Quintus characterization of the respective explanations
(ratio) for artiWcial and natural divination appears problematic, in
that natural divination, with its long-established connection with
soul theory, does oVer a relatively simple explanation how, whereas
Posidonius arguments relating to artiWcal divination do not get to
grips with the how. So he promises what he does not deliver,
372
Commentary
an explanation of artiWcial divination (cf. Schaublin and Timpanaro)

and later appears to make the reverse point, that the argument from
nature made for natural divination is hard to transfer to artiWcial
divination and therefore that the latter is more diYcult to explain.
However, although one might suspect a polarity error in the text
here, there is no fundamental contradiction (see on 1. 130). If,
however, by explanation Quintus means (or we expect) something
linking cause and eVect, we are to be disappointed in respect of
artiWcial divination, whereas if explanation is used in the limited
sense of logical procedure followed, there is little problem, but also
little contribution to the argument. In the next sentence, the most
obvious referent of the straightforward explanation, it is simply the
process of observation and recording which gives the how of artiWcial
divination, something removed from Posidonius arguments.
entrails . . . stars . . . an extraordinary science Quintus omits augury
from this list of techniques of artiWcial divination, but made this
exact point at 1. 25. The tendency of the argument in Quintus source
is to reduce artiWcial divination to a science, divorced from true
divination in which the gods are directly involved, and is fully
compatible with Cratippus. In Stoic thought stochastic techniques,
among which they classiWed divination, were diVerent from sciences
(Repici 1996: 501) because of the imperfect results they produced.
This can exist even without the intervention and inspiration of the
gods . . . From Cratippus point of view this is a logical step:
artiWcial divination is no more than the application of human
rationality and is not divination at all; the decisions of a doctor or
good politician are comparable. In previous discussions of this passage the simple word can (potest) has aroused dispute. In one view it
has minimal connection with the philosophical arguments relating to
artiWcial divination, but simply makes a commonsense point about
the rational recording of signs and outcomes (cf. the contents of
1. 11213). In other views can makes a crucial change to the
philosophical argument and has consequences for the identiWcation
of Cic.s source. If can in this statement, as it does at 1. 118 (a sentient
force which pervades the whole world can guide in the choice of
a sacriWcial victim, and at the very moment when you intend to
Commentary
373
sacriWce, a change of entrails can take place), relates to artiWcial

divination, it creates an apparent agreement by relativizing
positions which may have been incompatible (cf. Finger 1929:
3728). It is, however, more likely that Cic. has here severely truncated his source, omitting the entire category of real artiWcial divination, as etiam (even) shows (PfeVer 1976: 90). Finger posited
Antiochus of Ascalon as Cic.s source, but he does not feature in
the doxography on divination, which Cic. has adapted from its Stoic
source to include Cratippus, and it would be odd if his views on
divination, for which we have no evidence (see Fladerer 1996), were
utilized by Cic. without any indication.
110. should be ascribed to the nature of the gods . . . as the most
learned philosophers agree At 1. 117 Quintus will refer to the
discussion in De Natura Deorum. The learned philosophers are
probably Pythagoras and Plato, rather than Hellenistic philosophers
(Tarrant 2000a: 67).
drawn and gathered Of these two metaphors describing the relationship of human souls to the divine, the Wrst drawn (haurire)
appears at 1. 70 in a view expressly attributed to Cratippus. Although
Finger quibbles (1929: 373) that the view apparently expressed here,
that the whole soul without diVerentiation is divine, contradicts
Cratippus view that only the rational part of the soul is touched by
the divine, this is still the general introduction to the more detailed
exposition of the how of divination and a brief formulation is not
problematic. Gathered translates delibare, which originally meant
pour or draw oV . A more natural image is of plucking (e.g. Cic.
Sest. 119), seen in carpere and its compounds and equivalent to the
apospasma found in Greek testimonia to this doctrine (cf. Powell
1988: 254). Cf. Cic. Sen. 78 (quoted at 1. 70); ND 1. 27: [Pythagoras]
held that the mind is throughout the whole universe . . . from which
our souls are plucked (carperentur); Tusc. 5. 38: the human soul is
plucked (decerptus) from the divine mind (cf. Leg. 1. 24; Rep. 6. 16,
24; Tim. 4). From its Pythagorean origin (cf. Diog. Laert. 8. 28: the
soul is a fragment (apospasma) of ether . . . and that from which it is
broken oV (apespastai) is immortal), it was taken up by Stoics (e.g.
Diog. Laert. 7. 143: the universe is a living creature . . . and it is
374
Commentary
ensouled, as is clear from our soul being a fragment (apospasmatos)

from that source, which Kidd attributes to Posidonius (Fr. 99a)).
Since the universe is Wlled . . . with eternal intelligence and the
divine mind, human souls are necessarily inXuenced by their
relationship with divine souls For the pervasive divine mind, cf.
Sext. Emp. Math. 9. 127: there exists one spirit which extends
through the whole universe like a soul. For Finger (1929: 386), this
formulation rules out Posidonius as a source, as the separation of
body and soul involved is far sharper than that required in Posidonius system in which the all-pervading godhead inXuences directly
the human being, but Theiler rightly argues that commoveri and
cognatio are Posidonian terms. Relationship (cognatione) is
a correction of the cognitione (knowledge) of the MSS, preferable to
the alternative contagione (contamination), because of its appearance
in the Posidonian passage 1. 64 and at 2. 33, and because the usual
negative connotation of contagio (cf. 1. 63) is not appropriate
here. Divine souls include the daimones of 1. 64. At 1. 115 the
fundamental kinship of all soul material is again made plain.
our souls are subject to the necessities of life and . . . are hindered
from association with the divine Cf. the description at 1. 623.
Restraints, literally chains (vincula), evokes the idea found in
Platos Phaedo (62b; cf. Cra. 400c; Phdr. 250c), and attributed by
him to the wise (hoi sophoi, Gorg. 492d), of the body as a prison or
tomb. It is found in Cic.s dialogues (Rep. 6. 14; Sen. 81; Tusc. 1. 75)
and later (e.g. Iambl. Myst. 3. 3: we are freed . . . from certain
chains laid upon us). Even if it is Platonic in origin and thereby
important to Cratippus, Cic.s probable source here, the expression is
perfectly compatible with Stoic thought (cf. Sen. Cons. Pol. 9. 3; Cons.
Helv. 11. 7).
111. Rare is that class of men This paragraph was judged
non-Posidonian by Reinhardt (1926: 265 V.), but, on the basis that
its deWnition of philosophy echoes that of Tusc. 5. 7, which probably
was taken from Posidonius, Finger (1929: 386) argues that it is
Posidonian. On my assumption that Cratippus is the basic source
for 1. 10916, this introduces an important parenthetical passage
Commentary
375
(1. 11112) in which Cratippus distinguishes from true divination

the predictions made by those who through concentrated thought
can make prognostications, or scientiWc forecasts (cf. Iambl. Myst.
10. 3: divination by human reasoning of earthquake production).
True divination is by divine inspiration alone. This distinction may
plausibly owe much to Cratippus reading of Platos Meno (99be; see
Tarrant 2000b: 71).
possessed by an all-consuming concern and enthusiasm for the
contemplation of things divine The description of these philosophers deliberately parallels the recipients of divine inspiration
(Repici 1996: 51), but their asceticism does not lead to divine
inspiration. Plato, according to Diog. Laert. (3. 63), deWned
philosophy as desire for divine wisdom. In Greek sources philosophy
is often deWned as knowledge of things divine and human (Aet.
Plac. 1. proem. 2; Philo Congr. 79; Sext. Emp. Math. 9. 13), whence
it is found in Cic. (Tusc. 4. 57, 5. 7; OV. 1. 153, 2. 5) and Seneca
(Ep. 89. 5).
The auguries of these do not derive from divine inspiration but
from human reason A non-technical use of augury. This distinction is said to go back to the seven sages: Chilon used to say that
prescience of the future was a skill a man could acquire by rationality
(logismoi) (Diog. Laert. 1. 68).
Xoods and the conXagration of heaven and earth which is to come
sometime The plural of Xoods and sometime may suggest that
Quintus does not refer here to any doctrine of a cosmic Xood (cf. Sen.
NQ 3. 27. 115), although Plato and Aristotle had envisaged alternate
destructions by Wre and water (Tim. 22c; Cens. DN 18. 11), a view
which late sources attribute also to the Stoics (Comm. Bern. Luc. 7.
813; Orig. C. Cels. 4. 64). Both objects of the prediction are part of
the doctrine of the burning up (ekpyrosis) of the universe which was
characteristic of the early Stoics. Two fragments of Heraclitus (DK
30, 90) can suggest that he originated the doctrine (C. H. Kahn, The
Art and Thought of Heraclitus (Cambridge, 1979), 1334), but the
Wrst deWnite attribution is indirectly from the 4th cent. ad via
Simplicius (in. Cael. 1. 10), who points to the Stoics as later holders
376
Commentary
of the view. Early Stoics such as Cleanthes (e.g. SVF i. 1069) believed
in a periodic conXagration, while the later Stoics Boethus and Panaetius preferred an indestructible universe (Philo Aet. Mundi 15; Cic.
ND 2. 118). Posidonius, on the basis of his conception of pneuma,
returned to the older position (fr. 13, 97, 99b K), which remained the
standard Stoic position (Glucker 1999: 33). Cic. could be taking this
either from Posidonius or Cratippus.
Perhaps sometime (aliquando) suggests a certain scepticism on the
calculations, which (as for Aristotles greatest year) were based on
the conjunction of sun, moon, and Wve planets (Arist. Protr. fr. 19).
Solon Solon, as mediator and archon, brought stability to
strife-torn Attica in the early 6th cent., while Pisistratus became
tyrant, intermittently from 566 and uninterruptedly from 546 till
his death. Solon opposed the grant of a bodyguard to Pisistratus
(Diog. Laert. 1. 49; Plut. Sol. 30. 2; Ael. VH 8. 16). Diod. (9. 20. 2, 19.
1. 4) with some caution (legetai) quotes verses of Solon which
Athenians later treated as a kind of oracle: from cloud comes the
force of snow and hail, thunder from a Xash of lightning, from
powerful men a citys destruction, and through ignorance the masses
fall enslaved to a tyrant. If they raise a man too high, it is not easy
to restrain him afterwards; it is now that one should consider
everything (fr. 9 W). The analogy which Solon makes between the
natural phenomena and human tyranny illustrates well the rational
kind of prediction to which Quintus refers.
It is impossible to date this piece of Solons verse within his long
careerthe opposition to tyranny could easily come from the early
6th cent., before Pisistratus was signiWcant. See E. A. Anhalt, Solon
the Singer: Politics and Poetics (Lanham, 1993).
We can call these men prudent, that is, they take forethought, but
we can in no way call them divine Quintus plays with an
etymology used by Cic. in his extant (Rep. 6. 1; Leg. 1. 60) and lost
(Hortensius, Non. Marc. 60 L fr. 96 G) philosophical works which
derives prudentia from providentia.
Thales of Miletus . . . bloom The earliest version of this story
occurs in Aristotle (Pol. 1259a617; cf. Diog. Laert. 1. 26): for
Commentary
377
example Thales the Milesian and his idea for making money, which
involves a principle of universal application, but is attributed to him
on account of his wisdom. When he was reproached for his poverty
on the grounds that philosophy was of no use, they say that he knew
by his knowledge of the stars while it was still winter that there would
be a great harvest of olives; so, having a little money, he gave deposits
for all the olive-presses in Chios and Miletus, which he hired at a low
price because no one bid against him. When the harvest-time came,
and many were searching at the same time and all of a sudden, he let
them out at whatever rate he pleased; he made a quantity of money
and demonstrated that it is easy for philosophers to be rich if they
want to, but that that is not what they are concerned about. This is
a Xoating anecdote elsewhere attributed to Democritus (Plin. HN 18.
273; E. PfeiVer, Studien zur antiken Sternglauben (Leipzig, 1916), 96).
Cic. appears to have Thales buy up the olives rather than the presses,
which is an economic nonsense: one would be expected to corner the
market in anticipation of a shortage, not a glut.
Included as one of the Seven Sages, Thales was one of the leading
citizens of Miletus in the early 6th cent. In Herodotus he is a political
adviser and in Plutarch a businessman (Sol. 2. 1), although that may
be an inference from this story in Aristotle (J. P. Herschbell, Hermes
114 (1986), 179). Although it has been suggested that he was not as
much a philosopher as a politician and shrewd businessman
(D. W. Roller, LCM 3 (1978), 24953), his eVorts in the area of
natural philosophy and above all his prediction of the eclipse were
important in establishing his status as one of the seven sages
(OGrady 2002: 26876).
112. by virtue of some knowledge Aristotles knowledge of the
stars (ek tes astrologias) probably means in modern terms astronomy
(cf. Plato Tht. 174a). M.-L. Freyburger-Galland, Thale`s, astrologue
ou astronome?, in B. Bakhouche (ed.), Les Astres (Montpellier,
1996), 26379.
he is said to have been the Wrst to predict the solar eclipse which
took place in the reign of Astyages Hdt. 1. 74. 2: when the battle
[between Alyattes and Cyaxares] had been joined, day suddenly
became night. Thales of Miletus announced to the Ionians that this
378
Commentary
change of day would take place, having set out beforehand the
favourable period/limit, the year in which the change did occur
(cf. Diog. Laert. 1. 23; Clem. Strom. 1. 65; Euseb. Chron. 2. 101 H,
now ruled out as a prediction by W. Lapini, ZPE 126 (1999), 11516).
Thales priority in explaining eclipses was accepted by Eudoxus in his
history of astronomy (Dercyllides in Theon of Smyrna p. 198 Hiller;
Clem. Strom. 1. 65) and thence passed into the common tradition
(e.g. Plin. HN 2. 53). Since 1853 the communis opinio has identiWed
Thales eclipse with the solar eclipse of 28 May 585, on the grounds
that (i) it was the only total eclipse visible in Asia Minor during the
normal campaigning season, and (ii) the date is given by Pliny (HN
2. 53), as established by Apollodorus. There is good evidence that the
Babylonians were able to predict solar eclipses with some accuracy
(J. Steele, JHA 28 (1997), 1339), but whether Thales had access to
their wisdom is unclear. Ingenious explanations have been formulated as to how Thales might have discovered (or learnt of) the Saros
or Exeligmos Cycles with the aid of putative astronomic records in
a city which did not record its eponymous magistrates till 525
(e.g. W. Hartner, Centauros 14 (1969), 6071; D. Panchenko, JHA
25 (1994), 27487), but such knowledge of these cycles as was obtainable in the 6th cent., from any source, could not have enabled
a prediction to have been made that speciWed that an eclipse would
be visible in Asia Minor (OGrady 2002: 12933). Mesopotamian
records did establish that solar eclipses could only happen at or very
near to a new moon (attested also from Thales, P Oxy. 3710) and that
they follow at calculable intervals, but in the 6th cent. they were
not able to forecast solar eclipses. OGrady suggests (2002: 1402)
that Thales was able to predict the date of the eclipse on the basis of
Mesopotamian evidence that a lunar eclipse preceded by 23 lunar
months a solar eclipse visible in the same location. Even if the forecast
is historical, the magnitude of the eclipse, and the terrifying eVect it
had on the combatants, was not predictable. A radical response to the
communis opinio is to hold that the phenomenon described by Herodotus was a total lunar eclipse (T. T. Worthen, Electronic Antiquity 3
(19957), unpaginated). That could have been predicted, but no such
eclipse occurred in 585 (Worthen). Suitable eclipses which aVected
Asia Minor took place on 3 Sept. 609 and 4 July 587. It is preferable
to remain with the traditional identiWcation of a total solar eclipse.
Commentary
379
Problems in synchronizing the reigns of Cyaxares (Hdt.; Eudemus)

or his successor Astyages (Euseb. Chron. 101 H; Solinus 15. 16; P Oxy.
2506 fr. 98) with that of Alyattes and with a total eclipse which was
visible over Asia Minor and would have produced the eVects essential
to Herodotus story, are insurmountable (A. A. Mosshammer, TAPA
111 (1981), 14555; pace D. W. Roller, LCM 8 (1983), 589).
Doctors, pilots, and also farmers all sense many things in
advance, but I call none of them divination At 1. 24 Quintus
links doctors and pilots as practitioners of imperfect sciences, but
who are nonetheless to be regarded as mastering a discipline, and
compares their disciplines with divination. Finger (1929: 387) posits
an inconsistency between 111 and 112: the philosophers and
statesmen who employ rational prediction in the former are few in
number, but the practitioners of 112 are numerousan indication of
careless pasting together from three sources. However, the source
criticism of Finger is forced; the passage proceeds in the deliberate
semi-coherent fashion which Cic. deliberately attributes to
Quintus argument. Philosophers and true diviners are diVerent
from practitioners of any kind of techne (cf. 1. 24 what art).
the Spartans were warned by the natural philosopher Anaximander . . . because an earthquake was imminent Anaximander of
Miletus, traditional dates 611547, attributed seismic activity to the
entry of air into clefts in the ground opened either by excessive heat
or rain (Amm. Marc. 17. 7. 12; cf. Arist. Meteor. 2. 7), a theory
perhaps developed in Sparta, which was renowned for its
earthquakes (Strabo 367c). Anaximanders stay in Sparta (cf. Diog.
Laert. 2. 1) is historical and may be dated c.550 from a Spartan cup
representing the world as conceived by Anaximander (M. Conche,
Anaximandre: Fragments et temoignages (Paris, 1991), 3841), but the
means by which he predicted the earthquake is obscure. From under
arms P. Ducat (in B. Helly and A. Pollino (eds.), Tremblements
de terre: Histoire et archeologie (Valbonne, 1984), 76) infers the
earthquake of 464, which triggered a Helot revolt, and traces
the account (cf. Plin. HN 2. 191; Plut. Cim. 16) to Ephorus. However,
this is very diYcult to square (i) with the dates for Anaximander, and
(ii) the logical requirement of Cic.s story of a small gap between the
380
Commentary
prophecy and fulWlment. Better to link the earthquake with one

from the mid-6th cent. before the rebuilding of major temples in
stone c.550 (cf. P. Cartledge, LCM 1 (1976), 26). For particular
Spartan worship of Poseidon and sensitivity to earthquakes, see
J. Mylonopoulos, Poseidon, der Erderschutterer: Religiose Interpretationen von Erd- und Seebeben, in E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend
(eds.), Naturkatastrophen in der antiken Welt (Stuttgart, 1998), 858.
the extremities of Mount Taygetus were torn away like a ships
stern Strabo 367c: some record that some of the peaks of
Taygetus were shorn oV (cf. Plut. Cim. 16. 4). The geological evidence shows that there have been major slides, but the centre of
Sparta, 4 km from Mount Taygetus, could not have been Xattened by
a rockfall, as Pliny (HN 2. 191) rhetorically says, embellishing from
Cic.s account.
Pherecydes, the renowned teacher of Pythagoras Pherecydes
from Syrus is linked with four separate stories of predictions and
a spurious scientiWc invention. He was considered the Wrst writer of
Greek prose, a work probably entitled Peri tes physeos ton theon (On
the nature of the gods) (Schibli 1990: 16) or Theologia/Theogonia
(D. L. Toye, Mnem. 50 (1997), 53060). His relationship with
Pythagoras is attested widely, although a Wrsthand masterpupil
relationship is questionable (Schibli 1990: 1113).
he said an earthquake was imminent after he had seen water
drawn from a never-failing well Cf. Diog. Laert. 1. 116: having
drunk water from a well, he foretold that on the third day there
would be an earthquake, and there was; Apollonius Paradoxographus Hist. Mir. 5: once on the island of Syrus he was thirsty and
asked for a little water from someone he knew; after drinking he
predicted that there would be an earthquake on the third day. When
this came to pass he won a great reputation; Paradox. Vat. 30:
Pherecydes of Syrus, having drunk from a certain well, became
very mantic and predicted some earthquakes and other things;
Max. Tyr. Dial. 13. 5: Pherecydes also predicted an earthquake
to the Samians. Andron charged Theopompus with stealing this
miracle from Pythagoras (cf. Iambl. VP 136) and attributing it to
Commentary
381
Pherecydes (Euseb. Praep. evang. 10. 3. 69). On the Xuidity of

location and identity of the prophet, cf. Amm. Marc. 22. 16. 22.
Although the water level in wells can be changed by earthquakes, as
was recognized from antiquity (e.g. Arist. Plant. 822b347; Paus. 7.
24. 8), the anecdotes suggest that it was from drinking rather than
drawing the water that Pherecydes made his prediction, therefore
most likely the colour or taste of the water was aVected (cf. Pliny HN
2. 197: in wells the water becomes more stirred up and with
a somewhat foul smell).
rather than a natural philosopher Although Cic. (or his source)
include Pherecydes among the Presocratic philosophers, in Aristotle
he appears as one of the memigmenoi who give a mixed account, in
that they do not say everything in myth (Metaph. 1091b89), a fair
judgement from the extant fragments of Pherecydes work (Schibli
1990: 92, 134).
113. the human soul does not divine naturally . . . as happens only
for prophets and dreamers By this heavily emphasized link and
recapitulation Quintus signals the end of the parenthetic discussion
of non-divinatory prediction (1. 11112) and the return to the
explanation of natural divination, of which he recognizes only two
types, as is signalled by the use of aut . . . aut.
On this basis those two kinds of divination are sanctioned by
Dicaearchus and, as I said, by our friend Cratippus Schaublin
seems overstrict in positing an error by Cic. (cf. 1. 87), in that
Dicaearchus has been mentioned only in the introduction (1. 5)
and not in Quintus argument. Rather, Quintus words show that
he is well aware that he has mentioned only Cratippus (1. 70). It is
diYcult to divine here that Quintus has diverged from his main
source here (so Schaublin), but the next two sentences are in eVect
another parenthesis in the argument which continues at 1. 114.
If for this reason . . . they are admittedly the most important, they
are not the only types Quintus needs to disagree with Cratippus
and Dicaearchus in order to include both natural and artiWcial
divination, but out of personal friendship for Cratippus and because
382
Commentary
of a shared Peripatetic perspective (cf. 2. 100) he concedes the

superiority of natural divination. This, however, is not explicit in
the continuation of the argument (but see below on 125 V.).
they remove many of the things with which the scheme of life is
bound up Although Quintus may be speaking as a Roman here,
saying that to be deprived of the services of augurs and haruspices
would remove the rules by which public life was run, the meaning of
the scheme of life (vitae ratio) should be more closely related to the
argument. If the meaning of the last clause (cf. Cic. Acad. 2. 132) is
everyday life (Falconer), it may refer to the practices of doctors and
farmers, etc. Quintus would then be rejecting a total denial of the
value of the stochastic technai.
But, seeing that they make a concession, and not a small one . . .
Quintus continues with the soft glove approach to Cratippus, even
though his position is opposed to the main line of argument which
will be resumed in the next sentence.
[prophecies with dreams] To be excluded as a gloss, with all editors
since Davies.
there are some who approve of no form of divination whatsoever
E.g. Epicurus and Xenophanes (see on 1. 5).
114. So The argument picks up from the end of 1. 110; cf. the
similar chain of thought in Iambl. Myst. 3. 3. There is clear intermixing of the philosophical original with Quintus Roman colouring
(e.g. the poetic quotations of 114 and the Roman examples at the
beginning of 115).
those whose souls . . . take wing and rush away, inXamed and excited
by some passion The Wrst category of natural divination to be
treated is ecstatic prophecy. The activity of the soul is described in
vivid language, suggestive of the phenomenon of shamanism in
which the spirit of the shaman is liberated from the body and sets
oV on a mantic journey or psychic excursion (Dodds 1951: 88 n.
43). Plato himself may have been fascinated by the phenomenon in
Commentary
383
relation to the translocation of the soul and have used in his most
inXuential description of inspiration in the Phaedrus language
inXuenced by shamanism (cf. L. ShenWeld, Pegasus 41 (1998),
1524). Cratippus and others emphasize the physical aspect of
separation, which was not part of Platos picture of the soul (cf. 1.
114 cling to the body and 1. 129 mixed up with the body).
The image of Xying goes back to Homer (Il. 22. 362) and was taken
up by Pythagoras (Max. Tyr. 10. 2) and most importantly by Plato
(e.g. Phdr. 246c; Phd. 70a; in Cic. cf. Rep. 6. 14, 29). Aristeas and
others were reputed to have souls which Xed far from their bodies to
other countries and encountered people (Plut. Mor. 592c; Iambl. VP
136; Apoll. Paradox. Hist. Mir. 3), but something diVerent is required
for the prophet who sees what is not yet. InXamed . . . passion,
although ostensibly metaphorical, reXects the Stoic conception
of the nature of the ether, in which the souls moved, as Wery (e.g.
Cic. ND 1. 37). Excited, cf. 1. 66.
without doubt do see those things which they proclaim as they
prophesy This emphatic statement has been interpreted as philosophical polemic, presenting the view of Posidonius for whom the
gods did reveal themselves directly through dreams and prophecies,
in contrast to the Dualists for whom only imagines were seen (Finger
1929: 38794): cernunt (see) seems factive.
some are roused by a particular tone of voice or by Phrygian
songs For the Wrst cf. 1. 80. Aristotle Pol. 1342b1: of the modes
the Phrygian has the same potential as the aulos among instruments:
both of them are exciting and emotional. This is evident in practice,
for all bacchic celebration and that sort of dancing . . . go most
appropriately with melodies in the Phrygian mode (cf. Sen. Ep.
108. 7). The Phrygian mode, suitable for moods ranging from cheerful to frenzied, was considered as inspired (Lucian Harmon. 1; Apul.
Flor. 4) and arousing (Plat. Symp. 215c; Arist. Pol. 1340a9), although
sometimes it produced negative eVects (Cic. De consiliis suis fr. 3).
See West 1992: 1801.
Groves and woods move many souls, rivers or seas move many
Groves and woods were commonly thought to increase ones sense of
384
Commentary
the divine (cf. Sen. Ep. 41. 3), probably because they were the haunt
of divinity (see on 1. 101). Something wider than the locations
associated with Dionysiac enthusiasm is meant, as the inclusion of
seas and rivers shows.
Alas! See! . . . The third quotation in the dialogue from Ennius
Alexander (cf. 1. 42, 66; Jocelyn 1967: fr. 17. 479). Cassandras
prophecy of the judgement of Paris in favour of Aphrodite, as a result
of which Paris lured Helen to Troy and brought about its destruction.
Jocelyn conjectures that Ennius introduced a vision of the night of
Troys fall with Helen waving, like a Fury from a tragedy, a torch to
signal the Greek attackers (1967: 219), but a far more general allusion
to the vengeance that was to come may equally be involved. Clearly the
Ennius quotation was not in Cic.s philosophic source, but Cic. builds
on the earlier presentation of Cassandra as the typical ecstatic prophet.
in the same way many prophecies have been made by seers not only
in words Although the place of inspired prophecy in Roman religion has been minimized, there is now an increasing acceptance of its
prominence in the 3rd cent., and not just in the highly charged years
of the Second Punic War (North 2000: 92107). Examples of prose
prophecies have not survived, but that is what Quintus clearly means
by words (verbis), even if the clarifying supplement solutis (Thoresen) is not accepted.
in verse which Fauns and seers once used to sing A quotation from
the proem to book 7 of Ennius Annales (207 Sk.) which in context
explains Ennius refusal to narrate the First Punic War at length because
of its lengthy treatment by others, notably Naevius, in Saturnian verse.
Varro (LL 7. 36) comments on this line: it has been handed down that
[Fauns], in the so-called Saturnian verse, were accustomed in wellwooded spots to speak (fari) events which were to come, from
which speaking they were called Fauns (fauni). Seers (vates)the old
writers used to give this name to poets from plaiting (viere) verses
(cf. Festus 432 L; Auct. Orig. 4. 45). Cf. 1. 101 for Fauns.
115. the seers Marcius and Publicius are said to have prophesied
in verse For Marcius, see on 1. 89. Publicius is mentioned only by
Commentary
385
Cic. here and at 2. 113 with a pejorative whoever he was (nescio cui).
Grammarians quote individual words from the seer Marcius (Festus
162, 185 L; Isid. Orig. 6. 8. 12) which are compatible with Saturnian
metre, but not with hexameters, while the carmina Marciana quoted
by Livy (25. 12. 56, 910) and Macrobius (Sat. 1. 17. 28) appear to
have been composed in prose with the cadences of hexameters,
although this may be the creation of the annalists (cf. Klotz, RE xiv.
15412). For tentative support of the authorship of Livius Andronicus (made Wrst by L. Herrmann, Carmina Marciana, in Hommages a`
G. Dumezil (Brussels, 1960), 11723), and for the existence of verses
composed in a mixture of Saturnians and dactylic cadences, see
Guittard 1985a: 3947.
the riddles of Apollo were expressed in the same way The historical evidence of the Delphic oracle is complex: while the literary
sources such as Herodotus present responses in verse, the majority
of oracles preserved on stone down to the mid-4th cent. are in prose.
In the archaic period Delphi may have been unique in giving some
responses of Pythia in verse, and may have inspired the form of the
earliest Sibylline prophecies in the 6th cent. Between 100 bc and ad
100 during the period of Delphis decline verse oracles are almost
non-existent (Parke and Wormell 1956: 334). Didymas reponses
from the archaic period were in prose, but after its refoundation in
334 the Milesians copied Delphis practices and for the rest of its
history Didyma produced hexameter responses (H. W. Parke, Hermathena 1301 (1981), 99112). The younger foundation Claros also
produced verse oracles, but in a variety of metres, perhaps to distinguish itself from Didyma.
Rather than unoYcial distributions of such oracles (Pease), or
the collection made by Chrysippus (Thoresen), or examples quoted
in Greek literature, e.g. Herodotus, or even Posidonius, such a general
comment on oracular texts could come from a general knowledge of
Greek historiography.
A riddling nature is crucial to many oracles (cf. Tac. Ann. 2. 54. 4:
through ambiguities, as is the custom for oracles), a feature
frequently derided by Christian writers. Though many Delphic
responses were simple, others were deliberately riddling (cf. the
ironical line of Heraclitus: the lord of the oracle in Delphi does not
386
Commentary
say or conceal, but indicates (semainei) and the epithet loxias

(ambiguous/slanting) which Apollo earned. See Parke and Wormell
1956: ii, pp. xxiiixxviii; Maurizio 2001: 3846.
there were certain exhalations from the earth, Wlled with which
minds poured forth oracles Cf. 1. 38. The past tense reXects Quintus previously expressed view that prophecy had ceased at Delphi (1.
38) and that responses were no longer given in verse. Quintus
support for the notion of a vapour accords with Stoic thought,
which assimilated it to the pneuma. But Cratippus may also have
taken this line, as Aristotle (Mund. 395b269) advanced a similar
explanation.
the same thing that happens to seers . . . almost dead The following
description draws closely on that already given in the discussion of
dreams (esp. 1. 603), which underlines the essential similarity of the
phenomena.
Because the soul has lived from all eternity and has had relations
with countless souls it sees everything that exists in nature The
fundamental question here is whether these words owe more to
Platonic or Stoic doctrine. According to the Stoics, the soul is born
and destroyed (he psyche gennete kai phtharte, Euseb. Praep. evang.
15. 20), which appears to be at odds with this passage. If Posidonius
believed in a periodic ekpyrosis, as seems probable (see on 1. 111), he
cannot in any straightforward way have held that the individual
human soul had lived from all eternity (cf. Glucker 1999: 3941).
Rather, he held that soul in its entirety is immortal and that the
totality of soul had access to the totality of information contained in
its memory (Tarrant 2000a: 70). That, however is very hard to link
with Quintus idea of this soul exhibiting control over its physical
appetites, which far better Wts the individual human soul. If Posidonius is the source, we must hold that he interpreted the kinship of
individual souls with the cosmic soul in such a way that each
individual soul for a period insubstantiates the cosmic soul in respect
of knowledge, a view for which no other evidence exists.
The idea of the individual immortal soul Wts best with Platonic
doctrine. The formulation here has to be explained either as
Commentary
387
a Ciceronian adaptation (e.g. E. Wellmann in E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, iii (Leipzig,
1923), 603 n. 1), introducing a more Platonic or Pythagorean element, or as the product of some source who has linked two passages
in Plato (Meno 81cd; Rep. 614d615a) for the respective ideas of
immortality and communication of souls when they are between
bodies with Platos teaching on dreams (see 1. 601). This individual
is identiWed as some proto-Platonicus by Glucker (1999: 3043) and
plausibly as Cratippus by Tarrant (2000a: 6476; 2000b: 6771), who
was a careful reader of Platos Meno (see on 1. 701).
provided that . . . it remains alert while the body sleeps Cf. 1. 61
116. At this point we encounter Quintus faces up to an apparent
contradiction in his argument which has drawn a sharp distinction
between natural and artiWcial divination, stressing the direct communication of the soul with the divine in the former. If this is so,
the objection goes, why do all forms of natural divination also
require human interpretation (in many respects no diVerently
from artiWcial divination)? Does that not discredit this form of
divination? Even Plato, despite his rejection of artiWcial divination,
admitted that dreams required interpreters, although he refused to
call them diviners (Tim. 72b: it is also customary to appoint the
tribe of prophets to pass judgment on inspired divinations. Some
people call them diviners, those who are wholly ignorant that
they are not diviners but interpreters of the enigmatic voice and
apparition), but Quintus answer is somewhat Stoicizing, as he
resorts to providence. This suggests that his use of Cratippus has
come to an end and that he is now relying on arguments from
Posidonius.
the important interpretation of dreams, which does not occur
naturally but through art Cf. 1. 39: dreams which when explained
according to the interpretation of Antiphon demonstrate the intelligence of the interpreter. Quintus is well aware of the widespread
profession of dream interpretation based on the empirical recording
of dream outcomes collated over many years (cf. Artem. 1. prf.:
I have patiently listened to old dreams and their consequences).
388
Commentary
Quintus own examples of divinely inspired dreams included cases

where interpreters were necessary (1. 39the Galeotae; 1. 45
Tarquins diviners; 1. 46Magi). It may be that Chrysippus accepted
the use of Antiphons exegetical methods to explain obscure dreams
or oracles (C. Levy 1997: 335). Although the excision of Antiphontis
has been rejected as arbitrary, Cic. is not here speaking about
a particular form of dream interpretation (Pendrick 2002: 424).
(likewise the interpretation of both oracles and prophecies)
Delphic prophecies were notorious for requiring interpretation; professional interpreters (exegetai) performed this function for states
(e.g. IG 3. 241)
<all of these> have their interpreters as poets have commentators Cf. 1. 34: Those who interpret all these things . . . just as grammarians do for poets. The line here is excluded by Pease and Schaublin
as a gloss, but is retained by Timpanaro as a defensible repetition in
a section where repetition is rife and because the use of explanator
(interpreter) is thoroughly Ciceronian (cf. Rep. 3. 33; Div. 2. 131).
just as divine Nature would have created gold, silver, bronze, and
iron in vain Quintus argument rests on the Stoic notion of providence (cf. 1. 823)if the gods have created something good for
man, they also give the means or skill by which to enjoy the beneWt.
with every beneWt which the gods have given man some skill has
been linked In the general Stoic view arts were a gift of the gods
(Tert. An. 46: the Stoics hold that god, in his great providence over
the instruction of man, imparted to us, among all the other kinds of
assistance provided by the divinatory sciences and arts, dreams; cf.
Cic. ND 2. 132). Where Cic. appears to reject the divine institution of
the arts (OV. 2. 14), he is arguing against crude, popular notions of
anthropomorphic interventions and may follow Panaetius (cf. Dyck
1996: 382). It is not clear, however, that there is a fundamental
diVerence between Panaetius and earlier Stoics on this point.
117. How prophets and dreamers see those things which do not
even exist anywhere at the time is a great problem The Stoics
Commentary
389
appear to have thought of the future as already existing (cf. Stob.

1. 105 W), like another country into which we are advancing and
which the gods (and perhaps the sage) could see. At 2. 120 Marcus
will allude to the theory of Democritus that the soul was struck by
eidola (imagines), an idea taken up by Cratippus, but not accepted
by Posidonius, for whom the soul of the practitioner of natural
divination was in direct contact with other souls (see on 1. 1278).
The questions we are asking would be solved more easily Quintus
clearly means that the existence of divination is linked integrally with
the nature and existence of the gods, a point made by Cic. in the
introduction (1. 9) and repeatedly throughout Quintus argument
(e.g. 1. 10, 82).
If we hold to this, the thesis (part of which is the subject we are
discussing) will stand Wrm Again the very repetitive linking of
the two subjects is justiWable from Quintus perspective as the foundation of his argument. There are four heads of Stoic argument in De
Natura Deorum 2: the gods exist (444), their nature (4572), the
world is governed by them (73153), and lastly they are concerned
with human aVairs (15467). Only the second is omitted here.
not only in general but also in particular Cf. ND 2. 164: the
immortal gods are accustomed to display concern and forethought
not only for the whole human race, but also for individuals. The
extent of the gods concern for detail was disputed (cf. Epict. 1. 12.
23) even among Stoics (see below, 1. 118), but Platonic doctrine
provides a background for this view (cf. Plat. Leg. 900c; Procl. In Ti.
287b). There is a clear contradiction with the last stages of Balbus
argument (cf. ND 2. 167, quoted 1. 118 for it is not), but it can be
resolved, as Posidonius probably did (Timpanaro). Here, however,
there is no contradiction with the more detailed exposition of how
the gods concern was realized in the next section.
If we maintain this . . . it surely follows that the gods give to men
signs of what is to come Another repetition, with personal
asseveration, of the Stoic citadel (cf. 1. 10). Cf. Diog. Laert. 7. 149:
Stoics say that divination exists in all its forms, if it is true that
390
Commentary
providence exists . . . This is stated by Zeno, by Chrysippus in Book II

of On Divination, and by Athenodorus and Posidonius in Book II of
Natural Philosophy. Although the argument makes links to Cic.s
works, the kind of argument is suggestive more of Posidonius, whose
input is crucial for the defence and explanation of artiWcial divination.
118. But it seems that one must determine how this is done Cf. 1.
109 and Quintus intention to explain how divination works.
For it is not Stoic doctrine that the gods are concerned . . . The
idea that the gods were not concerned with minutiae goes back to
the 5th cent. at least (Eurip. fr. 974: for God handles the great, but
the small he gives up and leaves to Fate); Chrysippus contemplated it
as a possible explanation of why bad things happen to good people
(Plut. Mor. 1051c); for Galen (19. 241 K) it was a Stoic view and Cic.
places it in the mouth of Balbus (ND 2. 167: the gods care for large
matters, they ignore the small; cf. ND 3. 86, 90, 93). There was,
however, no simple application of the idea in Stoic thought on
providence and divination. Chrysippus and Antipater (cf. Div. 2.
35) held that there was a speciWc divine intervention to produce
each divinatory sign which was to be interpreted, a view which
Carneades ridiculed and Panaetius later discarded (1. 12). Posidonius, however, argued that signs and events were connected in
a global system of causality which the gods had organized. So,
although the gods in person did not directly produce e.g. crows on
the left for auspications, the providential system did, thus justifying
at one remove the belief that the gods were concerned with detail,
while removing from them the image so easily ridiculed of their
distraction with minutiae (cf. Timpanaro; Schaublin 1985: 1645).
that is neither appropriate, nor worthy, nor in any way possible
Cf. 1. 82: nor do they consider it inappropriate to their majesty (for
nothing is more glorious than kindness). Again there is no contradiction between these passages, because of the doctrine of divine
providential organization of the universe.
predetermined signs would precede predetermined events, some in
entrails . . . Predetermined translates certus, here emphasizing
Commentary
391
that the signs have been Wxed precisely and are sure. Posidoniuss
world seems not to require ongoing divine involvement, as for each
form of divination, both natural and artiWcial, appropriate signs had
been created. The inclusion of artiWcial divination shows that the
argument here is not Cratippan.
bad conjectures and bad interpretations prove wrong not because
of the reality but because of the lack of skill of the interpreters The
question of fallibility as an objection to the status of divination as
a techne has been addressed earlier (1. 24), but the denial of the gods
responsibility for failure goes back to Plato (cf. Rep. 382e, 617e).
Quintus does not need to claim that any diviner is infallible, but in
the context of a carefully constructed providential system he needs to
explain why the failures which cast doubt on divination occur. If the
fault cannot be divine, it must be human and therefore relate not to
the sign, but to the rational interpretation of it, primarily of course
oblative signs without strict parallel in the records (cf. Linderski
1986a: 2239). Quintus assertion is an example of the way in which
individual failures not only did not destroy faith in the divinatory
art, but strengthened the credibility of the discipline as a complex
body of knowledge to be mastered better (cf. T. Barton, Power and
Knowledge (Ann Arbor, 1994), 826, 924).
[that there is a certain divine power which controls the lives of
men] Schaublin (1985: 1656) deletes this as an inappropriate
gloss, on the grounds that the variation of the key formula here
from that in 1. 120 is unsupportable and that syntactically it is left
hanging in the air.
it is not hard to imagine by what means those things happen This
is Quintus promised answer to how artiWcial divination works, the
easy explanation of 1. 109.
a sentient force which pervades the whole world can guide in the
choice of a sacriWcial victim Cf. 2. 35: a certain sentient force does
guide in the choice of a sacriWcial victim. Posidonius certainly
believed in a divine, sentient force (cf. Diog. Laert. 7. 138: Stoics
say that the universe is governed according to intelligence and
392
Commentary
providence, as Chrysippus says in Book V of On Providence and

Posidonius in Book III of On Gods, since intelligence pervades
every part of it (like soul in us). Logically the divine force should
provide guidance in every instance, so what is the force of can in
Quintus formulation? For Finger (1929: 3734) Cic. adds can to
relativize a stark statement in his original and thus creates a clash
with expressly Posidonian teaching at 1. 125. Pease, however,
considers the absence of can at 2. 35 more signiWcant, namely that
Cic., or his putative source Clitomachus, was intensifying a pragmatic
Posidonian position in order to ridicule it, while Timpanaro
considers the diVerence unimportant. If we understand the force of
can to be has the power to, i.e. as a logical, analytical can springing
from the concept of the all-pervasive force, rather than may (or may
not), then there need be no fundamental tampering with Posidonius
position. Quintus is, in fact, emphasizing the eVective power of the
sentient force in achieving the material changes he describes in the
next example.
a change of entrails can take place so that something is either added
or taken away Cf. Plin. HN 28. 11: suddenly heads or hearts are
added to entrails or are doubled as the victim stands. In particular,
alterations to the caudate lobe of the liver are meant: its duplication
or enlargement portended success (Thulin 1906: 246; cf. Livy 27. 26.
23; Obseq. 69; Pliny HN 11. 190, 28. 11; Suet. Aug. 95; Pliny Ep. 2. 20.
13). While defending the existence of the sentient spirit, Seneca
questioned the idea of instant substitution (NQ 2. 32. 4:
such things are carried out by divine agency even if the wings of
birds are not guided by God nor the entrails of animals shaped under
the very axe), which was open to ridicule (cf. 2. 356; Arnob. Nat. 4.
12). In some respects it seems inconsistent with the idea of predetermined signs preceding predetermined events, indeed, a sort of
last-minute desperation by the divine. While it was relatively easy
for a Stoic to argue that providence could cause one sacriWcial animal
to have a particular shape or size of liver, the extreme case of the
complete removal of an organ vital to life was more problematic: it
could not be argued that the animal had lived without a heart,
therefore the idea of a sudden removal at the moment of sacriWce
was necessary.
Commentary
393
in a brief instant Nature either adds or modiWes or removes many

things Stob. 1. 177 W: there are four kinds of destruction and
generation that occur from what is to what is . . . dismemberment,
transmutation, fusion and breaking up of a whole, called dissolution.
Forms of change were deWned by Posidonius in his discussion of the
destructability of the universe. According to Shorey (CP 17 (1922),
173) Cic. need have looked no further than Lucretius ii. 76970,
but the change required in entrails is of a diVerent order. In later
Neoplatonic thought the daimon which presides there, the air and
movement of the air and the revolution of what surrounds the
entrails change them variously, in whatever way it pleases the gods
(Iambl. Myst. 3. 16).
119. To prevent us doubting this there is a very important example
As a contemporary incident from Rome, this cannot derive from
Posidonius. There is no need for a source for this, although Julius
Aquila has been suggested (G. Schmeisser, Die etruskische Disciplin
vom Bundesgenossenkriege bis zum Untergang des Heidentums
(Leignitz, 1881), 25 n. 117); Cicero knew Spurinna, as is shown by
his witty description of a consultation (Fam. 9. 24. 2; Guillaumont
1984: 101), and probably got the story Wrsthand. From Cic. it appears
in Livy (cf. Obseq. 67) and thereafter more widely (Pliny HN 11. 186;
Suet. Iul. 77; Plut. Caes. 63).
on the day on which he sat for the Wrst time on a golden throne
and paraded in purple dress Caesar was granted the use of triumphal dress for all occasions in 45, but purple here was the regal
dress granted in 44 (Dio 44. 16. 1), not the dictators regular toga
praetexta; the chair, a magistrates sella curulis in gold (T. Schafer,
Imperii Insignia: Sella curulis und fasces (Mainz, 1989), 11415),
similarly was voted in 44 (Dio 44. 11. 2) and was used in the
Senate-house and on the Rostra (see Weinstock 1971: 2713).
Although Cic. carefully speciWes that this was the Wrst appearance
of the regal garb, that by itself has not made identiWcation of the
occasion simple. Various suggestions include Caesars return from
the Feriae Latinae on 26 Jan. 44, when the prescribed sacriWce was
a bull (Dion. Hal. 4. 49. 3) or the Lupercalia on 15 Feb., if another of
Cic.s descriptions, clad in a purple toga, on a gold throne, crowned
394
Commentary
(Phil. 2. 85), describes the same occasion (cf. Weinstock 1971: 331,
3445; Rawson 1978: 143). Most appealing, however, is the Senate
meeting of 13 or 14 Feb., which best brings into play the prophecy of
Spurinna that Caesar should be on his guard for 30 days (Val. Max. 8.
11. 2). See A. Alfoldi, Caesar in 44 v. Chr. (Bonn, 1985), 1634, and
Zecchini 2001: 723.
Underlying Cic.s words is the view later expressed (e.g. Suet. Iul.
76. 1; Dio 44. 3. 13) that the acceptance of inXated honours due to
royalty or gods led to the warnings sent by the gods through these
sacriWcial prodigies, to dissuade Caesar from a course which would
lead to the conspiracy against him. This sacriWce was probably part of
the double rite of extispicy and auspication which preceded every
Senate meeting (Vaahtera 2001: 869).
there was no heart in the vitals of the prime bull Despite the
outward health of the sacriWcial animal, it lacked the organ most
vital for life. They used to say that the auspices were deadly (pestifera)
when there was not heart in the entrails or head on the liver (Festus
286 L). The same prodigy had occurred in Caesars dictatorship in 46
(Polyaen. 8. 23. 33; App. B Civ. 2. 488), is attested on other occasions
(Plin. HN 28. 11; HA Pert. 11. 23), and could even be considered a
frequent occurrence (Iambl. Myst. 3. 16). Prime (opimus) is a technical term used for animals for public sacriWces (Varro, LL 2. 1. 20;
Festus 202 L). DiVerent words are used here and in book 2 (2. 367)
for the sacriWcial animal, bos and taurus respectively. If the latter is
used strictly, a prime breeding animal is meant (G. Capdeville, Taurus
et bos mas, in P. Gros (ed.), LItalie preromaine et la Rome republicaine:
Melanges oVerts a` Jacques Heurgon (Paris, 1976), 11523).
do you believe that any animal which has blood can exist without
a heart? Since Aristotle the connection between blood, the heart,
and life was generally accepted: so the heart exists in all creatures
with blood . . . no sanguinaceous creature is without a heart. For the
primary source of blood must be in them all (Part. An. 665b910,
666a224). However, the ability of tortoises (Arist. Iuv. 468b15),
goats, and crocodiles (Chalcid. In Tim. 214) and regular sacriWcial
animals (Galen 18B. 238 K) to live once their hearts had been torn
out was part of folklore. See e.g. von Staden 1989: esp. 16972.
Commentary
395
Caesar <was not> troubled by the strangeness of this Given

Caesars notorious attitude towards haruspicy a negative has disappeared from the extant MSS. I read <non est> novitate, preserving
the clausula -ate perculsus (cf. Timpanaro). Caesar is consistently
represented as dismissive of haruspices in particular, and especially
from the beginning of the Civil War to his assassination: Caesar
ignored the chief haruspex (probably Spurinna) before his African
campaign (Div. 2. 52) and joked away the absence of a heart in 46/45
with the words whats surprising if an irrational animal has no
heart? (Polyaen. 8. 23. 33; cf. App. B Civ. 2. 488). Caesars attitude
is usually ascribed to his rationalism or general impiety (cf. Suet. Iul.
59), but the leading haruspices and the Etruscan elite, particularly
from south Etruria were probably in favour of his opponents and in
response Caesar may have adopted a traditionalist distrust of nonRoman religion (cf. Zecchini 2001: 6576; and L. Aigner-Foresti, Gli
Etruschi e la politica di Cesare, in G. Urso (ed.), Lultimo Cesare
(Rome, 2000), 1133).
Spurinna Cf. Val. Max. 8. 11. 2. Of Etruscan ancestry (Schulze
1904: 945), and known to Cic. (Fam. 9. 24. 2). He may be connected
with an aristocratic family from Tarquinii, have been chief haruspex
at least from 46 (cf. 2. 53), and may have been elevated into the
Senate by Caesar (cf. Cic. Fam. 6. 18. 1), despite his earlier opposition. See Rawson 1978: 1435 and Zecchini 2001: 689.
he should beware lest he lose his powers of thought and his life, both
of which proceeded from the heart Cf. the sensory faculty, the
motor faculty and the nutritive faculty are all lodged [in the
heart] . . . the heart and the liver are essential constituents of every
animal (Arist. Part. an. 647a24, 670a23).
there was no head to the liver The livers largest natural protuberance, the processus caudatus (see Leiderer 1991: 1825), received
special attention from haruspices (cf. Div. 2. 32). In Babylonian
haruspicy it was called the Wnger (ubanu) and abnormalities to it
generally portended evil (Koch-Westenholz 2000: 6970). On the
Piacenza liver the processus caudatus is in the area which in Van den
Meers plausible analysis are the most dire regions (1987: 14752).
396
Commentary
In Latin this lobe was called the head (caput; Thulin 1906: 307),
a term which lends itself to portents of great signiWcance. The absence
of a head appears frequently as a portent (Livy 27. 26. 13, 30. 2. 13,
41. 14. 7, 15. 3; Obseq. 17, 35, 47, 52, 55; Pliny HN 11. 189, 28. 11; SHA
Pert. 14. 3), and was considered as an auspicium pestiferum, one that
portended death or exile (Festus 286 L).
These prodigies were sent to him by the immortal gods with the
result that he foresaw his death, not so that he prevented it
If the second so that (ut) introduces a Wnal clause, as all commentators and translators argue, these words present a problem in
that Quintus is made to contradict his earlier argument, signs . . .
announce what will happen unless measures are taken (1. 29) and
nor is it of no advantage to us to know what will come to pass (for
we will be the more careful if we know) (1. 82); the earlier argument
excludes the absolute determinism required by this sentiment. If we
take this line, then Cic. has imported a piece of Stoic determinism
into a Roman context, something that Quintus argument has
carefully avoided (e.g. 1. 29: signs . . . announce what will happen
unless measures are taken). However, in the context of a consistent
argument by Quintus it is possible to understand ut as consecutive,
and thus the words become an almost wistful reXection on Caesars
death, or at worst a criticism of Caesar for not heeding the divine
warning, by one whose career had proWted from Caesars friendship.
They are not a rabid anti-Caesarian comment (Timpanaro) indicating that the gods wanted Caesars death, or the inappropriate
intrusion of Cic.s own opposition to divination (Pease), anticipating
the argument Marcus will deploy at 2. 205. Pease cites several
apposite parallels for Greek determinist views (cf. Ach. Tat. 1. 3. 2:
god likes often to tell men the future at night; not in order for them
to take steps to avoid suVering (for it is not possible to beat fate), but
so that they may bear their suVering more lightly, Heliod. Aeth. 2. 24;
Amm. Marc. 23. 5. 5), but none that Wts the Roman context.
So . . . one must understand that those parts . . . disappeared at the
very moment of immolation A conclusion bringing the reader
back to the Posidonian argument at the end of 1. 118.
Commentary
397
120. The divine spirit produces the same result with birds Cf.
Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 3: those who practise divination and employ
birds . . . hold that the birds . . . do not realize the assistance they are
giving to the diviners, but that the gods send signs through them;
Orig. C. Cels. 4. 88: some say that certain demons or divinatory gods
give to animals their movements, to birds their diVerent Xights and
cries and to all other animals this or that kind of movements; and,
drawing on Cic., Amm. Marc. 21. 1. 9: auguries and auspices are not
eVected and understood by the whim of birds who do not know the
future . . . but god directs the Xight of birds, so that a sounding beak
or a Xight by on the wing, in a disturbed or smooth passage, foretells
future events.
alites Xy . . . in another area Appius Claudius says that alites . . .
make an auspice . . . by their wings or Xight, e.g. buzzards, the gypaetus barbatus aureus (sanqualis), eagles, baby sea eagles (inmusulus),
vultures (Festus 214 L; cf. Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 1. 394, 3. 246, 3. 361).
For the identiWcation of the Latin terms, see Capponi 1979. Pliny
(HN 10. 628) describes the various types of eagle, vulture, hawks,
cuckoo, and kite, citing Umbricius Melior and Masurius Sabinus, but
from haruspicial rather than augural sources (cf. F. Capponi, Le fonti
del X libro della Naturalis Historia di Plinio (Genoa, 1985), 2813).
oscines sing at one moment on the right and at another on the
left Appius Claudius says that oscines are birds which make an
auspice by singing from their mouths, e.g. crow, raven, owl (Festus
214 L; cf. Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 3. 361); oscines also included two kinds of
woodpecker and tit. Varro seeks an etymology of the term from os
cano (mouth sing) (LL 6. 76; cf. Festus 214 L).
how much easier is it for a god to whose power all things are
subject! The comparison relies on the Stoic conception of the
universe as a living organism pervaded by the divine spirit, a view
attributed to Posidonius (Diog. Laert. 7. 142). He may also, on the
model of his theorizing about meteorology, have developed a theory
in relation to divination which could account for two separate
sequences of events relating to the sign and the outcomes
(cf. Kany-Turpin 2003: esp. 701), but that would not square with
398
Commentary
the Roman practice of augury. Divine omnipotence is problematic if

a real role is to be attributed to the free will of human beings (in
particular) and birds. However, the fundamental conXict between the
considerable amount of free will seen in Roman religious practice
and the determinism of the Stoics is not faced by Quintus here.
121. signs . . . of the kind that history has handed down to us in very
great number The combination of Greek and Roman examples
suggests that Cic. at the very least expands his sources list of historical instances where signs were given and clear interpretations were
borne out by the sequel, but the inclusion of examples of both
artiWcial and natural divination Wts Posidonius inclusivity.
if an eclipse of the moon occurred a little before sunrise in the sign
Leo Cf. John Lyd. Ost. 9 W: When an eclipse occurs in Leo it
signiWes some defeat to kings. The form of such a prediction is
borne out by an example from Hellenistic Egypt (CCAG 7. 131)
and one from Babylon, which is very important in illustrating that
the practices of Hellenistic astrology did come from Babylon (BM
36746; see F. Rochberg-Halton, JNES 43 (1984), 11540): if the
moon is eclipsed in Leo and Wnishes the watch . . . the King of
Akkad will experience hardship. The symbolism of this prediction
is clear: eclipses of the moon were considered particularly signiWcant
of disaster for the Persians (Curt. Ruf. 4. 10. 6), the Lion easily
symbolized the king (John Lyd. Ost. 9 W: if an eclipse occurs in
the royal trine, that is Aries, Leo and Sagittarius, some such mishap is
bound to befall someone connected with the royal court), and the
chronological indication looked to the imminent rising of the new
ruler Alexander (Boll 1910: 169).
Darius and the Persians would be militarily defeated by Alexander
and the Macedonians [in battle] and Darius would die The MSS
present a duplication (armis, proelio) which appears to add nothing;
editors delete either armis (militarily)Giominior proelio (in
battle)Pease, Timpanaro, Schaublin.
Attempts to link this with the battle of Gaugamela which occurred
eleven days after a lunar eclipse (Plut. Alex. 31. 8; see Hamilton 1969:
81 for various suggested dates) are problematic because the dating is
Commentary
399
only a reconstruction (see A. T. Grafton and N. M. Swerdlow, JWIC

51 (1988), 19) and crucially because the Gaugamela eclipse, securely
Wxed to 20 Sept. 331 (A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries
and Related Texts from Babylonia (Vienna, 1988), 1769), was at
its peak in the late evening. No other eclipse occurred during the
reign of Darius III (3361), but it is reasonable to identify Cic.s
eclipse with that of 13 Feb. 338 (although it does not Wt a little
before sunrise), as the sun was then in Aquarius, diametrically
opposite the moon in Leo (Boll 1910: 1689). If this date is accepted,
then a gap obtrudes between Darius defeat in 331 and his
death in 330.
if a girl were born with two heads, there would be popular revolt and
seduction and adultery in the home Minor deformities could be
ignored as insigniWcant, but births with multiple heads were considered a prodigy (Festus 147 L; cf. A. Allely, REA 105 (2005), esp. 139
41). Examples are recorded for 174 (Livy 41. 21. 12) and ad 64 (Tac.
Ann. 15. 47. 1), ad 112 (Phlegon of Tralles FGrH 257 F 36 xxv),
between ad 138 and 160 (SHA Ant. Pius 9. 3), and in ad 359 (Amm.
Marc. 19. 12. 1920). The only parallel of a two-headed girl comes
from 94 (Obseq. 51), but a connection with the Gracchi and the
making of the Roman state double-headed (Flor. 2. 5. 3) has been
suspected to support an earlier date (e.g. Timpanaro). The interpretation reveals the Etruscan distinction between public and private
signiWcance (Thulin 1909: 116 n. 1).
if a woman dreamt that she gave birth to a lion Pericles mother
Agariste had this dream (Hdt. 6. 131. 2; Plut. Per. 3. 3). The potential
ambiguity of her dream has been emphasized, in that the lion could
symbolize great courage or regal qualities or something wild and
destructive (e.g. C. W. Fornara, Herodotus: An Interpretative Essay
(Oxford, 1971), 534). A predominantly positive interpretation
would seem probable in the original context (cf. Aristoph. Thesm.
514; see G. W. Dyson, CQ 23 (1929), 18694; F. D. Harvey, Historia
15 (1966), 255; Artem 2. 12). The negative interpretation arises from
the defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War, for which Pericles
retrospectively was considered responsible.
400
Commentary
Herodotus The only citation of Herodotus as a source in De Divinatione. Although Cic. may have read Herodotus at some time, this
citation probably comes from his source (L. Laurand, Musee Belge 15
(1911), 7 n. 3; cf. Fleck 1993: 489, 523). Cic.s version is fundamentally consistent with that of Herodotus (A. S. Pease, CP 15
(1920), 2012). In De Legibus (1. 5) Marcus comments on the
innumerable stories (fabulae) that appear in Herodotus, while still
describing him as the father of history.
Croesus son spoke although he was a mute Hdt. 1. 85: he had
a son . . . in all other respects Wne, but dumb . . . Croesus had sent to
Delphi to inquire from the oracle about him. Pythia answered him
Scion of Lydia, king over many, Croesus, you great fool, do not wish
to hear the voice of your son speaking in your house, though you
have prayed much for it. For you it is far better for that to be far
distant: for he will speak for the Wrst time on a day of poverty. At the
taking of the wall a certain Persian, not knowing who Croesus was,
came at him intending to kill him . . . the dumb son, when he saw the
Persian attacking, in his fear and grief broke into speech and said
Man, do not kill Croesus. Cf. Nic. Dam. FGrH 90 F 68; Val. Max. 5.
4 ext. 6; Plin. HN 11. 270; Aul. Gell. 5. 9. Plinys version is garbled,
perhaps misunderstanding Cic.s infans, so that the prodigy becomes
that of a six-month-old child speaking, whereas Cic. and the other
authors envisage a much older child. Cf. W. Potscher, Zeitschrift
fur klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie 20 (1974), 3678 and
T. A. Sebeok and E. Brady, QUCC 30 (1979), 720.
following this portent his fathers kingdom and house were utterly
wiped out Lydia fell to the Persians in 547/546. This prodigy is
clearly diVerent from one in Roman religion as it does not precede
the forewarned disasterin the Herodotean account Sardis had
already been captured when the son spoke, as required by the Delphic
oracle on which his story rests.
Which history does not record that, while Servius Tullius was
asleep, his head blazed? Cf. John. Lyd. Ost. 5 W: let not even that
tale of historians be beyond your telling, that often signs have
occurred on the heads of men . . . to them all (Ascanius, Servius
Commentary
401
Tullius and Constantine) kingly power was announced, not a peaceful

and trouble-free power, but one full of countless evils for them
themselves and for those to come after them . . . Tullius so Wlled the
city with wars that he was unable to enjoy the peace established by
Numa. The extant traces of Roman annalists suggest a widespread
tradition: Valerius Antias had one version (Plut. Mor. 323c; cf. Plin.
HN 2. 241) and Livy another (1. 39. 12; cf. Dion. Hal. 4. 2. 4). See
R. Thomsen, King Servius Tullius (Copenhagen, 1980), 5964.
A Xame projecting from the head like the hat (apex) worn by
Xamines (cf. Serv. Aen. 2. 683) rather than the radiate crown, which
was a Hellenistic feature, seems envisaged. The royal Wre (Ogilvie
1965: 1578; T. Koves-Zulauf, Reden und Schweigen (Munich, 1972),
24850) was a mark of charismatic leadership, often taken as
a manifestation of the tutelary spirit of the individual (genius). The
appearance of a similar phenomenon around Octavian in 44 (e.g.
Vell. Pat. 2. 59. 6) required manipulation, but demonstrates widespread belief in the prodigy. See J. Martnez Pinna, Poder y predestinacion en la Roma arcaica, in Smadja 1999: 20521.
just . . . so Although the Wrst element is another reference back to 1.
613, the correlatives (ut, sic) indicate an important attempt to draw
a parallel between natural and artiWcial divination, which we can
attribute to Posidonius (see on 1. 118). Quintus, though, does not
elsewhere include restrictions on the mental state of the practitioner
of artiWcial divination and it would seem to be a far weaker argument, as the purity necessary for natural divination does not seem
relevant to his activity. If Quintus had emphasized calmness or any
other attribute conducive to the exercise of rational thought, the
parallel would be more powerful.
122. this is . . . what is often said by him in the works of his disciples Quintus links the possession of a pure and undeWled soul
with Socrates divinatory skills, but Socrates daimonion cannot be
equated with artiWcial divination. Cic. is aware that Socrates himself
left no writings and that our views of his philosophy depend mainly
on Plato and Xenophon (cf. OV. 1. 90). This passage has been
considered a translation of Plato (e.g. Muller Goldingen 1992: 176
n. 15) or of Xenophon (M. Puelma, MH 37 (1980), 148 n. 22), but if
402
Commentary
so it is at least at one remove, via Posidonius, who himself probably

plundered Antipater (see on 1. 123).
a certain kind of divinity which he calls his daimonion Cf. Plat.
Apol. 31cd: you have often and in many places heard me mention
that something divine and daimonion comes to me . . . this has been
mine since childhood, some voice which when it comes always
prevents me from doing what I am going to do and never urges
me; Phdr. 242c: it always restrains me from what I am about to do
(cf. Euthphr. 272e; Tht. 151a; Xen. Apol. 4; Symp. 8. 5), Ps.-Plat.
Theag. 128d: it is a voice which, when it comes, always points out
to me something to dissuade me from what I am about to do, but
never urges me on. Cic. faithfully reproduces the negative aspect of
this voice, which Xenophon (Mem. 1. 1. 4, 4. 3. 12) and the author of
Theages (129e; see B. Centrone, Il daimonion di Socrate nello
pseudoplatonico Teage , in G. Giannantoni and M. Narcy (eds.),
Lezioni socratiche (Naples, 1997), 32948) sometimes minimize, and
limits its guidance to Socrates alone. Although later antiquity interpreted the daimonion as an indwelling personal daimon, a sort of
guardian spirit or spirit guide (Dodds 1971: 221; cf. e.g. Apul. De deo
Soc. 17 V.; Procl. In Alc. 7883c; Olympiod. In Alc. 213c), the vaguer
language used by Socrates himself and Plato suggests a deliberate
attempt to avoid the term daimon, as Socrates guide was unique, but
all men had a daimon (cf. Rep. 496cd; see M. A. Joyal, The Divine
Sign Did Not Oppose me, in M. A. Joyal (ed.), Studies in Plato and
the Platonic Tradition (New Brunswick, NJ, 1997), esp. 578,
and idem, Tradition and Innovation in the Transformation of
Socrates Divine Sign, in L. Ayres (ed.), The Passionate Intellect
(New Brunswick, NJ, 1995), 3956, for the detailed development of
the idea and more ancient testimonies).
Socratesfor what better authority can we look for? Cf. 1. 17; OV.
3. 100. For Quintus repeated stress on authority and reliability, see
on 1. 39. Xenophons membership of Socrates inner circle and
indirectly, therefore, the historicity of his conversation, are disputed
nowadays (e.g. W. Jaeger, Paideia vol. iii (Oxford, 1945), 1568), but
no ancient scepticism is found (e.g. Diog. Laert. 2. 48). Epicureans by
contrast attacked Socrates credentials as a philosopher (K. Kleve,
Commentary
403
Scurra Atticus : The Epicurean View of Socrates, in !:

Studi sull epicurismo greco e romano oVerti a Marcello Gigante
(Naples, 1983), 22753).
when Xenophon was consulting him whether he should join
Cyrus Xen. Anab. 3. 1. 5: Xenophon conferred with Socrates
the Athenian about the journey; and Socrates . . . advised Xenophon
to go to Delphi and consult the god with regard to this journey, cf.
Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 68. In 401 Xenophon was debating whether to
join the mercenary force being recruited to Wght for Cyrus, satrap
of Lydia (S. Ruzicka, CJ 80 (1985), 209) against his brother
Artaxerxes, king of Persia. Cic.s source here diverges from the
extant Xenophontic accounts in presenting a Socrates who gave
rational advice (that is my advice, but it is that of a man), but who
clearly subordinated it to oracular advice; his daimonion could
not provide a positive encouragement to Xenophon. Cf. Parker
1985: 3023.
The Athenians have always consulted this oYcially on matters of
great importance No consultations from the Peisistratid period are
known or likely, but Cleisthenes secured Delphic approval for the
names of the new tribes in the democracy (Arist. Ath. Pol. 21. 6). It is
hard to prove that the Athenians consulted an oracle on any important issue of public policy after the Persian wars (Parker 1985: 320),
but nonetheless consultations were made on a wide range of religious
and administrative questions: e.g. repatriation of Theseus (Plut.
Thes. 36. 14), restoration of the Delians in 421 (Thuc. 5. 32. 1),
entitlement to public maintenance (IG i2. 77), the order of sacred acts
(IG i2. 80), during a food shortage (?) (IG i2. 76, 78), the letting of
lands near Eleusis (IG ii2. 204), the priesthood of Asclepius (IG ii2.
4969), the welfare of the state (Dem. 21. 52), procuration of a celestial
portent (Dem. 43. 66), whether to improve the Wnery of Demeter and
Persephones statues (IG ii2. 333), on sending the Pythiad procession
(SIG 698a), etc. See Bowden 2005.
123. It is also written . . . Cic. takes this story, which is extant in no
Greek source, directly from Posidonius. Crito was a close friend of
Socrates (e.g. Plat. Apol. 33d) and participant in the dialogues. For
404
Commentary
collected testimonia see G. Giannantoni, Socratis et Socraticorum

reliquiae, vol. ii (Naples, 1990), 6356.
the divine foreknowledge which I usually use Although his daimonion does beneWt others, its primary concern was Socrates safety, if
that is meant by foreknowledge (praesagatio) here.
after the unsuccessful battle at Delium under the command of
Laches In 424 the Athenians attacked Boeotia, but the failure of
their allies to foment internal revolts as planned led to an Athenian
withdrawal from Delium (Thuc. 4. 90. 4), a sanctuary of Apollo in
Boeotia, to a position on the plateau of Paliokhani, just inside Attica,
where the battle was fought (W. K. Pritchett, Studies in Ancient Greek
Topography, vol. ii (Berkeley, Calif., 1969), 2436). The Boeotian
forces routed the Athenian hoplites (Thuc. 4. 9697. 1). Laches,
son of Melanopus, was an Athenian general from 427 at least (Thuc.
3. 86. 1) and commanded the Athenian left wing at Delium. See Patzer
1999: esp. 1026.
running away with Laches himself When Socrates with Alcibiades and Laches reached the coast at Registes and returned
home . . . he often called out the name of friends and members of
his company who had died . . . because when they were Xeeing from
the battle they had not listened to the daimonion of Socrates and
had used a diVerent route from the one he was leading them
down (Plut. Mor. 581de; cf. Epistologr. Gr. 61011). Socrates
marshalling of a band of hoplites, who fought together and resisted
the Theban cavalry attacks (cf. Plut. Alc. 7. 3), eVectively
secured their escape (V. D. Hanson, The Western Way of War
(New York, 1989), 1801). Although Herodicus (Athen. 215cf)
denied Socrates role at Delium on the grounds that no historian
records it, its basic historicity is secure (P. von der Muhll, MH
23 (1966), 2346).
came to a place where three roads meet . . . encountered the
enemy cavalry Fixed by Patzer (1999: 21) as the road SW via
Phyle, which Wts the more detailed topographical information in
the Pseudo-Socratic Letter. The daimonion, here called god
Commentary
405
(cf. Plat. Apol. 40a; Xen. Mem. 4. 8. 6), again restrained Socrates from
taking the alternative routes.
A large number of remarkable prophecies made by Socrates have
been collected by Antipater Quintus language suggests that
Antipaters collection (see 1. 6) went beyond what was recorded in
the works of Plato, Xenophon, and the other extant Socratics.
Probably Cic. has not taken the quoted examples from Antipater
directly but from Posidonius. This particular story is generally
attributed to Antisthenes, but the emphasis on the daimonion better
suits another early Socratic (cf. Alesse 2000: 1659).
124. a glorious and almost divine saying of that philosopher
Divine is a regular adjective of praise in Cic. of individuals (see
Leschhorn 1985: 38797) and eloquence (e.g. Am. 32), generally with
the untheological meaning of inspired. Nothing more theological is
meant here, as the qualifying almost (paene) shows.
sacrilegious verdicts The plural probably reXects the threefold
indictment against Socrates (Diog. Laert. 2. 40, taken from the
oYcial records), although the votes of the numerous jurors may be
meant. After the guilty verdict and the voting of the death sentence
Socrates is reported as addressing the jury (Plat. Apol. 38c42a). Cic.
makes a close translation of one passage from this speech, neither as I
left the house at dawn did the signal of god oppose me, nor when
I appeared before you here in court, nor at any point in the speech
I was to give (40a), and an interpretative paraphrase of another, this
was clear to me, that it was better for me to die and be released from
troubles. For this reason the signal in no way dissuaded me and
I am not at all angry with those who voted against me or prosecuted
me (41d).
although many things deceive those who evidently divine the future
by means of art or conjecture Cf. 1. 118. Art and conjecture
relate to amassed lore and to logical extrapolations respectively,
techniques which concern primarily artiWcial divination, unless
natural divination is included because its signs often need interpretation (cf. 1. 116). Problematic is the meaning of videantur : if it is to
406
Commentary
be translated as seem or even are thought, it is very weak for an

argument which fully includes artiWcial divination; if, as at 1. 71 it
means evidently or are deemed to, the problem disappears. Either
formulation could be Posidonius, but in the Wrst sense it would
seem that, while including artiWcial divination, he valued natural
divination more highly.
some sign is given indeWnitely but it is taken as speciWc Pease
refers to ambiguous oracles (2. 11516), but it would equally apply
to an augural sign. Two contrasts seem central to this, Wrst between
indeWnite (dubie) and speciWc (certus; cf. 2. 104) and secondly
between the giving (datum) and the reception (acceptum). The latter
element is the easier to interpret: by conjecture or interpretation the
diviner attributes to the sign a speciWc meaning (which happens to be
wrong). More troublesome is given indeWnitely (dubie datum),
which comes close to saying that the gods can give a sign which
does not have a Wxed meaning, and one which cannot be interpreted
correctly, an argument which no Stoic could accept. From augural
terminology found in one episode of 4th-cent. history (dubia/incerta
auspicia: Livy 8. 30. 1, 32. 4, 34. 4), it may be possible to extrapolate
a category of signs meaning something like wait, i.e. a set meaning,
and thus excuse the gods from ambiguity if the human interpreter
fails to act appropriately. But the way in which auspices received by
Papirius, before his campaign against the Samnites, were judged
incerta is wholly obscure (cf. J. Linderski, Roman Religion in Livy,
in W. Schuller (ed.), Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes (Konstanz, 1993),
62 1995: 617: the point is that the auspices were ambiguousnot
adverse. It was risky and foolhardy to engage the enemy, but the
result was open; Konrad 2004b: 2023).
some sign can remain unobserved, either the relevant sign or another sign contrary to it The Wrst alternative is straightforward
through incompetence of the diviner a sign sent by the gods is
overlooked. The second is more complex, although part of divinatory theory from the 4th cent.: it is not remarkable that many
dreams have no fulWlment . . . for if another movement occurs more
powerful than that from which, while still future, the sign comes, the
event does not happen. Many things, although well-planned by those
Commentary
407
who ought to bring them about, are by other more powerful principles
brought to nothing (Arist. Div. somn. 463b228). From augury we
have speciWc evidence of diVerent grades of sign (Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 3.
374): lesser auguries yield to greater and have no force, although
they occurred Wrst (Serv. Ecl. 9. 13), e.g. the eagle as Jupiters special
bird overrode all other bird signs, and a thunder clap or lightning
bolt was the most powerful (Serv. [Auct.] Aen. 2. 693; Dion. Hal. 2. 5. 5);
again, a second sign, even of the same grade as the Wrst, should override
it (Serv. Aen. 2. 691: it is not suYcient to have seen one augury unless it
is conWrmed by one similar. For if the second is diVerent, the Wrst is
undonean exaggeration, see Regell 1893: 21). Lastly, within the
Roman magistracies the status of the observer could be decisive (cf.
Aul. Gell. 13. 15. 4). For similar manoeuvring over lightning portents,
cf. Festus 263 L. From his Etruscan sources Seneca held that lightning
was the most weighty sign (NQ 2. 34. 2: if the intervention of lightning
negates the revelations of the entrails or of augury, the entrails have
been improperly examined, the augury improperly observed; cf. Hine
1981: 3645).
125. if any single thing . . . this should be admitted by everyone
Quintus largely repeats what he has earlier attributed to Cratippus
(1. 71), with a necessary extension to artiWcial divination. I have
suggested that the argument from 1. 116 onwards draws mainly on
Posidonius, so here Cic., as the empirical part of the discussion ends,
has either found something analogous in Posidonius or has adapted
the Cratippan argument to this context.
For this reason it seems to me that, as Posidonius has done Indeed
it becomes necessary to establish an all-embracing natural law, if the
case is not to rest on one or a few instances from observation (Kidd
1988: 426). It is highly probable that Posidonius extended treatment
of divination incorporated a wider discussion of his predecessors
views, that he returned to the inclusive position of the earlier Stoics,
and that Cic. straightforwardly takes all the material in paragraphs
1. 12530 from Posidonius (A. A. Long, CR 26 (1976), 75).
the whole force and rationale of divination should be traced Wrst
from god . . . and then from Nature Cf. Aet. Plac. 1. 28. 5:
408
Commentary
Posidonius said that fate is third from Zeus; for Wrst there is Zeus,
second Nature, and third Fate, a muddled derivation. As Quintus
arguments have hitherto been drawn from the existence, nature and
providence of the gods (e.g. 1. 823), the last two elements of this
threefold division articulate the rest of the argument: fate (1. 1258)
and nature (1. 12932). The three terms do not form a hierarchy of
powers, which would have made Posidonius a forerunner of the
Neoplatonists, but reXect orthodox Stoic teaching in which nature,
fate, and god (Zeus) are identical, but are manifested in diVerent
ways (Dragona Monarchou 1976: 287: these terms had the same
reference, though they were not synonymous, because of the Stoic
distinction between sense and reference). Quintus lists the three in
the correct logical order of the argument: providence/god has the
logical priority, then fate, through whose chain of causes the semiotic
system necessary for divination exists, and thirdly nature, the arena
in which all exist together (cf. Reydam-Schils 1997: 4723). They do
not refer to three types of divination respectively: fate-artiWcial, godnatural, nature-divination through direct contact with the divinity,
as Quintus aYrms that the causes of individual kinds of divination
cannot be known (1. 85, 109).
Although the singular god used throughout this section is connected by Dragona Monarchou (1976: 298) with Socrates daimonion, the use of the singular (or Zeus) for the controlling power of
the universe is soundly Stoic (e.g. Diog. Laert. 7. 135; Alex. Aphrod.
Fat. 31) and is seen in Posidonius own language (John Lyd. Mens. 4.
48; Kidd 1988: 427).
For reason compels us to admit that everything happens according
to fate That everything happens by fate is stated by Chrysippus in
On Fate, and by Posidonius in Book II of his On Fate, and by Zeno
and by Boethus in his Book I of On Fate (Diog. Laert. 7. 149). This is
orthodox Stoic doctrine (cf. Cic. Fat. 33; ND 3. 14).
I call fate what the Greeks call heimarmene, that is the order and
series of causes, when cause linked to cause produces of itself an
eVect Quintus adheres to the Stoic deWnition which employs an
etymology from heirmos (series, sequence): Chrysippus says that
destiny is the organization of a design perfectly achieved; Fate is
Commentary
409
strung together (heimarmenen eiromenen) by the will of God or some

other cause, Euseb. Praep. evang. 6. 8. 8; fate is a chain of causation
for those things that exist, Diog. Laert. 7. 149; Stoics [describe fate
as] a sequence of causes, that is an inescapable arrangement and
interconnection, Aet. Plac. 1. 28. 4; fate is an inescapable sequence of
causes, Nemes. 37; cf. Sen. Ep. 19. 6; Ben. 4. 7. 2; Aul. Gell. 7. 2. 3.
Others preferred a connection with eiromai (say) (Euseb. Hist. eccl
15. 15. 6). The probable etymology is from meiromai (allot). See J. B.
Gould, JHI 35 (1974), 1732.
an eternal truth which Xows from all eternity Cic. ND 1. 55:
whatever happens has Xowed from eternal truth and an unbroken
sequence of causes; cf. 3. 14. For the chain of causes stretching back
to eternity, cf. Cic. Top. 59; Tusc. 5. 70; Fat. 20, 38; the metaphor of
Xowing emphasizes the smooth continuity between past, present,
and future, rather than motion (Pease).
Because this is so, nothing has happened which was not going to
happen . . . Cf. Cic. Fat. 17 and 33. The existence of an unbroken
series of causes eliminates any role for chance (central to Carneades
assault on divination) and any direct divine interference (e.g. a god
suspending the laws of nature to save a favourite); the universe, then,
fully infused by the divine mind, exhibits the purely logical sequence
of cause and eVect essential to any attempt to understand its
workings or create a predictive system, particularly the kind required
in artiWcial divination.
126. Fate is not what it is called superstitiously but what it is called
scientiWcally For the same contrast cf. ND 2. 63, 3. 92. Cic. contrasts popular personiWed notions of fate such as the Moirai or
Parcae, images of old women spinning threads (e.g. Hes. Theog.
9036) with the impersonal, rational, process of the Stoic universe.
See Greene 1944.
the eternal cause of things, why things that are passed have
happened and why impending events occur and why what follows
will be An accurate representation of a Stoic deWnition, cf.
Chrysippus: fate is . . . the rationale in accordance with which past
410
Commentary
events have happened, present events are happening, and future

events will happen (Stob. 1. 79 W).
So it comes about that on the one hand it can be known by
observation Again the logic of the system is crucial to enabling
prediction to be made in artiWcial divination. Timpanaro notes
correctly that this period is carefully balanced by et and -que (perhaps
translating men and de), emphasizing the inclusivity of the theory for
both artiWcial and natural divination. For observation cf. 1. 2, 25,
34, 72, 109.
what eVect generally follows each cause, even if it doesnt always
follow The formulation carefully acknowledges that not all
attempts at divination succeed (cf. 1. 71, 1245, 128), but at this
point Quintus does not need to explain how diviners fail (the main
ways have been outlined in 1. 124). As Pease notes, failures were not
attributed by Stoics to a breakdown of the system of cause and eVect,
but to the interposition of other disregarded or unnoticed causes.
When an unforeseen consequence followed an apparent cause, which
some would attribute to irrational chance (tyche), the Stoic response
(taking up Aristotelian terminology, Phys. 196b5 V.) was to deWne
chance as a rational cause obscure to human reasoning (e.g. Alex.
Aphrod. Fat. 8: obscure to human reasoning are the causes of
those things which are believed to come to be in accordance with
certain reactions, the cause through which they come to be being
unknown . . . they are believed to act as they do in accordance with
some deWnite cause).
it is probable that these same causes of future eVects are perceived
by those who see them in frenzy or in sleep If there is a distinction
between can (possit) and probable (veri simile), this again suggests
the superiority of natural divination (cf. 1. 124 seem). In that
dreams and prophecies could provide a far more detailed prediction
of exactly what would come to pass, often with what amounts to
a narrative, whereas the various forms of artiWcial divination (even
the most complex manifestations of astrology) provide relatively
simple predictions of, say, disaster or defeat or straightforward permissions or refusals, the former category is clearly superior. In
Commentary
411
a dream or prophecy often the course of future events was seen, the
judgement of Paris led to the arrival of Helen and the destruction of
Troy (1. 114), something impossible in the signs of artiWcial divination.
Here Quintus seems to imply that the soul has direct access to the
causes themselves (videant, cernit), perhaps not always, but at least
sometimes; whereas at 1. 118 Quintus states that from the foundation
of the world predetermined signs precede predetemined events in both
natural and artiWcial divination. Schaublin (1985: 1667) understands Posidonius to argue that in natural divination sometimes (not
always and not all) the causes themselves could be seen and that these
fulWlled the role of signs in the divinatory act.
127. all things come to pass according to Fate as will be demonstrated
elsewhere Cf. 1. 125. In the extant part of De Fato, however, there
is no defence of divination. The passive is consistent with a Cic. who
had not yet decided what format the work would take: he could have
considered a dialogue in which someone (even Quintus) presented
Stoic arguments for divination. These words are not a gloss, nor
a cross-reference taken carelessly from Posidonius (contra Thoresen),
nor a slip in which Cic. forgets he is speaking as Quintus (cf. the slip at 1.
87), but the vaguest form of reference possible to an intended project
(cf. 2. 19) and ultimately evidence of a change of plan by Cic., unless the
lost sections of On Fate redeemed the promise.
if a mortal could exist who could discern with his soul the
connection of every cause Connection (conligatio) is the equivalent of the Greek episyndesis (e.g. Alex. Aphrod. Fat. 25) which is
a stronger term than sequence (heirmos) in that it emphasizes the
bond between causes (and their eVects). Grasp translates tenere,
which seems to require a stronger translation than know (cf. Timpanaro); something like control or dictate is meant here, which
suggests the power to mould the future, impossible in a fully deterministic system except for the divine mind, and that only in so far as
it was part of the material universe. As Dodds argues (1971: 212),
because the ancients believed that the universe was Wnite and
relatively small, the nexus of present conditions on which the future
412
Commentary
was thought to depend was for them Wnite and therefore theoretically
knowable in its totality, at least by a god. In rejecting this third and
putatively highest plane of divination, which Carneades had easily
ridiculed, Posidonius appears to diVer from Chrysippus (cf. C. Levy
1997: 3368).
men . . . know what will happen in advance by means of certain signs
which will make clear what follows them If the divinatory super-sage
does not exist, the only means of divination is through the semiotic
system which Posidonius argues is integral to the universe. Make clear
(declaro) is the equivalent of the Greek semainein, a technical term
found often in discussions of divination (e.g. Stob. 2. 171 W). In
the Posidonian system, as opposed to Roman belief in which signs
do not cause events (1. 29), the event inevitably follows the sign. For,
as nothing comes into existence outside of the causal sequence, there are
no surprises or chance occurrences to confuse the diviner.
like the uncoiling of a rope, the passing of time brings about nothing
new but unfolds each event in sequence Stoic doctrine of fate is
marked by a Greek metaphor using the verb eirein to string together
(e.g. Diog. Laert. 7. 149) or the cognate noun heirmos, series,
sequence (e.g. Aet. Plac. 1. 28. 4; see above 1. 125 I call fate . . .).
The primary idea within this, the essential continuity of processes, is
misrepresented by critics of the Stoics who substitute the notion of
a chain of causes (e.g. Alex. Aphrod. Fat. 23; cf. Aul. Gell. 7. 2. 1).
Rather than chain the Stoics heirmos is better rendered by rope. See
R. J. Hankinson, Ciceros Rope, in K. A. Algra et al. (eds.), Polyhistor:
Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy (Leiden, 1996), 185205.
If the Stoics held a view of circular or closed time the image of the
rope is particularly appropriate (cf. A. A. Long, SJP Supplement 23
(1985), 29). Even without this unfolds (replico), the technical term
for unrolling a papyrus roll in reading, and each event in sequence
(primum quidque) underline the central idea of sequence (cf. Cic. ND
3. 7). See R. P. de Ravinel, REL 38 (1960), 11314.
Both those . . . and those A carefully balanced sentence which
unequivocally puts artiWcial and natural divination on the same
Commentary
413
footing in their understanding, Wrst of possible events and secondly,

by logical extension, of signs.
Although the latter do not see the causes themselves, nonetheless
they do see the signs and marks of the causes Schaublin (1985: 166
n. 166) argues plausibly that qui refers only to the practitioners of
artiWcial divination (die letzteren).
that kind of divination . . . which concerns entrails, lightnings,
portents, and heavenly signs The last element of this list of the
types of artiWcial divination, heavenly signs (signa caelestia), is unusual.
Timpanaro suggests that either astrology or meteorological signs are
meant. Certainly Posidonius had an interest in both (cf. August. De
civ. D 5. 2; Boethius Diis 77; Cic. Div. 2. 47), but we would expect
above all a reference to augury, which has featured prominently in
Quintus argument. Perhaps this broader expression is to encompass
all types of artiWcial divination outside the province of the disciplina
Etrusca that involved looking at the sky. Strictly we should not need
to be reintroduced to the term artiWcial (cf. 1. 72, 116), but such
repetition is frequent in Quintus argument; it is not necessarily a sign
of hasty composition, but perhaps of a desire to reinforce key terms.
128. those things which exist nowhere are known in advance by
diviners; for all things exist, but they are distant in time In Stoic
thought time is an inWnite continuum, in which past and future do
not exist now (Kidd 1988: 398), created by the divine mind (cf. Arist.
Phys. 223a219). The diviner is a lesser version of god, who for Stoics
and Neoplatonists saw everything as in the present (cf. Sen. NQ 2. 36:
for divinity everything is in the present; Nemesius 353: to god even
the future is as the present; Procl. In R. 329: the gods see that which
is not yet present as if it were present; Clem. Strom. 7. 35. 7: god
knows the future as if it were already in existence).
seeds The use of the seed analogy is deeply rooted in Stoic thought
from Zeno onwards (Euseb. Praep. evang. 15. 20. 1; Diog. Laert. 7.
148), but the closest parallel is Sext. Emp. Math. 9. 196: if seed exists,
they say, cause also exists, since seed is the cause of the things which
grow and are generated from it.
414
Commentary
which the soul perceives, either when in frenzy or set free in sleep, or
which reason or conjecture sense in advance The Wrst two alternatives relate to natural divination by prophecy (cf. 1. 38, 66) and
dreams (cf. 1. 113) respectively. For natural divination Quintus can
use perceive, as the vision or dream presents the future event. The
third and fourth alternatives relate to the two techniques of the
artiWcial diviner, see on 1. 34, 124. As the artiWcial diviner does not
see the future event, but only the sign which announces it, Quintus
uses sense in advance (praesentit), which may indicate a less clear
revelation (see on 1. 126).
Just as . . . at what time each of these will take place Quintus means
astronomers (cf. 1. 2). Babylonian astronomers had created arithmetical methods for predicting lunar and planetary phenomena (see
on 1. 112); using very diVerent theoretical ideas Hellenistic scholars
addressed the same questions, but drew on the Babylonian learning.
See O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy
vol. i (Berlin, 1975), 25, and A. Aaboe, The Place of Astronomy in the
Ancient World (London, 1974), 2142.
so those . . . either always or. . . generally, or . . . sometimes understand
what is to happen Quintus returns in a slightly diVerent form to
the notion that practitioners of divination do not achieve 100% success
(cf. 1. 124), but appears to concede morethat success occurs in
a minority of cases (sometimes, non numquam); even so, this is not
fatal to his argument, so long as there is one indisputable case of
divination (cf. 1. 125), the position of Cratippus (1. 71).
these and other arguments of the same kind . . . are derived from
Fate Rounding oV the second section of the argument which is
derived basically from Posidonius (cf. 1. 125).
129. From Nature comes another particular argument The third
element of the argumentation derived from Posidonius relates best to
natural divination. Throughout this example by nature Cic. means
natural structure, the natural hexis or properties or make-up of
a thing or things (i.e. physis) (Kidd 1988: 435), here speciWcally the
nature of the soul.
Commentary
415
the power of the soul is when it is separated from the physical

senses Cf. 1. 63, esp. active and alive and 1. 70; is at its most
active when it is furthest away from the body.
the minds of the gods understand what each other is thinking
without eyes, ears, and tongues In contrast to the Epicureans,
the Stoics rejected an anthropomorphic conception of the gods
(Diog. Laert. 7. 147), which pictured them with sense organs
(Procl. In Cra. 37: [the gods] live together through thoughts and
know one another by thoughts and not by the senses, cf. Clem.
Strom. 7. 7). Theiler compares the voiceless transmission of thoughts
by daimones described by Plutarch (Mor. 588c).
a silent wish or vow The regular practice was to pray aloud
(see P. W. van den Horst, Numen 41 (1994), 125; H. S. Versnel,
Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer, in idem, Faith, Hope and
Worship (Leiden, 1981), 258; G. Freyburger, REL 79 (2001), 2636).
Silence or whispering under the breath became associated with
prayers for evil (cf. Mart. 1. 39. 56), and is speciWcally commanded
in some malicious magic, but is also seen in the context of love (Tib.
4. 5. 1718; Aristaenetus 16). Even (etiam) does conWrm that silent
prayers were made, but also suggests that they were not the norm.
stirred by inspiration . . . see those things which they [souls] cannot
see when they are mixed up with the body Cf. 1. 4. I follow
Timpanaro in removing the second animi and in adopting Raths
emendation of liberi (free) to libere (freely), to reduce the redundancy, which is remarkable even given Cic.s occasional prolixity.
130. although it is perhaps diYcult to transfer this natural
explanation to the kind of divination which we say derives from
a technique Pease holds that this is incompatible with 1. 109, so
what if the explanation for artiWcial foreknowledge is straightforward, but if the demonstrative pronoun this (hanc), which is further
intensiWed by quidem (cf. Kidd 1988: 434), refers to arguments from
Nature there is no contradiction: Posidonius has rational explanations for the two types of divination, but they are fundamentally
416
Commentary
diVerentarguments from God work for artiWcial divination,

arguments from Nature (of the soul) for natural divination.
nonetheless Posidonius has explored this question as far as is
possible Kidd (1999: 166) translates rimatur (explored) as
rubbed up, which, although it reXects that this is a strong Wgure
(Pease; cf. Festus 345 L: rimari is to search for vigorously, as if even
in the cracks), seems to me too negative for this context, in which
Posidonius argumentation is crucial to Quintus case. Even so, there
may be an element of consistency in Quintus characterization, as he
later rejects artiWcial divination (2. 100). The primary reference must
be to Posidonius Wve books On Divination, rather than to his far
larger Meteorologica. Heraclides Ponticus could easily be cited in
both. Sextus Empiricus (Phys. 1. 79: similarly, in accordance with
certain risings and settings of the stars, changes in the surrounding
atmosphere and every kind of variation in the air occur, sometimes
for the better, sometimes involving pestilence) connects these
examples with Posidonius theory of cosmic sympathy.
there are in Nature certain signs of future events These signs come
from the nature of things, produced in the natural continuum of
cause and eVect (Kidd 1988: 435). Pease (following J. F. Dobson, CQ
12 (1918), 187) holds that the sign treated below is an example of
physical phenomena from which we can predict the weather and
not any true divinatory prognostication, but the sign seems to be
a phenomenon with a far greater prognostic scope than, say, the
storm signs of 1. 14, in that the character of a whole year seems to
be at issue.
we understand that the people of Ceos are accustomed each year to
make a careful observation of the dog star The introductory formula, along with the explicit attribution which follows, show that
this is a well-founded tradition which can be traced back to the
mid-4th cent. The rising of the brightest Wxed star visible with the
naked eye, Sirius, was considered signiWcant among Greeks from at
least the 8th cent. (cf. Hom. Il. 22. 2531), as it coincided with the
period of greatest heat and often severe fevers which were popularly
attributed to the stars presence in the sky with the sun all day (cf.
Commentary
417
Hippocr. Aer. 11; Schol. Hom. Il. 20. 31; Hyg. Poet. astr. 2. 4). For the
Cycladic islanders the heat and consequences for crops were particularly severe (cf. Schol. Ap. Rhod 2. 498: when the Dog Star was
blazing and drought and famine aZicted the Cyclades Islands for
a long time . . . they propitiated the Dog Star and it was a custom for
the Ceans to await the rising of the Dog Star each year in full armour
and to sacriWce to it. As a consequence the Etesian winds cooled
down the earth in summer and the Greeks were freed from famine.
Cf. Diod. 4. 82. 2).
as Heraclides of Pontus writes
See on 1. 46. Fr. 141 Wehrli.
conjecture whether the year will be healthy or pestilential Cf.

Hippocr. Aer 2: knowing the changes of the seasons and the rising
and the setting of the stars, with the circumstances of each of the
phenomena, he will know beforehand the nature of the year to come.
As the heliacal rising of Sirius, datable c.19 July for Hesiod (Op. 498)
occurred too late in the year to relate to the main crops, it concerned
the general healthfulness of the climate (cf. Manil. 1. 4034), whether
fever would break out (or continue), factors which depended to
a large degree on whether the Etesian winds would blow.
These were believed to begin around the rising of Sirius (Arist.
Meteor. 361b35).
If the star rises dimmer . . . breathing . . . will be diYcult In general
the rising of the Dog Star was a bad time for disease (Hippocr.
Aer 11).
131. Democritus holds that the ancients were wise to establish
the inspection of the entrails of sacriWcial victims For Democritus
acceptance of divination, see 1. 5. Although direct citation by Cic.
is not impossible (cf. Timpanaro, lxxviiiii) and it is not clear at what
point Cic. leaves Posidonius (Schaublin), the Wnal sentence before
the quotation from Pacuvius (see below if . . . ) formally ends the
Posidonian argument, so this should be part of it. Democritus may
have considered artiWcial divination to be simple scientiWc conjecture, with no relation to the theory of images by which he could
explain natural divination (cf. 2. 120; Bouche-Leclercq 1879: 41):
418
Commentary
the condition of the liver related directly to the quality of the food on
which the sacriWcial victim had been fed (cf. 2. 30).
from their condition and colour are perceived signs Marcus will
emphasize the simple connection between food and health (2. 30). In
Vitruvius the ancestors rationally determined the siting of cities by
inspecting the health of their animals livers (1. 4. 910). Condition
and colour appear to form no part of Roman haruspicial practice
(Thulin 1906: 24 n. 1), but are attested in Greek (Aesch. PV 4935);
in Babylonian haruspicy colour terms appear in the vocabulary
(Koch-Westenholz 2000: 62, 162).
If observation and custom have recognized that these techniques
proceed from Nature A closing formula to the section begun at 1. 129.
natural philosopher introduced by Pacuvius in his Chryses seems to
have understood very little of Nature For Pacuvius, see on 1. 24.
Nonius Marcellus (e.g. 370 L) supports the MSS reading Chryses here
(see DAnna 1967: ad loc.). Chryses was one of Pacuvius last plays,
performed in 129 or shortly before (cf. Cic. Am. 24). Chryses, the son
of Agamemnon, learnt late of his fathers identity and joined with
Orestes, his half-brother, in killing Thoas, king of Tauris, who had
attempted to kill Orestes (Hyg. Fab. 1201). These lines may be part
of an attack by Thoas on Orestes belief in divination (W. Zillinger,
Cicero und die altromischen Dichtung (Wurzburg, 1911), 1267),
addressed to Chryses who has to decide between heeding the
portents and giving in to Thoass demands for the surrender of
Orestes (cf. Slater 2000: 319), but the barbarian Thoas is not
a natural identiWcation for a natural philosopher (cf. E. Fantham,
Pacuvius: Melodrama, Reversals and Recognitions, in D. Braund
and C. Gill (eds.), Myth and Culture in Republican Rome (Exeter,
2003), 116). If the two extracts here were put into the mouth of the
same character, as Cic.s expression suggests, then the speaker oVers
both a critique of divination of the kind found elsewhere in Greek
and Roman drama (e.g. Soph. Oed. 3879; Eur. IT 5701; Plaut.
Amph. 11324; Poen. 463) and also a Stoic-inXuenced defence of
a pantheistic, immanent deity. This combination might deliberately
reXect the theories of Panaetius, which were familiar to the Scipionic
Commentary
419
circle in which Pacuvius moved (C. Mandolfo, Orpheus 22 (1975),

434). On this circle, see J. E. G. Zetzel, HSCP 76 (1972), 17380.
for those who understand the speech of birds . . . Fr. 20 (DAnna);
three iambic senarii, although the beginning of the Wrst line is
missing. The words evince scepticism on augury and haruspicy, the
latter achieved by a witty contrast which depends on the archaic view
of the liver as the seat of human intelligence. Similar attacks are
found in Ennius Telamon (see on 1. 132), Accius Astyanax (fr. 4 R),
and a line of Pacuvius (fr. 11 Inc. Fab. DAnna).
I think that they should hear rather than be obeyed The word play
of Pacuvius is impossible to reproduce (magis audiendum quam
auscultandum censeo), but is typical of him. The contrast between
audire and auscultare is found also in Caecilius Statius (Symbolos
196) and Cato (fr. 111 Malcovati).
But why?, I beg you Quintus question appears to be addressed
rhetorically to the speaker of the previous words (cf. Cic. Brut. 76).
Hence the barbarian Thoas is made to argue for a world system with
no room for divination in language derived from Greek natural
philosophy (Slater 2000: 319).
Whatever it is . . . Fr. 23 DAnna. The sentiment of these three
trochaic septenarii is usually compared with lines from Euripides
Chrysippus (fr. 839 K) addressing Earth as the mother of all, but the
debt is probably not speciWc, as Euripidean adaptations of the contemporary philosophical notions of Anaxagoras in particular are
found in many plays (e.g. fr. 936 K: do you see the boundless ether
on high and encompassing the earth in his watery arms? Count the
former Zeus, consider him god; tr. Cic. at ND 2. 65). Anaxagoras said
that the air contains the seeds of all things and these when carried
down by rain produce plants (Theophr. Hist. Plant. 3. 1. 4). Here,
too, father of all refers to the ether, rather than the earth (cf. Cic. ND
2. 91). Anaxagoras ideas were taken over and adapted by the Stoics.
it animates . . . and to it also they return Cf. Lucr. 5. 31823, and
Vitr. 8 praef. 1, where Euripides is explicitly the pupil of Anaxagoras.
420
Commentary
For the Stoics ether, the Wery upper atmosphere, was the intelligent
divine principle which observed the eternal process of birth and
death without itself being aVected and knew what was to come (Ps.
Hippocr. Carn. 2. 1: That which we call the hot is in my opinion
immortal, knows, sees and hears all things, and knows both the
present and the future . . . this is what the ancients, I think, called
the ether; Diog. Laert. 7. 139: the universe . . . has the ether as its
governing principle; cf. 1. 17) and by which prophecy was made
possible. The background of this quotation in Stoic thought is highly
relevant to Quintus argument.
since there is one abode for all things and it is common to all ND 2.
154: the world [is] as it were a shared home of gods and men, a city for
both; Leg. 1. 23: this world is to be considered as one state shared by
gods and men (cf. Rep. 1. 19; Leg. 2. 26; Fin. 3. 64; Parad. 18). In this
context Cic. omits the idea of state or citizenship from this idea, which
goes back to the late 5th cent. (cf. Plato Gorg. 507e) and was taken up by
Stoics (e.g. Chrysippus, Stob. 1. 184 W; Sen. Ben. 7. 1. 7) and
became commonplace (e.g. Epict. 2. 5. 26; Max. Tyr. 13. 6; Lact. Inst.
2. 5. 37). For divination to work it is essential that the gods not separate
themselves from the world and that they communicate with men.
Here Quintus emphasizes that there is one system for gods and men.
since the souls of men have always been and will be Apparently
another Cratippan formulation, as the immortality of the individual
soul is Platonic rather than orthodox Stoic belief (Timpanaro). The
continuity of the totality of soul matter (see on 1. 115) means that
there is no impediment springing from the limited existence of
individual souls, i.e. a change of signifying system in a new phase
of earths existence after a periodic ekpyrosis, to the souls interpretation of signs oVered by the universe.
This is what I have to say on divination, said Quintus The end of
his philosophically based defence of divination.
132. At this point I will aYrm Quintus continues, as we gather
from the Wnal words of the book. The tone is solemn, a rejection of all
unreal or superstitious divination (Timpanaro).
Commentary
421
I do not recognize . . . While several lines of division were made by

defenders or practitioners of divination to distinguish genuine divination from fraud, Quintus division probably has three aspects to it:
Wrst, and explicitly, he rejects all divination practised for personal
gain; secondly, he rejects amateur diviners, those who practised
artiWcial divination, but did not have the proper training (perhaps
identical with social class); and thirdly, in the Roman context, he
eliminates all practices that were not part of the state religion: the
consultation of oracles other than Delphi, necromancy, inspired
prophecy, and dream interpretation (cf. Leg. 2. 20). There is no
major inconsistency with his approbation of such practices in nonRoman cultures (pace Nice 2001: 166).
the drawers of lots Divination by lots is dealt with scantily in book
1 (1. 12, 76), but is attacked at length by Marcus (2. 857). Quintus
targets the common hucksters consulted by the lower classes (e.g.
Hor. Sat. 1. 9. 30; Juv. 6. 5834), not the functionaries at prominent
oracles such as that of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste (e.g. CIL 14.
2989). See Nice 2001: 15960.
those who divine for the sake of money Cf. 1. 4 (soothsayers) for
the pejorative term hariolor ; for the sake of money, a choice of
words inXuenced by the earlier quote from Ennius (see 1. 88).
Divination for personal gain was Wrst suppressed in 139, if Nepotianus sentiments (Val. Max. 1. 3. 1) go back to Livy and to the oYcial
justiWcation for the expulsion. There were later clampdowns with the
same alleged motive, e.g. by Agrippa in 33 (Dio 49. 43. 5).
the necromancers whom your friend Appius used to consult
Consultation of the spirits of the dead in the historical period was
conWned to several major complexes where, because of gases escaping
to the surface, there was thought to be a direct connection between
the underworld and the surface (e.g. Thesprotia, and places with the
name Plutonia, cf. 1. 79). In Italy Lake Avernus had the necessary
associations (cf. Cic. Tusc. 1. 37), but there is no literary evidence of
necromantic cult there from the historical period (cf. Diod. 4. 22. 2;
Strabo 244; Ogden 2001: 6371).
422
Commentary
Appius (see on 1. 28) notorious necromantic practices (cf. Tusc

1. 37: the Nekuiomanteia practised by my friend Appius) were
shared with Vatinius (Cic. Vat. 14), and probably with Nigidius
Figulus. He earned public scorn for his belief in necromancy
(Ogden 2001: 14950). A pantomime by Laberius with the title
Nekuiomantia suggests the possibilities for ridicule.
I do not give a Wg for Marsian augurs A highly colloquial dismissal:
nauci (Wg) in this sense is attested in Plautus and earlier writers (cf.
Festus 166 L), but later only in the grammarians Aelius Stilo
(Gramm. 19. 1) and Ateius Praetextatus (Gramm. Fr. 3). For Nice
(2001: 156) Cic. himself writes nauci to continue the archaic tone of
this and the preceding chapter. Older editors (e.g. Davies) took this
phrase and the following as part of the quotation from Ennius, but
metrical diYculties requiring emendation and above all the great
improbability of Isis worship being common enough to be ridiculed
in the early 2nd cent. suggest that these words at best paraphrase
Telamos speech (cf. M. S. Salem, JRS 28 (1938), 56) or contain(s)
reminiscences (Pease); to deny any connection with Ennius (Nice
2001: 1534) is excessive.
A mythological connection was made between Marsian augurs
(cf. 1. 105) and the Phrygian Marsyas (cf. Serv. Aen. 3. 359), who gave
them his name and their augural expertise, whereas another tradition
has the Marsians inherit their powers from Medea (Solinus 2. 28) or
Circe (Plin. NH 7. 15). The Marsian hill folk (see Letta 1972) were
perceived as other, tarred with the brush of witchcraft and magic,
and their practices, which lay outside the control of the state religion,
may have been seen as a threat to Roman religion (E. Dench, From
Barbarians to New Men (Oxford, 1995), 15967).
Village haruspices The adjective makes clear that these are lowly
functionaries, not members of the Etruscan elite trained to serve the
Roman state or even municipal haruspices (cf. Haack 2002: 11133).
In Rome they gathered in humble locations such as the Velabrum
(Plaut. Curc. 483) and market places (Jer. Ep. 127. 9).
astrologers from the Circus Again lowly practitioners for whom
the circus was a favourite haunt (Juv. 6. 5823; Schol. ad loc: if the
Commentary
423
superstitious woman is poor she searches in the circus for ones to

consult. For practitioners of the art used formerly to tout for business
there; Hor. Sat. 1. 6. 11314: I wandered through the deceitful
circus . . . I stand beside the fortune-tellers (divinis); Ps.-Acron ad
loc: deceitful circus. . . because of Samardacus who used to solicit
around the turning posts. For there both astrologers <and>
amateurs had once solicited. Because of the belief that the physical
features of the circus were conceived as a miniature universe, it was
not an unsuitable place for would-be interpreters to seek business (cf.
Bakhouche 2002: 1389).
Isiac prophets Prophets (coniectores) is not a positive term in
this context. Although it has an indisputable etymological link with
coniectura, which Quintus acknowledges as an essential element of
the experts practice in artiWcial divination (see on 1. 24), here
the term probably means those who make guesses (without
foundation). Its use of Isiac functionaries comes from the
interpretation of dreams received during incubation practised in
the cult of Isis (Quint. Inst. 3. 6. 30; Festus 52 L: coniectoran
interpreter of dreams; cf. 2. 123, 129, 134, 144; cf. inscriptions of
oneirokritai (interpreters of dreams) connected with the cult of
Isis (F. Dunand, La Culte dIsis dans le bassin oriental de la
Mediterranee (Leiden, 1973), iii. 313; and dedications to Isis kath
horamaP. Roussel, Les Cultes egyptiens a` Delos du IIIe au Ier
sie`cle av. J. C. (Paris, 191516), 119, no. 66, 149, no. 123, 198,
no. 201, 201, no. 210).
Worship of Isis reached Campania in the 2nd cent. through the
regions strong economic ties with Egypt and Delos, and by the early
1st cent. there was a cult on the Capitoline hill in Rome (CIL 6. 2247,
datable 9060; cf. Apul. Met. 11. 30). Given that worship of Isis had
probably not reached Rome by Ennius death, these words are
Ciceros, reXecting a view of his own time: from the early 50s to 48
the Senate had tried repeatedly to remove the unauthorized cult-sites
from Rome, as a threat to the pax deorum. See Takacs 1995: 2770.
interpreters of dreams Cf. 2. 127 for popular consultation of
such interpreters, who, as in Athens, could be accused of misleading
interpretations (cf. Hyp 4. 1516; Aeschin. 3. 77). Artemidorus
424
Commentary
(Proem. 12), by contrast, collected the works of such popular market

interpreters, although they were considered quacks.
They are not diviners either by science or technique The heart of
Quintus disapproval is that the interpretations of all these diviners
were not based on the results of observations over many years, the
basis for artiWcial divination.
But This begins a new sentence (Nice 2001: 159) and is deWnitely
non-Ennian, even if the following phrase can be attributed to
him.
superstitious seers and shameless prophets Jocelyn (1967: 398)
denies these words (superstitiosi vates inpudentesque harioli) to Ennius
on the grounds that when the Wrst three lines are taken together the
rude and undigested pile of adjectives and adjectival clauses . . . looks
like the work of a hasty quoter rather than that of a competent
dramatist. F. Caviglia (ASNP 39 (1970), 478 V.) and Timpanaro
attribute the words to Ennius, which is not impossible. More diYcult,
but crucial to the attribution of these words, is to establish the precise
connotations of superstitiosus and hariolus in the early 2nd cent. and
in the mid-1st cent. Certainly, in Ennius Alexander (see on 1. 66)
superstitiosi hariolationes has no pejorative sense. Superstitiosus
changed from a neutral sense of having knowledge (as a witness)
to a negative credulous or superstitious in the modern sense (Ronca
1992: esp. 489; cf. Sachot 1991: 3728). In Plautus, the hariolus is
a generally discreditable and even dangerous Wgure (N. W. Slater, The
Market in Sooth: Supernatural Discourse in Plautus, in E. Stark and
G. Vogt-Spira (eds.), Dramatische Waldchen: Festschrift fur Eckard
Lefe`vre zum 65 Geburtstag (Hildesheim, 2000), 34561) and is sometimes synonymous with speaking nonsense or being mad (e.g. Ter.
Phorm. 492; Montero 1993: esp. 11519), but there is a degree of
ambiguity about the term. The adjective qualifying harioli, inpudentes, is negative which has suggested that the combination of superstitiosi vates with inpudentes harioli may encompass all forms of
divination, respectable and charlatan, scrupulous seers and impudent prophets (A. Grilli, Superstitiosi vates, in C. Stella and A. Valvo
(eds.), Studi in onore di Albino Garzetti (Brescia, 1996), 22730). In
Commentary
425
the broader context of the Ennian lines both elements should be

negative, and certainly that is the meaning intended by Quintus.
skill-less Inertes, literally and in its original sense (cf. Cic. Fin. 2.
115) without art/skill.
or mad or ruled by need i.e. their frenzy was not due to divine
inspiration, but to madness, or was put on in order to fool clients. Cf.
Accius Astyanax (265 D): I give no credence to augurs who enrich
the ears of others with words, to enrich their own homes with gold.
These are similar to the egertai of whom Plato disapproved (Rep.
364b3; Leg. 909b).
They dont know the byway they themselves are on, but point out
the highway to others A wonderfully alliterative line which spits
contempt and which may be proverbial (A. Otto, Die Sprichworter
und sprichwortlichen Redensarten (Leipzig, 1890), 370). Nothing in
this or the previous line supports the notion of Pease that they are
inappropriate to Quintus wider argument in that they deny the Stoic
theory of inspiration. Even if in their original context the lines
expressed a complete rejection of divination, as was appropriate to
the dramatic situation in which Telamo speaks (probably rejecting
advice from a speciWc diviner), they can be read as condemning only
those seers who possessed neither genuine inspiration nor
a command of technical divination.
To the ones they promise riches, from them they ask a drachma
Although allegations of the venality of diviners are found in Attic
tragedy (e.g. Soph. OT 3889; Eur. Bacch. 2557) there is no parallel
for the particular point here. Hence Ennius may be addressing the
Roman context of his own day (Jocelyn 1967: 398). The ironic
contrast in the line is between the size of the riches prophesied and
the meagreness of the reward sought (cf. Plaut. Merc. 777; Pseud.
808). Even lower prices could be quoted (cf. Juv. 6. 5467; Max. Tyr.
Dial. 13. 3).
Ennius . . . holds that gods exist but that they do not care what
the human race does Marcus quotes the lines verbatim at 2. 104:
426
Commentary
I have always said and will say that the race of heavenly gods does
exist, but I hold that they do not care what the human race does.
Ennius Epicurean attitude here, echoing the Wrst of Epicurus kuriai
doxai, is more likely his own importation than original in any form to
the 5th or 4th-cent. Telamon which he is adapting.
but . . . emptiness and trickery Quintus restates the Stoic position
on beneWcent gods with which he began his defence (1. 10; cf. 1. 82).
Divination approved by Quintus includes those forms carried out by
skilled practitioners (of the highest social class) and incorporated
within Romes oYcial religion.
<You have come> admirably prepared indeed The original ending is missing, but probably amounted to no more than the completion of this compliment to Quintus on his defence of the Stoic
position and the formal taking of a walk (cf. 2. 8) before beginning
the second part of the dialogue. The compliment seems almost
formulaic for these dialogues (cf. Leg. 1. 63; Rep. 1. 34; ND 3. 2).
Bibliography
Editions and translations of De Divinatione (cited by name of author only)
W. Ax, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione, De Fato, Timaeus (Leipzig, 1938).
W. Falconer, Cicero. De Senectute, De Amicitia, De Divinatione (Cambridge,
Mass., 1923).
R. Giomini, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione, De Fato, Timaeus (Leipzig,
1975).
J. Kany-Turpin, Ciceron. De la Divination (Paris, 2004).
A. S. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis. De Divinatione (Urbana, 192023).
ber die Wahrsagung (Munich, 1991).
C. Schaublin, U
J. Scheid and G. Freyburger, Ciceron. De la Divination (Paris, 1992).
V. Thoresen, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione libri, udgivine og fortolkede
(Copenhagen, 1894).
S. Timpanaro, Cicerone. Della divinazione (Milan, 1988).
Collections of fragments and editions used
Accius, ed. J. Dangel, Accius: Oeuvres (fragments) (Paris, 1995).
Claudius Aelianus, ed. D. Domingo-Foraste, Epistulae et fragmenta (Stuttgart, 1994).
Aristotle, ed. R. Walzer, Aristotelis dialogorum fragmenta (Florence, 1934).
Carneades, ed. H. J. Mette, Karneades von Kyrene, Lustrum 27 (1985), 53
141.
Diogenes of Oenoanda, ed. M. F. Smith (Naples, 1993).
Epicurus, ed. G. Arrighetti, Epicuro: Opere, 2nd edn. (Turin, 1973).
Fabius Pictor, ed. M. Chassignet, LAnnalistique romaine: Les Annales des
pontifes et lannalistique ancienne (Paris, 1996).
Granius Licinianus, ed. N. Criniti, Granii Liciniani reliquiae (Leipzig, 1981).
Iamblichus, ed. E. des Places, Les Myste`res dEgypte (Paris, 1966).
Nemesius, ed. M. Morani, De natura hominis (Leipzig, 1987).
Numenius, ed. E. des Places, Fragments (Paris, 1973).
Obsequens, ed. O. Rossbach, T. Livi periochae omnium Librorum, Fragmente
Oxyrhynchi reperta, Iulii Obsequentis prodigiorum Liber (Leipzig, 1910).
Pacuvius, ed. G. DAnna, M. Pacuvii Fragmenta (Rome, 1967).
Posidippus, ed. C. Austin and G. Bastianini, Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt
omnia (Milan, 2002).
428
Bibliography
Scholia Bobiensia, ed. T. Stangl (in Ciceronis orationum Scholiastae ; Hildesheim, 1964).
Sisenna, ed. G. Barabino, I frammenti delle Historiae, Studi Noniani
1 (1967), 67251.
Solon Iambi et elegi Graeci, 2nd edn., ed. M. L. West (Oxford, 1992).
Stobaeus, ed. O. Hense and C. Wachsmuth, Anthologium (Berlin, 18841912).
Suda, ed. A. Adler (Stuttgart, 1933).
Varro, ed. B. Cardauns, M. Terentius Varro. Antiquitates rerum divinarum
(Mainz, 1976).
References (cited in the commentary by author and date)
Albis, R. V. (2001), Twin Suns in Ennius Annales, in Tylawsky and Weiss
(2001: 2532).
Alesse, F. (1994), Panezio di Rodi e la Tradizione Stoica (Naples).
(2000), La stoa e la tradizione socratica (Naples).
Allen, J. (2001), Inferences from Signs (Oxford).
Amat-Seguin, B. (1986), Ariminum et Flaminius, RSA 16: 79109.
Andr, J. (1949), Etude sur les termes de couleur dans la langue latine (Paris).
(1967), Les Noms doiseaux en latin (Paris).
Badal, R. (1976), Il proemio de De Divinatione, RCCM 18: 2747.
Badian, E. (1966), The Early Historians, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Latin
Historians (London), 138.
(1988), The Clever and the Wise: Two Roman Cognomina in Context,
in N. Horsfall (ed.), Vir bonus discendi peritus (London), 612.
Bannon, C. J. (1997), Brothers of Romulus (Princeton).
Barnes, J. (1997), Roman Aristotle, in Barnes and Griffin (1997: 169).
and Griffin, M. T. (eds.) (1989), Philosophia Togata (Oxford).
and (eds.) (1997), Philosophia Togata II (Oxford).
Brunschwig, J., Burnyeat, M. F., and Schofield, M. (eds.) (1982),
Science and Speculation (Cambridge).
Barton, T. (1994), Ancient Astrology (London).
Baudy, D. (1998), Romische Umgangsriten: Eine ethnologische Untersuchung
der Funktion von Wiederholung fur religioses Verhalten (Berlin).
Bayet, J. (1971), Croyances et rites dans la religion romaine antique (Paris).
Beard, M. (1986), Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin
Discourse, JRS 76: 3346.
(1989), Acca Larentia Gains a Son: Myths and Priesthood at Rome,
in M. M. MacKenzie and C. Roueche (eds.), Images of Authority:
Papers Presented to Joyce Reynolds on her Seventieth Birthday (Cambridge),
4161.
Bibliography
429
(1990), Priesthood in the Roman Republic, in Beard and North

(1990: 1948).
and North, J. A. (eds.) (1990), Pagan Priests (London).
Bendlin, A. (2000), Looking beyond the Civic Compromise: Religious
Pluralism in Late Republican Rome, in Bispham and Smith (2000:
11535).
Bergamini, M. (ed.) (1991), Gli Etruschi maestri di idraulica (Perugia).
Bernstein, A. H. (1978), Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus: Tradition and
Apostasy (Ithaca, NY).
Bernstein, F. (1998), Ludi publici: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und
Entwicklung der offentlichen Spiele im republikanischen Rom (Stuttgart).
Bettini, M. (1991), Anthropology and Roman Culture (Baltimore).
Bingen, J., and Schachter, A. (eds.) (1992), Le sanctuaire grec (Geneva/
Vandoeuvres).
Bispham, E., and Smith, C. (eds.) (2000), Religion in Archaic and Republican
Rome and Italy (Edinburgh).
Bloch, R. (1963), Les Prodiges dans lantiquite classique (Paris).
(1964), Liberte et determinisme dans la divination romaine, in
M. Renard and R. Schilling (eds.), Hommages a` Jean Bayet (Brussels), 89100.
Bobzien, S. (1998), Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy (Oxford).
Boll, F. (1910), Paralipomena I, Philologus 69: 16177.
Bommelaer, J.-F. (1981), Lysandre de Sparte: Histoire et traditions (Paris).
(1991), Guide de Delphes: Le Site (Paris).
Bonnechre, P. (2003), Trophonios de Lebadee: Cultes et mythes dune cite
beotienne au miroir de la mentalite antique (Leiden).
Bonnefond-Coudry, M. (1989), Le Senat de la republique romaine (Rome).
Bosworth, A. B. (1998), Calanus and the Brahman Opposition, in W. Will
(ed.), Alexander der Grosse: Eine Welteroberung und ihre Hintergrund
(Bonn), 173203.
Bouch-Leclercq, A. (187982), Histoire de la divination dans lantiquite
(Paris), iiv.
Bowden, H. (2005), Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle Divination and
Democracy (Cambridge).
Bradley, K. R. (1998), The Sentimental Education of the Roman Child:
The Role of Pet-Keeping, Latomus 57: 52357.
Bremmer, J. M. (1993), Three Roman Aetiological Myths, in F. Graf (ed.),
Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft (Stuttgart), 15874.
Briquel, D. (1986), Art augural et Etrusca Disciplina: Le Debat sur lorigine
de laugurat romain, in Guittard (1986: 68100).
(1993), Les Voix oraculaires, in de Casenove and Scheid (1993:
7790).
430
Bibliography
Briquel, D. (1997), Le Cas etrusque: Le Prophetisme rejete aux origines,

in Heintz (1997: 43955).
Brunt, P. A. (1989), Philosophy and Religion in the Late Republic, in
Barnes and Griffin (1989: 17498).
Burnyeat, M. F. (1982), The Origins of Non-Deductive Inference, in
Barnes et al. (1982: 193238).
Capdeville, G. (1993), Les Sources de la connaissance de lEtrusca Disciplina chez les ecrivains du sie`cle dAuguste, in Guittard and Briquel
(1993: 230).
(1997), Les Livres sacres des Etrusques, in Heintz (1997: 457508).
Capponi, F. (1979), Ornithologia latina (Genoa).
Castellani, V., and. Dragoni, W. (1991), Opere archaici per il controllo
del territorio: gli emissari sotterranei dei laghi albani, in Bergamini (1991:
4360).
Catalano, P. (1960), Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale (Turin).
Caven, B. (1990), Dionysius I: Warlord of Sicily (New Haven).
Cipriano, G. (1984), LEpifania di Annibale (Bari).
Coarelli, F. (1985), Il foro romano: Periodo reppublicano e augusteo (Rome).
(1991), Gli emissari dei laghi laziali: tra mito e storia, in Bergamini
(1991: 3541).
Cornell, T. J. (1995), The Beginnings of Rome (London).
Costanzi, V. (1924), Etrusci Haruspices, RFIC 52: 3419.
Courtney, E. C. (1993), Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford).
DArco, I. (1997), Il prodigio del lago Albano e la tradizione su Camillo
vincitore di Veio, MGR 22: 93148.
(2002), Il sogno premonitore di Annibale e il pericolo delle Alpi, QS
55: 14762.
De Casanove, O., and Scheid, J. (eds.) (1993), Les Bois sacres (Naples).
De Jong, P. (1997), Traditions of the Magi (Leiden).
Del Corno, D. (1969), Graecorum de re oneirocritica scriptorum reliquiae
(Milan).
Develin, R. (1985), The Practice of Politics at Rome 366167 bc (Brussels).
Dickey, E. (2002), Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius
(Oxford).
Dillery, J. (2002), Quintus Fabius Pictor and Greco-Roman Historiography at Rome, in J. F. Miller et al. (eds.), Vertis in usum: Studies in Honor
of Edward Courtney (Munich),123.
(2005), Chresmologues and Manteis: Independent Diviners and the
Problem of Authority, in Johnston and Struck (2005: 167231).
Di Sacco Franco, M. T. (2000), Les Devins chez Home`re: Essai danalyse,
Kernos, 13: 3546.
Bibliography
431
Dodds, E. R. (1951), The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, Calif.).

(1971), Supernormal Phenomena in Classical Antiquity, PSPR 55:
189237.
Douglas, A. E. (1995), Form and Content in the Tusculan Disputations, in
Powell (1995: 197218).
Dragona Monarchou, M. (1976), Posidonius Hierarchy between God,
Fate and Nature, Philosophia 4: 286301.
Durand, R. (1903), La Date du De Divinatione, in Melanges Boissier (Paris),
17383.
Dyck, A. R. (1996), A Commentary on Cicero De Officiis (Ann Arbor).
(1998), Cicero the Dramaturge: Verisimilitude and Consistency of
Characterisation in Some of his Dialogues, in G. Schmeling and J. D.
Mikalson (eds.), Qui miscuit utile dulci: Festschrift Essays for Paul Lachlan
MacKendrick (Wauconda), 15164.
(2003), Cicero: De Natura Deorum Book I (Cambridge).
(2004), A Commentary on Cicero De Legibus (Ann Arbor).
Eckstein, A. M. (1981), The Foundation Day of Roman Coloniae, CSCA
12: 8597.
Edelstein, L., and Kidd, I. G. (1972), Posidonius I: The Fragments (Cambridge).
Ernout, A., and Meillet, A. (1959), Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue
latine, 4th edn. (Paris).
Erskine, A. (2001), Troy between Greece and Rome (Oxford).
Falconer, W. A. (1923), A Review of M. Durands La date du De Divinatione, CP 18: 31027.
Fauth, W. (1976), Der Traum des Tarquinius, Spuren einer etruskisch
mediterranen WidderSonnensymbolik bei Accius, Latomus 35: 469503.
Fehrle, R. (1983), Cato Uticensis (Darmstadt).
ber die
Finger, P. (1929), Zwei mantischen Systeme in Ciceros Schrift U
Weissagung, RhM 68: 37197.
Fleck, M. (1993), Cicero als Historiker (Stuttgart).
Fontenrose, J. (1978), The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley, Calif.).
Forsythe, G. (1994), The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman
Annalistic Tradition (Lanham, Md.).
Fortenbaugh, W. W., and Steinmetz, P. (eds.) (1989), Ciceros Knowledge
of the Peripatos (New Brunswick, N.J.).
Frier, B. W. (1979), Libri Annales Pontificorum Maximorum: The Origins of
the Annalistic Tradition (Rome).
Gag, J. (1954), Alpanu, la Nemesis etrusque et lextispicium du sie`ge de
Veies, MEFRA 66: 3978.
(1963), Matronalia (Brussels).
432
Bibliography
Gallop, D. (1996), Aristotle. On Sleep and Dreams, 2nd edn. (Warminster).

Giomini, R. (1971), Problemi cronologici e compositivi del De Divinatione
ciceroniano (Rome).
(1979), Cicerone, De div. I, 20 Poet. fragm. 11,49 sgg. TR, in
G. DAnna (ed.), Studi di poesia latina in onore di Antonio Traglia
(Rome), 32332.
Giovannini, A. (1998), Les Livres auguraux, in Moatti (1998: 10322).
Glucker, J. (1995), Probabile, veri simile and Related Terms, in Powell
(1995: 12043).
(1999), A Platonic Cento, Phronesis 44: 3044.
Grler, W. (1995), Silencing the Troublemaker: De Legibus 1. 39 and the
Continuity of Ciceros Scepticism, in Powell (1995: 85113).
Goldberg, S. M. (1995), Epic in Republican Rome (New York).
(2000), Cicero and the Work of Tragedy, in Manuwald (2000: 4960).
Gordon, A. E. (1938), The Cults of Lanuvium (Berkeley, Calif.).
Graf, F. (1992), Heiligtum und Ritual: Das Beispiel der griechischromischen Asklepeia, in Bingen and Schachter (1992: 159203).
Griffin, M. T. (1995), Philosophical Badinage in Ciceros Letters to his
Friends, in Powell (1995: 32546).
Guillaumont, F. (1984), Philosophe et augure: Recherches sur le theorie
ciceronienne de la divination (Brussels).
(1985), Laeva prospera: Remarques sur la droite et la gauche dans la
divination romaine, in R. Bloch (ed.), DHerakle`s a` Poseidon: Mythologie
et protohistoire (Geneva), 15977.
(1986), Ciceron et les techniques de lharuspicine, in Guittard (1986:
12135).
Guittard, C. (ed.) (19856), La Divination dans le monde etrusco-italique
(Tours), iiii (Caesarodunum Supplements, 52, 54, and 56).
(1985a), La Tradition oraculaire etrusco-latine dans ses rapports avec
le vers saturnine et le carmen primitif , in Guittard (19856: i. 3355).
(1985b), Le Songe de Tarquin (Accius, Brutus, fr. I-II S.R.F. Klotz),
in Guittard (19856: ii. 4762).
(1986), Haruspicine et devotio: caput iocineris a familiari parte caesum
(Tite Live, 8.9.11), in Guittard (19856: iii. 4967).
(1989), Rome et Veies: les trois oracles concernant le prodige du lac
dAlbe, Atti del secondo congresso internazionale etrusco (Rome), vol. iii.
123746.
and Briquel, D. (eds.) (19913), Les Ecrivains du sie`cle dAuguste
et letrusca disciplina (Tours), iii (Caesarodunum Supplements, 61
and 63).
Bibliography
433
Haack, M.-L. (2002), Haruspices publics et prives; tentative dune distinction, REA 104: 11133.
Hamilton, J. R. (1969), Plutarch, Alexander: A Commentary (Oxford).
Hankinson, R. J. (1988), Stoicism, Science and Divination, Apeiron 21,
12360.
Harris, W. V. (2003), Roman Opinions about the Truthfulness of Dreams,
JRS 93: 1833.
Haury, A. (1984), Un mysterieux meteore, Phoebi fax (Ciceron, De Consulatu suo, II, 20), Latomus 43: 97103.
Heeringa, D. (1906), Quaestiones ad Ciceronis de Divinatione Libros Duos
pertinentes (Diss., Groningen).
Heintz, J.-G. (ed.) (1997), Oracles et propheties dans lantiquite (Paris).
Hellegouarch, J. (1963), Le Vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis
politiques sous la republique (Paris).
Herrmann, W. (1979), Die Historien des Coelius Antipater: Fragmente und
Kommentar (Meisenheim).
Hine, H. M. (1981), An Edition with Commentary of Seneca, Natural Questions Book Two (New York).
Holowchak, M. A. (2002), Oneirology in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Lanham,
Md.).
Jacquemin, A. (1999), Offrandes monumentales a` Delphes (Athens).
Jaeger, F. (1910), De oraculis quid veteres philosophi iudicaverunt (Diss.
Munich).
Jocelyn, H. D. (1967), The Tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge).
(1971), Urbs augurio augusto condita, PCPS 17: 4474.
(1973), Greek Poetry in Ciceros Prose Writing, YCS 23: 61111.
(1984), Uranias Discourse in Ciceros On his Consulship, Ciceroniana
5: 3954.
(198990), Ennius and the Impregnation of Ilia, AFLP 27: 1946.
Johnston, S. I., and Struck, P. T. (eds.) (2005), Mantike: Studies in Ancient
Divination (Leiden).
Jones, M. R. (2001), The Performers Curious Power: Theater and Anxiety
in Ancient Rome, in Tylawsky and Weiss (2001: 12945).
Kany-Turpin, J. (1999), Fonction de la verite dans un enonce augural: Le
Paradoxe du menteur Ateius Capito, in M. Baratin and C. Moussy (eds.),
Conceptions latines du sens et de la signification (Paris), 25566.
(2003a), Meteorologie et signes divinatoires dans le De Divinatione de
Ciceron, in C. Cusset (ed.), La Meteorologie dans lantiquite: Entre science
et croyance: actes du colloque international interdisciplinaire de Toulouse,
234 mai 2002 (Saint-Etienne), 36778.
434
Bibliography
Kany-Turpin, J. (2003b), La Divination augurale romaine, une science des

signes?, in C. Levy, B. Besnier, and A. Gigandet (eds.), Ars et ratio: sciences,
art et metiers dans la philosophe hellenistique et romaine (Brussels), 6174.
(2005), Signe et prediction dans lantiquite (Saint-Etienne).
Kany-Turpin, J. and Pellegrin, P. (1989), Cicero and the Aristotelian Theory
of Divination by Dreams, in Fortenbaugh and Steinmetz (1989: 22045).
Kessels, A. H. M. (1969), Ancient Systems of Dream-Classification, Mnem.
22: 389424.
Kidd, D. (1997), Aratus: Phaenomena (Cambridge).
Kidd, I. G. (1988), Posidonius II: The Commentary (Cambridge).
(1999), Posidonius III: The Translation of the Fragments (Cambridge).
Koch-Westenholz, U. (2000), Babylonian Liver Omens (Copenhagen).
Konrad, C. F. (ed.) (2004a), Augusto augurio: Rerum humanarum et divinarum commentationes in honorem Jerzy Linderski (Stuttgart).
(2004b), Vellere signa, in Konrad (2004a: 169203).
Kves-Zulauf, T. (1997), Die Vorzeichen der catilinarischen Verschworung, ACUSD 33: 21927.
Kragelund, P. (2001), Dreams, Religion and Politics in Republican Rome,
Historia 50: 5395.
Krevans, N. (1993), Ilias Dream: Ennius, Virgil and the Mythology of
Seduction, HSCP 95: 25771.
Krostenko, B. (2000), Beyond (Dis)belief: Rhetorical Form and Religious
Symbol in Ciceros De Divinatione, TAPA 130: 35391.
Kubiak, D. P. (1994), Aratean Influence in the De Consulatu Suo of Cicero,
Philologus 138: 5266.
Lane Fox, R. (1986), Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth).
La Penna, A. (1975), Polemiche sui sogni nella storiografia latina arcaica,
Studi Urbinati 49: 4960.
Lateiner, D. (2005), Signifying Names and Other Ominous Accidental
Utterances in Classical Historiography, GRBS 45: 3557.
Latte, K. (1959), Eine Episode aus dem Burgerkrieg und ihre Darstellung
bei Livius, MH 16: 1402.
Lefkowitz, M. (1981), The Lives of the Greek Poets (London).
Leiderer, R. (1990), Anatomie der Schafsleber in babylonischen Leberorakel
(Munich).
Leonhardt, J. (1999), Ciceros Kritik der Philosophenschulen (Munich).
Leppin, H. (1992), Histrionen: Untersuchungen zur sozialen Stellung von
Buhnenkunstlern im Westen des romischen Reiches zur Zeit der Republik
und des Prinzipats (Bonn).
Leschhorn, W. (1985), Ausdrucke der ubermenschlichen Ehrung bei
Cicero, in A. Alfoldi (ed.), Caesar in 44 v. Chr. (Bonn), 38797.
Bibliography
435
Lvy, C. (1992), Cicero Academicus. Recherches sur les Academiques et sur la

philosophie ciceronienne (Rome).
(1997), De Chrysippe a` Posidonius: Variations stociennes sur le
the`me de la divination, in Heintz (1997: 32143).
Lvy, E. (1997), Devins et oracles chez Herodote, in Heintz (1997:
34565).
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1979), Continuity and Change in Roman Religion
(Oxford).
Linderski, J. (1975), Review of T. Koves-Zulauf, Reden und Schweigen, CP
70: 2849.
(1982), Cicero and Divination, PP 37: 1238.
(1985), The libri reconditi , HSCP 89: 20734.
(1986a), The Augural Law, ANRW ii/16. 3 (Berlin), 21462312.
(1986b), Watching the Birds: Cicero the Augur and the Augural
Templa, CP 81: 33040.
(1989), Garden Parlors: Nobles and Birds, in R. I. Curtis (ed.), Studia
Pompeiana & Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski (New Rochelle,
N.J.), 10527.
(1995), Roman Questions (Stuttgart).
Long, A. A. (1982), Astrology: Arguments Pro and Con, in Barnes et al.
(1982: 16592).
(1995), Ciceros Plato and Aristotle, in Powell (1995: 3761).
Lorenz, T. (1992), Die Epiphanien der Dioskuren, in H. Froning
and T. Holscher (eds.), Kotinos: Festschrift fur Erika Simon (Mainz),
11422.
Luterbacher, F. (1904), Der Prodigienglaube und Prodigienstil der Romer
(Burgdorf).
Maass, E. (1907), Der Kampf um Temesa, JDAI 22: 1853.
MacBain, B. (1982), Prodigy and Expiation: A Study in Religion and Politics
in Republican Rome (Brussels).
MacKendrick, P. L. (1989), The Philosophical Books of Cicero (London).
Magie, D. (1950), Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton).
Malkin, I. (1987), Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden).
(1994), Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean (Cambridge).
Maltby, R. (1991), A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds).
Manuwald, G. (2000), Identitat und Alteritat in der fruhromischen Tragodie
(Wurzburg).
(2001), Fabulae Praetextae. Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der
Romer (Munich).
436
Bibliography
Mastrocinque, A. (1983), La cacciata di Tarquinio il Superbo: Tradizione

romana e letteratura greca, Athenaeum 61: 45780.
Maurizio, L. (2001), The Voice at the Center of the World, in A. Lardinois
and L. McClure (eds.), Making Silence Speak (Princeton), 3854.
Mazurek, T. (2004), The decemviri sacris faciundis: Supplication and
Prediction, in Konrad (2004a: 15168).
Miller, T. (1997), Die griechische Kolonization (Munich).
Mitchell, T. N. (1979), Cicero: The Ascending Years (London).
Moatti, C. (1998), La Memoire perdue: Recherches sur ladministration
romaine (Rome).
Momigliano, A. D. (1984), The Theological Efforts of the Roman Upper
Classes in the First Century, CP 79: 199211.
Mommsen, T. (1887), Romisches Staatsrecht, 3rd edn., i. (Leipzig).
Montero, S. (1993), Mantica inspirada y demonologa: los Harioli, AC 62:
11529.
bersetzer Platons, in C. W.
Mller-Goldingen, C. (1992), Cicero als U
Muller, K. Sier et al. (eds.), Zum Umgang mit fremden Sprachen in der
griechisch-romischen Antike (Stuttgart), 17387.
Mynors, R. A. B. (1990), Virgil: Georgics (Oxford).
Nachtergael, G. (1977), Les Galates en Gre`ce et les Soteria de Delphes:
Recherches dhistoire et depigraphie hellenistiques (Brussels).
Nice, A. T. (1999), Divination and Roman Historiography (Diss. Exeter).
(2001), Ennius or Cicero? The Disreputable Diviners at Cic. De Div. 1.
132, A Class. 44: 15366.
North, J. A. (1990), Diviners and Divination at Rome, in Beard and North
(1990: 5171).
(1998), The Books of the Pontifices, in Moatti (1998: 4563).
(2000), Prophet and Text in the Third Century bc, in Bispham and
Smith (2000: 92107).
Oakley, S. P. (1998), A Commentary on Livy Books VIX, ii (Oxford).
Obbink, D. (1992), What All Men BelieveMust be True, OSAP 10:
193231.
Ogden, D. (2001), Greek and Roman Necromancy (Princeton).
Ogilvie, R. M. (1965), A Commentary on Livy Books 15 (Oxford).
OGrady, P. F. (2002), Thales of Miletus: The Beginning of Western Science
and Philosophy (Aldershot).
Orlin, E. M. (1997), Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic
(Leiden).
Pailler, J.-M. (1997), La Vierge et le serpent, MEFRA 109: 51375.
Palmer, R. E. A. (1974), Roman Religion and Roman Empire: Five Essays
(Philadelphia).
Bibliography
437
Parke, H. W. (1967), The Oracles of Zeus (London).

(1985), The Oracles of Apollo in Asia Minor (London).
(1988), Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London).
and Wormell, D. E. W. (1956), The Delphic Oracle (Oxford).
Parker, R. C. T. (1985), Greek States and Greek Oracles, in P. A. Cartledge
and F. D. Harvey (eds.), Crux: Essays in Greek History Presented to G. E. M.
de Ste. Croix (Exeter), 298326.
(1989), Spartan Religion, in A. Powell (ed.), Classical Sparta: Techniques behind her Success (London), 14272.
Patzer, A. (1999), Sokrates als Soldat: Geschichtlichkeit und Fiktion in der
Sokratesuberlieferung, A&A 45: 135.
Pavis dEscurac, H. (1981), La Pratique augurale romaine a` la fin de la
Republique: Scepticisme et tradition, in Religion et culture dans la cite
italienne de lantiquite a` nos jours (Strasbourg), 2739.
Pease, A. S. (1955), M. Tulli Ciceronis: De Natura Deorum (Cambridge,
Mass.).
Pendrick, G. J. (2002), Antiphon the Sophist: The Fragments (Cambridge).
Pfeffer, F. (1976), Studien zur Mantik in der Philosophie der Antike (Meisenheim am Glan).
Philippson, R. (1922), Review of Pease, PhW 42: 1017.
Piccaluga, G. (1969), Attus Navius, SMSR 40: 151208.
Pigeaud, J. (1981), La Maladie de lame (Paris).
Poncelet, R. (1957), Ciceron traducteur de Platon (Paris).
Powell, J. G. F. (1988), Cicero: Cato Maior de Senectute (Cambridge).
(1995), Ciceros Translations from Greek, in Powell (1995: 273300).
(ed.) (1995), Cicero the Philosopher: Twelve Papers (Oxford).
Radke, G. (1965), Die Gotter Altitaliens (Munster).
Rankin, H. D. (1987), Celts and the Classical World (London).
Rawson, E. D. (1978), Caesar, Etruria and the Disciplina Etrusca, JRS 68:
3252.
(1979), L. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century, CQ 29:
32746.
(1985), Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London).
Regell, P. (1878), De augurum publicorum libris (Diss. Vratislava).
(1882), Fragmenta auguralia, Progr. Konigliches Gymnasium zu
Hirschberg 164: 319.
(1893), Commentarii in librorum auguralium fragmenta specimen,
Progr. Konigliches Gymnasium zu Hirschberg 189: 322.
Reinhardt, K. (1921), Poseidonios (Munich).
(1926), Kosmos und Sympathie: Neue Untersuchungen uber Poseidonios
(Munich).
438
Bibliography
Renard, M., and Schilling, R. (eds.) (1964), Hommages a` Jean Bayet

(Brussels).
Repici, L. (1991), Aristotele, gli Stoici e il libro dei sogni nel De Divinatione
e nel De Finibus di Cicerone, Metis 6: 167203.
(1995), Gli Stoici e la divinazione secondo Cicerone, Hermes 123:
17592.
(1996), Il sapiente stoico, la divinazione, la citta`, QS 22: 4169.
Reydam-Schils, G. (1997), Posidonius and the Timaeus of Plato: Off to
Rhodes and Back to Plato?, CQ 47: 45576.
Rhodes, P. J. (1981), A Commentary on the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia
(Oxford).
Richer, N. (1998), Les Ephores: Etudes sur lhistoire et sur limage de Sparte
(Paris).
Riginos, A. S. (1976), Platonica: The Anecdotes concerning the Life and
Writings of Plato (Leiden).
Robinson, A. (1994), Ciceros References to his Banishment, CW 87:
47580.
Rochberg, F. (1998), Babylonian Horoscopes (Philadelphia).
Ronca, I. (1992), Whats in Two Names: Old and New Thoughts on the
History and Etymology of Religio and Superstitio, RPL 15: 4360.
Rosenstein, N. (1991), Imperatores victi. Military Defeat and Aristocratic
Competition in the Middle and Late Republic (Berkeley, Calif.).
Rpke, J. (1990), Domi militiae: Die religiose Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom
(Stuttgart).
Sachot, M. (1991), Religio/superstitio: Historique dune subversion et dun
retournement, RHR 208: 35194.
Salmon, E. T. (1967), Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge).
Sambursky, S. (1956), On the Possible and the Probable in Ancient Greece,
Osiris 12: 3548.
Sandbach, F. H. (1975), The Stoics (London).
Sanders, L. J. (1987), Dionysius I of Syracuse and Greek Tyranny (London).
Santangelo, F. (2005), The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi, ARG 7:
198214.
Schachter, A. (198194), Cults of Boiotia (London), iiv.
Schublin, C. (1985), Cicero De Divinatione und Poseidonios, MH 42:
15767.
(1986), Ementita auspicia, WS 20: 16581.
(1989), Weitere Bemerkungen zu Cicero De Divinatione, MH 46:
4251.
Scheid, J. (19879), La Parole des dieux: LOriginalite du dialogue des
Romains avec leurs dieux, Opus 68: 12536.
Bibliography
439
(1993), Lucus, nemus. Quest-ce quun bois sacre?, in de Casenove and

Scheid (1993: 1320).
(1998), Les Livres Sibyllins et les archives des quindecemvirs, in
Moatti (1998: 1126).
(2003), An Introduction to Roman Religion (Edinburgh).
Schibli, H. S. (1990), Pherekydes of Syros (Oxford).
Schiche, T. (1875), De fontibus librorum Ciceronis qui sunt de Divinatione
(Diss. Jena).
Schofield, M. (1986), Cicero for and against Divination, JRS 76: 4765.
Schultz, C. (2006), Juno Sospita and Roman Insecurity in the Social War,
YCS 33: 20727.
Schulze, W. (1904), Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin).
Scodel, R. (1980), The Trojan Trilogy of Euripides (Gottingen).
Scullard, H. H. (1981), Festivals and Ceremonies (London).
Sedley, D. (1997), Platos Auctoritas and the Rebirth of the Commentary,
in Barnes and Griffin (1997: 11029).
Sehlmeyer, M. (1999), Stadromische Ehrenstatuen der republikanische Zeit
(Stuttgart).
Seibert, J. (1993), Forschungen zu Hannibal (Darmstadt).
Setaioli, A. (2005), Le Fragment II Soubiran du De consulatu de Ciceron,
le De divinatione et leur lecture par Virgile, in Kany-Turpin (2005:
24161).
Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (19658), Ciceros Letters to Atticus (Cambridge),
ivi.
(1980), Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum (Cambridge).
Skutsch, O. (1985), The Annals of Ennius (Oxford).
Slater, N. W. (2000), Religion and Identity in Pacuviuss Chryses, in
Manuwald (2000: 30114).
Smadja, E., and Geny, E. (eds.) (1999), Pouvoir, divination, predestination
dans le monde antique (Paris).
Soubiran, J. (1972), Ciceron: Aratea. Fragments poetiques (Paris).
Starr, I. (1983), The Rituals of the Diviner (Malibu).
Steinmetz, P. (1989), Beobachtungen zu Ciceros philosophischem Standpunkt, in Fortenbaugh and Steinmetz (1989: 121).
Stewart, R. (1998), Public Office in Early Rome (Ann Arbor).
Stockton, D. L. (1971), Cicero: A Political Biography (Oxford).
(1979), The Gracchi (Oxford).
Szemler, G. J. (1972), The Priests of the Roman Republic (Brussels).
440
Bibliography
Tarn, L. (1987), Ciceros Attitude towards Stoicism and Skepticism in De

Natura Deorum, in K.-L. Selig and R. Somerville (eds.) Florilegium
Columbianum: Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (New York),
122.
Tarrant, H. J. (2000a), Recollection and Prophecy in the De Divinatione,
Phronesis, 45: 6476.
(2000b), Platos First Interpreters (Ithaca, N.Y.).
Tarver, T. H. (1997), Varro and the Antiquarianism of Philosophy, in
Barnes and Griffin (1997: 13064).
Theiler, W. (1982), Posidonius. Die Fragmente (Berlin).
Thulin, C. O. (19059), Die etruskische Disciplin (Gothenburg), iiii.
Timpanaro, S. (1994), Alcuni fraintendimenti nel De Divinatione, in
Nuovi contributi di filologia e storia della lingua latina (Bologna),
24164.
(1996), Dall Alexandros di Euripide all Alexander di Ennio, RFIC
124: 570.
Traglia, A. (1966), La lingua di Cicerone poeta (Rome).
Treggiari, S. (1991), Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of
Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford).
Tuplin, C. J. (1987), The Leuctra Campaign: Some Outstanding Problems,
Klio 69 (1987), 72107.
Tylawsky, E., and Weiss, C. G. (eds.) (2001), Essays in Honor of Gordon
Williams (New Haven).
Vaahtera, J. (2001), Roman Augural Lore in Greek Historiography (Stuttgart).
ber das Stadtgrundungsaugurium bei Ennius, SBAW
Vahlen, J. (1894), U
114361.
Valeton, I. M. J. (1889), De modis auspicandi Romanorum, Mnem. 17:
275325, 42052.
(1890), De modis auspicandi Romanorum II, Mnem. 18: 20863.
(1891), De iure obnuntiandi comitiis et conciliis, Mnem. 19: 75113,
22970.
van der Eijk, P. J. (1993), Aristotelian Elements in Ciceros De Divinatione,
Philologus 137: 22331.
van der Meer, L. B. (1987), The Bronze Liver of Piacenza: Analysis of a
Polytheistic Structure (Amsterdam).
van Straaten, M. (1946), Panetius: Sa vie, ses ecrits et sa doctrine avec une
edition des fragments (Amsterdam).
VeglEris, E. (1982), Platon et le reve de la nuit, Ktema 7: 5365.
Bibliography
441
Versnel, H. S. (1975), Sacrificium Lustrale: The Death of Mettius Fufetius

(Livy 1. 28). Studies in Roman Lustration Ritual I, MNIR 37: 119.
von Staden, H. (1989), Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria
(Cambridge).
Wagenvoort, H. (1952), Ad Cic. De Div. 1, 35, 38, Mnem. 5: 148.
Walde, A., and Hofmann, J. B. (1938), Lateinisches Etymologisches Worterbuch, 3rd edn. (Heidelberg).
Wardle, D. (1998), Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings, Book
I (Oxford).
Weinstock, S. (1951), Libri Fulgurales, PBSR 19: 12253.
(1971), Divus Julius (Oxford).
Wide, S. (1903), Lakonische Kulte (Leipzig).
Wiseman, T. P. (1979), Clios Cosmetics (Leicester).
(1994), Historiography and Imagination (Exeter).
(1995), Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge).
Wissowa, G. (1912), Religion und Kultus der Romer, 2nd edn. (Munich).
Zecchini, G. (2001), Cesare e il mos maiorum (Stuttgart).
Ziolkowski, A. (1992), The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their
Historical and Topographical Context (Rome).
This page intentionally left blank
Index
Academy & Academics 15, 16, 18,
28, 106, 111, 11517 passim,
222, 276, 280, 316
building 52, 158, 297
New 12, 13, 17, 109, 115, 116
Old 47, 74, 108, 109, 158
see also Cicero, as Academic;
Plato; Scepticism; Socrates
Acanthians 289
Acarnania 334
Accius, Lucius 59, 21822, 237,
419, 425
Acerrae 104
Achilles 66, 237
Achmet 259, 260, 286
Acilius Glabrio, Marius 343
Acragas 220, 222
Acropolis 242, 243
actors & acting 2989, 3045
Aedui 74, 322, see further Gauls
Aeginetans 290
Aegospotami 289, 290
Aemilia, Tertia 78, 3567
Aemilius Paullus, Lucius (cos.
II 168) 78, 3567
Aemilius, Marcus 320
Aeneas 59, 101, 213, 214,
21617, 344
Aeolia 46, 98
Aesopus, Claudius 72, 3045
Aetolians 305
Afghanistan 201
Africa 276, 333, 364, 395
Agamemnon 54, 169, 179, 418
Agariste 399
Agathocles of Cyzicus 61, 233

Agnania 342
Agrigentans 223
Agrippa 421
Aius Locutius 78, 214, 350
Aius Loquens, see Aius Locutius
Ajax 167, 303, 307
Alba Longa 213, 337, 347
Alban Lake 77, 3457
Alban Mount 51, 1478, 295,
3468 passim
Alcetas 211, 291, 292
Alcibiades 404
Aletes 98
Alexander (the Great) 60, 61,
84, 100, 2267, 231,
324, 398
Alexander (tyrant) 62, 241
Alexandria 100, 233
Allied War 343
Allobroges 52, 145, 156
Allodius 346
altars 69, 78, 179, 2824 passim,
350
Alyattes 377, 379
Amiternum 337
Ammon oracle 46, 76, 98, 100,
3334, see also Siwa
Amphiaraus 74, 318, 319
Amphilochus 74, 3168 passim,
328
Ampsanctus 71, 301
Amulius 346, 347
Anatolia 331
Anaxagoras 337, 419
444
Index
Anaximander of Miletus 81,

37980
Androclus 98
Andron of Ephesus 109, 380
animals:
and weather 50, 1348 passim
writing or speaking 53, 73, 161,
163, 312
Anio 214, 341
Antemnae 214
annals:
historical 193, 216, 217, 244, 345
pontiWcal 77, 143, 193, 199, 220,
235, 312, 341, 342
Annius, Titus 247
Antioch 338
Antiochus of Ascalon 35, 109, 158,
276, 373
Antipater of Tarsus 31, 47, 58, 73,
85, 11314, 116, 121, 122,
130, 160, 209, 308, 309, 390,
402, 405
Antiphon 58, 2089, 387, 388
Antisthenes 405
Antonius 304
Antonius, Marcus (cos. 44) 7 n. 31,
180, 184, 185
ants 71
Apelles 1623
Aphrodite 162, 163, 384
Apollo 59, 67, 72, 82, 206, 211, 216,
272, 273, 298, 306, 318, 320,
335, 404
Delphian 72, 76
Nomios 297
Phoebus 317
Pythian 58, 99, 203
oracle 59, 85, 98, 317, 386
statue 77, 339
see also Delphi; Delphic oracle;
Pythia
Apollodorus 378
Appian 284, 328
Apulia 76, 339
Arabia & Arabs 75, 76, 328
Aratus of Soli 1328 passim,
140, 146
Arausio 295
Arcadia 64, 203, 324
Arcesilas 13, 21 n. 83, 109, 116, 117
Archippus 211
Ardea 342
Areopagus & Areopagites 63, 243
Ares 306
Aretaeus 306
Argeads 365
Argonauts 290, 318
Argos & Argives 58, 74, 204, 31718
Aricia 341
Ariminum 293, 337
Ariobarzanes 172
Aristander 324
Aristarchus 198
Aristeas 383
Aristobulus 227
Aristolochia 140
Aristomenes 289
Ariston 203
Aristonicus 340
Aristophanes 324
Aristotle 21, 97, 109, 110, 114, 117,
120, 123, 140, 158, 162, 166,
196, 197, 23940, 269, 283,
287, 302, 332, 335, 3757
passim, 381
on dreams 62, 109, 221, 240, 257,
3079 passim
on natural history 135, 301, 337,
386
on soul 72, 240, 264, 265, 268,
2779 passim
see also Peripatetics
Index
Aristoxenus 362
Armenia 172
armies 53, 72, 2389, 306, 404
Roman, 612, 69, 70, 78, 173, 174,
284, 295, 296, 354, 355, 360
see also war & warfare
Arpinum 119, 254, 362, 364
Arretium 70, 293, 344
Arruntius Cariullus Scribonianus,
Lucius 295
Arsian Wood 349
Artaxerxes II 239, 403
Artemidorus 209, 213, 219,
259, 423
Artemis 140, 227, 228
Arval Brethren 352
Asclepius 403
Asia 46, 61, 71, 74, 979 passim,
216, 319, 378, 379
Roman province 64, 119,
251, 302
Assyria & Assyrians 45, 957
passim, 325, 328, 345
astrologers 4, 49, 57, 73, 88, 113,
128, 169, 281, 318, 320, 422, 423
astrology 4 n. 12, 88, 110, 112, 115,
153, 313, 317, 398, 410, 413
Near Eastern 45, 957 passim,
131, 202, 227, 228, 323
astronomy & astronomers 75,
956, 133, 240, 377, 378, 414
Astyages 81, 379
Astypalae 222
Ateius Capito, Gaius (trib. 55)
30, 55, 1807 passim
Athena 318
Athenodorus 390
Athens & Athenians 76, 989, 114,
158, 197, 376, 423
and oracles, 58, 85, 203, 306,
333, 403
445
at war, 70, 211, 290, 291, 399, 404

see also Areopagus
Atilius Caiatinus, Aulus (cos.
258) 235
Atina 64, 65, 253, 256
Atinius, Tiberius 2467
atomism 10810 passim, 266
Atratus 77, 341, 344
Atreus 218, 220
Attica 197, 319, 376, 404
Atticus 13, 29, 30 n. 107, 37, 41, 91,
115, 133, 146, 159, 228, 363
Attus Navius, see Navius, Attus
augural college 7, 17, 18, 54, 170,
171, 175, 176, 183, 1905
passim, 282, 320, 321, 323, 359,
361, 365
augural law, see augury, writings on
augurs:
Greek 47, 69, 74, 76, 283, 318,
320, 321, 324
Marsian 20, 88, 361, 422
Roman 6, 12, 20, 46, 49, 547
passim, 73, 79, 80, 101, 170,
177, 181, 183, 18693 passim,
200, 323, 326, 357, 358,
359, 382
staV of 55, 187, 188
augury:
foreign 54, 75, 81, 97, 108, 109,
112, 170, 171, 322, 323
Roman 18, 27, 60, 74, 90, 92, 100,
101, 165, 16995 passim, 222,
295, 313, 320, 321, 352, 360,
361, 36470 passim, 375, 397,
398, 406, 407, 419
writings on 7, 30, 69, 169, 170,
1757 passim, 185, 195, 282,
323, 338, 351
see also auspices; birds
Augustus 369, 401
446
Index
Aulis 180, 283

Aurelius Cotta, Gaius (cos. 75) 17,
48, 108, 110, 121, 334
Aurelius Cotta, Lucius (cos. 65) 51,
151, 152
Aurelius Cotta, Marcus
(monetalis 139) 342
aurora 148, 154, 337, 338
auspices 6, 20, 46, 54, 70, 74, 79, 80,
168, 170, 17295 passim, 282,
288, 294, 295, 327, 328, 332,
351, 359, 361, 363, 365,
369, 406
dire 55, 178, 1813 passim, 186,
394, 396
false 55, 1805 passim
forced 54, 1745, 178, 294
hindering 178, 179
impetrative 101, 130, 173, 174,
177, 181, 182, 294, 295
oblative 131, 174, 182, 183, 185,
295, 356, 357, 391
function of 55, 76, 101
private use of 54, 56, 172, 173,
177, 189, 192, 284, 351,
358, 359
military, see war & warfare,
divination and
wedding, see auspices, private
use of
see also augury; tripudia
authorial voice, see De Divinatione,
authorial voice
Autronius Maximus 247
Aventine 77, 80, 170, 342, 365,
367, 368
babies, see children & childhood
Babylon & Babylonians 60, 1412,
201, 2267, 251, 313, 3245,
328, 378, 395, 418
on astrology & astronomy, 57, 75,

957 passim, 131, 202, 378,
398, 414
Bacchus 72, 303, 383
Bacis of Boeotia 57, 1967
Bantia 174
barbarians 58, 60, 73, 74, 95, 225,
306, 321, 418
beauty & handsomeness 62, 80,
21314, 237, 241, 305, 367
bees 69, 71, 176, 2846 passim,
2978
beliefs, see personal faith
Bellerophon 321
Berosus 202
birds 45, 75, 85, 101, 109, 130, 131,
1346 passim, 174, 176, 182,
189, 301, 330, 358, 360, 364,
36770 passim, 397, 398
acredula 50, 1356
alites 84, 397
chicken 54, 69, 70, 1745, 179,
288, 294, see also tripudia
crows 49, 50, 73, 130, 131, 136,
328, 397
eagles 54, 7980, 99, 109, 172,
3635 passim, 397, 407
egrets 50, 135
oscines 84, 397
owls, 321, 397
ravens 49, 73, 130, 131, 397
sparrows 69, 283
vultures 369, 397
Xight & direction of 73, 80, 84,
130, 131, 222, 364, 392, 397
songs & sounds of 76, 83, 84, 88,
130, 136, 288, 397, 419
see also augury; auspices
blood 60, 65, 77, 84, 260, 329, 341,
344, 394
Blossius, Gaius 115
Index
Board of Fifteen (Quindecimviri) 2,
6, 12, 336, 337
Board of Ten (Decemviri) 76, 103,
202, 320, 336, 337, 339, 340,
345, 365
Boeotia & Boeotians 69, 197, 286,
288, 319, 404
Boethus of Sidon 49, 129, 134, 140,
376, 408
Bona Dea 367
Brahmans 226, see also India &
Indians
Brennus 72, 305
bronze 83
Brundisium 252, 253
burial 63, 250, see also death &
dying
Cadmea 287
Caecilia (wife of Metellus) 789,
3589
Caecilia Metella (daughter of
Baliaricus) 46, 77, 1056
Caecilia Metella 105
Caecilius Metellus Baliaricus,
Quintus 46, 77, 105
Caecilius Metellus Macedonius,
Quintus (cos. 143) 358
Caecilius Metellus, Lucius 157
Caecilius Statius 419
Caecina, Aulus 7 n. 32, 14 n. 57, 30,
255, 2812
Caedicius, Marcus 34950
Caelius Rufus, Marcus (praet.
48) 274
Caere 341, 342
Caesar, see Julius Caesar, Gaius
Calatia 341
Calchas 69, 74, 283, 31617
calendar 97, 148, 353
Callanus 60, 66, 201, 2267
447
Callinus 317
Calliope 146
Callisthenes 69, 197, 287, 291, 292
Calpurnius Piso Frugi, Lucius (cos.
133) 219
Calpurnius Bibulus, Marcus (cos.
59) 7, 182
Calvus 358
Calydonian boar 318
Cambyses 224
Campania 342, 423
Campus Martius 194
Cannae 216, 229
Capitol 77, 103, 1503 passim, 182,
184, 236, 249, 295, 342, 423,
see also Jupiter (temple)
Cappadocia 172
Capua 77, 337, 338, 340, 344
Carduchians 238
Caria & Carians 75, 76, 99, 324, 331
Carneades of Cyrene 1214 passim,
16 n. 64, 26, 47, 49, 52, 53, 65,
80, 109, 115, 116, 121, 122, 130,
132, 1604 passim, 169, 203,
2623, 308, 313, 371, 390,
409, 412
Carrhae 181, 295
Carseoli 341
Carthage & Carthaginians 61, 179,
210, 217, 22934 passim,
285, 296
Carthalo 179
Casinum 337
Cassandra 67, 73, 74, 215, 2704
passim, 298, 314, 31920, 384
Cassius 275, 277
Cassius Vecellinus, Spurius (cos.
502) 348
Castor & Pollux (gods) 70, 290, see
also Dioscuri
Castor & Pollux (temple) 77
448
Index
Catania 211
Catilina, Lucius Sergius, see
Catilinarian conspiracy
Catilinarian conspiracy 5, 1456,
152, 1534, 156, 355, 3601
Cato, see Porcius Cato, Marcus
cattle 50, 138, 230, 231, 393
cause & eVect 867, 108, 124, 133,
165, 181, 186, 314, 372, 390,
40912 passim, 416
celestial bodies, see comets &
meteors; moon; stars & planets;
sun
Celsus 142, 308
Celts 296, 321, 322, see also Druids
censors 55, 57, 78, 178, 181, 184,
3545
Centaur (statue) 77, 342
Centrites 238
Ceos & Ceans 88, 4167
Cephallenia 338
Ceramus 99
Chaldaeans 43, 45, 75, 957 passim,
325
chance 25, 523, 68, 86, 116, 122,
1604 passim, 197, 279, 409,
410, see also probability
Chares 226
chariot-racing 80, 368
Chief PontiV 193, see also annals,
pontiWcal
children & childhood, 71, 78, 216,
297, 357, 364, 400, see also
deformity, children; pregnancy
& childbirth
Chilon 375
Chios 53, 163, 377
Chryses 418
Chrysippus of Soli 9 n. 36, 31, 47,
58, 73, 11213, 116, 121, 123,
130, 145, 160, 2024 passim,
209, 249, 250, 266, 269, 280,

308, 309, 362, 385, 388, 390,
392, 408, 409, 412
Cicero:
as consul 51, 52, 78, 79, 146,
1512, 355, 35961
as governor 45, 97, 171, 251,
324, 355
military experience 104, 283, 355
and politics 7, 28, 38, 39, 41 n.
145, 125, 156, 159, 168, 205, 319
exile 645, 183, 2516 passim,
305, 363
and Civil War 30 n. 106, 68,
2746
mental state 42, 253
gymnasium 48, 119, 120
library of 30 n. 109, 120, 175
villas of 37, 39, 48, 119, 120, 298
as Academic & Sceptic 1012
passim, 13 n. 53, 14 n. 59, 16 n.
64, 20 n. 80, 21, 28, 106, 115,
117, 120, 123, 124, 158, 160,
193, 261, 297
and Plato 18 n. 73, 19, 38 n. 136,
237, 238, 259, 278, 316, 401
estimation for philosophers 47,
62, 66, 81, 111, 2379 passim,
31516
as augur 7, 18, 170, 180, 183, 282,
321, 359, 364
view of divination 28 passim,
1014 passim, 17 n. 67, 26, 52,
91, 106, 356, 396
as orator 5, 6, 21, 40 n. 144, 72,
158, 166, 298, 299, 304
as poet 30 n. 106, 51, 134, 137,
145, 160, 359, 363
as translator 1819, 29, 92, 132,
133, 137, 238, 257, 25962,
278, 337, 401, 405
Index
use of Roman history 20 n. 78,
29, 30, 101, 169, 216
use of poetry 20 n. 78, 1323,
145, 163, 166, 179, 207, 2125
passim, 242, 270, 272, 273, 304,
363, 366, 384
correspondence 14 n. 57, 37, 42,
43, 115, 133, 159, 184, 253,
276, 304
dialogues 11, 14 n. 58, 17, 19, 90,
108, 117, 119, 123, 234, 237,
374, 426, see further under
individual titles
philosophical encyclopedia 9, 18,
27, 28, 38, 119, 122
Academica 13 n. 53, 21, 115, 276
Brutus 7
Cato 167
Consulatus Suus 51, 145, 146,
159, 282
De Amicitia 323
De Auguriis 7, 282
De Fato 9, 15 n. 60, 28, 39, 41, 43,
294, 411
De Finibus 12, 21, 29, 38 n. 135, 40
De Gloria 39 n. 140, 42, 43, 173
De Haruspicum Responsis 5, 157
De Legibus 6, 8 n. 34, 12, 13,
18 n. 73, 119, 159, 316, 3614
passim, 400
De OYciis 2, 29, 316
De Oratore 166
De Reditu 5
De Republica 6, 11 n. 47, 18 n.
73, 265
De Senectute 41, 42 n. 149
De Temporibus Suis 146
Hortensius 21, 376
In Catilinam 147, 156, 160
Marius 79, 3624
Partitiones Oratoriae 5
449
Phaenomena 133
Philippics 5
Pro Fonteio 167
Pro Ligario 125
Pro Marcello 125
Pro Sestio 256
Prognostica 49, 1334
Timaeus 111
Topica 5
Tusculanae Disputationes 12,
21 n. 82, 3067, 374
see also De Divinatione; De Natura
Deorum
Cilicia & Cilicians 45, 54, 746
passim, 97, 119, 163, 171, 172,
183, 302, 317, 318, 328
Cimbri 254, 255, 33840 passim
Circe 422
Circus (Rome) 88, 246, 343, 367,
368, 4223
citizenship 106, 111, 170, 299,
343, 354
city founding 46, 98, 187, 282, 354,
see further colonization
Civil War 79, 151, 199, 2747, 323,
395, see also Cicero, and Civil
War
Claros 317, 385
Claudius Caecus, Appius (cens.
312) 54, 1789
Claudius Marcellus, Gaius (praet.
80) 27, 176, 274, 361
Claudius Pulcher, Appius (cos.
54) 27, 30, 55, 79, 88, 105, 170,
175, 180, 181, 1837 passim,
205, 35962, 397, 4212
Claudius Pulcher, Publius (cos.
249) 54, 169, 178, 179
Cleanthes of Assos 47, 112, 268,
309, 337, 376
cledonism 78, 109, 325, 3512
450
Index
Cleisthenes 403
Cleombrotus 286
Clitarchus 343
Clitomachus 116, 130, 392
Clodius Pulcher, Publius (trib. 58)
57 passim, 105, 120, 183, 252
Clutidae (family) 75, 324
Cnopia 319
Codrus 98, 99
Coelius Antipater, Lucius 30, 41,
61, 63, 71, 22833 passim,
2449 passim, 2926 passim,
320, 344
College of Augurs, see augural
college
colonization, Greek 46, 74,
98100, 291, 332
colonization, Roman 78, 174, 327,
354, see also city-founding
Colophon 317
Cometes 98
comets & meteors 51, 76, 14750
passim, 330, 337, 341
comitia curiata 170
comitia tributa 7
Comitium 56, 155, 191, 192
Concord (temple) 156
Concordia (god) 347
conjecture 53, 56, 69, 71, 83, 86, 87,
102, 127, 165, 166, 168, 196,
198, 281, 282, 285, 288, 391,
405, 406, 417
conspiracies & plots 52, 1534,
156, 394
consuls 56, 61, 78, 80, 105, 147, 155,
194, 195, 251, 254, 295, 3526
passim
Coponius, Gaius 67, 274
Corcyra 275
Corinth & Corinthians 58, 98,
204, 320
Cornelia (mother of Gracchi),

2001
Cornelius Cethegus, Gaius 105
Cornelius Cinna, Lucius 104
Cornelius Cossus Arvina, Aulus
61, 235
Cornelius Culleolus, 46, 104
Cornelius Lentulus Spinther,
Publius (cos. 57) 150, 256
Cornelius Nepos 92, 224
Cornelius Scipio Africanus, Publius
(cos. 205) 57, 194, 2001, 298
Cornelius Scipio Barbatus,
Lucius 157
Cornelius Sisenna, Lucius 30, 77,
336, 339, 3434
Cornelius Sulla Felix, Lucius (cos.
88) 69, 103, 120, 150, 158,
2834, 320, 336, 364
writings of 30 n. 105, 69, 283,
344
Cos 306
Cotta, see Aurelius
Crassus, see Licinius
Cratippus of Pergamum 31 n. 113,
33, 47, 68, 82, 111, 208, 27780
passim, 3715 passim, 3813
passim, 387, 389, 391, 407,
414, 420
as source for Cic. 316 passim,
278, 370, 371, 374, 376
Creon 318
Crete & Cretans 222, 345
Creusa 213
Crito 62, 85, 403
crocodiles 394
Croesus 58, 845, 203, 400
Croton 22830 passim
Ctesias 224
cults 18, 103, 118, 179, 243, 287,
319, 346, 348
Index
Cumae 77, 339, 344
Cyaxares 377, 379
Cybele 302,
Cyclades 417
Cynics 108
Cyprus 241
Cypselus 204
Cyrene & Cyrenaics 100, 108
Cyrus (the Great) 60, 224, 286
Cyrus (the Younger) 62, 85, 2389,
403
daimon(ion) 85, 113, 268, 307, 393,
4015 passim, 408, 415
dancers & dancing 246, 383
Darius II 239
Darius III 84, 399
Decemviri, see Board of Ten
De Divinatione:
audience 9, 16 n. 66, 17, 19 n. 77,
26, 244
composition 28, 29, 3743
passim, 90, 125, 172, 300, 316,
328, 371, 413
purpose 268
dramatic date 378, 41, 43,
125, 145
publication 378, 42 n. 149, 43,
90, 218
sources for 25 n. 92, 2836, 106,
114, 130, 244, 266, 307, 370,
373, 391, 393, 398, 400, 405,
417, see also Cratippus, as
source; Posidonius, as source
literary form & style 8, 11, 20, 21,
24, 123, 166, 170, 171, 207, 260
structure 15, 16 n. 66, 206,
323, 38, 90, 117, 119, 125,
129, 144, 169, 195, 2023,
2068, 270, 280, 299300,
311, 359, 3701, 382
451
prologue/proem 38, 38 n. 138,
39, 41, 43, 901, 116, 119,
316, 328
divisio 22, 24, 139, 160, 195, 196,
203, 206, 311
argument from antiquity 22, 24,
49, 73, 74, 80, 902 passim,
125, 169, 203, 206, 280, 311,
312, 315, 316
argument from consensus 20 n.
80, 22, 245, 49, 73, 90, 92, 95,
121, 125, 127, 169, 203, 205,
206, 215, 225, 280, 311, 312,
315, 316, 331
conclusion 8, 13 n. 56, 1417,
91
authorial voice in, 10, 134, 26
etymology in 667, 94, 101, 175,
269, 270, 376
quotations in 4955 passim, 59,
60, 62, 657 passim, 724
passim, 7980, 82, 88, 89, 132,
135, 145, 147, 156, 179, 270,
319, 424
rhetoric in 14 n. 59, 15 n. 62, 21,
26, 115, 134, 144, 195, 203, 253,
311, 313, 341, 419
textual problems in 96, 111, 112,
127, 128, 131, 137, 140, 1423,
144, 146, 154, 159, 163, 1756,
198, 201, 217, 244, 248, 271,
272, 299, 303, 312, 326, 332,
338, 354, 358, 3612, 3667,
370, 374, 382, 388, 391, 395,
398, 415
use of exempla in 19, 20 n. 78,
24, 25, 29, 30, 36, 92, 169, 180,
207, 208, 212, 280, 31112, 398
use of Greek in 92, 132, 322
verisimilitude 12, 16, 120, 125,
126, 1323
452
Index
De Natura Deorum 9, 13 n. 53, 17,

38, 47, 48, 90, 117, 120, 130,
178, 193, 311, 373, 389
conclusion 10, 11, 15, 119, 121
link with De Divinatione 10, 21,
30 n. 107, 31 n. 116, 41, 119,
120, 227, 331
death & dying 66, 85, 201, 2646
passim, 420
foreboding of, 63, 64, 74, 84, 200,
205, 225, 2378, 394, 396
see also burial
decemviri sacris faciundis, see Board
of Ten
Decius Mus, Publius (cos. 340) 61,
2346
Decius, Quintus 61
deformity:
animals 329, 330
children 84, 85, 329, 399
Deiotarus 40, 54, 169, 1714
passim, 177
Delium (sanctuary) 85, 404
Delos & Delians 237, 403, 423
Delphi 70, 76, 28991 passim, 305,
306, 3335 passim, 345, 347,
400, 403, 421
Delphic oracle 3, 46, 58, 59 71,
98100 passim, 103, 128, 2026
passim, 216, 301, 3856, 388,
see also Pythia
Demeter 403
Democritus of Abdera 47, 72, 74, 88,
10910, 122, 303, 304, 377, 417
Demon 98
determinism:
climatic & environmental, 71,
756, 302, 328, 331
philosophical 4 n. 12, 20 n. 79,
28, 83, 115, 122, 124, 154, 294,
392, 396, 398, 411
devotio 2356
Dexippus 286
Diana 60, 227, 306
Dicaearchus of Messene 47, 82, 110,
362, 381
dice & dice throwing 53, 128,
1612, 202
Didyma 300, 385
Dinon of Colophon 60, 224
Diogenes of Apollonia 268
Diogenes of Babylon 47, 73, 113,
114, 134, 309
Diogenianus 123
Dion 241, 242
Dionysius (god) 212, 303, 384
Dionysius I of Syracuse 58, 69,
20912, 252, 2846
Dionysius II of Syracuse 241
Dioscuri 28991 passim, 300,
343, see also Castor &
Pollux
Dioscurides 132
dirae, see auspices, dire
disasters:
averting of 102, 294, 340
forewarning of 54, 55, 6970,
186, 293, 340, see also death,
foreboding of
natural, see earthquakes; Xoods;
landslides
disciplina Etrusca 2, 102, 281, 282,
413, see further haruspicy
Diviciacus 74, 322
divination:
artiWcial 326 passim, 49, 56, 69, 80,
87, 103, 108, 112, 113, 115,
12531 passim, 165, 168, 195,
196, 209, 280, 281, 313, 319,
3703 passim, 381, 387, 390,
391, 398, 401, 406, 40917
passim, 423, 424, see further
Index
astrology; augury; haruspicy;
lots; omens; portents; prodigies
natural 12, 34, 36, 49, 567, 68,
81, 87, 93, 103, 10710 passim,
113, 115, 1259 passim, 195,
202, 207, 209, 222, 270, 280,
300, 314, 319, 352, 3702
passim, 381, 382, 387, 398, 401,
405, 41017 passim, see further
dreams; frenzy; oracles;
prophecy
outcomes 30, 46, 49, 55, 57, 61,
73, 122, 125, 128, 131, 164, 169,
207, 208, 251, 257, 280, 312,
313, 372, 397
compared to medicine 25, 49,
53, 81, 131, 136, 164, 166, 372,
379
role & purpose of 3, 4, 7, 27, 45,
48, 68, 93, 1012, 122, 309
and community 3, 4, 27, 90, 96
commercial 889, 4215
philosophical treatment 9, 19,
306, 467, 723, 86, 90, 107,
113, 116, 279
doxography 31, 467, 106, 112,
113, 116, 316, 373
Greek 6, 12, 18, 20, 456, 92, 94,
317, see also manteis
rejection of 2, 11, 46, 47, 578,
73, 77, 82, 1068, 115, 124,
160, 262, 309, 382, 409, 419,
425
divine mind, see soul
diviners 4, 74, 879 passim, 165,
166, 168, 177, 198, 220, 221,
304, 318, 387, 391, 406, 410,
413, 425, see also seers &
interpreters
doctors 49, 62, 81, 379, see also
medicine
453
Dodona oracle 46, 70, 76, 98100

passim, 211, 2912, 334
dogs 66, 78, 105, 270, 356, 357
doors (opening) 69, 287
Dorieus 334
dreams 4 n. 12, 14, 31 n. 111, 36,
40, 46, 49, 5766 passim, 76,
81, 82, 100, 110, 112, 148, 150,
206269 passim, 273, 300, 314,
3356, 344, 386, 388, 406, 414
false 65, 208, 2567
interpretation 4, 46, 58, 60, 62, 64,
83, 200, 208, 219, 2214, 232,
2512, 2545, 257, 286, 323,
324, 355, 3878, 421, 4234
physiological inXuences on 65,
72, 82, 85, 221, 253, 25760,
308
predictory or revelatory 4 n. 14,
33 n. 119, 34, 50, 5864 passim,
73, 77, 84, 95, 140, 212, 213,
307, 308, 399, 410, see also
predictions
and politics 90, 104106 passim,
231, 247
recurrent 63, 243
writings on 31, 47, 113, 209, 220,
230, 238, 251, 279, 307
Drepana 179
Druids 74, 3212
Ducarius 296
Dumnorix 322
Dyrrhachium 68, 2746 passim
earthquakes 51, 57, 71, 76, 81, 150,
199, 286, 291, 296, 329, 339,
351, 375, 37981
Ebro 231
eclipses 81, 84, 148, 149, 3779,
3989
454
Index
Egypt & Egyptians 45, 75, 957

passim, 126, 328, 336, 398, 423
eidola 110, 389
ekpyrosis 35, 3756, 386, 420
elections 56, 102, 174, 1945, 248,
3556
Eleusis 403
Elis 75
elite (Roman) 14 passim, 7, 27,
154, 159, 171, 173, 190, 191,
247, 293, 348, 357, 358
emotions 71, 78, 253, 258, 273,
3057 passim, 314, 368, 383, 415
Empedocles 199, 277, 337
empyromancy 325
enhodia 172
Ennius, Quintus 4, 53, 58, 74, 80, 89,
100, 163, 166, 21215 passim,
231, 2713 passim, 318, 36570
passim, 384, 419, 4216 passim
entrails 49, 54, 57, 73, 75, 76, 80, 84,
85, 88, 102, 127, 141, 328, 373,
3923, 407
Wssure 50, 1412
heart 84, 141, 392, 394, 395
liver 83, 84, 88, 1412, 313, 392,
3946 passim, 418, 419
lungs 73, 313
thread 50, 142
see also haruspices; haruspicy
Enuma Anu Ellil 96
Epaminondas 287
Ephesus 98, 111, 140, 227, 228
ephors & ephorate 3335 passim
Ephorus 203, 287, 334, 379
Epicureanism 117, 124, 158, 193,
266, 310, 344, 382, 402,
415, 426
Epicurus 46, 65, 74, 80, 107, 134,
193, 2623, 310, 315, 316, 371,
382, 426
Ciceros opposition to 14 n. 58,

41, 77, 108, 110, 262, 263, 3156
Epimenides of Crete 57, 197
epiphanies 300, 305, 306, 314
Epirus 99, 144, 211
epoche 117
Erythrae 197, see further Sibyl of
Erythrae
ether 51, 146, 373, 383, 419, 420
ethics 9, 12
Etruria 57, 75, 143, 144, 191, 230,
293, 296, 3257 passim, 341, 395
Etruscan & Etruscans 3, 46, 75, 128,
151, 155, 156, 18791 passim,
219, 3258 passim, 343, 347,
349, 369, 395, 399, 407
writings of 52, 69, 102, 21921,
2812, 327, 344, 346
see further haruspices
Euboea 167
Euchenor 321
Eudemus of Cyprus 62, 2402
Eudemus of Rhodes 240
Eudoxus 108, 132, 378
Eumantis 324
Euripides 145, 215, 218, 220, 272,
273, 419
Eurydice 59, 213
Eurymenae 291
exempla 19, 24, 25, 2931, 58, 92,
2434, see further De
Divinatione, use of exempla
expiation 78, 100, 150, 215, 236,
282, 341, 350, 351, 353, see also
procuratio
extispicy 108, 112, 142, 177, 313,
318, 324, 394
Fabii (historians) 30 n. 105, 63, 244
Fabius Pictor, Quintus 30 n. 105,
59, 21617, 2446 passim
Index
Faesuli 341
faith, see personal faith
fasces 64, 254, 256
Fasti 236
fate 9, 52, 77, 86, 87, 115, 122, 123,
310, 315, 347, 390, 396, 4089,
412, see also De Fato
Fauns 78, 82, 349, 384
Faunus 214, 349, 350
Feriae Latinae 148
festivals & games 63, 78, 143, 187,
218, 2457 passim, 255, 346, 353
Latin 51, 148, 295
see also weddings
Firmicus Maternus 314
Xamines 78, 189, 358, 401
Flaminius, Gaius (cos. 223) 701,
2926
Xeets & navies 53, 54, 678, 70, 179,
274, 276, 28990, 317, see also
ships & seafaring
Xoods & Xooding 7 n. 32, 81, 346,
375, see also portents; prodigies
Fonteii (family) 343
fora (in Rome), 71, 105, 155, 156,
293, 341, 342
forecasting, see predictions (of
future)
Formiae 337
forms of address 357
formulae 78, 3523
Fortuna Primigenia 421
Fortune (god) 198
free will 294, 357, 398
frenzy (prophetic) 46, 57, 678,
724 passim, 86, 94, 95, 206,
270, 303, 307, 383, 425, see also
madness; prophecy
frogs 50, 1358 passim
Furies 82, 249, 384
future, prediction of, see predictions
455
Gabii 342
Gabinius, Aulus (cos. 58) 7 n. 32
Galatia 171
Galen 31 n. 112, 166, 302, 390
Galeotae 58, 99, 211, 285
games, see festivals & games
Gaugamela 3989
Gaul & Gauls 71, 72, 74, 77, 156,
188, 211, 216, 231, 236, 305,
322, 337, 350
Gellii (historians), 30 n. 105, 63, 244
Gellius, Gnaeus 244
Gelon 325
generals 53, 167, 178, 185, 284, 285,
295, see also armies; war &
warfare
geography 74, 110
gerousia 333
Geryon 231
ghosts 150
Gisgo 234
Glaucus 321
glory 62, 64, 80, 173, 253, 364
goats 394
gods:
nature of 81, 87, 112, 158,
30910, 361, 362, 380, 389,
41215 passim, 426
existence of 48, 723, 83, 89, 121,
123, 193, 300, 309, 311, 359,
361, 389, 408, 426
rejection of 48, 79, 124, see also
impiety
and humans 56, 72, 83, 89, 124,
145, 158, 193, 205, 262, 268,
344, 38890 passim, 396, 420
and Rome 52, 1023, 157, 293
communicating 713 passim, 87,
107, 170, 177, 202, 205, 257,
267, 269, 299300, 357, 360,
383, 394
456
Index
gods: (cont.)
and divination 3, 4, 17 n. 68, 28,
45, 48, 54, 66, 78, 80, 835
passim, 93, 122, 129, 180, 192,
196, 198, 221, 250, 271, 274,
300, 308, 309, 311, 336, 372,
390, 391, 397, 409
see further under individual names
gold 61, 62, 70, 83, 229, 242, 393
Gracchus, see Sempronius
grain & wheat 68, 71, 305
Granius Licinianus 104, 339
Grapus 282
Great Rhetra 335
groves, see woods & groves
Gudea 95
Hades, see Underworld
Hagesias 324, 325
Halicarnassus 324
Hamilcar 61, 234
handsomeness, see beauty &
handsomeness
Hannibal 61, 70, 22933, 245,
293, 296
harioli 4245, see further seers &
interpreters
haruspices:
disreputable 88, 422
Etruscan 2, 5, 12, 46, 53, 56, 57,
71, 73, 77, 90, 141, 144, 151, 153,
155, 177, 191, 193, 200, 221, 284,
294, 325, 326, 329, 337, 339, 340,
351, 365, 382, 395, 422
foreign 51, 75, 96, 234, 324,
3459 passim
individuals named 51, 69, 75, 84,
284, 327
haruspicy:
disregard for 18 n. 71, 282, 395,
419
foreign 75, 141, 142, 317, 325

Etruscan 18, 102, 127, 1413,
168, 178, 199201 passim, 313,
332, 418
writings on 30, 69, 76, 102, 127,
131, 153, 169, 193, 281, 299, 336
see further entrails; expiation;
lightning; portents; procuratio;
prodigies
Hasdrubal 340
Hector 66, 265
Hecuba 59, 215, 272, 273, 314
Helen 274, 384, 411
Helenus 74, 298, 31920, 346
Helot revolt 379
Hera 318
Heraclides Ponticus 60, 88, 108,
197, 222, 416
Heraclitus 375, 385
herbs & roots 49, 50, 131, 132,
13940, see also medicine &
health
Hercules 60, 226, 22931 passim,
242, 243, 291, 335, 342
temple of 623, 69, 243, 287
shrine or cult of 69, 179, 243, 286
Herennius, Marcus 149
hermaphrodites 77, 329, 339, 340
Hermeias 35
Hermippus 212
Hermocrates 284, 285
Herodicus 404
Herodotus 84, 126, 203, 302, 325,
335, 3779 passim, 385, 400
Herophile (Sibyl) 197
Herophilus 113, 267
Herostratus 228
Hesione 303
Hesychius 141
Hierapolis 301, 302
Hierocles 332
Index
Hieronymus of Rhodes 2423
Hipparinus 242
Hippocrates 166, 260, 302
Hirpini 71, 301
Hirtius, Aulus (cos. 43) 39
historians, see under individual
names
Hittites 317
Homer 62, 69, 74, 91, 94, 126, 132,
156, 166, 265, 283, 303,
318, 363
Honour and Courage (temple)
255, 256
Horatius 155
horoscopes 96, 108, 227
horses 64, 69, 70, 227, 252, 2846
passim, 293
Hortensius 170
Hostilius, Tullus 188, 190
Hybla Geleatis 211
hydromancy 109
Hyginus 300
Hyperboreans 211
Iamblichus 267, 302
Iamidae (family) 75, 324, 325
Iamus 324
Iasus 99
Iguvium 328
Ilia 21314
Illyria & Illyrians 227, 291
immolation 84, 226
imperium 68, 174
impiety 47, 90, 11718, 237, 395
incest 65, 258, 259
incubation 76, 100, 140, 269, 319,
320, 3356, 423
India & Indians 60, 226, see also
Brahmans
individual beliefs, see personal faith
instauratio 2457 passim
457
insults 78, 353

intercourse 65, 25860 passim, see
also incest; rape
Ionia & Ionians 46, 98, 99, 377
iron 83
irrationality 26, 265, 278, see also
rationality; superstition
irrigation 77, 348
Isis 422, 423
Italiot league 229
Italy & Italians 46, 61, 71, 99, 105,
211, 22933 passim, 296, 320,
329, 337
Jason of Pherae 306
Jerusalem 360
Jugurtha 254
Julius Aquila 393
Julius Caesar, Gaius (cos. 59) 7, 39,
40 n. 143, 54, 111, 167, 168,
171, 172, 182, 184, 226, 2747
passim, 322, 323, 325, 343,
3936
death of 28, 3743 passim, 84, 90,
125, 218, 395, 396
and religion 12, 84, 145, 3367,
363, 395
Julius Caesar, Lucius 46, 104
Julius Obsequens 336, 339, 340, 355
Junius Brutus Callaecus, Decimus
(cos. 138) 218
Junius Brutus, Lucius (cos.
509) 21921
Junius Brutus, Marcus (praet.
44) 30 n. 107, 41, 90, 218, 228
Junius Pullus, Lucius (cos. 249) 54,
169, 179
Juno 229, 245, 351
Lacinia 61, 2289
Moneta 78, 282, 351
Sospita 46, 77, 1045, 299, 345
458
Index
Jupiter 49, 51, 52, 61, 70, 7980,

143, 146, 148, 151, 154, 170,
172, 178, 246, 247, 288, 292,
294, 295, 363, 364
Best and Greatest 51, 103, 1434,
156, 256, 310
Stator 70, 293
statue of 52, 70, 152, 155
Karatepe 317
kings:
foreign 173, 333, 335, 365
Roman 46, 74, 101, 219, 321,
352, 401
Labienus, Titus 68, 276
Laches 85, 404
Laconia 291
Lagash 95
Lake Avernus 421
Lake Regillus 245, 343
Lampon 332
landslides 71, 76, 296, 3389, 380
Lanuvium & Lanuvians 71, 77,
1046 passim, 298, 299, 3445
Latin League 148, 345, 348
Latin War 63, 104, 2356, 245, 343
Latinius, Titus 2467
Latium & Latins 62, 1056, 338,
340, 342, 343, 345, 348
Lavinium 298
Lebadea 69, 301
Leontini 69, 285, 286
Lesbos & Lesbians 98, 197
Leuctra 6970, 286, 288
liberty 54, 173
libri fulgurales, see haruspicy,
writings on
libri lintei, 351
libri tonitruales, see lightning &
thunder, writings on
Libya 100, 333, 334

Licinius Archias, Aulus 71, 299
Licinius Crassus, Marcus (cos.
70) 30, 55, 169, 170, 1803
passim, 185, 186
lictors 65, 170, 2545
lightning & thunder 2, 49, 51, 52,
57, 75, 77, 80, 83, 127, 143, 144,
14954 passim, 182, 193, 238,
325, 3289, 342, 363, 365,
376, 407
writings on 69, 152, 193, 282
Ligurians 71, 296
Ligustini 216
lions 84, 399
Lissus 285
Livius Andronicus 385
Livy 232, 235, 345, 347, 356,
401, 421
lizards 211
logic 9, 13, 113, 120, 308, 392
lore 69, 102, 152, 153, 165, 170, 176,
220, 313, 323, 326, 344, 346,
405, see also augury, writings
on; haruspicy, writings on;
lightning & thunder, writings
on
lots & lot-oracles 49, 57, 70, 78, 88,
128, 165, 197, 198, 216, 263,
292, 354, 355, 356, 421
Lucania & Lucanians 253, 301,
339, 342
Lucilius Balbus, Quintus 10, 48,
119, 121, 125, 133, 145, 193,
300, 310, 329, 389, 390
Lucretius 281, 315, 393
ludi, see festivals & games
Luna 341
Lupercal 153, 393
lustratio, see puriWcation rites
Lutatius (historian) 188
Index
Lutatius Catulus, Quintus (cos.
78) 198
Lyceum 52, 109, 120, 158
Lycia & Lycians 54, 99, 171
Lycophron 241
Lycurgus 76, 156, 203, 3345
passim
Lydia & Lydians 151, 203, 400, 403
Lysander 70, 76, 28991 passim,
334, 335
Macedonia & Macedonians 62, 84,
226, 227, 356
Macedonius, see Caecilius
Macrobius 219, 245
madness 45, 67, 94, 95, 239, 258,
267, 303, 306, 314, 424, 425, see
also frenzy
Maeander valley 3012
Maenius, Gaius (cos. 143) 193
Magi 60, 61, 75, 224, 227, 228,
323, 324
magic 415, 422
magistrates 154, 170, 190, 195, 235,
282, 3503 passim, 368, 393, 407
religious role of 101, 130, 145,
174, 177, 1826 passim, 202,
295, 323, 354, 365, 366
Magnesia 315
magnets & magnetism 73, 315
Mallus 317
Manlius Capitolinus, Marcus 236,
351
Manlius Torquatus, Lucius (cos.
65) 51, 151, 152
manteis (Greek diviners) 76, 94,
3323, 380, see further
divination, Greek
Manticles 324
mantike, see divination (Greek)
459
Marcii (brothers) 74, 320

Marcius (seer) 82, 320, 3845
Marcius, Ancus (king) 188
Marcius Philippus, Quintus (cos.
186) 157
Mari 95
Marius, Gaius (cos. 107) 64, 80, 150,
2546 passim, 3635 passim
Marpessus 197
marriage 79, 2001, 273, 358, see
also weddings
Mars 52, 78, 187, 21314, 218,
354, 358
Marsi 361
Marsic War, see Social War
Marsyas 320, 422
mastic trees 50, 138
Medea 422
Medes 224
medicine & health 49, 50, 53, 132,
139, 1646 passim, 221, 2634,
306, 308, 315, 417, 418, see also
doctors; herbs & roots;
incubation
Megara & Megarians 64, 108, 320
Megasthenes 226
Melampus 126, 172, 317, 318
melancholy & melancholics 72,
3068 passim, see also
emotions
Melanopus 404
Meliboea 241
Mephitis 301
Mercury 60, 223, 231
Mesopotamia 95, 96, 378
Messene 197
Metapontum 109
meteors, see comets & meteors
meteorology 12930, 1327 passim,
397, 413, 41617, see further
rain; snow & hail
460
Index
mice 77, 345

Midas 71, 297
Miletus & Milesians 81, 99,
377, 385
milk 77, 148, 342
Minerva 288, 306
Minos 321, 335
miracles 109, 191, 193, 330,
346, 380
Mithradates VI Eupator 360, 364
Mithradates of Pergamum 40 n.
143, 172
Molo 158
Molossians 70, 211, 291
monarchy, see kings (Roman)
monkeys 70, 292
monotheism 107, 267, 269
monstra 76, 102, 127, 329, 330
moon 51, 73, 76, 87, 143, 148,
31314, 337, 369, 376,
3989, 414
Mopsus 74, 317, 318, 328
Mount Caucasus 57, 201
Mount Hymettus 297
Mount Olymus 51
Mount Prophitis Ilias 288
Mount Taygetus 81, 380
Mount Vesuvius 236
Mucius Scaevola, Quintus (cos.
117) 27
mules 57, 199
Munichia 197
Murcia (cult) 367
Murcus, see Aventine
murder 65, 258, 260
Muses 145, 146, 156, 298
music & musical instruments 187,
302, 338, 383, see also songs &
singing
Mytilene 279
Naevius, 104, 347, 384

Natta 52, 152
Navius, Attus 556, 169, 18892
Nealces 162
necromancy & necromancers 88,
112, 4212
Nectanebo 227
Neleus 99
Nemesis (god) 347
Nepos, see Cornelius
Nepotianus 326, 421
Neptune 49, 289, 346
Nero 299
New Academy, see Academy
Nicander 132
Nigidius Figulus, Publius (praet.
58) 152, 154, 177, 282, 422
Nineveh 96
Nisaba 95
Nola 69, 284
Numa 101, 170, 362, 401
number theory 161, see also
probability
Numerius SuVustius 198
nymphs 196, 297
obnuntiatio 182, 183, 185, 187
Obsequens, see Julius
Octavian War 46, 104
Octavian, see Augustus
Octavius, Gnaeus (cos. 87) 104
Odysseus 126
Oedipus 318
Oetylus 336
Ogulnii 144, 153
Old Academy, see Academy
Olympia 227, 324
Olympias 61
omens 789, 96, 130, 181, 294,
3529 passim
Index
adverse 55, 130, 172, 246,
353, 359
good 60, 73, 78, 80, 130, 219,
313, 332, 353, 355, 364, 368
see also monstra; portents;
prodigies
Onesicrates 226
oracles 47, 57, 58, 74, 82, 83, 98,
109, 112, 126, 128, 195, 197,
198, 2026 passim, 216, 269,
288, 319, 324, 3336 passim,
348, 349, 352, 376, 3856, 421
writings on 47, 108, 113, 204, 209
see further Ammon oracle;
Delphic oracle; Dodona oracle;
Sibylline oracle
Orchomenus 197, 287
Orestes 98, 203, 418
Origen 109
Oropus 319
ostenta 329, 330
otium 158, 159
Pacuvius, Marcus 53, 88, 166, 180,
218, 303, 41719 passim
paint & painting 53, 162
Palatine 55, 78, 153, 187, 350, 367
Paliokhani 404
Pamphylia & Pamphylians 45, 54,
97, 171, 317, 318
Pan 53, 163, 164, 297, 300, 305, 349
Panaetius of Rhodes 9, 11, 29 n.
1001, 30 n. 104, 41, 47, 49,
11416, 130, 198, 302, 376,
388, 390, 418
Panionic League 99
Papirius Cursor, Lucius (cos.
326) 185, 406
Paris 273, 384, 411
Parmenion 227
461
Paros 163
Parthia & Parthians 181
Pasiphae (shrine) 76, 3356
Pasiteles 71, 299
Patroclus 265
Peitholaus 241
Peloponnese 75
Peloponnesian War 289, 335, 399
Penthilus 98
Pergamum 59, 172
Pericles 158, 212, 399
Perilaus 223
Peripatetics 12, 21, 47, 109, 111,
120, 264, 265, 371, 382
and divination 16, 33 n. 119, 69,
74, 109, 371
see also Aristotle; Cratippus
Persephone 318, 403
Perses (King of Macedon) 78, 356,
357
Persia & Persians 60, 75, 84, 97, 224,
227, 239, 286, 323, 398, 400, 403
personal faith 24 passim, 16 n. 66,
18, 27, 54, 92, 118, 121, 284,
391, see also piety
Perugia 342
pets 357, see further dogs; monkeys;
snakes
Phaedrus 158
Phalaris 60, 2223
pharmacology, see herbs & roots
Pharsalus 68, 167, 173, 275
Phaselis 99
Pherae 62, 240
Pherecydes of Syrus 81, 3801
Philetas of Ephesus 197
Philinus 217
Philip II of Macedon 227
Philistus 58, 69, 20910, 212, 252,
2845
462
Index
Philo (Judaeus) 36, 267, 269

Philo of Megara 158, 181
philosophers:
natural 81, 88, 322, 377, 381, 418
Romans and 17, 1920, 27, 73,
122, 153, 259, 294, 375
see further individual names
Phintias 220
Phlegon of Tralles 340
Phocians 305
Phoebus 51, 149
Phoenicia 317
Phrygia & Phrygians 71, 75, 76,
82, 280, 297, 301, 327, 383,
422
Phthia 62, 237
Phyle 404
physics 9, 27, 35, 38 n. 137, 81,
119, 120
Picenum 337
piety (of Romans) 52, 118, 157, 158,
200, 235, 248, see also impiety
Piety (temple) 77, 343
pigs 556, 78, 163, 216
Pisaurum 337
Pisidia & Pisidians 45, 97, 171, 328
Pisistratus 376
Pitchecusae 99
Plataea 324
Plato 19, 336 passim, 45, 62, 71,
72, 94, 98, 108, 117, 125, 126,
158, 165, 2978, 3004 passim,
316, 373, 375, 401, 405, 425
on dreams 23642 passim,
2578, 387
on soul 345, 66, 25766 passim,
278, 3823, 3867
followers of 60, 1089, 111, 114,
222, 278, 371, 374
Meno 33 n. 119, 35, 279, 375,
387
Phaedo 242, 258, 374

Phaedrus 35, 72, 93, 94, 304, 383
Republic 36, 65, 2578, 265
see also Cicero, and Plato
Plautus 4, 104, 270, 422, 424
Pliny the Elder 132, 329, 337, 378,
380, 397, 400
plots, see conspiracies & plots
ploughing 50, 1389
Plutarch 110, 196, 204, 205, 227,
283, 284, 335, 336, 345, 350,
356, 364, 377
Plutonia 71, 301, 421
Polybius 1, 157, 232
Polyidus of Corinth 74, 320
Polyphron 241
pomerium 56, 1945, 350, 365
Pompeius Magnus, Gnaeus (cos.
70), see Pompey
Pompeius Strabo, Gnaeus (cos.
89) 283
Pompey 53, 54, 119, 155, 167, 170,
171, 173, 183, 186, 200, 2746
passim, 336, 361
Pontifex Maximus, see Chief PontiV
pontifs 6, 17
Porcius Cato, Marcus (the
Censor) 54, 176, 217, 356, 419
Porcius Cato, Marcus
(Uticensis) 53, 68, 167,
275, 276
portents 2, 46, 57, 58, 60, 6970,
757 passim, 80, 8385 passim,
90, 1025 passim, 107, 126,
144, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152,
168, 199, 200, 215, 218, 220,
223, 228, 2824 passim, 299,
318, 324, 327, 329, 330, 33651
passim, 355, 360, 396, 407
see also omens; prodigies
Poseidon 213, 380
Index
Posidonius of Apamea 9, 33, 34, 47,
66, 86, 87, 96, 113, 114, 122,
12830 passim, 137, 166, 196,
2679 passim, 277, 280, 300,
302, 315, 322, 3716 passim,
383, 385, 386, 38993 passim,
397, 408, 4116 passim
as source for Cic. 28 n. 99, 306
passim, 106, 111, 114, 127, 128,
130, 158, 204, 208, 226, 233,
249, 266, 269, 283, 287, 297,
309, 311, 321, 328, 337, 362,
370, 374, 376, 386, 387, 398,
4017 passim, 414, 417
Postumius Albus, Aulus (cos.
496) 245
Postumius, Gaius 69, 284
Potidaea 227, 291
Praeneste 188, 342
Praeneste oracle 116, 198, 421
praepetes 364
praesigere 667
praetors 68, 193, 218, 251, 274,
320, 353
Praxiteles 299
prayers 215, 282, 352, 359, 415
predictions (of future) 6, 20 n. 79,
25, 34, 45, 4953 passim, 57,
66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 78, 81,
859 passim, 91, 93, 109, 1224
passim, 132, 164, 181, 186, 205,
207, 240, 241, 252, 267, 268,
280, 293, 309, 329, 347, 361,
375, 37880 passim, 398, 404,
40911 passim
Cic.s attitude to 78, 20, 146, 361
pregnancy & childbirth 58, 59,
139, 140, 21011, 213, 218,
2223, 329
Presocratic philosophy 90, 92, 106,
302, 329, 337, 381
463
Priam 59, 67, 73, 74, 21516,

273, 319
priests & priestesses 2, 70, 187, 321,
324, 334, 336, 353, 354, see also
Druids; Magi
Privernum 76, 339
probability 25, 53, 1613, 197, see
also chance
procuratio 78, 151, 153, 215, 340, see
also expiation
prodigies 5, 6, 49, 75, 76, 84, 105,
107, 127, 145, 148, 150, 154,
155, 181, 195, 199, 28599
passim, 312, 327, 329, 330, 339,
353, 360, 394, 399401 passim
writings on 282
see also omens; portents
prophecy & prophets 49, 51, 67, 68,
74, 76, 82, 83, 85, 88, 100, 103,
104, 109, 112, 128, 137, 150,
196, 197, 202, 205, 225, 235,
237, 239, 241, 250, 265, 2707,
299, 303, 31821 passim, 339,
347, 382, 383, 384, 394, 410,
414, 421, 4234
writings on, 320, 347
see also frenzy
Proteus 346
Protogenes 162
Pisidia & Pisidians 54, 75, 76, 79,
331
Ptolemais 338
Publicius 82, 3845
Punic Wars 61
First 179, 384
Second 70, 22834 passim, 245,
248, 284, 293, 296, 320, 325,
339, 384
puriWcation rites (lustratio) 51, 70,
78, 293, 340, 35355
puteal 56, 169, 188, 192, 193
464
Index
Puteoli 39, 341

Pyrrhus 144
Pythagoras 47, 74, 81, 109, 263,
277, 3512, 373, 380, 383
Pythagoreans 66, 78, 161, 2634,
277, 387
Pythia 58, 71, 72, 109, 205, 206,
305, 385, 400, 403
Pythia, see also Apollo; Delphic oracle
Pythians (Sparta) 333
quaestors 63, 159, 247, 248
Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, see
Board of Fifteen
Quintus Cicero, see Tullius Cicero,
Quintus
Quintus of Smyrna 166
Quirinal 341
rain, forecast 135, 137, 138
rain, stones/milk/blood 77, 329,
341, 342, 344
rape 213, 214
rationality & reason 8, 17 n. 67, 34,
46, 68, 73, 81, 87, 102, 165, 196,
258, 265, 268, 278, 283, 294,
314, 3706 passim, 395, 408,
see also irrationality;
superstition
raving, see frenzy
Registes 404
Remoria 368
Remus 80, 153, 214, 36670 passim
Rhodes & Rhodians 66, 678, 114,
158, 2667, 274, 275
rituals & rites 2, 69, 103, 178,
187, 216, 282, 328, 336, 347,
354, 366; see also puriWcation
rites
rivers 58, 64, 71, 82, 206, 252,
2845, 297, 384
Roman Empire 102, 118, 144, 157,

173, 325
Roman religion 14, 16 n. 66, 20,
27, 93, 102, 103, 118, 282
as market 12, 171
and politics 3, 12, 18, 27, 74, 90,
1012, 246, 293, 295, 321, 325,
327, 336, 362, 365
traditional and formal nature 17,
27, 28, 100, 145, 157, 190,
3267, 349, 362, 382,
395, 422
see further magistrates; personal
faith; rituals & rites; state
religion
Roman Republic 101, 173, 218, 220,
222, 354
Rome (city):
Wre 52, 154
foundation of 24, 52, 55, 80, 90,
1001, 187, 3658
topography 55, 56, 78, 144, 153,
187, 192, 193, 255, 298, 343,
350, 367, 422
see also Aventine; Capitol; Circus;
fora; Palatine
Romulus 6, 20 n. 80, 46, 55, 79, 80,
90, 92, 1001, 153, 169, 187,
190, 194, 214, 321, 362, 36570
passim
Roscius Fabatus, Lucius 299
Roscius Gallus, Quintus 71, 2989
Rostra 393
Rutilius Lupus, Publius (cos. 90) 46,
52, 104
Sabidius 174
Sabines 188, 190, 191
sacriWces 51, 59, 69, 75, 84, 99, 100,
102, 147, 151, 181, 215, 216,
219, 236, 2834, 295, 297, 328,
Index
3515 passim, 358, 372, 3924
passim
sacrilege 6, 229, 243
sagae, see women, old
Saguntum 61, 230
Salamis 290
Salii 55, 187
Sallustius 64, 65, 2523, 255
Samardacus 423
Samians 380
Samnite Wars 69, 235, 236, 284
Samnium & Samnites 61, 235, 284,
340, 406
Sardinia 195
Sardis 400
Saticula 235
satyrs 58, 21112
Scepticism & Sceptics 10, 12, 16, 17,
91, 11517 passim, 198, 280,
294, 316
on divination 1314, 16 n. 66,
26, 115, 193
see also Cicero, as Academic &
Sceptic
Scipio, see Cornelius
Scopas 53, 164
Scotussa 241
Scribonianus, see Arruntius
sculpture, see statues & statuary
sea 49, 71, 82, 133, 134, 136, 364,
384
seers & interpreters 4, 46, 51, 69, 82,
83, 88, 103, 150, 158, 198, 211,
265, 274, 281, 298, 317, 325,
347, 349, 384, 386, 388, 421,
424, 425, see also diviners;
Druids; Magi; manteis
Seleucia 113
Sempronius Gracchus, Gaius (trib.
123) 30 n. 105, 57, 63, 2001,
234, 2479
465
Sempronius Gracchus, Tiberius (cos.

177) 56, 57, 194, 2001
Sempronius Gracchus, Tiberius
(trib. 133) 63, 131, 2489
Senate 54, 63, 104, 118, 156, 173,
184, 195, 202, 2479 passim,
256, 319, 325, 331, 350, 362,
394, 395, 423
and haruspices 3, 56, 757
passim, 102, 143, 151, 153, 195,
3267, 345
and prodigies & portents 52, 103,
105, 199, 336
Senate-house 63, 155, 192, 193,
194, 393
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus (cos. ad
55/6) 30, 329, 375, 392,
407
sense perception and divination 34,
68, 82, 116, 262
Sentinum 236
sex, see intercourse
shamanism 382, 383
sheep 59, 21821 passim, 331
shepherds 59, 219, 362
ships & seafaring 53, 68, 166,
2367, 379
shipwrecks 53, 63, 1667
shrines 79, 140, 187, 288, 336, 358,
see further under individual
gods
Sibyls 196
of Cumae 103, 301
of Erythrae 57, 71, 197
books 18, 46, 77, 90, 100, 103,
128, 339, 351
oracle 8 n. 33, 43, 46, 301,
385
Sicily 46, 58, 62, 99, 210, 211,
233, 234, 250, 286
Sicyonians 290
466
Index
signs & signifying 46, 49, 50, 51, 53,

6970, 73, 79, 80, 838 passim,
102, 107, 126, 127, 129, 131,
132, 136, 137, 146, 165, 168,
1802 passim, 186, 209, 282,
295, 311, 313, 356, 360, 365,
369, 370, 372, 3902, 397416
passim, 420
Silenus of Caleacte 61, 163, 164,
217, 2302 passim
Silvanus 350
silver 71, 83, 344
Simonides of Ceos 63, 172, 24950
Simplicius 375
Sirius 41617
Siwa 100, 333, 334
slaves & slavery 63, 246, 249, 357
sleep & sleeping 65, 66, 82, 85, 87,
258, 264, 265, 314
Smyrna 98
snakes 57, 61, 69, 71, 137, 200, 233,
283, 284, 2989, 330, 363
bites 50, 79, 13940
snow & hail 72, 305, 306, 346, 376,
see also rain
Social War 77, 104, 105, 339, 340,
34244 passim
Socrates 14 n. 57, 15, 46, 62, 65, 66,
74, 85, 108, 113, 116, 2378,
258, 310, 333, 4015 passim
Solon 81, 156, 197, 376
Solonium 71, 298
songs & singing 71, 82, 302, 383, see
also music
soothsayers 46, 421
Sophocles 623, 2423, 269
Sora & Soranians 79, 361
sortes, see lots
soul 336 passim, 60, 62, 658
passim, 71, 72, 81, 82, 858
passim, 93, 110, 112, 168, 196,
208, 225, 237, 240, 242, 25769

passim, 271, 277, 3003 passim,
307, 310, 371, 3734, 382, 383,
3867, 389, 401, 411, 414, 415,
420, see also daimon
source criticism, see De Divinatione,
sources
Spain 2301
Sparta & Spartans 58, 6970, 76,
81, 82, 100, 197, 203, 286,
28891 passim, 331, 3336
passim, 37980
Sphines, see Callanus
Spoletum 150
Spurinna 84, 393, 394, 395
St. Elmos Fire 290
St. Nicholas 319
standards 70, 295, 338, see also
army
stars & planets 51, 60, 73, 80, 85, 88,
96, 146, 147, 2901 passim,
31314, 330, 368, 377, 398,
414, 41617
conjunction of 73, 147, 227,
314, 376
see further astrology; astronomy;
comets & meteors; zodiac
state religion (Roman) 14 passim,
18, 26, 28, 118, 121, 170, 171,
207, 247, 349, 356, 426
control over 3, 4 n. 12, 7, 8, 18,
247, 327, 361, 421, 422
statues & statuary 51, 52, 60, 70,
144, 1526 passim, 161, 163,
190, 192, 223, 28991 passim,
299, 340
sweating 69, 77, 286, 33940
see also individual sculptors
Stoa 11214 passim
Stoics & Stoicism 8, 9, 16, 17, 24,
29, 35, 48, 63, 129, 132, 136,
Index
146, 147, 180, 2058 passim,
237, 257, 2669 passim, 276,
277, 301, 304, 305, 30811
passim, 314, 319, 329, 362,
3726 passim, 383, 386, 388,
389, 396, 397, 406, 409, 41220
passim, 425
and divination 11, 16, 18, 20 n.
78, 24, 25, 301, 47, 69, 72, 74,
83, 925 passim, 106, 108,
137, 160, 240, 249, 268, 280, 300,
359, 371, 373, 38992, 407, 410
orthodox 11, 114, 116, 123, 408
storms 50, 1338 passim, 1614
passim, 167, 179, 233, 312; see
also shipwrecks
Suetonius, see Tranquillus
suicide 249, 289
Sulla, see Cornelius
Summanus 51, 143, 144
sun 59, 60, 76, 80, 87, 21822
passim, 224, 337, 338, 364, 369,
376, 399, 416
superstition 14, 15 n. 62, 18 n. 70,
47, 86, 89, 104, 118, 149, 356,
420, 423, 424, see also
irrationality; rationality
Susa 227
syllogism 30811 passim
synchronicity 287, 288, 296
Syracuse & Syracusans 61, 62, 210,
211, 241, 242, 285, 286, 325
Syria & Syrians 75, 96, 181, 299,
317, 325, 338
Tages 327
Tarentum 291
Tarquinii 395
Tarquinius Priscus 55, 56, 101, 188,
190, 191, 192, 281
467
Tarquinius Superbus 59, 101, 103,

21721
Tarquitius 219
Tatius, Titus 143
Tauris 418
Tegeans 58, 204
Telamo 422, 425
Telenicus 332
Tellus 351
Telmessus & Telmessians 75, 76,
211, 324
temples 52, 96, 152, 216, 282, 321,
351, 358, see further under
individual gods
templum (augural) 130, 174, 214,
350, 368
Teos 157
Terence 104
Terentius Varro, Marcus 27, 68, 92,
126, 171, 212, 2457 passim,
261, 276, 299, 330, 331, 352,
367, 384, 397
Terias 285
Tertia, see Aemilia
Teucer 72, 303
Teutones 254, 255, 339
Thalamae 336
Thales of Miletus 81, 315, 3768
Thapsus 167
Thebe (woman) 241
Thebes & Thebans, 69, 241, 2868
passim, 318, 404
Theocles 324
Theophrastus 109, 1328 passim, 277
Theopompus 334, 380
Thermopylae 305
Theseus 403
Thesprotia 421
Thessaly 62, 240, 275
Thoas 418, 419
Tiber 51, 144, 214, 249, 348
468
Index
Timaeus 211, 217, 228, 233, 296

Tiresias 74, 316, 318
Tisamenus 324
Tisiphonus 241
Titus Livius, see Livy
Tolistobogii 171
tortoises 394
translators 29 n. 100, see further
Cicero, as translator
Tranquillus Suetonius, Gaius
162, 330
Trasimene 2926 passim
tribunes 61, 63, 178, 1814 passim,
235, 2479 passim
Triphylia 324,
tripudia 54, 70, 1746 passim, 294,
see further augury
triumphs 105, 188, 218,
2545 passim
Trocmi 172
Trojan War 69, 98, 166, 197
Trophonius 69, 288, 291
Troy 53, 59, 74, 180, 21516, 274,
283, 303, 317, 384, 411
Tullia (Cic.s daughter) 42
Tullius Cicero, Marcus junior 91,
111, 171, 279
Tullius Cicero, Marcus, see Cicero
Tullius Cicero, Quintus 10, 16 n.
66, 25 n. 93, 37, 48, 133, 287
career 64, 11920, 172, 251, 299,
302, 322, 396
philosophical allegiance 12, 15,
17, 29 n. 103, 119, 126, 207,
361, 382
Tullius, Servius 85, 194, 4001
Tusculum 37, 38 n. 135, 39, 48, 77,
119, 343
tyrants & tyranny 62, 81, 204, 210,
212, 218, 2223, 233, 240, 258,
2845, 376
Tyre 231
Tyro 213
Umbria 75, 76, 328, 331
Underworld 74
Urania 51, 1456, 160
Valerius Antias 244, 401
Valerius Corvus, Marcus (cos.
348) 61, 235
Valerius Flaccus, Lucius (cos.
100) 78, 3578
Valerius Maximus 92, 177, 2434,
250, 326, 358, 365
Valerius Messala, Marcus (cos.
188) 157
Varro, see Terentius
vates, see prophecy & prophets
Vatinius 422
Veii & Veientines 77, 342, 3459
Vel (god) 369
Velabrum 422
Velleius 121
Velleius, Gaius 344
Venus (goddess) 215
Venus of Cos 53, 1623
Venus throw, see dice & dice playing
verisimilitude 14 n. 58, see further
De Divinatione, verisimilitude
Vesta (grove) 78, 350
Vestal 58, 213
Vestini 341
Vibo 253
Victory (god), 77, 340
Virgil 136, 166, 320
virgins & virginity 72, 273,
305, 306
Vitruvius 134, 418
Volaterrae 341
Volscians 245, 361
Vulturnus 338
Index
war & warfare, and divination 51,
77, 100, 102, 1745, 177, 179,
181, 195, 287, 3323, 360, see
also individual wars and battles
weather, see lightning & thunder;
meteorology; rain; snow & hail;
storms; winds
weddings 54, 177, 358, see also
marriage
winds 49, 134, 417
wisdom 52, 157, 314, 377
witchcraft 422
wolf 153
women, old 59, 66, 118, 213, 270,
300, 409
woods & groves 82, 158, 214, 249,
292, 349, 350, 3834
469
Xenophanes of Colophon 46, 74,

1067, 315, 382
Xenophon 19, 62, 85, 108,
210, 2389, 265, 287,
4013 passim, 405
Zaleucus 156
Zela 172
Zeno of Tarsus 46, 47, 106, 108,
112, 113, 128, 158, 164, 261,
309, 390, 408, 413
Zenodotus 233
Zeus 35, 99, 126, 211, 288, 292, 318,
319, 3245, 335, 408, 419, see
also Ammon oracle
zodiac 51, 84, 147, 149, 3989
Zoroastrianism 224, 323, 324

(David Wardle) Cicero On Divination Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(David Wardle) Cicero On Divination Book 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(David Wardle) Cicero On Divination Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the Clarendon Ancient History Series?

What is the Clarendon Ancient History Series?

What text is being translated and commented on in this publication?

What text is being translated and commented on in this publication?

C L A R E N D O N A N C I E N T H I S TO RY S E R I E S

The aim of the CLARENDON ANCIENT HISTORY SERIES is to provide

Divination in Republican Rome

Antike und Abendland

Annual of the British School at Athens

Acta Classica (Pretoria)

Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debrecenensis

American Journal of Archaeology

American Journal of Philology

Archiv fur lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik

H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und

Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft

Archiv fur Religionsgeschichte

Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene

Annali del Seminario Giuridico dellUniversita` di

Annali della Scuola Normale di Pisa

Bulletin Antieke Beschaving

Blatter fur das Bayerische Gymnasial-Schulwesen

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale

Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

M. Beard, J. North, and S. Price, Religions of Rome

Bollettino di Studi Latini

Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn. (Cambridge,

F. Cumont et al. (eds.), Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum (Brussels, 195389).

H. Keil (ed.), Grammatici Latini (Leipzig, 1855

I. Gershevitch (ed.), Cambridge History of Iran, ii

T. Mommsen et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863 ).

Contributi dellIstituto di Storia Antica

Comptes Rendus de lAcademie des Inscriptions et

California Studies in Classical Antiquity

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker

Greece and Rome

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies

Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

Illinois Classical Studies

Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin, 1873 ).

R. Cagnat (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas

L. Moretti (ed.), Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae

Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts

Journal for the History of Astronomy

Journal of the History of Ideas

Journal of the History of Philosophy

Journal of Hellenic Studies

Journal of Near-Eastern Studies

Journal of Roman Studies

Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes

Liverpool Classical Monthly

Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae

M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae

P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford,

H. Malcovati (ed.), Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, 4th edn. (Turin, 1967).

Miscellanea Greca e Romana

Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome