Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:15:46.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Libri Fulgurales*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Stefan Weinstock
Get access

Extract

Lightning was not always regarded as just a meteorological phenomenon: it strongly inspired religious imagination and caused cult observations before science had its word, and even after that. Its history was treated in a masterly fashion by Usener (1905), and there is no need to return to it, especially after O. Gilbert's survey of the scientific lore (1907) and A. B. Cook's substantial and learned supplements and illustrations to Usener (1925). They neglected, however, the Etruscan libri fulgurales which, although depending on both religion and science, are not concerned with either in general but with divination. Here too the ground is well prepared, and three men deserve particular mention, K. O. Miiller, the pioneer, Thulin for his indispensable monograph, and W. Kroll for an observation about the historical background. Müller (1828) and Thulin (1906) discussed the evidence under four headings, consultation, procuration, repulsion, and conjuration, Miiller in a short and selective narrative, Thulin exhaustively; and many valuable observations and interpretations were made by both. Thulin bravely faced all difficulties and contradictions but rather presented the case than decided it: there is no thesis at the beginning and no conclusion at the end. In addition, he did not appreciate sufficiently the problem of origins. This problem did not exist in Müller's day and was not really acute when Thulin wrote. He knew and quoted many Eastern parallels by way of illustration but explained their existence by the Eastern origin of the Etruscans, which is a hypothesis and not an explanation and fails at any rate whenever the doctrine in question is of a recent date.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 19 , November 1951 , pp. 122 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Usener, , ‘Keraunos’, Rhein. Mus. 60, 1905, 1 ffGoogle Scholar. (= Kl. Schr. 4, 471 ff.); O. Gilbert, Die meteorol. Theorien des griech. Altenums 619 ff.; Cook, , Zeus 2, 1–47Google Scholar; 501–829 (of this 505–704 on the double axes); 3, 1114 ff.; cf. also P. Jacobsthal, Der Blitz in der oriental, u. griech. Kunst 1906; Blinkenberg, The Thunderweapon in Religion and Folklore 1911; Furlani, , Studi Etruschi 5, 1931, 203 ff.Google Scholar; Nilsson, , Gesch. d. griech. Rel. 1, 63 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 Müller, K. O., Die Etrusker2 2, 166–180Google Scholar; Thulin, , Die etr. Disciplin 1, 1–128Google Scholar; id.RE. 7, 2441 ff.; cf. Schmeisser, G., Quaestionum de Etrusca disciplina particula (Breslau 1872), 21 ff.Google Scholar; Pettazzoni, , Studi e materiali 4, 1928, 213 ff.Google Scholar; K. Holl, Die Naturales Quaestiones des Philosophen Seneca, Diss. Berlin 1935, 48 ff. (depends entirely on Thulin); C. Clemen, Die Religion d. Etrusker 1936, 14 ff. is a confused ‘Literaturbericht’.

3 Cf. further Kroll, 's article ‘Plinius u. die Chaldäer’, Herm. 65, 1930, 1 ffGoogle Scholar. and Bidez' valuable survey ‘Les écoles chaldéennes sous Alexander et les Séleucides’, Mélanges Capart 1935, 41–89.

(138) Tuscorum litterae novem deos emittere fulmina existimant, eaque esse undecim generum; Iovem enim trina iaculari. Romani duo tantum ex iis servavere, diurna attribuentes Iovi, nocturna Summano, rariora sane eadem de causa frigidioris caeli. Etruria erumpere terra quoque arbitratur, quae infera appellat, brumali tempore facta saeva maxime et exsecrabilia, cum sint omnia, quae terrena existimant, non ilia generalia, nee a sideribus venientia, sed ex proxtma atque turbidiore natura. argumentum evidens, quod omnia superiora e caelo decidentia obliquos habent ictus, haec autem, quae vocant terrena, rectos, (139) et quae ex propiore materia cadunt, ideo creduntur e terra exire, quoniam ex repulsu nulla vestigia edunt, cum sit ilia ratio non inferi ictus, sed adversi. a Saturni ea sidere proficisci subtilius ista consectati putant, sicut cremantia a Martis, qualiter cum Volsinii, oppidum Tuscorum opulentissimum, totum concrematum est fulmine. vocant et familiaria in totam vitam fatidica, quae prima fiunt familiam suam cuique indepto. ceterum existimant non ultra decem annos portendere privata, praeterquam aut primo patrimonio facta aut natali die, publica non ultra tricesimum annum, praeterquam in deductione oppidi. (140) Exstat annalium memoria sacris quibusdam et precationibus vel cogi fulmina vel impetrari. vetus fama Etruriae est, impetratum Volsinios urbem depopulatis agris subeunte monstro, quod vocavere Oltam, evocatum a Porsina suo rege. et ante eum a Numa saepius hoc factitatum in primo annalium suorum tradidit L. Piso, gravis auctor, quod imitatum parum rite Tullum Hostilium ictum fulmine. lucosque et aras et sacra habemus interque Statores ac Tonantes et Feretrios Elicium quoque accepimus Iovem. (141) varia in hoc vitae sententia et pro cuiusque animo. imperare naturae sacra audacis est credere, nee minus hebetis beneficiis abrogare vires, quando in fulgurum quoque interpretatione eo profecit scientia, ut ventura alia finito die praecinat et an peremptura sint factum aut prius alia facta quae lateant, innumerabilibus in utroque publicis privatisque experimentis. quam ob rem sint ista ut rerum naturae libuit, alias certa alias dubia, aliis probata aliis damnanda: nos de cetero quae sunt in his memorabilia non omittemus. (142) … laeva prospera existimantur, quoniam laeva parte mundi ortus est. nee tarn adventus spectatur quam reditus, sive ab ictu resilit ignis sive opere confecto aut igne consumpto spiritus remeat. (143) in sedecim partes caelum in eo spectu divisere Tusci. prima est a septemtrionibus ad aequinoctialem exortum, secunda ad meridiem, tertia ad aequinoctialem occasum, quarta obtinet quod est reliquum ab occasu ad septemtriones. has iterum in quaternas divisere partes, ex quibus octo ab exortu sinistras, totidem e contrarïo appellavere dextras. ex iis maxime dirae quae septemtriones ab occasu attingunt. itaque plurimum refert unde venerint fulmina et quo concesserint. optimum est in exortivas redire partes. (144) ideo cum a pfima caeli parte venerint et in eandem concesserint, summa felicitas portendetur, quale Sullae dictatori ostentum datum accepimus. cetera ad ipsius mundi portionem minus prospera aut dira. quaedam fulgura enuntiare non putant fas nec audire, praeterquam si hospiti indicentur aut parenti. magna huius observationis vanitas tacta Iunonis aede deprehensa est Scauro consule, qui mox princeps fuit.

4 Diog. Laert. 7,149; Cic., de div. 1, 72Google Scholar; 91 etc.; cf. Reinhardt, Kosmos u. Sympathie 222 ff.

5 Capelle, , Hermes 40, 1905, 623Google Scholar; Reinhardt, Poseidonios 106.

6 Hermon: Porph. Il. 2, 370 (p. 39, 7 Schr.); cf. 10, 274 (p. 154, 23 Schr.). Polles: Suid. s.v.; Marin. v. Procli 10; Lyd. de ost. 8; Nonn. in Greg. Naz. 72 (Patr. Gr. 36, 1024).

7 Cf. Schulze, W., Lat. Eigennamen 371, 1Google Scholar.

8 Cf. Teuffel-Kroll 16, §158, 1; Münzer, , E. 14, 1115Google Scholar no. 4; 1159, no. 28.

9 Two further titles may be added. Cic., div. 1, 72Google Scholar and Amm. Marc. 23, 5, 13 quote the libri fulgurales, and Serv. Aen. 6, 72 ‘libri … Begoes nymphae, quae artem scripserat fulguritarum’ (fulguratorum coni. Schmeisser). But also less precise quotations, such as Etrusci libri, libri fatales, etc. (cf. Thulin 1, 1 ff.) may refer to such works.

10 Walde-Hofmann 1, 631; cf. Specht, , Zeitschr.f. vergl. Sprachf. 65, 1938, 192Google Scholar.

11 Müzer, Baitr. z. Qutllenkritik d. Plinius 244 was sceptical about the common source; more positive Kroll, , Hermes 65, 1930, 8, 3Google Scholar; id.Kosmologie d. Plinius 38.

12 They are by no means in the way of our argument as they all can be identified with ‘zodiacal’ gods. That this was their function emerges in addition to the above argument also from Serv., Aen. 11, 259Google Scholar; Thulin's (1, 32 ff.) list of the nine gods cannot be correct because there is no principle which holds it together.

13 Cf. Serv., Georg. 1, 33Google Scholar; Thulin 1, 48; Kugler, F. X., Sternkunde u. Sterndienst in Babel 2, 2, 2, 467Google Scholar; Boll-Bezold, Sternglaube u. Sterndeutung 3 7. Bezold 13 further refers to the evil giant Tiamat of the Gilgamesh poem who had 11 companions; cf. also Joseph's dream about Sun, Moon and the 11 stars (father, mother and his brothers) worshipping him, LXX Gen. 37, 9. I cannot explain the number 11 in Aristoph. Equ. 546; Telecleid., CAF. 44 K. (=Plut. Per. 3); Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1, 1129 (in the latter a probable conjecture of Wendel's eliminates it).

14 Cf. Kerényi, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 30, 1933, 271 ff.Google Scholar; Wuilleumier, Tarente 544 ff.; Boyancé, , REA. 44, 1942, 191 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Cf. Ptol., Synt. math. 9, 7, 2 (p. 267Google Scholar, 13 Heib.); Boll, Sphaera 186; id.Myth. Lex. 6, 964.

16 Cf. Kroll, Wochenschr. f. Mass. Philol. 1918, 305; Bayet, , RÉL. 17, 1939, 141 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Cf. also Mart. Cap. I, 41 f.; 45; 9, 914.

18 It is not clear why these pairs were formed; cf. the Egyptian doctrine which ascribed to the four elements twice four divinities, male and female: Sen., NQ. 3, 12, 2 (13)Google Scholar; Iambi, , myst. 8, 3Google Scholar.

19 Thulin (1, 30, with reference to earlier discussions) is certainly wrong in preferring prineipes (whom he identifies with the di superiores) of the MS. to Scaliger's participes: for consiliarios et participes serve no other purpose than to explain the names Consentes and Complices respectively.

20 Cf. Weinreich, , Myth. Lex. 6, 820 ff.Google Scholar; Bidez, Éos ou Platon et l'Orient 62; Crosby, M., Hesperia, Suppl. 8, 1949, 82 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Diod. 2, 30, 6; Schol. ApoU. Rhod. 4, 262; Boll, Sphaera 476 ff.; Kroll, , Hermes 65, 1930, 13Google Scholar; Bidez, l.c. 53.

22 Diod. 2, 31, 4; cf. Quint. Smyrn. 2, 595; Ioh. Gaz. I, 314 ff.; Boll ap. Sethe, Nachr. Gött. Ges. 1920, 98, 3.

23 Stob. 1, 191 W.; cf. Scott, W., Hermetica 1, 414Google Scholar; Bidez, Mél. Capart 1935, 53. A similar role is ascribed in the Hermetic Definitiones Asclepii 10 (p. 235 Nock-Festugière) to the demons who live and mediate between heaven and earth and punish the impious with storm, lightning, earthquake, pestilence and war; cf. Reitzenstein, Poimandres 352; Bousset, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 18, 1915, 157, 1Google Scholar; Festugière's notes, p. 239 f.

24 For a detailed discussion and references see JHS. 69, 1949, 66 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Cf. Bidez, l.c. 53.

26 All I can find about these chapters is a brief reference to Pliny 2, 79; 81 by Bousset, Religion des Judentums 3 498, which shows, however, that he would have placed them in their proper historical setting. The quotations above are from Charles' translation, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O.T. 2, 188 ff.

27 Cf. the learned but not convincing argument in Thulin I, 28 ff. (JRS. 36, 1946, 109, n. 46)Google Scholar.

28 Arnob. 3, 40 (=Nig. Fig. frg. 68 Sw.); cf. Thulin 3, 58.

29 Mart. Cap. 1, 41; cf. Plac., Lact.Stat. Theb. 4, 516Google Scholar.

30 Cf. e.g. Kerényi, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 26, 1928, 322 f.Google Scholar; Thomas, H. W., Ἐπέκεινα, Diss. München 1938, 135, n. 141Google Scholar; Ziegler, , RE. 18, 1, 1389Google Scholar.— On Sun and lightning see Melito, frg. 8 (E. J. Goodspeed, Die ältesten Apologeten 311) , Nock, Harv. Theol. Rev. 27, 1934, 65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Milo (according to Stob. 1, 238 W.) ascribed the lightning of the day to the sun, that of the night to the stars. If this is a parallel it is not further helpful because we know nothing about Milo and his date.

32 Cf. e.g. Sen., NQ. 2, 26, 4Google Scholar; 30, 1; Aetna 345; 363; also in Greek poetry, cf. Aesch. Prom. 1080 ff.; Wilamowitz, , Glaube d. Hell. 1, 216Google Scholar.

33 Cf. e.g. Serv., Aen. 6, 593Google Scholar ‘“Fumea lumina” id est terrena; nam aetherius ignis caret fumo, solo enim splen dore viget.’

34 Cf. Kroll, , ‘Plinius u. die Chaldäer’, Herm. 65, 1930, 1 fGoogle Scholar.

35 Cf. O. Gilbert, Die meteorologischen Theorien 620 f.; Kroll. Die Kosmologie des Plinius 37.

36 Generalis could be defended if it were the opposite of specialis: it is so applied to the winds, Plin. 2, 130, cf. Ampel. 5, 1, 2; to the Genius, Mart. Cap. 2, 152. Further, in divination it can be one of five classes of dreams, proprium, alienum, commune, publicum, generale, Macrob., Somn. 1, 3, 11Google Scholar, and then refers to the universe in contrast to the individual and other possible groupings of human society. Our case is different, so that we either accept it as a vague term or emend it.

37 It is a synonym of genitalis and a translation of the Greek ϒόνιμος and σπερματικός. It first occurs in Manil. 1, 143, but in view of its occurrence in our passage and in Isidor (12, 6, 64; 12, 7, 81) it is reasonable to suggest that it was coined by Varro. Its meaning as required by our passage is well defined in Corp. Herm. Ascl. 14 ‘quaecum que ergo sunt quibus inest natura generandi, haec et generabilia sunt de quibus nasci potest.’

38 Cf. Boyancé, Études sur le Songe de Scipion 1936, 67 f.; Pohlenz, , Herm. 75, 1940, 119Google Scholar.

39 Frg. O 8B.–C =Chrys., Dioor 36, 56Google Scholar; cf. Cumont's note ad loc; Nock, , JRS. 30, 1940, 197Google Scholar. In view of the analogy in Pliny I cannot believe that the passage is a forgery of Dio or anyone else; how far it is really Zoroastrian is another question.

40 Cf. S. Wikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinasien u. Iran 1946, 52 ff.

41 Cf. Psell. (Patr. Gr. 122), 1145a; Procl., Tim. 1, 420 D.Google Scholar; Kroll, De oraculis Chaldaicis 15; 19; id.Rhein. Mus. 50, 1895, 636; Theiler, Die chald. Orakel u. die Hymnen des Synesios 1942, 33; Cumont, Lux Perpetua 361 ff.

42 Procl. Cratyl. p. 58 P.; id.Theol. Platon. 265, 3 P.; Kroll 20.

43 Michael Italicus, Cramer, , Anecd. Oxon. 3, 182Google Scholar; cf. Damasc. princ. 265 f. (2, p. 131 R.); Bidez, , Catal. alchim. gr. 6. 163Google Scholar.

44 Theiler, o.c. 35, 6; Dodds, , JRS 37, 1947, 56, 19Google Scholar.

45 Cf Kroll, Rhein Mus. 50, 1895, 638Google Scholar.

46 Cf. e.g. Wilamowitz, Eurip. Herakles 52 ff.; Bieler, , ΘΕΙΟΣ ΑΝΗΡ 1, 134 ffGoogle Scholar.

47 Cf. Conon. narr. 33 (Branchos); Plut. Alex. 2 (Alexander); Suet., Aug. 94, 4Google Scholar (Augustus); Philostr., v. Apoll. Tyan. 1, 5Google Scholar; Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes 158 f.; Radermacher, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 25, 1927, 216 ff.Google Scholar; Kerényi, ibid. 26, 1928, 322 ff.

48 Iustin. 37, 2, 1; cf. Fotheringham, , Notices of the Royal Astron. Soc. 79, 1919, 162 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Ps.-Callisth. 1, 12, p. 13 Kr.; but see the dream of Olympias (Plut. Alex. 2) ἔδοξε βροντῆς ϒενομένης ἐμπεσεῑν αὐτῆς τῇ ϒαστρὶ κεραυνόν, cf. the horoscope attributed to him as the child to be born under the second decan of the Aquarius who ἐκ θεῶν σπαρήσεται and will be κοσμοκράτωρ (Heph. Theb. 1, 1, p. 65, 17 Eng.).

50 Pliny 36, 204; Dion. Hal. 4, 2; Plut. Rom. 2; Serv., Aen. 7, 678Google Scholar; Eitrem, , Symb. Osl. 11, 1932, 19, 1Google Scholar.

51 Cf. Plut. Is. 48; Sext. astrol. 29; Callicrates (other-wise unknown) seems to have treated this doctrine in greater detail: CCAG. 8, 3, 102 f.; Macrob., Somn. 1, 19, 20Google Scholar; Sallust. de diis 9.

52 Partly similar Philolaos A 14 D. (Procl. Eucl. p. 130, 8 Fr.); for a Pythagorean explanation given by Ptolemy see Macrob., Somn. 1, 19, 26Google Scholar.

53 Cumont, , Ant. Class. 4, 1935, 19 ffGoogle Scholar.

54 Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 3, 1377.

55 Müller's dating to 93 B.C. (Etr. 22, 169) rests on his conjecture that Obs. 52 (112) refers to the same event, which seems to me unjustified.

56 In so far it was right to say that they follow a common source; but the qualification must now be added that they chose from it two different religious explanations for the same phenomenon. This qualification would force us to abandon the idea of a common source if there were not more to be said in its favour (below, p. 135, n. 68).

57 Thulin 1, 51 f.

58 The evidence is collected by Boll, , ‘Antike Beobachtungen farbiger Sterne’, Abh. Akad. München 30, 1918, 19 ffGoogle Scholar.

59 Stat., Sily. 1, 4, 64Google Scholar ‘ne fulminis atri sit metus’; Sil. 4, 431 ‘turn fulminis atr i spargentem flammas’; Thulin 1, 51.

60 Cf. Kroll, , Hermes 65, 1930, 9 f.Google Scholar; Bidez, Mél. Capart 1935, 51.

61 Sen., NQ. 7, 4, 1 ff.Google Scholar; cf. Schnabel, Berossos 111; Kerényi, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 26, 1928, 327 f.Google Scholar; Röhr, Philol. 83, 1928, 272Google Scholar; Bidez, l.c. 83 f.

62 Cf. Diod. 2, 30, 3 and the other passages quoted in JRS. 36, 1946, 121, n. 120Google Scholar.

63 Sen., NQ. 7, 17, 1Google Scholar; Boll, Sphaera 368; Bidez, l.c. 80.

64 Sotacus, incidentally one of the earliest writers to mention Britain, is known only as the author of a work περὶ λίθων and as one of the sources of Pliny on this sub ject. Our context would make him a hellenized Oriental, roughly contemporary of Berossus and Sudines, but not earlier.

65 They in turn borrowed it from Greek philosophy, see Diels, Doxogr. 343; Achill. p. 50, 32 M. shows that this doctrine later became more elaborate.

66 Cf. Boll, , RE. 7, 2561 ff.Google Scholar; Boyancé, Études sur le Songe de Scipion 60 ff.; Bidez-Cumont, , Les Mages hellénisés 1, 110Google Scholar.

67 It was observed by Kroll, Kosmologie d. Plinius 88 that ‘quae prima fiunt familiam suam cuique indepto’ is identical with ‘primo patriraonio facta’ (see also Sen. 2, 47 ‘prima accepto patrimonio’): that is why I have contracted the narrative. In the second Pliny passage I would prefer ‘prima patrimonio facto…’ unless ‘primo patrimonio’ means, in analogy to ‘prima iuventute’, ‘soon after taking possession of the patrimony’

68 The change from the origin and quality of the lightning to its various functions on earth is abrupt, and one is inclined to blame Pliny for omitting some important matter which would bridge the gap between the two subjects. An examination of Seneca leads to the opposite view. It will be recalled that Seneca 2, 41 treats the three manubiae as does Pliny, although they differ in their illustration of detail. The chapters 42–46 serve to show that the Etruscan doctrine is in perfect harmony with the Stoic view about Iuppiter; they do not contain new evidence but argue about the old and are obviously contributed by Seneca himself. But c. 47 resumes the comment on the Etruscan doctrine with exactly the same matter as we find in Pliny. This is the strongest argument in favour of a related or common source (see above, p. 125 f.), and the abrupt change must then be attributed to this source, not to Pliny.

69 Cf. Wissowa, Religion 2 386 f.

70 The evidence is collected by Kornemann, , Klio 7, 1907, 285Google Scholar, I and W. Schmidt, Geburtstag im Altertum 7; ff. For instance, the decree of Canopus, OGIS. 56, gives the birthday of Ptolemy III Euergetes and the day ἐν ῇ παρέλαβεν τὴν βασιλείαν(cf. the inscription of Rosetta, OGIS. 90, about Ptolemy V Epiphanes παραλαβόντος τὴν βασιλείαν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός); the inscription of Antiochus I of Commagene, , OGIS. 363, 84Google Scholar, mentions together the physical (σώματος) birthday and that of the accession (διαδήματος); it is also relevant that a comet was observed at Mithridates' birth and accession (Iustin. 37, 2, 1), and that Lachesis spun at Nero's accession (Sen., Apocoloc. 4, 1Google Scholar). On the dies imperii see Mommsen, , StR. 2 3, 813Google Scholar; 841; Snyder, W. F., Yale Class. Stud. 7, 1940, 231 ffGoogle Scholar.

71 Cf. Kroll, , RE. 17, 208Google Scholar.

72 Cf. e.g. Reitzenstein, Poimandres 102 ff.; Gundel, , RE. 7, 2622 ff.Google Scholar; Cumont, Rel. orient. 4 289, n. 58ff.; id.Lux Perpetua 303 ff.

73 Cumont, Astrology and Religion 28; 68 ff.; cf. Manil. 4, 14 ‘fata regunt orbem, certa stant omnia lege’; Diog. Laert. 7, 149 (on Zeno, Chrysippus, Posidonius); Vett. Val. 5, 9; Euseb., pr. ev. 6, 3, 3Google Scholar.

74 Lact., div. inst. 2, 15, 6Google Scholar; Zoroastr. frg. O 99 B.-C; Porph. ap. Euseb., pr. ev. 6, 4, 2Google Scholar; Nemes. 36; Lyd., de mens. 2, 10Google Scholar (Kroll, De oraculis Chaldaicis 59); Apul., Met. 11, 6Google Scholar; Isidis aretalogia Cymaea (ap. Peek, Isishymnos v. Andros 122); Pap. Berol. 10525, 10 (Abt., , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 18, 1915, 258Google Scholar); Iambi, , myst. 8, 6Google Scholar; above all Arnob. 2, 29; 33; 62 (Festugière, Mémorial Lagrange 1940, 97 ff); Cumont, , Relig. orient. 4 290, 65Google Scholar; 291, 73; Jonas, H., Gnosis 1, 204Google Scholar.

75 See on Aen. 8, 398 ‘“nee pater omnipotens” notandum quod hie Iovem a fatis separat, cum alibi iungat … sed hanc imminentium malorum dilationem Etrusci libri primo loco a love dicunt posse impetrari, post a fatis …’ Servius ‘sciendum secundum aruspicinae libros et sacra Acheruntia, quae Tages composuisse dicitur, fata decem annis quadam ratione differri …; nam fata differuntur tantum, numquam penitus immutantur’; cf. 7, 315; Plac., Lact.Stat. Theb. 4, 677Google Scholar; Thulin I, 81; 3, 57 f.; Cumont, Lux Perpetua 61.

76 It is known that the belief in absolute determinism was not shared by all Stoics, Aet. I, 28, 4 (Doxogr. 324) . Cic., div. 1, 125Google Scholar ‘quocirca primum mihi videtur, ut Posidonius facit, a deo … deinde a fato, deinde a natura vis omnis divinandi ratioque repetenda’. What exactly Posidonius meant is not quite clear except that he placed Zeus above Fate in all matters concerning divination. Is it possible that the Etruscans took notice of this philosophical grading between Zeus and Fate and made, with a slight change, a religious rule of it?

77 Epimenides delayed the Persian war, Diotima a pestilence, by ten years: Plat. legg. 642d; Symp. 201d; Alex., Clem.Strom. 6, 3, 31, 4Google Scholar; Lobeck, Aglaoph. 315r.

78 Cf. JHS 69, 1949, 57 ffGoogle Scholar.

79 See the important survey by Boll and Bezold, ‘Reflexe astrologischer Keilschriften bei griech. Schriftstellern’, (Sitz.-Ber. Heidelberg 1911, 7 Abh.) 5 ff.

80 This comes from a stock common to Arrian, Pliny and Seneca and is of no further interest for this context. Lydus quotes p. 98, 6 ό μέϒας Ἀπουλήιος for the paradox (anonymously recorded by Pliny 2,137) that Marcia, the wife of M. Porcius Cato, remained unhurt by the lightning which killed her unborn child (date : c. 61–56, or after 50 B.C., see Münzer, , RE. 14, 1602Google Scholar, no. 115). Because of the epithet ό μέϒας I would attribute this information to the medical writer Apuleius Celsus, early first century A.D., teacher of Scribonius Largus. Priscian 6, 11 quotes ‘Apuleius in Medicinalibus’ for a prescription: this passage too, recorded by Hildebrandt 2, 638 amongst the fragments of Apuleius of Madaurus, ought to be given to our Apuleius.

81 Cf. Jastrow, , Die Religion Babyloniens u. Assyriens 2, 714Google Scholar; a fulgural calendar ultimately depending on this tradition is still used by the Mandaean priests: The Book of the Zodiac, transl. by E. S. Drower (1949), 166 f.

82 Cf. Job 37, 2 ‘Hear attentively the noise of His voice and the sound that goeth out of His mouth. He directeth it under the whole heaven and His lightning unto the ends of the earth’; Enoch 59; Lyd., de ost. 21, p. 55Google Scholar, 5 W. also in the Brontology, of CCAG. 3, 50 ff.Google Scholar; Bezold-Boll l.c. 21; Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johannis 18; Cook, , Zeus, 2, 829Google Scholar.

83 Jastrow o.c. 2, 724 f.

84 A specimen is edited by Boudreaux, , CCAG. 8, 3, 171 ffGoogle Scholar. (cf. 3, 47 ff.); on its origin see Cumont ibid. 171; the text quoted above is on p. 176.

85 The expression ϕοσσάτων σύναξιν is curiously reminiscent of finium deminutionem in Etrusco-Roman prog-nostics.

86 It is also influenced by Hellenistic astrology (observed by Müller, 2, 167, 12) because it often derives the prognostics from the meaning of the sign: if the lightning occurs when the Sun is in Gemini, two men will fight against the state; when in Virgo, the fate of virgins and women will be affected; when in Libra, it concerns justice, measure and weight, and so on.

87 C. B. Hase in his edition of Lydus (1823) p. xvi ff.; Swoboda, P. Nigidii Figuli operum rell. 31 f.; cf. Thulin 3, 88.

88 Boll, Reflexe, etc. 11, 2.

89 Boll, , Aus der Offenbarung Johannis 11, 1Google Scholar.—It is worth adding that in Lucan 1, 639 ff. Nigidius Figulus is explaining the signs of the struggle between Caesar and Pompey; also that the oracle to which Sallust, ad Caes. 1, 5, 2Google Scholar and Horace epod. 16 point (cf. Kroll, , Herm. 62, 1927, 374Google Scholar; Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom 37) used a few years later essentially the same predictions.

90 Cf. Smyly, J. G., Hermathena 38, 1912, 156 ff.Google Scholar; Housman, , Manil. 1 2, p. 93 ff.Google Scholar; Norden, Geburt des Kindes 160; Bayet, , RÉL. 17, 1939, 153 ffGoogle Scholar.

91 This is the reading of cod. E, on the whole unduly neglected by Gercke who reads ‘sed non irasceretur invitatus’: but this makes no sense if it means what Oltramare rendered: ‘mais invité, il ne serait pas courroucé.’ What is meant is, I think: ‘but he could not be conjured up against his will’, that is, there is a limit to man's magical power; for the wording cf. Macrob. 3, 5, 8 ‘… invito deo offerri earn (hostiam) putabant’; Petron. 122, v. 158 ‘testor ad has acies invitum accersere Martem/invitas me ferre manus’.

92 The danger is exemplified by Piso (in Pliny l.c. and 28, 14; cf. Livy 1, 31, 8) widi the failure and death of Tullus Hostilius. Arnobius 5, 1, following Valerius Antias, gives the details of the sacrifice: onion, hair and anchovy were required, and these owing to the interpretatory tricks of Numa (cf. Heracles' interpretation of the sacrifice of the Saturnalia in Macrob. 1, 7, 31). This part of the evidence of Valerius Antias may not be more trustworthy than the rest which I have omitted: yet it is good enough as an instance for the kind of sacrifice which the Etruscans may have had in mind (cf. Thulin 1, 120 ff.; Diephuis, Naturkräfte u. ihre Verehrung in der altröm. Rel. 1941, 116 f.). An interesting analogy is the forcing of demons with saliva, nail and hair: Psell. de operat. daemon, Patr. Gr. 122, 869 A; cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph. 110b; Bidez, Catal. alchim. gr. 6, 103.

93 Pliny 13, 84 quoting Piso, Cassius Hemina, Tuditanus, Varro; cf. e.g. Schwegler, , Röm. Gesch. 1, 564 ffGoogle Scholar. There is other curious evidence worth considering, e.g. Dion. Hal. 3, 36, 4; Serv., Aen. 6, 859Google Scholar; Lyd. ost. 16a (p. 49, 22), the latter quoting a commentary on Numa's works by a Fulvius (Nobilior?).

94 Cf. e.g. Thulin 1, 92 ff.; Diephuis, o.c. 95 ff.; lex Numae: Fest. 178 M. (190 L.); Bickel, , Rhein. Mus. 81, 1931, 279 ff.Google Scholar; Diephuis 111 ff.; Cumont, Lux Perpetua 329 f.

95 Zosim. 5, 41. Another version of this(?) story is preserved by Cosmas of Jerusalem: heavenly fire destroys the barbarians attacking Rome under a king (the name is missing in the text) but also the ‘philosopher’ whose prayer brings down the fire (Patr. Gr. 38, 623= Nonn., in Greg. Naz; Patr. Gr. 36, 1001Google Scholar); cf. Pettazzoni l.c. 222.— For a possible representation of Olta on Etruscan urns see Brunn-Körte, , Rilievi delle urne etrusche 3, 16 ff.Google Scholar; pl. 8–10; Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. 8, 35, 1Google Scholar.

96 Cf. M. B. Reisner, Zeitschr. f. ägypt. Sprache 1933, 24 ff.; Friedrich, , OLZ 39, 1936, 135 ffGoogle Scholar.

97 Cf. Götze, Die Annalen des Mursilis 1933, 46 ff.; Friedrich, l.c.

98 Philostr., Apoll. Tyan. 2, 33Google Scholar;cf. Herod. 8,37, 3; Nock, , AJA 50, 1946, 155, 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99 Suid. s.v. Iulianus; Psell., Scr. minora 1, 446Google Scholar Kurtz; Cass. Dio 71, 8, 4 ascribes the miracle to the Egyptian Arnuphis: cf. Dodds, , JRS. 37, 1947, 56Google Scholar; Guey, J., Rev. phil. 74, 1948, 34 ff.Google Scholar; id., Mél. 60, 1948, 105 ff.; 61, 1949, 93 ff.

100 No evidence is needed for Prometheus; the version that it was the lightning which he stole from heavens first appears in Lucr. 5,1209, and in Serv., Ecl. 6, 42Google Scholar he is given the same role as in our passages Porsina and Numa.

101 Zoroaster frg. B 45; 51a B.-C.

102 Cf. Rohde, , Psyche 1, 320 ff.Google Scholar; Usener, , Kl. Schr. 4, 471 ffGoogle Scholar. treated this point only in passing.

103 The story is not Persian in origin, and is alien to our other Zoroastrian evidence: Bidez-Cumont, , Les Mages hellénisés 1, 154Google Scholar; 249. Ther e is ample evidence from Greek and Semitic sources, cf. e.g. Soph. O.C. 1658; Trach. 953; Eur. Suppl. 829; Pausan. 5, 27, 3; already Horn., Il. 6, 345Google Scholar; Gen. 19, 24; Lev. 10, 2; 2 Kings 2, 11 (Elijah); Rohde l.c.; Radermacher, Soph. O.C. (Introduction); Cumont, Ét. syr. 96; id., Rev. arch. 1939, 49 f.; Cook, , Zeus 2, 33Google Scholar; Strong, Apotheosis and After-life 227 ff.; Bidez-Cumont o.c. 2, 53, n. 7; Pease, , ‘Some Aspects of Invisibility’, Harv. Stud. Class, Phil. 53, 1942, 1 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (discussing also other forms of disappearance).

104 Pind., ol. 2, 27Google Scholar; Diod. 4, 38, 4 f.; Minuc. 22, 7; Hygin. Fab. 46; Cook, , Zeus 2, 27Google Scholar.

105 Soph. Ant. 127 ff.; Eur. Phoen. 1172 ff.—Eur. Aeol. frg. 14 N.; Soph. frg. 494–8 N.; Diod. 4, 68; 6, 6, 4; 6, 7; Verg. Aen. 6, 585 ffGoogle Scholar. (with Heyne's Excursus 12); Manil. 5, 91; Hygin. Fab. 61; Serv., Aen. 6, 585Google Scholar; cf. Eitrem, , Symb. Osl. 10, 1932, 32Google Scholar; Weinreich, Menekrates Zeus u. Salmoneus 86 f.—Clearchus (Iustin. 16, 5, 11) acted perhaps under Macedonian influence: some of their rulers took the epithet ‘Keraunos’, and Seleucus Nicator established in Seleucia a special cul t of the lightning (App. Syr. 58); cf. Usener, , Kl. Schr. 4, 476 f.Google Scholar; Weinreich, o.c., 17.

106 The complete evidence in Schwegler 1, 578; 581 f. On Remulus and Amulius see Ovid, Met. 14, 617Google Scholar; Fast. 4, 50; Livy 1, 3, 9; Dion. Hal. 1, 71, 3 (where Ἀμώλιος is to be substituted for Ἀλλώδιος of the MSS.: see Kroll, , RE. Suppl. 4, 22Google Scholar); Cass. Dio 1, p. 5 B.; Diod. 7, 5, 11; 7, 7.

107 This is not Gercke's wording, but is nearer to the MSS. than his.

108 It is so explained e.g. in Mayhoff's Appendix, p. 538; Thulin 1, 79; cf. D. J. Campbell, C. Plini Secundi Nat. Hist. Liber Secundus (1942), 72 f.

109 Cf. Hor. CS. 9 ‘diem qui promis et celas’; AP. 182 ‘non tamen intus digna geri promes in scaenam’; carm. 1, 34, 13 ‘obscura promens’; 3, 28, 2 ‘prome reconditum … Caecubum’; Firmic. 5, 7, 2 ‘sententiam promere’ (1, 2, 12; 6, 14, 4; 7, 24, 7).

110 Cf. Cic., de div. 2, 42Google Scholar; Serv., Aen. 8, 427Google Scholar; Mart. Cap. 1, 45 ff.

111 Cf. JRS 36, 1946, 103 ffGoogle Scholar. (with bibliography).

112 This evidence probably comes from Sulla's Memoirs, and its author is the haruspex Postumius (Schulze 215) who accompanied him on his campaigns and provided him with similar prognostics in 89 B.C. at Nola (Cic., div. 1, 72Google Scholar = Sulla frg. 9 P.) and in 83 at Tarentum (August., CD. 2, 24Google Scholar; Plut. Sulla 27=frg. 18 P.).

113 Kroll, Kosmologie d. Plinius 25.

114 I do not think that the direction of the returning lightning can be observed as well as that of the coming. It may be that the Etruscans borrowed this detail from other disciplines. The shooting stars for instance announce wind and storm for the district from which they come or to which they go: cf. Amm. Marc. 25, 2, 4; Gundel; RE. 3 A, 2444 f. An important, though puzzling, passage is Hippocr., de diaet. 4, 89Google Scholar (6, p. 650 L.; c. 370 B.C.: Rehm, Parapegmastudien 38): a star seen in dreams which leaves its path, is light, clean and moves towards east, means health; if it is pale and black and moves towards west or the sea or the earth, it means illness.

115 Cf. Thulin 2, 11.

116 Cf. Wissowa, Religion 2 531 f.

117 Cf. Cic., div. 2, 32Google Scholar ‘(exta) ab aqua aut ab igni pericula monent; turn hereditates, turn damna denuntiant’; the above list is curiously constant, see Livy 27, 16, 15; Hor., ep. 2, 1, 119Google Scholar; Tac., hist. 1, 27Google Scholar.

118 Cf. e.g. Cic., div. 2, 32Google Scholar (quoted in the preceding note); for further details see Thulin 2, 37 ff.

119 Paul. 12; Fest. 210; 214; 245 M.(=p. 11; 230; 284 L.). The natural conclusion is that Verrius Flaccus too depends on Caecina. But Festus 214 M. (230 L.) quotes for the peremptalia fulgura Grapus (which is corrupt: Granius and Gracchus have been suggested).

120 Schmeisser's conjecture ostentanea in Seneca for dentanea of the MSS. is based on this passage; Thulin 1, 27; 80; 96 defends the tradition, I think, in vain.

121 It is difficult to say who is right. Servius sounds more trustworthy, but Seneca's (and Verrius Flaccus') definition is supported to some extent by the grading of the lightnings (see Fest. 214 M.; Dan., Serv.Aen. 1, 42Google Scholar) and also by the prevalence of lightning over the signs by birds and entrails (Sen. 2, 34, 3); this was also held by the Roman augures who called the sign by lightning auspicium maximum or optimum (Cic., div. 2, 74Google Scholar; 43; Cass. Dio 38, 13, 3; Dan., Serv.Aen. 2, 693Google Scholar; Ecl. 9, 13).

122 There is some disagreement. This lightning announces death and exile (incidentally a frequent pair in astrological prognostics, see Firmic. 3, 5, 6; 8; 11; 4, 14 8; 6, 15, 9), not pestilence, and the analogy in extispicy is not conclusive (Fest. 245 M. ‘pestifera auspicia sunt cum cor in extis non invenitur aut caput in iocinere’). Pestilence is frequent among Roman portents; in astrology: Ptol., Tetrab. 2, 9, 5Google Scholar; 12.

123 Fest. 289 M. (366 L.) ‘regalia exta appellantur, quae potentibus insperatum honorem pollicenrur; privatis et humilioribus hereditates; filio familiae dominationem’. Even this is to some extent interpretatio Romana: originally the sign announced a king.

124 Cf. e.g. the oracle of Lentulus (Cic., Cat. 3, 9Google Scholar; 4, 2), the comet of 44 B.C. (Serv., Ecl. 9, 46Google Scholar; to be combined with App., b.c. 4, 4Google Scholar and Dan., Serv.Aen. 10, 272Google Scholar), the Cumaeum Carmen used in the Fourth Eclogue. But here again the Romans often give a new turn to the prognostics when finding in them a threat of tyranny and servitude.

125 Cf. Serv., Aen. 2, 691Google Scholar ‘non enim unum augurium vidisse sufficit nisi confirmatur ex simili’. The astrological term is different, Firmic. 8, 12, 2 ‘si vero Mars solus attestante Mercurio videri t locum,’ etc.; 8, 15, 5; 17, 6; 23, 2; 27, 8; 29, 13. It is the translation of ἐπιμαρτυρεῑν (e.g. CCAG. 5, 4, 197). This increasing the force of a sign is the original meaning of Roman augurium (augere) which did not disappear entirely; interesting, though not quite correct, Dan., Serv.Aen. 1, 398Google Scholar ‘… in libris reconditis lectum esse, posse quamlibet avem auspicium adtestari, maxime quia non poscatur. hoc enim interest inter augurium et auspicium, quod augurium et petitur et certis avibus ostenditur, auspicium qualibet avi demonstratur et non petitur: quod ipsum tamen species augurii est’.

126 He is known only through Seneca, cf. Arnim, , RE 2, 2179, no. 21.Google Scholar

127 It will also render easier the justification of my disagreement with Gercke's text at three further points: see below, the notes 133; 135; 136.

128 Cf. e.g. Sen. 2, 32, 6; Pliny 28, 17; Thulin 1, 70; Wissowa, , Religion 2 531, 6Google Scholar.

129 There are adversa omina (Tac., Ann. 4, 64Google Scholar; Suet., Vit. 8, 2Google Scholar), auspicia (Suet., Otho 8, 3Google Scholar; Val. Max. 5, 4, 2; Vir. ill. 64, 6), auguria (Acc. trag. 583 R.), aves (Inc. trag. 89 R.); but it is not a strictly technical term: mala, dira, tristia, inimica could equally have been used.

130 Livy 31, 5, 7; Suet. Caes. 77; Pliny 11, 197; Tac., hist. 1, 27Google Scholar; 2, 4; Thulin 2, 48 f.

131 It is possible that it corresponded with the passing sign of the scientists, cf. 2, 23, 2 ‘minore enim vi ad fulgurandum opus est quam ad fulminandum … verisimile est ignem excuti caducum et cito interiturum, qui non ex solida materia oritur’; 1, 15, 3.—For the mansura see Claud, , b. Gild. 1, 28Google Scholar ‘si mea mansuris meruerunt moenia nasci, /Iuppiter auguriis, si stant immota Sibyllae/carmina …’

132 cf. Tiulin 1, 89.

133 The third alternative exists only if p. 83, 6 the second aut, deleted b y Gercke and Oltramare, is restored. An instance for the first may be the case of a king or princeps who is touched by lightning but survives: his descendants will achieve, according to the libri reconditi, eternal glory (Dan., Serv.Aen. 2, 649Google Scholar; cf. SHA. Ant. Pius 3, 5Google Scholar; perhaps also SHA. Tac. 15, 1Google Scholar; Prob. 24, 2). For the second, the destruction of the Columna rostrata by lightning in 172 B.C.: the haruspices declared that this sign meant a goo d turn, the extension of Rome's territory and he end of the war because the rostra had been spoils from he enemy (Livy 42, 20, 4; other possible instances in Thulin 1, 89 f.). The third seems to be identical with the econd manubia of Iuppiter (2, 41, 1: see above, pp. 127 f.) and with the fallacia fulmina of Caecina (above, p. 149).

134 This category is rejected by Thulin 1, 84; but the instance given by Seneca (‘journey’) belongs to the common stock of divination, for instance astrology, which vouches for its existence.

135 This category is discussed in 51 (‘revertor ad ea fulmina, quae significant quidem aliquid, sed quod ad nos non pertineat’) but is not mentioned in the general division, 50, and ought to be supplemented as follows, p. 82, 15: ‘ex fulminibus quaedam sunt, quae significant id quod ad nos pertinet «aut id quod ad nos non perinet,» quaedam aut nihil significant, etc’

136 To be sure, as the text stands there is a single category not two: ‘nihil significant fulmina aut id, cuius notitia nos effugit, ut ilia quae in vastum mare sparguntur aut in esertas solitudines’. Here ut ilia could only introduce ome illustrative matter (just as Gercke's conjecture, utique illa; and Schultess' futilia is, though elegant, even less helpful): the lightning of the sea and the desert, however, does not escape our notice but is, according to Seneca and others, a category of its own, and that much discussed. It is therefore necessary to write aut ilia.

137 Cf. Bignone, Mél. Boisacq 108.

138 Aristoph. Nub. 397 ff. Lucr. 6, 396; 404; 421; Cic., div. 2, 45Google Scholar; further passages in Pease's commentary ad 1.