THE SIBYLLINE BOOKS by LANCE WALLACE CAMP B.A., University of Calgary, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Classics We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1968. In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and Study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by hits representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Lance W. Camp Department of Classics The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date May 28th, 1968 ABSTRACT The sibylline books, though dismissed by J. G. Frazer* as a "convenient farrago of nonsense"1, were nevertheless one of the most significant influences in the political and religious life of Rome during the Republic. This study has, as its1 objective, a discussion of the history of ithese books during the Republic between 753 and 12 B. G. It is; based, for the most part, on a discussion of all consultations recorded dur• ing this period; emphasis is placed on the reasons for con• sultation, and, in particular, the nature and influence of the sibylline recommendations. Special importance is attached to consultations whose nature and results reveal the sibylline books as a political instrument manipulated by those who con• trolled them. In addition, there is discussion of any sig• nificant innovations ordered by the books, and special attention is paid to any consultations that appear, from the point of view of their results, extraordinary or unusual. A history of the books during this period also necessitates, to a certain extent, a discussion of the religious college that controlled them. It also requires that a certain amount of attention be paid to religious concerns and innovations associated with the books. However, these topics are important to this study only insofar as they have a direct bearing on the republican history of this religious institution. After an introductory discussion of the origin and nature of the sibylline books, their development and history is divid- *J. G:. Frazer, TM New. GJolden Bough, edited by T. Gaster, (New York, 1961T/ P. 177. ii ed into three periods falling between the years 753—20H-, 203— 83, and 83—12. Each of these periods is discussed from two points of view. Firstly, a normal pattern of sibylline op• eration is established; secondly, those consultations which do not fit this normal pattern receive more detailed attention. Consultations of a normal nature are grouped, for each period, according to their initiation and result, whereas extraordinary consultations are considered chronologically. It is shown that the sibylline books were a versatile political instrument throughout this period. There is evidence that their manipulation by political groups reached a notable climax during the second Punic War and remained frequent until the end of the Republic. From the point of view of Roman re• ligion, it is seen that the sibylline books were responsible for many important religious innovations, most of which concerned the importation of non-Italic rites and gods into Roman religion. Finally, it is shown that the sibylline tradition, established during the first three centuries of the Republic, declined gradually and steadily between the end of the second Punic War and the second revision of the books, by Augustus, in 12 B. C. This event in particular marked the end of the sibylline tra• dition at Rome. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS . iv CHAPTERS I. ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE BOOKS 1 II. THE PERIOD 753—2OH-. 26 III. THE; PERIOD 20H—83; 100 IV. THE PERIOD 83—12 B. C 12lf BIBLIOGRAPHY lIf9 ABBREVIATIONS A. J. Phil, : American, Journal o£ Philology. C. I. L. : Corpu,s Inscriptionum Latinarum. D. -S. Baremberg-S'aglio: C. Daremberg and B. Saglio, DictiQ-n,n,a,jre, des Antiauites Grecaues e£ Romajnes. Pauly-Wissowa: A. Pauly and G^Wissowa, Realencvclopaed'ie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. J£. E. A. : Revue des Etudes Anciennes. T. A. P. A. : Transactions o_£ £he American Philological Association. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am especially indebted to Professor William Dusing for suggesting the topic of this thesis and acting as my supervisor during its preparation. CHAPTER ONE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE BOOKS An ancient tradition of early Rome deals with certain prophetic books, libri fatales? which were said to contain the destinies of the Roman people. These books were thought to emanate from a typical prophetic institution, of which there were many throughout the ancient world, as any reader of Herodotus must know. The Delphic sibyl was the best known of those in Greece, though the Roman mind tended to give pride of place to that at Ionian Erythrae. It was from this city that the famed Cumaean sibyl was said to originate;; and this sibyl in turn was thought byr many to have brought the sibylline books to Rome, finally induced King Tarquin to buy them, and in this way lent her unique assistance to Roman affairs. This most potent of prophetic traditions was thus, at an early date, put at Rome's disposal, ostensibly to help her in all major struggles and problems. And these books, the sole token of this support, were naturally accorded great honour and the reverent care that befitted them; they were carefully consulted and maintained in accordance with the sibylline tradition, and soon came to constitute what Cicero later considered one of the three most important divisions of.Roman religion."*" Two myths are relevant in determining the traditional origin of the sibylline books. The first of these, associated with one of the Tarquins, connects the books themselves with the Cumaean sibyl, while the other indicates a connection be- 2 tween the Cumaean sibyl and that of Erythrae. Both Ovid and 2 Servius- give versions of the Erythraean myth.3 These versions are substantially the same, though that of Servius is the more detailed:- Slbyllam Apollo pio amore dilexit et ei obtulit pos- cendi quod vellet arbitrium. Ilia hausit harenam manibus et tam longam vitam poposcit. Cui Apollo respondit id posse fieri, si Erythraeam, in qua hab- itabat, insulam relinqueret et earn numquam videret. Profecta igitur Cumae tenuit et illic defecta corpor• is viribus vitam in sola voce retinult. Quod cum cives eius cognovissent, sive invidia, sive miser— atione commoti, ei epistolam miserunt creta antiquo more signatamr qua visa, quia- erat de eius insula, in mortem soluta est. Unde nonnulli Hfarro dixit] hanc esse dicunt, quae Rbmana fata conscripsit, quod incenso Apollini templo inde Romam adlati sunt libri, unde haec fuerat. This account is self-explanatory; we need only note the con> nection of the Cumaean sibyl with that of Erythrae, and the fact that the Romans of 83 B. C. maintained a Cumaean-Erythrae- an origin for their books. This is implied, as Varro suggests above, by their efforts to restore the sibylline books, after they were destroyed in 83, tkree 'Men-*ein-gv~s«ft'te-;:..t0Erythrae for that purpose:; The Erythraean sibyl, according to Varro, was but one of ten such women. He states that the Erythraean sibyl was held to be more renowned and more noble than the others. Indeed, she was the pre-eminent sibyl of the ancient world. Varro also goes on to describe the Cumaean sibyl; he declares that her name was Amalthea, and that it was she who brought the nine books to King Tarquin.^ Names of the Cumaean sibyl are of little importance; she has many indeed, including Heraphile 3 and Bemophile, and Vergil adds to the list, calling her 7 Deiphobe, the daughter of Glaucus. This list of names can be needlessly confusing, but what should be noted is that the term sibyl was categorical, individual aames being un• important. Varro thus defined the term: "...Sibylla autem 8 dicitur omnis puella, cuius pectus numen recipit." The sibylline type was imitated and localized, not only in Greece, but also in Magna Graecia, where colonizing and trade influences would naturally tend to transplant religious institutions, or rather imitations of them, that had developed 8A in the eastern Greek world. Whether the Gumaean sibyl was in truth an outgrowth of the Erythraean is not a major ques• tion, nor is knowledge of the exact time of arrival of a sibylline influence in southern Italy. It is sufficient to realize that this tradition was strong from an early date, that it undoubtedly came from the east, and that it most certainly played some r{h.e, directly or indirectly, in the development of this Roman institution. The myth describing how the books came to King Tarquin is of some importance in approaching that most difficult and obscure problem, their origin. It remains as difficult of solution to present scholars as it did to Servius, and no satisfactorily argued explanation is yet available. Apart from the body of ancient tradition itself, there is little for us to consider except some understandably broad conjectures k resulting from modern research, none of which is wholly con• vincing. More or less complete versions of the myth are given by Servius, Dionysius, Zonaras, Gellius, and Varro (in Lactantius).10 It is mentioned by Ausonius, Pliny, and Appian.11 These accounts are notably similar, and the differences are not significant, 12 excepting one which will be discussed presently. According to the myth, an old woman from outside the land, a peregrina, came to visit King Tarquin with the intention of selling nine books of oracles.